84 replies to this topic

[DR01D]

However I don’t believe humans were strictly herbivores, we did eat a tiny bit of meat throughout our existence. But the ratio of meat to plants was very very low. It wasn’t until the industrial-revolution that humanity had access to lots of meat, and it wasn’t until after WWII that Americans had a lot of access to cheese. Now in modern-times people neglect the plant-foods (like whole-grains) in favor of meat and cheese, and we have an epidemic of disease to show for it.

You are correct. In the past humans ate a lot less meat than they do today. But less meat isn't NO meat. Scientists don't have a full understanding of nutrition and until they do I'm going to eat a balanced, low calorie diet.

In 20 years we'll compare notes and see which method worked best.

I think one thing that everyone can agree on is that processed food should be reduced or eliminated. Compared to the modern American diet, vegetarianism is probably a big improvement assuming meat calories aren't replaced with processed calories.

Edited by DR01D, 24 May 2013 - 06:29 PM.

[Mind]

"You are correct. In the past humans ate a lot less meat than they do today. But less meat isn't NO meat. Scientists don't have a full understanding of nutrition and until they do I'm going to eat a balanced, low calorie diet"

Really, this is not accurate. Certain tribes were a little less reliant on meat consumption, while others ate meat/fat almost exclusively. Our closest ancestors - chimpanzees - also eat meat. This statement by MisterE that humans were almost strictly herbivores for their entire existence until recently is unfounded, unscientific, and one of the reasons that people ignore his statements more and more.

I am all for eating more vegetables and the moral case for going vegan is sound. What MisterE is doing might actually deter people from eating more veggies because the blind devotion to the anti-fat meme can be off-putting. I think he is a decent person. I just don't understand the religious anti-fat stance.

[gamesguru]

I'm not saying this guy is speaking the truth, but he makes several anatomical claims which suggest humans are pure herbivores. Someone will have to check these against another agency, but they look convincing, especially the teeth.

http://www.stevepavl...r-herbivores-2/

This has nothing to do with fats, because plenty of plants are fatty, ie the avocado, which is practically a superfood.

Edited by dasheenster, 24 May 2013 - 08:38 PM.

[Shepard]

The burden of proof falls on folks like Shepard ... to prove that saturated-fat doesn’t contribute to disease (as they suggest).

Did you see me suggest anything? If posting a link to a paper that comes across my desk for others to read and form their own opinion on counts as having an opinion on the matter myself....then we're in a sad state of affairs. Don't assume bias when one isn't present.

People would much rather eat bacon, eggs, cheese and steak instead of oats, barley, rice and pasta, and that is the main reason why these low-carb/paleo-diets are so damn popular!

The original paleo diet (lean meats, no dairy) failed for the most part and I think you'll see a further reduction in people who follow the low-carb doctrine, as that has already been on the decline in the past two years, or so. More and more people in that scene have adopted rice and potatoes and some even get so wild as to have tradtionally prepared legumes.

Edited by Shepard, 24 May 2013 - 10:04 PM.

[Godot]

The burden of proof falls on folks like Shepard and Mind to prove that saturated-fat doesn’t contribute to disease (as they suggest). The scientific-literature is so strong, and the works of Esselstyn and Ornish confirm that heart-disease is a result of eating rich foods, high in fat.

MisterE - You have made no attempt to refute any part of the paper linked in the OP.

Nor have you made any attempt to address refutations of your beloved, extremely weak & methodologically flawed Ornish and Esselstyn studies. You just continue to cite them as though they prove your argument.

Strong evidence has been presented that low fat diets do not cure heart disease as you claim, and you have made no attempt to refute it.

Based on the above facts, is there any point in engaging you in a discussion of this topic?

You say you want evidence that saturated fat doesn't contribute to disease, but the evidence has already been provided to you many times in other threads.

Here it is again:
http://m.ajcn.nutrit....27725.abstract
http://www.sciencedi...895435698000183
http://www.ncbi.nlm....ubmed/19364995/
http://ajcn.nutritio.../67/5/828.short
http://ajcn.nutritio.../91/3/502.short
http://atvb.ahajourn.../12/2/187.short

[misterE]

This statement by MisterE that humans were almost strictly herbivores for their entire existence until recently is unfounded, unscientific, and one of the reasons that people ignore his statements more and more.

