Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
It doesn't count because you are not part of a peer reviewed study published by a respected scientist.
Anecdotes don't tell you anything, but the bigger problem is the focus on biomarkers (cholesterol levels) instead of health outcomes. One of the problems facing low-carb diets is that though there is some observed improvement in biomarkets, long term health outcomes are worse. There is an increasing number of long-term studies that are showing this now....
A lot of the markers we use are geared towards standard diets, the minute you do something well outside of the mainstream the meaning of the markers changes. As such you really want to look at health outcomes, not short-term effects on biomarkers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
I feel sorry for people that still buy into the low-fat paradigm. When you give up being a vegetarian, as most ultimately do, I strongly encourage you to consider a low carb way of eating.
I feel sorry for people that think merely eating low-fat (like the low-fat diet fad of the 90's) is going to achieve good health, its unfortunate that you confuse that dietary fad with any diet that happens to be lower in fat. I will never return to a meat based diet, why would I? I was overweight, didn't feel well, etc.....
Also, years ago before I understood real nutrition I tried a high-fat, low-carb based diet. Lost a bit of weight, but otherwise terrible. I would never return to that way of eating.
Anecdotes don't tell you anything, but the bigger problem is the focus on biomarkers (cholesterol levels) instead of health outcomes. One of the problems facing low-carb diets is that though there is some observed improvement in biomarkets, long term health outcomes are worse. There is an increasing number of long-term studies that are showing this now....
Sources? I'd love some links to information supporting this claim. Most of what I've seen claim to have people on a low carb diet, but they're actually either low in BOTH carbs and fat (for fear of high-fat eating) or they're "low" in carbs only to the extent that they're lower than the standard 300+ grams of carbs per day, so could still be 100-150 grams of carbs per day, which is still significantly higher than most "low carb dieters" consume.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
A lot of the markers we use are geared towards standard diets, the minute you do something well outside of the mainstream the meaning of the markers changes. As such you really want to look at health outcomes, not short-term effects on biomarkers.
I will never return to a meat based diet, why would I? I was overweight, didn't feel well, etc.....
Also, years ago before I understood real nutrition I tried a high-fat, low-carb based diet. Lost a bit of weight, but otherwise terrible. I would never return to that way of eating.
Different strokes...I feel great eating high in fat, low in carbs, and including animal products (meat, eggs, dairy, etc.). I have more energy since my glucose levels aren't swinging all over the place, I get hungry less frequently (likely a combined result of consistent glucose/insulin levels and ketosis), and I lost weight.
Health outcomes? I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes at age 25. That is also when I had the high triglycerides and borderline high LDL (though I now know that a typical LDL reading is practically meaningless without further testing to provide a breakdown of LDL particle size, but I digress...). My HBA1C was 9.5 and fasting glucose was 214. And this was while following the South Beach Diet (you know, focusing on "good carbs" and "good fats"); I'd hate to know how my levels were when eating a "standard" American diet! In any case, I did some reading and put myself on a low-carb, unrestricted-fat eating plan. In 3 months, my A1C dropped to 6.5 (still high, but obviously much improved), my fasting glucose was down, my triglycerides had fallen to less than HALF what they had been previously, and my LDL fell as well (though, again, not technically high to begin with and no knowledge of particle size).
I won't talk about my more recent/current experience with diet because I've also since had weight loss surgery, and I have no way of knowing what's responsible for what (though I assume it's all dietary now since my surgery was long enough ago that I likely no longer malabsorb any calories due to intestinal hypertrophy and additional villi growth). All I know is that, even after my weight loss surgery, I still feel better eating low-carb, high-fat. I also stopped losing weight before I reached "goal" after my surgery, and eating LC/HF is what helps me to lose more weight. I also maintained this way of eating (minus artificial sweeteners and avoiding soy) while I was pregnant last year and had a remarkably easy and healthy pregnancy, delivery, and baby - not even any signs of gestational diabetes despite having previously been diagnosed with type 2.
I'm not out to convince the world to eat the way I know is best for me, but I do know it IS the best for me, and I know I'm not alone. That doesn't mean it's automatically best for everyone, but it also shouldn't be dismissed as preposterous. Medically-prescribed and supervised strict ketogenic diets (VERY high in fat and very low in carbs) have been used as treatment for certain types of epilepsy, cancer, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and other conditions, not just "markers" like glucose, insulin, and cholesterol levels.
"A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."
