Atkins Horror!

[Paul1976]

Those pesky Swedes what do they know!

Yep,I'm boxing my entire ABBA collection up this very minute to be banished to the loft in protest.... :crazy:

 

[noblehead]

Those pesky Swedes what do they know!

Yep,I'm boxing my entire ABBA collection up this very minute to be banished to the loft in protest.... :crazy:

Yeah and my Volvo is going to the scrapyard :lol:

 

[Defren]

Those pesky Swedes what do they know!

Yep,I'm boxing my entire ABBA collection up this very minute to be banished to the loft in protest.... :crazy:

:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

 

[Truffle]

Perhaps I will stop spending loads of money on unpronounceable things from Ikea along with a boycot of next years eurovision song contest! :lol:

 

[Paul1976]

Noooooooooo!!......Not the Eurovision!! :lol:

 

[noblehead]

Eddie 'the eagle' Edwards has offered to use the future stockpile of Swedish butter to ski down again :lol:

 

[phoenix]

Sorry to interupt the levity, I started writing this before dinner but had to stop.

Those pesky Swedes what do they know!

No more than any-one else.
As Catherine says it would be a good idea to read the study rather than make replies based on the DM. Some of the increase in fats was certainly associated with food that was both high carb and low fat,. (snack foodsfor example). The overall proportions in the diet have changed over the 25 years. I'm not going to put in another graph, people can look at it themselves.
Interestingly the Nordic nations (including Sweden) recently released joint Nordic nutrition recommendations

“How much fat or carbohydrates you eat is of less importance. The important thing is that the fat should come from vegetables. It shouldn’t be full-fat dairy products or animal fat. And the carbohydrates should be from wholemeal, fruit and vegetables, not refined flour and sugar,” said Irene Mattisson from the National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket) to news agency TT.

http://www.thelocal.se/41272/20120605/

 

[borofergie]

“How much fat or carbohydrates you eat is of less importance. The important thing is that the fat should come from vegetables. It shouldn’t be full-fat dairy products or animal fat” said Irene Mattisson from the National Food Agency (Livsmedelsverket) to news agency TT.

:shock:

I bet she has fantastic Omega6 to Omega3 ratios.

Not.

 

[borofergie]

Men and women in northern Sweden decreased their reported fat intake in the first 7 years (1986–1992) of an intervention program. After 2004 fat intake increased sharply for both genders, which coincided with introduction of a positive media support for low carbohydrate high-fat (LCHF) diet. The decrease and following increase in cholesterol levels occurred simultaneously with the time trends in food selection, whereas a constant increase in BMI remained unaltered. These changes in risk factors may have important effects on primary and secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease (CVD).

Apparently the media support for low-carbohydrate high-fat diet wasn't postive enough:
Men:

Women:

 

[borofergie]

So let's compare:
Low-carb diets

• Atkins style LCHF diet = 5-6% carbohydrate
• xyzzy style 60g CHO diet = 10% carbohydrate
• Grazer style 150g CHO diet = 27% carbohydrate

Which I think we can all agree covers the complete range of what might be called "low-carb".

From this study:

• 2010 Male Carbohydrate average = 43% carbohydrate
• 2010 Female Carbohydrate average = 44% carbohydrate

43% of 2200kcal diet is 235g of carbohydrate.
Over the course of the study average carbohydrate intakes dropped by about 4% (about 25g of carbohydrate, or a single slice of bread).

And for the purpose of comparison:

• 2010 UK Male Carbohydrate average = 49% carbohydrate
• 2010 UK Female Carbohydrate average = 50% carbohydrate

Do you think that the diets in this study are most similar to:
A) The Atkins Diet?
B) The default UK "Balanced Diet"?

Do you think that exchanging a single slice of bread in your diet, for a tablespoon of butter would have a significant influence on your cholesterol? Because that's what the paper is suggesting.

 

[borofergie]

Who would have thought that a 25 year study of LCHF would be rubbished by those eating it, I didnt see that coming :lol:

25 year study of LCHF diet :lol:

44% Carbs :lol:

 

[borofergie]

From the graphs in the post above you can see a consistent, if unspectacular, decline in carbohydrate intake between 1990-2010.

Here is the graph of Total Cholesterol:

Now I had to look closely at this, because for all the world it looks like Total Cholesterol is decreasing over the same period that carbohydrate intake decreased.

However, they are talking about the three dots right at the end, in which Total Cholesterol rises by about 0.3 mmol/l. They have conveniently ignored the much bigger decrease prior to that.

They also seem to be ignoring the fact that the Total Cholesterol, even after the rise, is still lower than in 1998 when the carbohydrate intake was highest.

