DONUT DEFEAT: This year U.S. dietary guidelines may target refined carbohydrates, which increase the risk for cardiovascular disease.
Image: iStockphoto
-
What a Plant Knows
How does a Venus flytrap know when to snap shut? Can it actually feel an insect’s tiny, spindly legs? And how do cherry blossoms know when to bloom? Can they...
Read More »
Eat less saturated fat: that has been the take-home message from the U.S. government for the past 30 years. But while Americans have dutifully reduced the percentage of daily calories from saturated fat since 1970, the obesity rate during that time has more than doubled, diabetes has tripled, and heart disease is still the country’s biggest killer. Now a spate of new research, including a meta-analysis of nearly two dozen studies, suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit. Processed carbohydrates, which many Americans eat today in place of fat, may increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease more than fat does—a finding that has serious implications for new dietary guidelines expected this year.
In March the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a meta-analysis—which combines data from several studies—that compared the reported daily food intake of nearly 350,000 people against their risk of developing cardiovascular disease over a period of five to 23 years. The analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease.
The finding joins other conclusions of the past few years that run counter to the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is bad for the heart because it increases total cholesterol levels. That idea is “based in large measure on extrapolations, which are not supported by the data,” Krauss says.
One problem with the old logic is that “total cholesterol is not a great predictor of risk,” says Meir Stampfer, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Although saturated fat boosts blood levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol, it also increases “good” HDL cholesterol. In 2008 Stampfer co-authored a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that followed 322 moderately obese individuals for two years as they adopted one of three diets: a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet based on American Heart Association guidelines; a Mediterranean, restricted-calorie diet rich in vegetables and low in red meat; and a low-carbohydrate, nonrestricted-calorie diet. Although the subjects on the low-carb diet ate the most saturated fat, they ended up with the healthiest ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and lost twice as much weight as their low-fat-eating counterparts.
Stampfer’s findings do not merely suggest that saturated fats are not so bad; they indicate that carbohydrates could be worse. A 1997 study he co-authored in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluated 65,000 women and found that the quintile of women who ate the most easily digestible and readily absorbed carbohydrates—that is, those with the highest glycemic index—were 47 percent more likely to acquire type 2 diabetes than those in the quintile with the lowest average glycemic-index score. (The amount of fat the women ate did not affect diabetes risk.) And a 2007 Dutch study of 15,000 women published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that women who were overweight and in the quartile that consumed meals with the highest average glycemic load, a metric that incorporates portion size, were 79 percent more likely to develop coronary vascular disease than overweight women in the lowest quartile. These trends may be explained in part by the yo-yo effects that high glycemic-index carbohydrates have on blood glucose, which can stimulate fat production and inflammation, increase overall caloric intake and lower insulin sensitivity, says David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children’s Hospital Boston.
Will the more recent thinking on fats and carbs be reflected in the 2010 federal Dietary Guidelines for Americans, updated once every five years? It depends on the strength of the evidence, explains Robert C. Post, deputy director of the U.S. Department of Agriculture’s Center for Nutrition Policy and Promotion. Findings that “have less support are put on the list of things to do with regard to more research.” Right now, Post explains, the agency’s main message to Americans is to limit overall calorie intake, irrespective of the source. “We’re finding that messages to consumers need to be short and simple and to the point,” he says. Another issue facing regulatory agencies, notes Harvard’s Stampfer, is that “the sugared beverage industry is lobbying very hard and trying to cast doubt on all these studies.”
See what we're tweeting about
126 Comments
Add CommentIt seems like every day we hear how some long held belief is wrong. What's next, years from now THIS will be wrong?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe more I hear the more Frank Zappa seems apropos: "Everything you know is wrong."
Many studies, by reputable scientists and organizations since the 1980's strongly support these conclusions. AS often happens these results did not meld with the invested interests of the time, and were therefore disparaged and ignored. AS is often the case money and prestige were considered more important than scintific fact. Refer to "GOOD CALORIES, BAD CALORIES" by Gary Taubes for a well documented tale of the journey of 'fats, carbs, and the controversial science of dies and health' If you actually read this book you will be astonished at the truths that are revealed and DOCUMENTED.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will do you good to do your OWN research, then you won't be surprised whenever some 'long held belief' proves to be wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat's interesting to me is that the USDA's nutrition recommendations first demonized saturated fats in the 1970s, and many analyses have indicated that this led to our current national proclivity to think of carbohydrates as "guilt-free" as long as the foods consumed contain little or not fat. It seems therefore that we only have these data about refined carbohydrates because of what may have been a mistaken analysis of the role of lipids in human health.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess you never saw the Woody Allen movie 'Sleeper'.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso people refuse to give up their carbs so they just dismiss this ... I am feeling vindicated! Tired of preaching the low carb wol and getting blank stares like I don't know what I am talking about ...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article refers specifically to refined carbohydrates: white flour, white rice, refined sugar, etc. It does not indicate that all carbohydrate sources are inherently dangerous, only that excessive consumption of the very quickly digestible types might be more dangerous than was previously assumed.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExactly. "Low carb" is wrong. It should be called "low sugar" but I have a feeling that the sugar lobby has a problem with that.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually they should go back to what they used to teach.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA balanced diet. theres nothing wrong with processed foods or fats of any kinds. It's all about quantity, gorge yourself and you'll hurt yourself.
For a free summation of Gary Taube's tale of how the low fat fad became established dogma, go to his 2002 New York Times magazine article "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?" at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFor a great summation of Gary Taubes' tale on how the low fat fad became established dogma, see his 2002 New York Times Magazine article "What if It's All Been a Big Fat Lie?", still available free at http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=1.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbohydrates, complex carbs are not synonamous with sugar. Lots of free and faulty interpretation commented here that is not accurate. Facts and opinions are valuabl,but very different.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe works of Dr. Richard Feinman and Dr. Jeff Volek have for years now exposed carbohydrates as the masked marauders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19082851
The works of Dr. Richard Feinman and Dr. Jeff Volek have for years now exposed carbohydrates as the masked marauders.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19082851
How are carbs not synonymous with sugar?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, all carbohydrates turn into glucose in the body, complex, refined, or sugar. The issue is how fast these carbohydrates turn into glucose and affect th insulin levels in the bloodstream. The more refined the carb and/or the higher the glycemic load of the food, the worse it is for you. Pasta, sugar, rice, potatoes all of these are bad carbs. Brown rice is a bit better, but still has quite an affect on the insulin reponse when eaten. I suggest you read through Gary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories book for a great, in depth look at the science behind low-carb/low-GL diets.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell it's interesting to know indeed (and I congratulate with the authors) ,however I often think there seems to be as a recurrent theme in those studies (their design I mean..) a kind of "stigmatisation" (ie the bad substance/molecule etc.) implying on the other side stays the "good molecule" (in this case fats,so contradicting previous studies..).Having a MD background,I often read in medical journals bulletins etc. of the so called "worldwide obesity epidemic ",so my point is wouldn'it be better to design those studies about nutrition on "quantity rather than "quality" (ie discussing as usual which foodstuff is healthier)......?After all the target should be from a public-health perspective,to see less obese people around,while of course being able to mantain a" modern-services-society" as we have today-western standards I mean..- ..( Simply finding a behavioral trick may help solving this issue,eg wear a warmer shirt instead of drinking 4 colas in a row....)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAndy
We evolved to eat meat, berries and nuts. We were not hunting down Krispy Kreme donuts or chasing loaves of bread across the fields. Of course fats and protein were almost all of our diet during most of our evolution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisdrafter, a 'balanced' fight would include getting my face punched a few times and personally, I'd rather not get hit at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, a 'balanced' diet includes the bad AND good? Grains contain lectins and phytates. These not only stop the absorption of nutrients in your gut, they are also toxins that cause inflammation....OH, and let's not forget the insulin spike that these 'so-called' "Good Whole Grains" cause in your body, being raised for hours on end. You and other 'balanced diet' folks should read up more on the real science of food.
drafter, a 'balanced' fight would include getting my face punched a few times and personally, I'd rather not get hit at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThat being said, a 'balanced' diet includes the bad AND good? Grains contain lectins and phytates. These not only stop the absorption of nutrients in your gut, they are also toxins that cause inflammation....OH, and let's not forget the insulin spike that these 'so-called' "Good Whole Grains" cause in your body, being raised for hours on end. You and other 'balanced diet' folks should read up more on the real science of food.