Humans always ate meat, but the amount has increased over time. The chimpanzee as you mentioned shares over 90% of our genome and while yes, it does eat some meat, it is 95% herbivore. Humans, which are primarily herbivores, can tolerate some meat, but to make it a central part of the diet, which is what is advocated in low-carb and paleo-diets and currently in the standard American diet, is not healthy, nor sustainable for the entire planet and its resources.

I surely don’t think anything I post is unfounded or unscientific at all. Anyone who is familiar with my posts knows I back up my claims with studies, if people want to ignore my statement that is their choice, but I’m here to provide balance to a primarily low-carb forum.

Now speaking of ignoring… I’m still waiting for a study to show a high-fat diet can reverse atherosclerosis. If no studies can be cited, I’d say it’s too risky to follow such a diet, given the current data on high-fat diets and cardiovascular-health and the lack of supporting evidence for their use.

A person who makes dietary decisions based on their palate will always choose the high-fat diet, after all, all they really have to do is order a cheese burger and throw away the bun! A person who bases their diet on the science and epidemiology chooses a diet of whole-grains, beans, potatoes and vegetables, and keeps rich foods limited to special occasions.

[DR01D]

Certain tribes were a little less reliant on meat consumption, while others ate meat/fat almost exclusively.

I'm open to the idea that I am completely wrong on this but...

I thought that in most cases our ancestors ate less meat than we do today simply because animals didn't give up their lives easily. So we ate a lot of fruit, nuts, vegetables or whatever else we could find.

I'm talking about the 250,000 years we lived as hunter gatherers. Not the 10,000 years we lived as farmers. Most of our evolution probably took place during that 250,000 years.

Edited by DR01D, 25 May 2013 - 05:24 AM.

[Godot]

From the OP:

A recent meta-analysis (98) reviewed 20 studies with >1 million subjects and found that red meat was not associated with CAD events [RR = 1.00 (95% CI = 0.81–1.23, P-trend = 0.36)].

[Mind]

I'm not saying this guy is speaking the truth, but he makes several anatomical claims which suggest humans are pure herbivores. Someone will have to check these against another agency, but they look convincing, especially the teeth.

http://www.stevepavl...r-herbivores-2/

This has nothing to do with fats, because plenty of plants are fatty, ie the avocado, which is practically a superfood.

The proper scientific classification for humans is omnivore.

STATING THIS FACT IS NOT AN ARGUMENT AGAINST VEGANISM!!!

That is all I have time for in this thread.

[misterE]

MisterE - You have made no attempt to refute any part of the paper linked in the OP.

I did.

The study seems to allude to the reader that the causes of heart-disease are really omega-6 fatty-acids not saturated-fatty-acids, and that the obesity epidemic is caused by less saturated-fat and more simple-sugars.

Now I agree that excess omega-6 is very harmful, but I also believe saturated-fat is just as harmful if not more. Many folks argue that Americans are eating more polyunsaturated-fat and less saturated-fat compared to 100 years ago; when Americans didn’t have a diseased population. It is true that Americans switched from cooking with butter and lard to cooking with vegetable-oils, that is fact. So at first it seems like Americans are eating less saturated-fat than before and much more of the vegetable-oils (which we are, vegetable-oil use has increased over 225%)… but when you adjust for the 62% increase in meat consumption, the 725% increase in cheese consumption and a 1567% increase in ice-cream consumption (all of which are very high in saturated-fats and cholesterol), Americans are eating more saturated-fat than ever before in our history (and more omega-6 than ever before as well). At the same time we have replaced whole-grains, beans and potatoes for fibreless refined-flours, simple-sugars and fried-potatoes [1].

We are eating more saturated-fat, more cholesterol, more omega-6, more simple-sugars and less starch and less fiber.

Nor have you made any attempt to address refutations of your beloved, extremely weak & methodologically flawed Ornish and Esselstyn studies. You just continue to cite them as though they prove your argument.

