LCHF: Eating saturated fat may not cause high cholesterol but......

[Scandichic]

Which guys?

There are several Swedes who post on this forum. My understanding is that the standard advice given to diabetics in Sweden is the same as the advice given by the NHS in this country. Portion control and limited carbs or low GI. A reluctance to provide meters and strips.Therefore a case could be made that the advice given by the Swedish research council and the Swedish Society of Medicine is biased - LCHF being not that popular.

 

[Weens12]

I don't drink, my cholesterol is fine and now that I am diabetic my fatty liver is much improved. I am sure that in my case (and I may simply be an anomaly) it was caused by carbs and diet drinks.

You can have non-alcoholic fatty liver. - My mum had a fatty liver, and didn't drink either. Different cause - same outcome. She was diagnosed with T2 diabetes in her late 60's. GP kept telling her to give up alcohol, and no amount of saying she didn't drink - ever - made any difference to his attitude. Appalling treatment - it upset her greatly, and wasn't properly explained.

Did you improve yours by losing weight or something else??

 

[zand]

Mine improved when I started to follow low carb diets and gave up diet drinks( I did used to drink lots of the stuff)..I have tried so hard to lose weight, but only ever manage to lose a couple of pounds (I stick to diets, the weight just doesn't go). Also strangely, I get less exercise now (due to various health issues), back then I used to walk at least 2 miles every day. I am not advocating being a couch potato though, it just seems odd that I do so much less now and my liver is better. I am gradually stepping up my exercise levels...I hope my liver doesn't relapse.

 

[Weens12]

There are several Swedes who post on this forum. My understanding is that the standard advice given to diabetics in Sweden is the same as the advice given by the NHS in this country. Portion control and limited carbs or low GI. A reluctance to provide meters and strips.Therefore a case could be made that the advice given by the Swedish research council and the Swedish Society of Medicine is biased - LCHF being not that popular.

I thought (mistakenly, it seems) that the Swedes were very pro - LCHF.

Just as I don't agree that the NHS eatwell plate is suitable for diabetics, I also have reservations about some aspects of LCHF. However we achieve it, the most important thing is that we gain and maintain control of our BG's for long-term health. I wouldn't presume to say that my diet is what everyone should follow, but it's the one that works for me, and that's the most important thing to me. However, I always want to remain open to new ideas and research, and am prepared to tweak my diet if necessary to stay well.

IMO, the NHS really have no excuse for not reviewing the NHS diet - it is certainly not suitable as it stands for diabetics. IMO it's the lazy man's answer to the "safe(?!), one-size-fits-all, healthy diet - which may be suitable for the general healthy population, but should be tailored (a lot!) for different needs - not just for diabetics.

Despite the fact that 'lifestyle changes" are one of the most effective ways of controlling diabetes for T2's, insufficient unbiased research is conducted into the effect of diet on the condition. I'm interested in any research which I think may help with my ability to control my diabetes by D&E only, or that informs me of something which might be beneficial.

Not prescribing meters and strips is usually down to economics - and in a world-wide recession is not unexpected. - I fund my own, having tried and failed to convince my GP that it's in any way a good idea, and helps me to control my diabetes. I think a meter is an essential tool to manage diabetes, but have had to accept that funding may not always stretch to it.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist normally, but I am aware that vested interest can be a factor in these studies - and am grateful for the "heads-up" about the Swedish Research Council et al perhaps not being as 'pukka' as they might sound. I like to think I make my own mind up about study findings, along with my own experience and test results - but it may be that I just believe those ones that fit in with my own world view!

 

[Weens12]

Mine improved when I started to follow low carb diets and gave up diet drinks( I did used to drink lots of the stuff)..I have tried so hard to lose weight, but only ever manage to lose a couple of pounds (I stick to diets, the weight just doesn't go). Also strangely, I get less exercise now (due to various health issues), back then I used to walk at least 2 miles every day. I am not advocating being a couch potato though, it just seems odd that I do so much less now and my liver is better. I am gradually stepping up my exercise levels...I hope my liver doesn't relapse.

I lost 3.5 stones - (3st in the first 6 months) on a what I would describe as a lowish-carb (75g usually - never more than 100g), moderate fat diet coupled with exercise (mainly brisk walking - 1 hr per day) I have an underactive thyroid, which makes it more difficult for me to lose weight, so I didn't think LCHF was the best diet for me. If I increase the fat in my diet, and lower the carbs, - I put on weight very easily, so I don't want any extra weight that I might gain to be predominately visceral or liver fat. My BMI is now 22, and I'm now tweaking my diet to try to maintain a stable weight. Just my experience - we're all different.

