fat/lard

As a Type 2 diabetic I have a problem with metabolizing carbohydrate. I choose to handle this by controlling my daily carbohydrate intake, in my case to less than 50g per day and preferably around 25g.

The human body requires a certain amount of energy (calories) each day in order for it to run properly. If someone like me, a low-carber, cuts down on calorie intake from carbs, then those calories must be replaced from somewhere. An excess of protein can cause kidney damage, especially in diabetics. In that case, the only alternative source of energy is fat, from either animal or vegetable sources.

A very low carbohydrate intake will cause the body to find fuel from other sources. It starts to burn fat (a process known as ketosis) which consumes dietary fat and will also burn stored fat.

Our brains don't necessarily need fat (though they are largely made up of cholesterol) but do need some glucose to function. However, there is no need to over-eat carbohydrate to get the glucose, as about 20% of the protein we eat is turned slowly to glucose by our metabolism.

The dietary nutrition intake from my Atkins-type diet is 64% fat, 28% protein and 8% carbohydrate. I am functioning perfectly well on that, losing weight and keeping my BGs mostly within non-diabetic levels. My blood pressure and lipid profiles are also fine. I eat between 1300 and 1900 calories per day.

It's a balance. In my case - fat + carbohydrate = weight gain, high blood sugar, raised cholesterol, raised blood pressure.
Low fat + high carbohydrate = high blood sugar, raised cholesterol, raised blood pressure, and often weight gain.
High fat + low carbohydrate = weight loss, controlled blood sugar, blood pressure and cholesterol well in the required range.

My choice seems very simple to me - based on my own experience and observation, I eat high fat/low carb. edited once 'cos I'm an idiot! Thanks, Daisy1!

I can't give you references for any of this, I'm afraid - much of it is empirical, and I'm no scientist. Much of it has been picked up from other members on this site, and from my own reading-round on the web. I do try to avoid crank sites!

Viv 8)

viviennem said:

My choice seems very simple to me - based on my own experience and observation, I eat low fat/high carb.
Viv 8)

Click to expand...

Don't you mean high fat/low carb? :wink:

Any fat you EAT is digested, it's not like pouring it down a pipe to clog it. Fats circulate in the blood as fatty acids. As far as I know fats don't FORM in the circulation. there's a LOT of guff talked about fats clogging the arteries. Althouggh there are plenty off cases of restricted flow in the blood vessels, it's likely that much of this is down to inflamatory processes.
Hana

Some people on here prefer to use fat as their main fuel. I saved my reply until someone who uses that sort of diet replied

I think it's important to understand exactly what we mean my blocked arteries and how most scientists think they get 'blocked;
This is a 'simple' animation from the welcome institute.
http://www.wellcome.ac.uk/Education-res ... 031558.htm

Most of us will have some plaque in our arteries,
How much? (and unless someone actually looks you won't know)
if there is a lot is there anything we can do about it ?
can we prevent too much further build up, prevent it from becoming unstable and likely to detach?
These are the conventional risk factors for high levels of plaque.
http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-manage ... dup?page=2

( I would add that some peoples high cholesterol levels may be inherited, some people absorb far more from food than others and some people manufacture far more in the liver than others. There are children who suffer fromheart disease because they have inherited a defect that causes sky high cholesterol levels)

When I was diagnosed (as a slow onset T1) I had a cholesterol level of over 8mmol/l. I had scans on my arteries which showed a lot of plaque for my age.
I took statins at a high dose, I improved my intake of omega 3 fats. (a fat that may help thin the blood and increase blood flow) I increased my exercise. (and I was already doing quite a bit) I kept good glycemic control. Two years later my arteriologist was far happier. There was regression and my arteries were in a healthier state.
I've no idea which factor caused this, I have read that statins have been shown (in some cases) to cause regression but it could be the other factors I no longer take them as my cholesterol is OK without them. I would have no hesitation to start again.

