New study finds low carb/high fat diet lowers cardiovascular risk (vegetables, clinic)
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.
People who avoid carbohydrates and eat more fat, even saturated fat, lose more body fat and have fewer cardiovascular risks than people who follow the low-fat diet that health authorities have favored for decades, a major new study shows.
But more recent clinical studies in which individuals and their diets were assessed over time have produced a more complex picture. Some have provided strong evidence that people can sharply reduce their heart disease risk by eating fewer carbohydrates and more dietary fat, with the exception of trans fats. The new findings suggest that this strategy more effectively reduces body fat and also lowers overall weight.
Note that calories were not counted nor considered, and people still benefited. More proof that it's the high refined-carb intake that's fattening us up/killing us. Dietary fat is not the enemy.
I'm not ready to live on bacon... I prefer a reduced carbohydrate balanced diet of leaner cuts of meat like chicken, fresh salads, some fruits, and very little pasta, bread, or rice.
I've narrowed down the cause of heart problems aside from genetics and lack of exercise, the main dietary factors are excess alcohol and carbohydrate consumption or both, especially fructose consumption. Soda and alcohol are digested similarly by the body and both cause fatty liver, which eventually elevates triglyceride and cholesterol levels and leads to metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and plaque buildup.
Our food guide pyramid is still too carb heavy... it should emphasis fruits, vegetables, dairy, and lean meats more equally, with carbs less emphasized.
Whether the intake of large amounts of saturated fats is harmful is not something I'm willing to say yes or no on at this point.. I don't have enough evidence either way to convince me so I'd rather air on the side of caution and not live on saturated fat and organ meats.
Note that calories were not counted nor considered, and people still benefited. More proof that it's the high refined-carb intake that's fattening us up/killing us. Dietary fat is not the enemy.
Calories were tracked and the high fat group was only eating, on average, ~1,400 calories and while the percent of fat in their diet went up total fat intake was likely similar to an average person who is eating on average 2,400 calories. The lower fat group ate more calories and hence less weight loss. No big mystery here.
Anyhow, the wording in the cited article is very misleading given the actual design of the study.......but what is new? The media always distorts science. Funny that the article has a picture of a steak when the low-carbohydrate group was instructed to eat nuts, fish, etc and to use canola and olive oil.
Calories were tracked and the high fat group was only eating, on average, ~1,400 calories and while the percent of fat in their diet went up total fat intake was likely similar to an average person who is eating on average 2,400 calories. The lower fat group ate more calories and hence less weight loss. No big mystery here.
That's the whole reason that HFLC works. People were instructed to eat certain foods but were not instructed to restrict their calories. The HF group ate less calories because when you eat a HFLC you naturally eat less. I eat a HFLC diet and I lose weight because I am not hungry all the time so I eat less. There really ISN'T any magic to it.
About 10 years ago I lost a lot of weight on the Atkins diet. I managed to keep it off for quite a few years but I gave in to my mother's hysteria about fat and converted to low fat, which is naturally higher in carbs. I gradually gained back the weight. Now I am back on Atkins and I have lost a bunch of weight. I am not hungry and I naturally eat less. I don't have to plan to eat less, I am just not as hungry so I eat less.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Anyhow, the wording in the cited article is very misleading given the actual design of the study.......but what is new? The media always distorts science. Funny that the article has a picture of a steak when the low-carbohydrate group was instructed to eat nuts, fish, etc and to use canola and olive oil.
I eat a HFLC diet and I eat a variety of proteins including steak, fish, nuts, seeds, poultry. I also use a variety of oils including coconut oil, butter and olive oil.
People were instructed to eat certain foods but were not instructed to restrict their calories. The HF group ate less calories because when you eat a HFLC you naturally eat less.
The two groups received much different dietary advice, the difference went well beyond fat intake. But both groups lost weight and the low-fat group still had a low calorie intake. There is no reason to believe that the amount of fat you eat is the critical issue in weight-loss, in fact, the most satiating foods are carbohydrate and protein rich (and hence low-fat) whole foods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
I managed to keep it off for quite a few years but I gave in to my mother's hysteria about fat and converted to low fat, which is naturally higher in carbs.
Years ago I switched to a diet of primarily whole plant-based foods and lost 60~70 with no exercise, etc....its been many years and I haven't gained any of the weight back. My fat intake happens to be relatively low, probably around 20~25%, but not because I'm eating white bread, refined pasta, sugar, etc but instead because I'm eating whole foods that are naturally low in fat (lentils, fruit, vegetables, whole grains, potatoes, etc) and minimize the use of nutrition poor fats/oils like coconut oil, butter and other oils. Though I do frequently eat nuts and seeds.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Momma_bear
HFLC diets really do work for most people.
If that were true the obesity rates in the US wouldn't keep going up. Low-carbohydrate diets, like most diet gimmicks, results in short-term weight loss.
That's the whole reason that HFLC works. People were instructed to eat certain foods but were not instructed to restrict their calories. The HF group ate less calories because when you eat a HFLC you naturally eat less. I eat a HFLC diet and I lose weight because I am not hungry all the time so I eat less. There really ISN'T any magic to it.
