True or false?

[kuan]

Heard something the other day which almost makes me wanna check snopes.com.

20% of the population converts carbohydrates directly into triglycerides.

Sounds terrible...

[pedex]

only 20% LOL ??

[kuan]

Am I being dense?

[mrfreddy]

I can tell you your triglyceride count will go down drastically and almost immediately when you restrict carbohydrates in your diet. That's a fact, jack!

[wagathon]

High triglyceride levels are due to red meat consumption, right?

I'm not nutritionist so don't blame me for reporting what they say; however, on the bright side, if you're worried about triglyceride levels, don't worry about carbs.

:)

[mrfreddy]

sorry, wagathon, you couldnt be more wrong. drop the carbs, your triglyceride counts will drop immediately. red meat, including high sat. fat cuts, only makes things better.

[wagathon]

sorry, wagathon, you couldnt be more wrong. drop the carbs, your triglyceride counts will drop immediately. red meat, including high sat. fat cuts, only makes things better.

A bit confusing what you are saying but . . . I am not wrong: I am only reporting what any doctor will tell you, e.g., "Experts agree that maintaining a lean body weight; exercising; refraining from saturated fats and alcohol; and substituting complex carbohydrates for simple sugars are the best way to lower your triglycerides. Vegetarians in general have a low risk of heart disease just by virtue of consuming a diet low in total and saturated fat . . . However, a diet high in carbohydrates -- above 65 percent -- can also increase triglyceride levels. "We recommend a balanced diet so fat is 25 percent to 30 percent of total caloric intake, and most of that derived from monounsaturates or polyunsaturates."

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0820/is_n237/ai_19356336/pg_3

:)

[mrfreddy]

yeah, I know what I am saying... flies in the face of conventional medical advice, but it is true nonetheless. study after study after study bears this out. a low carb diet improves HDL, triglycerides, blood sugar.

[mrfreddy]

here's a recent study (just one of many) that demonstrates how a low carb diet improves HDL and triglycerides:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060529/hl_nm/cutting_carbs_dc_1

[SimiCyclist]

here's a recent study (just one of many) that demonstrates how a low carb diet improves HDL and triglycerides:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20060529/hl_nm/cutting_carbs_dc_1

This is quite typical of Mr. Freddy. He will post something, but won't research what he's posted. If he actually read the abstract he probably wouldn't have posted it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results: The 26%-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat diet reduced triacylglycerol, apolipoprotein B, small LDL mass, and total:HDL cholesterol and increased LDL peak diameter. These changes were significantly different from those with the 54%-carbohydrate diet. After subsequent weight loss, the changes in all these variables were significantly greater and the reduction in LDL cholesterol was significantly greater with the 54%-carbohydrate diet than with the 26%-carbohydrate diet. With the 26%-carbohydrate diet, lipoprotein changes with the higher saturated fat intakes were not significantly different from those with the lower saturated fat intakes, except for LDL cholesterol, which decreased less with the higher saturated fat intake because of an increase in mass of large LDL.

[Pat]

Heard something the other day which almost makes me wanna check snopes.com.

20% of the population converts carbohydrates directly into triglycerides.

Sounds terrible...


I believe it all depends on the context. If a person is sedentary and eating excess calories, of course, a portion of the consumed carbohydrates will be converted into triglycerides. That is what the body does. It saves up fat for that famine that your body is convinced is going to happen.

If you do a significant amount of aerobic exercise, you really need carbohydrates to fuel your body. Just don't over do it.

Actually, you need some carbohydrates even if you do nothing but sit around. Neural tissue can only burn carbohydrates. It can not burn fat. So lacking a source of carbohydrates, your body will convert proteins (muscle or dietary protein) into carbohydrate for the neural tissue to burn.

[mrfreddy]

actually, there is zero requirement for carbs. your body makes all the glucose it needs from protein. dietary protein, presuming you eat enough of it, from quality sources. Your muscles, unfortunately, if you don't.

[bilder]

The average American eats way too many carbs. To top it off they eat the wrong kind of carbs. Chips, sodas, candy, donuts, coffee loaded with syrup and sugar, all are bad and all are the main source of carbs for the average joe.

Now if you eat veggies other than corn and fruits you will be getting, for the most part, good carbs that will do you well in the long run.

The amount of meat and fat in your diet would not matter if you ate the right kind of carbs. Mix bad carbs with meats and fats and bad things happen.

[mrfreddy]

This is quite typical of Mr. Freddy. He will post something, but won't research what he's posted. If he actually read the abstract he probably wouldn't have posted it.


