• Log in with Facebook Log in with Twitter Log In with Google      Sign In    
  • Create Account
  LongeCity
              Advocacy & Research for Unlimited Lifespans

Photo
* - - - - 9 votes

Contest this paleo/atkins people!

paleo atkins hyperlipid

  • Please log in to reply
64 replies to this topic

#1 TheFountain

  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:15 AM


Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Are Bad for You
The Atkins Diet restricts foods that prevent disease and encourages foods that promote disease.[380] No matter what Atkins or other diet books tell people, the balance of evidence clearly shows that the intake of saturated animal fat is associated with increased risk of cancer,[381-382] diabetes, and heart disease.[383] For over 40 years, medical reviews have also shown the detrimental impact of dietary cholesterol consumption.[384] Even independent of the effects on obesity, meat consumption itself has been related to an increased risk of coronary heart disease.[385]

The best dietary strategy to reduce one's risk of dying from the number 1 killer in the U.S. is to reduce one's consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol. The evidence backing this, according to the American Heart Association, is "overwhelming."[386]

Decreasing America's intake of saturated animal fat is the primary reason why Johns Hopkins, supported by 28 other public health schools, launched the Meatless Mondays campaign, trying to get Americans to cut meat out of their diet at least one day of the week.[387] Dr. Jean Mayer, one of the most noted nutrition figures in history-- author of over 750 scientific articles, President of Tufts University, recipient of 16 honorary degrees--warned those going on "this faddish high-saturated-fat high-cholesterol [Atkins] diet" that you may be "playing Russian roulette with your heart and with your blood vessels."[388] "The Council," wrote the American Medical Association in their official critique of the Atkins Diet, "is deeply concerned about any diet that advocates an 'unlimited' intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods."[389]

In return, Atkins accused the American Medical Association of being in the pockets of carbohydrate manufacturers. “If you look at the financial records of the AMA and the Harvard School of Nutrition,” said Atkins in an interview, “and see the list of their benefactors, advertisers, and endowers you'll see why they insist on our eating carbohydrates."[486]

Interestingly, the Atkins Corporation seems like it's already backpedaling. A front page article in the New York Times revealed that the Atkins Corporation was quietly telling people to restrict their bacon and butter intake, urging people to keep saturated fat intake under 20% of calories.[390] Though nearly every major health organization in the world recommends less than half that amount, Atkins' change in policy does at least show that the Atkins Corporation may be recognizing some of the dangers of their diet.[391]

The Atkins Corporation claimed that their saturated fat guideline was nothing new and that Atkins never said people could eat as much meat as they wanted. They blamed the media for just misconstruing the Atkins Diet as an eat-as-much-meat-as-you-want diet.[392] Really? Atkins wrote, "There is no limit to the amount of... [any kind of meat in any quantity] you can eat... You eat as much as you want, as often as you want" (emphasis in original.)[393] In fact he specifically boasts that his diet "Sets no limit on the amount of food you can eat."[394] Maybe the media got it right.

The Director of Research and Education at Atkins Nutritionals claims that "Saturated fat isn't as much of an issue when carbohydrates are controlled; it's only dangerous in excess when carbs are high." Dr. Frank M. Sacks, a professor of cardiovascular disease prevention at the Harvard School of Public Health, scoffed at such a claim. "What they are saying is ridiculous," he said. The revision down to 20% saturated fat, he added, "has nothing to do with science; it has to do with public relations and politics."[395]

http://www.atkinsexp...bad_for_you.htm

Edited by TheFountain, 30 December 2011 - 06:17 AM.

  • dislike x 2

#2 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 30 December 2011 - 06:51 AM

Here's more..

Basis for Weight Loss

No scientific evidence exists to suggest that the low-carbohydrate ketogenic diet has a metabolic advantage over more conventional diets for weight reduction. The fact remains, however, that some patients have lost weight on the low-carbohydrate diet "unrestricted in calories." Why is this so? Yudkin and Carey[23] have reported experiments that provide an adequate explanation of the long-term weight loss that can occur when a "ketogenic" diet is consumed. These workers studied six obese adults who were carefully instructed in the weighing and recording of their complete diets. They were told to eat their usual food for two weeks. At the end of this time, they were asked to reduce the carbohydrate in their diets to about 50 gm/day for an additional two weeks and to eat as much protein and fat as they liked. Specifically, the subjects were told that they could eat unlimited amounts of such foods as meat, fish, eggs, cheese, butter, margarine, and cream. The intake of calories, protein, fat, and carbohydrate from the daily dietary records was then calculated.