I don’t consider these studies weak; neither does the medical-realm. Ornish and Esselstyn are considered pioneers in their field and their program has been adopted by former president Bill Clinton in attempts to reverse his atherosclerosis!

Yes their studies weren’t 100% perfect (Ornish used exercise, meditation and group-support and Esselstyn used cholesterol-lowering meds, so many argue you can’t distinguish the different variables with the outcome, which was reversal of atherosclerosis) but when you compare their results to the epidemiological-data… it paints a pretty clear picture.

Strong evidence has been presented that low fat diets do not cure heart disease as you claim, and you have made no attempt to refute it.

You will always find contradictory studies or reviews, that is what “greases the gears” in the scientific-literature, but you must always asked yourself: does this match with the epidemiological data?



[1] Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 May;91(5):1530S-1536S. Trends in food availability, 1909-2007. Barnard ND.

[misterE]

I'm talking about the 250,000 years we lived as hunter gatherers. Not the 10,000 years we lived as farmers. Most of our evolution probably took place during that 250,000 years.

There is evidence that humans have been eating grains for at least 105,000 years:





Science. 2009 Dec 18;326(5960):1680-3.

Mozambican grass seed consumption during the Middle Stone Age.

Mercader J.

Abstract

The role of starchy plants in early hominin diets and when the culinary processing of starches began have been difficult to track archaeologically. Seed collecting is conventionally perceived to have been an irrelevant activity among the Pleistocene foragers of southern Africa, on the grounds of both technological difficulty in the processing of grains and the belief that roots, fruits, and nuts, not cereals, were the basis for subsistence for the past 100,000 years and further back in time. A large assemblage of starch granules has been retrieved from the surfaces of Middle Stone Age stone tools from Mozambique, showing that early Homo sapiens relied on grass seeds starting at least 105,000 years ago, including those of sorghum grasses.

[Godot]

… but when you adjust for the 62% increase in meat consumption, the 725% increase in cheese consumption and a 1567% increase in ice-cream consumption (all of which are very high in saturated-fats and cholesterol), Americans are eating more saturated-fat than ever before in our history

Had you read the article, you would have seen the citations of multiple large studies showing no association between meat and CVD, and a protective relationship between dairy and CVD.

Nor have you made any attempt to address refutations of your beloved, extremely weak & methodologically flawed Ornish and Esselstyn studies. You just continue to cite them as though they prove your argument.

I don’t consider these studies weak; neither does the medical-realm. Ornish and Esselstyn are considered pioneers in their field and their program has been adopted by former president Bill Clinton in attempts to reverse his atherosclerosis!

If you don't consider an 11-person sequential study with a 50% dropout rate, no control, and multiple interventions to be weak, then you simply do not understand science. There is no statistical power there. You can't properly infer anything from that sample size and that study design. That type of study provides a good rationale for conducting a real study -- and the real studies have failed to replicate the result.

Strong evidence has been presented that low fat diets do not cure heart disease as you claim, and you have made no attempt to refute it.

You will always find contradictory studies or reviews, that is what “greases the gears” in the scientific-literature, but you must always asked yourself: does this match with the epidemiological data?

That is completely ass backwards. You don't use epidemiological data to back up tiny, poorly designed studies -- you use epidemiological data to decide what's worth testing under controlled conditions. And that test has been performed, with nearly 50,000 people. It showed that low fat diets do not reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease. http://jama.jamanetw...rticleid=202339

[gamesguru]

My bad for posting misleading information. The following is a good discussion of why humans are omnivores: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm.

To introduce a new question, is there any evidence that one type of fat is better than others, or that we need more of one type than another? Obviously the common myth and deeply rooted misconception about saturated fat is being slowly dispelled. But what is the proper ratio of fats? Does the USDA have it right, with 20 g saturated and 45 poly/mono-unsaturated? If so, what ratio beteen poly and mono is ideal? I've heard some people say we should get more omega-3s than omega-6s or like a 1:1 ratio...is that really practical? And where should we get our fats from, ie saturated, what percentage from dairy and what percentage from other sources?

Edited by dasheenster, 26 May 2013 - 01:34 PM.

