What made Americans fat..........

[Firefly]

Me too. And I'm so over making myself crazy thinking about it.

 

Fair enough-- I admit where we are we have lots of choices for local meat, and there are definitely farms that sell meat we prefer (in terms of taste). So I don't have to expend any extra effort getting it.

 

If I did... hmm, it would be hard. Deplorable conditions for factory farmed animals aside, I can't get the thought of pink slime/ammonium hydroxide, injected red dyes, artificial hormones etc out of my head. :( Back in the day we tried buying meat at Walmart, but it always tasted like chlorine. :confused: Our local chain grocery store sells a line of "natural" meats (Stop and Shop's "Nature's Promise" line)-- not humane certified but at least without the other junk, so maybe I would buy that.

[Alicia64]

None of this explains why other cultures with a diet that is heavily based on carbs do not have the same obesity problems as Americans do.

The main difference is not that the Americans eat more carbs (I am coming from a country of bread lovers with amazing bread which is the basis for two meals each day) but rather the amount of physical activity that is built into a daily schedule.

 

ETA: In former times, most people could not afford a diet high in protein and fat - carbs was almost all they had to satisfy their hunger. Yet obesity was not an issue because they did physical work. Nor is obesity a problem for people in other parts of the world whose daily meals consist mainly of a couple bowls of rice because they have nothing else.

 

I'm entering the discussion really late. I've always struggled w/ my weight, but lost 48 lbs. seven years ago and have kept them off. (By watching every morsel.)

 

Has anyone brought up the growth hormones that go into cows?? I have one son who is just huge. Both of his grandfathers are tall and football-player large, but I really watch his food (without freaking him out) and make sure he gets plenty of fruit/veggies etc.

 

Also, he's been vegetarian for years -- his choice. And we do one dessert a day. Period.

 

He seems bigger than he "should be" for how he eats.

 

I really think there's something out there causing problems that we haven't yet identified.

 

Alley

[Bluegoat]

Gary Taubs' books and articles. He's also a physicist. He does a great job of summarizing in layman terms the science. The articles will take less than 30 minutes, the books a bit longer obviously.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2002/07/07/magazine/what-if-it-s-all-been-a-big-fat-lie.html?pagewanted=all&src=pm

 

http://www.amazon.com/Why-We-Get-Fat-About/dp/0307474259/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1342630251&sr=8-1&keywords=why+we+get+fat

 

http://www.amazon.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Controversial-Science/dp/1400033462/ref=la_B0034P66MY_1_2?ie=UTF8&qid=1342630276&sr=1-2

 

http://nymag.com/news/sports/38001/

 

I think you missed the point. Looking at his summaries for laypeople is not at all the same as actually reading his research on the mechanisms and evaluating them. Peer reviews of studies like this takes weeks, or longer, , by people who are experts in the same field. And they are just looking to weed out obvious problems.

 

It is entirely possible that the conclusions a scientist draws from a study can be wrong or unjustified or too sweeping based on the results. Pure, analyzed information is really really hard to interpret.

 

I think you are putting too much faith in how clear these kinds of studies really are.

[Lawana]

I think you missed the point. Looking at his summaries for laypeople is not at all the same as actually reading his research on the mechanisms and evaluating them. Peer reviews of studies like this takes weeks, or longer, , by people who are experts in the same field. And they are just looking to weed out obvious problems.

 

It is entirely possible that the conclusions a scientist draws from a study can be wrong or unjustified or too sweeping based on the results. Pure, analyzed information is really really hard to interpret.

 

I think you are putting too much faith in how clear these kinds of studies really are.

:iagree:You said that very well.

[regentrude]

I think you missed the point. Looking at his summaries for laypeople is not at all the same as actually reading his research on the mechanisms and evaluating them. Peer reviews of studies like this takes weeks, or longer, , by people who are experts in the same field. And they are just looking to weed out obvious problems.

 

It is entirely possible that the conclusions a scientist draws from a study can be wrong or unjustified or too sweeping based on the results. Pure, analyzed information is really really hard to interpret.

 

I think you are putting too much faith in how clear these kinds of studies really are.

 

:iagree:Very well put.

In order to get an original paper published in a scientific journal, at least two researchers who are experts in the specific area are reviewing the paper and recommend it for publication (or reject it. In which case, the authors usually try to send it to a less prestigious journal with a less stringent review process in the hope that it is published there).

There is no similar process for summary papers and review articles and popular books - in order to truly judge the information, a scientist trained in the field would have to evaluate the original publications.

Anything else is just taking the author's word for it. A layperson can choose to believe somebody because he makes a compelling argument - but she can not know if the argument rests on solid science because she is lacking the qualification to understand the original research. That is the crux of the problem: I have to choose to believe a self-proclaimed "expert" even though I can not really examine the evidence myself.

Edited July 18, 2012 by regentrude

[Stacy in NJ]

Could you point to a post where I dismiss others' personal experience? I don't have perfect knowledge. No one does. But, some information (fact) is more accurate and some less so. That's what science is.

 

What's frustrating to me and others are those who voice incredibly strong opinons but don't bother reading the research or articles linked numerous times by many different posters and which are the basis for the op. As another poster pointed out, it's like wanting to participate in a book discussion groups without bothering to read the book.

 

I strongly disagree with your comparison of me a true believer trying to convert others. I'm participating in a discussion and sometimes an argument.

 

But I don't understand dismissing those whose personal experience tells them there may be another way.

[Nestof3]

Where did the "not eating meat every night" come from though? I eat meat every night. That seems sensible to me.

 

I think people avoid eating it every night for a myriad of reasons -- cost, because they are trying to add in other foods, etc. I personally do not like the toughness of meat in general. Tilapia is a different story to me. I just don't WANT to eat meat every day because I don't like it enough. I love cheese, yogurt, avocado, nuts, etc. -- but not meat.

[justamouse]

I think people avoid eating it every night for a myriad of reasons -- cost, because they are trying to add in other foods, etc. I personally do not like the toughness of meat in general. Tilapia is a different story to me. I just don't WANT to eat meat every day because I don't like it enough. I love cheese, yogurt, avocado, nuts, etc. -- but not meat.

 

Please don't eat farmed tilapia. They feed them GMO food in large ponds.

