Please educate me on fats!

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
There are many reasons why the health-landscape has changed since the 70's which have nothing to do with low-fat recommendations, nor the unfounded smear campaign against Ancel Keys - A man who, unlike his biggest critics, was possessed of the kind of scientific integrity to which your current signature alludes.

Perhaps your experience of the word was completely different to mine. There are reasons why that might be the case. But nothing about my experience of growing up in the 70's/80's/90's, and observing the world around me, comports with this given, and widely-accepted, narrative.

A discussion for another thread, of course
I thought Ancel Keys eventually realised his conclusion was wrong and changed his view? But by then the food companies had happily jumped onto the low fat bandwagon and the bad science still reigned?
 

HSSS

Expert
Messages
7,465
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Oh my. Where to start.
This narrative is false and falsifiable
you’ve used this and similar phrases regularly. What does this actually mean in your mind? What is false and falsifiable and how?

I believe that just like low-carb, the reasons that it can be effective are often for different reason than the dogma would suggest.
the biggest thing we all seek is a protocol that works for us to achieve our goals. Not that I’m agreeing with you the dogma is false in any way but surely the results matter more on an individual basis than the “dogma”

the low-carb movement response has been to throw caution to the wind and just reinterpret the numbers., based on what at least at the moment seems to be scant evidence.
who is doing that? Many/most of us have improved our cholesterol numbers on the accepted measurements. Lower ldl, triglycerides, higher hdl, improved ratios. What reinterpretation is happening ?

that just losing that weight seems to have a profound effect on those forms of disease
or perhaps it’s the reverse? Addressing the causes of the metabolic disease means we
are able to function correctly and no longer store energy as fat and are able to use it. Ie we lose weight because we fix the problem not the other way around.

Are you suggesting that nobody on this forum advises people that they shouldn't be concerned about high-cholesterol, High-HDL etc?
high hdl is good. Perhaps you need to get to grips with the basics before you comment further on this

Essentially, nobody yet knows the long-term ramifications of continuing to pile on the saturated-fat, despite crazy-high numbers.
well we know the long term ramifications of the low fat (and high carb) mantra of the last 60yrs. An obesity and diabetes epidemic. And that was based on a whole lot less evidence than our position is to boot. One man, one study - even if you can’t see the problems with it.

I'm mostly scientifically illiterate, so don't feel confident in educating anyone. That doesn't mean I won't try to steer people away from that which is clearly, and evidently, disinformation
if you are scientifically illiterate what makes you confident in identifying disinformation? You seem confident in your assessment of that without actually explaining it at all, other than the repeated phrase I started this post with ….
 
  • Like
Reactions: ziggy_w

Daibell

Master
Messages
12,642
Type of diabetes
LADA
Treatment type
Insulin
Many posts so far! The big problem is simply the name 'fat'. The 'experts' assume when you eat 'fat' it creates body 'fat' which is doesn't other than by exception. Many medical experts know little about the body's metabolism and the fact that fat goes thru a complex metabolic process in the bowel whereas carbs go straight to glucose in the stomach and the body uses it or stores it a fat. Also note that the food industry lobby loves profitable carbs so focuses on the fats as the baddies to distract us from the harm too many carbs can cause.
 

zand

Master
Messages
10,784
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Many posts so far! The big problem is simply the name 'fat'. The 'experts' assume when you eat 'fat' it creates body 'fat' which is doesn't other than by exception. Many medical experts know little about the body's metabolism and the fact that fat goes thru a complex metabolic process in the bowel whereas carbs go straight to glucose in the stomach and the body uses it or stores it a fat. Also note that the food industry lobby loves profitable carbs so focuses on the fats as the baddies to distract us from the harm too many carbs can cause.
Yes! Just said this to my hubby. Thanks for posting and saving me the bother :)
 

Beating-My-Betes

Well-Known Member
Messages
653
I thought Ancel Keys eventually realised his conclusion was wrong and changed his view? But by then the food companies had happily jumped onto the low fat bandwagon and the bad science still reigned?

He did change his original position on cholesterol. He falsified the hypothesis and so changed his stance.
 

ziggy_w

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,019
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Hi @Beating-My-Betes,

I wish you well on your journey. Personally, I will be very happy for you if you succeed.

The more ways there are to get blood sugars back into the normal range, the better for us. It means just more arrows in the quiver. I also believe that the more potential ways to fight diabetes, the more likely many people will find a way that works for them.