One interesting point is that the New England Journal of Medicine study had people on the low carb diet eating mostly vegetarian sources of protein. I suspect that this would result in reduced calories compared to a standard low carb diet, and I'm really curious what the results would have looked like had the low carbers feasted on cheeseburgers and bacon for the study.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI tried low carb dieting once but took the common approach of eating a ton of meat and dairy and not much 'healthy'. I didn't really lose any weight. However, years later when I developed gallstones, I was forced onto an extremely low fat diet (eating fat would cause excruciating pain) and I lost around 25lbs in less than 2 months. But of course, a lot of this was calorie restriction (when you can't eat anything with more than a gram of fat in it, your options are limited and foods that you would wolf down are off the table).
I suspect the approach used by their low carb dieters (vegetarian proteins and fats with heavily restricted refined carbohydrates) is a great way to go. By eating beans and protein laden grains you'll get fewer calories than you would by eating bunless bacon cheeseburgers, and more whole grains and vitamins to boot, all while avoiding the damaging effects of refined flour and sugar.
The NEJM study recommended vegetarian sources of fat/protein due to religious and cultural factors. The study was done in Israel as I recall. I believe that the conductor of the study later stated that the recommendation had little bearing on the outcome of the study. Instead of butter + meat, it was likely olive oil + meat. No dairy and meat at the same time!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo the contrary, gnarfle, beans and grains have lectins and a lot of carbohydrate, making them very unhealthy foods. Moreover, we evolved eating animal proteins. While we are listing anecdotes, the more I have relied on foods of animal origin, the healthier I have become. It's not about calories, it's about insulin.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisageed absolutely - my glucose monitor doesnt care if its whole grain "good" bread or a teaspoon of sugar, sooner or later blood glucose goes up
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKaren
except if you ever really read the Atkins books you would know its not just bunless cheeseburgers and bacon. They are included but not the only thing! Read the book please.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnscientific observation....I have 8 cousins from one uncle, 4 girls, 4 boys, now all aged 40+. The 4 girls listened attentively to everything they heard, ate less red meet, more salads, more veggies and grains and forcefully advocated their positions to everyone around them, to our great annoyance. The four boys did whatever pleased them, including eating generousness amounts of steak, eggs, bacon and ice cream. Surely other factors may be at work, but today the four girls, once cute and slim up to their pre-teens (before they became 'educated'), are now all obese and struggling with various physical ailments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe boys, excepting one, are not slim, yet none are obese and all are still vigorous and not suffering from any physical ailments.
I conclude that the message of a balanced diet (the message that my parents generation was fed), was more wise then the incomplete scientific messages that my generation was fed.
Since eliminating potatoes and bread from my diet, I have lost weight and have never felt healthier. I have also eliminated all dessert except ice cream. There is no doubt in my mind that moderate carb intake is good.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut let us not forget that the issue is how well we balance caloric intake, calories burned and insulin levels. The three are all interdependant. Go too far in one direction leads to illness.
Moderation, exercise, positive actions, study your Christian Bible and prayer.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually, it isn't all about "balanced diet". The culprit here is a single villain -- fructose. Not "high fructose corn syrup", though it is a problem, but fructose itself. It's not a nutritive substance. It's outright toxic. NO part of the human body uses it. The liver has to eliminate it exactly as it would a poison, and the waste products generate FAT, just like alcohol. Half of sucrose is fructose. The only reason fruit gets any kind of a pass is because of the fiber it contains, which helps slow the absorption.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRobert H. Lustig, MD, UCSF Professor of Pediatrics in the Division of Endocrinology, produced a film called "Sugar: The Bitter Truth" that goes through the precise metabolism of this stuff. It's worth watching. http://www.uctv.tv/search-details.aspx?showID=16717
Cholesterol is an essential component of every cell membrane in your body, the (some people consider it rather important) brain, while only 2% of body weight contains 25% of the total cholesterol in your body. A sustained and highly successful campaign to lower cholesterol has had next to no effect on heart disease rates. in fact there is recent and accumulating evidence that one should be more concerned over an excessively low cholesterol than an excessively high cholesterol. There is an interesting writeup on this topic at the health Journal club where MIT research scientist Stephanie Sennef looks into the topic of cholesterol-lowering in general and Statin drugs in particular. For anyone interested, you can read up on this here,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2010/04/statins-pregnancy-sepsis-cancer-heart.html
If i now say Frank Zappa was right that sets up an awful logical conundrum (i.e. if everything you know is wrong than Z is wrong, which means he is right, etc, etc)
Cholesterol is an essential component of every cell membrane in your body, the (some people consider it rather important) brain, while only 2% of body weight contains 25% of the total cholesterol in your body. A sustained and highly successful campaign to lower cholesterol has had next to no effect on heart disease rates. in fact there is recent and accumulating evidence that one should be more concerned over an excessively low cholesterol than an excessively high cholesterol. There is an interesting writeup on this topic at the health Journal club where MIT research scientist Stephanie Sennef looks into the topic of cholesterol-lowering in general and Statin drugs in particular. For anyone interested, you can read up on this here,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://healthjournalclub.blogspot.com/2010/04/statins-pregnancy-sepsis-cancer-heart.html
If i now say Frank Zappa was right that sets up an awful logical conundrum (i.e. if everything you know is wrong than Z is wrong, which means he is right, etc, etc)
In america (and west) corporate media, regulatory authorities and congress (senate and white house also) are owned by speciall interest groups called lobbies. They dictate what to be told and when to be told. These criminal lobby gangs propagate misinformation campaign to lead to murder and genocide and then use another nefarious campaign to justify that. American public needs to wake up and eliminate lobbies to clean its politics and media otherwise their leaders will kill them like they did in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine for the sake of Israel.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately Pure Science is no longer pure. We must be SKEPTICAL of all reported research results, and must ask ourselves one question first. "Who Paid for the Research"? In most funded research there is a vested interest that is looking for specific results that will support their position. Often if the results are not the desired one, the research gets buried.Ask who did the research; was it a noted and respected facility like the Tufts University School of Nutrition, or 'Ralph and Charley's auto body shop and research as you like it"?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRemember the tobacco industry, that for decades secretly funded their own 'research organization', paid greedy corrupt scientists to produce badly flawed and innaccurate reults. These 'results' muddied the waters for many years and kept these industrial criminals safe from regulation for some time.
Of course the processed food manufacturers and the 'sugar' interests will do all they can to snuff research unfavorable to them. This dirty world is certainly capable of bribes, threats, etc to control scientific research results.