 

[Weens12]

You might like to read this bloggers account of the study.
"Saturated Fat Makes You Fat! You Read the Press Release - Here is the Whole Story: A Story of Muffins, SFA, MUFA, PUFA, Body, Liver & Visceral Fat and N6s & Lean Mass"
http://suppversity.blogspot.fr/2014/02/saturated-fat-makes-you-fat-you-read.html
He's a blogger but I think, one of those who seems to have a relatively balanced view of things and indeed his conclusion is balanced

Cheers Phoenix! --- Looking forward to reading it --- I may be gone some time...!

 

[zand]

I lost 3.5 stones - (3st in the first 6 months) on a what I would describe as a lowish-carb (75g usually - never more than 100g), moderate fat diet coupled with exercise (mainly brisk walking - 1 hr per day) I have an underactive thyroid, which makes it more difficult for me to lose weight, so I didn't think LCHF was the best diet for me. If I increase the fat in my diet, and lower the carbs, - I put on weight very easily. My BMI is now 22, and I'm now tweaking my diet to try to maintain a stable weight. Just my experience - we're all different.

Thanks, that's very helpful. I believe my thyroid was damaged very many years ago in a car accident. none of my GPs agree, but a naturopath and nutritionist have bot told me they are sure this is my problem and my weight did shoot up 2 stones in about 8 weeks immediately after the accident (and has continued upwards more slowly since then) I will look into changing my diet around a bit and see if that helps. yes I am trying to bring brisk walking back into my life again too.

 

[AnnieC]

I thought (mistakenly, it seems) that the Swedes were very pro - LCHF.

Just as I don't agree that the NHS eatwell plate is suitable for diabetics, I also have reservations about some aspects of LCHF. However we achieve it, the most important thing is that we gain and maintain control of our BG's for long-term health. I wouldn't presume to say that my diet is what everyone should follow, but it's the one that works for me, and that's the most important thing to me. However, I always want to remain open to new ideas and research, and am prepared to tweak my diet if necessary to stay well.

IMO, the NHS really have no excuse for not reviewing the NHS diet - it is certainly not suitable as it stands for diabetics. IMO it's the lazy man's answer to the "safe(?!), one-size-fits-all, healthy diet - which may be suitable for the general healthy population, but should be tailored (a lot!) for different needs - not just diabetics.

Despite the fact that 'lifestyle changes" are one of the most effective ways of controlling diabetes for T2's, insufficient unbiased research is conducted into the effect of diet on the condition. I'm interested in any research which I think may help with my ability to control my diabetes by D&E only, or that informs me of something which might be beneficial.

Not prescribing meters and strips is usually down to economics - and in a world-wide recession is not unexpected. - I fund my own, having tried and failed to convince my GP that it's in any way a good idea, and helps me to control my diabetes. I think a meter is an essential tool to manage diabetes, but have had to accept that funding may not always stretch to it.

I'm not a conspiracy theorist normally, but I am aware that vested interest can be a factor in these studies - and am grateful for the "heads-up" about the Swedish Research Council et al perhaps not being as 'pukka' as they might sound. I like to think I make my own mind up about study findings, along with my own experience and test results - but it may be that I just believe those ones that fit in with my own world view!

With you there I do think we are more likely to believe what fits in with what we do We all want to believe that what we do is the best way and if a study says it is then of course we will believe it but if it says our way is not good then we really don't want to know that

 

[Weens12]

Thanks, that's very helpful. I believe my thyroid was damaged very many years ago in a car accident. none of my GPs agree, but a naturopath and nutritionist have bot told me they are sure this is my problem and my weight did shoot up 2 stones in about 8 weeks immediately after the accident (and has continued upwards more slowly since then) I will look into changing my diet around a bit and see if that helps. yes I am trying to bring brisk walking back into my life again too.

It's weird how many diabetics have other endocrine problems, but there's so little research info about links between the two...It's only a theory of mine, but I think if something knocks your endocrine system 'out of whack' it has a domino effect on the other parts. Someone will be along in a minute to shoot me down for that one....