Also, farmed tilapia contains a less healthful mix of fatty acids because the fish are fed corn and soy instead of lake plants and algae, the diet of wild tilapia

 

The corn and soy is GMO.

 

Ask me how I know? Dh used to own a tilapia farm. He won't touch the stuff.

[Aelwydd]

Where did the "not eating meat every night" come from though? I eat meat every night. That seems sensible to me.

 

Probably from building evidence that too much animal-based protein in one's diet is linked to increased heart disease, cancer, and other diseases.

 

I agree with nmoira that all these "diet fads" are similar in that their main focus is to lose pounds, not increasing overall health. As I said in a previous post, I don't think it's a mistake that many cultures, and religions, have built into them fasting and times of "lean eating" that eliminate meats, dairy, leavened breads, etc. And that plants have long been considered a primary source of medicinal help. The idea, as understood by our more primitive ancestors is to purge the body of excess and impurities.

 

I find that fascinating, as my own research into dietary habits seems to support the dietary model of fresh vegetables as the basic, dietary staple. Starches, fruits (both carbs) should be a smaller portion, followed by proteins and fats, with animal-based proteins and fats comprising a very small portion of one's diet.

 

I don't think a diet high in carbs is good, because it does induce insulin resistance. And I don't think a diet high in proteins and fats is good, because it induces something called acidosis, which in term, leads to systemic inflammation. Chronic bodily inflammation puts one at risk for a whole host of issues, such as heart disease and auto immune diseases.

 

Not only that, but a high protein diet can also lead to kidney damage, as what happened to a fellow Anatomy & Physiology student I attended class with, about 5 years ago. She adopted a milder form of the Atkins diet with the approval of her physician, and had a nutritionist helping plan her diets. Four months after she went on that diet, she noticed blood in her urine, and her doctor found massive ketones spilled into her urine. She ended up with permanent kidney damage from that diet.

 

I understand that a LCHF diet has proved successful for many people who could not otherwise lose weight. For that reason, I wouldn't tell someone who has insulin resistance, not to try it. It may be the only thing that works for them. But, I would recommend that they have constant physician-oversight, and that they do some reading into how the body processes different macro and micro nutrients, and how an extremely unbalanced ration can affect the body's overall metabolic function and pH.

 

And, I still think the ancients do have it right. Balance and moderation: good. Extremes and excess: bad.

[Barb_]

Yes. It tones things up and lets you wear a smaller size. It gives you energy. But it does not make you lose weight faster. No way.

 

:iagree: It doesn't make you lose pounds, but you do lose fat percentage, which is what people are going for anyway. When you exercise, you replace relatively fluffy fat cells with dense muscle mass. Two of my daughters are 1/4 inch apart. The curvy, softer-faced one actually weighs 5 lbs less (and they are just over 5 feet, so that is 10% of their body weight) than the one with the angular build and the gymnast body. The angular one looks much slimmer. My husband started biking 30-50 miles on the weekend in addition to his usual gym visits and gained 10 pounds while dropping from a 35 waist to a 32.

 

So it confuses the issue to say exercise doesn't help you to lose weight. It does help you to build muscle mass, metabolize calories and burn fat. Most people can't reach their health goals without some sort of diet changes in addition to exercise, but there is a whole lot of throwing out the baby with the bathwater in this thread.

[Lawana]

Could you point to a post where I dismiss others' personal experience? I don't have perfect knowledge. No one does. But, some information (fact) is more accurate and some less so. That's what science is.

When you continue to refer posters back to your source without acknowleding that their experience doesn't match up with your experience, it dismisses them.

I do know what science is, as do others that have posted. The jury is still out on the final facts. That is the nature of science. As more knowledge is gained, the "facts" change. Always have, always will. I don't think the evidence is there to support the recommendation that everyone eat a LCHF diet. And I know you didn't say those exact words.

 

What's frustrating to me and others are those who voice incredibly strong opinons but don't bother reading the research or articles linked numerous times by many different posters and which are the basis for the op. As another poster pointed out, it's like wanting to participate in a book discussion groups without bothering to read the book.

 

I strongly disagree with your comparison of me a true believer trying to convert others. I'm participating in a discussion and sometimes an argument.

 

If you were open to ideas that differ from yours based on other's experiences, I would accept that. It does strike me as evangelizing when one states one is on a soapbox, has the scientific facts, and is involved in a one way flow of facts.

 

I have no beef against you personally. My personal experience informs me that changing one's diet may have unintended consequences down the road. There may be much to be gained, but there may also be much to be lost. How might you feel if 20 years from now, we find out that eating very large amounts of animal fat causes some disturbing health consequenses?

 

I hope to be a voice of caution that says bandwagons don't usually last. And to state that while recognition of the effects of carbohydrates is finally receiving wide attention, there still does not exist a consensus among scientists regarding nutrtional recommendations.

[Parrothead]

:grouphug: I hate dentists too.

 

Best of luck, and fingers crossed it goes smoothly.

Thanks. Back now. It wasn't pretty. I have a lovely prescription for Valium for my next visit in August. I'll probably start a thread about it in a while cause I'm just going to need to talk it out. :crying:

[Parrothead]

The only thing I have left to say about any of this is that these discussions always leave me more confused than when I started.

Honestly it should all boil down to, do what is best for you and your body. :grouphug:

[Barb_]

Thanks. Back now. It wasn't pretty. I have a lovely prescription for Valium for my next visit in August. I'll probably start a thread about it in a while cause I'm just going to need to talk it out. :crying:

 

:grouphug: Sorry. I'll just say that here because I probably won't read your thread. I'm due for some major work and I'm dreading it.

[Parrothead]

It is interesting to watch the rise of obesity in non-Western countries how they deal with it and what they consider the cause and cure. Here is a relatively recent article from the Japan Times. Of course, Japan also has a law regulating waistline size.

That was interesting and the info there coincides with my own personal theories about the western diet.

[Parrothead]

Where did the "not eating meat every night" come from though? I eat meat every night. That seems sensible to me.

Addressing this late.

 

Most people in the world do not eat meat every day (night). Meat is plentiful in the US and Canada along with most 1st world nations. But that hasn't always (historically) been the case. Even in the U.S. as late as the early 1900s many people could not afford to buy meat for every day. Or if they did it would be more as a side dish than a main dish.