There is not a lot of huge obscene profit in fresh unbranded fruits and vegetables, meat and dairy products. The real bux lies in the $4 bag of salty sugary snacks with a manufacturing cost of about 8 cents. Ready made, prepared foods, highly processed, for convenience, tasty and loaded with additives is where the profits lie.
Consider the misinformation around global warming issues. Currently we really do not know who to trust and who to believe.
It is not difficult to discover who has paid for and supported research that is published.
BE SKEPTICAL!
You claim the 'conglomerate' that controls our special interest groups and the lobbyists that promote misinformation and genocide are at fault in our research, and then you commit the same outrage with a completely non scientific and personal predjudice against Israel! This renders you as unreliable as the special interest groups and lobbyists you condemn. You prove my bpoint about SKEPTICISM"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is good to see this "news" reach a reputable magazine like S.A. I wish it could be spread to the world!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, as we can all find the truth by reading a variety of very well-documented articles and books. If more educated readers could get on board, we would have a dramatic drop in obesity, and serious diet-related diseases.
We should all be adopting diets low in carbohydrates, adequate in good quality animal protein and high in saturated fats, with low to no omega-6 vegetable oils, and adequate vitamin D 3. Check out the wonderful blogs, including this one: http://paleonu.com
It is good to see this "news" reach a reputable magazine like S.A. I wish it could be spread to the world! It is, indeed, long overdue.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact, as we can all find the truth by reading a variety of very well-documented scientific articles and books. If more educated readers could get on board, we would have a dramatic drop in obesity, and serious diet-related diseases.
We should all be adopting diets low in carbohydrates, adequate in good quality animal protein and high in saturated fats, with low to no omega-6 vegetable oils, and adequate vitamin D 3. Check out the wonderful blogs, including this one: http://paleonu.com
Recently I have been investigating the 'Paleo Diet' and it does make some sense. Some of their tenets are a bit vague surrounding what they consider acceptable fruits and vegetables. Kind of like my ofte stated but not often practiced mantra of ''If I cannot grow it, catch it, or kill it I should not be eating it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@candide, sounds like science is too stressful for you. Better stick with religion where the answers never change regardless of the evidence against them. That is the difference between science and religion. In science the process remains constant but the answers change based on the evidence. In religion the answers remain constant, it is the process that is changed to create the favoured result.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPersonally I just go with the flow. I follow where-ever the evidence takes me.
I frequently recommend that my patients read the first 100 pages of the original South Beach Diet book. It sums it up nicely and is easy to find.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs a fan of Michael Pollan, I recommend his books as well. They talk about the intersection of politics and nutrition recommendations, in addition to lots of other interesting information.
His 2007 article "Unhappy Meals" from the NY Times magazine is also recommended reading.
This message isn't new (although some of the research is new) but "unlearning" the last 30 years of nutrition information is an uphill battle. I am happy that a prominent publication like Scientific American is helping to educate the world on this topic.
i REMEMBER, WHEN MY STUDENTS WERE ON SO LOW FAT/NO FAT DIETS AND I HAD TO CONVINCE THEM THAT GOOD FATS WERE NECESSARY WHILE THEY ATE YOGURT WITH HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP TO MAINTAIN A LOW FAT DIET
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIN THE 90'S I TRIED TO TEACH THAT LOW/NO FAT DIETS WERE BAD FOR DEVELOPING BRAINS WHILE MY UPPER-SOCIOECONOMICALLY GUZZLED LOW FAT PRODUCTS WITH HIGH FRUCTOSE CORN SYRUP. THE CORN SYRUP INDUSTRY IS FIGHTING BACK WITH JUNK SCIENCE WHILE THE GOVERNMENT IS TRYING TO REGUKATE SOMETHING THAT CANNOT BE REGULATED
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Balanced diet"? Actually there is something wrong with some processed "food." Drafter, if by "balanced" you mean eating whatever edibles exist, well, the body was not created to thrive upon certain artificial substances disguised as foods. The original idea of "balanced" diet would have been talking about real food. The early humans ate no processed food, no white sugar, (nothing that had to be cooked), etc. and they thrived. Our bodies haven't changed to meet the changing "food" supply, other than to get sick and fat.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Paleo life style is the best you can find to keep all your natural levels of insulin and hormones in check. It is basically, anything our ancestors could of killed or picked. Meats, veggies, nuts and seeds, fruit, no starch and little sugar (natural sugar). This repost just proves that fat is good for you, processed carbs are bad!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNutrition is still an extremely young and complicated science. Investigations are set with a specfic objective but determining exact causal realations can prove dificult and misleading. As any science, its evolving constantly. The main message is always true. Keep in you`re BMI range have a varied diet and follow recommended daily intakes of calories and nutrients. The message of limiting refined carbs is anything but new.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs regards @ajdrakie`to the little to no omega 6 oils`, as stated in the artical this has been proven to render an inapproriate HDL:LDL ratio which is the underlying risk factor of cholesterol.
Overweight and obese individuals have inheirent varying degrees of insulin resistance. With this in mind and the ever increasing rates of overweight population, it is not surprising that carbohydrates pose such a risk factor.
I looked into it a bit, and it looks like the real truth is more like: If you are insulin resistant and obese already, you aren't that sensitive to extra saturated fat or cholesterol, your body starts absorbing less cholesterol.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisShame on Sci Am for indulging in cheap journalism: distorting a research article to tell people what they want to hear.
If you want to get the real picture, go to pubmed.com and read research abstracts.
Rudel did some studies on monkeys. He fed them diets that were either high in saturated fat, high in monounsaturated fat, or high in polyunsaturated fat. He found that saturated and monounsaturated fat diets equally caused atherosclerosis. He actually looked at the monkeys' arteries. The polyunsaturated fat didn't cause atherosclerosis. There's a reason for the AHA's recommendation that people avoid saturated fat!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's a shortage of well designed studies on nutrition. In addition, if the underlying assumptions the study is based upon, then conclusions reached by the study will also be flawed. A majority of dietary studies in the last 50 years have been predicated on "fat is bad" and "carbs are good". If either or both are wrong, or if it is more complicated than that, then new studies need to be performed than can account for multiple hypotheses.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere's also evidence that saturated fats have beneficial effects and some processed polyunsaturated fats have deleterious effects. The same goes for carbs.
As a rule-of-thumb, if a food product can come only from an industrial process, I avoid it. This doesn't mean I avoid all processed food, just the ones that are truly the results of modern food processing science.
Eat in cool colour every day! For us Primates, this is still the best health cover to keep illness at bay. This means: back to fruits and vegetables, with their antioxidants & vitamins still intact. Man-made food extracts & concoctions, plus hormone& antibiotic-laden animal carcasses, cannot but have toxic effects on the human body. Forget about demonizing "THE Carbs, or THE Fats"!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisVisit: Youthevity.com
I once believed in Global Warming too.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCommanderBill;
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe evidence is clear..we are in the midst of global warming. What is not clear and what is very political, is why we are experiencing global warming. Those facts are so tainted by special interest groups on both sides of this, that the truth may never be readily available. Read all of the research, even the tiny little facts about glacial melting in remote Antartica, pay attention to the average temperature over the last years, count up the early emergence of parasites, insects, plant growth the last few years; check the average snowfall in far nothern states of late; read of the slow but constant elevation of water levels in southern oceans; check out the early and late arrivals of the monsoons in the subcontinent, the changes in the migration habits of sea and land life, the el `nino variations of late; especially look into what will happen to N European climate when the arctic ice flows desalinate the northern Atlantic enough to drastically change the circulation of the gulf stream and other ocean currents.....England's climate will be like that of the northen Scandinavian countries. Lots to watch and investigate for YOURSELF without paying attention to the loud and selfishly invested VOICES who want the truth to be their truth.!
