Carbs Carbs Carbs and the press

Paul59 said:

Trudi Deakins new book should be enough proof. She spent alot of time looking into it.
The from what I have tead on the research on the fat thing is that the testing was done mainly on RABBITS , rabbits dont eat meat etc so mostly based on false evidance.

Click to expand...

I would be interested to read what you have on the link between 'the fat thing' and rabbits.
I've never seen it, or heard of it, so any link to the study would be helpful.

Thanks in advance.

SunnyExpat said:

I would be interested to read what you have on the link between 'the fat thing' and rabbits.
I've never seen it, or heard of it, so any link to the study would be helpful.

Click to expand...

Not sure if I still have it. Will take a look. Was a long time ago now I saw it.
Found this though.
Why Experts Now Think You Should Eat More Fat

For more than half a century, the conventional wisdom among nutritionists and public health officials was that fat is dietary enemy number one – the leading cause of obesity and heart disease.

Itf appears the wisdom was off. And not just off. Almost entirely backward.

According to a new study from the National Institutes of Health, a diet that reduces carbohydrates in favor of fat – including the saturated fat in meat and butter – improves nearly every health measurement, from reducing our waistlines to keeping our arteries clear, more than the low-fat diets that have been recommended for generations. "The medical establishment got it wrong," says cardiologist Dennis Goodman, director of Integrative Medicine at New York Medical Associates. "The belief system didn't pan out."

It's not the conclusion you would expect given the NIH study's parameters. Lead researcher Lydia Bazanno, of the Tulane University School of Public Health, pitted this high-fat, low-carb diet against a fat-restricted regimen prescribed by the National Cholesterol Education Program. "We told both groups to get carbs from green, leafy vegetables, because those are high in nutrients and fiber to keep you sated," says Bazanno. "We also told everyone to stay away from trans fats." The fat-restricted group continued to eat carbs, including bread and cereals, while keeping saturated fat – common in animal products – below 7 percent of total calories. By contrast, the high-fat group cut carbs in half and did not avoid butter, meat, and cheese. Most important, both groups ate as much as they wanted – no calorie counting, no going hungry.

One year later, the high-fat, low-carb group had lost three times as much weight – 12 pounds compared with four – and that weight loss came from body fat, while the low-fat group lost muscle. Even more persuasive were the results of blood tests meant to measure the risk of heart disease and diabetes. The high-fat group, despite eating nearly twice as much saturated fat, still saw greater improvements in LDL cholesterol, HDL cholesterol, and triglycerides. This was enough to improve their scores on the Framingham Risk Calculator, a tool for predicting 10-year risk of heart attack. The low-fat group, by contrast, saw no improvement on their Framingham scores. "I think the explanation lies in how the low-fat dieters filled the hole left by fat – they just ate more carbs," says Bazanno.

How a fatty pork chop can trump pasta begins with the fact that our bodies don't process calories from fat, protein, and carbohydrates in the same way. "When we eat carbs, they break down into sugar in the blood; that's true of whole grains, too, though to a lesser extent," says Jeff Volek, a leading low-carb researcher at Ohio State University. The body responds with the hormone insulin, which converts the extra blood sugar into fatty acids stored in the body fat around our middles. Our blood sugar then falls, and that body fat releases the fatty acids to burn as fuel. But carb-heavy diets keep insulin so high that those fatty acids aren't released, Volek says. The body continues to shuttle sugar into our fat cells – packing on the pounds – but we never burn it. Dietary fat, meanwhile, is the only macronutrient that has no effect on insulin or blood sugar. "This means it's likely excessive carbs, not fat, that plump us up," he adds. Low-carb diets stop that vicious cycle, keeping insulin levels low enough to force the body to burn fat again.

But isn't too much saturated fat bad for your heart? "The evidence for that has really disintegrated," says Dr. Eric Westman, a bariatric physician and director of the Duke Lifestyle Medicine Clinic. It is true that saturated fat can raise cholesterol. But as we know, there is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. And it turns out that a diet rich in saturated fat increases the former while decreasing the latter. Carbs, on the other hand, do exactly the opposite. In fact, a new Annals of Internal Medicine review of 72 studies and hundreds of thousands of subjects found no strong evidence that saturated fat causes heart disease.

The NIH report actually adds to research that's been accumulating for years. "It's something like the 25th clinical trial in the last 15 years to come out saying this, with almost none going the other way," says Westman.