In all subjects, there was a reduction in calories ranging from 13% to 55% during the time they were consuming the low-carbohydrate diet. Interestingly, none of the six subjects ate more fat, and three of them showed a significant reduction of fat intake, ranging from 22 to 35 gm/day. It was concluded that weight lost on such diets was principally due to the consumption of fewer calories.

http://www.atkinsexp...Association.htm

sponsored ad

  • Advert
Click HERE to rent this advertising spot for NUTRITION to support LongeCity (this will replace the google ad above).

#3 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:03 AM

Potential Hazards

What are the potential hazards of a diet very low in carbohydrate and rich in fat? Perhaps the greatest danger is related to hyperlipidemia, which may be induced by such a regimen. Hypercholesterolemia and hypertriglyceridemia are associated with an increased risk of developing coronary heart disease.[29,30] A diet rich in cholesterol and saturated fat could be responsible for accelerating artherosclerosis, particularly in susceptible persons. The two subjects reported on by Tolstoi[25] developed a visible lipemia on their all-meat (low-carbohydrate) diets, and their plasma cholesterol rose to high levels (in one subject up to 800 mg/100 ml).

Ketogenic diets also may cause a significant increase in the blood uric acid concentration. It appears that, by competing with uric acid for renal tubular excretion, elevated blood ketones can promote hyperuricemia. In patients with a gouty diathesis, the increment in hyperuricemia induced by such a regimen could exacerbate the underlying disease.

Bloom and Azar[31] have reported that all of the subjects whom they studied on "carbohydrate- free diets" complained of fatigue after two days on the diet. "This complaint was characterized by a feeling of physical lack of energy [and] was brought on by physical activity. The subjects all felt that they did not have sufficient energy to continue normal activity after the third day. This fatigue promptly disappeared after the addition of carbohydrate to the diet."

Another observation made by Bloom and Azar was that the subjects on the low-carbohydrate diets developed postural hypotension. The average systolic pressure fell 30 mm Hg and the diastolic 15 mm Hg when the subjects assumed an upright position after being supine.

Summary of Critique of Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution

The material cited appears to be more than sufficient to make the following points clear:

1. The "diet revolution" is neither new nor revolutionary. It is a variant of the "familiar" low carbohydrate diet that has been promulgated for many years.

2. The rationale advanced to justify the diet is, for the most part, without scientific merit. Furthermore, no evidence is advanced that controlled studies were ever carried out to validate the observation that weight can be lost by sedentary subjects who consume a carbohydrate-poor diet providing 5,000 kcal/day.

3. The Council is deeply concerned about any diet that advocates an "unlimited" intake of saturated fats and cholesterol-rich foods. In persons who respond to such a diet with an elevation of plasma lipids and an exaggerated alimentary hyperlipemia, the risk of coronary artery disease and other clinical manifestations of atherosclerosis may well be increased-particularly if the diet is maintained
over a prolonged period.

4. Any grossly unbalanced diet, particularly one which interdicts the 45% of calories that is usually consumed as carbohydrates, is likely to induce some anorexia and weight reduction if the subject is willing to persevere in following such a bizarre regimen. However, it is unlikely that such a diet can provide a practicable basis for long-term weight reduction or maintenance, ie, a life-time change in eating and exercise habits.

5. It is unfortunate that no reliable mechanism exists to help the public evaluate and put into proper perspective the great volume of nutritional information and misinformation with which it is constantly being bombarded. The Council believes that, in the absence of such a mechanism, members of the media and publishers as well as authors of books and articles advising the public on diet and nutrition have a unique responsibility to ensure that such information and advice are based on scientific facts established by responsible research. Bizarre concepts of nutrition and dieting should not be promoted to the public as if they were established scientific principles. If appropriate precautions are not taken, information about nutrition and diet that is not only misleading but potentially dangerous to health will continue to be conveyed to the public.