Southern Chinese people have a bowl of white rice every day (sometimes 3 times a day), if so then we'd expect a disproportionate higher rate of heart disease amongst them compared to caucasians? Is there even evidence that this is true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisGotta love the "some high-fiber carbohydrates are unquestionably good for the body" line. Really? Because most people still consider still consider fats unquestionably bad for the body, but that's clearly not true. And there are people out there who are seriously questioning the "high fiber is good" meme. Check out The Fiber Menace http://www.gutsense.org/fibermenace/fm_chapter1.html#chapter1
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSouthern Chinese people have a bowl of white rice every day (sometimes 3 times a day), if so then, other things equal, we'd expect a disproportionately higher rate of heart disease amongst them compared to caucasians? Is there even evidence that this is true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChina now has the highest rate of diabetes in the world, its principal pre-cursor being the overweight and obese state. Both the second and fourth leading cause of death in rual China are diet related. Although heart disease is not their leading cause of death it still accounts for 8,600,000 a year. This is predicted to increase even further in the next decade as obesity continues to rise.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHaving recently read David Gillespies' book Sweet Poison I am glad to see this article in such a journal. Fructose is the key issue to our weight gain as the body has no mechanism to detect it or control our appetite for it. We have feedback mechanisms for both glucose and fat - and without the excessive influence of fructose this systems work perfectly well. In conjunction with Sweet Poison another book (Natural Health by Groves) sights similar research to support the fact that it is not fat that is making us fat. Having read both books and taken their straightforward advise on diet I have lost 12lb in a month without trying, or feeling hungry or deprived, and without increasing my exericse (another myth we are bombarded with in relation to weight loss and obesity. The food industry is masking it's impact on our own demise - someone needs to get the right message out there for all people who are battling with wieght and weight related health issues.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy buddy asked me a good question a few days ago: "How can the government lie to so many people?" The fat/animal meat myth is a tragedy. In fact, even the vegetarians I know are overweight. Just try to get fat on a diet of only meat and vegetables. I really don't think it's possible.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAny carbohydrate that turns into glucose is dangerous. The whole point is that glucose (carbs) drive insulin up, which drives up fat storage. The more carbs you eat - even if it's all "healthy' carbs like fruit - the more likely you are to get heart disease and diabetes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI speak from personal experience. In the last 8 months I've dropped almost 90 pounds, gotten my diabetes completely under control, eliminated my arthritis (which turned out to be a wheat allergy) and migraines (a gluten allergy) and IBS (both wheat and gluten allergy reaction). I no longer have to use a wheelchair. I can walk two miles and not hurt during or afterwards.
Eliminate everything processed and stick to the edges of the store when you shop. Eat a good ribeye at least twice a week. Eat butter. Eat high-fat beef. Eat the dark meat of the chicken and make sure you eat the skin! All those things we've been told are bad for us are what we evolved to eat. Go eat them, and ditch the carbs. You'll live longer, you'll be healthier, and you'll feel fantastic.
The BMI is not a valid diagnostic tool. It was developed by a Belgian statistician in the mid-1800s, and it's designed to measure population rates of body size. Trying to correlate that with individual measures of obesity is a complete joke.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDitch the BMI. It tells us NOTHING about health.
Two problems with this story. One, the amount of fat consumed has been going up along with obesity, even though the percentage of fat has been declining. We're eating more of everything, so it's ridiculous to say we're eating less fat and are getting obese. Simply not true. This is a canard trumpeted over and over on the internet by the low carb crowd, and it's depressing to see Scientific American parrot the same faulty logic here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, it cannot be assumed that higher hdl is necessary for health. Who are the longest living populations in the world and what are their hdl levels? Okinawans average in the 20's. Tarahumara in the 20's. Hunza in the 20's. See a pattern? Of course they all eat very low fat, primarily plant and starch based diets and all have total cholesterol levels half of most Americans. Sure, eliminating refined carbs is a great thing to do, but to think that means you should gorge on fats and animal protein is a leap not supported by any evidence.
am still convinced workin on quantity (about nutrition)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisrather than quality should be the first step.....(too many
overweight people around...)
Andy
To me this doesn't seem as such unexpected news. I actually can't believe some of the regulations in place regarding the recommended carbohydrate intake that are in use in the schools in the US, where the kids get French fries (which is considered to be a vegetable serving, while technically even raw potatoes are not vegetables) as a side to a burger with a bun, plus an additional piece of bread. Where is the real good food in this lunch? It is that apple that every kid throws away as they leave the dining room... This is very sad and we all - it comes from each individual - need to start making the change - you don't have to wait for the official guidelines to know what's right and what makes sense. Teach your kids to make good choices and practice what you preach. Is it having a donut or having a banana for a snack, even though the glycemic index might be the same for both? You know which one is the right answer. It's your choice - and your life.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow about some studies concentrating on the PROCESSED and REFINED part of the subject. People have achieved great longevities in societies that ate starches, legumes and grains with little or no heart disease. And relatively little meat. And maybe study the diet as a whole rather than one simple aspect of it.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is all about convenience - it is convenient to get a processed food to go, to get a sandwich, burger, soup in a cup etc. etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIf you want to eat healthy you have to actually cook at a stove, you have to add the ingredients to the meal yourself, including the marinade and spices. It is more work and does not fit into many people's hectic lifestyle. Only we do not realize that the hectic lifestyle and our unhealthy eating habits will take its toll and when we are sick and in pain, life has to slow down. Cooking healthy meals from scratch is part of the solution to the food mess/confusion we are in. If you make your own meals you know exactly what is in your food.
Ha ha ha...I did, and was thinking the same thing!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry guys to me nutrition problems nowdays are mostly a problem of quantity (too many calories) rather than quality ( fats,protein,sugars vitamins or else animal/vegetal etc)....A commision about "quantity nutritional affaires " should be put up on this case rather than the usual Quality Study..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Nobody is advocating that people start gorging themselves on saturated fats, tempting as that may sound."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually some people are. A low carb diet is of necessity a high fat diet. <a href="http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/myth-of-high-protein-diet.html">http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/myth-of-high-protein-diet.html</a>
But the real suggestion is to eliminate gluten grains, refined grains, sugar (especially fructose), vegetable oil (especially hydrogenated veg. oil = bad saturated fat) and replace them with animal fats (good saturated fat), animal meat and organs, some vegetables and fruit. There's no need to obsess over macro-nutrients if we simply follow the example of our paleolithic ancestors and many recent, non-industrialized cultures, who did not suffer from the diseases of civilization. So go ahead and gorge on butter (especially pastured butter), just skip the toast.
"Nobody is advocating that people start gorging themselves on saturated fats, tempting as that may sound."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisActually more and more people are. A low carb diet is necessarily a high fat diet. See: <a href="http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/myth-of-high-protein-diet.html">http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2008/12/myth-of-high-protein-diet.html</a>
The suggestion is to replace gluten grains (and their refined products), refined vegetable oils (and their hydrogenated products = bad saturated fats), and sugar (especially fructose) with animal fats (good saturated fats), animal meat and organs, and some vegetables and fruit. There's no need to obsess over macro-nutrients or calorie intake if we adopt the diet of our paleolithic ancestors and many preindustrial cultures who suffer none of the diseases of civilization. So go ahead and gorge on butter -- just skip the toast.
anybody remember that doctor, doctor atkins i believe it was.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBillions of Asian eat white rice daily which is their staple diet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSimilarly millions of Italians eat pasta daily.