I struggled for a number of years to lose weight after my hypothyroid diagnosis. I believe it was brought on by drugs for another endocrine-related condition. I gained weight quickly like you, although I imagine yours might have been faster and more dramatic because of your accident. I continually felt sluggish and tired, even with Levothyroxine, which contributed to further weight gain. I tried really hard to lose weight, and did so, only to gain it back quicker than I lost it - several times!

The shock of also being diagnosed with T2 diabetes gave me the resolve to try even harder to lose weight. I didn't think it was possible. My resolve to maintain my weight is vital as it's now not just about being slim again, but is crucial for my overall long-term health. Incidentally, as the weight dropped off - and it did, much to my amazement (and it's thankfully stayed off so far - touch wood!) - my energy levels increased, and I feel I'm back more or less to my "normal" self - whatever normal is!

No guarantees, mind, but it might be worth a shot tweaking your diet a little to see if it helps ... we're like lab rats aren't we? lol!

All the best!

 

[Mushroom]

Depends what you are told about which foods contain 'saturated' fat.
Extract from article in Daily Mail about sugar and fat.
'We have demonised fat generally, and saturated fat specifically, but our ignorance about food has led to bad advice. Our governments (US and UK) call biscuits, cakes, pastries, ice cream, savoury snacks, confectionery etc "saturated fats". They are 1) processed food and 2) predominantly carbohydrate.
Then governments call meat saturated fat - meat has more unsaturated than saturated fat. They call eggs saturated fat - eggs have more unsaturated than saturated fat. Lard has more unsaturated than saturated fat.
Only dairy products have more saturated than unsaturated fat and they are a terrific source of calcium, vitamin D and bone nutrients.

 

[zand]

Yes Weens12 I agree with everything in your recent post. My resolve to sort out my diet was cut short by other health issues which have now been dealt with. Now I start again........

 

[Weens12]

Depends what you are told about which foods contain 'saturated' fat.
Extract from article in Daily Mail about sugar and fat.
'We have demonised fat generally, and saturated fat specifically, but our ignorance about food has led to bad advice. Our governments (US and UK) call biscuits, cakes, pastries, ice cream, savoury snacks, confectionery etc "saturated fats". They are 1) processed food and 2) predominantly carbohydrate.
Then governments call meat saturated fat - meat has more unsaturated than saturated fat. They call eggs saturated fat - eggs have more unsaturated than saturated fat. Lard has more unsaturated than saturated fat.
Only dairy products have more saturated than unsaturated fat and they are a terrific source of calcium, vitamin D and bone nutrients.

I'm not sure about your source being the Daily Mail, but would agree that fat has been demonised. It still doesn't make me want to eat more than moderate amounts of it... saturated or polyunsaturated. I hardly eat any processed foods - but then I didn't eat a lot of processed foods before my T2 diagnosis. This is not an exhaustive list, but I prefer to eat fish;meat; eggs; cheese - the best quality I'm able to afford, and yoghurt which I make myself - so there's not hidden extras. This coupled with mountains of vegetables,the odd spoonful of basmati, quinoa, beans, 1 or 2 new potatoes. and small quantities of fruit (berries mostly) I don't have a sweet tooth, but do occasionally succumb to a packet of crisps (balanced out with a glass of wine - which usually is why I'm having the crisps lol!) I can't think of any meal where I would include lard - perhaps that's just the way I cook?

So, I think that I eat mostly what one would eat following a LCHF diet, but with lower amounts of fat as I don't see the need for it. But I appreciate that others are different.

 

[douglas99]

I'm not sure about your source being the Daily Mail, but would agree that fat has been demonised. It still doesn't make me want to eat more than moderate amounts of it... saturated or polyunsaturated. I hardly eat any processed foods - but then I didn't eat a lot of processed foods before my T2 diagnosis. This is not an exhaustive list, but I prefer to eat fish;meat; eggs; cheese - the best quality I'm able to afford, and yoghurt which I make myself - so there's not hidden extras. This coupled with mountains of vegetables,the odd spoonful of basmati, quinoa, beans, 1 or 2 new potatoes. and small quantities of fruit (berries mostly) I don't have a sweet tooth, but do occasionally succumb to a packet of crisps (balanced out with a glass of wine - which usually is why I'm having the crisps lol!) I can't think of any meal where I would include lard - perhaps that's just the way I cook?