This having been said, you seem to believe that the evidence supporting low-carb and very low-carb diets (aka keto) and corresponding higher fat intake are primarily based on bogus evidence. The opposite is the case, at least imho. Sarah Hallberg has compiled a list of low-carb diet studies in 2018 with 77 such studies to date. There are many low-carb studies that have followed since. On this basis of this evidence, the ADA (American Diabetes Assciation has issued the following consensus statement concerning low-carb diets:

"Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual needs and requirements."
(https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/201...arb-diet-in-diabetes-management-91667065.html). Many national diabetes associations have since followed suit (a few examples are Australia, Canada, Europe, Czech Republic).

Btw, these are the results of the Virta Health study regarding indicators of risk factors including cardiovascular (blood pressure, 10-years ASCVD), markers of inflamation (CRP, WBC) , blood lipids (LDL, HDL, Trigs) and liver health (AST, ALT). The vast majority of these indicators seem to have changed in the desired direction. (https://www.virtahealth.com/data#cardiovascular). Although this is not a randomized trial (and Hallberg convincingly argues that randomization doesn't make sense in a long-term nutritional study), there are several scientific articles that have been based on this trial (links are also on the page cited).

There also a number of trials on very-low calorie diets for the remission of T2 diabetes and therefore a strong base of evidence.

Just a note -- Taubes is a "he" and he is far from being just a plain journalist. He has received a Bachelor's degree in science from Harvard and Master's degree in science from Stanford. He then went on the get a Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia. His main issue is with bad science -- unfortunately he has identified nutritional epidemiology as one of the fields where bad science runs rampant. He has recently published an academic article in a scientific journal with many well-known scientists (including Walter Willett, who is a well-known proponent of plant-based diets). I would be careful to entirely discount was he has to say.
 

ziggy_w

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,019
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
There are many reasons why the health-landscape has changed since the 70's which have nothing to do with low-fat recommendations, nor the unfounded smear campaign against Ancel Keys - A man who, unlike his biggest critics, was possessed of the kind of scientific integrity to which your current signature alludes.

Perhaps your experience of the word was completely different to mine. There are reasons why that might be the case. But nothing about my experience of growing up in the 70's/80's/90's, and observing the world around me, comports with this given, and widely-accepted, narrative.

A discussion for another thread, of course

Hi @Beating-My-Betes,

I have been trained in science and in conducting scientific studies myself. Believe me that "so-called" science of Keys' seven-country studies would not be published in any scientific journal today because of the huge number of methodological problems. (Mismatched level of analysis (level of study was country, however predictions were made for individuals), selective reporting of data, non-randomization of sample). Back then, the standards for scientific work were a lot lower.
 
Last edited:

Antje77

Oracle
Retired Moderator
Messages
19,284
Type of diabetes
LADA
Treatment type
Insulin
So please educate me, thanks
Hi @MoorT2 , it looks like you got more than you bargained for with your request!

87 reactions in less than a day (plus a couple of deleted reactions) must be close to a record on the forum.
Please try to not get overwhelmed, even though you did ask for education I doubt you were prepared for this much education, not only on fats but also on the various different 'schools' when it comes to fats, and the high emotions when it comes to standpoints on nutrition.

From your replies in this thread I get the gist you're dealing well with the way your thread has developed, but please hit the report button if it gets too much.
Reporting a post only means the moderator team will look extra closely to the reported post and its surroundings, nothing more!
With now 5 pages of posts, chances are less and less posts will address your question directly and more posts will continue a related discussion

We'd like your experience with the forum to be a good one, and I hope you're finding your thread informative and enjoyable, if somewhat wild!
 

Beating-My-Betes

Well-Known Member
Messages
653
Oh my. Where to start.
you’ve used this and similar phrases regularly. What does this actually mean in your mind? What is false and falsifiable and how?

Let's see. For starters:

That the low-fat recommendations made everybody fat and diabetic.
That everyone followed the government recommendations.
That the low-fat recommendations were actually low-fat at all.
That either carbs or fat make people fat and/or diabetic.
That cutting carbs is necessary to put T2D into remission
That high-carb diets will lead to insulin-resistance
That Ancel Keys was a bad scientist
That seed-oils made everyone fat...and diabetic
That keto is any more effective than low-fat for weight-loss, individual preferences notwithstanding
That CIM is correct


the biggest thing we all seek is a protocol that works for us to achieve our goals. Not that I’m agreeing with you the dogma is false in any way but surely the results matter more on an individual basis than the “dogma”

I've been trying to say to separate the dogma from the results. Of course, the results are more important. The problem is that people think that because the results they get are in line with those posited, that those ideas must be correct. The prime example is that most people in the low-carb movement believe going into LC that carbs are to blame for all their issues. They then lose weight (or not) and reverse many ailments, and it confirms their beliefs. The problems arise when faced with many examples of others doing the diametric-opposite, and getting the same results.