"In conclusion, consumption of a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet were associated with a lower risk of all-cause and CVD mortality whereas a high scores for the animal-based low-carbohydrate diet were associated with a higher risk of overall mortality. These results suggest that the health effects of a low-carbohydrate diet may depend on the type of protein and fat, and that a diet including mostly vegetable sources of protein and fat is preferable to a diet with mostly animal sources of protein and fat."
The study was controlled for things like smoking and exercise habits.
So it may depend on the source of the carbs.
The article has other references, too.
A high animal protein and fat diet may promote weight loss but may not be the best for the long term. Of course, you will find advocates of Atkins and paleo who believe the study is flawed, but it was large, it was prospective, and it tends to lend credence to the idea that getting most of your nutrition from animal products may not be good in the long run.
Sources? I'd love some links to information supporting this claim. Most of what I've seen claim to have people on a low carb diet, but they're actually either low in BOTH carbs and fat (for fear of high-fat eating) or they're "low" in carbs only to the extent that they're lower than the standard 300+ grams of carbs per day, so could still be 100-150 grams of carbs per day, which is still significantly higher than most "low carb dieters" consume.
Different strokes...I feel great eating high in fat, low in carbs, and including animal products (meat, eggs, dairy, etc.). I have more energy since my glucose levels aren't swinging all over the place, I get hungry less frequently (likely a combined result of consistent glucose/insulin levels and ketosis), and I lost weight.
Health outcomes? I was diagnosed with Type 2 diabetes at age 25. That is also when I had the high triglycerides and borderline high LDL (though I now know that a typical LDL reading is practically meaningless without further testing to provide a breakdown of LDL particle size, but I digress...). My HBA1C was 9.5 and fasting glucose was 214. And this was while following the South Beach Diet (you know, focusing on "good carbs" and "good fats"); I'd hate to know how my levels were when eating a "standard" American diet! In any case, I did some reading and put myself on a low-carb, unrestricted-fat eating plan. In 3 months, my A1C dropped to 6.5 (still high, but obviously much improved), my fasting glucose was down, my triglycerides had fallen to less than HALF what they had been previously, and my LDL fell as well (though, again, not technically high to begin with and no knowledge of particle size).
I won't talk about my more recent/current experience with diet because I've also since had weight loss surgery, and I have no way of knowing what's responsible for what (though I assume it's all dietary now since my surgery was long enough ago that I likely no longer malabsorb any calories due to intestinal hypertrophy and additional villi growth). All I know is that, even after my weight loss surgery, I still feel better eating low-carb, high-fat. I also stopped losing weight before I reached "goal" after my surgery, and eating LC/HF is what helps me to lose more weight. I also maintained this way of eating (minus artificial sweeteners and avoiding soy) while I was pregnant last year and had a remarkably easy and healthy pregnancy, delivery, and baby - not even any signs of gestational diabetes despite having previously been diagnosed with type 2.
I'm not out to convince the world to eat the way I know is best for me, but I do know it IS the best for me, and I know I'm not alone. That doesn't mean it's automatically best for everyone, but it also shouldn't be dismissed as preposterous. Medically-prescribed and supervised strict ketogenic diets (VERY high in fat and very low in carbs) have been used as treatment for certain types of epilepsy, cancer, Alzheimer's, schizophrenia, and other conditions, not just "markers" like glucose, insulin, and cholesterol levels.
It's funny, but if you actually follow a LCHF diet and achieve desirable results, such as significant weight loss, decreased blood pressure and blood lipid profiles that are in normal ranges, and therefore generally considered healthy, the argument becomes that it might help in the short run, but it's still bad for you in the long run. I agree with you. It's working for me as well. I feel great.
If I have more time I'll try to dig up the others. The low-carb dietary fad is relatively new, so we're just starting to see the results of some of the longer term studies.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
Different strokes...I feel great eating high in fat, low in carbs, and including animal products (meat, eggs, dairy, etc.). I have more energy since my glucose levels aren't swinging all over the place..
You very well may feel better if you were eating the typical high fat, high sugar, low nutrient diet. But when was the last time you tried a nutrient rich whole plant-based diet?
As for glucose levels, the source of the carbohydrate matters. The way refined sugar and other refined carbohydrates effect the body is much different than the carbohydrates in legumes, fruit and other whole plant foods. As counter-intuitive as it is to some, you can treat people with type 2 diabetes with a high carbohydrate diet so long as its based on whole plant foods (e.g., Dr Neal Bernard).
