|
Just got back from a checkup and review of labs. Doc gave me a high five.
Guess the high fat low carb diet works for me. |
Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver
(Post 17873656)
Heart disease and diabetes rates have soared through the 20th century and continue to increase in the 21st.
We have tried the low fat model for 40 years and those numbers continued to rise and the difference between now and then could be pinned down to people eating more food, getting less exercise, and equally important is the breakdown of those higher calorie diets. Besides more sugar there are a lot more processed oils. This is about the general population and not those of us that got dealt a good hand or who have stayed informed and have been practicing healthy diets for decades. Those higher calorie diets contain a lot more sugar and not only is it more sugar, it is a lot more fructose based sweeteners... manufacturers know that our brains really like fructose and it's cheap which is really good for their bottom line. Sugar is an inflammatory and it does not matter where it comes from, prolonged exposure to higher levels of sugars / carbs causes prolonged inflammation and increased triglyceride levels, this causes vascular damage. There are no studies that can tie higher fat intakes to higher cardiovascular issues, as long as caloric demands are not being exceeded. Low-carb diets linked to atherosclerosis and impaired blood vessel growth: a 12-week low-carbohydrate/high-protein diet showed a significant increase in atherosclerosis, a buildup of plaque in the heart’s arteries and a leading cause of heart attack and stroke. The findings also showed that the diet led to an impaired ability to form new blood vessels in tissues deprived of blood flow, as might occur during a heart attack. the study also found that standard markers of cardiovascular risk, including cholesterol, were not changed in the animals fed the low-carb diet, despite the clear evidence of increased vascular disease. and might as well have the opposite viewpoint in much the same words: I am not aware of a single study published in a peer-reviewed journal showing that a low-carb diet such as the one described in the Tulane study has stopped or reversed the progression of coronary heart disease. Indeed, as this NEJM study shows, the arteries worsen on a low-carb diet. There's also a big difference between saturated fats and mono and polysaturated fats: The ingestion of excessive amounts of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) and transfatty acids (TFAs) is considered to be a risk factor for cardiovascular diseases, insulin resistance, dyslipidemia, and obesity. The focus of this paper was to elucidate the influence of dietary SFA and TFA intake on the promotion of lipotoxicity to the liver and cardiovascular, endothelial, and gut microbiota systems, as well as on insulin resistance and endoplasmic reticulum stress. The saturated and transfatty acids favor a proinflammatory state leading to insulin resistance. These fatty acids can be involved in several inflammatory pathways, contributing to disease progression in chronic inflammation, autoimmunity, allergy, cancer, atherosclerosis, hypertension, and heart hypertrophy as well as other metabolic and degenerative diseases. Dietary trans-fatty acids are associated with increased LDL cholesterol levels. Hence, a diet low in saturated and trans-fatty acids, with adequate amounts of monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids, especially long-chain omega-3 fatty acids, would be recommended to reduce the risk of developing CHD. And eating too many calories in the form of a high fat diet is definitely not good for you: Obesity among adults and children is now of epidemic proportions in the United States. High-fat diets leading to excessive energy intakes are strongly linked to the increasing obesity in the United States. A study of various fat intakes and type of meat consumption found: In contrast, intakes of longer-chain saturated fatty acids (12:0-18:0) were each separately associated with a small increase in risk. Conversely, higher ratios of red meat to poultry and fish consumption and of high-fat to low-fat dairy consumption were associated with significantly greater risk. The results of large prospective epidemiologic investigations support the hypothesis that coronary disease risk depends on the quality rather than quantity of dietary fat. Whereas saturated fat and cholesterol appear to increase the risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) as predicted by their effects on blood lipids, strong evidence has emerged that the deleterious effects of trans unsaturated fatty acids (trans fatty acids) extend beyond those predicted by their well-known adverse influence on the ratio of low-density lipoprotein to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. Studies in many countries have shown that in most populations exhibiting a high serum cholesterol in men, there is also a high prevalence of coronary heart disease [17-191. Usually these people eat a diet high in fat, especially in the form of meat and dairy fat. In most populations with low cholesterol levels and a low prevalence of coronary heart disease, the intake of fat is low and the fat which is ingested is derived primarily from fish and vegetable oils. Red Meat-Heart Disease Link Involves Gut Microbes: People who eat a lot of red meat have an increased risk for cardiovascular disease. The saturated fats and cholesterol in meat are thought to be culprits. But they can’t fully account for the association, suggesting