That people have accomplished those very same things, doing the opposite of what you did should do nothing to negate your own experience or success. But that's the point when at least one should perhaps start questioning their previously-held ideas around carbs.

I'm a paid-up, card-carrying globe-ist. But if I ever see someone fall off the edge of the earth, I'll start to listen to flat-earthers ;)


who is doing that? Many/most of us have improved our cholesterol numbers on the accepted measurements. Lower ldl, triglycerides, higher hdl, improved ratios. What reinterpretation is happening ?

Accepted measurements? Which ones?

or perhaps it’s the reverse? Addressing the causes of the metabolic disease means we are able to function correctly and no longer store energy as fat and are able to use it. Ie we lose weight because we fix the problem not the other way around.

So how are countless high-carbers able to lose weight, and more than a very-large handful putting T2D into remission?

high hdl is good. Perhaps you need to get to grips with the basics before you comment further on this

Perhaps you could supply me with some robust science, that proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that high-HDL is good.

well we know the long term ramifications of the low fat (and high carb) mantra of the last 60yrs. An obesity and diabetes epidemic. And that was based on a whole lot less evidence than our position is to boot. One man, one study - even if you can’t see the problems with it.

You think you know the ramifications of low-fat dogma, but appear just as many others to have dropped that dogma and fallen straight into another. The story that you've 'bought' into doesn't hold up to even the slightest honest inquiry

if you are scientifically illiterate what makes you confident in identifying disinformation? You seem confident in your assessment of that without actually explaining it at all, other than the repeated phrase I started this post with ….

Because what i am particularly looking to deconstruct needs very little scientific understanding. Also, when I say i'm scientifically illiterate, I mean I don't really know my way around statistics, forest-plots etc. I'm inclined to believe that many here don't, either, yet are happy to talk with certitude on scientific matters.

Due to my lack-of-understanding, I look to those who i feel I can trust to interpret the data without bias or prejudice. Some happen to be vegan, and others not (My standards for sources means looking for people who seek the truth, above all else, and not necessarily those who are on my dietary 'team)
 
Last edited:

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
I thought Ancel Keys eventually realised his conclusion was wrong and changed his view? But by then the food companies had happily jumped onto the low fat bandwagon and the bad science still reigned?
Ancel Keys moved to an Italian town called Pioppi, where he found that it had a low incidence of heart problems and CVD in general. He decided it was due to the low fat content of their diet and based mainly on pasta and olive oil and fruit. He wtrote his 7 coountries study while there.

Wind on a few years, and an eminent Heart Consultant launches the Pioppi Diet, which is a Low Carb version of the Mediterranean diet. It uses a lot of oily fish to go with the olive oil dressed salads. It is not aimed at Diabetics, but is for heart health and prevention of CVD. But he did team up with a well known chef to produce a cookbook for diabetics a couple of years ago. This is what Keys missed. The villagers were eating low carb, medium fat , and it was a fishing port.

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Pioppi-Diet-21-Day-Lifestyle-followed/dp/1405932635
 

ziggy_w

Well-Known Member
Messages
3,019
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Diet only
Not necessary but thank you for the offer.

And thank you everyone for the comments and debate. We're all in the same situation and as I am learning with T2 everyone is different, tolerance levels vary and management approach is going to be very individual.

There's a lot here but my key take away is not to be too scared of slightly higher fat foods than I would normally have. Will I swap my 0% plain breakfast yoghurt out for full fat, probably not. Will I happily have a grilled sausage now and again, or some bacon or a steak. I probably will now - I did for breakfast yesterday and I certainly felt much fuller.

The one thing we can all acknowledge are carbs are bad. How bad is individual and I need to do some testing to find out what my limits are.

Hi @MoorT2,

The approach you are taking seems to be a sensible one. Such as the discussion on this thread, unfortunately the science at times is contradictory. This doesn't always makes it easy for us to decide what is best.