6. Physicians should counsel their patients as to the potentially harmful results that might occur because of adherence to the "ketogenic diet." Observations on patients who suffer adverse effects from this regimen should be reported in the medical literature or elsewhere, just as in the case of an adverse drug reaction.

#4 enfield

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 17
  • Location:California

Posted 30 December 2011 - 07:20 AM

Here's wikipedia's summary of a recent (2008) meta-study carried out by the Centre for Obesity Research and Epidemiology:

An even more recent meta-study of randomized controlled studies that compared low-carbohydrate diets to low-fat/low-calorie diets found that measurements of weight, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels and systolic blood pressure were significantly better in groups that followed low-carbohydrate diets. The authors also found a higher rate of attrition in groups with low-fat diets. They conclude that "Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year." They also call for more long-term studies


I'm not sure atkinsexposed.org is the best place to get information about the effects of atkins-like diets.

Edited by enfield, 30 December 2011 - 07:25 AM.


#5 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 30 December 2011 - 10:11 AM

Exactly. No long term studies. What is the scientific community waiting for?

#6 enfield

  • Guest
  • 35 posts
  • 17
  • Location:California

Posted 30 December 2011 - 12:27 PM

It called for more long-term studies.

#7 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 30 December 2011 - 04:48 PM

What is the argument against the above research?

#8 johnross47

  • Guest
  • 747 posts
  • 189
  • Location:table 42 in the restaurant at the end of the universe

Posted 30 December 2011 - 05:11 PM

I am not medically or scientifically educated but I frequently feel that discussions of this sort, here and elsewhere, suffer from abuse of language by the "cholesterol lobby". When they refer to cholesterol they are of course actually talking about lipo-proteins used as a proxy measurement for the cholesterol transported inside them. Has anyone ever separated the two out as distinct risk factors? This would obviously be difficult since cholesterol does not flow around in the blood on its own. I am also under the impression that the link between cholesterol in the diet and in the lipo-proteins is slight. Could some of you medically educated people please clarify this for me.

#9 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 31 December 2011 - 06:19 AM

So, no arguments then?
  • dislike x 2

#10 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 31 December 2011 - 04:01 PM

Exactly. No long term studies. What is the scientific community waiting for?


NIH funding in the face of carbohydrate-based USDA recommendations, for one. These studies cost millions and a researcher can't wake up one morning and say "Gee, I'd really like to do a five-year RCT of the Atkins diet. Let's get started!". You obviously have no idea how the research process works. There is massive confirmation bias when it comes to seeking research funding.

Where are the long-term, well-controlled clinical trials of any other diet? Hint: there aren't any. At least be consistent in your ignorance. The best study to date comparing the diets is the following:

https://www-ncbi-nlm...pubmed/17341711

P.S. - Christopher Gardner is a vegan, so spare us the "he found what he wanted to find" argument.
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#11 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 31 December 2011 - 04:07 PM

Exactly. No long term studies. What is the scientific community waiting for?


NIH funding in the face of carbohydrate-based USDA recommendations, for one. These studies cost millions and a researcher can't wake up one morning and say "Gee, I'd really like to do a five-year RCT of the Atkins diet. Let's get started!". You obviously have no idea how the research process works. There is massive confirmation bias when it comes to seeking research funding.

Where are the long-term, well-controlled clinical trials of any other diet? Hint: there aren't any. At least be consistent in your ignorance. The best study to date comparing the diets is the following:

https://www-ncbi-nlm...pubmed/17341711

P.S. - Christopher Gardner is a vegan, so spare us the "he found what he wanted to find" argument.


You're the ignorant one who is ignoring all the research I cited in my first two posts. Thanks for arguing these point for point.

Hint, you didn't. Not a single point that was made by the authors I pasted above did you make any effort to refute point for point.
  • dislike x 4

#12 Lufega

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 274
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 31 December 2011 - 05:29 PM

Is this a pro-vegan argument ? I have a couple of friends who are vegan. I feel sorry form them. They are always tired, fatigued and most of all, hungry ! They can't seem to understand why they're always hungry. This leads them to eat more carbs. and total calories and thus, gain weight. But dare I not suggest they eat an egg !