that other factors may be involved. Dietary fat and heart disease study is seriously misleading: The journal Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a paper suggesting there is no evidence supporting the longstanding recommendation to limit saturated fat consumption. Media reporting on the paper included headlines such as “No link found between saturated fat and heart disease” and articles saying “Saturated fat shouldn’t be demonized” springing up on social media. This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced. Thus, the conclusions of Chowdhury et al. regarding the type of fat being unimportant are seriously misleading and should be disregarded. Consistent with the metabolic studies, a prospective cohort study found that a moderately high protein intake (24% vs 15% of energy from protein) was associated with a significantly lower risk of CHD after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors and dietary fat intake.131 To avoid an increase in saturated fat intake, the major source of protein in the diet should come from nuts, soybeans, legumes, poultry, and fish. Evidence is now clear that diets including nonhydrogenated unsaturated fats as the predominant form of dietary fat, whole grains as the main form of carbohydrate, an abundance of fruits and vegetables, and adequate omega-3 fatty acids can offer significant protection against CHD. And the bottom line is . . . New Analysis Suggests Whole Diet Approach to Lower Cardiovascular Risk Has More Evidence Than Low-Fat Diets: Carefully analyzing studies and trials from 1957 to the present, investigators found that the whole diet approach, and specifically Mediterranean-style diets, are effective in preventing heart disease, even though they may not lower total serum or LDL cholesterol. The Mediterranean-style diet is low in animal products and saturated fat, and encourages intake of monounsaturated fats found in nuts and olive oil. In particular, the diet emphasizes consumption of vegetables, fruit, legumes, whole grains, and fish. |
Originally Posted by RR3
(Post 17875736)
Just got back from a checkup and review of labs. Doc gave me a high five.
Guess the high fat low carb diet works for me. This blew his mind. But we know it is about balance and making healthy food choices which just leans toward a model that is higher in healthy fats, lower in carbs, has reasonable protein, and has a lot of vegetables which for us, comprises almost all the carbs we eat. My wife had lox and cream cheese waiting for me when I got home tonight. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 17880137)
This is an excellent example of confirmation bias. In one of the many confounding things we have learned about nutrition is that the levels of various blood markers do not necessarily coincide with the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). IOW, you won't know until you have a heart attack. For example there's this well-known study ;):
Low-carb diets linked to atherosclerosis and impaired blood vessel growth:Low-carb diets linked to atherosclerosis and impaired blood vessel growth | Harvard Gazette and might as well have the opposite viewpoint in much the same words:Optimal Health Diet: Debunking Flawed Health Studies There's also a big difference between saturated fats and mono and polysaturated fats: Lipotoxicity: effects of dietary saturated and transfatty acids. - PubMed - NCBI Dietary fat and cardiovascular disease risk: quantity or quality? - PubMed - NCBI And eating too many calories in the form of a high fat diet is definitely not good for you: [COLOR=#000000][FONT=arial] Dietary fat consumption and health. - PubMed - NCBI A study of various fat intakes and type of meat consumption found: and Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women. - PubMed - NCBI Epidemiologic studies on dietary fats and coronary heart disease. - PubMed - NCBI Epidemiologic studies of coronary heart disease and stroke in Japanese men living in Japan, Hawaii and California: Demographic, physical, dietary and biochemical characteristics Red Meat-Heart Disease Link Involves Gut Microbes: Red Meat-Heart Disease Link Involves Gut Microbes - NIH Research Matters - National Institutes of Health (NIH) Dietary fat and heart disease study is seriously misleading:Dietary fat and heart disease study is seriously misleading | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health JAMA Network | JAMA | Optimal Diets for Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease And the bottom line is . . . New Analysis Suggests Whole Diet Approach to Lower Cardiovascular Risk Has More Evidence Than Low-Fat Diets:New Analysis Suggests Whole Diet Approach to Lower Cardiovascular Risk Has More Evidence Than Low-Fat Diets Thanks for all that. As it happens, the Mediterranean-style diet is probably the closest to what I eat. "The Mediterranean-style diet is low in animal products and saturated fat, and encourages intake of monounsaturated fats found in nuts and olive oil. In particular, the diet emphasizes consumption of vegetables, fruit, legumes, whole grains, and fish." Except I usually substitute fish with chicken. :)And one of the best parts is that it tastes great and is enjoyable to eat. |
65er
Good for you and your wife. Funny you mentioned lox and cream chese. I had just opened the Fridge and planned to have smoked salmon with grass fed sour cream for break fast. Spinach salad for lunch. Venison, cauliflower, and an arugula salad for dinner. I am trying to cut out caffeine but this is a tough one. |
Saturated fat is necessary for immune and brain health.....