-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Results: The 26%-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat diet reduced triacylglycerol, apolipoprotein B, small LDL mass, and total:HDL cholesterol and increased LDL peak diameter. These changes were significantly different from those with the 54%-carbohydrate diet. After subsequent weight loss, the changes in all these variables were significantly greater and the reduction in LDL cholesterol was significantly greater with the 54%-carbohydrate diet than with the 26%-carbohydrate diet. With the 26%-carbohydrate diet, lipoprotein changes with the higher saturated fat intakes were not significantly different from those with the lower saturated fat intakes, except for LDL cholesterol, which decreased less with the higher saturated fat intake because of an increase in mass of large LDL.

ah, semi, semi, semi...

here's the orginal article, with the relevant parts supporting my argument in bold. make your own conclusions. btw, this is just one of literally dozens of studies showing the same result: cut the carbs, improve your lipid profile. it's beyond dispute by now.

NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - Trimming carbohydrate intake results in healthy improvements in blood fat levels, even if a person doesn't lose an ounce, a new study shows.
ADVERTISEMENT

"These dietary fads tend to come and go," Dr. Ronald M. Krauss of Children's Hospital Oakland Research Institute in Oakland, California, told Reuters Health. "In the case of low carbohydrates, people shouldn't be so quick to throw that away and move on to the next diet. Limiting carbohydrates can be beneficial even if people aren't successful at losing weight."

Scientists now believe that carbohydrates, especially simple sugars, can cause unhealthy changes in blood fats by causing fat to collect in the liver -- just as it does on one's thighs or belly. These fats eventually find their way into the bloodstream, Krauss explained. Cutting down on these fat deposits by cutting carbs reduces fat levels in the blood, and may also boost the body's ability to break down fats that do reach the bloodstream.

To investigate whether moderate reduction in carbohydrate intake might affect cholesterol levels, Krauss and his team had a group of 178 overweight men eat a standard diet including 54 percent energy intake from carbohydrates for one week.

The men were then randomly assigned to continue the same diet, or switch to a 39 percent carbohydrate diet, or a 26 percent carb diet for three weeks.

For an additional five weeks, men ate a similar diet but their calorie intakes were reduced to produce weight loss. In the final four weeks of the study, their energy intake was adjusted for weight stabilization.

Compared to the men who stayed on the standard diet, those with the lowest carb intake showed reductions in harmful triglycerides and "bad" LDL cholesterol levels.They also enjoyed an increase in the ratio of "good" HDL cholesterol to total cholesterol levels, and other improvements in their blood fat profile.

These healthy changes were seen whether or not the men were eating less saturated fat, and whether or not they lost weight.

The 54 percent carbohydrate diet resembles the normal diet many of us consume by following standard dietary recommendations, Krauss said. People can cut their carbohydrate intake to a level similar to that used in the study by "avoiding the kinds of food we don't need in our diet anyway-sugary foods, white rice, pasta, white bread," he added.

"This type of diet really needs to be done in consultation with a dietitian to get the balance that we used," Krauss emphasized. But such a diet, he noted, is much less restrictive than, for example, the Atkins' approach, and would relatively simple to follow.

SOURCE: American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, May 2006.

[SimiCyclist]

The excerpt I cited was from the abstract of the study from which your news article is based. The article you posted contradicts the study.

Original abstract.....
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/83/5/1025?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&author1=krauss&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT

[mrfreddy]

well, if you can make heads or tails out of that study, you're a smarter man than me, ha haa...

I can't tell if the results justify the conclusion the authors report or not. It wouldn't be the first time a study author bent the data to support a pre-determined conclusion...

I found it amusing that they couldn't stop the low carbers from losing weight even when they wanted to and tried by adjusting calories...

it also appeared to say that the high sat. fat diet resulted in more large particle LDL, which is, of course, a good thing.

at any rate the study is too short to mean much of anything. you need to be on a low carb diet for a few months to see real results.

when I find time, I'll point out the dozens of studies that prove you improve your lipid profile by dropping the carbs...

[SimiCyclist]

it also appeared to say that the high sat. fat diet resulted in more large particle LDL, which is, of course, a good thing

"the difference in the response of large LDL between the 2 diets was not significant"

You know its interesting. The statements released to the press suggests something way different than the abstract details. Could Dr. Krauss have had an outside influence? Perhaps its because the study was supported by a grant from the National Dairy Council.

[!!Comatoa$ted]

In studying articles, and media coverage of them, you will often find that they seem to be talking about 2 different things. From what I have seen this is quite common.

[McSpin]

Fortunately, I don't need a study to tell me I weigh less on a lower carbohydrate diet and that I feel much better.

[mrfreddy]

Here's Dr. Eade's analysis of this study... presented in fairly plain english, as opposed to the study itself.

anyway, semi, are you actually trying to argue that a low carb diet does not lower triglycerides? because if you are, you are on very very thin ice my friend! it's just as predictable as death and taxes - lower your carbs, you're triglycerides will follow. and of course, you'll also lose weight, improve your LDL, HDL, blood sugar, and on and on...





http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/archives/2006/05/post_1.html

Carbohydrates or weight loss or both?

An article caught my eye in this month's edition of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Based on the title, "Separate effects of deduced carbohydrate intake and weight loss on atherogenic dyslipidemia," I assumed this paper would address one of the age old problems with studying the effects of low-carb diets on blood lipids: how much of the correction is due to the weight that's lost and how much is due to the metabolic effects of the carbohydrate reduction?