1. Total Cholesterol is a junk measure, which is of little use in predicting CV disease
2. The increase in Total Cholesterol could just have easily been caused by a rise in "good" HDL particles as a rise in "bad" LDL particles
3. On a LCHF diet we expect HDL cholesterol to increase, while the LDL cholesterol stays constant.
4. The size of the change, wouldn't make even the most statin addicted GP blink

What this study is really observing, is the transition from a "Low-Fat/High-Carb" diet to a "Higher-Fat/High-Carb" diet.

 

[borofergie]

Remember kids, you can do this yourself at home.

Here's Fergie's simple guide to beating the Atkins Haters:
1) Ask yourself "is the diet in question really a low-carb diet?"
2) Ask yourself "did the study last long enough for any changes reported to be relevant?"
3) Ask yourself "what do the numbers really mean in terms of measures that we all understand?"

This fails all three tests:
1) 44% CHO is not a low-carb diet
2) The period that they are describing is less than 6 years, and they've ignored half of that.
3) One slice of bread, one tablespoon of butter.

Works every-single-time or your money back.

 

[noblehead]

Here's Fergie's simple guide to beating the Atkins Haters

Is she back in the UK :lol:

 

[jopar]

But aren't we forgetting that they noted the increase of cholesterol lower medication, which has been included but cholesterol is still going up?

If you look at the 2 recent studies for diabetes for T1 and T2 using low carb diets (T1 was 75g>) that at 3/6 months yes the VLC did have the advantage on weight loss, but compared to the LF diet the cholesterol had risen.. Now at 24 months, within the VLC diet weight had slowly increased from the initial weight lose at 3/6 months to almost back to the original start of the trial... The both diets had a rise in cholesterol, but only slightly, and this was a very small increase in DHL's but ratio's remained the same! The Canadians found similar 2 year results..

Most dietary trials are based on what is a very small time scale, 3, 6 months in the main... But extending trials to 24 months or longer what might look good at 3 or 6 months, doesn't quite pan out long term...

Not we need to find out why?

After all carbs have gone down in consumption, fat's are up but still problems going on... So in my mind eye there something else underneath all this, that effects how these different ingredients react together which isn't portion based!

 

[borofergie]

But aren't we forgetting that they noted the increase of cholesterol lower medication, which has been included but cholesterol is still going up?

I'm not forgetting it. It has no relevance. To be honest, I don't give a monkeys if people want to eat a high-carb diet and eat statins, that's their problem.

If you look at the 2 recent studies for diabetes for T1 and T2 using low carb diets (T1 was 75g>) that at 3/6 months yes the VLC did have the advantage on weight loss, but compared to the LF diet the cholesterol had risen.. Now at 24 months, within the VLC diet weight had slowly increased from the initial weight lose at 3/6 months to almost back to the original start of the trial... The both diets had a rise in cholesterol, but only slightly, and this was a very small increase in DHL's but ratio's remained the same! The Canadians found similar 2 year results..

If we're going to play this game, then you have to quote the studies so that I can look at the data. I'm not responding to your interpretation of the data, which is probably wrong.

After all carbs have gone down in consumption, fat's are up but still problems going on... So in my mind eye there something else underneath all this, that effects how these different ingredients react together which isn't portion based!

The benefits of a low-carb diet start at about 130 to 150g and are to do with ketosis and gluconeogenesis. I've showed already this week that the human metabolism cannot easily cope with more than 160g of carbohydrate a day. On these grounds, I'd fully expect someone eating over 200g of carbohydrate a day to have poor cholesterol.

I will happily admit that for non-diabetics, that a low-fat diet is massively superior than a high-carb/high-fat diet, which is the worst of all worlds.

 

[NewdestinyX]

I will happily admit that for non-diabetics, that a low-fat diet is massively superior than a high-carb/high-fat diet, which is the worst of all worlds.

Yes, that's the real killer. We always have to look very closely at these studies. They will often monkey around with the 'fat' % number but the carb number stays constant or increases. The deadliest diet is the high carb/high fat - and, of course, any diet with HF as a centerpiece for a person with genes to produce small dense particle LDL. There are so many broad sweeping conclusions people make for their lives with regard to saturated fat intake without finding out 'their own lipid genetic profile'. Now - no - I haven't read about any new tests. BUT - you can do a VAP test which tells you a lot about the particle size of your LDL and VLDL. If you come out A/B even split or B particle high - then you are playing Russian roulette with your heart to eat LCHF.

