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

Reducing Carbs and Eating fat with raised cholestrol

Out of interest: who do you consider to be the "worlds leading authorities on cardio health"?
Click to expand...
Personally not Taubes, nor Kendrick nor members of THINCS. and I have read some of all their writings.
I think this summary shows where we are now
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/123/20/2274.full
Collectively, 9 risk factors (abnormal lipids, smoking, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, abdominal obesity, psychosocial variables, consumption of fruits and vegetables, regular alcohol consumption, regular physical activity
Click to expand...
I'd prefer to have a pattern of eating that simulates those people with the lowest risks
Nevertheless, subgroup analyses showed positive trends toward greater reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and rates of CHD in women with the lowest intakes of saturated fat or trans fat or highest intakes of vegetables/fruits.
Click to expand...
This gels with my own perceptions, on diagnosis (after 3 years of neglect) my doctor was worried about the state of my arteries(from echograph results) now there seems to be far less of a problem, my blood flow is better.The echographs on my arteries are now good for my age.
I conciously don't eat too much sat fat but do eat other fats ie I don't eat a very low fat diet but I do choose which fats to eat. I eat lots of fruit, veg , fish oils (from whole fish) and some whole grains. I eat almost no factory prepared foods, I do lots of excercise It works for me.

I read the research. I am less likely to believe those who write populist books and blogs. Going through sections of Taubes, checking references and looking for the references he left out showed to me that he was very selective on his evidence. Unfortunately, none of us have the time or energy to go through the whole book. ( he has a bibliography and doesn't use a careful referencing system...makes checking very difficult). I do not think there is some world wide conspiracy to distort the evidence from reputable sources. I do think there is distortion in some internet sources for example the idea that fructose is a major culprit in the development of CVD and obesity. Compare the US intake of fructose with that of the UK and Australia... similar obesity problems, similar CVD problems but fructose is a tiny element of the latter 2 countries diet!)

My son, is a physicist (physical chemist, bit like Taubes, but he wouldn't claim to have any expertise in biochemistry or diets ) He researches and lectures at Oxford. As a research scientist his work is precarious. I've discussed with him the influences of industry on scientific research. Maybe he's naive (not much money in investigating spinning electrons) but it's a topic that has been discussed at 'high table'. He is adamant that most of his fellow scientists are aghast at the idea that they are, for sale. It is the method and results that count, and not the financiers. Research that is published and can be replicated or falsified is imperative. The credibility of the journal is also important .. (a lot of the research we find referenced on diabetes forums comes from very low impact factor journals, that is one of the results of the internet, in the days of paper journals, lesser quality research would never have reached publication)
Ayone discovered to be falsifying or biasing their results because of research fund would lose credibility as a scientist and for them that is the most important thing. Certainly, it's not income, most of them would get paid far more elsewhere.
 
I wasn't putting these forward as the leading authorities so I'm still waiting for an answer unless you are proposing Barry A. Franklin, PhD and Mary Cushman, MD, MSc. ? If so, what makes them more qualified to speak on the subject than some of the Doctors at THINCS? Is it because they follow the "party line"? Once again, science is not supposed to be about consensus... where is the testable and repeatable evidence?

I doubt that Taubes etc.. have all the answers but they have raised enough questions, for me at least, such that I don't care what authority is being claimed, I want to see the evidence. The lipid hypothesis is full of holes despite having been around for decades.
 
Excellent post as usual phoenix, you can always be relied on to be factual and objective.
Pianoman
You will wait a long time for proof of anything! Especially from the likes of Taubes and Kendrick!
 
Do you see your approach as substantially different from my response to the OPs question? :?:

I'd also be interested in your objective take on the quote from HEARTS UK Do you think that plaque builds up on artery walls?

---

I did not bring Taubes or Kendrick into this thread so perhaps you need to redirect your taunting elsewhere, Albert old chap.
 
Phew ... I've only just managed to catch up on this thread and I have to say it's some discussion.

Thanks to everyone who has contributed. Obviously, the answer is not as cut and dried as I'd hoped. My instincts do suggest eating more unprocessed foods and not to be overly concerned about eating some fats but not to overdue it. I think there is a lot of mileage in the fact that, without carbs, I may fail here because of getting hungry without some of the fats to bolster the foods. Also, it seems that some fats can help retard the absorption of carbs, so lessening the spikes of BG.

I still have a lot to learn and so a lot of research to do as yet. Thanks for all the links in the thread, which I will check out. I have yet to work out what foods are appropriate to eat and, in time, an Hba1c will show if I'm going in the right direction.

