Low Carb Diet

[braumeister]

He suggested limiting to one per day.

That was the generally accepted guidance for decades, and probably what he was taught in medical school. The idea was to reduce the consumption of eggs, or really egg yolks, because they contain a lot of cholesterol. Since there is no scientific evidence that dietary cholesterol has anything to do with blood cholesterol, this is a solution in search of a problem.

 

[PatrickA5]

That was the generally accepted guidance for decades, and probably what he was taught in medical school. The idea was to reduce the consumption of eggs, or really egg yolks, because they contain a lot of cholesterol. Since there is no scientific evidence that dietary cholesterol has anything to do with blood cholesterol, this is a solution in search of a problem.

True, that's what the latest research shows.

Like I said, he was very familiar with the latest research. He could quote the study, which is probably why he was saying it was OK to eat eggs at all.

Against my doctors orders, I just had 2 eggs for breakfast.

The next study will show that the previous study was wrong and that eggs are the only reason for heart disease, ever. This will be proven beyond a doubt and will debunk the debunk of the debunk study.

I might do my own study. Or, I might read a bunch of already done studies and then come to my own conclusions. Then, I'll write a book.

 

[Bestwifeever]

True, that's what the latest research shows.

....

I might do my own study. Or, I might read a bunch of already done studies and then come to my own conclusions. Then, I'll write a book.

Be sure to develop some products too!

 

[RAE]

That's the problem. Who do you believe? Everybody with an opinion can show studies that back up their claim. The low carb folks can show studies that tell the virtues of LC living on health. The Low Fat believers can show similar studies that support their case. Same thing with the anti/pro Rx people. There's a study that supports just about anything/everything.

Personally, I'm willing to admit that I don't know who is right.

Well, you can find studies that support whatever diet approach you want, that much is true. There is definitely a lot of bad science out there, and a lot of it has to do with who funds the study and what their financial motives are for a particular outcome.

What we can say with some certainty, though, is that throughout about 99%+ of our evolutionary history, humans have eaten whole/real foods such as meat (and the fat that meat contains), fish, roots/tubers, various plants, berries and other fruits, nuts, seeds, some honey,etc.. About 10,000 - 15,000 years ago, humans started consuming grains, for the first time (10,000 years is a very small blip in our evolutionary history). It is only within the last 70-100 years or so, that we have had this explosion of highly-processed, manufactured foods that now comprise (by some estimates) around 50% of the typical Western diet. Along with that increase in our consumption of highly-processed foods came an increase in all of the serious chronic diseases that now plague us........diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc..

So, it's pretty clear to me that most people could improve their diet by just going back to eating mostly whole/real foods, whenever possible. Anything that comes in a box or bag with a long list of ingredients on the side is not real food. I realize this is not easy for most people to do, because most of the grocery store is full of highly-processed food that many of us have eaten (and even enjoyed) for many years. But if you want to improve your health, it is something to at least strive for.

If you think about it that way, you really don't have to worry about whether you are eating low-carb, low-fat, or anything else. As long as you don't get too extreme (and decide to eat only fruit, for example), you can't really go wrong if you are consuming mostly whole/real foods. The saturated fat in meat, for example, is something humans have consumed throughout history, so I don't worry about saturated fat being bad for health. Now, consuming something like canola oil (which is an industrial product unlike anything humans have ever consumed until the last several decades) is something you should worry about.

That's the way I look at it, anyway. YMMV.

 

[haha]

Well, you can find studies that support whatever diet approach you want, that much is true. There is definitely a lot of bad science out there, and a lot of it has to do with who funds the study and what their financial motives are for a particular outcome.

What we can say with some certainty, though, is that throughout about 99%+ of our evolutionary history, humans have eaten whole/real foods such as meat (and the fat that meat contains), fish, roots/tubers, various plants, berries and other fruits, nuts, seeds, some honey,etc.. About 10,000 - 15,000 years ago, humans started consuming grains, for the first time (10,000 years is a very small blip in our evolutionary history). It is only within the last 70-100 years or so, that we have had this explosion of highly-processed, manufactured foods that now comprise (by some estimates) around 50% of the typical Western diet. Along with that increase in our consumption of highly-processed foods came an increase in all of the serious chronic diseases that now plague us........diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc..

So, it's pretty clear to me that most people could improve their diet by just going back to eating mostly whole/real foods, whenever possible. Anything that comes in a box or bag with a long list of ingredients on the side is not real food. I realize this is not easy for most people to do, because most of the grocery store is full of highly-processed food that many of us have eaten (and even enjoyed) for many years. But if you want to improve your health, it is something to at least strive for.

If you think about it that way, you really don't have to worry about whether you are eating low-carb, low-fat, or anything else. As long as you don't get too extreme (and decide to eat only fruit, for example), you can't really go wrong if you are consuming mostly whole/real foods. The saturated fat in meat, for example, is something humans have consumed throughout history, so I don't worry about saturated fat being bad for health. Now, consuming something like canola oil (which is an industrial product unlike anything humans have ever consumed until the last several decades) is something you should worry about.

That's the way I look at it, anyway. YMMV.

I think this is the best test. IS my contemplated diet in accord with what was available to my ancestors for a long time? Or is it exotic?

