How high is the High Fat of LCHF??

[Indy51]

Gary Taubes responds to the American Heart Association's recent Statement on Polyunsaturated Fats:
http://www.cardiobrief.org/2017/06/...ng-crosby-and-the-american-heart-association/

 

[AloeSvea]

Oh, my contribution to the 'how high is the high fat in LCHF?' question is - as much healthy fat as you can stuff in! And your body will tell you when you have enough, as it is so filling and satisfying.

Just to recap: What's healthy fat? Fat from dead animals and birds and seafood and fish. Fat from olives, coconut, and avocado. Fat from dairy products if your body can tolerate it.

Obviously this is a big big big big boon for those with blood glucose regulation dysfunction. Because fat is the only macronutrient that does not affect your blood glucose one iota, and provides you with wonderful energy that you are not getting from carbs. (I leave the protein question for now.)

I don't know how it is possible to sustain a low carb way of eating without going as high fat as you can take. From what I can gather from the lit. - it isn't possible to sustain LC without the HF for any length of time. (In practical terms - it's that big bowl of salad without the avocado oil or olive oil as dressing, or mayo - how filling would that be? Not filling.) I've been happily LCHFing for a couple of years, as a healthy way of eating, especially as a diabetic. And I eat as much healthy fat as I can take.

 

[Indy51]

it's that big bowl of salad without the avocado oil or olive oil as dressing, or mayo - how filling would that be? Not filling.

Not only that, if you're eating it without fat, you're not absorbing the fat soluble nutrients contained in the salad veg.

 

[Indy51]

I also like Nina Teicholz's tweet to the AHA:

"Yo @American_Heart -Since 1970, we’ve cut sat fat cals by 33%, upped veg oils by 97%. Hasn’t cured heart disease YET."

 

[AloeSvea]

I forgot to add healthy fats from nuts and seeds.

Try eating a tonne of nuts and seeds?!

 

[AloeSvea]

Indy51, I can't tell you how much I have missed your wonderful links and reads in the year I have not been on here! Great to be reading your contributions again. (I'm still reading the Cardio Brief Taubes, and am thanking you for that.)

 

[Indy51]

Thanks @AloeSvea - glad to see you've returned to us

Another good tweet by Dr Ann Childers:

"We know the endpoint should not be LDL; many sicken & die with "good" LDL numbers (136,905 patients with CVD, below)"

The US cholesterol levels translate to the following in mmol:

Total cholesterol ......................................... 4.52
LDL ............................................................ 2.72
HDL ............................................................ 1.03
Triglycerides ............................................... 1.82

Aren't these pretty much what we're recommended to aim for? Doesn't really seem a good correlation, does it?

 

[douglas99]

Thanks @AloeSvea - glad to see you've returned to us

Another good tweet by Dr Ann Childers:

"We know the endpoint should not be LDL; many sicken & die with "good" LDL numbers (136,905 patients with CVD, below)"

The US cholesterol levels translate to the following in mmol:

Total cholesterol ......................................... 4.52
LDL ............................................................ 2.72
HDL ............................................................ 1.03
Triglycerides ............................................... 1.82

Aren't these pretty much what we're recommended to aim for? Doesn't really seem a good correlation, does it?

Looking at all the other problems they have, how much worse would they have been with poor cholesterol figures?
Although, yes, it does make me glad my overall cholesterol is under 4, my trig are 0.72, and everything else is were it should be, my BP is 115/60, and resting heart rate is 60.

 

[ghost_whistler]

Fat, the million dollar question.

There seems to be a conflict in the low carb world over how much fat one should eat. People on both sides argue passionately to the point where you cannot ask questions without being seen as a disruptive influence. This is something I take great exception to, personally. It isn't helpful. I've heard people say that calories don't matter and that you should eat loads of fat, around 200g a day I've been told. I'm not sure how to actually do that without vastly increasing your protein or even carb intake. I couldn't stomach that much pure fat. Conversely others advocate the precise monitoring of macro intake and working with, usually a 20%, caloric deficit precisely because eating too much, essentially, puts on weight.