High-fat diets have been slow to catch on mostly because of two long-held theories. The first is the calorie-counting theory of weight gain, which came about in the 1950s. "It looks at the human body as a mathematical counting machine," says Gary Taubes, author of Why We Get Fat: And What to Do About It. "Fat has more calories per gram than carbs or protein, so eating fat must make you fatter. It's a naive view of human physiology." The second idea, the lipid hypothesis, blamed saturated fat for clogging arteries. This notion emerged from vast population studies in the 1970s that found loose correlations between fat consumption, total cholesterol, and heart disease. Just because two things occur together, however, does not mean that one causes the other. But the lipid hypothesis became so popular at the USDA and the American Heart Association that, says Westman, "there was no money to fund research into anything other than low-fat, low-calorie diets for 20 years."

The AHA now acknowledges that refined carbs like flour and sugar threaten your waistline and your cardiovascular health. "We no longer think low-fat diets are the answer," says Dr. Linda Van Horn of the AHA Nutrition Committee. But, she says, the AHA still recommends keeping saturated fat below 6 percent of total daily calories, or half what the low-carb dieters consumed in the NIH study. "The idea that fat kills got so ingrained, it became folklore. Your mother told you, your grandmother told you. It's going to take years to get people to believe that was wrong," he says. "We're in a transition, and on the cutting edge. It may take a while, but you'll see new guidelines."

& this
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...clogs-arteries-true-villain-surprise-you.html

& this
http://www.mendosa.com/The-Fat-of-the-Matter-How-Dietary-Fat-Effects-Blood-Glucose.htm

This is really interesting.
http://authoritynutrition.com/7-ways-the-low-fat-diet-destroys-your-health/

Then this.
http://authoritynutrition.com/top-9-biggest-lies-about-dietary-fat-and-cholesterol/

The list goes on.
Love the part in this that starts FATS HAS BEEN BLAMED FOR SUGARS EVIL DEEDS.
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/07/27/saturated-fat-cholesterol.aspx

This is a hour long video but is interesting.

Gezzabelle said:

I was asked by by nurse how I had lowered my HbA1c...told her I had changed my diet dramatically and now ate low carb and higher fat. I was told I needed many more carbs and to return to eating white bread, potatoes, rice and pasta and to disregard any high readings. I was also told fat is to be cut right back or my cholesterol would fly up and I would have a heart attack or stroke. I did ask if she had seen the recent reports that debunked the myth that all fat is bad but it fell on deaf ears. Also told to stop testing completely. Got the feeling they hate to see any success that they haven't had a hand in or that bucks the trend of the out dated information they have. Despite my success she was determined to make me revert to eating all the bad food that had caused the problem in the first place. How can we hope for any changes when they are so out of touch with everything and refuse to budge or listen?

Click to expand...

God, Gezzabelle ... Well, just say, Certainly, yes you're right, smile and ignore it all, yes?

LucySW said:

God, Gezzabelle ... Well, just say, Certainly, yes you're right, smile and ignore it all, yes?

Click to expand...

I did pretty much that. Totally stunned by their incompetence and ignorance. I will carry on eating healthy low carb food and test my bg as as when I want to. At least that way I know that next time round my HbA1c will be low and my risks low with it

SunnyExpat said:

I would be interested to read what you have on the link between 'the fat thing' and rabbits.
I've never seen it, or heard of it, so any link to the study would be helpful.

Thanks in advance.

Click to expand...

It was a Russian experiment done about the same time as Ancel Keys got going. You'll find it in Gary Taubes or Nina Teicholz.

LucySW said:

It was a Russian experiment done about the same time as Ancel Keys got going. You'll find it in Gary Taubes or Nina Teicholz.

Click to expand...

A one off Russian experiment from what, the 50's?
What was it, Russians stuffing fat into rabbits, like some sort of Foie Gras with bunnies?

Things change too quickly nowadays, I'm a man of the present to be honest.

SunnyExpat said:

A one off Russian experiment from what, the 50's?
What was it, Russians stuffing fat into rabbits, like some sort of Foie Gras with bunnies?

Things change too quickly nowadays, I'm a man of the present to be honest.

Click to expand...

Poor Bunnies. I am picturing them being fed like the poor geese are

Yes, it was more or less that. They were forcefed meat (I think, you can check), which rabbits don't eat, and they got plaque on their arteries. That's where the cholesterol hypothesis was born.

