'Rise of saturated fat in diet does not raise fats in blood'

[RonBoyd]

SAD (Standard American Diet) takes another hit:

'Rise of saturated fat in diet does not raise fats in blood' - Medical News Today

Quote:

A new controlled diet study has found that increasing the levels of saturated fat in the diet does not lead to increased levels of saturated fat in the blood. However, increasing the amount of carbohydrates in the diet was found to raise the levels of a fatty acid associated with diabetes and heart disease.

Quote:

"People believe 'you are what you eat,'" says Prof. Volek, "but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat. The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat you eat. And the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet."

[candrew]

If interested in trying a lower-carbohydrate diet, try to include some fruits, vegetables, and whole grains for essential vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. Not all carbohydrates are created equal. Highly refined foods, i.e. sugars, flours, juices etc. should be consumed sparingly (I call them 'sometimes' food). Complex carbohydrates - consumed as part of a well balanced diet - are essential for glycogen/amino acid replenishment in muscle tissue; especially for those of us that weight train.

Researchers at MIT found that when you stop eating carbohydrates, your brain stops regulating serotonin. Only carbohydrate consumption naturally stimulates production of serotonin. But again, it is carbohydrates of the complex variety that should be consumed and in appropriate amounts.

Carbs are not necessarily the enemy of a healthy body and in fact provide some essential nutrients not found in many other foods. Highly refined & highly processed foods are what we should consume minimally, if at all.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by candrew If interested in trying a lower-carbohydrate diet, try to include some fruits, vegetables, and whole grains for essential vitamins, minerals, and phytonutrients. Not all carbohydrates are created equal. Highly refined foods, i.e. sugars, flours, juices etc. should be consumed sparingly (I call them 'sometimes' food). Complex carbohydrates - consumed as part of a well balanced diet - are essential for glycogen/amino acid replenishment in muscle tissue; especially for those of us that weight train. Researchers at MIT found that when you stop eating carbohydrates, your brain stops regulating serotonin. Only carbohydrate consumption naturally stimulates production of serotonin. But again, it is carbohydrates of the complex variety that should be consumed and in appropriate amounts. Carbs are not necessarily the enemy of a healthy body and in fact provide some essential nutrients not found in many other foods. Highly refined & highly processed foods are what we should consume minimally, if at all.

+1.

We've been bombarded with too many "experts" ever changing recommendations for decades, and we're substantially more obese, diabetic and unhealthy in general.

I'll stick with a diet of moderation, variety, and very few processed/enhanced foods and staying as active as possible. YMMV

[plsprius]

I also wish these studies used relatively healthy subjects. From the article abstract, these test subjects were really overweight, as shown by their BMIs. I don't think you can draw useful conclusions from a population of obese subjects. Almost anything that helps them to reduce weight will be beneficial.

"Sixteen adults with metabolic syndrome (age 44.9±9.9 yr, BMI 37.9±6.3 kg/m2) were fed six 3-wk diets that progressively increased carbohydrate (from 47 to 346 g/day) with concomitant decreases in total and saturated fat."

[edit] Research Article: http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0113605

[photoguy]

I'm confused by the article. The title states that eating more saturated fat does not lead to increase in saturated fats in the blood. However in the article, they state

Quote:

Across the study, levels of saturated fat in the blood of the participants decreased. Blood glucose, insulin levels and blood pressure also improved and, on average, the participants lost nearly 22 lb by the end of the 18 weeks.

During the study they are reducing fat in the diet and increasing carbs (i.e. reducing fat -> lower fat in blood). Isn't this the opposite of the title?

[Mulligan]

I enjoy monitoring latest studies and research on diet, but the most important research is being conducted on my own body. When I eat my carb/bread heavy foods my taste buds are in hog heaven and I can sit comfortably doing nothing on end in a chair trying to digest it all. When I eat the "nasty" foods such as fruit, vegetables, and lean meat, I have energy and lose weight. I miss my 20s while having a washboard stomach, I could consume quantities of pizza, chips, and soda and then immediately go on a 5 mile run.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Helen]

I did this test on myself and was surprised by the results. I had a cholesterol blood test taken while on the pescatarian diet, then I switched to a vegan diet the next day. 10 weeks later I had another blood test taken. My LDL cholesterol dropped by 22%.

I tried to keep all other variables static (exercise/work/sleep). My weight fluctuated by only a few pounds.

I did not expect much of a change since my saturated fats were consumed from wild caught salmon, eggs and dairy prior to going vegan.

[Chuckanut]

All, I know is that when I cut out cheap carbs (sugar, pastries, cake, all the good stuff) and stopped worrying about naturally occurring fat in the foods I eat, my total cholesterol stayed about the same, my triglycerides went way down and my HDL went way up. That's good from what I know.

However, new anti LDL cholesterol drugs are coming out to replace statins. So expect a huge effort to convince us we need them.

[W2R]

I can see BACON on the horizon!

[Chuckanut]

FWIW, when I started lowering cheap carbs and not worrying about naturally occurring fat in my food, my consumption of veggies went way up. There is only so much additional meat, eggs and dairy one can eat. Veggies have replaced most of the crummy carbs I used to eat.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Helen My LDL cholesterol dropped by 22%.

I keep asking this, but I never get an answer.
Why do people see low LDL as a good thing?

Sure, statins (and a few other things) can effectively lower your LDL reading. So what?