[DR01D]

The following is a good discussion of why humans are omnivores: http://www.vrg.org/nutshell/omni.htm.

The following quote comes from the above link.

Quoted from an editorial by William Clifford Roberts, M.d., Editor-in-Chief of the American Journal of Cardiology:
"When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us because their flesh, which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores."

Humans are herbivores?!?! What a crackpot! The scary part is that he was the editor of the American Journal of Cardiology.

A healthy dose of skepticism is a good thing.

Edited by DR01D, 26 May 2013 - 04:46 PM.

[DukeNukem]

The original paleo diet (lean meats, no dairy) failed for the most part and I think you'll see a further reduction in people who follow the low-carb doctrine, as that has already been on the decline in the past two years, or so. More and more people in that scene have adopted rice and potatoes and some even get so wild as to have tradtionally prepared legumes.

I see it bigger than ever, by every indication. However, it has evolved to be more carb friendly (not grain friendly, but vegetable-carb friendly). The weird thing is that the paleo diet was never a low-carb diet, more a mid-carb diet.

A lot of paleo folks like myself stay lower-carb, though, because it has longevity benefits, IMO, by reducing glycation damage, and carbs are a dirtier running metabolic fuel source. Plus, practically everything I've read shows that fat is the better, more efficient fuel. For example, it's the best endurance fuel, and humans are primarily an endurance beast (we do better at walking/trekking versus running, for example).

[DePaw]

DukeNukem,

http://primalnorth.b...o-athletes.html

[Shepard]

I see it bigger than ever, by every indication. However, it has evolved to be more carb friendly (not grain friendly, but vegetable-carb friendly). The weird thing is that the paleo diet was never a low-carb diet, more a mid-carb diet.

Sure, I don't think the 'paleo movement' will slow down any time soon. As more reputable people have moved into the scene and slapped some nonsense out of the original gurus, it has become a useful template of "eat real food" instead of "calories don't count and you shouldn't eat anything that wasn't around 10,000 years ago".

[alecnevsky]

The original paleo diet (lean meats, no dairy) failed for the most part and I think you'll see a further reduction in people who follow the low-carb doctrine, as that has already been on the decline in the past two years, or so. More and more people in that scene have adopted rice and potatoes and some even get so wild as to have tradtionally prepared legumes.

Being LCHF, I was just wondering behind the reasoning of "these people" who think adopting potatoes and rice is optimal. Ketotic metabolism is the most efficient both for brain and endurance so what concerns do these people have based on your observations?

[Shepard]

Being LCHF, I was just wondering behind the reasoning of "these people" who think adopting potatoes and rice is optimal. Ketotic metabolism is the most efficient both for brain and endurance so what concerns do these people have based on your observations?

The most credible of the concerns I would put down to mucin and hyaluronan production. Some people complain of dry eyes and the like on long-term LCHF diets and gut health would potentially be on the list of concerns long-term. The next most credible concern is for immune function and the use of glucose in ROS production. Whether or not gluconeogenesis is sufficient in these cases is likely dependent on the particular pathogen. I don't think the thyroid issue is quite as cut and dry as many of the "safe starch" crowd makes it out to be, and reports of cramping and the like point to a micronutrient issue and not a macro- one.

Another issue is that there are reports of glycolytic athletes attempting ketogenic diets and digging themselves into very deep holes from an overtraining perspective as glucocorticoid and sex hormones get way out of whack. On its face, this is a bit silly as glycolytic athletes need glycogen by definition, but people still try it out for whatever reason. Again, though, it's not clear if the training would have produced the same effect in the individual independent of diet. These days of Crossfit, it's not uncommon for housewives to tack on a ridiculous training load onto an already stressful life and find themselves with racing heart rates at 2 in the morning and no menstrual cycle.

Now, the arguments for inclusion of carbohydrate would be that the fibers in things like sweet potatoes are generally what we would consider to be healthy for normal gut function. A commonly reported side effect of long-term low carb diets is kidney stones, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that it's not an individual susceptibility at work. Also, I think pretty much everyone who has worked in this scene has come to the conclusion that men do much better on a LCHF approach than women.