[Parrothead]

If the meat is tough, it's not being cooked right. I don't like tough meat either.

 

People are free to not eat meat, but I don't know of any evidence that it's not healthy and that we need to eat it in moderation.

You could google it and come up with all kinds of hits.

 

But like I said earlier up thread one can find evidence for whatever one's personal take on the issue is. It is difficult to sort out the info without all of the experts trying to sell something.

 

In order to make a truly informed decision (for either side) one really must devote some time and do some digging.

[Alte Veste Academy]

A layperson can choose to believe somebody because he makes a compelling argument - but she can not know if the argument rests on solid science because she is lacking the qualification to understand the original research. That is the crux of the problem: I have to choose to believe a self-proclaimed "expert" even though I can not really examine the evidence myself.

 

Point taken. And, honestly, that is the beginning and end of this thread for me. It is why so many of us end up frustrated and why we bicker amongst ourselves. We are arguing that which we cannot fully understand while being unknowingly but overwhelmingly ignorant of the true science, both in detail and scope.

 

In the end, we all have to use what we know of our own family history, personal health history, and (hopefully) a reasonable amount of common sense to decide for ourselves what nutritional path serves us best.

[Parrothead]

Probably from building evidence that too much animal-based protein in one's diet is linked to increased heart disease, cancer, and other diseases.

 

I agree with nmoira that all these "diet fads" are similar in that their main focus is to lose pounds, not increasing overall health. As I said in a previous post, I don't think it's a mistake that many cultures, and religions, have built into them fasting and times of "lean eating" that eliminate meats, dairy, leavened breads, etc. And that plants have long been considered a primary source of medicinal help. The idea, as understood by our more primitive ancestors is to purge the body of excess and impurities.

 

I find that fascinating, as my own research into dietary habits seems to support the dietary model of fresh vegetables as the basic, dietary staple. Starches, fruits (both carbs) should be a smaller portion, followed by proteins and fats, with animal-based proteins and fats comprising a very small portion of one's diet.

 

I don't think a diet high in carbs is good, because it does induce insulin resistance. And I don't think a diet high in proteins and fats is good, because it induces something called acidosis, which in term, leads to systemic inflammation. Chronic bodily inflammation puts one at risk for a whole host of issues, such as heart disease and auto immune diseases.

 

Not only that, but a high protein diet can also lead to kidney damage, as what happened to a fellow Anatomy & Physiology student I attended class with, about 5 years ago. She adopted a milder form of the Atkins diet with the approval of her physician, and had a nutritionist helping plan her diets. Four months after she went on that diet, she noticed blood in her urine, and her doctor found massive ketones spilled into her urine. She ended up with permanent kidney damage from that diet.

 

I understand that a LCHF diet has proved successful for many people who could not otherwise lose weight. For that reason, I wouldn't tell someone who has insulin resistance, not to try it. It may be the only thing that works for them. But, I would recommend that they have constant physician-oversight, and that they do some reading into how the body processes different macro and micro nutrients, and how an extremely unbalanced ration can affect the body's overall metabolic function and pH.

 

And, I still think the ancients do have it right. Balance and moderation: good. Extremes and excess: bad.

I wonder if you've been looking at the same resources I have over the last few years. I've come to a lot of the same conclusions.

[I.Dup.]

If you were open to ideas that differ from yours based on other's experiences, I would accept that. It does strike me as evangelizing when one states one is on a soapbox, has the scientific facts, and is involved in a one way flow of facts.

 

I have no beef against you personally. My personal experience informs me that changing one's diet may have unintended consequences down the road. There may be much to be gained, but there may also be much to be lost. How might you feel if 20 years from now, we find out that eating very large amounts of animal fat causes some disturbing health consequenses?

 

I hope to be a voice of caution that says bandwagons don't usually last. And to state that while recognition of the effects of carbohydrates is finally receiving wide attention, there still does not exist a consensus among scientists regarding nutrtional recommendations.

 

 

:iagree:

 

I also believe the OP was the one who threw around words like "ignorant" and "prejudice" when people's opinions differed from hers.

[justamouse]

Yeah but none of these articles cite anything. They just say it. That's not evidence. I have done some reading. I still haven't come up with anything that convinces me it's bad.

 

Read Nourishing Traditions. That was the first brick for me in my reading that proved how good it was.

 

And then there's this awesome paper from 1958 about high fat diets and how the Inuits (pretty closely related to the Japanese) are rather slim and they eat not much more than meat and fat.

 

On the contrary it seems that a high fat intake depresses the manufacture of fat in the body, while increasing its utilisation as fuel.

In other words—and this is the key to Banting and all slimming—the fatty tissues can only become overweight through making fat from carbohydrate.

 

Edited July 18, 2012 by justamouse

[M&MsMom]

From Dr. McDougall:

 

The Five Overloads from Animal Foods that Poison Us

 

Protein, fat, cholesterol, sulfur-containing amino acids (methionine, for example), and dietary acids poison us when consumed in amounts that exceed the body’s metabolic capabilities to detoxify and eliminate the excesses. Compared to the proper human diet, which is based on starches (see my February 2009 newsletter), animal foods burden us with three times more protein, fifteen times more fat, greater than 100 times more cholesterol, four times more methionine, and at least ten times more dietary acid. Furthermore, the toxic effects of these poisons are interactive. For example, excesses of protein, methionine, and dietary acids work together to destroy the bones. Excesses of dietary fat and cholesterol combine their deleterious effects to damage the arteries (atherosclerosis) and promote cancer. Let me provide some more details on how these five destructive elements from animal foods ruin your health.