About 10 years ago I lost a lot of weight on the Atkins diet. I managed to keep it off for quite a few years but I gave in to my mother's hysteria about fat and converted to low fat, which is naturally higher in carbs. I gradually gained back the weight. Now I am back on Atkins and I have lost a bunch of weight. I am not hungry and I naturally eat less. I don't have to plan to eat less, I am just not as hungry so I eat less.
I eat a HFLC diet and I eat a variety of proteins including steak, fish, nuts, seeds, poultry. I also use a variety of oils including coconut oil, butter and olive oil.
HFLC diets really do work for most people.
It is actually more simple than that. It is not carbohydrates that is the problem exactly, but grains (wheat especially), as it has nothing in common with the wheat of 50 years ago. Remember the Green Revolution in the 1970s that solved a good chunk of the world hunger problem in 3rd world countries? Hybrid dwarf wheat was introduced there and yields increased by a factor of 8 or more. However, the end result was the wheat was fundamentally changed with a much shorter plant, larger seed heads, and much higher gluten content. Modern wheat also has characteristics that act like an appetite stimulant, meaning if you have grains you are more likely to feel hungry or snack a few hours after eating. This wasn't an issue at all in this country in the past. Take wheat out of the diet and most health problems disappear, even with less exercise.
The two groups received much different dietary advice, the difference went well beyond fat intake. But both groups lost weight and the low-fat group still had a low calorie intake. There is no reason to believe that the amount of fat you eat is the critical issue in weight-loss, in fact, the most satiating foods are carbohydrate and protein rich (and hence low-fat) whole foods.
Here is the link to the NIH press release about the study:
The two groups both had access to a dietician throughout the year. Why are you so hell bent on discrediting something that appears to have a growing body of scientific research supporting it?
I'm not ready to live on bacon... I prefer a reduced carbohydrate balanced diet of leaner cuts of meat like chicken, fresh salads, some fruits, and very little pasta, bread, or rice.
I've narrowed down the cause of heart problems aside from genetics and lack of exercise, the main dietary factors are excess alcohol and carbohydrate consumption or both, especially fructose consumption. Soda and alcohol are digested similarly by the body and both cause fatty liver, which eventually elevates triglyceride and cholesterol levels and leads to metabolic syndrome, inflammation, and plaque buildup.
Our food guide pyramid is still too carb heavy... it should emphasis fruits, vegetables, dairy, and lean meats more equally, with carbs less emphasized.
Whether the intake of large amounts of saturated fats is harmful is not something I'm willing to say yes or no on at this point.. I don't have enough evidence either way to convince me so I'd rather air on the side of caution and not live on saturated fat and organ meats.
I eat a low carb diet and I don't eat any bacon. Bacon is not an important food on a low carb diet.
Dr. Dean Ornish, MD said long ago that high carbs vs low fat was the way to go. This reverses that. Yet he got results his way. Hmm. Maybe a semi-low fat & semi-moderate carbs (good carbs from fruits, veggies) not whole grains, rice, wheat, etc. that spike insulin levels is the answer.
I think lowering grains lowers bld sugar & inflammation & this is key. If you eat healthy fat like coconut or olive oil, nuts, seeds, etc. in moderation then you'll be ok. Just my .02 but it seems work for me as I lost 10 lbs to 160 lbs from 170 & carry less bodyfat. Also, my bp & bld sugar is v. good this way.
I urge all to look at this as a way to control diet. I have bit over a over eating issue at a meal though & must address it. I eat 1-2 meals daily after working out, & fasting for at least 16 hrs then allowing food during an 8 hr window, which allows one large meal & a followup small one a few hrs later to top off the day's food intake.
Oops, forgot to add my daily 2 glasses of red wine which is imperative, should I have the willpower to remain on such an eating regimen for the rest of my life.
That's almost exactly my eating plan, including waiting to eat until after a long fast and a workout.
Using today's buzzword, it's a "plant-based" diet but I use animal proteins occasionally, primarily to add flavor to veggie-rich soups. Fats come from nuts, seeds, and avocados, and light use of olive or coconut oils as cooking oils or salad dressing.
After an initial weight loss of 20 lbs a few years ago, I've maintained my weight on this plan. I too eat 2 meals within a 8-hour window and seldom feel hungry after the 2nd meal. When I do, a bit of good fat - a few nuts or a slice of avocado, along with a bowl of plain popcorn, takes care of it.
My one temptation is chili, which for me must have beef. I enjoy cooking it almost as much as eating it. I indulge a couple of times a month.
Quote:
Originally Posted by movintime
Maybe a semi-low fat & semi-moderate carbs (good carbs from fruits, veggies) not whole grains, rice, wheat, etc. that spike insulin levels is the answer.
I think lowering grains lowers bld sugar & inflammation & this is key. If you eat healthy fat like coconut or olive oil, nuts, seeds, etc. in moderation then you'll be ok. Just my .02 but it seems work for me as I lost 10 lbs to 160 lbs from 170 & carry less bodyfat. Also, my bp & bld sugar is v. good this way.
I urge all to look at this as a way to control diet. I have bit over a over eating issue at a meal though & must address it. I eat 1-2 meals daily after working out, & fasting for at least 16 hrs then allowing food during an 8 hr window, which allows one large meal & a followup small one a few hrs later to top off the day's food intake.
Oops, forgot to add my daily 2 glasses of red wine which is imperative, should I have the willpower to remain on such an eating regimen for the rest of my life.
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.