At first blush I thought the paper was pretty good; on another read through along with some back-of-the-envelope calculations I thought it was pretty awful. I then really got it down, rooted around in it and was able to snuffle up a few good insights to pass along.

One of the problems in dealing with dietary regimens--especially those that cause a loss of weight--is to determine what the heck it is that causes the changes the dietary regimen brings about: are the changes a consequence of the lost weight? or of the change in macronutrient composition? or both? or something else altogether?

This problem arises because there are really four different variables involved in any diet--fat, protein, carbohydrate, and calories--all of which vary with respect to one another and all of which have an influence on the outcome of any specific diet. If I put an overweight patient on a low-carb diet when I check blood values on the 6-week follow up visit I expect to find lower triglyceride levels along with a fairly substantial weight loss. I can claim that it is the lowered carbohydrate levels that bring about this triglyceride lowering. Others might reasonably conclude that since the patient lost weight, the patient had to have been on a caloric-restricted diet, and that the triglyceride lowering is simply a manifestation of the lost weight. In fact, that is the primary argument of those who don't believe that the restriction of carbohydrates does anything other than restrict calories.

The arguments of these non-believers are perfectly valid. If one compares two diets that contain an equal number of calories but varying amounts of carbohydrate--let's say two 1500 kcal diets, one of which contains 50 grams of carbohydrate, 90 grams of protein and a little more than 100 grams of fat (about 63% of calories), and the other of which is made of 200 grams of carbohydrate, 90 grams of protein and a little less than 40 grams of fat (only 23% of calories)--and finds that subjects following the lower-carbohydrate, 1500 kcal diet lose more weight and lower their triglycerides more than those following the higher-carbohydrate, lower-fat diet (which is almost always the case when tested), can we say for sure it was the lower carbohydrates that did the trick?

Not necessarily.

Since the lower-carbohydrate diet had to contain the same number of calories as the higher-carbohydrate diet to remove any caloric difference from the equation, the calories lost by reducing the carbohydrate amount had to be replaced with fat because in this example the protein content was the same in both diets. So who's to say that the changes didn't come about because of the higher fat content? Or a combination of lower carbohydrates and higher fat?

So let's check that out. We'll design a diet that keeps the carbohydrate at 50 grams, keeps the protein at 90 grams and sets the fat at 40 grams just like the other diet, then we can say that any changes are surely due to the lower carbohydrate level in this diet. Not so fast. Now we're dealing with a 920 kcal diet instead of a 1500 kcal one, and our naysayers are going to point out that all the weight loss and any other changes we might find can be attributed to the lower calories. See what I mean? It's not an easy problem to deal with.

Another similar problem is trying to figure out whether some change that occurs with diet comes from the diet itself or simply from the weight lost while dieting. For example, let's say I give you a pill that makes you so nauseated that you lose your appetite, don't' want to eat, and drop 20 pounds over the next two months. I then check your blood pressure and find that it's a lot lower and tell you that the pill has lowered your blood pressure. You might well look at me and think: what a moron. My blood pressure is lower because I lost 20 pounds. It's the same with diet. Go on a low-carb diet, lose 20 pounds, and your blood pressure falls. Is it from the lowered carbs, the lost weight, or both? That is the question the paper under discussion deals with, and is why I was so excited when I first read it.

The authors are firm believers in the lipid hypothesis and are interested in looking at a couple of specific lipid parameters that they feel are the most important: triglyceride levels, HDL levels, and small, dense LDL particle levels. (For what it's worth, if there is even a flicker of a lipid-hypothesis-believing flame barely alive anywhere within me, I would finger these exact parameters as the culprits.) These authors point out right off the bat that obesity causes elevations of these parameters and acknowledge that carbohydrates do so as well.

Excess body weight can result in changes in plasma lipids and lipoproteins that increase the risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD), ie, increases in triacylglycerols and small, dense LDL particles, with variable increases in total LDL cholesterol, and decreases in HDL cholesterol. Atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with excess adiposity is highly correlated with reduced insulin sensitivity and is a major feature of the metabolic syndrome.

Dietary carbohydrates, especially simple sugars, can also promote atherogenic dyslipidemia, in large part because of effects on the metabolism of plasma triacylglycerol-rich lipoproteins. High-carbohydrate, low-fat diets have been shown to induce increased concentrations of small, dense LDL and expression of the small, dense LDL particle phenotype (LDL subclass pattern B) in a high proportion of healthy men.

The authors then note that low-carbohydrate, weight-loss diets have been shown to correct these lipid abnormalities and set themselves the task of designing a study to tease out whether it's the carb restriction that does all the heavy lifting or simply the weight loss or both.