Are the Asians and Italians afflicted with heart problems??
More research is needed before making this startling conclusion.
Unfortunately,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisUnfortunately, Melinda Wenner is either biased or does not do sufficient research. The lead author of the study, Dr. Ronald Krauss, has a long history of being a paid researcher by the dairy industry. The dairy industry, acutely aware of the dangers of saturated fat and unwilling to let the public become aware of this, has decided rather than promote skim or 1% dairy, they prefer paying off scientific researchers, especially those who have expertise in diet/lipid.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDr. Krauss, as of 2003, freely admitted saturated fat is harmful for most people. He has a patent on a test to determine LDL particle size and if this test gains widespread use, he stands to make a hefty amount of money. In the meantime, he is not shy about accepting money from the dairy industry. Dr. Stampfer and Dr. Ludwig also believe saturated fat is harmful, they just also believe that refined carbs are also bad. Melinda Wenner neglects to mention this because she too also has an agenda.
From Integrity in science database, proving the lead author of the study is paid by the dairy industry to initiate these studies: http://www.cspinet.org/cgi-bin/integrity.cgi
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRonald M. Krauss, M.D., Department of Molecular Medicine, University of California, Berkeley. Serves on the advisory board of Shaping America’s Youth, which is funded by Campbell Soup; McNeil Nutritionals, a Johnson and Johnson company; and Nike. (http://www.shapingamericasyouth.com/Page.aspx?nid=12; accessed 1/5/05) Research on lipoproteins and low-fat diets in the case of children partially supported by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board in cooperation with the National Dairy Council. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 2000;71:1611-6) Research on whether a change in dietary saturated fat intake is correlated with change in mass of large low-density-lipoprotein particles in men supported in part by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board in cooperation with the National Dairy Council. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1998;67:828-36) Research on low density lipoprotein subclasses and response to a low-fat diet in healthy men supported in part by the National Dairy Promotion and Research Board. (Am. J. Clin. Nutr. 1995;62:478S-87S) "A member of the Scientific Advisory Board of the American Egg Board/Egg Nutrition Center and the Medical Advisory Board for the Milk Process Education Program of the International Dairy Foods Association. (http://www4.nas.edu/webcr.nsf/CommitteeDisplay/FNBX-H-99-04-A?OpenDocument ; accessed 1/7/03) Holds U.S. patent number 4,619,895 “Lipoprotein marker for hypertriglyceridemia” assigned to The Regents of The University of California (Berkeley, CA), October 28, 1986. Holds U.S. patent number 5,925,229 “Low density lipoprotein fraction assay for cardiac disease risk” assigned to The Regents of the University of California (Oakland, CA), July 20, 1999.
The notion that a class of diseases are associated with civilization has been around for more than a century, and the leading culprits implicated in this hypothesis are refined-carbohydrates. The most recent advocate for this viewpoint is science writer Gary Taubes, and he makes a formidable case in his book Good Calories, Bad Calories. As far as I've been able to determine, his description of fat regulation is accurate. In contrast, this key physiological mechanism is often seen as being completely irrelevant for practitioners of the conventional view. That should tell us something!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn my opinion, we are sitting on the solution for one of our greatest problems because of a lack of science education. We should be teaching fat regulation with the same devotion as other important scientific theories such as Evolution, Relativity, and Plate Tectonics.
Well this vidicates my late mother's maintaining that there was "nothing wrong with a bit of butter". She was always right - however crazy she appeaed at the time ! When loosing an arguement however, the world was "going to be destroyed by a comet" (- so there")
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh well, who knows ! According to the Mayan calendar it's in 2012 (I think). But I shall just keep digging and planting - and probably eating a few biskits - but White bread ?! - only just before it's about to "land".
IMO, one shouldn't get totally hung up on the 'refined' thingy. Which is to say that Mother Nature proves pristine monosaccharides, disaccharides and hydrolysable polysaccharides in abundance .
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe incidence of diabetes and obesity is more closely related to cellulose intake in the diet. This would be in any form of plant roughage like celery, apples, carrots, etc. The fact is, bacteria turn the cellulose into energy and produce BUTYRATE which causes major changes in mitochondria by way of gene regulation. In mice, the feeding of butyrate reversed obesity by way of genetic upregulation of insulin sensitivity. Butyrate reversed diabetes. This modulation occurs because with healthier mitochondria (redox status) they can acually process more carbohydrate for ATP production. Insulin resistance is a method to preserve life in the cell instead of apoptosis through mitochondrial degredation. The study was published in "Diabetes" July 2009. Another study in "The Journal of Clinical Investigation" March 09, directly links the H2O2 production of redox deprived mitochondria to inflammation and insulin resistance in rodents and humans. The key dietary factor is antioxidants, which results in robust mitochondria and this is also key in brain degeneration with aging. Veggies are full of antioxidants. And they clean your teeth. :-)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHow much refined carbohydrate is packaged in saturated fat?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt is the whole carbohydrates along with the nutrients and fibre that we should be eating.
What about total calories- people are obese because of fat eaten and stored, Excess of any food is stored as fat.
Along with low activity levels we have eaten ourselves into ugly fatness and ill health.
"The 4 girls listened attentively to everything they heard, ate less red meet, more salads, more veggies and grains and forcefully advocated their positions to everyone around them, to our great annoyance. "
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisKandykorn the sisters lied to oyu. if they are fat they ate too much of everything and di not do enough to work off the calories
Dr atkins died fat and of a heart attack
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith that ever wonderful concept of hindsight, it's not at all surprising, in fact.
The first vertebrate and non-vertebrate forms of life had nothing else to feed on but vegetation - the herbivores. So obviously they evolved with a toleration of the carbohydrate content of plant matter, its intake not causing harm to their health - evolution is not perverse in any way. This carbohydrate intake was converted into the most suitable organic compounds which can be stored to provide energy on demand, which we refer to as animal fats. This was a very clever evolutionary "discovery".
Once the herbivores had multiplied to vast numbers, carnivores next appeared on the scene. And that clearly includes our own species, homo sapiens, and all our antecedent species, through their evolutionary stages.
Although the fatty components of animals, whether herbivores or carnivores, do have different compositions, they are mostly similar in their organic makeup, if for no other reason than the very simplest one, namely that organic chemistry unequivocally dictates that only a relatively small variety of biochemicals will work properly in a biological sense to store energy in a chemical form which is readily accessible to the animal. Therefore is it likely that carnivores would have evolved in a way that eating the fat of its victims would cause harm to their health? Of course not, otherwise such an animal species would have never been able to evolve, its precursors rapidly becoming extinct.
It has only been over the past 150 years or thereabouts that mankind has used its technological capabilities to grow plants for their sugar content, and refine cereal foods, such as bread, etc, largely into their carbohydrate content, which includes cellulose. Thus has the food intake of modern man dramatically changed through its modern technological capabilities, bypassing all the safeguards which evolution had incorporated into the biological makeup of mankind, and all other carnivores, to be able to tolerate an intake of animal fats without harm to their health.
So, why should we be surprised, now, at the fact that carbohydrates and sugars can be harmful?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWith that ever wonderful concept of hindsight, it's not at all surprising, in fact.
The first vertebrate and non-vertebrate forms of life had nothing else to feed on but vegetation - the herbivores. So obviously they evolved with a toleration of of the carbohydrate content of plant matter, its intake not causing harm to their health - evolution is not perverse in any way. This carbohydrate intake was converted into the most suitable organic compounds which can be stored to provide energy on demand, which we refer to as animal fats. This was another one of those very clever evolutionary "discoveries".