So, I think that I eat mostly what one would eat following a LCHF diet, but with lower amounts of fat as I don't see the need for it. But I appreciate that others are different.

That sounds exactly like me!

 

[Scandichic]

I thought (mistakenly, it seems) that the Swedes were very pro - LCHF.

Just as I don't agree that the NHS eatwell plate is suitable for diabetics, I also have reservations about some aspects of LCHF. However we achieve it, the most important thing is that we gain and maintain control of our BG's for long-term health. I wouldn't presume to say that my diet is what everyone should follow, but it's the one that works for me, and that's the most important thing to me. However, I always want to remain open to new ideas and research, and am prepared to tweak my diet if necessary to stay well.

IMO, the NHS really have no excuse for not reviewing the NHS diet - it is certainly not suitable as it stands for diabetics. IMO it's the lazy man's answer to the "safe(?!), one-size-fits-all, healthy diet - which may be suitable for the general healthy population, but should be tailored (a lot!) for different needs - not just for diabetics.
There are plenty of Swedes out there who are pro LCHF. Diet Doctor is one of the biggest health blogs in
Sweden, written by Andreas Eenfeldt, who is a doctor who promotes the LCHF diet to his diabetic and obese patients. Unfortunately, not everyone is of the same view point. Totto pointed me in this direction when I came on this forum in a confused and panicked state. I read the blog, checked out the good doctors credentials, emailed him, got a rapid response and became a firm convert. Especially as I have now lost 1 stone 2lbs. My husband who is not diabetic has also lost the same amount of weight.The literature made the most sense in comparison to diabetes.org.uk which seemed to suggest that no foods should be banned. This approach made no sense to me whatsoever. Why would I want to eat cake when I am diabetic? Under their recipe section it suggests making cakes with half the sugar!
There are others on this forum who follow low GI diets and I am equally respectful of them as I think there is more than one approach.

 

[Mushroom]

I'm not sure about your source being the Daily Mail, but would agree that fat has been demonised. It still doesn't make me want to eat more than moderate amounts of it... saturated or polyunsaturated. I hardly eat any processed foods - but then I didn't eat a lot of processed foods before my T2 diagnosis. This is not an exhaustive list, but I prefer to eat fish;meat; eggs; cheese - the best quality I'm able to afford, and yoghurt which I make myself - so there's not hidden extras. This coupled with mountains of vegetables,the odd spoonful of basmati, quinoa, beans, 1 or 2 new potatoes. and small quantities of fruit (berries mostly) I don't have a sweet tooth, but do occasionally succumb to a packet of crisps (balanced out with a glass of wine - which usually is why I'm having the crisps lol!) I can't think of any meal where I would include lard - perhaps that's just the way I cook?

So, I think that I eat mostly what one would eat following a LCHF diet, but with lower amounts of fat as I don't see the need for it. But I appreciate that others are different.

'Quoted' in the Daily Mail. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...aphs-explain-sugar-fruit-juice-XXX-blame.html
They had taken it from graphs compiled by Kris Gunnars to show how 'healthy eating' advice had coincided with rises in health problems.
I understand the emphasis on the fat part of LCHF is because if you eat LC but then tried to eat HIGH PROTEIN instead, this would lead to kidney problems?
My diet is actually very like yours. I don't like lard but don't go out of my way to remove fat from meat such as bacon and steak. My DSN wasn't very impressed by my medical use of red wine, unfortunately. Mumbled something about 'recommended daily allowances'. lol

 

[Spiker]

I don't believe there is any evidence for kidney problems from high protein consumption. The Arctic explorer experiences cited by Taubes suggest there is no such problem. It's an accusation levelled at Atkins but I don't think it's actually evidence based. GPs have said it to me but didn't know of any evidence, it just seemed "common sense".

My reservations about high protein are

1. In a low carb diet the protein is going to convert to carbs anyway (admittedly more slowly). So in effect it is a low GI carb

2. It's unpredictable how much of the protein will convert to carbs because it depends on how much protein you need for repair and possibly growth. It's possible to figure this out by trial and error as long as you keep your macronutrient intake and exercise constant, but that's quite an ask. For a diabetic, or anyone on a carb controlled or calorie controlled diet, this variability and unpredictability of protein (as an energy source is problematic.