Saturated Fat - The Healthy Choice | David Perlmutter M.D. Time to make the bacon. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 17880137)
...
... And the bottom line is . . . New Analysis Suggests Whole Diet Approach to Lower Cardiovascular Risk Has More Evidence Than Low-Fat Diets:New Analysis Suggests Whole Diet Approach to Lower Cardiovascular Risk Has More Evidence Than Low-Fat Diets ... Not really... I would say that instead this particular article is just another headline trying to exploit controversy... Specifically, it is exploiting the "Low-Carb" vs "Low-Fat" pseudo-controversy. As the article says: "a whole diet approach, which focuses on increased intake of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and fish, has more evidence for reducing cardiovascular risk than strategies that focus exclusively on reduced dietary fat." And that sentence is the key to the whole article (and much of this pseudo-debate). That is, a diet that focuses "exclusively on reduced dietary fat" is, in all likelihood, a junk food diet. A diet comprised of Coca-Cola and 'low-fat' cookies... The PrediMed study is a good example of that: It compared a whole food high unsaturated fat diet to what it called a "Low-Fat" diet. But, in reality that low-fat diet was neither low fat (it was still over 30% fat) nor was it a whole food diet -- because, while carb intake increased sharply, fiber intake did not -- so the increased carbs came from junk food: processed and refined foods like sugar and white flour. Yet, the PrediMed study is often sited as resolving the "low-fat" vs "low-carb" debate. It did not. It was really a comparison between a whole food diet and a junk food diet. So, perhaps the article's headline should read: "Whole Diet Approach to Lower Cardiovascular Risk Has More Evidence Than JUNK FOOD Diets" Essentially I think the real bottom line is: Yes; whole, unprocessed foods are generally healthier than the Standard American Diet... The question remains however: ... Is a whole food, high fat (any kind of fat) diet healthier than a whole food low fat diet? ... Is a whole food, high saturated fat diet healthier than a whole food low fat diet? There are a number of studies demonstrating that the whole food low fat (plant based) diets are the healthiest. But generally, the high fat crowd rejects those studies because they are not double blind, random controlled studies... But, instead of answering the important questions, we continue to bicker over the straw-man "Low-Carb" (which actually means: high animal protein and/or animal fat) vs "Low-Fat" (meaning high processed foods and refined sugars. i.e., low fat junk food) |
Originally Posted by RR3
(Post 17881403)
Saturated fat is necessary for immune and brain health.....
Saturated Fat - The Healthy Choice | David Perlmutter M.D. Time to make the bacon. Dietary fat and heart disease study is seriously misleading | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health |
Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac
(Post 17881426)
Bottom Line?
... Not really... <snip> Essentially I think the real bottom line is: Yes; whole, unprocessed foods are generally healthier than the Standard American Diet... The question remains however: ... Is a whole food, high fat (any kind of fat) diet healthier than a whole food low fat diet? ... Is a whole food, high saturated fat diet healthier than a whole food low fat diet? There are a number of studies demonstrating that the whole food low fat (plant based) diets are the healthiest. But generally, the high fat crowd rejects those studies because they are not double blind, random controlled studies... But, instead of answering the important questions, we continue to bicker over the straw-man "Low-Carb" (which actually means: high animal protein and/or animal fat) vs "Low-Fat" (meaning high processed foods and refined sugars. i.e., low fat junk food) In the studies showing that whole food low fat diets are healthiest, weight loss has always been a confounding factor. I have not seen such a study which did not involve weight loss. I have not seen any study which found a low-fat junk food diet to be healthy, quite the contrary, which the high animal fat crowd is always interested in pointing out. I don't think anyone here supports that sort of junk food diet for sedentary individuals. However, and this is a big however, if you're going to train hard, ride fast, and burn a lot of calories, there's no question that one has to eat a lot of carbs. 65% is the number that is usually used. In that situation, I don't believe in labeling "good" or "bad" or "junk" carbs. It's all just sugar that you're burning, really. If you don't eat like that, you're immediately off the back. So you take your whole foods 40% fat diet and add the carbs necessary to ride like that, say another 2000-3000 calories/day, which is going to have to be carbs or you'll be making the technicolor yawn. Now your fat is down to ~20% and protein at ~15% and there you are. We just did a 117 mile day ride on our tandem in 80°-90° sunny weather, which seems hot to us here. Except for a Dove bar, the only thing I ate during the day was a mix of 85% maltodextrin (GI > 100) and 15% whey protein. Stoker used Ensure, which is similar. It doesn't get any more "junk food" than that. I was fine. Lost weight, duh. Did a hard 5.5 hour hike in the heat the next day. Fine. OTOH, we pulled three riders on singles the whole way. Lacking experience, they tried to eat "real food." Result: nausea and bonking. We had a heck of a time baby-sitting them to the ride end. They all became converts. The Dove bar is for the fat BTW. A quart of whole chocolate milk ~every 100 miles works well too, if you're not lactose intolerant. So it's all well and good to look at studies of essentially sedentary individuals, because after all, most people are. But this is a cycling forum and really, if you're going to ride hard you better not eat like someone that's sedentary. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 17883619)
True, but as noted in many recent studies, it needs to be balanced by omega-6 and -3 fatty acids to be healthy as pointed out in the studies I posted. The Chowdhury study you linked to has been debunked due to flawed dietary analysis of the study subjects, though it was greeted with great glee in certain quarters.
