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

Please educate me on fats!

Several of us have posted about our success with high fat. I count it a success as my blood test results (i.e. science at a personal level) have all improved since ditching the low fat diet. The blood tests (lower cholesterol and trigs and HbA1c to name a few), the scales and the improvement of several conditions (asthma, eczema, arthritis, insomnia for instance) all tell me that for me personally, high fat works. Asthma and eczema are meant to contraindicate dairy produce, but I have thrived on dairy.

So, on a personal level, should I listen to the science and suffer again or listen to my body? Having decided that I would listen to my body am I so wrong to suggest that others try it too? If it doesn't work for them, they can always revert to whatever diet they were choosing before. If it mostly works for them but they need to modify it, then they are free to do so.

Having followed the science for years, thinking that 'science' must be right and my body wasn't doing it right, I now realise that what is espoused to be scientific fact is only fact until it is disproved.

For myself and my non diabetic hubby I have proved that high fat works. The blood tests don't lie. That's the only science I need so that's the science I follow.

@Beating-My-Betes Your own blood tests results when you posted them didn't seem that great to me? Maybe your body doesn't like the science either?
 

It's perfectly possible for contradictory positions to exist. What I mean is that just because you have managed to heal yourself with a high-fat diet, doesn't disprove the ideas posited by heart-health science. In the case of high-cholesterol numbers, the low-carb movement response has been to throw caution to the wind and just reinterpret the numbers., based on what at least at the moment seems to be scant evidence.

I'm not saying there is no merit to the idea that markers may need re-evaluating. The problem is (and this goes for much of what you say in this post), that we will likely never get 100%, concrete, certifiable scientific results (It's just not ethical to conduct the kinds of human experiments that would lead to removal of such doubts). So we have to muddle along the best we can.

If you are convinced that your current improvements in health are predictive of ongoing, future health, then that's all good. I would never claim to know otherwise. I'd just caution against dismissing science altogether.

Edited, to add: Also, just because one heals on a high-fat diet (same goes for low-fat), doesn't mean it was due to the high-fat. The biggest 'confounder' in judging the merit of fat quantity alone is weight-loss. Bu that, I mean, that it's very likely that in the majority of cases where ill-health came hand-in-hand with added weight, that just losing that weight seems to have a profound effect on those forms of disease Metabolic syndrome etc). That again, offers no certitude for future-health, even if weight is maintained.

I'm sure there are cases of people improving BG numbers etc. on keto without losing weight (They exist on the high-carb side, also), but I'd be surprised if they make up the majority on this forum, and certainly not in the extended health-sphere
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Science isn’t a universal truth, it’s an ongoing process that never ends and most definitely does not embrace censorship of opinion (mocking a book recommendation). In the end I think a majority of folk in a community like this are more interested in real experiences than back-and-forth exchange of scientific studies. Many, many people here have tamed or beaten their diabetes and improved other health markers with a high, natural fat diet. Anyone trying to wholesale downplay these experiences cannot legitimately claim to be following any science.

In my opinion.
 

It's very clear that my opinion is that the science is not sorted, and nor will it ever be. And I'm not down-playing others' experiences. I'm urging caution to separate the success from the falsifiable narratives that seek to try and explain them.
 
Beating-My-Betes said:
The OP has been given advise, even by yourself, to research about the lies behind the low-fat agenda. This narrative is false and falsifiable, and therefore should not count as educating the OP
Click to expand...
You just said this. You say low fat research is a lie, that low fat is false and should not be used to inform others.



And you said this.

Both of these statements cannot be right.
 
Beating-My-Betes said:
the low-carb movement response has been to throw caution to the wind and just reinterpret the numbers., based on what at least at the moment seems to be scant evidence.
Click to expand...
Nope again. We publish our vastly improved numbers as stated in our medical reports. No interpretation is needed.
 
Beating-My-Betes said:
I'm sure there are cases of people improving BG numbers etc. on keto without losing weight (They exist on the high-carb side, also), but I'd be surprised if they make up the majority on this forum, and certainly not in the extended health-sphere
Click to expand...
Nope. There are many on here who have not lost excess weight, including those who have no extra weight to lose. And only a few of those do keto.

Irrespective of that idea, it doesn't negate the results of those who have improved both blood sugar levels and cholesterol levels by non scientific means.
 