I wouldn't dispute that some people, especially those that are overweight, may feel better when they greatly eliminate carbohydrates from their diet. But this does nothing to deal with the underlying problem, instead you're just attacking the symptom of the problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
In 3 months, my A1C dropped to 6.5 (still high, but obviously much improved), my fasting glucose was down, my triglycerides had fallen to less than HALF what they had been previously, and my LDL fell as well (though, again, not technically high to begin with and no knowledge of particle size).
These aren't health outcomes, they are changes in biomarkers that we use as an attempt to measure health. Having high triglycerides isn't a disease, instead its correlated with the development of disease. But all the research showing this correlation is based around people on more or less standard diets, as a result the numbers aren't as meaningful to those pursuing non-standard diets.
As for low-carb diets, there is some research that shows improvement in cholesterol levels, etc but long-term studies have failed to show improved health outcomes (less heart disease, etc) . In fact, most seem to show worsening health outcomes.
Whether or not low-carb diets are good for aiding some medical conditions is a different question, in these cases the reward may outweigh the risk.
Did you read the whole article? There is nothing definitive there, and they even admit other similar studies have found no correlation. And, as we all know, correlation is not causation; I will still readily admit I don't think all the animal products consumed are great for health, but not because they are animal products per se; rather, the low quality of today's readily-available animal products needs to be considered (hormones, corn feed, etc.). I'll take the 5% increased chance of developing CVD many years down the road if it means I get to keep all my limbs, eyesight, etc., now We all have to weigh the evidence, the pros and cons, and our own personal priorities and lifestyles.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
You very well may feel better if you were eating the typical high fat, high sugar, low nutrient diet.
I'm confused...I would feel better eating that was as opposed to low-carb, high-fat? No...I know because I've strayed/succumbed to the convenience of "typical" foods, which results in less energy and more sluggishness overall and especially afternoon/mid-day periods of sleepiness.
[quote=user_id;27701267]But when was the last time you tried a nutrient rich whole plant-based diet?
I avoid grains due to their increasing inflammation in the body and the phytic acid they contain that inhibits the absorption of such micronutrients as iron and zinc. I eat non-starchy vegetables daily (mostly broccoli, cauliflower, green beans, salad greens, asparagus, etc.); I just avoid starchy veggies (especially potatoes and corn) and keep fruit to a minimum (maybe 1 serving per day). Like I said, when I was doing South Beach, my health was not good. I was focusing on 100% whole grains, fruits and veggies, included legumes and nuts, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
As for glucose levels, the source of the carbohydrate matters. The way refined sugar and other refined carbohydrates effect the body is much different than the carbohydrates in legumes, fruit and other whole plant foods. As counter-intuitive as it is to some, you can treat people with type 2 diabetes with a high carbohydrate diet so long as its based on whole plant foods (e.g., Dr Neal Bernard).
You can try, but if you've ever been part of a large community of diabetics, you'll quickly find that most of them respond (via glucose/insulin levels) to a banana no differently than to a dish of ice cream. When I was frequently checking my levels after diagnosis, a good whole-grain slice of bread would have the same impact and a HFCS-laden slice of white bread. Some manage okay on a high-carb, low-fat diet, but they appear to be the minority, and such a diet appears to control the diabetes for some time but doesn't appear to slow/stop the progression, and meds (or more meds) or insulin injections are typically in the future.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
I wouldn't dispute that some people, especially those that are overweight, may feel better when they greatly eliminate carbohydrates from their diet. But this does nothing to deal with the underlying problem, instead you're just attacking the symptom of the problem.
So, what do you think is the "underlying problem?" If the obesity, cholesterol, insulin resistance, etc., are all merely symptoms, then what is the problem that needs to be fixed? And how is addressing that problem with a plant-based diet any different than addressing it with a low-carb diet when, in either caee, you're using dietary changes to "attack the symptom."
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
These aren't health outcomes, they are changes in biomarkers that we use as an attempt to measure health.
But they were symptoms of my diabetes, which is a disease. And now, even if I go crazy and have, say, a large milkshake, my glucose levels remain normal, so the diabetes has been affected, not just the markers. My physician has actually deemed me "no longer diabetic" (but I still say I am, as I prefer to err on the side of caution).