Another friend who is from India was vegan all her life. She didn't grow any taller than 4 something. She's always sick and tired and who knows how many nutrients she's deficient in. That said, the best diet, I feel, is a vegan diet (minus grains), plus some animal fat and proteins. More protein if you're physically active. Meat eaters tend to skip the fruits and veggies while vegans skip animal products altogether. What's the diet called when people simply eat both ? Omnivore ? :laugh:
  • like x 2
  • dislike x 1

#13 The Immortalist

  • Guest
  • 1,462 posts
  • 323
  • Location:.

Posted 01 January 2012 - 05:41 AM

Is this a pro-vegan argument ? I have a couple of friends who are vegan. I feel sorry form them. They are always tired, fatigued and most of all, hungry ! They can't seem to understand why they're always hungry. This leads them to eat more carbs. and total calories and thus, gain weight. But dare I not suggest they eat an egg !

Another friend who is from India was vegan all her life. She didn't grow any taller than 4 something. She's always sick and tired and who knows how many nutrients she's deficient in. That said, the best diet, I feel, is a vegan diet (minus grains), plus some animal fat and proteins. More protein if you're physically active. Meat eaters tend to skip the fruits and veggies while vegans skip animal products altogether. What's the diet called when people simply eat both ? Omnivore ? :laugh:


No it's an anti high-fat diet argument.

#14 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 01 January 2012 - 04:12 PM

I don't have time to pick apart all the stuff that TheFountain posted, but it appears to come from the AMA and a group called "atkins exposed", so on the one hand you have a traditional source of bad nutritional advice (AMA) and the other a group with an apparent bias. Fredrikson posted a (broken) link to a fairly long term trial with overweight but otherwise healthy humans, and the results after a year looked pretty good for atkins. It was the clear winner on weight loss, should that be what one is looking for, and lipid profiles were not worse than the other diets. While I'm not trying to support crazy diets like "all meat" or even extreme hyperlipid, this does look like a counter argument to the AMA's "atkins sucks" article. Here's the abstract:

JAMA. 2007 Mar 7;297(9):969-77.
Comparison of the Atkins, Zone, Ornish, and LEARN diets for change in weight and related risk factors among overweight premenopausal women: the A TO Z Weight Loss Study: a randomized trial.
Gardner CD, Kiazand A, Alhassan S, Kim S, Stafford RS, Balise RR, Kraemer HC, King AC.
Source

Stanford Prevention Research Center and the Department of Medicine, Stanford University Medical School, Stanford, Calif, USA. cgardner@stanford.edu
Erratum in

JAMA. 2007 Jul 11;298(2):178.

Abstract
CONTEXT:

Popular diets, particularly those low in carbohydrates, have challenged current recommendations advising a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet for weight loss. Potential benefits and risks have not been tested adequately.
OBJECTIVE:

To compare 4 weight-loss diets representing a spectrum of low to high carbohydrate intake for effects on weight loss and related metabolic variables.
DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS:

Twelve-month randomized trial conducted in the United States from February 2003 to October 2005 among 311 free-living, overweight/obese (body mass index, 27-40) nondiabetic, premenopausal women.
INTERVENTION:

Participants were randomly assigned to follow the Atkins (n = 77), Zone (n = 79), LEARN (n = 79), or Ornish (n = 76) diets and received weekly instruction for 2 months, then an additional 10-month follow-up.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES:

Weight loss at 12 months was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included lipid profile (low-density lipoprotein, high-density lipoprotein, and non-high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, and triglyceride levels), percentage of body fat, waist-hip ratio, fasting insulin and glucose levels, and blood pressure. Outcomes were assessed at months 0, 2, 6, and 12. The Tukey studentized range test was used to adjust for multiple testing.
RESULTS:

Weight loss was greater for women in the Atkins diet group compared with the other diet groups at 12 months, and mean 12-month weight loss was significantly different between the Atkins and Zone diets (P<.05). Mean 12-month weight loss was as follows: Atkins, -4.7 kg (95% confidence interval [CI], -6.3 to -3.1 kg), Zone, -1.6 kg (95% CI, -2.8 to -0.4 kg), LEARN, -2.6 kg (-3.8 to -1.3 kg), and Ornish, -2.2 kg (-3.6 to -0.8 kg). Weight loss was not statistically different among the Zone, LEARN, and Ornish groups. At 12 months, secondary outcomes for the Atkins group were comparable with or more favorable than the other diet groups.
CONCLUSIONS:

In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake, lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet, and had experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets [corrected] While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss.
TRIAL REGISTRATION:

clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00079573.
Comment in

J Fam Pract. 2007 Jun;56(6):434.
Evid Based Nurs. 2007 Oct;10(4):111.
JAMA. 2007 Jul 11;298(2):173-4; author reply 174-5.
Evid Based Med. 2007 Oct;12(5):138.
Nat Clin Pract Endocrinol Metab. 2007 Oct;3(10):684-5.
JAMA. 2007 Jul 11;298(2):173; author reply 174-5.
JAMA. 2007 Jul 11;298(2):174; author reply 174-5.

PMID: 17341711


I didn't follow up on the erratum and all the comments; that might be worth looking at if you have full journal access.
  • like x 4

#15 Lufega

  • Guest
  • 1,811 posts
  • 274
  • Location:USA
  • NO

Posted 01 January 2012 - 09:08 PM

My only regret is not having introduced butter in my diet earlier. Growing up, I was always very health conscientious so I avoided butter, whole milk, mayo. and trimmed all my meats. What a mistake ! I feel so much better since introducing butter and fats into my diet. Forget what the studies say, my hypoglycemia is gone !

#16 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 254

Posted 01 January 2012 - 09:51 PM

^^^I've always been pretty critical of the low carb/paleo thing, but after experimenting for a bit I'm starting to feel the same the way. My body runs surprisingly well on fat. Individual genes maybe?

Diseases associated with high fat are probably the result of AGEs and excess protein.
  • like x 1

#17 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 02 January 2012 - 04:59 AM

^^^I've always been pretty critical of the low carb/paleo thing, but after experimenting for a bit I'm starting to feel the same the way. My body runs surprisingly well on fat. Individual genes maybe?

Diseases associated with high fat are probably the result of AGEs and excess protein.

I fell for the anti-fat hysteria for a long time, and it was quite an eye opener when I figured out what I was missing. Individual genes? Yeah, ApoE, at the very least, and probably a dozen others.

The main disease associated with fat is arterial plaque, and that is influenced strongly by various micronutrients and inflammation, among other things. Depending on these things, your genes, and the rest of your diet, lipids certainly play a role in plaque formation, but they aren't the only factor, and may not be that important of a factor.

#18 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 02 January 2012 - 05:41 AM

my apologies for the broken link, which used my university pubmed account. thanks for the correction, niner. to make amends, i have linked the abstract for another well-done trial comparing low-carb and low-fat diets after six months.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/15148063


p.s. - "atkins exposed" is obviously biased and contains little in the way of references other than circular support; i.e. the dietary stance of the ama/usda and flawed epidemiological studies powered upon the assumption that fat increases risk of disease pararmeters... big mistake! controlled trials are much more meaningful and the evidence supporting a lower-carbohydrate approach over the low-fat ama/usda guidelines is abundantly clear.
  • like x 2

#19 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:44 AM

Fredrikson posted a (broken) link to a fairly long term trial with overweight but otherwise healthy humans, and the results after a year looked pretty good for atkins.


That had nothing to do with metabolic advantage and everything to do with eating less calories.

Why do you insist on acting like the paleo movement is not still in its infancy and does not lack adequate study to indicate that it is a healthy long term diet?

Why do you act like there are not even more studies indicating that other diets are better for long term metabolic advantage than atkins or paleo?

Why this intentional ignoring of perfectly fine data?

Edited by TheFountain, 02 January 2012 - 08:46 AM.


#20 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:48 AM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.

Edited by TheFountain, 02 January 2012 - 08:49 AM.

  • dislike x 1

#21 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:52 AM

^^^I've always been pretty critical of the low carb/paleo thing, but after experimenting for a bit I'm starting to feel the same the way. My body runs surprisingly well on fat. Individual genes maybe?