That said, I think (and in my personal observation) many of the reported issues are due to the fact that most people eat too much protein and not enough fat to be successful long-term on a ketogenic diet. Fatty meat by itself does not provide enough fat. Some may also keep their carbs a bit too high and always feel an odd hunger for carbohydrate (not necessarily sweets) and find energy and mood to improve upon reintegration into the diet.

Edited by Shepard, 28 May 2013 - 03:03 AM.

[sthira]

Eat real food, and less of it. Eat loads of unprocessed whole fruits, vegetables, nuts, legumes, olive oil, spices, red wine, dark chocolate in moderation. Limit grains, limit bread, limit meat to small side dishes, limit dairy, avoid sugary drinks (pop, juice), avoid trans fats, avoid weird chemical names on ingredient lists. Eat less food, eat fewer calories. Track RDAs on some device like cronometer. Food trumps supplements.

Perhaps any diet other than the standard American diet is fine; perhaps the SAD may be the worst of all choices.

But the answer to what's optimal for all seems unknown, and it may remain unknowable until nutrition science improves. Wild speculation: it may be that since we're all slightly different we all have slightly different optimal diets.

What's optimal? Optimal is the diet most likely to increase individual health spans.

[alecnevsky]

Being LCHF, I was just wondering behind the reasoning of "these people" who think adopting potatoes and rice is optimal. Ketotic metabolism is the most efficient both for brain and endurance so what concerns do these people have based on your observations?

The most credible of the concerns I would put down to mucin and hyaluronan production. Some people complain of dry eyes and the like on long-term LCHF diets and gut health would potentially be on the list of concerns long-term. The next most credible concern is for immune function and the use of glucose in ROS production. Whether or not gluconeogenesis is sufficient in these cases is likely dependent on the particular pathogen. I don't think the thyroid issue is quite as cut and dry as many of the "safe starch" crowd makes it out to be, and reports of cramping and the like point to a micronutrient issue and not a macro- one.

Another issue is that there are reports of glycolytic athletes attempting ketogenic diets and digging themselves into very deep holes from an overtraining perspective as glucocorticoid and sex hormones get way out of whack. On its face, this is a bit silly as glycolytic athletes need glycogen by definition, but people still try it out for whatever reason. Again, though, it's not clear if the training would have produced the same effect in the individual independent of diet. These days of Crossfit, it's not uncommon for housewives to tack on a ridiculous training load onto an already stressful life and find themselves with racing heart rates at 2 in the morning and no menstrual cycle.

Now, the arguments for inclusion of carbohydrate would be that the fibers in things like sweet potatoes are generally what we would consider to be healthy for normal gut function. A commonly reported side effect of long-term low carb diets is kidney stones, but I haven't seen anything to convince me that it's not an individual susceptibility at work. Also, I think pretty much everyone who has worked in this scene has come to the conclusion that men do much better on a LCHF approach than women.

That said, I think (and in my personal observation) many of the reported issues are due to the fact that most people eat too much protein and not enough fat to be successful long-term on a ketogenic diet. Fatty meat by itself does not provide enough fat. Some may also keep their carbs a bit too high and always feel an odd hunger for carbohydrate (not necessarily sweets) and find energy and mood to improve upon reintegration into the diet.

Thank you for clarifying. I actually did read similar reports insofar as gut mucus and eye health is concerned on Dave Asprey's site. One more obvious side effect so far (this is about 6-8wks into <30g carbs/day) is lack of any water weight. This is actually a big deal for me as I am constantly thirsty and I am somewhat of a triathlete. It's seriously a pain in the dick but I put up with it b/c the baseline performance improved on all dimensions: cerebral, muscular and mental (less cortisol may be the reason for this).

I followed Dave Asprey's advice on sodium and was drinking Sea Salt dissolved in water for these first 6-8 weeks pretty much like 2-6g daily depending on dehydration only to find myself with high blood pressure (I do track in college and my bp went up literally 20 points! wtf.) I stopped doing it since and now only take potassium and magn. Either I am doing something wrong, need to carb up again or I was just drinking shite sea salt. It's hard to tell at this point.


DePaw that's a great link! Thanks.