If you feel better eating plants, that's fine. Again, I'm not trying to say you're wrong, nor am I trying to persuade you to change your ways; as I said before, different strokes and all that jazz. I just know that what I've been doing works for me - and many - to promote good health in the only ways anyone knows how to measure health right now (blood tests, body composition, etc.). I'll add to that the wrench that I always battled with when trying to follow typical "healthy" diets for many years before: I hate most vegetables. I have tried so many of them raw, steamed, sauteed, roasted, different seasonings, mixed into other things to "hide" them...I actually eat more vegetables now than I have at pretty much any other time in my life. Eating a lot of animal products doesn't mean veggies aren't included at all. For dinner last night, I made boneless pork chops stuffed with cheese and bacon and served them with a pile (2 "servings") of steamed green beans (smothered in butter). I'm of the understanding that vegetables aren't actually required for good health if you're eating an array of animal sources (otherwise, people such as the Inuits without regular access to fruits/veggies would not have survived), but I don't often consume organ meats like liver, hearts, brains, and so on, plus veggies help to add a bit of variety.
I'll throw another wrench in the works that a low-carb diet that has too much protein is also not ideal. I strive to get at least 65% of my daily calories from fat, usually more. A portion of excess protein can still be converted to glucose (well glycogen...gluconeogenesis), as many diabetics have discovered the hard way ("All I had for dinner was a giant steak; why are my glucose levels high?"). And, to increase fat without also increasing protein, folks are likely to turn to plant-based sources (coconut oil, coconut milk, nut oils, avocado oil, avocados, etc.). Despite the piles of meats and cheeses I'm sure you envision me consuming, I also use quite a bit of almond oil, unsweetened almond milk, coconut oil...macadamia nuts are a great source of fat, and alomonds are pretty good plus have very low net carbs for a nut.
I am healthier now at 30 than I was at 25 or even at 18. We can compare notes again when I'm 70
If I have more time I'll try to dig up the others. The low-carb dietary fad is relatively new, so we're just starting to see the results of some of the longer term studies.
You very well may feel better if you were eating the typical high fat, high sugar, low nutrient diet. But when was the last time you tried a nutrient rich whole plant-based diet?
As for glucose levels, the source of the carbohydrate matters. The way refined sugar and other refined carbohydrates effect the body is much different than the carbohydrates in legumes, fruit and other whole plant foods. As counter-intuitive as it is to some, you can treat people with type 2 diabetes with a high carbohydrate diet so long as its based on whole plant foods (e.g., Dr Neal Bernard).
I wouldn't dispute that some people, especially those that are overweight, may feel better when they greatly eliminate carbohydrates from their diet. But this does nothing to deal with the underlying problem, instead you're just attacking the symptom of the problem.
These aren't health outcomes, they are changes in biomarkers that we use as an attempt to measure health. Having high triglycerides isn't a disease, instead its correlated with the development of disease. But all the research showing this correlation is based around people on more or less standard diets, as a result the numbers aren't as meaningful to those pursuing non-standard diets.
As for low-carb diets, there is some research that shows improvement in cholesterol levels, etc but long-term studies have failed to show improved health outcomes (less heart disease, etc) . In fact, most seem to show worsening health outcomes.
Whether or not low-carb diets are good for aiding some medical conditions is a different question, in these cases the reward may outweigh the risk.
The low carb "fad" is relatively new? Really, that's interesting, it's just the way most people have traditionally eaten. The reliance on wheat is relatively new, and the low-fat fad just just surfaced over the last several decades - with disastrous results.
Did you read the whole article? There is nothing definitive there,
Yes, and I looked at the study. No single study is "definitive", this was just a recent example of a study demonstrating poor long-term health outcomes. The studies on the long-term health consequences of low-carb diets are either neutral, or they should increased disease. I'm not aware of any long-term study that shows that low-carb diets produce improved health outcomes. Are you?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
I'm confused...I would feel better eating that was as opposed to low-carb, high-fat?
The typical American diet is high in fat, high in sugar and nutrient poor.....as such a move to a low-carb diet (essentially removing the sugars and refined carbs) could very well represent an improvement from this sort of diet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
Like I said, when I was doing South Beach, my health was not good.
The south beach diet isn't a whole plant-based diet, its a watered down low-carb diet with a greater focus on unsaturated fats rather than saturated fats.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
I was frequently checking my levels after diagnosis, a good whole-grain slice of bread would have the same impact and a HFCS-laden slice of white bread.
That isn't surprising, they have similar glycemic indexes. When you treat people that are currently diabetic with plant foods you have to start them on lower glycemic foods, as their malfunctioning insulin response starts to improve they can eat higher glycemic foods.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
So, what do you think is the "underlying problem?" If the obesity, cholesterol, insulin resistance, etc., are all merely symptoms, then what is the problem that needs to be fixed? And how is addressing that problem with a plant-based diet any different than addressing it with a low-carb diet when, in either caee, you're using dietary changes to "attack the symptom."
