In defence of low fat

Stick to training related posts.

Moderators: Dux, seeahill

Post Reply
User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

In defence of low fat

Post by Sangoma » Sun Aug 27, 2017 3:08 am

Good review. Just illustrates the point of many ways of skinning the proverbial feline:

IN DEFENSE OF LOW FAT: A CALL FOR SOME EVOLUTION OF THOUGHT (PART 1)


One reference is quite impressive, here is full text:

A way to reverse CAD?

Image
Image

User avatar
syaigh
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 5678
Joined: Mon Mar 22, 2010 3:29 am
Location: Surrounded by short irrational people

Re: In defence of low fat

Post by syaigh » Sun Aug 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Really interesting read.

Here are my random thoughts:

I listened to a thing on NPR the other day about gut biomes in hunter gatherers. There seems to be a correlation in gut diversity and western disease as well. The thing that seems to stick out here is that indigenous diets seem to lean toward HFLC or HCLF depending on where you are located. Some tribes in seasonal climates fluctuate between the two depending on season, ie HFLC in the winter, HCLF in the summer.

One thing that was interesting was that the satiety signals that we get from eating all sugar or all fat don't kick in when we are eating a mixture of the two. Ie, you wouldn't necessarily eat a bowl of cream or a bowl of sugar, but mix them together and you can't get enough. I was thinking about what foods in nature have that mixture of fat and sugar and the only thing I can come up with is milk. Maybe that's why there is no satiety switch there?

So, it seems that some people have more tendencies towards one end of the spectrum or the other. But, I was also thinking about how kids tend to eat a lot more fat and as we age, a lot of people tend towards a more low fat/vegetable based diet. Wondering if this is a real phenomenon as well.

Anyway, still thinking about this a lot. While moderate fat/moderate carb diets seem to be more likely to put weight on, we have to be aware of the fact that most moderate macronutrient diets are also filled with processed foods so it would be worth teasing out a clean moderate diet vs a not clean diet. The Mediterranean diet, for example, is a moderate macronutrient diet shown to reverse heart disease and diabetes, but research has found that the results of this diet differ based on socioeconomic status, ie income and education. Small differences such as fish and fresh produce consumption as well as quality ingredients make a big difference in outcomes.
Miss Piggy wrote:Never eat more than you can lift.

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: In defence of low fat

Post by dead man walking » Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:50 pm

bit of a delayed response, but . . .

didn't dean ornish demonstrate 25 years ago that a seriously low fat diet (10%) could actually reverse coronary artery disease?

two caveats, as i recall:

(1) the "diet" also required regular moderate exercise, meditation, and group therapy. so the behavioral component was an essential element.

(2) because of the strictness of the diet and the rigorous nature of the "prescription," the number of people who have followed and stuck to his routine is small.

this was a mildly interesting take on diet: Why the science of healthy eating appears confusing—but isn’t
The practically important findings were that the healthiest people in the world had diets that are full of fruits, beans, seeds, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in refined carbohydrates and sugar.
one highlight, perhaps:
eating raw vegetables was more strongly linked to a lower risk of death (during the study) compared to cooked vegetable intake.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... th/538428/
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
odin
Sgt. Major
Posts: 2911
Joined: Fri Nov 10, 2006 10:20 am

Re: In defence of low fat

Post by odin » Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:59 pm

I do think marketing has obscured a relatively simple subject with regards to diet. The above post contains knowledge that's fairly easy to find, well evidenced and widely accepted by health professionals. However it tends to get drowned out by fads like Paleo etc.
Don't try too hard, don't not try too hard

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: In defence of low fat

Post by dead man walking » Mon Sep 04, 2017 8:10 pm

odin wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 7:59 pm
I do think marketing has obscured a relatively simple subject with regards to diet. The above post contains knowledge that's fairly easy to find, well evidenced and widely accepted by health professionals. However it tends to get drowned out by fads like Paleo etc.
yes.

for that reason, the author opens with a discussion of "neophila," obsession with novelty
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: In defence of low fat

Post by Sangoma » Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:02 am

dead man walking wrote:
Mon Sep 04, 2017 6:50 pm
bit of a delayed response, but . . .

didn't dean ornish demonstrate 25 years ago that a seriously low fat diet (10%) could actually reverse coronary artery disease?

two caveats, as i recall:

(1) the "diet" also required regular moderate exercise, meditation, and group therapy. so the behavioral component was an essential element.

(2) because of the strictness of the diet and the rigorous nature of the "prescription," the number of people who have followed and stuck to his routine is small.

this was a mildly interesting take on diet: Why the science of healthy eating appears confusing—but isn’t
The practically important findings were that the healthiest people in the world had diets that are full of fruits, beans, seeds, vegetables, and whole grains, and low in refined carbohydrates and sugar.
one highlight, perhaps:
eating raw vegetables was more strongly linked to a lower risk of death (during the study) compared to cooked vegetable intake.
https://www.theatlantic.com/health/arch ... th/538428/
The study that congratulates high intake of fruit and vegetables:

http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lance ... lsca1=tlpr

The abstract (excerpt):
Higher total fruit, vegetable, and legume intake was inversely associated with major cardiovascular disease, myocardial infarction, cardiovascular mortality, non-cardiovascular mortality, and total mortality in the models adjusted for age, sex, and centre (random effect). The estimates were substantially attenuated in the multivariable adjusted models for major cardiovascular disease (hazard ratio [HR] 0·90, 95% CI 0·74–1·10, ptrend=0·1301), myocardial infarction (0·99, 0·74–1·31; ptrend=0·2033), stroke (0·92, 0·67–1·25; ptrend=0·7092), cardiovascular mortality (0·73, 0·53–1·02; ptrend=0·0568), non-cardiovascular mortality (0·84, 0·68–1·04; ptrend =0·0038), and total mortality (0·81, 0·68–0·96; ptrend<0·0001). The HR for total mortality was lowest for three to four servings per day (0·78, 95% CI 0·69–0·88) compared with the reference group, with no further apparent decrease in HR with higher consumption.
It's not that I am against fruits and vegetables, raw or cooked. It's just this particular study doesn't say that. You would expect someone considering himself a "health journalist" understand basic stats, but what can you do...
Image

dead man walking
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6797
Joined: Tue Aug 05, 2008 10:34 pm

Re: In defence of low fat

Post by dead man walking » Tue Sep 05, 2017 12:16 pm

Sangoma wrote:
Tue Sep 05, 2017 8:02 am
You would expect someone considering himself a "health journalist" understand basic stats, but what can you do...
actually, he's a doctor, so no surprise that he got it wrong.
Really Big Strong Guy: There are a plethora of psychopaths among us.

User avatar
Sangoma
Sergeant Commanding
Posts: 6632
Joined: Mon Oct 08, 2007 11:16 pm
Contact:

Re: In defence of low fat

Post by Sangoma » Wed Sep 06, 2017 4:37 am

Having medical degree and being a doctor is slightly different. In any case, you are right, most doctors don't understand biostatistics.
Image

Post Reply