Thanks again
 
You will wait a long time for proof of anything! Especially from the likes of Taubes and Kendrick!
Click to expand...

There are enough of us who are healthily living proof that sat fat is harmless having followed advice from the above et al.

Ray
 

Its a bit diificult to ask those that have died of CVD or CHD what they think of the advice certain people give to 'eat saturated fat - its harmless'. I'm sure they too, at the time thought it was ok. Followed some minority theory. I've read them all including the latest and nobody can say for certain but most say a reduction is advisable. I'm healthy and also living proof that what I do works, however I wouldn't presume to lecture people on what they should do regarding fats. That's for them to decide.

Al
 
Anyway, I've yet to see any evidence that following a low carb/high fat diet causes CVD/CHD. To my knowledge every study where the diet included saturated fat it also included high carbs.

You're not bombproof if you low carb, you may have sustained damage to organs prior to adopting a low carb lifestyle. None of us is immortal.

For me, sat fat without the carbs is harmless unless proven otherwise.

Ray
 
I saw that Sid, disgusting. How can he expect to be taken seriously here?

Energise,

The man who smoked all his life and died aged 97 is no consolation to the man who is dying of lung cancer aged 30.

As you can see from the replies, nobody has the answer for you. You have to decide and if in doubt then use a moderate approach.

Low fat does not mean that you buy low fat products but that you use fats sparingly. There are fats in things like seeds nuts and oils that are beneficial to your overall health. Oily fish is another one. If you like fish then try using mackerel, sardines, salmon. If you need any recipes to help with your choice of foods then please ask. I know you find cooking a chore but some dishes don't take as long as it does to go and pick up a takeaway.
 
Dear Energise,

You should be aware that in the long run to maintain stable weight, a low carb, low fat diet is not viable.

The matter is easily resolved with some simple arithmetic. Using the following notation let:

F denote the number of gm of fat eaten per day
P denote the number of gm of protein eaten per day
C denote the number of gm of carbohydrates eaten per day
K denote the number of calories generated per day

It is known that:

F: 1 gram generate approximately 9 calories
P: 1 gram generates approximately 4 calories
C: 1 gram generates approximately 4 calories

Therefore

K = 9F + 4P + 4C

To maintain stable weight an average adult male requires around 2500 calories per day.

Consider a low carb, low fat diet with 50 gm per day, protein 100 gm per day, fat 50 gm per day

A little arithmetic results in:

K = 9(50) + 4(100) + 4(50)
K = 1050 calories

A shortfall of 1450 calories for an adult male attempting stable weight. Of course you can increase the carbs but for reasonable control of blood glucose levels such action is limited. Similarly, it is difficult to eat excess protein and the 100 gm seems a reasonable maximum.



Energise, if you read of posters advocating a low carb, low fat diet, 4 basic questions to ask:
1 Weight Regime: Stable or weight loss?
2 Fat: How much?
3 Protein: How much?
4 Carbs: How much?
Using the formula above will allow you to check the veracity of the claims.
 
Energise, with respect to your original question: here is something else you might (or might not) find interesting to read... it is by a Medical Doctor Kurt G. Harris at his Archevore Blog... http://www.archevore.com/panu-weblo...uch-thing-as-a-macronutrient-part-i-fats.html

In terms of authority and credentials, I'd point out that the study I linked in my earlier reply to you http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract includes in its list of authors Frank B Hu MD, MPH, Phd -- a Professor of Nutrition and Epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health -- with a special interest in Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease... http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/faculty/frank-hu/ considered by some as "one of the world's most prestigious epidemiologists". The conclusion of that study once again
... there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.
Click to expand...
Incidentally that study was published January 2010 and so far seems to have received a tiny fraction of the pres-time devoted to the 600 calorie Newcastle study..

---

phoenix said:
...My son, is a physicist (physical chemist, bit like Taubes, but he wouldn't claim to have any expertise in biochemistry or diets ) ...
Click to expand...
I recall an interview with Taubes where he talks about attending lectures by Physicists (his background as you say, prior to becoming a lowly science writer)... he talked about how the presentation would end with a flurry of questions, cross-examinations, counter-evidence, and generally testing the theory to see if it stood up to the rigours of scrutiny. Taubes then recounted attending lectures by Nutritionists which ended with a polite round of applause.... It makes me think of the saying "once we begin to believe in dogma we tend to stop thinking or asking questions".
 