All i know is that in nearly five months I've barely lost weight, and haven't at all in 4. I've been stalled at 83kg (give or take a few grams). I have no idea why this is, and it has knocked my confidence. I would like to lose 20kg and not be overweight. If one can eat as much fat as one likes without gaining weight, then how do I explain my weight loss. And if caloric intake is irrelevant, what does it matter how much I eat surely?

I believe there's a lot of misinformation out there. The same goes for protein. People argue that too much is pretty negative as gluconuogenesis occurs and dumps a lot of glucose into the system, this also spikes insulin which can be a problem for some. This is also one of the reasons people evangelise about fasting - it improves insulin resistance allegedly. Again there are those who argue that protein is not a problem, or that it's only an issue when eaten at high amounts, such that most of us don't reasonably consume. Unfortunately I find that I feel fuller on meals with a lot of protein so I tend to around 100-120g protein a day with about the same in fats. I calculate a caloric intake between 13-1400 a day. That's a deficit surely, even for a relatively sedentary person like me, yet I'm not losing weight.

So I have no idea what the truth is about fat intake, but where can you turn for answers when the medical community still clings to the orthodoxy of low fat high carb?

 

[douglas99]

Fat, the million dollar question.

There seems to be a conflict in the low carb world over how much fat one should eat. People on both sides argue passionately to the point where you cannot ask questions without being seen as a disruptive influence. This is something I take great exception to, personally. It isn't helpful. I've heard people say that calories don't matter and that you should eat loads of fat, around 200g a day I've been told. I'm not sure how to actually do that without vastly increasing your protein or even carb intake. I couldn't stomach that much pure fat. Conversely others advocate the precise monitoring of macro intake and working with, usually a 20%, caloric deficit precisely because eating too much, essentially, puts on weight.

All i know is that in nearly five months I've barely lost weight, and haven't at all in 4. I've been stalled at 83kg (give or take a few grams). I have no idea why this is, and it has knocked my confidence. I would like to lose 20kg and not be overweight. If one can eat as much fat as one likes without gaining weight, then how do I explain my weight loss. And if caloric intake is irrelevant, what does it matter how much I eat surely?

I believe there's a lot of misinformation out there. The same goes for protein. People argue that too much is pretty negative as gluconuogenesis occurs and dumps a lot of glucose into the system, this also spikes insulin which can be a problem for some. This is also one of the reasons people evangelise about fasting - it improves insulin resistance allegedly. Again there are those who argue that protein is not a problem, or that it's only an issue when eaten at high amounts, such that most of us don't reasonably consume. Unfortunately I find that I feel fuller on meals with a lot of protein so I tend to around 100-120g protein a day with about the same in fats. I calculate a caloric intake between 13-1400 a day. That's a deficit surely, even for a relatively sedentary person like me, yet I'm not losing weight.

So I have no idea what the truth is about fat intake, but where can you turn for answers when the medical community still clings to the orthodoxy of low fat high carb?

I agree with you, apart from the lat sentence.
My HCP's said I was a fat b*****d.
(We like to be blunt)
Basically they said don't eat, fat protein or carbs, as the fat around my stomach would feed me for several months.
We did agree to eat to my meter, and avoid fats, (first) as they really were calorific, and piled weight on me.
So good proteins, and good carbs, that my meter didn't show spikes on.

And to be honest, the dumbest thing I ever read is don't count calories, just eat fat until your satiated,
After thirteen bags of pork scratchings, a cheese board isn't the best thing to move onto.

 

[ghost_whistler]

I agree with you, apart from the lat sentence.
My HCP's said I was a fat b*****d.
(We like to be blunt)
Basically they said don't eat, fat protein or carbs, as the fat around my stomach would feed me for several months.
We did agree to eat to my meter, and avoid fats, (first) as they really were calorific, and piled weight on me.
So good proteins, and good carbs, that my meter didn't show spikes on.