Here is how the study was designed. 178 men went on what is referred to as a 'basal diet' containing enough calories to maintain starting weight for one week. This basal diet was made up of 54% carbohydrate, 16% protein, and 30% fat. After this first week the subjects were randomized into four groups of varying carbohydrate content: one group stayed on the 54% carb diet, one group dropped carbs to 39%, another group reduced their carbs to 26%, and the final group also got 26% carbs but had about 15 grams of their monounsaturated fat replaced with saturated fat. All groups got the same number of calories as they did the first week

After the end of this three week weight stabilization period all the subjects in all the groups got their intake slashed by 1000 kcal per day while keeping the same carb to protein to fat ratios as before. This phase of reduced caloric intake lasted for five weeks. The subjects lost weight during this five week period of reduced caloric intake and were then given an amount of calories sufficient to maintain their lower weight for the final four weeks of the study during which the macronutrient ratios were maintained as before.

I have a real problem with the way the data were presented in this study, which is why I thought this study was lousy my second time through. Nowhere was there a listing of caloric intake or grams of carbohydrates, protein or fat. All data were presented as percentages. The only hard number I had to go on was the fact that the average BMI measurements of the subjects was 29.2. Knowing that and that the average age was about 50 I was able to reverse engineer using the standard equations for total energy requirements for weight maintenance for 50 year old males with BMIs of 29.2 and found it to be roughly 2800 kcal per day. So, during the basal diet the first week all subjects would have received 2800 kcal per day made of 378 grams of carbohydrate, 112 grams of protein, and 93 grams of fat. During the next three weeks of weight stabilization the subjects (still consuming 2800 kcal per day) were randomized to the different levels of carb restriction, those on the first level of carb restriction at 39% would have eaten 273 grams of carbs daily while those on the most restricted 26% carbohydrate diets would have gotten 182 grams per day, not an insignificant dose. (Remember, a cup of sugar weighs about 200 grams so those subjects on the most carb restricted diet got almost a full cup of sugar equivalent daily. Not what I would call a real low-carb diet.)

After the 1000 kcal per day reduction the 54% subjects were consuming 243 grams of carb per day, those at 39% restriction, 175 grams per day, and those at 26% restriction got 117 grams per day, still not a real low-carb diet.

What the researchers wanted to see was what happened after the first four weeks of weight stabilization as the carbohydrate levels in the diet were reduced. Since there was no weight loss (actually there was, but more about that in a moment) during this four week period, any changes in the lipid parameters under evaluation could be attributed to the change in carbohydrate content of the diet. What happened?

In the initial diet, stable-weight phase of the study, the 26%-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat diet resulted in reductions from baseline in total cholesterol, triacylglycerol, apo B, and total:HDL cholesterol that were greater than the changes observed in the group remaining on the 54%-carbohydrate diet.

In the initial stable-weight phase, LDL peak particle diameter increased to a significantly greater extent with both the 39%- and 26%-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat diets than with the 54%-carbohydrate diet. [larger diameter LDL particles are assumed to be much less atherogenic than the smaller, denser ones.]

In other words, there was a substantial improvement in those lipid parameters in the subjects on the lowest carbohydrate diet compared to those in the highest. Since all groups maintained their same weight these changes could only be attributed to the decrease in carbohydrate in the diet. Those of us who have been on real low-carbohydrate diets can only imagine the changes the researchers would have seen had these subjects been on about 50 grams of carbohydrate per day instead of the 182 they actually ate. It turns out that there was a slight fly in the ointment in this study during this first stable-weight period of the study that all of us who have been on low-carb diets will no doubt find amusing. As the researchers reported:

Despite our effort to maintain constant weight, the 26%-carbohydrate, low-saturated-fat diet group lost more weight than did the 54%-carbohydrate group during the stable-weight period. There was also a trend for a greater reduction in percentage body fat with the lower-carbohydrate diets.

Do tell, heh, heh, heh.

After the next part of the study during which the subjects lost weight due to the 1000 kcal per day reduction in intake an interesting finding emerged. The researchers had determined that the carbohydrate restriction by itself had lowered triglycerides, Apo B, HDL/total cholesterol ratios and produced larger LDL particles so they wanted to see what weight loss added to the picture. They found mild further improvement in these already improved parameters in the lower carb group, but found huge positive changes with weight loss in the highest carb group.

Let's think about this a little. In the first phase the lowest carb group dropped their carb intake from 378 grams per day on the basal diet to 182 grams per day on the 26% carb weight-stable diet, a reduction of a whopping 192 grams of carb--virtually a cup of sugar--per day. When subjects in this same low-carb group reduced their caloric intake by 1000 kcal per day, they lost another 65 grams per day, an improvement, to be sure, but a long way from the 192 grams they ditched when they switched from the basal diet to the iso-caloric low-carb diet.

When the high-carb group consuming the 378 grams per day reduced their intake by 1000 kcal per day they reduced their carb intake by 135 grams per day (378 minus 243), which was over double the 65 grams the subjects in the lowest carb group reduced when they dropped their 1000 kcal. It would stand to reason, then, that if it's really the carb reduction that counts and not the weight loss, that the group dropping the most carbs would have the greatest changes, which is exactly what happened.