Edited by alecnevsky, 28 May 2013 - 05:33 AM.

[misterE]

Being LCHF, I was just wondering behind the reasoning of "these people" who think adopting potatoes and rice is optimal. Ketotic metabolism is the most efficient both for brain and endurance so what concerns do these people have based on your observations?

The way I see it, is that an insulin stimulated metabolism is best. Insulin inhibits cell death (apoptosis) and promotes cell renewal -- talk about longevity. It shuttles nutrients, glucose and protein into the muscle-cells, it turns off appetite, it promotes vasodilatation, it lowers blood-lipids, it stimulates the production of sex-hormones like testosterone and a whole-host of other beneficial effects.

When people neglect starchy-foods like potatoes, beans and bread (which stimulate massive amounts of insulin) and eat fatty-food like ground-beef and cheese, they don’t get much insulin secretion, so since there is no insulin, all the above benefits are hindered.

The high blood-glucose levels in uncontrolled diabetics is not a result of carbohydrate consumption, but rather excess gluconeogenesis, which is usually inhibited by insulin. The high levels of triglycerides and free-fatty-acids (FFA) found in diabetics is a result of excess lipolysis, which is also usually inhibited by insulin. The low testosterone levels found in diabetics is due to a lack of insulin signaling in the leydig-cells (testicles).

All these problems are why doctors prescribe insulin and drugs that make insulin more potent (like metformin). Without insulin the body goes haywire! Now you can make your own insulin by eating starchy foods especially beans, bread and potatoes.

Also the hyperinsulinemia associated with insulin-resistance is not the reason why people with the disease are sick. Hyperinsulinemia is the result of insulin-receptors that have been clogged up with fatty-acids. Since insulin cannot bind to its receptor, the insulin floats around in the blood for extended periods of time, unable to provide its effects in the body. So the reason why people with metabolic-syndrome are sick and manifest all these disease symptoms is not due to excess insulin, but rather the body’s inability to absorb the insulin made in response to starchy-foods,

[alecnevsky]

What do people think of this Dr. Blum's suggestions?

Summed as follows:

If you can't stand the suspense, here's the bottom line.

1) What really matters is achieving your optimal weight (read THIN -
a bmi of perhaps 20 to 22) with a nutritious diet. (I'm loathe to advise a bmi under 20 -
that gives you no fat reserves if you get sick. Also, a "normal" bmi of 24 is not apt
to optimize your lipid panel, but it's a start if you're fat.) Being obese is a killer.
Being sedentary is a killer. Daily exercise is important. (The evidence, however,
does NOT support running marathons as the path to cardiovascular health and longevity.)
Following the diet below I lost 10 pounds in 3 months. (I've always exercised a lot
- no change there. I bike 3,000 miles a year; hike 2 miles a day with a 15 pound weight
in each hand; and dance 3 nights a week. I only put 4,000 miles per year on the car.)

2) Calorie Restriction with Optimal Nutrition (CRON) is the way to go.
It's indisputable that it helps prevent cardiovascular disease. It's also the only
intervention that has been shown in many species to extend lifespan.
(But, what do you eat to make it possible? It simply won't happen
if you're trying to do it just by eating lettuce and weak tea -
unless you're in a prison camp. I lasted about 5 hours on the Lemonade Diet.)

3) Protein should range from roughly 1 gram to 2 grams per kg per day .
(no more than say about 60- 160 grams per day (that's the weight of the protein,
not the fish), say, a portion of meat or fish about the size of your palm per day.
Some body-builders and athletes go up to 2 grams/kg per day, and those who
exercise moderately but are not trying to build muscle may eat perhaps 1.25 gm/kg/day.)
Excess protein may lead to gout and acidic urine resulting in renal stones.
These articles by Laura Dobson on About.com are clear and accurate:
how much protein should be in your diet and protein based on lean body mass
and body fat calculator - just measure your waist, neck, and height.

4) Fast carbs (like sugar) promote weight gain and need to be greatly curtailed
(initially, even including fruit!) . Fast carbs = high-glycemic index carbs promote
insulin release and fat storage. To lose weight you must dump all of them.
Even "good carbs" like oatmeal may cause a spike in your blood sugar.

