Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you ever have some fat smeared all over your hands and then without soap try to rinse it off? What's left on the hands? A greasy thick film. Imagine eating fat day in and day out for years, think of the amount of that film building up along the lining of your arteries, making it more narrow as the days pass...
Lol...that's some strong science there, Lou.
Try this experiement: go to your sink and cram some bread, rice, beans, leafy vegetables and all the other stuff that's supposedly good for us into the drain. Now run some water and see if it's plugged up. See? Imagine what all those foods are doing to your arteries!
Artery narrowing is caused by chronic inflammation. The lining becomes irritated and as the body attempts to repair the damage, plaques of scar tissue develop. Once these plaques restrict the blood flow enough, bang, heart attack or stroke.
Eat all the grease you want; it will just lubricate the tubes and make the blood flow more smoothly.
"A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The scientific consensus is still that one should limit saturated fat intake for heart health.
It is no longer a consensus. Many scientists and nutritionists are going back and questioning the studies and opinions that led to the low-fat dogma.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
All mammals can operate primarily fats as its required during starvation when the body depends on stored body fat......but inducing mechanisms that are meant to keep one alive while starving isn't exactly optimal.
Carbohydrates are not essential for human survival. You could survive without eating another gram of carbohydrate for the rest of your life (the body will create the glucose it needs through a process called gluconeogenesis), but without protein and fat, you will die within days. Which nutrients do you think we should focus more on?
With the exception of the man-made variety, fats are good, fats are healthy, and our brains and bodies love them. You can still enjoy plenty of carbs through eating vegetables and fruits while burning fat as energy without even being close to starvation mode.
Personal experience isn't evidence and there is an obvious selection bias in terms of people reporting their personal experience, that is, all the people that have dropped dead from heart disease by eating a diet high in saturated fat aren't able to report their health status.....
In any case, the point remembers, the only people promoting diets high in saturated fat are low-carb diet book authors. The scientific consensus is still that one should limit saturated fat intake for heart health.
Right.....the body can adjust to higher fat intake. All mammals can operate primarily fats as its required during starvation when the body depends on stored body fat......but inducing mechanisms that are meant to keep one alive while starving isn't exactly optimal.
What you're saying is, we can easily ingest carbohydrate any time we want, so why should we care about awakening an mechanism meant for times when carbohydrate is unavailable?
The answer to that is obvious: tons of us are fat, moody, and tired, with chronic sub-clinical maladies that humans didn't used to get. And increasing saturated fat intake often helps.
You keep stating this as if it's a fact that saturated fat causes heart disease.
It is well established in the scientific community that saturated fat promotes cardiovascular disease, that is why for example, the American Heart Association recommends one limit saturated fat for heart health. One meta-study doesn't refute decades of research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthYorkEd
Many scientists and nutritionists are going back and questioning the studies and opinions that led to the low-fat dogma.
Not really........the people that are "questioning" matters are largely people selling diet books...not people doing research.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthYorkEd
Carbohydrates are not essential for human survival. You could survive without eating another gram of carbohydrate for the rest of your life (the body will create the glucose it needs through a process called gluconeogenesis), but without protein and fat, you will die within days.
There isn't a single population on the planet that eats a carbohydrate free diet, so there is no evidence that you can "survive for the rest of your life" without carbohydrates. Gluconeogenesis is a limited process and is needed as a survival mechanism since the brain requires glucose, when starving the body will convert some lean body mass into carbohydrate to fuel the cells that require glucose. There is no reason to believe that relying on gluconeogenesis for your carbohydrate needs long-term is healthful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthYorkEd
With the exception of the man-made variety, fats are good, fats are healthy, and our brains and bodies love them.
There are two essential fatty acids (omega-6 and omega-3) and you only need relatively small amounts of them, all the other fats your body requires can be synthesized from these and carbohydrates. There is no reason to believe that diets high in fat promote long-term health.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns
What you're saying is, we can easily ingest carbohydrate any time we want, so why should we care about awakening an mechanism meant for times when carbohydrate is unavailable?
No, instead that relying on mechanism meant to fuel the body short-term during starvation on a long-term basis may not be the best idea.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by tribecavsbrowns
The answer to that is obvious: tons of us are fat, moody, and tired, with chronic sub-clinical maladies that humans didn't used to get. And increasing saturated fat intake often helps.