And to be honest, the dumbest thing I ever read is don't count calories, just eat fat until your satiated,
After thirteen bags of pork scratchings, a cheese board isn't the best thing to move onto.

don't eat fat protein OR carbs? So nothing then? that doesn't seem wise. No healthcare professional would be saying that, as that would be unprofessional.

honestly i'm just confused. if you eat till your sated that should be enough, unfortunately for some of us that period of satiety doesn't last as long as some would like to claim.

 

[Totto]

Fat, the million dollar question.

There seems to be a conflict in the low carb world over how much fat one should eat. People on both sides argue passionately to the point where you cannot ask questions without being seen as a disruptive influence. This is something I take great exception to, personally. It isn't helpful. I've heard people say that calories don't matter and that you should eat loads of fat, around 200g a day I've been told. I'm not sure how to actually do that without vastly increasing your protein or even carb intake. I couldn't stomach that much pure fat. Conversely others advocate the precise monitoring of macro intake and working with, usually a 20%, caloric deficit precisely because eating too much, essentially, puts on weight.

All i know is that in nearly five months I've barely lost weight, and haven't at all in 4. I've been stalled at 83kg (give or take a few grams). I have no idea why this is, and it has knocked my confidence. I would like to lose 20kg and not be overweight. If one can eat as much fat as one likes without gaining weight, then how do I explain my weight loss. And if caloric intake is irrelevant, what does it matter how much I eat surely?

I believe there's a lot of misinformation out there. The same goes for protein. People argue that too much is pretty negative as gluconuogenesis occurs and dumps a lot of glucose into the system, this also spikes insulin which can be a problem for some. This is also one of the reasons people evangelise about fasting - it improves insulin resistance allegedly. Again there are those who argue that protein is not a problem, or that it's only an issue when eaten at high amounts, such that most of us don't reasonably consume. Unfortunately I find that I feel fuller on meals with a lot of protein so I tend to around 100-120g protein a day with about the same in fats. I calculate a caloric intake between 13-1400 a day. That's a deficit surely, even for a relatively sedentary person like me, yet I'm not losing weight.

So I have no idea what the truth is about fat intake, but where can you turn for answers when the medical community still clings to the orthodoxy of low fat high carb?

I find it easy to eat a lot of fat and it keeps me full for a long time. Eating fat doesn't make me put on weight, quite the contrary. If you don't lose weight on LCHF, proper LCHF with macros at 5E% carbs, 15E% protein and fat at 80E% you should get your thyroid checked.
Eating too little can make your body cling very hard to what fat stores it has, so calorie deficiency might be a bad idea. Many have have found that they lose weight when they eat more fat and it isn't very difficult, a couple of tablespoons of olive oil on your salad, mayonnaise on your eggs, some fatty fish, a piece of cheese, cream sauce, butter on your vegs for example.

You'll have to do as many others, experiment in order to find what works for you. Apparently calorie restriction doesn't.

 

[ghost_whistler]

I find it easy to eat a lot of fat and it keeps me full for a long time. Eating fat doesn't make me put on weight, quite the contrary. If you don't lose weight on LCHF, proper LCHF with macros at 5E% carbs, 15E% protein and fat at 80E% you should get your thyroid checked.
Eating too little can make your body cling very hard to what fat stores it has, so calorie deficiency might be a bad idea. Many have have found that they lose weight when they eat more fat and it isn't very difficult, a couple of tablespoons of olive oil on your salad, mayonnaise on your eggs, some fatty fish, a piece of cheese, cream sauce, butter on your vegs for example.

You'll have to do as many others, experiment in order to find what works for you. Apparently calorie restriction doesn't.

Do you have anything to support the idea that the body won't access fat stores if you eat too little?

I don't know about anyone else but my thyroid was fine last it was checked.

