Sixty Fiver

The articles tend to be a little sensational and when you read the fine print they most often state that it is processed meats that cause issues and make little mention of other dietary factors that contribute to mortality... those hamburgers usually come on a bun with a side of fries and a soda and the best thing to serve with s steak is a baked potatoes and some garlic bread.

We already know that a high protein diet causes health issues.

By it's nature a low carb / high fat diet restricts protein intake because the focus is to access fat as a primary energy source, excess protein can trigger Gluconeogenesis whereby protein is converted to glucose / glycogen to be utilized as an energy source and is quite often a response to starvation.

The community of people we know who have adopted a LCHF way of eating is expanding at an exponential rate and for those of you who go on FB there is a large group of LCHF practitioners (tens of thousands) and some of the before and after pictures are nothing short of astounding.

We made steak tonight and roasted it in the oven (frying really f's up food) and had a generous serving of steamed kale on the side that was generously dressed with butter.

Fat Boy

It was an epidemiological study. So control over people's diet was nil. You basically have them fill out a questionnaire (based on memories several months after the fact) and then make massive sweeping conclusions based on whatever you wanted to demonize before starting your 'study'. Sorry, this, like the famous Harvard study, just mean nothing. It might be right; it might be wrong. It's just nonsense, so spending time worrying about it is silly.

What we do know is that many (not all) cancers thrive on glucose, so if you go strict vegan or very high fruit with some cancers, it's like pouring gas on a fire. An effective treatment for some cancers is a ketogenic diet (like what 65ers eats). I found this interesting when I learned it.

Sixty Fiver

My doctor has been following our adventure in LCHF and from our conversations on non medical things it sounds like he and his wife have also started to adopt a lower carb lifestyle... we have been friends for over a decade as our relationship started as a peers and we talk about all kinds of things. We are almost the same age and he's looking better than I have ever seen him... he came back from a 2 week cruise and said he did not gain any weight despite putting back a lot of food.

Anyways... BP was 95/65 and resting pulse was 55 and one would think all this figurative bacon would be having a detrimental effect on that as well as my weight which has held steady despite an inability to get out and engage in my usual low levels of exercise.

This week's dinner menu has included liver, heart, chicken times 2, bacon, steak, and Greek salad as main meals with generous servings of kale, chard, green beans, and spinach... have had a little oatmeal or eggs at breakfast with my daughter and my usual 2 cups of bulletproof coffee with a few hand fulls of almonds every day.

Lunch has been Polish sausage and sauerkraut and my wife really enjoys Liverwurst and liver... it has really helped with some of the thyroid related deficiencies to add a lot more of this to our diet.

The veggies always get a generous dousing of butter and sea salt or a little bacon fat to make them more savoury and calorie dense... leaner meats like heart need to have a little added fat so wrapping that in bacon when I roast it helps.

On Saturday we stop at the Hungarian deli and treat ourselves to a little deep fried bacon.

Rowan

I am sure the pseudo-scientists in this thread will find a way to poo-poo this report, but the evidence is mounting that you lot are really playing with ticking timebombs here:

https://www.news.com.au/national/brea...-1226845436762

Personally, I think the paragraph about "balanced diet" says it all. Oh, and I will add that gluttony is the other contributor to western societies' dietary woes.

Sixty Fiver

Those who own mice and rats will be really thankful for this study.

Machka 

Perhaps the humans who follow the healthy suggestions in the study will be thankful too.

Sixty Fiver

Rowan - Since my wife has cut her carbs down to very low amounts and increased the fats in her diet her HDL numbers have increased and triglyceride numbers have dropped.

This works for her because she is not a rodent, these are animals that have different dietary requirements than humans and anyone who has kept them should know that a high fat diet is really bad for them... our birds are the same way in that they cannot be fed a high fat diet either but are well adapted to eat more high carb foods.

Gluttony is an issue... and the sky is also blue.

Eat too much and you will experience weight gain but it is not as simple as calories in / calories out and we have covered the fact (ad nauseum) that the laws of thermodynamics do not apply to humans due to the complex nature of our metabolisms and how we process different food sources.

Evidence is mounting that the low fat / low cholesterol, low GI mantra that has been preached for decades has done nothing to improve general health and in many cases, caused declines in the the overall health of many populations.

Sixty Fiver

We won't be adopting a high carbohydrate diet... that is for the birds.

Most ardent followers of paleo / LCHF diets track their protein intake to ensure that they are not consuming more than they need due to the aforementioned Glyconeogenesis which occurs when the body uses protein as fuel by converting it to glucose and this can affect keto-adaptation.

Lots of people confuse the Paleo / LCHF way of eating with a high protein diet... many paleo followers also get confused and probably eat too much red meat although in the absence of inflammatory foods like grains, added sugars, and processed foods the negative effects of a higher protein diet are going to be diminished.

This is one thing that the posted study does not address... the other dietary habits of the individuals studied are just as important as their protein intake.

lenA

Continuing insistence on referring to this way of eating as a high protein diet is getting real old

A LOW CARB DIET IS...... NOT A HIGH PROTEIN DIET

Got it?

Jared.

It is also possible to reduce carbohydrate intake without it instantly being on a LCHF diet.

That study does not say much about proteins derived from plants, which is something I personally strive for.

Spld cyclist

Many, many studies over many years support the theories that meat-based diets increase cancer incidence and vegetarian/vegan diets reduce cancer incidence. I think it's unwise to dismiss these theories too quickly. I also believe that epidemiological studies have value, and are in fact the only way to study long-term effects of diet on cancer. Some studies have followed the same participants over decades.

lenA

I assess my physical condition daily.