Diseases associated with high fat are probably the result of AGEs and excess protein.


The thing is, you saying this on a forum is just an abstraction that means nothing. Because the simple fact is, despite your shot in the dark guess, you simply and irrevocably do not know.

So far studies implicate red meat and high saturated fat intake as the culprit. Denying that because you think you are smarter than a study environment is plain arrogant.

#22 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 January 2012 - 09:02 AM

^^^I've always been pretty critical of the low carb/paleo thing, but after experimenting for a bit I'm starting to feel the same the way. My body runs surprisingly well on fat. Individual genes maybe?

Diseases associated with high fat are probably the result of AGEs and excess protein.

I fell for the anti-fat hysteria for a long time, and it was quite an eye opener when I figured out what I was missing. Individual genes? Yeah, ApoE, at the very least, and probably a dozen others.

The main disease associated with fat is arterial plaque, and that is influenced strongly by various micronutrients and inflammation, among other things. Depending on these things, your genes, and the rest of your diet, lipids certainly play a role in plaque formation, but they aren't the only factor, and may not be that important of a factor.


You sitting here and guessing that you are smarter than a study environment is very arrogant, no matter how educated you are in the sciences.

And you weave a very deceitful language niner, you do it quite often. You claim that this is 'anti'fat hysteria' that I am espousing. Tell me, where have I specifically espoused an anti-fat approach? I myself still consume between 50-70 grams of healthy fat a day (and sometimes more, depending on my energy needs or my experimental approach at that time). By no means 'anti-fat hysteria'.

What I am questioning is the unproven approach many people on this forum have, where they say that 60-70% of their total macronutrient intake is in the form of fat, and mostly saturated fat at that! The problem I have is that you get one arrogant article dispenser, who can accumulate enough 'data' to write a book and then you have an epidemic of people thinking they know better than studies do.

I will admit that *some* points made by gary taubes are good, but a heck of a lot of what he says is flawed and constructed on BS so called science and guess work. And I cannot place enough emphasis on his claims about insulin being the driver of weight gain in healthy individuals. It's plain wrong.

#23 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 January 2012 - 09:04 AM

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do, as in the case of studies indicating disease correlation between meat and high saturated fat consumption?

#24 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 254

Posted 02 January 2012 - 07:27 PM

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do, as in the case of studies indicating disease correlation between meat and high saturated fat consumption?


Yes. That's why I've always been so critical of paleo/high fat. Correlation is just that. It doesn't show a direct link. It could just as easily be a high AGE content, high levels of methionine, omega-6, lack of certain nutrients or something else.

I would totally be a raw vegan if I didn't feel and look like shit on it. Instead, I think I'll eat lots of veggies and higher fat, keep protein in check and mitigate the potential negative effects with a carefully chosen list of supplements such as curcumin, benfotiamine, olive leaf and cinnamon. Excess calories and junk food are a far greater threat.
  • dislike x 1
  • like x 1

#25 TheFountain

  • Topic Starter
  • Guest
  • 5,362 posts
  • 257

Posted 02 January 2012 - 08:37 PM

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do, as in the case of studies indicating disease correlation between meat and high saturated fat consumption?


Yes. That's why I've always been so critical of paleo/high fat. Correlation is just that. It doesn't show a direct link. It could just as easily be a high AGE content, high levels of methionine, omega-6, lack of certain nutrients or something else.

I would totally be a raw vegan if I didn't feel and look like shit on it. Instead, I think I'll eat lots of veggies and higher fat, keep protein in check and mitigate the potential negative effects with a carefully chosen list of supplements such as curcumin, benfotiamine, olive leaf and cinnamon. Excess calories and junk food are a far greater threat.


the problem is that 'could be' and 'is' are not the same things.

Our universe 'could be' made up of holographic frequency patterns. Does that mean it is?

We may or may not prove that the universe is a hologram some day, but it does not directly effect our lives or health if we do not prove it to be so within the next 20 years.

Guessing is not the best approach to dietary science. Especially guessing with such unfounded arrogance behind it.