Whatever next good god its like feeding cows grains to fatten them up - oh they do that already.
I heard about the study with the rabbits too.

dawnmc said:

Whatever next good god its like feeding cows grains to fatten them up - oh they do that already.
I heard about the study with the rabbits too.

Click to expand...

Nothing is good anymore.
Grain fed cows is wrong.
Grass fed cows sound fine, until you realise the 'grass' is fertilised on 'organic' fertiliser.
Which was highlighted during the BSE fiasco as the raw waste from the abattoir.

So 'grass fed' is actually some sort of weird cannibal cow.

What next?
The talking cow from 'Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy' begging to be eaten?

Certified organic agriculture in the UK is free from human 'manure', slaughterhouse waste, genetically modified crops and GM animal feed. Routine dosing of animals and poultry with antibiotics is not allowed, nor are growth hormones. Organic agriculture excludes the vast majority of pesticide,insecticides and herbicides too. Chemical additives aren't allowed unless strictly necessary e.g. nitrates in bacon and ham, for example. Producers are not allowed to add water to poultry or meat either.

I saw a documentary in which American cows were fed mis-shapen M&Ms.

Celeriac said:

Certified organic agriculture in the UK is free from human 'manure', slaughterhouse waste, genetically modified crops and GM animal feed. Routine dosing of animals and poultry with antibiotics is not allowed, nor are growth hormones. Organic agriculture excludes the vast majority of pesticide,insecticides and herbicides too. Chemical additives aren't allowed unless strictly necessary e.g. nitrates in bacon and ham, for example. Producers are not allowed to add water to poultry or meat either.

I saw a documentary in which American cows were fed mis-shapen M&Ms.

Click to expand...

Not entirely true, as you can juggle timings on fertilising none food crops, such as grass, then using the pastureland to graze, but other stuff is allowed under Annex V of 889/2008 http://faolex.fao.org/docs/pdf/eur82157.pdf

A lot better than the dripping cow offal that used to happen though.

Providing everyone only eats certified grass fed organic though, which isn't cheap by any means.

The rabbit experiment took place in 1913 when Ancel Keys was about 9 years old and had absolutely nothing to do with him. It wasn't considered important at the time since it was considered to be a weird result of feeding rabbits fat. This couldn't possibly apply to humans (ie this is just the same as people on here are suggesting)
We now know (and I really can't see anyone disputing it ) that the process of developing arteriosclerotic plaques in arteries in these rabbits was similar to that in humans; though very accelerated because of the rabbits metabolism . (and we know more detail now)
See NIKOLAI N. ANITSCHKOW AND THE CHOLESTEROL-FED RABBIT about halfway down the page.It has diagrams of the development of plaque http://www.jlr.org/content/45/9/1583.long
compare with any youtube video about the development of arthrosclerosis or this interactive from the AHA
http://watchlearnlive.heart.org/CVML_Player.php?moduleSelect=chlcad

As a former Friend of the Soil Association I did take part in an EU consultation process since the date of that PDF. I would advise that if you really want the nitty gritty you contact one of the organic certifying bodies in UK. Secondly, farms have to go through a conversion process to become organic.

It is possible to eat grass-pastured non-GM fed lamb cheaply, you only have to look for New Zealand lamb. To get the New Zealand rosette it has to be grass-pastured and New Zealand doesn't allow GM feed for Quality Mark lamb. It's easier to find during autumn/winter as that's their spring/summer.

New Zealand beef for the domestic market cannot use growth hormones, but it can be used for the export market. I've not come across NZ beef in UK, only lamb and venison.

Not having learned lessons from the low fat debacle, governments are making potentially bigger mistakes now with GM food. In the EU, that has to labelled, but farmers are able to feed GM feed to animals and poultry and these and their products don't need to be labelled.. There are studies now which show that GMOs can be transferred to humans. A study in Newcastle tracked one GM soya bean though a volunteer and noticed that it mutated gut bacteria.

Since 2012 most supermarkets have caved and let farmers feed GM feed. Only organic food is non GM now. Even M&S no longer guarantees that non-organic food is GM free although their non-organic food is often more expensive than organic food in Ocado, Waitrose or Sainsbury's.

Monsanto's Roundup glyphosate weedkiller, allied to GM maize etc was declared in March as a probable carcinogen, by the World Health Organization's cancer research agency, IARC.