 

Protein Overload

 

Once your protein needs are met then the excess must be eliminated from your body, primarily by your liver and kidneys. You can notice an overload of protein by the strong smell of urea in your body sweat and urine. The work of eliminating excess protein takes a toll even on healthy people. On average, 25% of kidney function is lost over a lifetime (70 years) from consuming the high animal-protein Western diet.1,2 For people with already damaged livers and kidneys, consuming excess protein will speed up the processes that lead to complete organ failure.3-7 Excess protein damages the bones. Doubling the dietary intake of protein increases the loss of calcium into the urine by 50%, fostering the development of osteoporosis and kidney stones.8

 

Lipotoxicity (Fat Overload)

 

The most recent report (for 2007 to 2008) on the epidemic of obesity in the US finds 33.8% of adults obese with 68.0% of all adults overweight.9 Dietary fats are almost effortlessly stored in your body fat.10 When consumed in excess, dietary fats also result in a surplus of fats stored in your liver, heart, and muscles. From all this over-accumulation, insulin resistance develops, contributing to other health problems, including heart disease, strokes, and type-2 diabetes.11 The extra pounds you carry around cause damage to the joints of your lower extremities (osteoarthritis). Excess fat in your diet and on your body alters your cellular metabolism, promoting cancers by many already discovered mechanisms.12

 

Cholesterol Overload

 

Cholesterol is only found in animal products. As an animal, you make all the cholesterol you need. Unfortunately, your capacity to eliminate it is limited to a little more than the amount you make. As a result, the cholesterol added by eating animal foods accumulates in your body parts, including your skin, tendons, and arteries. Cholesterol deposited in your arteries is a major contributor to vascular diseases of your heart and brain.13 Cholesterol also facilitates cancer development.14

 

Sulfur Toxicity

 

Overconsumption of sulfur-containing amino acids (for example, methionine) will cause you many unwelcome problems.15 Most noticeably, sulfur stinks, like rotten eggs, causing halitosis, body odor, and noxious flatus. Methionine is metabolized into homocysteine, a risk factor for heart attacks, strokes, peripheral vascular disease, venous thrombosis, dementia, Alzheimer’s disease, and depression. Sulfur feeds cancerous tumors and is known to be toxic to the tissues of the intestine. Sulfur-containing amino acids are metabolized into sulfuric acid—one of the most potent acids found in nature.

 

Acid Overload

 

After ingestion, your body must neutralize the over-abundance of endogenous dietary acids in the animal foods you eat. Your bones are the primary buffering system of your body.16-20 They counteract these dietary acids by releasing alkaline materials (carbonate, citrate, and sodium)—thereby the bones dissolve. Acids from animal foods also raise cortisol (steroid) levels in your body.21 An excess of steroid is another mechanism for further bone loss. The net result from this chronic acid poisoning is kidney stones and osteoporosis.

 

References:

 

Calculations based on information found in: Pennington J. Food Values of Portions Commonly Used—17th edition. Lippincott.

 

1) Brenner BM. Dietary protein intake and the progressive nature of kidney disease: the role of hemodynamically mediated glomerular injury in the pathogenesis of progressive glomerular sclerosis in aging, renal ablation, and intrinsic renal disease. N Engl J Med. 1982 Sep 9; 307(11): 652-9.

 

2) Meyer TW. Dietary protein intake and progressive glomerular sclerosis: the role of capillary hypertension and hyperperfusion in the progression of renal disease. Ann Intern Med. 1983 May; 98(5 Pt 2): 832-8.

 

3) Hansen HP. Effect of dietary protein restriction on prognosis in patients with diabetic nephropathy. Kidney Int. 2002 Jul; 62(1): 220-8.

 

4) Biesenbach G. Effect of mild dietary protein restriction on urinary protein excretion in patients with renal transplant fibrosis. Wien Med Wochenschr. 1996; 146(4): 75-8.

 

5) Pedrini MT. The effect of dietary protein restriction on the progression of diabetic and nondiabetic renal diseases: a meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 1996 Apr 1;124(7):627-32.

 

6) Cupisti A. Vegetarian diet alternated with conventional low-protein diet for patients with chronic renal failure. J Ren Nutr. 2002 Jan;12(1):32-7.

 

7) Bianchi GP. Vegetable versus animal protein diet in cirrhotic patients with chronic encephalopathy. A randomized cross-over comparison. J Intern Med. 1993 May; 233(5): 385-92.

 

8) Hegsted M, Schuette SA, Zemel MB, Linkswiler HM. Urinary calcium and calcium balance in young men as affected by level of protein and phosphorus intake. J Nutr. 1981 Mar;111(3):553-62.

 

9) Flegal KM, Carroll MD, Ogden CL, Curtin LR. Prevalence and trends in obesity among US adults, 1999-2008. JAMA. 2010 Jan 20;303(3):235-41.

 

10) Danforth E Jr. Diet and obesity. Am J Clin Nutr. 1985 May;41(5 Suppl):1132-45.

 

11) Schrauwen P. High-fat diet, muscular lipotoxicity and insulin resistance. Proc Nutr Soc. 2007 Feb;66(1):33-41.

 

12) Yecies JL, Manning BD. Chewing the fat on tumor cell metabolism. Cell. 2010 Jan 8;140(1):28-30.

 

13) Subramanian S, Chait A. The effect of dietary cholesterol on macrophage accumulation in adipose tissue: implications for systemic inflammation and atherosclerosis. Curr Opin Lipidol. 2009 Feb;20(1):39-44.

 

14) Morin RJ, Hu B, Peng SK, Sevanian A. Cholesterol oxides and carcinogenesis. J Clin Lab Anal. 1991;5(3):219-25.

 

15) The March 2005 McDougall Newsletter.

 

16) Remer T. Influence of diet on acid-base balance. Semin Dial. 2000 Jul-Aug;13(4):221-6.

 

17) Frassetto L.Diet, evolution and aging--the pathophysiologic effects of the post-agricultural inversion of the potassium-to-sodium and base-to-chloride ratios in the human diet. Eur J Nutr. 2001 Oct;40(5):200-13.

 

18) Remer T. Potential renal acid load of foods and its influence on urine pH. J Am Diet Assoc. 1995 Jul;95(7):791-7.

 

19) Barzel US. Excess dietary protein can adversely affect bone. J Nutr. 1998 Jun;128(6):1051-3.

 

20) Jajoo R, Song L, Rasmussen H, Harris SS, Dawson-Hughes B. Dietary acid-base balance, bone resorption, and calcium excretion. J Am Coll Nutr. 2006 Jun;25(3):224-30.

 

21)Maurer M. Neutralization of Western diet inhibits bone resorption independently of K intake and reduces cortisol secretion in humans. Am J Physiol Renal Physiol. 2003 Jan; 284(1): F32-40.

[Parrothead]

Where is this evidence though?

 

Yeah but none of these articles cite anything. They just say it. That's not evidence. I have done some reading. I still haven't come up with anything that convinces me it's bad.

