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

Saturated fats

I have heard similar before. There were identical twin doctors who carried out an experiment. One ate high carb and one ate high fat for some weeks. It was the high fat one that tested as pre-diabetic at the end of it.

That's about all I know on the subject.
 
Squire Fulwood said:
I have heard similar before. There were identical twin doctors who carried out an experiment. One ate high carb and one ate high fat for some weeks. It was the high fat one that tested as pre-diabetic at the end of it.

That's about all I know on the subject.
Click to expand...
There's more about it on www.dietdoctor.com.
 
Mrs Vimes said:
I use that programme to show kids and we discuss the very poor scientific process involved.


Sent from the Diabetes Forum App
Click to expand...
I remember Andreas Eenfeldt commenting on the diet doctor blog about it. Couldn't remember the content but remember the gist being that it hadn't been a fair experiment. It's quite interesting that so many people want to rubbish LCHF. I really don't understand it at all!
 
Well, I think that there is a large body of evidence to suggest this is true.
Just do a search of pumed or scholar and look at recent papers. http://scholar.google.co.uk/scholar?start=0&q=saturated fat insulin resistance&hl=en&as_sdt=0,5&as_ylo=2013

Here is the abstract of a metanalysis presented at a conference last year. I don't think it has been published in a paper yet so that means that it hasn't been peer reviewed.
Aim: To systematically quantify the effects of dietary fats on glucose homeostasis in randomized controlled feeding trials
They searched for trials that reported these effects in equal calorie diets. estimating dose-response effects of isocaloric exchange of major macronutrients (SFA, MUFA, PUFA, carbohydrate [CHO]), adjusting for protein and fiber,
They found
Replacing CHO with SFA raised fasting glucose (FG), while MUFA and PUFA lowered FG Findings were concordant for HbA1C. Effects on FG were strongest in diabetics and Asians
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/meeting_abstract/127/12_MeetingAbstracts/A003

This ties in well with studies on the Med diet which isn't low fat but it tends to be higher in mono and unsaturated fat including the Predimed study .
 
I do find it hard to believe that saturated fat would raise bg more than carbs.
 
Totto said:
I do find it hard to believe that saturated fat would raise bg more than carbs.
Click to expand...
I don't believe it. The evidence is there on my meter and in my hba1c test. Then there's my weight loss....
 
Once again we have studies for and against fats and we will always have the two sides for and against fats on this forum I don't think that will ever change
 
AnnieC said:
Once again we have studies for and against fats and we will always have the two sides for and against fats on this forum I don't think that will ever change
Click to expand...
I think you're absolutely right. I think that the bottom line is that LCHF works better for some and low fat works for others. People are always going to feel passionate about it as were always going to prefer the one that works for us. I think that we sometimes forget that we all have similar goals - lower bs and (for some of us) lose weight. I can no more get my head around eating carbs which raise my bs than some understand why I want to use fat as my alternative energy source.
 
AnnieC said:
Once again we have studies for and against fats and we will always have the two sides for and against fats on this forum I don't think that will ever change
Click to expand...

No I don't expect it will change :)
 
One problem with studies on diet is that it can be impossible to get information what the diet actually was. One of them in phoenix link, for example, had three groups where the high fat group had a fat intake of 35%. Now that is what I consider low fat. And no information on the amount of carbs and protein, and not what food people ate generally. In many cases a high fat diet is about the same as meal at McDonalds and I wouldn't call that healthy either. Diet studies needs interpretation, you can´t just trust they actually have proved what they claim to be the out come.
 
? I thought my link was to a meta analysis which was looking at the effect of replacing CHO with various fats over many diet trial not a trial with 3 arms.

There are no simple answers, if there were there would be no disagreement.
It is certainly true that various studies have begun to try to disentangle the various types of saturated fats and it may be that there are differences between them and indeed what you eat them with. Dairy seems to be one of those that people are very uncertain about. Unfortunately the paper linked to is behind a pay wall so we are left with the rather ambiguous conclusion,
Stephan Guyenet was involved in a review about 'High-Fat Dairy, Obesity, Metabolic Health and Cardiovascular Disease' He writes a blog post explaining the findings here which are mostly but not entirely positive (caveats on diabetes risk as mixed results) He does stress that these were indeed normal mixed diets and therefore not a carte blanche to eat large quantities of butter.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.fr/2012/07/new-review-paper-by-yours-truly-high.html#more

I doubt anyone would disagree on the healthfulness of a diet consisting of hamburger with cheese and bun but it may also be that the combination of hamburger and cheese is also not healthy . Ron Krause who is a researcher that had found in favour of dairy in the context of a lower carbohydrate diet was quite surprised to find that a combination of beef and dairy wasn't benign (in terms of CVD marker, he wasn't looking at insulin resistance per se) He is investigating this further at present (and indeed is being funded by the US government to do so)http://ctsi.ucsf.edu/news/about-ctsi/link-between-meat-and-fat-preventing-heart-disease
 
Last edited by a moderator:
For me these studies just blind us with science I have no scientific or medical knowledge and just find them far to complex for a lay person like me to understand properly and I am sure I am not the only one like that
If we read them at all and they are about something we are already really dead set against like for instance high fat or statins then we are not going to believe a study thats says they are good for us because we have already made our mind up that they are bad and the same goes if we are all for them and take statins and eat high fat every day then we will not take notice of a study thats says they are bad for us and so the debate will go on
 
AnnieC said:
For me these studies just blind us with science I have no scientific or medical knowledge and just find them far to complex for a lay person like me to understand properly and I am sure I am not the only one like that
If we read them at all and they are about something we are already really dead set against like for instance high fat or statins then we are not going to believe a study thats says they are good for us because we have already made our mind up that they are bad and the same goes if we are all for them and take statins and eat high fat every day then we will not take notice of a study thats says they are bad for us and so the debate will go on
Click to expand...
I disagree. I used to listen to what I was told and believed the healthy low fat rubbish until I happened to stumble on a piece about the falsified data the low fat advice rests on. Then I started to read up on the whole diet issue. I was given a brain and I use it. I am sure you can too, if you want to.
 
AnnieC said:
For me these studies just blind us with science I have no scientific or medical knowledge and just find them far to complex for a lay person like me to understand properly and I am sure I am not the only one like that
If we read them at all and they are about something we are already really dead set against like for instance high fat or statins then we are not going to believe a study thats says they are good for us because we have already made our mind up that they are bad and the same goes if we are all for them and take statins and eat high fat every day then we will not take notice of a study thats says they are bad for us and so the debate will go on
Click to expand...

Some articles can be quite complex and unless you have s scientific mind they don't mean much, usually I just skip to the conclusion or don't bother looking at them at all, depends what topic we are discussing and what's posted.

But your quite right (again) about peoples minds not changing, no amount of debate against statins would change my mind if I had high cholesterol and was taking them (or considering taking them), likewise with eating a high-fat diet consisting mainly of saturated fat.
 
Back
Top