5) Fats make it a lot easier to eat less: they suppress insulin release
and kill your appetite. Suppressing your appetite is critical; so is getting
away from food, restaurants, and TV snacks. Fats, in general,
promote weight loss (yes, weight LOSS) - a paradox. (The real issue
though, of course, is whether you are thinner and healthier or thinner and dead.)

6) Trans fats are horrible. They are more atherogenic than satfats.
They were invented by the food industry to increase the shelf life of food.
They need to be buried with the people they killed. Shop from the outer aisles
of the supermarket. Avoid everything in a box, or at least read the label.

7) Satfats need to be limited, but replacing all satfats with simple carbs (possibly even
fruit in excess) may be worse and is the path to weight gain, obesity, and disease.
Exactly what foods people eat, as they have striven to replace satfats, has created
an impenetrable fog in the medical literature. The issue is incredibly complex.
The safety of satfats depends on the particular molecular species and the dose in your diet.
That is, particular foods of a certain type (eg satfats or PUFAs) differ considerably.
(And this has still NOT been sorted out in the medical literature.)

The study linked to in support of "limited sat fats" is this one:

http://ajcn.nutritio...t/93/4/684.full


The role of reducing intakes of saturated fat in the prevention of cardiovascular disease: where does the evidence stand in 2010?¹,²,³,⁴


Current dietary recommendations advise reducing the intake of saturated fatty acids (SFAs) to reduce coronary heart disease (CHD) risk, but recent findings question the role of SFAs. This expert panel reviewed the evidence and reached the following conclusions: the evidence from epidemiologic, clinical, and mechanistic studies is consistent in finding that the risk of CHD is reduced when SFAs are replaced with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFAs). In populations who consume a Western diet, the replacement of 1% of energy from SFAs with PUFAs lowers LDL cholesterol and is likely to produce a reduction in CHD incidence of ≥2–3%. No clear benefit of substituting carbohydrates for SFAs has been shown, although there might be a benefit if the carbohydrate is unrefined and has a low glycemic index. Insufficient evidence exists to judge the effect on CHD risk of replacing SFAs with MUFAs. No clear association between SFA intake relative to refined carbohydrates and the risk of insulin resistance and diabetes has been shown. The effect of diet on a single biomarker is insufficient evidence to assess CHD risk. The combination of multiple biomarkers and the use of clinical endpoints could help substantiate the effects on CHD. Furthermore, the effect of particular foods on CHD cannot be predicted solely by their content of total SFAs because individual SFAs may have different cardiovascular effects and major SFA food sources contain other constituents that could influence CHD risk. Research is needed to clarify the role of SFAs compared with specific forms of carbohydrates in CHD risk and to compare specific foods with appropriate alternatives.



Admittedly, I've never been more nervous about my labs coming in now that I am 8 weeks into VLCHF and contradictory evidence popping up everywhere. I don't think high initial blood pressure marker is helping my case either. Somehow I do trust Taubes and the Swedes more than generic low-fat camp but I am skeptical my results will be great.

Edited by alecnevsky, 28 May 2013 - 09:06 AM.

[DePaw]

The most credible of the concerns I would put down to mucin and hyaluronan production. Some people complain of dry eyes and the like on long-term LCHF diets and gut health would potentially be on the list of concerns long-term. The next most credible concern is for immune function and the use of glucose in ROS production. Whether or not gluconeogenesis is sufficient in these cases is likely dependent on the particular pathogen. I don't think the thyroid issue is quite as cut and dry as many of the "safe starch" crowd makes it out to be, and reports of cramping and the like point to a micronutrient issue and not a macro- one.

I wrote about this on my blog ages ago: http://mostlymeatisw...deficiency.html

Insulin inhibits cell death (apoptosis)

*cough* cancer */cough*

[Shepard]

I wrote about this on my blog ages ago: http://mostlymeatisw...deficiency.html

Ah, very good. I am aware of that proposed alternative but haven't looked too deeply into it. I like gelatin/collagen for other reasons, though. Thanks for posting the link.

[DR01D]

What do people think of this Dr. Blum's suggestions?