So, to summarize, carb restriction rules.

The lipid parameters evaluated in this study improved as a function of carbohydrate restriction. In their discussion and conclusion section the authors were obviously loathe to make these findings clear and saw fit to obscure them in a hodgepodge of academic gobbledygook but they're there for anyone who wants to root them out.

Oh, and about that saturated fat they added to one of the low-carbohydrate diets... Well, it turns out that it didn't do much of anything except make the LDL particles even bigger, which is just how you want them.

Once again, despite having to ferret the truth out of an article that does its best to obscure it, the low-carb diet wins by a knockout. Heh, heh, heh.

[mrfreddy]

a couple more studies mentioned here:

http://heartdisease.about.com/od/hearthealthydiet/a/lowcarb5.htm

...both studies showed that over the long-term, changes in blood lipids were more favorable in the low-carb patients than in the low-fat patients. In particular, the low-fat diets resulted in reduced HDL cholesterol in both studies, while the low-carb diets resulted in significantly better HDL levels than in the control groups. The same was true for triglyceride levels...

[wagathon]

Any insurance salesman that is trying to sell you some term life insurance will tell you, "don't eat a Big Mac the day before have the blood test that is part of your physical."

People I know that battle the "bad" cholesterol and take medication for it also have high triglyceride levels and are told by their doctors to watch meats, sweats and booze.

[mrfreddy]

Any insurance salesman that is trying to sell you some term life insurance will tell you, "don't eat a Big Mac the day before have the blood test that is part of your physical."

I agree, sort of.. with the insurance salesman... for sure, dont eat a big mac. it has way too many carbs, and is full of trans-fats. have a bun free grass fed burger instead. have a lot of them, for several weeks, cut the carbs to a minimum, then go take the test.

People I know that battle the "bad" cholesterol and take medication for it also have high triglyceride levels and are told by their doctors to watch meats, sweats and booze.

tell your friends 1) they probably shouldn't even be worrying about cholestoral at all - the lipid hypothesis is extraordinarily weak 2) if they insist on worrying about it, a low carb diet works best to improve the factors to do seem to sort of slightly matter (HDL, LDL large particle (good) versus small particle (bad), triglycerides, and blood sugar. and finally, 3) find smarter doctors.

[SimiCyclist]

Dr. Eades seems to contradict parts of the study, much like the first article. Perhaps you should try to read the original abstract. You may find that much of stuff you're embracing is because you rely on others' interpretations rather than your own.

[mrfreddy]

well, the original abstract is too densly worded for my poor glucose deprived brain to decipher - it in fact seems intentionally worded to mislead. I respect Dr. Eades - he has a lot more experience and education in this area than you or me - and I can't find any reason to doubt his interpretation.

Again, are you trying to argue that a low carb diet does not improve triglycerides? that my original point in this thread, and regardless of how you interpret this particular study, it remains true that if you restrict carbs, your triglyceride will almost certainly 100% for sure without a doubt go down. Try it yourself, you'll see.

[nedgoudy]

yeah, I know what I am saying... flies in the face of conventional medical advice, but it is true nonetheless. study after study after study bears this out. a low carb diet improves HDL, triglycerides, blood sugar.

TRUE!

And to hedge all the bets, I live on
Whey Protein Powder milk shakes
with Omega 3 Fish Oil pills.

No FAT, Low CARB, High Protein
turned me into a fit cyclist from a
lard ass. Worked for me!

[SimiCyclist]

No, I only pointed out the obvious discrepencies from the original article you posted and the actual study.

[mrfreddy]

well, if you didnt disagree with the orginal point, I dont know why you bothered? but thanks, anyway...

"obvious discrepencies"??? even Dr. Eades, who reads these types of reports every day, had to read it several times and get out his envelope and calculator to clarify what's apparently "obvious" to you...

[SimiCyclist]

The study doesn't support what you claim.

[mrfreddy]

yes it does. but who cares really? the salient point here isn't whether or not I read the full abstract before I posted the news story (no, I didnt. you got me there. wow.),or whether or not it supports what I am claiming (according to Dr. E. it does. I believe him. I don't believe you. Sorry.)

the point is that if you want to lower your triglycerides, a damn good way is to cut down on the carbs.

there are dozens of other studies that verify that a reduction in dietary carbs leads to a reduction in triglyceride counts.

and nevermind the studies, ask anyone who's tried it, they'll tell you. troll 'round the low carb forums, they'll tell you.

case closed. unless you have proof otherwise?

[SimiCyclist]

My blood panel disagrees with you.