In fact, I know one primary care doctor who focuses like a laser on the LDL reading and ignores most others.

I don't know of a single reputable scientific resource that shows a harmful health outcome from high LDL (or high total cholesterol for that matter).

Sure, they label LDL as "bad" cholesterol but without any real basis.

I'm with Chuckanut on this. High HDL and low triglycerides are good to have (and there is science to back that up). The rest is unsupported.

As for the OP: yes, the fat in your diet has almost nothing to do with the fat in your blood.

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by photoguy I'm confused by the article. The title states that eating more saturated fat does not lead to increase in saturated fats in the blood. However in the article, they state ... During the study they are reducing fat in the diet and increasing carbs (i.e. reducing fat -> lower fat in blood). Isn't this the opposite of the title?

The article is very poor. But the paper is free, and the abstract makes it very clear what was done, and what the results were, and how Dr. Volek interpreted these results. http://www.plosone.org/article/info%...l.pone.0113605


The results revolve around the rise and fall in plasma palmitoleic acid during the two dietary manipulations. In short, palmitoleic acid increases under high carbohydrate conditions, and decreases under high saturated fat conditions.

Palmitoleic acid is stated to be associated with negative health outcomes. So this means that in this study anyway, high carb = not good, and low carb even with high sat fats seems OK.

Ha

[Amethyst]

I cut out the junky sweets and starches for the sake of my teeth and gums, and lost several pounds I didn't know I needed to lose until they were gone :-)

But I honestly can't say I feel the slightest bit different, let alone better, than when I was eating all those naughty sweets.

Amethyst

[haha]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Amethyst I cut out the junky sweets and starches for the sake of my teeth and gums, and lost several pounds I didn't know I needed to lose until they were gone :-) But I honestly can't say I feel the slightest bit different, let alone better, than when I was eating all those naughty sweets. Amethyst

For you then, go back to the sweets. Not everyone is carb sensitive. That is why Volek chose people with metabolic syndrome for his study. He wanted to see results.

Anybody who has ever been =>10-15 # overweight very likely is carb sensitive.

Ha

[Amethyst]

I still eat sweets sometimes. My hygienist and dentist say my gums look better than they used to, so that's a reason to keep a rein on my "sweet tooth." Apparently, eating sweets encourages plaque, and plaque irritates the gums.

Amethyst

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha For you then, go back to the sweets. Not everyone is carb sensitive. That is why Volek chose people with metabolic syndrome for his study. He wanted to see results.

[photoguy]

Quote:

Originally Posted by haha The article is very poor. But the paper is free, and the abstract makes it very clear what was done, and what the results were, and how Dr. Volek interpreted these results.

Thanks for the explanation and the link to the original paper. The article is much clearer but I guess I still have a lot of reading to do in this area.

[Sunset]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister I keep asking this, but I never get an answer. Why do people see low LDL as a good thing? Sure, statins (and a few other things) can effectively lower your LDL reading. So what? In fact, I know one primary care doctor who focuses like a laser on the LDL reading and ignores most others. I don't know of a single reputable scientific resource that shows a harmful health outcome from high LDL (or high total cholesterol for that matter). Sure, they label LDL as "bad" cholesterol but without any real basis. I'm with Chuckanut on this. High HDL and low triglycerides are good to have (and there is science to back that up). The rest is unsupported. As for the OP: yes, the fat in your diet has almost nothing to do with the fat in your blood.

I agree, but I know why low LDL is good,... because it justifies the sale of drugs to lower it.

I love how the small flash of print on the tv, even states that a lower LDL does not reduce heart attacks. Now that I have a big HD tv, I can read it

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister I keep asking this, but I never get an answer. Why do people see low LDL as a good thing? I don't know of a single reputable scientific resource that shows a harmful health outcome from high LDL (or high total cholesterol for that matter). Sure, they label LDL as "bad" cholesterol but without any real basis.

OK, I'll bite. Lower LDL doesn't reduce the probability of heart disease? Not arguing, but this is the first time I've heard someone suggest that LDL doesn't matter. I've heard/read what's below many times, and I can't find a reputable source that says otherwise. However, I've read that triglycerides may be more predictive than LDL, and that they seem to correlate if that's what you mean.

Quote:

LDL cholesterol is considered the “bad” cholesterol because it contributes to plaque, a thick, hard deposit that can clog arteries and make them less flexible. This condition is known as atherosclerosis. If a clot forms and blocks a narrowed artery, heart attack or stroke can result. Another condition called peripheral artery disease can develop when plaque buildup narrows an artery supplying blood to the legs.

[braumeister]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Midpack OK, I'll bite. Lower LDL doesn't reduce the probability of heart disease? Not arguing, but this is the first time I've heard someone suggest that LDL doesn't matter. I've heard/read what's below many times, and I can't find a reputable source that says otherwise.

And I'll bet you also can't find a reputable source that gives any scientific reason for believing the conventional wisdom found in that quote. It has been repeated so often, for so many years, that it's just accepted, even by doctors.

[Midpack]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister And I'll bet you also can't find a reputable source that gives any scientific reason for believing the conventional wisdom found in that quote. It has been repeated so often, for so many years, that it's just accepted, even by doctors.

There are dozens of studies that suggest a strong correlation, just Google. If LDL has nothing to do with it, what are all the academics/doctors missing?