For those unlucky enough to have that profile (genetic predisposition to the small dense LDL particles) - and that's, sadly, about half of us - then you need to get after what's causing those sticky small dense particles to attach to your artery and heart walls. The most promising research on this tells us that (in addition to reducing general stress in our lives) 'inflammation', in general, is the cause of the small dense particles attaching to the walls and clogging us up - and that inflammation can best be battled with really good probiotics - the more natural the better (from homegrown yoghurts, etc). The probiotic capsules can work in a pinch - but learning how to culture your own yoghurt is the best plan.

We can't beat genetics, gang. And though I've always loved Borofogie's "dang the Russians, here come the torpedoes" brave spirit about High Fat diets - IF his profile comes back bad - he WILL have to make some changes.

Though, as many of you remember, I'm VERY sympathetic to the cause of 'LCHF' for the treatment of Diabetes - sometimes we get too myopic and focus our whole lives on controlling our D - when there are other health factors that have to be balanced. TO be sure - NO one can make an intellectually honest argument against LCHF diets being able to control blood sugar levels. They can and do - in every case -in every human that sticks to them. But that's not the 'entirety' of the issue. It's those da*mn genes that can make the the whole HF thing pretty risky.

And doing HF and HC together is called the Western Diet - and it is DEADLY.. oy...

 

[xyzzy]

Well lets just take the p**s out of the top two performing countries for rates of diabetes shall we?

Posted this before but worth it again. I sure someone will be along soon to argue the data the IDF collected has to be ignored as its anecdotal. :lol:

http://www.idf.org/atlasmap/atlasmap

Filter for % of population with db and then do a comparison of just mostly westernised rich countries the winners (least %) are

1st Iceland
2nd Sweden
3rd Luxembourg
4th Norway

The UK is 11th

Not an expert on a countries eating habits but Iceland seems without question to be a LOW carbohydrate country.

Icelandic cuisine, the cuisine of Iceland, has a long history. Important parts of Icelandic cuisine are lamb, dairy, and fish, due to Iceland's proximity to the ocean. Popular foods in Iceland include skyr, hangikjöt (smoked lamb), kleinur, laufabrauð and bollur. Þorramatur is a traditional buffet served at midwinter festivals called Þorrablót and containing a selection of traditionally cured meat and fish products served with rúgbrauð (dense dark and sweet rye bread) and brennivín (an Icelandic akvavit). Much of the taste of this traditional country food is determined by the preservation methods used; pickling in fermented whey or brine, drying and smoking.

Modern Icelandic chefs usually place an emphasis on the quality of the available ingredients rather than age-old cooking traditions and methods. Hence, there is a number of restaurants in Iceland that specialise in seafood and at the annual Food and Fun chef's competition (since 2004) competitors create innovative dishes with fresh ingredients produced in Iceland. Points of pride are the quality of the lamb meat, seafood and (more recently) skyr. Other local ingredients that form part of the Icelandic chef's store include seabirds and waterfowl (including their eggs), salmon and trout, crowberry, blueberry, rhubarb, Iceland moss, wild mushrooms, wild thyme, lovage, angelica and dried seaweed as well as a wide array of dairy products.
Animal products dominate Icelandic cuisine. Popular taste has developed, however, to become closer to the European norm, and consumption of vegetables has greatly increased in recent decades while consumption of fish has diminished.[1] Fresh lamb meat remains very popular while traditional meat products, such as various types of sausages, have lost a lot of their appeal with younger generations.

and of course Sweden promotes LCHF to its population...

http://translate.google.com/translate?s ... om-lchf%2F

Coincidence?

But hey lets ignore the IDF the worlds leading authority on diabetes shall we just like we ignore them about the safe level being 7.8 and not 8.5. **** foreigners what do they know eh?

Anyway I thought there was some recent research that showed ladies who had cholesterol levels greater than 5 lived longer than those who didn't?

 

[borofergie]

Though, as many of you remember, I'm VERY sympathetic to the cause of 'LCHF' for the treatment of Diabetes - sometimes we get too myopic and focus our whole lives on controlling our D - when there are other health factors that have to be balanced. TO be sure - NO one can make an intellectually honest argument against LCHF diets being able to control blood sugar levels. They can and do - in every case -in every human that sticks to them. But that's not the 'entirety' of the issue. It's those da*mn genes that can make the the whole HF thing pretty risky.

Hey Grant! Welcome back buddy!

I can hear the timer on those torpedos ticking. As confident as I am about the whole LCHF thing, I've been scaring myself looking at horror stories on Paelo Hcaks. You're right, by tomorrow night I might be chewing statins, and down on my knees begging you all for forgiveness.

 

[wiflib]

BF, pull yourself together (although look to your right, I may be kneeling down next to you). I simply cannot face home-made scratchings anymore.

wiflib

* :wave: at Grant*