[Enthalpic]

Well carb reduction is a fairly well established way to lower triglycerides. No need to turn this into yet another low-carb debate. Some people seem to hate the idea of cutting out some junk carbs and attack you like you are on Atkins. Carb reduction and low/no-carb diets can be separate ideas; but apparently not on this forum.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triglycerides

Reducing triglyceride levels
Cardiovascular exercise and low-moderate carbohydrate diets containing essential fatty acid are recommended for reducing triglyceride levels. When these fail, fish oils, fibrate drugs, niacin, and some statins are registered for reducing triglyceride levels. Prior alcohol intake can cause elevated levels of triglycerides, and reducing alcohol intake is routinely recommended in patients with high triglyceride levels

[kuan]

So this thing about triglycerides and 20% of the population? I must have missed something because I've read all this and I still don't get it.

[SimiCyclist]

case closed. unless you have proof otherwise?

I believe your embracing the fringe "medical" experts may end up causing you problems in the future. I suggest you look into some of the sane medical information that can be obtained from organizations such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Society. I've listed some links to the dietary guidelines they recommend.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1330

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Recommendations.asp?sitearea=PED

http://www.americandiabetesassociation.com/

[SimiCyclist]

So this thing about triglycerides and 20% of the population? I must have missed something because I've read all this and I still don't get it.

I suspect there are some people that have this affliction, but 1 in every 5 people sounds more like fringe claims. Do you know where you heard this?

[wagathon]

So long as nothing doctors and nutritionists say means anything about red meat being the cause of high cholersterol and triglyceride levels, then I guess my opinion is as good as anyone elses: if you think giving up bread will lower your triglycerides, then you're probably listening to the wrong nutrition gurus . . . maybe donuts with sugar frosting can raise your triglycerides but not a good sourdough.

[AnthonyG]

So long as nothing doctors and nutritionists say means anything about red meat being the cause of high cholersterol and triglyceride levels, then I guess my opinion is as good as anyone elses: if you think giving up bread will lower your triglycerides, then you're probably listening to the wrong nutrition gurus . . . maybe donuts with sugar frosting can raise your triglycerides but not a good sourdough.

Yes but you put your finger on the problem. WHERE do you get GOOD sourdough bread. The Weston A Price Foundation is all in favor of good sourdough bread. There's nothing better than a good sourdough bread and unpasturized butter but its not easy to come by. Now sure you can make your own but no one here is interested in recipies.

Regards, Anthony

[mrfreddy]

I believe your embracing the fringe "medical" experts may end up causing you problems in the future. I suggest you look into some of the sane medical information that can be obtained from organizations such as the American Heart Association, the American Cancer Society and the American Diabetes Society. I've listed some links to the dietary guidelines they recommend.

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter.jhtml?identifier=1330

http://www.cancer.org/docroot/PED/content/PED_3_2X_Recommendations.asp?sitearea=PED

http://www.americandiabetesassociation.com/

thanks for your concern, but I dont know why you should be. My diet is based on a might foundation:

1) evolution - it's corresponds closely to the diet we humans evolved on.
2) mother's milk - it's no accident that nature gives babies a diet that is 50% fat (and mostly saturated), 25% protein, 25% carb.
3) science - study after study after study after study have shown how a low carb diet only improves your lipid profile, and helps with low blood pressure and long list of other problems. Recently studies have shown that a zero carb diet helps with Parkinsons.
And, oh yeah, there's all those primitive peoples who lived disease free on all fat and protein diets.
4) Insulin. Exces Insulin is poison in your body. Not a problem on my diet.

That's a pretty sturdy four legged table.

And add to that the fact that hunger is never an issue on a low carb diet,

On the other hand, I think your diet is dangerous, what little I know of it. I assume you avoid sat. fats and you eat a lot of carbs. But by so doing, you are depriving your body of essential fats and dumping a lot of sugar into a body that is not very well adapted to that type of diet. You probably manage to offset the damange by ridiing endless hours on your bike, so good for you. You'd still be that much better off without all that sugar.

it IS amazing and quite scandalous that those organizations you listed give such bad advice, the diabetes association in particular, given that they advise patients who cannot properly process sugar to eat a diet that is high in sugar. I just can't get over that one. And given that a low carb diet has been proven to be of great help for diabetics.

In the end, you have to compare the known science and your own experience against the advice of the so called experts. Their case is weak, extraordinarily weak.

[SimiCyclist]

thanks for your concern, but I dont know why you should be. My diet is based on a might foundation:

1) evolution - it's corresponds closely to the diet we humans evolved on.
2) mother's milk - it's no accident that nature gives babies a diet that is 50% fat (and mostly saturated), 25% protein, 25% carb.
3) science - study after study after study after study have shown how a low carb diet only improves your lipid profile, and helps with low blood pressure and long list of other problems. Recently studies have shown that a zero carb diet helps with Parkinsons.
And, oh yeah, there's all those primitive peoples who lived disease free on all fat and protein diets.
4) Insulin. Exces Insulin is poison in your body. Not a problem on my diet.

That's a pretty sturdy four legged table.