Now I have better prospects. I am very hesitant about eating a diet that may increase LDL cholesterol so whilst I don't avoid any type of fat, completely or even particularly cut down overall fat intake , I am careful and try to avoid trans fats entirely and limit saturated fats. (you can't avoid them anyway, oily fish that have high levels of omega 3 still have a proportion of sat fat)

Advice from reputable sources such as that below from Harvard does not advocate a very low fat diet, it does still suggest care in the choice of fats. It points out that blogs and articles that declare saturated fat to be vindicated are making an over simplified and erroneous interpretation of the evidence.
"the message is more nuanced: Cutting back on saturated fat can be good for health if people replace saturated fat with good fats, especially, polyunsaturated fats. (16,25) Eating good fats in place of saturated fat lowers the “bad” LDL cholesterol, and it improves the ratio of total cholesterol to “good” HDL cholesterol, lowering the risk of heart disease."

http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionso ... index.html
(though I still eat butter, just don't eat that much of it)

izzzi said:

Hi,

Clogged arteries and veins prevent blood from flowing smoothly and limit the amount of nutrients delivered to your body.

Click to expand...

I still do not understand or get my head round why some say we need so much fat/lard in our bodies to feed our brains.

Also many of the vegetarian/vegan claims about fat/lard cannot be substantiated, and some are simply false and dangerous .

I also prefer comments and advice on this forum, however sometimes quite a little over the top for us simple mathematicians.

My simple point is how do we remove clogged fat by entering more fat into the body.
(1 clogged fat) + (1 more fat) = 2 much fat.

I hope I am not knocking good fat nor proper lard or I will get slapped knee's.

Roy.

Click to expand...

No Roy, you're just asking a valid question and not knocking anyone at all.

High cholesterol levels happen to the skinniest of people living on a fat free diet, in fact I know several people with high cholesterol who are very slim and also very constipated.

But we've been conditioned, certainly over the last 30 years or so to equate eating fat with eating big chunks of butter or lard but that's not the case. We don't have to eat BIG QUANTITIES of fat, we just have to eat the NORMAL AMOUNT of fat that was normal BEFORE the food and medical industries decided they knew what was best for EVERYONE.

When I was a kid, a steak, lamb or pork chop came complete with fat - those who didn't like the fat could cut it off if they didn't want to cook with it or eat it. Then they started complaining that they were PAYING for the fat on their meat and didn't think it was fair. As a result WE ALL HAD TO START DOING WITHOUT THE FAT on our meat, because the butchers were then forced to cut the fat off before selling it to the customer and the farmers were forced to breed pigs with less fat on them.

Personally, I'd like to see that little law reversed, I will NOT BUY meat if it has no fat on it and my butcher loves me because he knows I know what's what. Not only does the fat on the meat BELONG there, it enhances the flavour and tenderises the meat whilst cooking.

And as far as the workings of our intestines are concerned, they work much better and more regularly when a little regular animal fat is included in the diet, than when people are eating low fat.

I've worked in Paediatric Gastroenterology and come across kids with such severe and painful constipation they had to be operated on to alleviate it and I often wanted to add a PS to the botton of the letter saying "Whilst drinking all the water, fruit juice and eating 5 a day doesn't seem to have helped your child's constipation one iota, please ensure your kid eats a bit of real butter every day, preferably melted on toast and I can assure you we won't need to see him so often to unblock his bowels. If you don't wish to consume animal fat, try a small dose of good, old fashioned castor oil on a regular basis, your bowels will love you for it." - but of course I'm not a doctor so I couldn't do that.

izzzi said:

Hi,

Clogged arteries and veins prevent blood from flowing smoothly and limit the amount of nutrients delivered to your body.

Click to expand...

I still do not understand or get my head round why some say we need so much fat/lard in our bodies to feed our brains.

Also many of the vegetarian/vegan claims about fat/lard cannot be substantiated, and some are simply false and dangerous .

I also prefer comments and advice on this forum, however sometimes quite a little over the top for us simple mathematicians.

My simple point is how do we remove clogged fat by entering more fat into the body.
(1 clogged fat) + (1 more fat) = 2 much fat.

I hope I am not knocking good fat nor proper lard or I will get slapped knee's.

