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.
It tells you that low carb diets lower triglycerides. It does. You don't want to admit it so you have to try to move the needle from carbs to fats.
I didn't say anything about whether a low-carbohydrate could lower triglycerides or not, I was commenting on the study.
I'm not twisting anything, rather pointing out the low-fat group was also taking medication so you cannot make any conclusion about whether the low-fat or higher fat diet was better at lowering triglycerides. You were using this study to support your claim that high-fat diets are better at lowering triglycerides but it shows not such thing since the medication is an obvious confounding variable in the study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
If A>B and B>C then A<C. If losing weight is the primary determinant of lowering triglycerides and HDL would it stand to reason that the diet that causes people to lose the most weight (low carb) would be better at lowering triglycerides and HDL?
Losing weight isn't the primary factor, its one of several factors, but if you have two groups that are doing little else to lower triglycerides other than lose weight the group that loses more weight is likely to have lower triglycerides. Why is this important? Because its the weight loss, not the diet, that that is causing the drop in triglycerides.
Another factor is sugar consumption, a high-fat diet group is going to reduce their sugar consumption automatically so that could promote lower triglycerides as well. You'd have to instruct the low-fat group to reduce their sugar intake as well to see whether any observed difference is due to a difference in sugar intake or fat intake. As previously mentioned, comparing "low-fat" and "high-fat" diets is pointless because both can vary greatly in their healthfulness depending on the individual food choices. The focus should be on the food choices that promote good health, those choices would be whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, fish, etc while minimizing fatty meats, foods rich in saturated fat, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
No matter how smart you think you are and how stupid you think I am, you are wrong about this.
You can say I'm wrong all you wish but you're not really addressing anything I'm discussing.
I didn't say anything about whether a low-carbohydrate could lower triglycerides or not, I was commenting on the study.
But that was the entire point of this thread. LOW CARB diets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I'm not twisting anything, rather pointing out the low-fat group was also taking medication so you cannot make any conclusion about whether the low-fat or higher fat diet was better at lowering triglycerides. You were using this study to support your claim that high-fat diets are better at lowering triglycerides but it shows not such thing since the medication is an obvious confounding variable in the study.
The entire point of the study was to see if a LF diet & medication was better at lowering triglycerides was better than a LC diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Losing weight isn't the primary factor, its one of several factors, but if you have two groups that are doing little else to lower triglycerides other than lose weight the group that loses more weight is likely to have lower triglycerides. Why is this important? Because its the weight loss, not the diet, that that is causing the drop in triglycerides.
My point still holds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Another factor is sugar consumption, a high-fat diet group is going to reduce their sugar consumption automatically so that could promote lower triglycerides as well. You'd have to instruct the low-fat group to reduce their sugar intake as well to see whether any observed difference is due to a difference in sugar intake or fat intake. As previously mentioned, comparing "low-fat" and "high-fat" diets is pointless because both can vary greatly in their healthfulness depending on the individual food choices. The focus should be on the food choices that promote good health, those choices would be whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruits, nuts, fish, etc while minimizing fatty meats, foods rich in saturated fat, etc.
But if a LC diet promotes more weight loss and promotes less sugar consumption and both weight loss and sugar consumption are linked to lower triglyceride levels doesn't it follow that a LC diet will lower triglycerides more? Logic is pesky isn't it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
You can say I'm wrong all you wish but you're not really addressing anything I'm discussing.
I am addressing every single point and you don't have a compelling argument other than that I don't know how to read the study.
But that was the entire point of this thread. LOW CARB diets.
Yes, that is what the thread is about and contrary to what you suggested I never claimed that low-carbohydrates can't lower triglycerides.....what I suggested is that you're claim that they do so better than diets lower in fat is not accurate.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
The entire point of the study was to see if a LF diet & medication was better at lowering triglycerides was better than a LC diet.
The point of the study is not clear and the drug the low-fat group was on had nothing to do with triglycerides, it was a weight-loss drug that is now banned due to its negative impact on heart health. This study doesn't tell you anything about how low-fat and high-fat diets impact triglycerides in general.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
But if a LC diet promotes more weight loss and promotes less sugar consumption and both weight loss and sugar consumption are linked to lower triglyceride levels doesn't it follow that a LC diet will lower triglycerides more?
Separating direct and indirect causes is important. In this case the low-carbohydrate diet would be the indirect cause of the improved triglycerides. For example, there is no reason why a high-carbohydrate diet group can't also reduce their sugar consumption....they will just have to be explicitly instructed to do so because it won't happen automatically. If sugar consumption is the critical factor then it should be the focus not the total amount of carbohydrates in the diet.