Ha

 

[W2R]

I think this is the best test. IS my contemplated diet in accord with what was available to my ancestors for a long time? Or is it exotic?

Ha

Well, OK. I guess I agree, as long as I don't have to give up my Instant Pot.

Thank goodness my ancestors had seafood available to them.

 

[razztazz]

From my recent experiment food list:

1 egg 1 gram sat fat (6% of your supposed daily "limit")
1 TBLSP Olive earl: 2 Grams sat fat
LEAN WHITE CHICKEN: 4 oz, 1.7 Grams sat fat
Sardines 1 can: 2 grams
avocado (1) 3 grams

All these non-animal things we are exhorted to eat more of have at least twice as much sat fat as an egg!

My cholesterol levels were lower after this 60 day experiment than they have been in years. I noticed my doctor was suspiciously silent this time. I did not mention my diet experiment. I am thinking of increasing my sat-fat intake even more and seeing where it goes. And I mean upping the beef and overall animal products (except milk. Pleah!)

 

[mpeirce]

I had an "interesting" experience a couple of years ago.

My DF was in the hospital recovering from heart valve surgery. His cardiac surgeon sent him the dietitian he works with. Both the surgeon and his dietitian were very much proponents of a low carb/keto style diet for DF to lose some weight. She came by three times and talked with him about it and he was all set to give it a try.

After discharge his regular doctor signed DF up with another dietitian. She was very anti low carb. As was his doctor.

DF was quite confused. Two sets of experts suggesting contradictory advice.

I stayed out of it.

 

[braumeister]

Both the surgeon and his dietitian were very much proponents of a low carb/keto style diet for DF to lose some weight. She came by three times and talked with him about it and he was all set to give it a try.

After discharge his regular doctor signed DF up with another dietitian. She was very anti low carb. As was his doctor.

That is just so sad. Most of the doctors I've had contact with were completely ignorant of the science and just kept telling patients what they had learned in med school long ago. The one I have now is at least somewhat open minded about my LCHF diet. His comment: "Well, it goes against everything we're supposed to advise, but it's obviously working for you so I can't really say anything. Keep up the good work."

 

[bjorn2bwild]

If anyone here has read Malcomb Kendrick, he is facing deletion from Wikipedia over his 'controversial' views on diet and the lipid hypothesis. He must be dangerous.

Malcolm Kendrick is a fringe figure who agues against the lipid hypothesis. He denies that blood cholesterol levels are responsible for heart disease and in opposition to the medical community advocates a high-fat high-cholesterol diet as healthy. Problem is there is a lack of reliable sources that discuss his ideas. His book The Great Cholesterol Con was not reviewed in any science journals. Kendrick is involved with the The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, I suggest deleting his article and redirecting his name to that. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 20:29, 2 December 2018 (UTC)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick

 

[mpeirce]

I love Malcomb Kendrick's blog

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org

It's informative and the comments are excellent.

It's surprising to me that someone would go to all the trouble of trying to delete his WikiPedia page. At least they can't touch his blog.

 

[braumeister]

Next they'll be burning his books.

Old ideas die hard.

 

[razztazz]

I have his book! There is another book with the same title. It's a more detailed somewhat harder read but corroborates.

 

[PatrickA5]

Another guy selling a book. I've read plenty of books including the book in question. I'm sure they are right. I mean they wouldn't lie to me just to make a buck would they?

Call me a skeptic of the skeptics.

But then again, they do have "studies" showing their opinion is right.

 

[RAE]

All these non-animal things we are exhorted to eat more of have at least twice as much sat fat as an egg!

My cholesterol levels were lower after this 60 day experiment than they have been in years. I noticed my doctor was suspiciously silent this time. I did not mention my diet experiment. I am thinking of increasing my sat-fat intake even more and seeing where it goes. And I mean upping the beef and overall animal products (except milk. Pleah!)

Saturated fat does not cause heart disease. That is a myth. Here is a recent paper by Zoe Harcombe that discusses why the whole "saturated fat is bad" myth was based on bad science (or no science):

Saturated fat does not cause heart disease – Zoë Harcombe

Also, blood cholesterol level is a pretty worthless indicator of heart health and heart attack risk. The drug companies (and most doctors, who are heavily influenced by the drug companies) continue to harp on getting your cholesterol level down, because statins reduce cholesterol, and statins are the biggest money-making drug that Big Pharma has. So, you might be able to reduce your cholesterol by taking a statin, but you probably won't reduce your heart disease risk one bit. Plus, many statin users experience some pretty nasty side effects.

Chris Kresser has written a very good 4-part series on saturated fat, cholesterol, and heart health, that is worth reading. You can find it here:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-cholesterol-and-saturated-fat-are-not-the-enemy/

 

[razztazz]

Another guy selling a book. I've read plenty of books including the book in question. I'm sure they are right. I mean they wouldn't lie to me just to make a buck would they?

Call me a skeptic of the skeptics.

But then again, they do have "studies" showing their opinion is right.

Ha, that's been the whole thrust of this thread. Who's really got the goods? Regarding the OTHER book called "The Great Cholesterol Con". The reason why I found it a harder read was because of all the data. It's not written by a doctor, just an author doing a book. He didn't invent or create data. He's just using what's already there.

PS: Back when I was seeing cardiologists non of them brought up blood tests or cholesterol levels. But my GP? Always!