And add to that the fact that hunger is never an issue on a low carb diet,

On the other hand, I think your diet is dangerous, what little I know of it. I assume you avoid sat. fats and you eat a lot of carbs. But by so doing, you are depriving your body of essential fats and dumping a lot of sugar into a body that is not very well adapted to that type of diet. You probably manage to offset the damange by ridiing endless hours on your bike, so good for you. You'd still be that much better off without all that sugar.

it IS amazing and quite scandalous that those organizations you listed give such bad advice, the diabetes association in particular, given that they advise patients who cannot properly process sugar to eat a diet that is high in sugar. I just can't get over that one. And given that a low carb diet has been proven to be of great help for diabetics.

In the end, you have to compare the known science and your own experience against the advice of the so called experts. Their case is weak, extraordinarily weak.

My diet is about 15% fat, 50% carbs 35% protein (give or take day to day). I reduced my LDL from over 170 down to (my latest panel) 93. My triglycerides are 131. I don't ride endless hours but I do about 8 hours of rigorous activity weekly. Clearly I must be doing something right.

I know you've mentioned many studies, but so far its just been a mention. And those studies that you've posted in the past have had others in this forum sometimes show that, not only have you been inaccurate, but actually have posted studies that show the opposite (just review your old posts).

Is it possible that you're focusing on the fringe community because they are providing the message you're looking for rather than the truth? In your own previous posts you've admitted "falling off the wagon" on the diet you follow, yet you just claimed hunger is not a problem. In your own previous posts you mentioned the years you've been follwing your diet, yet you have yet to reach your goal weight. I have had none of these problems you seem to have. You may want to consider looking the more reasonable and healthy approach suggested by the organizations I posted.

[mrfreddy]

My diet is about 15% fat, 50% carbs 35% protein (give or take day to day). I reduced my LDL from over 170 down to (my latest panel) 93. My triglycerides are 131. I don't ride endless hours but I do about 8 hours of rigorous activity weekly. Clearly I must be doing something right.

I dont remember the exact number, but i think my triglycerides are about a third of yours...

btw, maybe you should have one of those tests done where they measure the particle sizes of your LDL. You might be suprised.

I know you've mentioned many studies, but so far its just been a mention. And those studies that you've posted in the past have had others in this forum sometimes show that, not only have you been inaccurate, but actually have posted studies that show the opposite (just review your old posts).

well, of course your wrong about that! I'm never wrong, ha haaa......

so, when are you gonna be a man and stand by your claim that low carb does not dramatically lower trigycerides. You seem to be nibbling around the corners on this one.



Is it possible that you're focusing on the fringe community because they are providing the message you're looking for rather than the truth?

anything is possible.. I like to think that a diet that helps me lose weight, feel great, improves my lipids, doesnt require hunger, etc. etc. is a good thing. actually, when I started, I was skeptical. the more I read, the more I learned...

In your own previous posts you've admitted "falling off the wagon" on the diet you follow, yet you just claimed hunger is not a problem.



"falling off the wagon" has nothing to do with hunger. I simply like to indulge once in awhile. no big deal. also, it makes being around family vacations a lot easier.

In your own previous posts you mentioned the years you've been follwing your diet, yet you have yet to reach your goal weight. I have had none of these problems you seem to have. You may want to consider looking the more reasonable and healthy approach suggested by the organizations I posted.

ah, sigh.... there you go again. btw, why do you always insist on making personal comments/attacks? but since you mentioned it, I never said low carb was the total solution. my weight isnt at goal yet because (this is gettting repetitious, so please pay attention this time!): I like to drink. I like to eat. I do too much of both. even on low carb, calories do count. I also wasnt exercising enough, till the beginning of this year. if you eat too many brussel sprouts and bananas, the same thing will happen (along with some horrid flatulance!).

btw, my weight is down about 6 pounds this year.... and dropping...

[SimiCyclist]

My blood panel levels are well below the standards recommended by the organizations I've cited. Accordingly, the the greatest risk for cardiac disease comes from LDL. I'm not dancing around the triglyceride issue. It's just not as big an issue as you and the fringe groups make it out to be. It's a factor, but my levels are at a relative minimal level (typically < 150 mg/dl is desired, a third of that is terrific). An annual cardiolite test shows the blood flow in my coronary arteries are on an increasing trend. Again, I must be doing something right.

You may want to check out the pubmed abstract below. It discusses the veracity of triglyceride levels and the scope of its effects in coronary heart disease...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8836866&dopt=Abstract

My mentioning your "falling off the wagon" and not meeting your weight goals over many years was not meant to attack you but, rather, to show that the claim that your dietary style is a natural or easy adaptation may not be so. As I recall, you follow the Atkins program. It appears that you and many others have found it difficult to follow as the attraction to it has floundered in the last year or so, as has Atkins itself (I believe it filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection last year).

I commend you on your 6 pound loss. It's clearly a battle. Having lost 100 pounds myself, I empathize with your efforts.

[mrfreddy]

I commend you on your 6 pound loss. It's clearly a battle. Having lost 100 pounds myself, I empathize with your efforts.

yeah, the last mile aint easy. but considering I probably would have been hitting around 250 pounds by now without low carb, I aint complaining that much.


but lets get personal about you. wow, you really were a fat dude werent you? lets see, you were 100 pounds overweight, you admittedly ate a crappy diet most of your life, then you went on Atkins, for what? a year or so, or even less? and somehow you blame saturated fat for your heart problems?

really?