Once the herbivores had multiplied to vast numbers, carnivores next appeared on the scene. And that clearly includes our own species, homo sapiens, and all our antecedent species, through their evolutionary stages.
Although the fatty components of animals, whether herbivores or carnivores, do have different compositions, they are mostly similar in their organic makeup, if for no other reason than the very simplest one, namely that organic chemistry unequivocally dictates that only a relatively small variety of biochemicals will work properly in a biological sense to store energy in a chemical form which is readily accessible to the animal. Therefore is it likely that carnivores would have evolved in a way that eating the fat of its victims would cause harm to their health? Of course not, otherwise such an animal species would have never been able to evolve, its precursors rapidly becoming extinct.
It has only been over the past 150 years or thereabouts that mankind has used its technological capabilities to grow plants for their sugar content, and refine cereal foods, such as bread, etc, largely into their carbohydrate content, which includes cellulose. Thus has the food intake of modern man dramatically changed through its modern technological capabilities, by-passing all the safeguards which evolution had incorporated into the biological makeup of mankind, and all other carnivores, to be able to tolerate an intake of animal fats.
So why should we be surprised, now, at the fact that our concentration on carbohydrates and sugars can be harmful?
It would seem that Dr. Atkins died from hitting his head after a fall.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.cnn.com/2003/HEALTH/04/17/obit.atkins/
@nanobot mind "The incidence of diabetes and obesity is more closely related to cellulose intake in the diet..."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou might want to check out Gary Taubes' lecture on fat regulation at Berkeley (Nov. 2007):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AVvZP2av5Mk
I believe his view is far more convincing than yours. It would seem that you completely disagree with insulin's role in fat accumulation.
Dr. Atkins has been saying and writing about this for years. Nothing new here. Remember there are 2 (two) Atkins diets: the first one to lose weight and then the second, Atkins Maintenance Diet which is one you stay on for the rest of your life. It is a healthy lifestyle: no type two diabetes. Even if you develop it, no medication required as long as you stick to the diet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy father is living proof. Processed carbs like sugar and starch are poison: "Eat nothing white" That should be your life's mantra.
Its mind boggling to me that the low-fat myth has lasted as long as it has. Back in 1972 when Dr Atkins published his first book he pointed out the folly of the concept. According to the entrenched science, the diet should produce the opposite results from what it does. That it works on anyone is proof that the existing models are deeply flawed and yet the studies on the subject have been few and all the while the mainstream view of medicine has been to recommend a damaging diet.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDoctors are killing their patients with bad advice and nobody in the medical community seems to care. They did it with margarine, they did it with eggs, and when they dust settles, it will show the worst of all was recommending high carbohydrate diets. The system is broken and someone needs to fix it.
They are still getting this wrong. There is no such thing as a 'one size fits all' determination like this. People's systems are all too unique, influenced by many factors. Once they develop a system that can effectively and efficiently analyze each individual system, they can then treat that person for their metabolic shortcomings, if you will. Until then, don't let cookie cutter advice thwart your existence.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishaving some 100% natural whole wheat toast for breakfast won't make anyone gain weight. they should make that message a higher priority, instead of just saying "low-carb diet" - stop buying that processed white bread shit, and if you want to have the occasional baked treats, bake them at home from scratch so you know what goes into them!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this" There is no such thing as a 'one size fits all' determination like this."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe problem has been that the biochemistry of fat regulation has not been at all considered in the case of obesity and its attendant "diseases of civilization". As "low-carb" gets more attention, more people will want to know why, and this is where one can describe how the human body works in the typical case. There are of course variations in the population to insulin sensitivity, or other hormone problems, but the important thing is that the scientific community agrees and evangelizes the science behind fat regulation.
It also highlights the importance of understanding the science before making government recommendations or regulations. Care to estimate how many billions of dollars have been lost because of this fiasco? How many lives lost, or quality of life seriously diminished because of this nonsense? It's one of our greatest tragedies.
Dr. Adkins put this together in 1972:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"The Atkins diet, officially called the Atkins Nutritional Approach, is a low-carbohydrate diet created by Robert Atkins from a research paper he read in the Journal of the American Medical Association published by Gordon Azar and Walter Lyons Bloom. Atkins stated that he used the study to resolve his own overweight condition. He later popularized it in a series of books, starting with Dr. Atkins' Diet Revolution in 1972. In his second book, Dr. Atkins' New Diet Revolution, he modified or changed parts of the diet but did not alter the original concepts."
Science has been catching up with his insights since then. Congratulations.
No real news here. Proponents of a paleolithic diet have long held that carbs have little to no place in the diet we evolved to eat. The so-called "balanced diet" as portrayed in government food pyramid propaganda is heavily grain-based, but go out into a forest and try to pick yourself some grains and then make bread or pasta. These things are the product of recent industrialized agriculture, and are unlike anything we have the evolutionary adaptations to cope with. Bread, pasta, cereals are as much a part of a natural "balanced diet" for humans as sticks and stones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo real news here. Proponents of a paleolithic diet have long held that carbs have little to no place in the diet we evolved to eat. The so-called "balanced diet" as portrayed in government food pyramid propaganda is heavily grain-based, but go out into a forest and try to pick yourself some grains and then make bread or pasta. These things are the product of recent industrialized agriculture, and are unlike anything we have the evolutionary adaptations to cope with. Bread, pasta, cereals are as much a part of a natural "balanced diet" for humans as sticks and stones.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhen you grind whole wheat into flour, you get the same blood sugar result as while flour.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisToo bad Dr. Atkins isn't around to enjoy the moment...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisFirst off, this was a "meta-analysis" of several studies that mainly relied on food frequency questionnaires in the form of "in the past 12 months, how often did you consume x?" These are notoriously unreliable.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSecond, the category of "refined carbohydrates" encompasses a great deal. White pasta, for example, has a fairly low glycemic index, somewhat comparable to whole wheat pasta. Brown rice is still fairly high GI. Lumping the "refined" carbohydrate foods all into one category is troublesome.
Second, a recent study (that also used troublesome food frequency surveys) showed that the intake of simple carbohydrates only shows an effect in women: http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/2010-04-16-carbs-women_N.htm
The meta-analysis they refer to that found that saturated fat has no effect on heart disease rates was performed by a man who has ties to the dairy industry. Given that this finding goes against the vast majority of the information we have and is just a meta-analysis (a study of studies), I'd take this information with a grain of salt.
Last, the majority of the low-carbohydrate info that is spreading out there is based upon flawed principles. The idea is that carbs cause the body to overproduce insulin, a hormone that provokes hunger pangs, which leads to more eating. As insulin induces body cells to store excess carbs as fat, the pounds pack on. So cut the carbs, insulin levels stay low, and less fat is stored.
In actual fact, proteins and fats both stimulate insulin production. Any excess of carbs or proteins or fats is stored as fat. That excess fat, whatever its origins, cranks out bioactive molecules (such as interleukin-6 and leptin).
These molecules promote damage to the internal lining of arteries, which fosters atherosclerosis. This is why the obese face higher CHD risks.
This means an excess of proteins or fats is as bad as an excess of carbs, and vice versa.
This article quotes a 2008 study showing that Atkins dieters "lost twice as much weight" as those on conventional low-fat diets.
It has now been consistently shown in many studies that Atkins does not outperform other diets in the long run. Several rigorous studies have found greater weight loss through Atkins than conventional diets in the first six months, but no significant weight difference over 12 months.