Dietary fat and heart disease study is seriously misleading | The Nutrition Source | Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health If you notice, I always say grass fed beef, which is higher in Omega 3 fatty acids whereas corn fed beef is high in inflamatory Omega 6 fatty acids or maybe it is better to say the ratio of Omega 6/Omega 3 is healthier with grassfed beef. Omega 6 in the right proportion to Omega 3 and of the right type is essential. The problem with the SAD, is the incorrect ratio of the two but also the types of fats such as trans fats and other processed forms.....basically any ******* (this forum is freaking crazy.....Kraker is not allowed, seriously. I think am done with this site), cookies, bagel, corn chips, potato chips, etc. will have these bad fats. These are the oils and fats that I eat on a regular basis. I think getting good, unmolested oils into one's diet is the most important decision that they can make for their overall health whether they are a low fat or a high fat eater. Coconut Butter Beef fat Olive oil Macadamia oil Cashew oil Walnuts Fish Avocado |
Originally Posted by Machka
(Post 17839572)
Mr Dr attributes it to losing weight. :)
|
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 17883693)
Yes, I believe that the studies I posted show that a whole food diet with ~40% fat is healthier than a whole food low-fat (<20%) diet, however the fats need to be balanced between saturated and mono and poly unsaturated fats from vegetable sources for this to be true.
In the studies showing that whole food low fat diets are healthiest, weight loss has always been a confounding factor. I have not seen such a study which did not involve weight loss. I have not seen any study which found a low-fat junk food diet to be healthy, quite the contrary, which the high animal fat crowd is always interested in pointing out. I don't think anyone here supports that sort of junk food diet for sedentary individuals. However, and this is a big however, if you're going to train hard, ride fast, and burn a lot of calories, there's no question that one has to eat a lot of carbs. 65% is the number that is usually used. In that situation, I don't believe in labeling "good" or "bad" or "junk" carbs. It's all just sugar that you're burning, really. If you don't eat like that, you're immediately off the back. So you take your whole foods 40% fat diet and add the carbs necessary to ride like that, say another 2000-3000 calories/day, which is going to have to be carbs or you'll be making the technicolor yawn. Now your fat is down to ~20% and protein at ~15% and there you are. We just did a 117 mile day ride on our tandem in 80°-90° sunny weather, which seems hot to us here. Except for a Dove bar, the only thing I ate during the day was a mix of 85% maltodextrin (GI > 100) and 15% whey protein. Stoker used Ensure, which is similar. It doesn't get any more "junk food" than that. I was fine. Lost weight, duh. Did a hard 5.5 hour hike in the heat the next day. Fine. OTOH, we pulled three riders on singles the whole way. Lacking experience, they tried to eat "real food." Result: nausea and bonking. We had a heck of a time baby-sitting them to the ride end. They all became converts. The Dove bar is for the fat BTW. A quart of whole chocolate milk ~every 100 miles works well too, if you're not lactose intolerant. So it's all well and good to look at studies of essentially sedentary individuals, because after all, most people are. But this is a cycling forum and really, if you're going to ride hard you better not eat like someone that's sedentary. I am not aware of any studies that actually compared a whole food high fat diet to a whole food low fat diet. I know of some (like the PrediMed Study) that claimed to. But, on investigation it turns out that they really compared a high fat diet to a slightly lower fat diet. As my memory serves, the control group in the PrediMed study went from 35% fat all the way down to 32% -- which is not only not much change but it is still 'high fat'. And, in addition, they replaced the little bit of fat they gave up with junk carbs... What I was speaking of was a study comparing a whole food diet of say 30-40% fat to one of say 5-15% fat. And