I feel great...end of study....pass the bacon.. :-)

Spld cyclist

Well, it doesn't have to be, but for many people who pursue a high fat diet it is. Eating high fat without high protein requires quite a bit of care, which I acknowledge has been explained many times earlier in thread. The average person probably isn't willing or capable of doing the planning and math required to do high-fat without it being high protein, much less understanding why you would want to do so. This thread is all about how/why to do that, but it's hard to separate that intention from the public health implications of what's happening in the real world.

Carbonfiberboy 

Blood lipids improve when weight is lost, no matter what the diet used to attain the lower weight. 65ers reports on his meals illustrate the problem with pursuing a LCHF diet, while keeping protein consumption in check. Meat, meat, meat. What happened to the cup of cream for breakfast and a jigger of olive oil for lunch? With a side of raw veggies for breakfast and cooked for dinner, of course. No one want to see their ox gored. Nonetheless, is denial the best option? I'm an expert at denial. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.
-CFB out

lenA

The average person will never stop eating at Mickey Dee's either. The lines I see at the drive-thu just blow me away sometimes

I guess I think of the the participants on this forum as being above average and able to do some basic research, and if they are interested in HFLC, make the necessary dietary adjustments. It's not that hard.

It's the detractors that insist on posting contrary info that makes for unnecessary confusion which, I feel stifles folks from giving it a go.

I'll say again, if you are an overwight carb junkie, HFLC works wonders....for other conditions... YMMV

Fat Boy

It's hard to comment on 'many, many' studies, but the ones that I've seen all have the same approach. They start out with the assumption that meat/protein/whatever is bad and then come up with an epidemiological study that finds a correlation. Correlation _is not_ causation. Correlation means that this might be an area to investigate. If you haven't come up with any sort of causation or mechanism in which A is connected to B, you've really done very little.

The fact that these studies make no distinction in the type of protein that you're eating shows the absurdity. There is a difference between eating a can of 'potted meat' or a wild caught salmon fillet. There is a difference between eating a Jack-in-the-Box taco or a grass-fed beef steak. Ignoring these differences is what makes these studies useless. Remember the Harvard study a couple years ago? They way they did their questionnaire if you ate a pizza that had pepperoni on it, then all the calories of that pizza were considered 'red meat'. Well, how close to reality is that? Not very.

I'm going to return to my fall-back. The less any food is processed while still being able to be consumed, the better it is for you.

Fat Boy

It's actually quite an easy thing to do. Have you ever tried? You aren't trying to eat in the absence of protein, you just want to keep it around 1-1.5 gram/kg. Have a big omelet with coconut oil. Put butter on your broccoli. Put full fat cream in your coffee. Eat a fatty cut of good meat. Eat macadamia nuts. Eat avocados. Put extra virgin olive oil on your salad. Once you figure it out, it's no big deal.

Now you say that some people are unwilling or unable to do it correctly or sort it out. That's the case for _any_ diet. It's not a short-coming of the approach.

lenA

On that I'm in complete agreement with you.

Spld cyclist

I agree that it's the case for any diet that some people won't do it correctly. I also think that there is a possibility of doing real harm by not correctly following the diet that is the particular focus of this thread, which is why I pointed it out.

As a sort-of aside, I'm not conceding that high-fat, low-protein, low-carb diets *are* safe. I don't know enough about them to have formed an informed opinion, but I have tried to be respectful of those who believe that such diets are advantageous. I do believe that there can be negatives to eating too much saturated fat, trans fat, and animal sources of protein, and so people should approach high-fat diets with care. That has really been the point of my occasional posts in this thread.

Spld cyclist

I can't defend the design of all studies, but I think the scientific method generally works. I don't believe that these studies cherry pick the data to prove the preconceived notions of the researchers. And every scientist understands the difference between correlation and causation. Articles in peer-reviewed scientific journals specifically note potential shortcomings with the data and study design and suggest approaches for future research. They try to identify confounding factors and control for them. I've read a lot of peer-reviewed scientific literature in my life. Have you?

GeorgeBMac

I suspect the flat earther's were saying something similar about 500 years ago...

GeorgeBMac

I would say that ANY serious, non-calorie restricting diet that deviates substantially from the McD's dollar menu is either difficult or very expensive -- unless every meal is home cooked from scratch.

GeorgeBMac

Those who continually recite the "Correlation is not Causation" mantra usually do so because they do not believe (or want to believe) the results of the study. So they then try to argue that the entire study is bogus -- or that it is 'not science' and should be ignored...

If I go to picnic and see that as each person takes a bite of the potato salad they fall down and go into uncontrolled spasms, I don't need a random controlled study to tell me not to eat that stuff.

Fat Boy

George, why are you continuously coming back to fight? Argue, Argue, Argue...

There are a certain number of people here that want to discuss a topic. You want to discuss another. Good. Start another thread.

I've ran a lot of tests and, yes, read a lot of peer reviewed studies. The quality of these varies wildly and some studies are much better structured and interpreted than others. Generally speaking, the ones that draw conclusions which lend themselves to blurbs in a newspaper aren't worth much.

But, you know what? I'm just some random guy on the interwebz. If you don't like or agree with what I have to say, then ignore it and continue on with your day. Why is that so difficult?

Fat Boy

As do I, which is why it's unfortunate that the people meant to practice it, don't.