 

If you are really interested I can cite some sources out of some of the books I have. But it will be an effort and something I'll have to do later this evening. So if you're serious about wanting to know let me know and I'll type them out. Just cause I like you. :D

 

I guess my family is filled with big meat eaters. My grandparents and great grandparents always ate meat. Of course that isn't going too far back.

 

I don't mean I eat pounds and pounds of meat a day, but yeah I have meat with every meal.

I know in my grandparents' day to be able to provide some form of meat for 3 meals one was considered to be successful. Up until a few months ago me and mine were big meat eaters too. Some type every single meal with dh having the lion's share. (He is down almost 30 pounds since we went to a plant based diet. Makes me sick how fast he is losing.:tongue_smilie:)

 

I have to go out again now. I'll check back this evening.

[Momof3littles]

Just with a quick look, a lot of those kidney-related citations seem to involve kidneys that aren't normal to begin with.

 

eta: on the meat angle, not in response to the citations above, there are some interesting correlations with meat. Most meat eaters tend to be "non compliant" patients to begin with, tend to smoke more, etc. Of course, that doesn't tease out the people who are eating pastured meats and who are health nuts, non smokers, etc. If you cast a wide net around "meat eaters," there's a great deal of likelihood you'll catch mostly non compliant types, with a smattering of those who do it for more health-oriented reasons and live an entirely different lifestyle.

 

http://garytaubes.com/2012/03/science-pseudoscience-nutritional-epidemiology-and-meat/

 

If you go through the quintiles, it is rather interesting.

 

eta: also important to remember that many low carb programs are NOT high protein. They are moderate protein, high fat. You can end up with glucose issues from excess protein too. Just noting that since I see a few "high protein" citations in the links above.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Momof3littles

[Parrothead]

Well I too could post an impressively cited piece which says completely the opposite. Leaving me as confused as when I started.

And that is the crux of the problem. One really has to do the research and then do what is best for one's self. It is a difficult position at times because of all the conflicting "evidence." I feel for anyone who hasn't found what it is that works for them. And the ones who live in a family where 2 or more different eating styles are needed.

[Aelwydd]

Where is this evidence though?

 

There are several, but the biggest, most prominent is the so-called China study, published by Dr. Campbell and several other Chinese epidemiologists. He published a book detailing the study, which is the biggest, largest nutritional study ever done (and nutritional studies are notoriously difficult to conduct). It was a 20 year, prospective, with a cohort of millions of people--all of which, in terms of epidemiology, gives the data gleaned from it tremendous weight. It is absolutely massive, in terms of gaining the very highest quality of evidence.

 

I've read the raw data, methodology, and results of the study, and I've read the critiques of it. The strongest critique is probably this one.

 

If you're interested, you can buy the study on Amazon. Or, you can read this brief summation by Wikipedia here.

 

It gained some prominence with the movie "Forks Over Knives," and while that documentary did skim the surface, there is really so much more information in the book that is helpful than is presented in that film.

 

If the China study was alone in its assertion, I would consider it provocative information, but merely preliminary. However, there are a number of studies that have looked at intake of animal protein and fat and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and other ailments. Many of them compare populations such as Japanese men to their American counterpart, such as this one, that found animal protein to be suspect in the latter group's higher rate of myocardic farction (heart attack).

 

Other studies to look at:

 

From the New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198503283121302

 

Journal of National Cancer Research:

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/3018342/reload=0;jsessionid=fCMEfyICKTHZyxvo4HoD.2

 

British Journal of Cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2008837/

 

A study on how animal proteins and fats may stimulate early androgen production in children (causing early puberty):

http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/5/1321.abstract

 

Lymphomas and Animal-based Proteins: ttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(76)91694-9/abstract

 

Pancreatic Cancer and animal proteins and fats:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y00x368340054240/

 

 

There are a lot more, but to give you an idea of how this is being studied from many different angles. The idea is to form an overall body of evidence, because no one single study is enough to "prove" a theory.

 

Everyone will assess risk differently, but for me, my training in public health included an extensive study of the body and its systems. I took the same pre-med science classes as the nursing and pre-med students did. So, my analysis is influenced by what I was taught. For example, a lipid cell is a storage unit for the body; not just for energy, but for whatever toxins or hormones came with that macronutrient. Lipid cells actually excrete estrogen, as well. So, when you combine those two things: potentially DNA-damaging toxin stored in a cell, mixed with a hormone that is an "on" switch for cancer, you can see why I'm leery of two things: high fat diets, and diets that cause one to lose fat rapidly.

 

Losing fat rapidly means you are releasing all those stored toxins all at one time into your system. It's not a good idea, and definitely is not something I'd do, without increasing my intake of foods that absorb and bind with these free radicals to make them inert. Yet, LCHF do not seem to emphasize the intake of such cancer-fighting foods such as carrots (it's full of antioxidants) or fresh, organic vegetables. They mostly seem to emphasize lots of animal based fats and proteins, which is a cause of concern as well. Because animal based fats will contain all the toxins of the environment within which the animal was raised. It will contain hormones, which are lipid soluble, and do not just "wash out" of the body.

 

These are readily absorbed into the human body, and the digestion of proteins themselves, leads to acidosis. FYI, high consumption of carbs and sugars leads to this as well--which is why I maintain that green vegetables should be basis of a diet, and not a high carb, nor a high fat, nor a high protein diet. All of these lead to pH imbalances in the body.

 

By the way, all of this is easily verifiable. Just do some research on "diet" and "acidosis" and it will bring up multiple sources. What I'm telling you is what I was taught in class, and what was stated in my A&P textbooks and Nutrition classes.

 

Acidosis is a cause for concern, because it leads to inflammation--and inflammation is a core issue for many conditions, from RA to heart disease.

 

So, that's why I advocate a diet that is "high" in properties that reduce acidosis, that are antioxidant in nature, and that provides nutrients and vitamins essential to good cardiovascular and immune health. For me, that is a vegetable based diet--not meat based, not bean or rice based, not carb based, though I do eat all of these in small portions. Vegetable based. I eat tons of green leafy salads, I eat raw carrots, raw broccoli, I juice beets, I eat raw celery, etc. I eat other stuff on the side.