Roy.

Click to expand...

Certainly no slapped knees, the issue of fat is one that has been ingrained into us, so why would we think fat is good? This was my issue when I first came here.

This is what I have learned from reading here and my own research. As America began to get fatter, people wanted to know why. A 'gentleman' by the name of Ancel Keys claimed that the reason was fat - all fat. There was no scientific reason why he made this claim, but it was bought wholesale by the American government, and then over time the UK and other governments. We were all encouraged to eat a low fat diet, which opened up a huge gap in the food industry market. Suddenly low fat (packed with sugar) products flooded the shelves. The population however continued to get larger.

In recent years fat was looked at again. The claims that fat caused high cholesterol couldn't be substantiated. However, we were so indoctrinated into believing fat was bad, we continued to avoid it. Research has shown that a low carb high fat diet reduces cholesterol, and the plaque that can be causes is not nearly so profound. High carb high fat diets, produce fat people. There is only one naturally occurring food stuff that is both a carbohydrate and a fat, that is - sugar! It takes a leap of faith to try something we have all been told is bad for us, and it took me a while to be brave enough, I am so pleased I did.

Saturated fats are thought to help us burn fat. They are also a good way to raise your good cholesterol.

If you have some time, here are some lectures/interviews I have watched, and where I have learned additional information to what I have learned here:

[youtube]vRe9z32NZHY&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]HCgTlC8PE0Q&feature=related[/youtube]

[youtube]vyOI9bk3VZc&feature=related[/youtube]

There are loads of others, but these give you an idea of what I mean. You can see the others down the side of these video's.

Good luck with your results.
I think that the Barnard diet is quite hard for many people but I have read of others that have had good success with it.

I'm listening to The Food Programme on BBC Radio 4 - all about lard! and featuring Gary Taubes, among others.

It's repeated tomorrow afternoon (Monday) if you've missed it today.

Viv 8)

Thanks Viv !

Superchip

I think we are NOT supposed to be shoving fats down us, regardless of the type of fat. Not forcing tons of any fats down us.

I think we are just meant to keep the fat on our meat, but naturally raised meat if possible, not the stuff which has been raised to be artificially lean. Buy the cuts of meat which are naturally marbled, and have their normal amount of fat on, tather than ones where all the natural amount of fat has been cut off by the butcher.

I think that, when we eat fats, we should be eating natural fats like butter and lard. Not hydrogenated or created fats.

Simply making sure that the fats we eat are natural fats. The way humans have eaten for centuries.

it is not that we are being encouraged to eat the sort of diet that would ever be considered, even a few decades ago, as High Fat, its because the unnatural Low fat diet we are being told nowadays to eat is wrong. So we are only redressing the balance back to natural eating.

It is only called High Fat when contrasted against the artificially low threshold of amounts now called Low Fat. It should be called Normal Fat.

lucylocket61 said:

I think we are NOT supposed to be shoving fats down us, regardless of the type of fat. Not forcing tons of any fats down us.

I think we are just meant to keep the fat on our meat, but naturally raised meat if possible, not the stuff which has been raised to be artificially lean. Buy the cuts of meat which are naturally marbled, and have their normal amount of fat on, tather than ones where all the natural amount of fat has been cut off by the butcher.

I think that, when we eat fats, we should be eating natural fats like butter and lard. Not hydrogenated or created fats.

Simply making sure that the fats we eat are natural fats. The way humans have eaten for centuries.

it is not that we are being encouraged to eat the sort of diet that would ever be considered, even a few decades ago, as High Fat, its because the unnatural Low fat diet we are being told nowadays to eat is wrong. So we are only redressing the balance back to natural eating.

It is only called High Fat when contrasted against the artificially low threshold of amounts now called Low Fat. It should be called Normal Fat.

Click to expand...

Spot on Lucylocket ... :thumbup:

izzzi said:

Hi,

Clogged arteries and veins prevent blood from flowing smoothly and limit the amount of nutrients delivered to your body.

Click to expand...