So after trying LCHP I have decided to not bother with using protein for energy and do LCHF instead. Arguably it would be better to replace excess (energy) protein with carbs, even, because at least it would be more predictable.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App

 

[Brunneria]

Does this particular study mention how much carbohydrate was consumed alongside the saturated fat?

Ok, so I haven't read the study (sorry, short of time this evening). I will do so later.

But I do want to make this point:

Several people on this forum, and a friend of mine 'in real life' have found that cutting down on carbs has lowered their cholesterol levels dramatically. And resulted in weight loss.

This suggests there is a link between carbs and fat / fat deposits, wherever this fat deposits itself.

And we know that very low calorie diets lower the fat around and in organs. Such diets are low in fat and carbs.

And we are learning that low fat, high carb diets do not reduce heart disease, or prevent increasing numbers of diabetics.

From there, it isn't much of a leap to say that the problem may lie not in the fat, and possibly not in the carbs (spot my bias?), but in the combination of the two - in some as yet unidentified balance or combination of type.

 

[Spiker]

Several people on this forum, and a friend of mine 'in real life' have found that cutting down on carbs has lowered their cholesterol levels dramatically. And resulted in weight loss.

This suggests there is a link between carbs and fat / fat deposits, wherever this fat deposits itself.

And we know that very low calorie diets lower the fat around and in organs. Such diets are low in fat and carbs.

And we are learning that low fat, high carb diets do not reduce heart disease, or prevent increasing numbers of diabetics.

From there, it isn't much of a leap to say that the problem may lie not in the fat, and possibly not in the carbs (spot my bias?), but in the combination of the two - in some as yet unidentified balance or combination of type.

I think this mechanism is pretty well known and understood now.

1. Carbs raise insulin. Nothing else raises insulin
2. HIgh insulin causes fat to be deposited
3. Fat is deposited in a high insulin state regardless of whether you eat fat. If you eat fat, it's deposited. If you eat carbs, they are turned into fat and deposited.

 

[Brunneria]

I think this mechanism is pretty well known and understood now.

1. Carbs raise insulin. Nothing else raises insulin
2. HIgh insulin causes fat to be deposited
3. Fat is deposited in a high insulin state regardless of whether you eat fat. If you eat fat, it's deposited. If you eat carbs, they are turned into fat and deposited.

I Agee. But that is an oversimplification.

Why do some people eat carbs, have higher levels of insulin and not get fat?
Why do some eat carbs, get diabetes and not get fat?

I'm not suggesting that I have suddenly solved one of the mysteries of the universe. I am simply suggesting that the relationship between fat and carbs is more complex than can be explained by either your 1.2.3. Or the study quoted above (which I have STILL not read! Lol).

 

[Spiker]

Let me try again.

Several people on this forum, and a friend of mine 'in real life' have found that cutting down on carbs has lowered their cholesterol levels dramatically. And resulted in weight loss.

That's explained in the well known explanation I outlined. Blood cholesterol is driven by high insulin which is driven by carbs. No mystery.

This suggests there is a link between carbs and fat / fat deposits, wherever this fat deposits itself.

Same explanation. No mystery.

And we know that very low calorie diets lower the fat around and in organs. Such diets are low in fat and carbs.

Same explanation. Lipolysis (fat burning) occurs readily under low insulin conditions, caused by low dietary carbs. There is no mystery.

And we are learning that low fat, high carb diets do not reduce heart disease, or prevent increasing numbers of diabetics.

Also explained by the 1-2-3 simplified explanation. High carb diets cause high insulin and a high rate of fat deposition, regardless of dietary fat intake.

From there, it isn't much of a leap to say that the problem may lie not in the fat, and possibly not in the carbs (spot my bias?), but in the combination of the two - in some as yet unidentified balance or combination of type.

No leap is required. It's all in the 1-2-3 explanation I summarised earlier. The problem is the combination of carbs and fat. Actually the problem would be there if we just ate excess carbs, even if we ate no fat. But the fact is that our culture eats too much fat and carbs in combination, and we know that is bad because of the well known effects summarised in that 1-2-3. Is there anything else that needs to be explained? I don't see anything else to explain.

I guess a 4th thing that helps explain WHY we do the bad carbs plus fat diet in our culture is that carbs lack a built in satiation limit, and this allows us not only to over eat carbs, but also allows us to over eat fats when eating together with carbs. That's not needed to understand the effects on body fat but it does help to explain why we eat in this bad way, as opposed to explaining how the bad diet affects us.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App