Before taking advice on fats from anyone on here I would look first at their lipid profile to see how well their diet had worked for them. Just as before taking advice on diet or T2 I would look first at their BMI and FBG levels respectively.
 
@MoorT2 if you would like to see my lipid results PM me and I will dig them out for you. They are incomplete though as my surgery don't always test for triglycerides etc.
 
No - the geese are fed on boiled sweetcorn mash with sugar and a dash of oil.
 
lucylocket61 said:
You just said this. You say low fat research is a lie, that low fat is false and should not be used to inform others.




And you said this.

Both of these statements cannot be right.
Click to expand...

I'm not really getting the gist, here. Perhaps reframe your points as a question.
 
lucylocket61 said:
So why are you posting on here? The op wants people to educate about fats.
Click to expand...

Because I believe that part of education is removing the barriers to the truth; In this case, cautioning against disinformation and falsifiable narratives.
 
I suspect my cholesterol results are good - but my surgery doesn't even order the lab to test my blood these days, as I will not take statins.
When I started off I saw that my results were good, on the screen when visiting the nurse at 6 months from diagnosis.
I do not add a lot of fat when cooking - the butter I used yesterday was out of date, should have been used last month. I am on the second bottle of olive oil this year. Most of the fat I eat is what comes along as a natural part of the foods I chose.
 
lucylocket61 said:
Nope again. We publish our vastly improved numbers as stated in our medical reports. No interpretation is needed.
Click to expand...

Are you suggesting that nobody on this forum advises people that they shouldn't be concerned about high-cholesterol, High-HDL etc?

I'm not saying people here are doing the re-interpreting. That's being done by low-carb gurus/leaders/influencers. Nevertheless, this re-interpretation of cholesterol numbers seems to be based on much flimsier foundations than the science it seeks to contradict.

Essentially, nobody yet knows the long-term ramifications of continuing to pile on the saturated-fat, despite crazy-high numbers. There are a few putting themselves 'on the block', so to speak, but I'm not personally confident that any of it is yet long-term enough, or over a wide enough cross-section of people to serve as anything other than a gamble
 

Again, I'm not negating anybody's results.
 
zand said:
@MoorT2 if you would like to see my lipid results PM me and I will dig them out for you. They are incomplete though as my surgery don't always test for triglycerides etc.
Click to expand...

Not necessary but thank you for the offer.

And thank you everyone for the comments and debate. We're all in the same situation and as I am learning with T2 everyone is different, tolerance levels vary and management approach is going to be very individual.

There's a lot here but my key take away is not to be too scared of slightly higher fat foods than I would normally have. Will I swap my 0% plain breakfast yoghurt out for full fat, probably not. Will I happily have a grilled sausage now and again, or some bacon or a steak. I probably will now - I did for breakfast yesterday and I certainly felt much fuller.

The one thing we can all acknowledge are carbs are bad. How bad is individual and I need to do some testing to find out what my limits are.
 
Resurgam said:
Most of the fat I eat is what comes along as a natural part of the foods I chose.
Click to expand...

This is the way. Only exception that springs to mind might be those seeking a rapid transition into dietary ketosis, or those such as myself who don’t have an ounce of body fat to spare. I’m a major fat hunter but even I seek whatever came with the animal. I think ‘high fat’ conjures images of people glugging back pints of double cream all day long, when all it really means is displacing carbohydrate energy with fat. Fat is so energy dense that you don’t need a whole lot. Extra protein will usually accompany this without trying.
 
I would suggest that there are a couple of millenia where the people in this world ate fat freely without the manifestations we have seen since 1970
https://www.cdc.gov/diabetes/statistics/slides/long_term_trends.pdf
The ADA adopted the Low Fat advice in 1957

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/pmc/articles/PMC4316589/
 
Oldvatr said:
I would suggest that there are a couple of millenia where the people in this world ate fat freely without the manifestations we have seen since 1970
Click to expand...

There are many reasons why the health-landscape has changed since the 70's which have nothing to do with low-fat recommendations, nor the unfounded smear campaign against Ancel Keys - A man who, unlike his biggest critics, was possessed of the kind of scientific integrity to which your current signature alludes.

Perhaps your experience of the word was completely different to mine. There are reasons why that might be the case. But nothing about my experience of growing up in the 70's/80's/90's, and observing the world around me, comports with this given, and widely-accepted, narrative.

A discussion for another thread, of course
 
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.…