with, perhaps, variations of types of fats... But who is going to fund such a study? The NIH is the only one with the resources -- but lobbyists will stop it in its tracks... For myself, I focus on the whole food low fat diets because they are the ones shown to produce the healthiest of results. For example, the Mediterranean Diet is shown to reduce heart disease by about 30% while whole food low fat, plant based diets lower it by nearly twice that amount. And, I get what you mean by studies being confounded by weight loss. But, weight loss is a normal natural and expected result of going from a high fat diet (of any type) to a whole food low fat diet. It is PART of its benefit and cannot be separated from it. And, that is also why "whole food" diets work better than supplements... We try to pull the Omega-3s out of the fish or the blue out of blueberries and put them in a pill. But, despite being a multi-billion dollar industry, it has very seldom been shown to be effective... And, you mentioned: " if you're going to train hard, ride fast, and burn a lot of calories ... I don't believe in labeling "good" or "bad" or "junk" carbs" I understand your point: you are using carbs as energy and, in that situation, they are. And, in fact, 20 ounces of apple juice will give you more energy quicker than 20 ounces of apple. But those foods are not equivalent on other measures: Not only does the ultra quick absorption of the fruit juice change the way the body metabolizes those carbs (possibly even contributing to blood glucose and insulin level spikes and even more serious things such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) --- But, like white bread, most of the beneficial nutrients have been stripped out of the apple to make the juice... So yes, from a pure energy point of view, a carb is a carb (just that some deliver that energy more quickly). But from a health point of view the whole food (such as an apple) moderate the way the body absorbs & processes those carbs as well as delivering a plethora of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients not present in the refined carbs/sugars... For myself, I prefer to eat a whole food before a ride or, on a longer ride, supplement with a whole food before my glucose levels drop and I bonk, rather than keep feeding myself refined carbs in the form of "energy drinks" and the like... I only take the refined carbs when I screw up and need a quick burst of energy.... ... But then, I prefer to ride alone -- so I have more flexibility than those in competitive and group rides.... |
Originally Posted by RR3
(Post 17883864)
Then, let's delve into the Framingham data. Or read Dr. Perlmutter's book.
If you notice, I always say grass fed beef, which is higher in Omega 3 fatty acids whereas corn fed beef is high in inflamatory Omega 6 fatty acids or maybe it is better to say the ratio of Omega 6/Omega 3 is healthier with grassfed beef. Omega 6 in the right proportion to Omega 3 and of the right type is essential. The problem with the SAD, is the incorrect ratio of the two but also the types of fats such as trans fats and other processed forms.....basically any ******* (this forum is freaking crazy.....Kraker is not allowed, seriously. I think am done with this site), cookies, bagel, corn chips, potato chips, etc. will have these bad fats. These are the oils and fats that I eat on a regular basis. I think getting good, unmolested oils into one's diet is the most important decision that they can make for their overall health whether they are a low fat or a high fat eater. Coconut Butter Beef fat Olive oil Macadamia oil Cashew oil Walnuts Fish Avocado |
Originally Posted by GeorgeBMac
(Post 17884859)
I am not aware of any studies that actually compared a whole food high fat diet to a whole food low fat diet. I know of some (like the PrediMed Study) that claimed to. But, on investigation it turns out that they really compared a high fat diet to a slightly lower fat diet. As my memory serves, the control group in the PrediMed study went from 35% fat all the way down to 32% -- which is not only not much change but it is still 'high fat'. And, in addition, they replaced the little bit of fat they gave up with junk carbs...