There is no known mechanism by which saturated fat intake would improve these things, instead the opposite, so if one experiences this its likely psychological in nature (placebo effect) or based on other confounding factors. After all, its not like saturated fat is the only problematic nutrient, so its entirely possible that someone improves their overall diet even after they've increased their saturated fat intake by limiting, to a greater degree, other negative factors.
Let's agree to disagree about the merits of saturated fat. The AHA is only doing the bidding of their masters, which is to continue promoting the cholesterol myth as a risk factor for heart disease. Saturated fat can raise cholesterol, ergo, it causes heart disease. Not the case.
AHA also continues to promote industrialized vegetable oils as a substitute for natural sat fats, which is laughable. But of course, getting people to continue eating vegetable oils and refined grains puts a lot of money in their pockets. Thank the AHA for helping to bring margarine and other hydrogentated trans-fat laden fillers into our foods and bodies. When it comes to dietary advice, their credibility is nil.
Refined sugars and grains are the true culprits taking a toll on our health. Our natural food supply is not the enemy; it is a government that continues to promote "food-like" products as healthy in exchange for lobbyist dollars. And Big Pharma is still enjoying the fruits of the cholesterol scare, while millions of otherwise healthy and low-risk people take statins...and then the drugs that counter the side-effects of those, such as muscle wasting, liver and kidney damage, joint pain, etc.
“Clearly, the focus is to get people on statins,†said Dr. Christie Mitchell Ballantyne, the chief of cardiology and cardiovascular research at Baylor College of Medicine, in Houston.
Many populations thrive on diets that would be considered high in saturated fat intake, yet no population thrives on diets high in refined sugars and grains. The focus should be on reducing or avoiding those foods, not the saturated fats that occur naturally in traditional human diets.
The AHA is only doing the bidding of their masters, which is to continue promoting the cholesterol myth as a risk factor for heart disease. Saturated fat can raise cholesterol, ergo, it causes heart disease. Not the case.
Their masters? Who might that be? The American Heart Association isn't allow, international organizations also recommend that one limit dietary cholesterol and saturated fat for heart health. The idea that there is a global conspiracy to implicate cholesterol and saturated fat in heart disease is peculiar to say the least.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthYorkEd
AHA also continues to promote industrialized vegetable oils as a substitute for natural sat fats, which is laughable. But of course, getting people to continue eating vegetable oils and refined grains puts a lot of money in their pockets.
I'm not sure what you mean by "industrialized vegetable oils", but the American Heart Association suggests that you replace saturated fat with things like olive oil, nuts, seeds, etc. The American Heart Association doesn't recommend refined grains.
The beef/dairy checkoff programs have some of deepest pockets of any agricultural program...if any industry was going to corrupt the American Heart Association it would be them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by NorthYorkEd
Refined sugars and grains are the true culprits taking a toll on our health. Our natural food supply is not the enemy; it is a government that continues to promote "food-like" products as healthy in exchange for lobbyist dollars.
This is a strawman, no health organizations are recommending a diet rich in refined sugars and refined carbohydrates. Instead they are recommending diets that are rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables,legumes and nuts with small amounts of meat and dairy. Such a diet will be naturally low in saturated fat and cholesterol.
Refined carbohydrates and saturated fat are problematic and its recommended that one limit both....
Senior member user -ID- how to you feel that 8 MILLION people have viewed your posts? Or is it only eight people with a LOT of time on their hands?
On other boards, I have found that people get into arguments about basic physiology and talk about what certain medical groups recommend, or quote from "experts" as if that means anything.
Some might even declare that they ARE experts, and so nothing they say should be challenged.
Now, I have credentials, but I am not going to say what they are.
Who cares? And I could be lying, anyway.
But there has to be a gold standard. A good one is the Guyton and Hall textbook of medical physiology. The 2006 version is totally downloadable in PDF format online. The most recent print edition is 2011.
There are one or two other med school texts out there, but I find that for readability Guyton and Hall is very good. Plus there are a lot of clinical correlates in it.
Conflicts? Differences of opinion? Well, lets see what Guyton says.
If certain information is in Guyton and Hall, that means it has been thoroughly vetted by the medical physiology people the world over and is accepted.