Studies do show that Atkins lowers one's triglycerides, fats also involved in CHD, and that it raises (good) HDL cholesterol. Critically, however, Atkins raises (bad) LDL cholesterol.
In fact, bad cholesterol typically decreases with weight loss in all diets - except low-carb ones. This is probably because of the extremely high intake of saturated fats through unlimited meat consumption permitted in Atkins.
It is now established that, when it is starved of carbs, the body overproduces methylglyoxal, a chemical that causes blood vessel and tissue damage. Heart rhythm problems have also been noted.
So is Atkins safe over the long run? Recently, two huge European studies that had followed dieters over a decade were published. In both studies, people who had been on low-carb, high-protein diets for years faced significantly higher risks of dying from CHD.
More deaths from cancer were also noted in one of the two studies. Intake of too little grain, fruit and vegetables for years may have led to a higher incidence of cancer.
You only need to remember one thing. It is not about calories. It is about imflamatory insulin! An insulin response makes you hungry , FAT and prone to all dseases of modern civilization! The Banting Diet was invented hundreds of years ago -a low carb diet- and guess what it still works!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs the Government takes more ownership of health care we may find more reasonable recommendations from Government agencies rather than just reflect what industry wants you to hear.
We need to eliminate imflamatory ingredents such as sugar and imflamatory oils -soybean oil- vegetable oil- that are processed at ultra high temperatures that make them rancid and imflamatory. Eliminating Trans-Fat is just the first step. We need to eliminate unneeded imflamatory ingredients from processed foods and we need the Governments help. This will not only make us more healthy it will save us money.
Atkins was right. Fat is fine; processed carbs are the cuplrit. This debunks all the low fat diets completely, totally. OK enough, I am off for some ice cream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtkins was right. Fat is fine; processed carbs are the culprit. This debunks all the low fat diets, totally and completely. OK enough, I am off for an ice cream.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this@cbarcus: Would you mind briefly summarizing Taubes's lecture. While it is very interesting, I have already spent 50 minutes agreeing with every point he makes and would really like to get to the grit. That would be a big help thanks. I am just learning this stuff and don't proclaim to be an authority, however multiple lines of research are converging on the role of mitochondria in obesity and I find the interrelations very interesting.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAccording to Dr. Uday Bhawalkar of PUNE, INDIA, the root cause of disease is toxic food, the toxicity being Non Proteinous Nitrates. Carbohydrates and fats by themselves are nutrients. Dr. Bhawalkar has innovated Eco Chips which can clean up the toxicity with invisible phyto remediation, by placing them in the water/ oil that is used to cook the carbohydrates. See www.wastetohealth.com
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI almost hate to tell you, that wasn't Zappa. It was Firesign Theater.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy thoughts exactly. Nothing new here regarding simple carbs (sugars)-except that I can now feel less concerned about using coconut oil in my popcorn!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would be really excellent is if someone would actually make sense of all this in a comprehensive, objective, and scientifically bullet-proof way. Not a junk science way. Not a "Sugar Busters" way. Not a way indebted to the meat lobby or the pharma lobby. I have actually reached the point where I am so deeply suspicious of the vested interests of each of the camps that I actually don't know whom to turn to for dietary advice that is really imptrtant to me and to my family. And my guess is there are about 250MM Americans who feel just the same way.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHmmm---I wonder how the gist of this article squares with the success of the "statins" (which lower blood cholesterol) in reducing cardiovascular disease? Anyone have an idea(s)?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI love the taste of organic pork and gummy worms, not together. So, according to this article, I should bury the worms and eat the piggy? Can't we all just eat, drink and be responsible? ...............kisses...............
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSo, I need to trash the gummy worms and enjoy my organic pork steak? RATZ! Can't we all just eat, drink and be responsible? LOL
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEXACTLY! Carbs in other countries, esp. rice, are not associated with heart disease. My vote is for iron ... our carbs are iron-enriched. Ferritin, unlike cholesterol, tracks nicely with the "Syndrome X" diseases. And most of the things known to help with heart disease ... green tea, red wine, whole grains ... are known to be iron blockers.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYo Paydirt, I agree. Everyone advocates for thier own opinion. Truth is the first casualty of war. But there are still lots of places to get good sound advice that's not hard to understand. Lancet always has good stuff, and there's the exercise industry... don't laugh, they have people who understand physiology. There is also your local state university, who may have a nutrition department. All kinds of places.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is not true. Sugar is only half glucose, the other half is fructose, which the liver treats nearly like a poison. Read up on fructose and you'll see that a carb is not a carb, and a calorie is not just a calorie.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is OLD news. There are many books on the subject, but they were so controversial at the time because of the strength and hold that the low-fat dogma has had on us since the 80s, that people dismissed them without even looking at the scientific evidence that backed it. Look up Weston A Price if you want to see just how long we health renegades have been trying to bring this to light. A great, great read is Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and my favourite book in the world is The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers to good health!
~Carina
This is OLD news. There are many books on the subject, but they were so controversial at the time because of the strength and hold that the low-fat dogma has had on us since the 80s, that people dismissed them without even looking at the scientific evidence that backed it. Look up Weston A Price if you want to see just how long we health renegades have been trying to bring this to light. A great, great read is Good Calories Bad Calories by Gary Taubes, and my favourite book in the world is The Vegetarian Myth by Lierre Keith.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCheers to good health!
~Carina
Here is an interesting, thoroughly researched presentation that discusses the health hazards of eating fructose outside of it's natural state (fruit). Very interesting! I believe there is also a "short" version that you could look up.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM
Its important for people reading this article to not just focus on the point of reducing intake of refined carbs. Although this article states that refined carbs have been found in the presented studies to be worse for your heart than saturated fat this does not mean that saturated fat is suddenly 'good' for you and now you can eat as much saturated fat as you want. Yes, reduce REFINED carbs (which isn't new information - only its application to the heart vs saturated fat is) but don't make the mistake of allowing yourself free reign on saturated fats as a result of this article. Another person mentioned, do your own research & I completely agree.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNothing new: Dr. Schwartzbein,in her book,devoted an entire chapter named "Fat Dont Make You Fat".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe health authorities are fully aware of the serious flaws and omissions in this meta-analysis. This study was funded by the National Dairy Council, dairy being the number one source of saturated fat in the U.S. and many other parts of the world. It was also conveniently published just before the USDA lowered the dietary recommendations of saturated fat for the first time in 20 years, from 10% to 7% of total calories.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBelow is a section from the statement released by the European Heart Network in regards to their opinion of this meta-analysis, titled “European Heart Network position piece: Impact of saturated fat on cardiovascular disease obscured by over‐adjustment in recent meta‐analysis”
“However, the meta‐analysis (and an accompanying opinion piece by the same authors (4)) is compromised by a number of serious flaws and omissions.”
“The most serious of these flaws is an over‐adjustment for serum cholesterol levels.”
“Adjustment for serum cholesterol levels will inevitably bias the results of the meta-analyses towards finding no association between dietary saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease, but the authors do not mention this limitation in their article.”
“As Jeremiah Stamler asserts in his editorial, what was actually found by the meta-analysis was ‘a statistically non-significant relation of SFA [saturated fat] to CHD... independent of other dietary lipids, serum lipids, and other covariates’. A more appropriate and informative analysis would have included non-adjusted associations between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. An examination of the forest plots provided in the article shows that those cohort studies that did not adjust for serum cholesterol levels were more likely to find a positive association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease, suggesting that a meta-analysis of unadjusted data would likely produce positive results.”