In any case, you're ignoring the key issue here, both "low-fat" and "low-carb" diets don't represent particular diets and instead just refer to the level of fat/carbohydrate in the diet. A low-carbohydrate diet based on bacon, eggs, steak, butter, coconut oil, etc is going to have a much different impact on your health than a low-carbohydrate diet based on lean meats, nuts, seeds, olive oil, etc. Same goes for low-fat diets, a low-fat diet based on refined carbohydrates, sugar, etc is going to have a bunch different impact on ones health than a low-fat diet based on whole grains, legumes, vegetables, etc. Studies on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets can always be twisted by comparing diets that aren't on par health wise....its virtually impossible to study whether low-fat or low-carbohydrate diets are better for heart health in general because there is no such thing as a general low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet.
Yes, I feel much better overall with a diet that does not include wheat at all. No wheat for over six years after I found out that I was gluten intolerant.
This is n=1, but she's definitely a "Cereal Killer". Other than potatoes, nothing starchy (definitely no wheat either) and high in saturated fat from milk and cheese. 116 years old. No heart attack, no stroke.
Yes, I feel much better overall with a diet that does not include wheat at all. No wheat for over six years after I found out that I was gluten intolerant.
Wheat is so low in fiber compared to good non-starchy vegetables there's just no point in eating any. What has so little bang for your buck, especially how it's grown nowadays. My body is less inflamed without starches.
Wheat is so low in fiber compared to good non-starchy vegetables there's just no point in eating any.
Whole wheat is rich in fiber and it contains more soluble fiber than the majority of vegetables. Whole grains, including wheat, are also rich in resistant starches which have the same sort of benefit as fiber.
"The source of the fiber appears to be critical. Consuming fiber from whole grains was most strongly linked to a lower risk of dying during the study, while fiber from vegetables and beans appeared to have a minimal impact on death risk. The fiber in fruit seemed to offer no protection at all."
This is n=1, but she's definitely a "Cereal Killer". Other than potatoes, nothing starchy (definitely no wheat either) and high in saturated fat from milk and cheese. 116 years old. No heart attack, no stroke.
]
The article mentions beans as well as potatoes, both are starchy, and Peruvians traditionally eat a lot of potatoes and only a moderate amount of animal-based foods. Whole wheat, and most other grains, don't grow in the Andes. Not a low-carbohydrate or low-starch diet by any means, rather the opposite.
Yes, that is what the thread is about and contrary to what you suggested I never claimed that low-carbohydrates can't lower triglycerides.....what I suggested is that you're claim that they do so better than diets lower in fat is not accurate.
Yes it is. I have posted numerous studies that show a LC diet reduces triglycerides more than a LF diet. Your desire that it be untrue does not make it untrue.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The point of the study is not clear and the drug the low-fat group was on had nothing to do with triglycerides, it was a weight-loss drug that is now banned due to its negative impact on heart health. This study doesn't tell you anything about how low-fat and high-fat diets impact triglycerides in general.
You can't have it both ways. Either the medication has something to do with the results (as you claim above) or it doesn't (as you claim here).
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Separating direct and indirect causes is important. In this case the low-carbohydrate diet would be the indirect cause of the improved triglycerides. For example, there is no reason why a high-carbohydrate diet group can't also reduce their sugar consumption....they will just have to be explicitly instructed to do so because it won't happen automatically. If sugar consumption is the critical factor then it should be the focus not the total amount of carbohydrates in the diet.
So your are admitting that it is true, but for some different reason? Really? Can't you just admit that for whatever reason a LC diet reduces triglycerides better than a LF diet? There is a ton of evidence out there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
In any case, you're ignoring the key issue here, both "low-fat" and "low-carb" diets don't represent particular diets and instead just refer to the level of fat/carbohydrate in the diet. A low-carbohydrate diet based on bacon, eggs, steak, butter, coconut oil, etc is going to have a much different impact on your health than a low-carbohydrate diet based on lean meats, nuts, seeds, olive oil, etc. Same goes for low-fat diets, a low-fat diet based on refined carbohydrates, sugar, etc is going to have a bunch different impact on ones health than a low-fat diet based on whole grains, legumes, vegetables, etc. Studies on low-fat and low-carbohydrate diets can always be twisted by comparing diets that aren't on par health wise....its virtually impossible to study whether low-fat or low-carbohydrate diets are better for heart health in general because there is no such thing as a general low-fat or low-carbohydrate diet.
It is not virtually impossible to study whether LC or LF diets are better for heart health. It has been studied and the results have been overwhelmingly consistent. The results are just starting to become known to the general public but it is not impossible to study. Not by a long shot.
The article mentions beans as well as potatoes, both are starchy, and Peruvians traditionally eat a lot of potatoes and only a moderate amount of animal-based foods. Whole wheat, and most other grains, don't grow in the Andes. Not a low-carbohydrate or low-starch diet by any means, rather the opposite.
Cool. So high saturated fat as well as low on grains = good health, no heart attacks and no stroke. Glad we're in relative agreement there.
(In before "well, she's just lucky her arteries didn't clog during the 116 years of her life on this high saturated fat diet")
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.