There are thousands of studies put out each year, and most are worthless. Guyton and Hall looks at them all.
So hello to everyone on this forum!
Regarding the current topic, I will have to put my 2 cents (partially) in with NorthYorkEd on this one.
Folks can get by just fine on a diet of fats and protein, without carbs. In fact, I think that's what large predator cats do.
Glucose is needed for the brain, of course, but that can be supplied through the process of gluconeogenisis. With a lot of protein in the diet, that will not be a problem with a large "pool" of labile protein to draw from.
As to the levels of glycogen stores that an "all fat/protein" diet can maintain, I am not certain. But judging by the explosive speed of a charging lion, it is probably more than sufficient.
It is amazing how well the human animal can survive and thrive on a variety of substances. Our basic metabolic processes evolved over a billion years!
Something to keep in mind.
That being said, carbohydrates are useful and should not be demonized.
All carbs that are digested and passed on through the GI tract wind up in the bloodstream as 95% glucose, and a little fructose. Nothing insidious there.
People just eat TOO MUCH period, with carbs being number one on the list.
Let's agree to disagree about the merits of saturated fat. The AHA is only doing the bidding of their masters, which is to continue promoting the cholesterol myth as a risk factor for heart disease. Saturated fat can raise cholesterol, ergo, it causes heart disease. Not the case.
AHA also continues to promote industrialized vegetable oils as a substitute for natural sat fats, which is laughable. But of course, getting people to continue eating vegetable oils and refined grains puts a lot of money in their pockets. Thank the AHA for helping to bring margarine and other hydrogentated trans-fat laden fillers into our foods and bodies. When it comes to dietary advice, their credibility is nil.
Refined sugars and grains are the true culprits taking a toll on our health. Our natural food supply is not the enemy; it is a government that continues to promote "food-like" products as healthy in exchange for lobbyist dollars. And Big Pharma is still enjoying the fruits of the cholesterol scare, while millions of otherwise healthy and low-risk people take statins...and then the drugs that counter the side-effects of those, such as muscle wasting, liver and kidney damage, joint pain, etc.
Many populations thrive on diets that would be considered high in saturated fat intake, yet no population thrives on diets high in refined sugars and grains. The focus should be on reducing or avoiding those foods, not the saturated fats that occur naturally in traditional human diets.
Beating your head against a wall here.
You have a number of posters on this board stuck in 70's and 80's when it comes to saturated fat and carbs. And that would be fine, but they have a hard time with anyone who disagrees with them.
Many may find me crazy when i am telling you all to eat more fat to lose weight. But guys I am right. It is also another method to lose weight. For example if you are taking some fatty foods which contains oil and other fatty substances it makes our stomach full and we no longer feels hungry for a longer period of time but when we opt for low fat foods we feel hungry within a short span of time. So better take some healthy fatty foods which enhance our weight loss goals.
For one, just because you are hungry, does not mean you have to eat. Also, just because you are eating, does not mean you have to stuff yourself.
Fat is calorie dense, the entire "eat this or that so you do not feel hungry, thus you eat less and lose weight" is BS. The only time this comes into play is when someone is cutting, as in losing weight in a short time to make a weight class.
Sure, go ahead and play this game, and you may end up like the other too fat people who are always "in the know" about diet and exercise, yet never seem to show the results of this.
Sure, fat is needed in the diet, but way too much hype over the overall premises of this post.
Keeping body fat low is very simple, I do not see why everyone needs to complicate things. It is like people spend time in trying to figure out a way to be lazy and eat like garbage, and craft there web searches and opinions around everything that will agree with what they want to do.
Folks can get by just fine on a diet of fats and protein, without carbs. In fact, I think that's what large predator cats do.
Humans aren't cats.......but like all mammals humans can get by, at least short-term, on fats and protein because this is an adaptation for starvation......when starving the body only has fats and protein.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
You have a number of posters on this board stuck in 70's and 80's when it comes to saturated fat and carbs. And that would be fine, but they have a hard time with anyone who disagrees with them.
Its funny that you're trying to pass off your conspiracy theories as established science while suggesting that the established science is some how dated To say it once again, all the world's major health organizations recommend one limit saturated fat and dietary cholesterol for heart health.....the idea that all these organizations is some how living in the 70's is bizarre to say the least....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