No matter whether you decide to increase fats or not, I'm sure your next set of results will be much better. The most important aspect in my mind is to choose a diet that you feel comfortable with and one which you can maintain in the long run.

Keeping my fingers crossed for you.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Antje77

Beating-My-Betes

Well-Known Member
Messages
653
Hi @Beating-My-Betes,

I wish you well on your journey. Personally, I will be very happy for you if you succeed.

The more ways there are to get blood sugars back into the normal range, the better for us. It means just more arrows in the quiver. I also believe that the more potential ways to fight diabetes, the more likely many people will find a way that works for them.

This having been said, you seem to believe that the evidence supporting low-carb and very low-carb diets (aka keto) and corresponding higher fat intake are primarily based on bogus evidence. The opposite is the case, at least imho. Sarah Hallberg has compiled a list of low-carb diet studies in 2018 with 77 such studies to date. There are many low-carb studies that have followed since. On this basis of this evidence, the ADA (American Diabetes Assciation has issued the following consensus statement concerning low-carb diets:

"Reducing overall carbohydrate intake for individuals with diabetes has demonstrated the most evidence for improving glycemia and may be applied in a variety of eating patterns that meet individual needs and requirements."
(https://www.diabetes.co.uk/news/201...arb-diet-in-diabetes-management-91667065.html). Many national diabetes associations have since followed suit (a few examples are Australia, Canada, Europe, Czech Republic).

Btw, these are the results of the Virta Health study regarding indicators of risk factors including cardiovascular (blood pressure, 10-years ASCVD), markers of inflamation (CRP, WBC) , blood lipids (LDL, HDL, Trigs) and liver health (AST, ALT). The vast majority of these indicators seem to have changed in the desired direction. (https://www.virtahealth.com/data#cardiovascular). Although this is not a randomized trial (and Hallberg convincingly argues that randomization doesn't make sense in a long-term nutritional study), there are several scientific articles that have been based on this trial (links are also on the page cited).

There also a number of trials on very-low calorie diets for the remission of T2 diabetes and therefore a strong base of evidence.

Just a note -- Taubes is a "he" and he is far from being just a plain journalist. He has received a Bachelor's degree in science from Harvard and Master's degree in science from Stanford. He then went on the get a Master's degree in Journalism from Columbia. His main issue is with bad science -- unfortunately he has identified nutritional epidemiology as one of the fields where bad science runs rampant. He has recently published an academic article in a scientific journal with many well-known scientists (including Walter Willett, who is a well-known proponent of plant-based diets). I would be careful to entirely discount was he has to say.

Thanks for your concern for my wellness :)

Regarding your main response, I think you've misunderstood my position I am not saying that low-carb is founded on bogus evidence, I'm suggested that the narratives posited by some for why it works are bogus.

I've never once denied low-carb as an effective T2D treatment. And I've been honest about the fact that when I joined the forum that I only thought LC/Keto to be effective in alleviating symptoms, but that it only took reading of BulkBiker's passing of an OGTT to understand that remission is possible. Not to 'pop my collar', but I'm trying to be an example of everything that I'm asking of others' i.e that when faced with evidence, even when anecdotal (In this case, multiple anecdotes) that people start to take an honest look at their previously -held ideas.

Carbs CANNOT be the reason for obesity or T2D when those who are eating carbs at extreme levels, they are also achieving weight-loss and T2D remission. Anyone who is truly interested in getting to the bottom of all of this would either have to dismiss those (I think, at last count I had 75 accounts) as complete lies/fabrications, or use them as the impetus for taking a deep-dive into finding out just what it is that is common between the LC and HC movements that allows both to work (I've posted Denise Minger's post on this, ad nauseum, so won't bother again. but 'pm' me if you missed it)

As for Taubes. He has infamously been heard (And he's since confirmed) to say that even if he was resented with 100% solid, cast-iron proof that his insulin-hypothesis was nonsense, he would still believe it. As someone who understands science, that should be your first red-flag. There are too many others to count. If you'd like to count the ways, perhaps we should start another thread.

And sorry if I seem a bit curt. I just don't know how many times I have to tell y'all that I am not negating the effectiveness of LC

Im out!
 

MoorT2

Well-Known Member
Messages
104
Hi @MoorT2 , it looks like you got more than you bargained for with your request!

87 reactions in less than a day (plus a couple of deleted reactions) must be close to a record on the forum.
Please try to not get overwhelmed, even though you did ask for education I doubt you were prepared for this much education, not only on fats but also on the various different 'schools' when it comes to fats, and the high emotions when it comes to standpoints on nutrition.