#26 aldebaran

  • Guest
  • 44 posts
  • -4

Posted 02 January 2012 - 10:21 PM

Much as I hate to feed the trolls, TheFountain here is clearly the arrogant one. He should do some rudimentary research into the areas he criticizes from less biased sources, and quit complaining about others' failure to engage his "evidence" when he exhibits same vice. Better still, he should go peddle his nonsense at the pro-Paleo and pro-carbohydrate restriction forums and see whether he can convert the poor, benighted masses there. Those people will put Fountain's tail between his legs in short order.

Edited by aldebaran, 02 January 2012 - 10:24 PM.

  • like x 1

#27 frederickson

  • Guest
  • 281 posts
  • 50

Posted 03 January 2012 - 12:44 AM

flawed epidemiological studies


How exactly are these studies flawed? Why does epidemiology exist? To play mind games with us? Who says these studies are flawed? Gary taubes?

You realize that there is no evidence at all that his claim that insulin is the driver of weight gain in healthy humans is true, right?

If you actually believe that is true, then you either lack basic chemistry understanding or you are willfully ignoring it.


i have a phd in epidemiology and am on faculty at a tier 1 school of medicine, that's why i feel qualified to discuss the flaws of these studies :)

the major flaw of these studies is that dietary fat was generally guilty by association and improper causal inference was rampant. namely, most people in the general population that consume more dietary fat are a.) consuming unhealthy fats and b.) consuming tons of sugar along with it. no epidemiological analysis with which i am familiar ever included total sugar or refined carbohydrate consumption in the regression models used to determine the associations. very few make distinctions of the types of dietary fat consumed, which has a tremendous health impact. these are two massive sources of confounding that weaken the causal inference substantially.

epidemiology is an incredibly powerful tool, but the major nutritional epi studies to date are fatally flawed. the rct data is much more meaningful, and the evidence is overwhelmingly supportive of a lower-carbohydrate approach when it comes to weight loss and reduction in cvd risk factors.
  • like x 2

#28 1kgcoffee

  • Guest
  • 737 posts
  • 254

Posted 03 January 2012 - 01:01 AM

the problem is that 'could be' and 'is' are not the same things.

Our universe 'could be' made up of holographic frequency patterns. Does that mean it is?

We may or may not prove that the universe is a hologram some day, but it does not directly effect our lives or health if we do not prove it to be so within the next 20 years.

Guessing is not the best approach to dietary science. Especially guessing with such unfounded arrogance behind it.


My question is, if saturated fat really is the culprit, then how exactly is it doing its dirty work? Until we have that answer, we won't know if it's the saturated fat or something else. Also consider the french 'paradox'.

#29 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 January 2012 - 01:32 AM

Denying that because you think you are smarter than a study environment is plain arrogant.

You sitting here and guessing that you are smarter than a study environment is very arrogant

To Paleo dieters, do you think it is somewhat arrogant to assume you know better than study environments do

unfounded arrogance


It's not nice to call people arrogant.

#30 niner

  • Guest
  • 16,276 posts
  • 1,999
  • Location:Philadelphia

Posted 03 January 2012 - 01:47 AM

results after a year looked pretty good for atkins.


That had nothing to do with metabolic advantage and everything to do with eating less calories.

Why do you insist on acting like the paleo movement is not still in its infancy and does not lack adequate study to indicate that it is a healthy long term diet?

Why do you act like there are not even more studies indicating that other diets are better for long term metabolic advantage than atkins or paleo?

Why this intentional ignoring of perfectly fine data?


These were free-living ad libitum humans. If a higher fat got them to eat fewer calories, then that's a win in and of itself, though the paper didn't address that specifically. I never said anything about metabolic advantage. How are you defining that, anyway?

Isn't the paleo diet about 1.5 million years old? I just posted a paper that contests the anti-Atkins thing from the AMA. Atkins is not necessarily paleo, though it could be, and paleo may not be Atkins. Neither are necessarily hyperlipid and vice versa. Have you posted studies showing that other diets are better than paleo? If so, I must have missed them. I don't mean to ignore good data. The RCT that Frederickson posted was good data, right? How can you beat an RCT? Are you ignoring it?





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: paleo, atkins, hyperlipid

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users