New study finds low carb/high fat diet lowers cardiovascular risk (patient, doctors)
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.
Whole grain consumption is associated with lower body weight and greatly reduced rates of diabetes so people who are overweight and pre-diabetic would benefit from consuming whole grains:
"Whole grain intake is inversely associated with risk of type 2 diabetes, and this association is stronger for bran than for germ. Findings from prospective cohort studies consistently support increasing whole grain consumption for the prevention of type 2 diabetes."
I don't think anybody claims that grains are an essential food, but whole grains are a healthful food and there is no reason to avoid them.
No joke, I had 6 pieces of bread that day and it wouldn't tax my pancreas because I have great insulin sensitivity due an overall healthful diet that is low in saturated fat. Even after a large carbohydrate meal my blood glucose doesn't get much above 110.
Recent studies on whole grains are based on modern grains, these studies show a number of health benefits from consuming whole grains. But if one is really concerned about the nature of modern grains they can buy heritage grains.
Studies aren't showing that eating fewer carbohydrates, in general, is better. The issue here is that for the vast majority of people carbohydrates means refined wheat, refined sugar,etc and reducing those carbohydrates often results in improved health. But reducing intake of fruit, whole grains, legumes, etc is not associated with improved health.....rather the opposite. There isn't a single medical group that recommends that people reduce their intake of carbohydrates to promote heart health, instead they recommend whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, lean meats, etc.
Once again it depends on your reasons. I think if you eat food for survival/nutrition/performance, & not just for your palate, then you're best off avoiding grains, again if you can derive nutrients w/ far less insulin response. In your case claiming you run a good BS level post-prandial is YOUR case. If everyone did the same thing you'd find you may be the exception not the rule.
Also, the studies going in favor often carry by-lines as to whom funded or backed it. If Nabisco says Triscuits are great, do you run out & buy a case? Again, be scrutinizing & even if "peer reviewed", be skeptical of the monetary incentive built-in to propagate this result.
Therefore, I try to avoid most whole grains or reduce to bare minimum to play it safe, & know unequivocally that I'm not taxing my beta cells & thus, increase the chance that my body can handle carbs from vegetable sources. I could eat candy bars & derive energy this way too, but complete nutrition isn't had this way. Whole grains contain things easily found elsewhere even for vegans, as they're still plant-based but why risk elevating insulin levels when you can almost guarantee reduction in post-meal response by eating more non-starchy vegetables & obviously, lowering fruit & thereby fructose intake.
Once again it depends on your reasons. I think if you eat food for survival/nutrition/performance, & not just for your palate, then you're best off avoiding grains, again if you can derive nutrients w/ far less insulin response. In your case claiming you run a good BS level post-prandial is YOUR case.
Why are you best off avoiding whole grains? The research on whole grains has demonstrated health benefits, why would it be best to avoid a food that is known to benefit your health?
And my postrandial glucose levels are the norm for people eating healthful diets.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movintime
Also, the studies going in favor often carry by-lines as to whom funded or backed it
The vast majority of large nutritional studies aren't funded by industry, it is these studies that have consistently shown health benefits from consuming whole grains. For example, the study I cited previously was based on ~160,000 people and was not industry funded.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movintime
Whole grains contain things easily found elsewhere even for vegans, as they're still plant-based but why risk elevating insulin levels when you can almost guarantee reduction in post-meal response by eating more non-starchy vegetables & obviously, lowering fruit & thereby fructose intake.
Actually, no, foods are far more unique than what you're suggesting. There are thousands of compounds in plants and each plant has a unique mix of compounds. What makes whole grains healthful is not the vitamins and minerals it contains, but the particular mix of soluble fiber, resistance starches, etc.
There is no risk associated with elevating insulin levels to norm levels, producing insulin is a normal bodily function and its production doesn't tax the pancreas. Its only the over production of insulin that results from insulin resistance that is a problem. But whole grains don't cause insulin resistance, rather the opposite, whole grain consumption improves insulin sensitivity. By avoiding whole grains one is risking becoming insulin resistance which is the real threat here.