 

Since we adopted this diet, my dh, who was previously a big meat eater, has seen his blood pressure drop from what is called "malignant hypertension" (think 260/140) to the 130/80 range in the matter of a few months. And he had been on several medications--they just couldn't control his BP. Also, he's had an issue with acne, and that has almost completely cleared up. The only time he has an outbreak, is if he breaks his diet and either eats red meat or eats a refine carb. Either one stirs up the inflammatory process for him.

 

I feel fairly confident that a LCHF diet would probably kill him, given the way he reacts to animal fats in his diets, and how he has lost weight, feels very good, and is healthy now that is on a vegetable -based diet.

 

As others have said though, you have to find what works for you. I'm just explaining my reasoning for why I believe a LCHF and other fad diets are inherently flawed. They help in the interim, but what I worry about is the long term effects on the body due to the influx of all the proteins and animal fats.

[Aelwydd]

I wonder if you've been looking at the same resources I have over the last few years. I've come to a lot of the same conclusions.

 

It's quite possible! :)

 

I know I pick on the RCC and the EO at times, but one of the areas wherein I admire both Churches is their wisdom on diet. I think that when considering what is good to eat today, it's helpful to look back on the past and see what our ancestors found to be helpful and harmful. They may not have always understood the science, but I think they were often quite aware of certain patterns and correlations. I appeal to science for many answers, but I also look to the spiritual to inform my opinions. I think that there is ancient wisdom in the fasting seasons of the Church (and in other religions), and this near-universal understanding among so many that it is good to abstain from meats and other rich foods for a time, is not something I readily dismiss.

[Juniper]

It's quite possible! :)

 

I know I pick on the RCC and the EO at times, but one of the areas wherein I admire both Churches is their wisdom on diet. I think that when considering what is good to eat today, it's helpful to look back on the past and see what our ancestors found to be helpful and harmful. They may not have always understood the science, but I think they were often quite aware of certain patterns and correlations. I appeal to science for many answers, but I also look to the spiritual to inform my opinions. I think that there is ancient wisdom in the fasting seasons of the Church (and in other religions), and this near-universal understanding among so many that it is good to abstain from meats and other rich foods for a time, is not something I readily dismiss.

I agree with much of what you are posting. I just wanted to point out that over at Mark's Daily Apple (which is LCHF) there has been much discussion on regular fasting. So I think this is something that is becoming more common in the LCHF community.

 

That said, being EO, starches are going to happen ;)

[justamouse]

It's quite possible! :)

 

I know I pick on the RCC and the EO at times, but one of the areas wherein I admire both Churches is their wisdom on diet. I think that when considering what is good to eat today, it's helpful to look back on the past and see what our ancestors found to be helpful and harmful. They may not have always understood the science, but I think they were often quite aware of certain patterns and correlations. I appeal to science for many answers, but I also look to the spiritual to inform my opinions. I think that there is ancient wisdom in the fasting seasons of the Church (and in other religions), and this near-universal understanding among so many that it is good to abstain from meats and other rich foods for a time, is not something I readily dismiss.

 

I can't say where my expertise is, because I just can't on the internet. So take it with a grain of salt. But Dh and I read this stuff all day long and twice on weekends. We have researchers that we talk to that also read it all day long. But let me say that the whole premise of eating meat and vegetables is about as caveman as it gets. Breads and carbs are new to the scene, when people started settling, and growing crops.

Sugar - (excluding honey) was even more recent.

 

If people want to see evolution, I think it's in diet. Some have adapted, some haven't.

[Momof3littles]

There are several, but the biggest, most prominent is the so-called China study, published by Dr. Campbell and several other Chinese epidemiologists. He published a book detailing the study, which is the biggest, largest nutritional study ever done (and nutritional studies are notoriously difficult to conduct). It was a 20 year, prospective, with a cohort of millions of people--all of which, in terms of epidemiology, gives the data gleaned from it tremendous weight. It is absolutely massive, in terms of gaining the very highest quality of evidence.

 

I've read the raw data, methodology, and results of the study, and I've read the critiques of it. The strongest critique is probably this one.

 

If you're interested, you can buy the study on Amazon. Or, you can read this brief summation by Wikipedia here.

 

It gained some prominence with the movie "Forks Over Knives," and while that documentary did skim the surface, there is really so much more information in the book that is helpful than is presented in that film.

 

If the China study was alone in its assertion, I would consider it provocative information, but merely preliminary. However, there are a number of studies that have looked at intake of animal protein and fat and heart disease, cancer, stroke, and other ailments. Many of them compare populations such as Japanese men to their American counterpart, such as this one, that found animal protein to be suspect in the latter group's higher rate of myocardic farction (heart attack).

 

Other studies to look at:

 

From the New England Journal of Medicine: http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM198503283121302

 

Journal of National Cancer Research:

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/3018342/reload=0;jsessionid=fCMEfyICKTHZyxvo4HoD.2

 

British Journal of Cancer:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2008837/

 

A study on how animal proteins and fats may stimulate early androgen production in children (causing early puberty):

http://www.ajcn.org/content/90/5/1321.abstract

 

Lymphomas and Animal-based Proteins: ttp://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(76)91694-9/abstract

 

Pancreatic Cancer and animal proteins and fats:

http://www.springerlink.com/content/y00x368340054240/

 

 

There are a lot more, but to give you an idea of how this is being studied from many different angles. The idea is to form an overall body of evidence, because no one single study is enough to "prove" a theory.

 

Everyone will assess risk differently, but for me, my training in public health included an extensive study of the body and its systems. I took the same pre-med science classes as the nursing and pre-med students did. So, my analysis is influenced by what I was taught. For example, a lipid cell is a storage unit for the body; not just for energy, but for whatever toxins or hormones came with that macronutrient. Lipid cells actually excrete estrogen, as well. So, when you combine those two things: potentially DNA-damaging toxin stored in a cell, mixed with a hormone that is an "on" switch for cancer, you can see why I'm leery of two things: high fat diets, and diets that cause one to lose fat rapidly.