Without going over every detail I give his lifestyle a big thumbs up.

Unprocessed foods + low calories (this one is key) + physical activity = the best odds of good health and longevity

Of the 3 I rate low cal the most important. Second place probably goes to physical activity. Last place goes to healthy, unprocessed foods.

But personally I'd do all 3.

And I am.

Edited by DR01D, 28 May 2013 - 08:14 PM.

[misterE]

Unprocessed foods + low calories (this one is key) + physical activity = the best odds of good health and longevity

How is someone supposed to be physically active if they consume a low amount of calories?

Edited by misterE, 28 May 2013 - 10:08 PM.

[misterE]

Insulin inhibits cell death (apoptosis)

*cough* cancer */cough*

Insulin doesn't cause cancer. But insulin will promote the growth of preexisting cancer. That is the "double-edge-sword" nature of insulin. Insulin has many benefits, but in order to reap the benefits, you must put up with its negatives (like the growth of preexisting cancers and body-fat accumulation). However, if you know how to properly manipulate insulin, you can reap the benefits without the disadvantages.

Edited by misterE, 28 May 2013 - 10:18 PM.

[misterE]

What do people think of this Dr. Blum's suggestions?




{1} Fast carbs (like sugar) promote weight gain and need to be greatly curtailed
(initially, even including fruit!) . Fast carbs = high-glycemic index carbs promote
insulin release and fat storage. To lose weight you must dump all of them.
Even "good carbs" like oatmeal may cause a spike in your blood sugar.

{2} Fats make it a lot easier to eat less: they suppress insulin release
and kill your appetite. Suppressing your appetite is critical; so is getting
away from food, restaurants, and TV snacks. Fats, in general,
promote weight loss (yes, weight LOSS) - a paradox.

{3} Trans fats are horrible. They are more atherogenic than satfats.


{4} Satfats need to be limited, but replacing all satfats with simple carbs (possibly even
fruit in excess) may be worse and is the path to weight gain, obesity, and disease.

{1} Fast-carbs like potatoes and flour spike insulin, which temporarily inhibits fat-loss… but by themselves, do not convert into fat . Beans, which are considered a “slow-carb” actually spikes your insulin higher than white-rice or white-bread. Are beans fattening? Hell no.




{2} Fats cause you to effortlessly overeat. Fats have over 55% more calories per gram than carbohydrate, making them calorie-dense. Insulin is actually a satiety hormone; insulin is needed for leptin (the main satiety hormone) to cross the blood-brain-barrier. Since fat doesn’t make you secrete insulin, leptin is unable to enter the brain and you are left wanting to eat more. Most studies show that fat and fructose (which is converted into fat in the liver) don’t trigger satiety mechanisms like starch and protein do.



{3} Trans-fats and saturated-fats are one in the same. Trans-fats are unsaturated-fats (like oil) that have been converted into saturated-fats (like margarine).



{4} Agreed, saturated-fat does need to be limited, but replacing saturated-fat with simple-sugars causes an increase in the synthesis of the same harmful fatty-acids found in saturated-fat (like palmitic-acid). The solution is to replace saturated-fat with starch, which doesn’t convert into fat, unlike simple-sugars.

Edited by misterE, 28 May 2013 - 10:46 PM.

[alecnevsky]

What do people think of this Dr. Blum's suggestions?

Without going over every detail I give his lifestyle a big thumbs up.

Unprocessed foods + low calories (this one is key) + physical activity = the best odds of good health and longevity

Of the 3 I rate low cal the most important. Second place probably goes to physical activity. Last place goes to healthy, unprocessed foods.

But personally I'd do all 3.

And I am.

I am not sure you saw it, but he's definitely not raving about Sat fats relative to monoun. and polyun. which, I think, goes against Taubes and a few others. He does contend that Sat fats are better relative to carbs however, which is reassuring.

How is someone supposed to be physically active if they consume a low amount of calories?

That is actually a pretty good question-- one that has been making CR seem very unfeasible to me as a somewhat of an athlete. I think intermittent fasting is a better option here.

Edited by alecnevsky, 28 May 2013 - 10:48 PM.