The underlying problem, at least most of the time, is poor diet and lifestyle. The difference between addressing the issue with a whole food plant-based diet and a low-carb diet is that the plant based diet actually resolves the issues where as a low-carb diet merely compensates for the issue. That is, low-carb diets make people with insulin problems feel better because it doesn't aggravate their condition but it doesn't resolve the condition. A whole foods plant-based diet on the other hand can resolve the condition and allow the person to respond normally to high carbohydrate foods.
Japan has one of the lowest rates (out of developed nations) of type 2 diabetes, yet they have the highest carbohydrate (and as a result lowest fat) intake. On the other hand, the US has one of the highest fat intakes and it has one of the highest rates of type 2 diabetes.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
Eating a lot of animal products doesn't mean veggies aren't included at all. For dinner last night, I made boneless pork chops stuffed with cheese and bacon and served them with a pile (2 "servings") of steamed green beans (smothered in butter). I'm of the understanding that vegetables aren't actually required for good health if you're eating an array of animal sources (otherwise, people such as the Inuits without regular access to fruits/veggies would not have survived), but I don't often consume organ meats like liver, hearts, brains, and so on, plus veggies help to add a bit of variety.
Smothering vegetables in butter is hiding them..... The Inuit survived on a high protein/high fat diet, but that doesn't mean it was healthy. Also, as you partially point to, the Inuit ate much differently than the average American. They ate the whole animal, the organs end up being rich sources of some vitamins. They ate the intestines of seals.....with their contents. They ate ground bone for calcium to compensate for the high protein intake (high protein intake leeches the body of calcium). The Inuit weren't eating pigs, cows, etc....they were eating wild marine life and it is believed that the high consumption of omega-3 fats protected them from some of the ill-effects of a high fat diet.
So, its possible that you can obtain the vitamins you need if you were eating an "array of animal sources", but you aren't. You're eating meat, butter, eggs, etc. A very limited animal based diet that will by no means supply you with sufficient nutrients.
Regardless, it sounds like you've suffered a lot, I really wish you'd discovered plant-based nutrition before you had your surgery, etc.
The low carb "fad" is relatively new? Really, that's interesting, it's just the way most people have traditionally eaten.
The dietary fad is relatively new. Humans have not traditionally eaten low-carbodhyrate diets. In the wild high fat foods are hard to come by even if you're eating animals. Wild animals, with the exception of some marine animals, are low in fat. On the other hand carbohydrates were widely accessible. A high fat diet is only possible with animal domestication, agriculture or with marine life, so before domestication high-fat diets would have been rare.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
The reliance on wheat is relatively new, and the low-fat fad just just surfaced over the last several decades - with disastrous results.
I'm not sure why you'd focus on wheat, its just one of many many plant foods. But sure, the cultivation of wheat is a fairly modern practice that dates back ~10,000 years.
What disastrous results do you have in mind? I think the low-fat fad was nearly as bad as the low-carb diet fad the focus shouldn't be on eating "low-fat"....there is tons of low-fat garbage out there (just look at the cereal aisle). But I'm not sure what disastrous results the fad had because Americans never consumed low-fat diets, the American diet is around 35% fat and total fat consumption has increased over the last few decades.
The dietary fad is relatively new. Humans have not traditionally eaten low-carbodhyrate diets. In the wild high fat foods are hard to come by even if you're eating animals. Wild animals, with the exception of some marine animals, are low in fat. On the other hand carbohydrates were widely accessible. A high fat diet is only possible with animal domestication, agriculture or with marine life, so before domestication high-fat diets would have been rare.
I'm not sure why you'd focus on wheat, its just one of many many plant foods. But sure, the cultivation of wheat is a fairly modern practice that dates back ~10,000 years.
What disastrous results do you have in mind? I think the low-fat fad was nearly as bad as the low-carb diet fad the focus shouldn't be on eating "low-fat"....there is tons of low-fat garbage out there (just look at the cereal aisle). But I'm not sure what disastrous results the fad had because Americans never consumed low-fat diets, the American diet is around 35% fat and total fat consumption has increased over the last few decades.
Read wheat belly. The wheat grown now doesn't resemble the wheat grown previously. THe disastrous results I have in mind are the twin epidemics of obesity and diabetes, which have skyrocketed in the last sever decades. The consumption of carbohydrates has skyrocketed the last several decades.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
We all have to weigh the evidence, the pros and cons, and our own personal priorities and lifestyles.