 

Losing fat rapidly means you are releasing all those stored toxins all at one time into your system. It's not a good idea, and definitely is not something I'd do, without increasing my intake of foods that absorb and bind with these free radicals to make them inert. Yet, LCHF do not seem to emphasize the intake of such cancer-fighting foods such as carrots (it's full of antioxidants) or fresh, organic vegetables. They mostly seem to emphasize lots of animal based fats and proteins, which is a cause of concern as well. Because animal based fats will contain all the toxins of the environment within which the animal was raised. It will contain hormones, which are lipid soluble, and do not just "wash out" of the body.

 

These are readily absorbed into the human body, and the digestion of proteins themselves, leads to acidosis. FYI, high consumption of carbs and sugars leads to this as well--which is why I maintain that green vegetables should be basis of a diet, and not a high carb, nor a high fat, nor a high protein diet. All of these lead to pH imbalances in the body.

 

By the way, all of this is easily verifiable. Just do some research on "diet" and "acidosis" and it will bring up multiple sources. What I'm telling you is what I was taught in class, and what was stated in my A&P textbooks and Nutrition classes.

 

Acidosis is a cause for concern, because it leads to inflammation--and inflammation is a core issue for many conditions, from RA to heart disease.

 

So, that's why I advocate a diet that is "high" in properties that reduce acidosis, that are antioxidant in nature, and that provides nutrients and vitamins essential to good cardiovascular and immune health. For me, that is a vegetable based diet--not meat based, not bean or rice based, not carb based, though I do eat all of these in small portions. Vegetable based. I eat tons of green leafy salads, I eat raw carrots, raw broccoli, I juice beets, I eat raw celery, etc. I eat other stuff on the side.

 

Since we adopted this diet, my dh, who was previously a big meat eater, has seen his blood pressure drop from what is called "malignant hypertension" (think 260/140) to the 130/80 range in the matter of a few months. And he had been on several medications--they just couldn't control his BP. Also, he's had an issue with acne, and that has almost completely cleared up. The only time he has an outbreak, is if he breaks his diet and either eats red meat or eats a refine carb. Either one stirs up the inflammatory process for him.

 

I feel fairly confident that a LCHF diet would probably kill him, given the way he reacts to animal fats in his diets, and how he has lost weight, feels very good, and is healthy now that is on a vegetable -based diet.

 

As others have said though, you have to find what works for you. I'm just explaining my reasoning for why I believe a LCHF and other fad diets are inherently flawed. They help in the interim, but what I worry about is the long term effects on the body due to the influx of all the proteins and animal fats.

Toddler in lap...

Have you read the full studies on the abstracts above? With just a quick look through them I don't see much in the methodology explaining whether they teased out compliance types of issues. Are the people consuming more animal protein seeing their doctor as often? Are they smokers? Are they already overweight (which doesn't have to necessarily be due to their elevated animal protein consumption)? Do they have other histories that make them less compliant patients and meat consumption is just one marker of other behavioral and lifestyle issues? How many studies do we see teasing out pastured meats vs. corn fed meats? Of course, again, you'd have to worry about confounding variables on the other side...people making those choices are probably more health-aware to begin with.

 

A few years ago at UNC there was an NIH funded study that got a lot of press. The headline was "fat causes strokes in women" in all of the media outlets. In the study, the "fat" was delivered in the form of cheetos, baked goods, etc. but of course, it had to be the fat. I see quite a bit of that when I look through studies.

 

eta: and any study that involves patients self reporting consumption needs to be taken for what it is. I'm guessing there is a good bit of fibbing, confusion, and perhaps a good bit of inaccuracy. Human nature, IME.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Momof3littles

[M&MsMom]

Well I too could post an impressively cited piece which says completely the opposite. Leaving me as confused as when I started.

 

You asked for evidence, I gave it to you. Now you're faulting me for giving you researched based evidence? No win situation, I guess.

[Momof3littles]

I think the tough part is we can trade research all day, but a good portion of it is observational, and I think a lot of the conclusions drawn from nutrition research are questionable when you look at the data. It is tough to really run a truly randomized, controlled study with diet. There are so many confounders when it comes to lifestyle choices that go with different ways of eating, it makes it really tough to tease anything out.

 

At this point, i think most epidemiological research on nutrition just isn't very convincing.

[justamouse]

I think the tough part is we can trade research all day, but a good portion of it is observational, and I think a lot of the conclusions drawn from nutrition research are questionable when you look at the data. It is tough to really run a truly randomized, controlled study with diet. There are so many confounders when it comes to lifestyle choices that go with different ways of eating, it makes it really tough to tease anything out.

 

At this point, i think most epidemiological research on nutrition just isn't very convincing.

 

So true. Take what resonates with your own history and see if it works.

[Momof3littles]

One of my all time favorite things I read about...and I'll have to dig up the book so I can quote the exact study talked about....was a very heavily quoted study about cholesterol. Fat was concluded as causing cholesterol problems because scientists fed fat to rabbits and it raised their cholesterol. Well yeah, but they are rabbits and rabbits don't eat fatty meat. These are the sort of conclusions drawn on "studies" all the time.

Good Calories, Bad Calories talks about it.

 

Yes, when scientists work from what may be a flawed conclusion and keep building on it, we can end up with a house of cards.

[Aelwydd]

Toddler in lap...

Have you read the full studies on the abstracts above?

 

Yes, but I don't think it's legal for me to copy and paste them onto here. I read them through my institution's access a while ago.

 

With just a quick look through them I don't see much in the methodology explaining whether they teased out compliance types of issues. Are the people consuming more animal protein seeing their doctor as often? Are they smokers? Are they already overweight (which doesn't have to necessarily be due to their elevated animal protein consumption)? Do they have other histories that make them less compliant patients and meat consumption is just one marker of other behavioral and lifestyle issues? How many studies do we see teasing out pastured meats vs. corn fed meats? Of course, again, you'd have to worry about confounding variables on the other side...people making those choices are probably more health-aware to begin with.

 

And this is why designing, implementing, and analyzing nutritional studies is so very difficult. It's why the China Study gained quick and early prominence, because you just don't get the opportunity to look at data for that big a population for a group that is, genetically speaking, much more homogenized than say our population. (Though China does have some huge diversity, don't get me wrong.) No study can control for examine every single one of those stipulations you mentioned, which is why I look at a whole bunch of studies that look at only one piece. I look at both the studies and I look at critiques or opposing studies. That is how I use studies, because all of them are flawed to some degree, and nutritional studies, by their very nature, are notoriously difficult to control for confounding factors.

