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

Please educate me on fats!

My diet has no low fat elements, but only a few weeks ago I read on Twitter a post from someone who claimed to work in cardiology. They wrote that well over half the people referred to the clinic had below average cholesterol, but they would lose their status and probably their job if they pointed that out.
It is a pity, as the reason for low cholesterol making it more likely to have heart problems, and what problems they were, and which parts of the cholesterol were most significant - but you can't question dogma without it trying to biteya.
 
Just had a block of lard for me dinner. Washed down with a pint of melted goose fat. Lush
 
Thinking about it, I don't eat a lot of fat. The 'high' is only in proportion to my carbs being lower amounts on comparison. I don't think eating a lot if fat is really part of low carbing for those of us who don't do keto.

My carbs are around 80-100g a day total. As I understand it, my diabetes nurse thinks in terms of calories. I eat about 380 cals in carb form, and about 600cals in fat form. Carbs are 4 cals per gram, fats are 9 cals per gram, so although my intake of fats doesn't look big, it's a higher proportion of my daily calories than my carbs are, so I think that is where the term lchf comes into play.

I ignore calories and focus on carb amounts, but my DN doesn't think like this. She only thinks in terms of calories.
 

Hi @Beating-My-Betes,

Have you seen the study by David Ludwig, who has found that in subjects on a low-carb diet (20% carbs) were able to burn about 200 more calories while maintaining the same weight (https://www.bmj.com/content/363/bmj.k4583) compared to a high-carb diet? However, for the most insulin-resistant individuals (high insulin levels at the start of the diet) the difference was close to 500 calories per day. For me personally, I interpret this that the composition of the diet makes a difference and not just the total number of calories, and therefore consitutes quite convincing evidence for the Carb-Insulin-Model (CIM). What is your take on the study?

Personally, what I think what is missing in much of the research is the realization that not everyone is the same. There are lots of people who have no problem with carbs (primarily those who are insulin sensitive), however those of us who are insulin-resistant and are genetically predisposed to diabetes don't do well in a high-carb environment (and for us the CIM may very well hold). (Thus, the saying -- genetics load the gun and the environment pulls the trigger.)
 
Beating-My-Betes said:
Perhaps a solution might be a mash-up/one-thread-to-rule-them-all, in which nothing is off-topic. Standard rules-of-conduct for politeness to apply, of course. A nutritional battle-royale, of sorts. I'm only half-joking
Click to expand...
Feel free to start one. In General Chat please.
If there had been the slightest inclination the person who started the thread was overwhelmed by the barrage of unasked for information there would have been a very heavy moderating job.

The OP has only joined thursday and has indicated he's very new into diagnosis. In my opinion it's not very polite to go into full out discussions on things not very relevant under those circumstances. I'm thinking particularly on rules A6 and A7 of our forum ethos:
A6: This is a Forum of many different personalities – if you disagree with someone then start a constructive debate or use the Private Message (PM) system to have a conversation. It is unhelpful to have to read miles of disagreeing posts, and can deflect from the purpose of the thread (i.e. thread derailing).
A7: Be mindful of Members’ varying levels of experience and knowledge when imparting your own views.

We all got lucky this time, with a member who managed to pick the cherries relevant to him at this stage from this avalanche of posts.
Everyone who has been throwing around and disputing studies and discussing what is and isn't unproven and mentioning names of authors familiar to the oldtimers but irrelevant when only at the beginning of their journey has taken the risk of intimidating a new member off the forum by ignoring A6 and A7.

Not behaviour I'm happy with.
I don't mind discussion threads at all, but I don't like using a thread by an unsuspecting newbie as a platform for discussion between oldtimers.
 
One thing I go by is my needing to get rid of clothes or remake them - some of my jumpers have been remade 4 times now - as with each year that passes my waist becomes smaller. Having the Covid vaccination knocked me for 6 so I am having to creep around with two walking poles again - but at least I didn't lose any toes, and I am still here - we lost one of the band to the actual virus.
Eating LCHF seems to keep my metabolism working well, and at 70 I look far fitter than people who are somewhat younger.
 
Antje77 said:
Feel free to start one. In General Chat please.
Click to expand...

Haha! Brilliant. Thought of suggesting it so many times before, but thought it would never be sanctioned.
Will definitely think about starting one. For the New Year, perhaps


All points well-made. Apologies for my part in the de-railings
 

I've not read it, yet. I will do, though it might take a while to parse. From first-glance, however, there are a couple of red-flags. Firstly, calling 60% carbs high-carb is tantamount to calling 200g carbs low-carb. I guess it all depends on what they set as fat percentage (not got there yet). But am I write that it was a free-living study?

Ultimately, while I'm not prepared to dismiss it out-of-hand, I think there is a disconnect between what the study seems to aim to show (Or how it describes CIM) and the way that CIM seems to be interpreted/used out in the 'real' world. Maybe it's because it's been a while since i went straight the the source (I have good reasons not to), but CIM is often used to blanketly reinforce the idea that because insulin is involved in the storage of fat and because carbs increase circulating insulin, that leads people to conclude that carbs cause weight/fat-gain, independent of calorie intake/expenditure, and for the same reason they conclude fat-loss can't happen on a high-carb diet.

Anyway, i will look through it.


I agree not everyone is the same, but I do tend to believe that there is a split between a common majority and a smaller minority of anomaly/outlier cases. I'd imagine this to be the case for those on either side of the great carb divide.

I know we were involved in a 'pm' conversation about genetic-predisposition, and I know i never got back to you (Sorry about that ). I'm still yet to be convinced that aside from that anomaly/outlier quotient I referred to, earlier, that the majority of people would actually have difficulty dealing with a high-carb diet, in is truest form i.e with the commensurate true, low-quantity of fat. because it's certainly not the case that those who do well on carbs are not insulin-resistant.

Now I really have to go. I'm breaking the terms of my own agreement with the current in-thread moderator. My pm's are always open
 
Analysis of Women's Health Initiative Study( now over 12yrs of data and costing over over $700 million).Actually shows harm to diabetics of a Low Fat diet (contrary to the aim and design of the study), it also shows benefit of Higher Fat (comparison group) in heart health for those already with poor heart health - i.e. if heart health is bad the Low Fat conventional advice makes it worse!

Video from Prof. Tim Noakes : 'Hiding Unhealthy Heart Outcomes in Low-Fat Diet Trials'
 
Think this relates to the Harvard Nurses Health Study. The Womens Health Study was only examining the effect on post menopausal women wrt HRT. It was terminated early. The Harvard one is still going
Here is a link to the paper, but the paper itself has been withdrawn from PubMed.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11458281/
The professor in charge was W C Willett

Here is an article regarding Prof Willett
https://www.scribd.com/document/397606854/Walter-Willett-Potential-Conflicts-of-Interest

The beauty of the Harvard Nurses Study is that the data base of the raw data was made available for third party study and meta analysis. We were surprised to find that these independant reviews came to significantly different conclusions than the official Harvard papers, which may explain why the paper is not availalble to view. It appears to have been withdrawn.

So, if the analysis is done by independants, then it is probably valid. if it is Harvard or Boston Medical then there hangs a tale.
 
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.…