From your replies in this thread I get the gist you're dealing well with the way your thread has developed, but please hit the report button if it gets too much.
Reporting a post only means the moderator team will look extra closely to the reported post and its surroundings, nothing more!
With now 5 pages of posts, chances are less and less posts will address your question directly and more posts will continue a related discussion

We'd like your experience with the forum to be a good one, and I hope you're finding your thread informative and enjoyable, if somewhat wild!

Ha, I wasn't expecting such a high level of engagement indeed.

Honestly a lot of the posts regarding the deep science and various studies published have gone way over my head for now. I'm just not there yet but reading individual experiences on successes is very useful.

A little earlier I was going to tag you and suggest closing the thread down as it has somewhat served its purpose and the debate is getting a little heated - not sure if that is standard practice on here or not.

Anyway thanks for checking in with me, that's some **** fine moderating!!
 

Oldvatr

Expert
Messages
8,470
Type of diabetes
Type 2
Treatment type
Tablets (oral)
Remember that High Fat is only really necessary if you are doing a keto diet, since it prevents the body from scavenging proteins for energy (i.e. muscle loss). For someone on medium carbs intake (50 -100 g/day, then just use natural fats and then only to give you that saiety feeling to cut out snacking urges. Think of it as High~~(er) fat than you were used to on a low fat diet. For instance, i cook my meat with Lard, and I use butter on my tattties instead of gravy (which is full of MSG by the way) use real mayo with olive oil or make your own, and not the low fat stuff in the supermarket
 
  • Like
Reactions: lessci and ziggy_w

Antje77

Oracle
Retired Moderator
Messages
19,284
Type of diabetes
LADA
Treatment type
Insulin
Anyway thanks for checking in with me, that's some **** fine moderating!!
Oh, thank you! :joyful:
Honestly a lot of the posts regarding the deep science and various studies published have gone way over my head for now. I'm just not there yet but reading individual experiences on successes is very useful.
Same here, but then again, I'm not too interested in the subject as long as my lipids and blood glucose are fine and I like the food I eat.
A little earlier I was going to tag you and suggest closing the thread down as it has somewhat served its purpose and the debate is getting a little heated - not sure if that is standard practice on here or not.
Not much standard practice, and usually only done when a thread derails into endless bickering and rule breaching. This thread is so much of a mish mash, and while it sometimes comes close to real bickering and definitely crosses the line of staying on topic various times, it does stay remarkably polite.
However, if you'd like us to close the thread, you can always pop us a message and we'll consider with the whole mod team.

Alternatively, you can use the 'unwatch thread' button at the top of the screen and you won't get alerts on it anymore unless someone tags or quotes you.
 

MoorT2

Well-Known Member
Messages
104
Oh, thank you! :joyful:

Same here, but then again, I'm not too interested in the subject as long as my lipids and blood glucose are fine and I like the food I eat.

Not much standard practice, and usually only done when a thread derails into endless bickering and rule breaching. This thread is so much of a mish mash, and while it sometimes comes close to real bickering and definitely crosses the line of staying on topic various times, it does stay remarkably polite.
However, if you'd like us to close the thread, you can always pop us a message and we'll consider with the whole mod team.

Alternatively, you can use the 'unwatch thread' button at the top of the screen and you won't get alerts on it anymore unless someone tags or quotes you.

It's all good - at least I'm getting to know some of the regulars from the posts being made :happy:
 

Beating-My-Betes

Well-Known Member
Messages
653
This thread is so much of a mish mash, and while it sometimes comes close to real bickering and definitely crosses the line of staying on topic various times, it does stay remarkably polite.

Thank-you for adopting this view-point. It's hard to have discussions about such contentious topics without it occasionally getting a little, erm...snipey. but I think that most people are genuinely not looking to be nasty or impolite.

And while I'm not sure this indicates a change in practice for moderation, it's at least a little encouraging that a thread can be allowed a certain amount of flux/flow around a certain subject. It's nigh-on impossible to talk about topics that are so inextricably linked with other topics, without veering occasionally off-piste. And those conversations never get to come back-around, full-circle (And it rarely gets taken to a 'new' thread).

Perhaps a solution might be a mash-up/one-thread-to-rule-them-all, in which nothing is off-topic. Standard rules-of-conduct for politeness to apply, of course. A nutritional battle-royale, of sorts. I'm only half-joking ;)