When I mentioned eating fat, I was talking about fat that didn't come with more protein or carbs (in the case of nuts). Speaking for myself I don't like eggs, can't tolerate them, so they are out (as is mayo).

What is the mechanism by which increasing fat intake, and thus calories, motivates fat loss? How much should one eat to do this?

 

[douglas99]

Do you have anything to support the idea that the body won't access fat stores if you eat too little?

I don't know about anyone else but my thyroid was fine last it was checked.

When I mentioned eating fat, I was talking about fat that didn't come with more protein or carbs (in the case of nuts). Speaking for myself I don't like eggs, can't tolerate them, so they are out (as is mayo).

What is the mechanism by which increasing fat intake, and thus calories, motivates fat loss? How much should one eat to do this?

It would be interesting to see the studies, as I certainly only lose weight if I'm calorie deficient.
The 800 calorie Newcastle diet worked very well for me.

 

[Totto]

There is a growing body of scientific papers on why calorie restriction doesn't work very well but you'll have to do your own research but you can start at Dietdoctor.

Zoe Harcombe has very thoroughly looked for at least one scrap of scientific evidence for the claim that restricting your calories by 500 per day leads to weight loss and found a mention in an article from 1918. Google her.

The calorie restriction theory may look like logic if you look on the body as a machine. In reality everything is ruled by a host of hormones and tens of thousands of proteins and other molecules and is ridiculously complicated.

I suppose you'll have to try different ways in order to find one that works for you, as we all have to do.

 

[Kristin251]

I've read a growing number of papers how calorie restriction and or fasting are actually great for our bodies to help prevent diseases. Stimulating other hormones such as the HGH and preserves muscle mass. I maintain muscle better on a lower calorie diet. For me of course needs to be the keto 80/15/5 diet. I've never needed a lot of calories and could never eat the recommended amount. I don't count them but have in the past. I would guess 1200 most days. Some less some more. Most of those come from the highest quality foods so there has to be better utilization there as well. I have never found the calorie in calorie out to make much of a difference unless of course I over eat. I think the nutritional value of the calories makes the biggest difference and the higher quality the less one needs.

Not at all trying to argue. This is just what I have found in my own experiences and of course we all process macronutrients differently. At the risk of sounding redundant I have no idea where I'd be without my avocado. Perfect fuel for me and seems to balance loads of other things. I know there are people that don't like them but thank goodness I do!

 

[Indy51]

Entertaining new talk by David Diamond - An Update on Demonization and Deception in Research on Saturated Fat:

 

[Art Of Flowers]

Lowering cholesterol below 5.0 does not increase life expectancy, especially in women as low cholesterol is associated with an increase death by causes other than CVD such a cancer. Cholesterol is a key part of the body's repair mechanism, so having very low cholesterol seems to lead to an increased risk of death.

 

[ghost_whistler]

There is a growing body of scientific papers on why calorie restriction doesn't work very well but you'll have to do your own research but you can start at Dietdoctor.

Zoe Harcombe has very thoroughly looked for at least one scrap of scientific evidence for the claim that restricting your calories by 500 per day leads to weight loss and found a mention in an article from 1918. Google her.

The calorie restriction theory may look like logic if you look on the body as a machine. In reality everything is ruled by a host of hormones and tens of thousands of proteins and other molecules and is ridiculously complicated.

I suppose you'll have to try different ways in order to find one that works for you, as we all have to do.

I tried googling to find what she says about calorie restriction, unfortunately it's all behind her paywall. I would be interested to know what her conclusions are.

However, if calories don't matter, why measure your macro intake in terms of percentages?

 

[douglas99]

Lowering cholesterol does not increase life expectancy, especially in women as low cholesterol is associated with an increase death by causes other than CVD such a cancer. Cholesterol is a key part of the body's repair mechanism, so having very low cholesterol seems to lead to an increased risk of death.

The graph you've shown has a clear increase in mortality, both male and female, for cholesterol greater than 5.12.
So high cholesterol does indeed increase the mortality rate it appears.