FishingForSouls said:
You should be aware that in the long run to maintain stable weight, a low carb, low fat diet is not viable.
Click to expand...

FishingForBites I think you are mistaking facts for opinions here. I eat a reduced carb diet have lost 4 stone 56lb's and have sustained that weight loss for two years without eating an increased amount of fat, I never ate cream until I was in my 30's i have never eaten fatty meat, I do use olive oil and I do occasionally eat cream now. I dont avoid fat but neither do I look for ways to increase it in my diet. At the moment I tend to believe what 99.9% of cardiologists believe that is that saturated fats should be eaten in moderation.

The dietician that I saw last year told me that my diet was OK but I could do with eating a little more fat in the form of oily fish twice a week but unfortunately I dont like oily fish. I am well controlled at present and could perhaps loose another 8 to 12lb if I could be bothered but I am happy being a little overweight as I have always been since my late teens.

"You should be aware" that there is more than one way to live a healthy life and I think it is extremely presumptuous of you to assume that what you choose to believe is the only way. I can manage to maintain a stable weight quite happily without increasing my fat intake thank you very much.
 
Incidentally that study was published January 2010 and so far seems to have received a tiny fraction of the pres-time devoted to the 600 calorie Newcastle study
Click to expand...
I've certainly read it mentioned a lot!, but of course it isn't the definitive answer..there will never be that!
At the end of several caveats, the authors state

Well it just so happens that there has been a recent update from the Cochrane library heart group.(July 2011)
This is again a meta analysis, but the type of evidence investigated was from good quality, randomised, interventional trials ie the sort of evidence not considered in the meta analysis mentioned above. This is their plain language summary
"

Tne conclusion said

The effect was demonstrated in men but not in women(my aside, often these trials don't include many women ) and the reductions were in cardiac events, not overall mortality
.http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... F7C.d03t01
 
Just to clarify, I don't have a low opinion of members here.

I therefore apologise to any of the fair minded individuals here who may think I was referring to everyone - I wasn't.

I'm still awaiting evidence there are properly conducted trials proving conclusively that sat fat is harmful in the absence of high carbs.

More and more Doctors and cardiologists are saying inflammation is the cause of heart disease. The simple fact that diabetes and heart disease have not been eradicated by decades of the consumption of polyunsaturates, in preference to saturates, is evidence in itself.

Ray
 
Thanks for posting the update phoenix. I value the work of the Cochrane Collaboration.

I noted this statement with interest...
There are no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods (reducing the total amount of fat we eat).
Click to expand...
Surely that contradicts the advice to "cut the fat and replace it with complex carbs" as we have been told in recent decades?

I also note their use of of "may reduce risk", "it is not clear" and "This updated review suggested" rather than clear assertions.
 
Of course they use words like suggest and may, it's a perfectly conventional way of writing, Probability testing normally demonstrate at least a 95% probability that the effect was not due to chance, there will never be 100% certainty in this type of analysis so it would be quite wrong to use imperative statements.

Surely that contradicts the advice to "cut the fat and replace it with complex carbs" as we have been told in recent decades?
Click to expand...
Depends who's telling you! I've always been told I should have a balanced diet that includes fats, proteins and carbs.

A 2004 BDA (British Dietetic Association) leaflet on fats says
Extremely low fat diets would limit the amount of fat soluble vitamins and essential fats in our diet.
All fats are high in calories, giving us 9 calories for every gram eaten. It is important for our health and to help prevent us from becoming overweight that we do not eat too much fat. By reducing the unhealthysaturated fats in the diet, and replacing some of this fat with the healthier unsaturated fats, we will be getting a better balance for our health.
http://www.bda.uk.com/foodfacts/FatFacts.pdf

My dietitian (French) has always advocated the use of raw olive oil in daily salads, oily fish, and fats from things like avocados and nuts etc as well as those complex carbs.(and fruit, veg, dairy and protein,)
 
Energize - Can you eat fat with raised cholesterol

Hello,

Before all the fun of the back and forth occurred in your last thread you were asking about the risks or sense in eating fat if you were concerned about having raised cholesterol.

Here is the text of a speech given by a heart surgeon and former director of the heart institute at the Swedish Medical Center in Seattle.

Interesting stuff I think you'll agree

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/enjoy- ... d-for-you/

Regards

Dillinger
 
Yes Dillinger, that's all very well and good, but why should I take the word of a cardiac surgeon and Professor of Surgery over that of my HCP and experienced forum members"
 
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.…