The full statement from the European Heart Network can be found below with references to studies that show a positive relationship between saturated fat and heart disease:
http://www.sydan.fi/lehtiarkisto/sydan_210/artikkelit/fi_FI/elainrasvat/_files/83538765767049682/default/EHN%20position%20piece%20-%20sats%20meta%20analysis.pdf
Below is a published study showing reversal of severe heart disease backed up with angiogram evidence.
http://www.heartattackproof.com/resolving_cade.htm
Having maintained a 55 lb weight loss for 5 years by doing what I vehemently preached against for so many years - eating more meat and fat and cutting out grain, I feel that I had literally been lied to by the medical establishment with their calories in/calories out lowfat nonsense. I am watching a low fat diet kill my mother and my father losing any enjoyment of his golden years to statin drugs. This myth that somehow our grandparents got more exercise: PLEASE! My dad's high school yearbook circa 1950 - EVERYONE, staff and students, slim. No one counted fat grams, calories or "worked out" like they do now. No one got fat until well into middle age. Notice how the old food pyramind has quietly disappeared? I blame IT for keeping a very active person, me, fat for a lot of years. My triglycerides are 60 - yes - 60, and I don't count calories. I simply don't eat grain. Meat, cheese and vegetables (meat meaning any dead animal - fish, beef, chicken, pork, wild game) and avoid vegatable oils, which are toxic to the body (frankenfood) and soy. I feel so much better in my 40's than I EVER did in my 20's and 30's that yes, I get fired up when heavy people are called lazy, gorgers, etc. I know plenty of heavy folks that go to the gym and eat WAY less calories than I do. They are being lied to. For those that think vegetarianism is somehow more "moral" than other food - newsflash, ultimately, EVERYTHING eats EVERYTHING else via the natural processes taking place of dead organic matter being turned into soil. That lovely pear tree literally thrives on soil made by dead matter. BTW - founder of the much-lauded Mediterranean Diet died of heart failure at age 71 this year . . ..media very quiet about the whole thing
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this...and from where have you attained these long-held beliefs? I will answer that for you: Mainstream advertisers of products that they want to sell to the consumer. There have always been, and always will be, huge corporations looking out for their bottom line by lobbying very hard to skew the scientific evidence in their favor, and they have been very successful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWow I am amazed at the weird ideas & mythical hogwash. all evidence points to us being vegetarians for the most part. considering how our bodies digestive system is designed. so we are mildly omnivores out of necessity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiseven if you go by the evolution idea if you check for yourself books on physical evidence the earth was one time a tropical to semi tropical place from pole to pole. not what is shown books and tv, man didn't run around living in caves with fur dresses eating mostly meat living among the cold and snow. that is a hollywood movie.
man was always a man, unless you can prove via physical evidence of manape fossils man was always a man. so concluding diets based on that is insane. basing one's health on myth is dangerous. man subsisted on plant material until up to the global flood. meat had to be allowed as now there would be growing seasons that were limited. before growing season was all year.
I won't argue evolution/creation thing, because that is a red herring on the subject. you should be able to find info enough to see for yourself. you have libraries internet etc. over processing of food is the problem. stripping all the nutrients is a bad idea, but it allows a long shelf life and is good for corporations bottomline. I suggest articles such as the obesity epdiemic is metabolic syndrome a nutritional defiency?
also check out ultrametabolism by dr hymen, he has a website. also check out how to be naturally thin by eating more. by jean antenello, by the way someone said fructose is poison? the liver is only organ with enzymes to metabolise it to glucose for it's own use. not to eliminate it like a toxin. this allows it to avoid competition for glucose for its own stores.
it has to store enough to keep your brain going while you fast otherwise you suffer hypoglycemia. why dont people research how their bodies work? that way they won't make unintelligent remarks. if I can learn it then so can everyone else. I am just an average common man. I hope I didn't seem to harsh. the info is there if we are interested enought to look for it.
I explained long ago why calories from Carbs not used for energy are converted and stored as saturated and monounsaturated fatty acids. According to my research, the most significant factor in cardiovascular disease is abnormal levels of the essential fats.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSee www.essentialfats.com for references.
Read my articles and letters in Metabolism, Am. J. of Clinical Nutrition and others for a scientific explanation, the flaws of the USDA food pyramid (an exchange of letters with the USDA).
There are commercial and scientific interests as well as pressure from consumers to make, sell and eat less healthy foods. Perhaps we should allow people to purchase and pay for health insurance to cover the expenses they want.
Dr Doug Mcguff speaks about the research behind this topic in layman terms, you should check his book out 'Body By Science' :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou claim, nobody is advocating eating saturated fats, just shows how ignorant you are, it is absurd. Inuits who consume nothing but red meat and seal blubber are among the healthiest in the world! THE researcher who discoverd the ills of trans fats decades ago totally disagrees. http://www.eatfatlosefat.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNonsense.. Eat saturated fat. Read a book by a highly regarded nutritionist. http://www.eatfatlosefat.com/
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is a common urban legend. Dr. Robert Atkins died in New York of head trauma after he slipped and fell outside his brownstone. He was 72.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNo, you're wrong. Dr. Robert Atkins died in New York of head trauma after he slipped and fell on ice outside his home. You can google this and find it easily in all the news report. Agenda much?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" or " Why We Get Fat." It matches all your requirements.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere are at least 101 scientific studies that show that saturated fat and cholesterol prevent heart disease. You can find out what they are by reading the book "Saturated Fat and cholesterol Prevent Heart disease: The evidence from 101 scientific studies" by David Evans. So saturated fat is, in fact good for you. It is only when it is combined with a lot of carbs, especially refined ones, that is may (may) cause problems. Humans have been eating saturated fat for most of their existence and there are populations today that rely on saturated fat from coconuts. It is not harmful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCarbs(fruits,vegs,legumes) are filled with vitamins,minerals,anti cancer & anti heart disease properties.Loaded with(lycopene like watermelon that fights prostate cancer)pectin(a heart disease fighter in apples),flavono,anti oxidants etc.Your brain runs on sugar & your body prefers carbs to run.Thats why in nature natural foods(except animal protein) provide little fat & some protein.Its mostly carbs.Obviously if you eat cake or twinkies theres not much nutrients & it has deadly trans fat.Fibre in carbs absorbs ldl cholesterol & carbs have Vitamin C a powerful ant oxidant that builds collagen a necessary component for coronary cells.The misinformed people here are amazing.Gary taubes has been debunked(see Michael fumento^s Big Fat Lie article where the people Taubes interviwed were taken out of context or did not have data they stated printed by Taubes on purpose since it went against his ideology)The few studies that show saturated fat has no correlation to heart disease had beans as a source of sat. fat(a Israeli study) or didn^t take into account cholesterol lowering stain drugs(very common these days & are also anti inflammatory.Try going 3 months without carbs.Just eat fat & protein see what happens,I dare you all.You can be like the eskimoes eating RAW animal organs to get their Vit C or be quick like them to devour carbs(plants) when thy came across them cause the body hates ketosis(which mimicks a starvation state). Protein is a well stimulator of insulin too,I guess protein is evil.ASP ---acylation stumulating protein,is a hormone that shoves fat into fat cells without insulin raised or carbs present.Thats right, whether its FAT,CARB or PROTEIN your body wil have no problem converting into fat any excess calories that are around.Refined carbs were plentiful in the 60s & 70s(little obesity),in the 80s,however obesity skyrocketed, why ?----heres the secret,you ready ? You eat too much & do too little in activity. Surprise ! Surprise ! People were takin in 400-500 xtra calories a day & with technology leading the way,were less active
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this