• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Anyone see this last year?

I had a followup up liver scan a few weeks ago, since going low carb high fat 18 months before my fatty liver is now fine.
There is research that suggests the combination of processed fats and carbs does the damage, not good quality fats.
 
TriciaWs said:
I had a followup up liver scan a few weeks ago, since going low carb high fat 18 months before my fatty liver is now fine.
There is research that suggests the combination of processed fats and carbs does the damage, not good quality fats.
Click to expand...
What the article says is that damaged LDL cholesterol is bad for your health.
 
VioletViolet said:
Just worried and hoping I'm doing the right thing.
Click to expand...
https://openheart.bmj.com/content/5/2/e000871
This article looks at aspect of benefits and downsides. It may allow you to look at your own dietary preferences and research your concerns in light of the information.
Unfortunately, there no definitive answers.
For me, I avoid as many PUFAS as possible without overdoing everything else. My skin likes some PUFA.
 
First;y Eurekalert is an open access media company. Anyone can publish in it and there is no requirement for papers to be peer reviewed or independant. It is a pay per publish outfit. So articles in it shpuld be viewed as not being gold plated fact.

Secondly, this study was a mouse study, and these are often found to be unreliable in assuming that humans follow the same pathway. The use of standard mouse chow san introduce errors by itself, since it is not what mice normally eat. Then the mice are usually gentically modified mice specially bred to have certain characteristics that can skew the research. Also, where a diabetes topic is being tested, the diabetes is usually induced chemically to mimic diabetes, and is not the same as human metabolic syndrome.

The Keck School of Medicine used to be a faculty within USC university, but was renamed following a major donation from the W.M Keck foundation, which continues to fiund it, It is a private faculty and runs its own private clinics in the area. The W M Keck foundation is a family based organisation associated with the petroleum industry.

As has already been mentioned, the curent understanding of endocrinology is that it is not LDL per se that is harmful. LDL is just a transport vehicle for lipids, but when it is damaged by free radicals, radiation etc, then it fragments into small dense LDL (sLDL) which the HDL cannot recognise, and does not collct for recycling in the liver. So sLDL remains in the bloodstream and is not easily removed by the body since it is now an alien component and becomes the main constituent of plaque in the arteries.

Recent studies at Newcastle ac et al has shown that an ultra low calorie or a low carb ketogenic diet can remove the fatty buildup due to NAFLD, and so it seems to imply that having carbs is to blame for the buildup in the liver and that a high fat diet in its own is not to blame. Meta studies also show that having a low LDL score can actually shorten life expectancy as can having very high LDL (bathtub curve) so it seems we need a moderate level of fat in our diet. Again, using mouse research may not emulate the human condition and may be misleading.

A metastudy of a large human database gives a good indication of how we are dealing with it in the real world. It seems that not only were they feeding the mice high fat diet they were adding extra cholesterol to it. How does that work? humans do not use dietary cholesterol since it is alien, but we make our own cholesterol with our individual biomarkers. Something here raises my hackles, since it seems wrong test method. They started with a hypothesis, and seem to be forcing the condition to prove the hypothesis, but in doing so go against what in most people is a natural body function.

Here is the actual paper
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30516830
 
There is possiblity of bias in this report. One of the two authors appears to have a potential conflict of interest. The paper itself was not independantly reviewed. Good set of references quoted, so further reading is possible.
 
Oldvatr said:
There is possiblity of bias in this report. One of the two authors appears to have a potential conflict of interest. The paper itself was not independantly reviewed. Good set of references quoted, so further reading is possible.
Click to expand...
Thanks for checking. It's the only combined simple pros and cons analysis for diffetent fats that I could find. I don't agree with its conclusion.
 
Lotties said:
Thanks for checking. It's the only combined simple pros and cons analysis for diffetent fats that I could find. I don't agree with its conclusion.
Click to expand...
Here is another from the BMJ archive
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111
The references list provides several studies that they used that cover the topic

I happen to agree with the conclusion for that report you posted, but we need to be aware that there are vested interests on both sides of the argument. It is never a binary choice either.

For instance, Aseem Malhotra is an eminent cardiologist and heart surgeon, but is also the author of the Pioppi diet plan that I happen to follow. This paper I link here is one of his.

Edit to add: The following is a recent paper that convinced me that I can eat sat fat again. It uses modern statistical methodology for meta analysis and does full tests for bias and heterogenicity. It correctly interprets the Forest plots (unlike some studies I have seen)

https://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj...95ed2e921a58e11446d944e3&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha
 
Last edited:
Thanks all for comments ,always get a god debate on here ! There was another article last year linking keto and fatty liver. Will try and find the link as I trust the scrunity of you people !
 
Off course I meant "good" debate
VioletViolet said:
Thanks all for comments ,always get a god debate on here ! There was another article last year linking keto and fatty liver. Will try and find the link as I trust the scrunity of you people !
Click to expand...
 
Agree @bulkbiker. I found this paragraph instructive:

‘The study wasn’t a controlled experiment designed to prove whether or how diet changes might impact the risk of developing fatty liver. Researchers also relied on questionnaires to assess participants’ diets and calorie intake, which can be unreliable, and they lacked data on non-dietary causes of liver fat accumulation including certain medications and viral infections.’
 
That flagged up for me too.. more FFQ rubbish..and no mention of fruit consumption either..
 
For me it was the average age of the participants of 70, At that age, it is a lifetime of potentlly abusive lifestyle habits, I am that age, and I am certainly not eating or drinking anything like I did 20 years ago. And NAFLD takes a while to build up, I believe. So asking what they consume today is probably not related to how they got NAFLD,

They claim to have done 3,800+scans for liver fat. Now we know that it is only recently that scientists have been able to use modified MRI scans to accuratley measure the NAFLD, so what method did they use. If it was ultrasound then that is very ineffective for doing quantitative measurements and misses most of the common forms of NAFLD - in fact it only really useful for cirrhosis diagnosis where the liver has almost died off, i.e. the ultimate stage 4 of NAFLD.

The ending is strange. Having asserted that meat protein is the culprit, the head researcher then goes off on a tangent blaming it solely on red meat and processed meat, although if that was the study finding it should have been made clear in the study writeup. This ending seems to indicate a certain bias creeping in on the coatails of this research. If it is there in the head mans brain, then it is likely to be in the research itself. There is no claims for independant oversight or peer review either. This is just a journalistic piece, so the bias may have been added by the journalist, but is worrying all the same. The actual report is not referenced, so we cannot check what it actually says, only what reuters says.

Note Erasmus University has gone vegetarian in all its faclilties. Meat is banned on campus, although apparently the staff canteens are allowed to offer cold meat to those staff registered with them. A rule for one, another for all.
 
Last edited:
Processed meat causing fatty liver? Protein? Goodness! (Not a word about sugar and carbs - int-er-esting.)
 

from your first link..


Take away the idea of just what DIET is most effective and that to me, seems like every message i have read that seems to offer sensible, from sports advice through to all the veggie/meat debates as to how to live better for longer..(the holy grail, right ).

and when one counts in all the "lose weight/Cure XYZ ..for only £xxx a month"

the last line is exceedingly telling.

Nice post again @Oldvatr ..many thanks
 
The authors used GRADE to rate their own results and it scored "very low". If I understood it correctly, it means that the certainty that their final conclusions are correct is "very low".

Isn't it? I'm also trying to find something to put my mind at ease about eating sat fats, as I've recently transitioned from low fat to LCHF.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…