Now were suppose to lower fruit intake as well because it contains fructose? Fruit, like whole grains, has been consistently associated with improved health....why in the world would one want to lower their intake?
While people should definitely consume non-starchy vegetables daily, non-starchy vegetables aren't going to meet people's energy needs. One cup of broccoli, for example, only has 30 calories.
Whole grain consumption is associated with lower body weight and greatly reduced rates of diabetes so people who are overweight and pre-diabetic would benefit from consuming whole grains:
"Whole grain intake is inversely associated with risk of type 2 diabetes, and this association is stronger for bran than for germ. Findings from prospective cohort studies consistently support increasing whole grain consumption for the prevention of type 2 diabetes."
I don't think anybody claims that grains are an essential food, but whole grains are a healthful food and there is no reason to avoid them.
No joke, I had 6 pieces of bread that day and it wouldn't tax my pancreas because I have great insulin sensitivity due an overall healthful diet that is low in saturated fat. Even after a large carbohydrate meal my blood glucose doesn't get much above 110.
Recent studies on whole grains are based on modern grains, these studies show a number of health benefits from consuming whole grains. But if one is really concerned about the nature of modern grains they can buy heritage grains.
Studies aren't showing that eating fewer carbohydrates, in general, is better. The issue here is that for the vast majority of people carbohydrates means refined wheat, refined sugar,etc and reducing those carbohydrates often results in improved health. But reducing intake of fruit, whole grains, legumes, etc is not associated with improved health.....rather the opposite. There isn't a single medical group that recommends that people reduce their intake of carbohydrates to promote heart health, instead they recommend whole grains, legumes, fruits, vegetables, lean meats, etc.
Studies are in fact showing that eating fewer carbohydrates, in general, is better.
But whole grains don't cause insulin resistance, rather the opposite, whole grain consumption improves insulin sensitivity. By avoiding whole grains one is risking becoming insulin resistance which is the real threat here.
This statement is NOT TRUE. Whole grains increase insulin response. In some cases whole grains increase insulin response MORE than pure sugar. The glycemic index of whole wheat bread is 71!!!!! Loading your system down with high GI foods taxes your whole insulin response and leads to insulin resistance. Whole grain foods may be lower in GI than refined carbs but they are still on the high side.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
While people should definitely consume non-starchy vegetables daily, non-starchy vegetables aren't going to meet people's energy needs. One cup of broccoli, for example, only has 30 calories.
That's why broccoli is so great for weight loss. It has few calories, few carbs and lots of micronutrients. Contrary to popular belief, people on low carb diets eat large quantities of vegetables.
Dr. Noakes believed in carb loading and even wrote books on the subject. That is, until he started developing a pot belly despite maintaining his exercise level. Eating "low-fat" vegan or plant based diets isn't for everyone. Absent of that option, HFLC seems to be the superior alternative.
Very people people in the medical community are gravitating away from HFLC towards McDougall and Ornish and more are converting the other way around. Westman, Noakes, Atkins. Calling Atkins a quack is one thing, but when you have former carb loaders suggesting HFLC or a Duke University Associate Professor in Nutritional Medicine doing so, you start turning heads and the term "quack" loses potency.
Studies are in fact showing that eating fewer carbohydrates, in general, is better.
Feel free to cite such study.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
This statement is NOT TRUE. Whole grains increase insulin response. In some cases whole grains increase insulin response MORE than pure sugar. The glycemic index of whole wheat bread is 71!!!!! Loading your system down with high GI foods taxes your whole insulin response and leads to insulin resistance.
The statement is entirely true, whole grain consumption has been consistently linked to lower rates of type 2 diabetes which is why whole grains are recommended by the worlds health organizations. After you eat whole grains your body will certainly release insulin.....but that is a perfectly normal bodily function. What "taxes" your body is insulin resistance not consuming carbohydrate rich foods and the consumption of whole grains does not lead to insulin resistance, rather the opposite, whole grain consumption improves insulin sensitivity:
"Higher intakes of whole grains were associated with increases in insulin sensitivity."