[SimiCyclist]

I don’t hold saturated fats solely responsible for my earlier heart problems, but a major factor indeed. Prior to going on Atkins I consulted my doctor and got a complete blood panel and general checkup. After about a year I experienced chest pain and ultimately had a blocked artery opened with a stent. The blood panel at that time showed dangerously high cholesterol levels which my doctor noted had likely finished it off. That’s when I changed to what I’ve been doing for somewhat over 3 years now, with a measurable improvement each year.

[AnthonyG]

I don’t hold saturated fats solely responsible for my earlier heart problems, but a major factor indeed. Prior to going on Atkins I consulted my doctor and got a complete blood panel and general checkup. After about a year I experienced chest pain and ultimately had a blocked artery opened with a stent. The blood panel at that time showed dangerously high cholesterol levels which my doctor noted had likely finished it off. That’s when I changed to what I’ve been doing for somewhat over 3 years now, with a measurable improvement each year.

I don't doubt that your cholesterol levels were very high and you were very ill but thats just association and cause and effect is seriously lacking.

Cholesterol is a very powerful antioxidant and its the front line of your bodies self repair mechanism. To say that high cholesterol is associated with poor health is like, DUH!!!

Say your house is on fire and the firemen turn up to put out the fire. Maybe they won the battle or maybe they lost but anyhow the police turn up latter to see what happened. They see a burnt down house, they see the firemen, put 2 and 2 together and say "Hey, the firemen burn't down the house."

Well that's what medicine is doing to cholesterol.

http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html


Regards, Anthony

[SimiCyclist]

I don't doubt that your cholesterol levels were very high and you were very ill but thats just association and cause and effect is seriously lacking.

Cholesterol is a very powerful antioxidant and its the front line of your bodies self repair mechanism. To say that high cholesterol is associated with poor health is like, DUH!!!

Say your house is on fire and the firemen turn up to put out the fire. Maybe they won the battle or maybe they lost but anyhow the police turn up latter to see what happened. They see a burnt down house, they see the firemen, put 2 and 2 together and say "Hey, the firemen burn't down the house."

Well that's what medicine is doing to cholesterol.

http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html


Regards, Anthony

Interesting. I just don't think any reputuable medical organization would agree with you.

[mrfreddy]

here's what it comes down to:

In support of the lipid hypothesis:

"reputuable medical organizations" promote it.


In opposition:

Common sense
Dozens and dozens of studies
Thousands of case histories
Evolution
And for you conspiracty nuts: the lipid hypothesis has fueled multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical and crap food industries. just a coincidence?

Take your pick!

[SimiCyclist]

And for you conspiracty nuts: the lipid hypothesis has fueled multi-billion dollar pharmaceutical and crap food industries. just a coincidence?

I agree with you in this regard. You have to be a conspiracy nut to believe this.

[mrfreddy]

I googled triglycerides low carbohydrate diet" and these were amoung the first 20 or so hits. They all have one thing in common - low carb diet lowers triglycerides and improves HDL. Not a suprise to anyone but Semi.

And NO, I didnt read any of these in detail. Feel free to nitpick away!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12761364

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12761365

http://www.the-aps.org/press/journal/04/33.htm

http://www.scienceblog.com/community/older/2003/A/20037424.html

http://health.yahoo.com/ency/healthwise/aa144576

[mrfreddy]

I agree with you in this regard. You have to be a conspiracy nut to believe this.


well, the statin market and all of the low fat foods out there are both huge businesses, you can't argue against that.

as to the existance of an organized conspiracy, I highly doubt it. But the deeply entrenched interests MAY go a long way to explain the irrational exuberance applied to scaring people away from eating the most nutiritionaly dense foods available, ie MEAT!

Semi, you should order and read the following book. Get back to us when you're done, ok?

http://www.theomnivore.com/The_Great_Cholesterol_Con.html

[SimiCyclist]

well, the statin market and all of the low fat foods out there are both huge businesses, you can't argue against that.

as to the existance of an organized conspiracy, I highly doubt it. But the deeply entrenched interests MAY go a long way to explain the irrational exuberance applied to scaring people away from eating the most nutiritionaly dense foods available, ie MEAT!

Semi, you should order and read the following book. Get back to us when you're done, ok?

http://www.theomnivore.com/The_Great_Cholesterol_Con.html

The link provides pretty much the synopsis of the approach this book takes. But here's the deal. I have significantly decreased my intake of saturated fat over the last three years. The annual cardiolite test, and the four blood panels I get each year as well as my continuously improving performace in cycling events has shown my condition continues to improve. With that in mind, why should I consider changing anything in light of these results?

BTW, when I began eating a low fat regimen, my LDL level dramatically dropped eliminating the need for a statin medication.