What I was speaking of was a study comparing a whole food diet of say 30-40% fat to one of say 5-15% fat. And with, perhaps, variations of types of fats... But who is going to fund such a study? The NIH is the only one with the resources -- but lobbyists will stop it in its tracks... For myself, I focus on the whole food low fat diets because they are the ones shown to produce the healthiest of results. For example, the Mediterranean Diet is shown to reduce heart disease by about 30% while whole food low fat, plant based diets lower it by nearly twice that amount. And, I get what you mean by studies being confounded by weight loss. But, weight loss is a normal natural and expected result of going from a high fat diet (of any type) to a whole food low fat diet. It is PART of its benefit and cannot be separated from it. And, that is also why "whole food" diets work better than supplements... We try to pull the Omega-3s out of the fish or the blue out of blueberries and put them in a pill. But, despite being a multi-billion dollar industry, it has very seldom been shown to be effective... And, you mentioned: " if you're going to train hard, ride fast, and burn a lot of calories ... I don't believe in labeling "good" or "bad" or "junk" carbs" I understand your point: you are using carbs as energy and, in that situation, they are. And, in fact, 20 ounces of apple juice will give you more energy quicker than 20 ounces of apple. But those foods are not equivalent on other measures: Not only does the ultra quick absorption of the fruit juice change the way the body metabolizes those carbs (possibly even contributing to blood glucose and insulin level spikes and even more serious things such as non-alcoholic fatty liver disease) --- But, like white bread, most of the beneficial nutrients have been stripped out of the apple to make the juice... So yes, from a pure energy point of view, a carb is a carb (just that some deliver that energy more quickly). But from a health point of view the whole food (such as an apple) moderate the way the body absorbs & processes those carbs as well as delivering a plethora of vitamins, minerals and phytonutrients not present in the refined carbs/sugars... For myself, I prefer to eat a whole food before a ride or, on a longer ride, supplement with a whole food before my glucose levels drop and I bonk, rather than keep feeding myself refined carbs in the form of "energy drinks" and the like... I only take the refined carbs when I screw up and need a quick burst of energy.... ... But then, I prefer to ride alone -- so I have more flexibility than those in competitive and group rides.... As the HFLC folks are fond of pointing out, a high fat diet is the quickest way to lose weight if one is free living, i.e. not under the care of a health professional, and weight loss is the second largest factor in preventing CHD, stopping smoking being the first. However the long term consequences of such a diet have been little studied. |
Originally Posted by Carbonfiberboy
(Post 17885005)
Technically you are correct about the lack of such studies. However if one reads Ornish, his focus is definitely on whole food low fat. His trials show great success with that diet, though as I said and you note, with weight loss as a confounding factor. One must not conflate isocaloric diets with weight loss diets, whatever their composition. I don't believe that a low fat diet which did not result in weight loss has been associated with a decrease in CHD compared with a Med diet. If you can find such a study, please post.
As the HFLC folks are fond of pointing out, a high fat diet is the quickest way to lose weight if one is free living, i.e. not under the care of a health professional, and weight loss is the second largest factor in preventing CHD, stopping smoking being the first. However the long term consequences of such a diet have been little studied. BTW: You may be interested in a preview of Michael Gregor's most recent 'annual review' -- where he discusses the wide ranging impact of an entirely plant based diet on the 15 leading causes of death... Uprooting the Leading Causes of Death | NutritionFacts.org It's one sided, but still an accurate report. How much of those beneficial effects are due to weight loss? A little? A lot? For the most part, we just don't know. And anyway, the answer will change based on whichever healthy effect we are talking about. For instance: is the improvement in blood pressure due to weight loss or the endothelial effects (improved vasodilation, decreased inflammation) of a whole food plant based diet? Or, is the correct answer: both? I think it is both... |
For 4 months, I have hardly touched a sweet food other than fruits and veg.
Then yesterday I had Krispy Kreme donuts. WOW!! Nothing like eating bowls of sugar!! So sweet!! Last time we travelled, I packed away all sorts of Krispy Kreme donuts. This time ... I couldn't do it. And this morning I had a muffin at a coffee shop here in the USA, and again ... so sweet!! This was a pineapple-coconut muffin, and I was expecting something a little sour, perhaps even just a touch salty, but not so sweet. That muffin was definitely sweeter than Australian muffins. For comparison purposes, I had an Australian muffin just before we left Hobart. Amazing what you notice when you avoid eating something for a while. And I don't think I'd want to try a cheesecake here. Chances are ... it would be sweet!! |
Originally Posted by Machka
(Post 17890881)
For 4 months, I have hardly touched a sweet food other than fruits and veg.
Originally Posted by Machla
(Post 17890881)
Then yesterday I had Krispy Kreme donuts. WOW!! Nothing like eating bowls of sugar!! So sweet!! Last time we travelled, I packed away all sorts of Krispy Kreme donuts. This time ... I couldn't do it.