Whole grains vary greatly in their glycemic index, if one prefers to eat lower glycemic foods there are plenty to choose from. The number you are citing isn't for 100% whole grain bread, most bread labeled "whole grain" isn't 100% whole grain. You have to look for 100% whole grain on the package or check the ingredients. 100% whole grain bread has a glycemic index of 51, other lower glycemic options are:
Eating "low-fat" vegan or plant based diets isn't for everyone. Absent of that option, HFLC seems to be the superior alternative.
I have no idea why you always bring up vegan diets but one doesn't need to eat a vegan diet to be healthy and vegan diets have nothing to do with whether high fat diets are healthful or not.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saigafreak
Very people people in the medical community are gravitating away from HFLC towards McDougall and Ornish and more are converting the other way around.
The vast majority of people in the medical community don't gravitate towards high fat diets which is why none of the major health organizations recommend high fat diets. The Ornish diet is a lifestyle treatment for heart disease reversal....its not intended to be a diet for the general public.
The vast majority of people in the medical community don't gravitate towards high fat diets
I was speaking about the momentum. The numbers for low-fat advocates are dwindling, while HFLC numbers are increasing with some big players in the medical community recommending this approach, including those who used to be high carb advocates. You will not see the momentum switch back to low-fat from here on in. The medical community is also very poor in nutritional information, as Dr. Westman has alluded to before. Before he read more about nutrition, he admits to reciting the same scripted material "eat low-fat and more grains". Now he's one of the biggest players in the medical community and a highly regarded expert on nutrition.
Speaking of which, my own primary physician was converted thanks to me. Her practice now recommends low-carb high-fat for folks with higher triglyceride counts.
I was speaking about the momentum. The numbers for low-fat advocates are dwindling, while HFLC numbers are increasing with some big players in the medical community recommending this approach, including those who used to be high carb advocates.
The medical community never promoted "low-fat" diets, instead they promoted moderate-fat diets and recommended that people reduce their fat intake. But it was found that this advice was problematic because people would often replace high fat foods with unhealthy low-fat foods like refined carbohydrates and sugary foods. So the recommendations have shifted towards reducing saturated fat and increasing intake of healthful foods like whole grains, legumes, vegetables,nuts, fruit and fish.
Where the medical community is really gravitating towards is plant-strong diets rich in whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruit, etc which will be low to moderate in fat depending on the food choices. The amount of fat in the diet is not seen as the critical issue, instead the consumption whole plant foods while minimizing intake of fatty animal foods and refined foods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by saigafreak
Her practice now recommends low-carb high-fat for folks with higher triglyceride counts.
That's unfortunate and shows how often doctors go against the scientific community in their recommendations.
Where the medical community is really gravitating towards is plant-strong diets rich in whole grains, legumes, vegetables, fruit, etc which will be low to moderate in fat depending on the food choices. The amount of fat in the diet is not seen as the critical issue, instead the consumption whole plant foods while minimizing intake of fatty animal foods and refined foods.
Got a cite to validate that from anything other than a vegan site? Any names you like to drop of medical professionals who used to be HFLC and are now moderate to low-fat proponents? I've got lots of extremely reputable medical professionals who swung the other way.
Quote:
That's unfortunate
Well, she has quite a bit more education than you in the medical field, so I'm not worried about your opinion vs. hers. Her decision was based on quantitative evidence from my before and after HDL/LDL and Tri counts rather than any sort of bias on "plant power" or other nonsensical buzzwords. Another indicator that she's a true expert and that I trust her expert advice is that she's taking the transition slowly by dropping grains first before adding more red meats but takes in a LOT of coconut and olive oil along with eggs and vegetables. She also admits, like Dr. Westman does, that the medical community is very poor at teaching nutrition and goes by a standard script that explains why the majority still adhere to a AHA or "balanced" 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.
Her practice now recommends low-carb high-fat for folks with higher triglyceride counts.