Having fallen victim to the low fat fiasco, including 3/4 of my life on skimmed milk and trans fat margarine, I'm just not prepared to be an experiment again

While it's useful info, none of that really addresses the EU regulation quoted.

We are where we are.

Celeriac said:

As a former Friend of the Soil Association I did take part in an EU consultation process since the date of that PDF. I would advise that if you really want the nitty gritty you contact one of the organic certifying bodies in UK. Secondly, farms have to go through a conversion process to become organic.

It is possible to eat grass-pastured non-GM fed lamb cheaply, you only have to look for New Zealand lamb. To get the New Zealand rosette it has to be grass-pastured and New Zealand doesn't allow GM feed for Quality Mark lamb. It's easier to find during autumn/winter as that's their spring/summer.

New Zealand beef for the domestic market cannot use growth hormones, but it can be used for the export market. I've not come across NZ beef in UK, only lamb and venison.

Not having learned lessons from the low fat debacle, governments are making potentially bigger mistakes now with GM food. In the EU, that has to labelled, but farmers are able to feed GM feed to animals and poultry and these and their products don't need to be labelled.. There are studies now which show that GMOs can be transferred to humans. A study in Newcastle tracked one GM soya bean though a volunteer and noticed that it mutated gut bacteria.

Since 2012 most supermarkets have caved and let farmers feed GM feed. Only organic food is non GM now. Even M&S no longer guarantees that non-organic food is GM free although their non-organic food is often more expensive than organic food in Ocado, Waitrose or Sainsbury's.

Monsanto's Roundup glyphosate weedkiller, allied to GM maize etc was declared in March as a probable carcinogen, by the World Health Organization's cancer research agency, IARC.

Having fallen victim to the low fat fiasco, including 3/4 of my life on skimmed milk and trans fat margarine, I'm just not prepared to be an experiment again

Click to expand...

I'm sorry but glyphosate was not declared a probable carcinogen. It is on the list of substances that have not yet been ruled out as possible carcinogens, along with a lot of things we already eat and use. Also, "the dose makes the poison" so the tiny amounts of glyphosate that are applied to crops long before harvest do not carry through to our food anywhere near a toxic level. There is a lot of misinformation about glyphosate, and about GM, for that matter.

The WHO IARC press release on 20 March 2015 is available as a PDF online. It opens on my Kindle without giving me an opportunity to copy and paste but Googling IARC glyphosate carcinogen March should find it. In the press release, IARC states that the U.S. EPA has listed glyphosate as a probable carcinogen in humans since 1985.

Personally I don't want that stuff in my food, regardless of classification. But yes definitely listed as probable carcinogen in humans by IARC.

GRAS (Generally Regarded As Safe) for food only means that it's not immediately toxic, causing death. None of these things are tested long-term or in combination with additives or medications.

I'm not concerned about minute amounts of glyphosate possibly being in my food. For me, life is too short to stress about these things.

Scientists have criticised the IARC report for having several methodological flaws:
http://academicsreview.org/2015/03/iarc-glyphosate-cancer-review-fails-on-multiple-fronts/

Well, my LFT went from not so good to normal within two weeks of going organic and retinopathy that needed laser treatment started healing up within 6 months and was back to low level background within 18 months and stable, so I'm happy to avoid as many pesticide residues and additives as I can. I don't believe in homeopathy though and I think herbal remedies should be researched to ensure that they aren't toxic.

Some supermarkets and garden centres won't sell Roundup in UK now.

Celeriac said:

Well, my LFT went from not so good to normal within two weeks of going organic and retinopathy that needed laser treatment started healing up within 6 months and was back to low level background within 18 months and stable, so I'm happy to avoid as many pesticide residues and additives as I can. I don't believe in homeopathy though and I think herbal remedies should be researched to ensure that they aren't toxic.

Some supermarkets and garden centres won't sell Roundup in UK now.

Click to expand...

I think the reason they won't sell Roundup is because of campaigning from people who think it's toxic at any dose, and not because the companies think it's toxic at any dose. (I think it's not a good idea to drink a jug of the stuff, but I'm quite happy to spray it around my property - at recommended dilutions - and I'd be a bit peeved if I went to a shop and couldn't get it there. I would just about be tempted to boycott them because of the inconvenience of having to find where I could buy it).