And this morning I had a muffin at a coffee shop here in the USA, and again ... so sweet!! This was a pineapple-coconut muffin, and I was expecting something a little sour, perhaps even just a touch salty, but not so sweet. That muffin was definitely sweeter than Australian muffins. For comparison purposes, I had an Australian muffin just before we left Hobart. Amazing what you notice when you avoid eating something for a while. And I don't think I'd want to try a cheesecake here. Chances are ... it would be sweet!! |
Originally Posted by wolfchild
(Post 17891004)
So that's your secret for loosing 15 KG. It wasn't just a CICO diet, it was avoiding extra added sugar.
Impossible to resist the temptation of SAD isn't it ??, it's so tasty...Keep on eating donuts and you will gain all that weight back which you lost by avoiding sweet things with added sugar. I still ate sweet treats in Australia, but you all would find the sweet treats in Australia to be not very sweet at all. And it is all CICO, of course ... sugar, and especially sugar + fat such as what you'll find in donuts, has a lot of calories. If I consume more donut calories than I burn, I'll gain weight. If I consume fewer donut calories than I burn, I'll lose weight. Simple as that. :) If I do happen to gain some weight, I'll just reduce my calories below what I burn again, and lose it. Easy-peasy. :D Oh also, it is not impossible to avoid sugar. After eating some of the sweet goop, both of us were craving something with veggies and possibly protein. I chose a smoked turkey and cheese with salad sandwich on brown bread (which unfortunately had sugar in the bread) but Rowan chose a pita wrap that did not have sugar. Even just eating one donut last night made both of us wish for something like a bowl of broccoli or an apple. Eating those sweet things certainly does not trigger a desire to eat more sugar. Blech. (I don't know what your definition of SAD is ... in Canada SAD stands for Seasonally Affected Disorder but that definition doesn't make sense in this context.) |
Originally Posted by Machka
(Post 17890881)
For 4 months, I have hardly touched a sweet food other than fruits and veg.
I'd continue to stay away from the Krispy Kremes and watch out for those healthy muffins too... they are often little sugar bombs. |
Australian (processed) foods have as much added sugar as anyone else's, they just don't use as much high fructose because corn is not a major crop and their aren't the high subsidies they pay in the U.S.
The growing obesity rate in Australia is also one of the highest in the world. It is only recently they realized that all this added sugar was bad for you. |
Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver
(Post 17891204)
15kg lost on 16 weeks when you were only eating naturally occurring sugars... do ya think this might have something to do with the weight loss ?
I'd continue to stay away from the Krispy Kremes and watch out for those healthy muffins too... they are often little sugar bombs. I wasn't only eating naturally occurring sugars in that time ... I was still eating sweet treats. I had half a cheesecake for my birthday ... Rowan and I split a chocolate bunny at Easter ... and I had Banjo's Bakery pastries several times. Those things are certainly not in the fruits and veg category. :D But I exercised enough so that CICO worked ... I burned more than I was taking in. |
Originally Posted by Sixty Fiver
(Post 17891210)
Australian (processed) foods have as much added sugar as anyone else's, they just don't use as much high fructose because corn is not a major crop and their aren't the high subsidies they pay in the U.S.
The growing obesity rate in Australia is also one of the highest in the world. It is only recently they realized that all this added sugar was bad for you. Australians have a different taste pallet than North Americans ... you'll find a lot more creamy stuff than sugary sweet stuff. Like French Vanilla slice or Lamingtons rather than Nanaimo squares or cake with thick icing. And you won't find much in the way of donuts at all. Even the cheesecake in Australia isn't particularly sweet ... especially the baked cheesecake. If Australians are overweight, it probably has more to do with the hot chips and dim sims. Those are high in calories! But they're available everywhere and are an extremely popular choice. |
I Fooled Millions Into Thinking Chocolate Helps Weight Loss. Here's How.
Our [fake] paper was accepted for publication by multiple journals within 24 hours. Needless to say, we faced no peer review at all. The eager suitor we ultimately chose was the the International Archives of Medicine. |
Originally Posted by Machka
(Post 17891182)
(I don't know what your definition of SAD is ... in Canada SAD stands for Seasonally Affected Disorder but that definition doesn't make sense in this context.)
|
Originally Posted by wolfchild
(Post 17891416)
SAD= Standard American Diet
|
| All times are GMT -6. The time now is 11:00 AM. |
Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.