My simple point is how do we remove clogged fat by entering more fat into the body.
(1 clogged fat) + (1 more fat) = 2 much fat.

Click to expand...

Fat doesn't clog your arteries. This is a misunderstanding. No-one ever thought that it did.

Under certain conditions eating extra fat can cause a short-term rise in cholesterol. Because increased cholesterol is (sometimes) associated with heart disease, fat was wrongly implicated as an agent of disease.

However:

1. Unless you have certain genetic problems, fat intake only causes a short-term increase in cholesterol. Longer term studies have shown that the effect does not last.
2. Where cholesterol does rise, the rise in "bad" LDL-C is matched with a rise in "good" HDL-C, making the result more or less clinically irrelevant.
3. Despite 40 years of trying, no-one has been able to demonstrate that fat intake is linked to increased mortality.
4. Carbohydrate intake is much more closely linked with a "bad" blood lipid profile than fat ever was.

I don't think that most sersious researchers no longer put much weight in the "fat is bad for you" theory. Unfortunately, after over 40 years of pushing that message, the establishment is very slow to change its opinion because:

Defren said:

[youtube]HCgTlC8PE0Q&feature=related[/youtube]

Click to expand...

How very dare you mention Gary Taubes. Don't you even know that he once wrote a book, the fact of which alone makes him a money obsessed corrupt liar. Honest.

borofergie said:

How very dare you mention Gary Taubes. Don't you even know that he once wrote a book, the fact of which alone makes him a money obsessed corrupt liar. Honest.

Click to expand...

Its not the fact that he wrote a book that makes him a liar Stephen its the fact that he cherry picked bits of research leaving out massive amounts of data to prove his theories, plus his research only went up to the sixties and theres been an awful lot more research done since then, if you have watched the Jimmy Moore interview with Carbsane you will know that he is a fraud and has been caught out as lacking in truthfulness.

You can listen to the whole of the interview here but its an hour long, to skip to the Tuabes fraud bit fast forward to about the 30.00 minute mark.

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/show ... pisode-436

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b0 ... amme_Lard/

That is the iPlayer link to what Viv wrote about featuring Gary Taubes. ( genious )

And also as Viv said repeated today on Radio 4 at 1530

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01npb10

**** good stuff, if some people want to be led by the food police, then that is their perogative, blinkered though it undoubtedly is.

More sturated fat anybody ?

All washed down with lashings of double cream, more lard, and a treble vodka!

TTFN Superchip

Thanks for the links Superchip. The Food program interview with Taubes kicks in around 12 minutes.

Who'd have thought that someone who wrote a book could say all those long words eh :wink:

Sid Bonkers said:

borofergie said:

How very dare you mention Gary Taubes. Don't you even know that he once wrote a book, the fact of which alone makes him a money obsessed corrupt liar. Honest.

Click to expand...

Its not the fact that he wrote a book that makes him a liar Stephen its the fact that he cherry picked bits of research leaving out massive amounts of data to prove his theories, plus his research only went up to the sixties and theres been an awful lot more research done since then, if you have watched the Jimmy Moore interview with Carbsane you will know that he is a fraud and has been caught out as lacking in truthfulness.

Click to expand...

Seiously? Carbsane? Have you actually looked at the rest of her site? Have a look and see how she treated Jack Kruse...

If you'd actually read either of the books, which you haven't, you'd be aware of the fact that Taubes states explicitly that he is presenting one side of the argument, because every other contemporary text states only the other-side.

Secondly, every single page of a book does not have to be true for the book to have any worth. There are problems with "the Origin of Species", that don't stop it being the classical work on evolution. There are clearly flaws in some of Taubes' insulin hypothesis, which are only really apparent because he moved the debate on. That's how science works.

The demolition of Ancel Keys, and the diet-heart hypothesis, I think stands untouched. But you wouldn't know that, because you haven't bothered to read the book.

Glad to see you are listening to Jimmy Moore. His weight loss is going great isn't it? That's the power of VLC/ketosis for ya.

Carbsane was slaughtered in the comments accompanying that interview as well...