 

It's also why I look at the history of diet as well, because modern science cannot ever give us a clear, flawless conclusion. It can only give us mild to strong directional cues, IMO. Kind of like the old "You're getting warmer...ok, hot..really hot!! Oh, now you're getting colder..." game.

 

A few years ago at UNC there was an NIH funded study that got a lot of press. The headline was "fat causes strokes in women" in all of the media outlets. In the study, the "fat" was delivered in the form of cheetos, baked goods, etc. but of course, it had to be the fat. I see quite a bit of that when I look through studies.

 

eta: and any study that involves patients self reporting consumption needs to be taken for what it is. I'm guessing there is a good bit of fibbing, confusion, and perhaps a good bit of inaccuracy. Human nature, IME.

 

Of course. I've mentioned before that my degree and training is in public health. That includes a lot of work in statistics and understanding the nature of studies. I gave a list of studies for others to research, but I don't have the time to go individually through each data table and explain the weaknesses of each one. My point was just to provide some of the evidence that Wendy requested. The relative strengths or weaknesses of each study is something that you and others will have to assess, based upon the mechanisms of data collection, what it included or excluded, and how it was weighed, etc. That's individual assessment, and I'm not here to provide that for Wendy, because I think that is something each person needs to do for him or herself. I'm only trying to show that for my position, there is evidence.

[Momof3littles]

Yes, but I don't think it's legal for me to copy and paste them onto here. I read them through my institution's access a while ago.

 

 

 

And this is why designing, implementing, and analyzing nutritional studies is so very difficult. It's why the China Study gained quick and early prominence, because you just don't get the opportunity to look at data for that big a population for a group that is, genetically speaking, much more homogenized than say our population. (Though China does have some huge diversity, don't get me wrong.) No study can control for examine every single one of those stipulations you mentioned, which is why I look at a whole bunch of studies that look at only one piece. I look at both the studies and I look at critiques or opposing studies. That is how I use studies, because all of them are flawed to some degree, and nutritional studies, by their very nature, are notoriously difficult to control for confounding factors.

 

It's also why I look at the history of diet as well, because modern science cannot ever give us a clear, flawless conclusion. It can only give us mild to strong directional cues, IMO. Kind of like the old "You're getting warmer...ok, hot..really hot!! Oh, now you're getting colder..." game.

 

 

 

Of course. I've mentioned before that my degree and training is in public health. That includes a lot of work in statistics and understanding the nature of studies. I gave a list of studies for others to research, but I don't have the time to go individually through each data table and explain the weaknesses of each one. My point was just to provide some of the evidence that Wendy requested. The relative strengths or weaknesses of each study is something that you and others will have to assess, based upon the mechanisms of data collection, what it included or excluded, and how it was weighed, etc. That's individual assessment, and I'm not here to provide that for Wendy, because I think that is something each person needs to do for him or herself. I'm only trying to show that for my position, there is evidence.

 

Sure, and the other side feels they have evidence as well. Or at least evidence that a good bit of the "evidence" has serious flaws and perhaps draws questionable conclusions to prop up flawed hypotheses. I can pull up any number of studies on benefits of LC as well for metabolic syndrome, hypertension, acne, PCOS/fertility, triglyceride levels, particle size, etc.

 

I have a degree as a physical therapist, have a master's degree, have engaged in research and have taken statistical courses, and I feel quite comfy reading most studies. I still think there are a lot of flaws in the conclusions that have been drawn in a good bit of the popular research.

 

BUt at this point, I guess I will just agree to disagree. I do thank you for taking the time to type all of that out.

Edited July 18, 2012 by Momof3littles

[Aelwydd]

IBut let me say that the whole premise of eating meat and vegetables is about as caveman as it gets. Breads and carbs are new to the scene, when people started settling, and growing crops.

Sugar - (excluding honey) was even more recent.

 

If people want to see evolution, I think it's in diet. Some have adapted, some haven't.

 

 

I eat meat and vegetables. And like the caveman, who found meat to be a relatively scarce item (due to varying availability, conditions for hunting, and the high energy expenditure involved), I also limit my portions. I doubt very much that there were many cavemen who ate meat three times a day, or in near the portions we eat nowadays. A man or a tribe might go for many days before making a kill.

 

They heavily subsidized eating anything they might find: an egg, a lizard, some insects. But these are minute portions of animal fat and protein.

 

Whereas plants, berries, nuts, legumes, mushrooms would be more accessible, more of the time (winter, though, makes for hard times all around).

 

Unlike the cavemen, I do not wake up and spend 90% of my day walking, walking, moving, walking, running, walking, climbing, and so forth, all over the landscape looking for food.

 

So, yes, they ate meat, but it was the following equation:

 

 

(Energy-rich meat) - (scarcity of such food source) - (high energy expenditure finding it) - (high energy toll from environment) + (Plant based food sources) = either little or no net gain in caloric intake.

 

That is far and away much different from the average American diet filled with energy dense foods such as red meat (with no energy spent hunting it), cheese, breads, etc, combined with our artificially cooled and heated shelter, our yearly access to food (no scarcity in the winter), and a diet based on foods full of antibiotics and hormones.

 

I'm sorry, but I just can't put a 12 oz. NY steak, some broccoli, and a cup of ice cream for dessert on the same level as the cavemen eating some dried beef jerky (from lean, grass fed animals) and some berries for dinner.

 

I'm not saying you should change your diet, BTW. I am just protesting the equivocation of the cavemen diet with the LCHF diet. They are worlds apart in terms of lifestyle.

[Aelwydd]

Sure, and the other side feels they have evidence as well. Or at least evidence that a good bit of the "evidence" has serious flaws and perhaps draws questionable conclusions to prop up flawed hypotheses. I can pull up any number of studies on benefits of LC as well for metabolic syndrome, hypertension, acne, PCOS/fertility, triglyceride levels, particle size, etc.

 

I have a degree as a physical therapist, have a master's degree, have engaged in research and have taken statistical courses, and I feel quite comfy reading most studies. I still think there are a lot of flaws in the conclusions that have been drawn in a good bit of the popular research.

 

BUt at this point, I guess I will just agree to disagree. I do thank you for taking the time to type all of that out.

 

What exactly are we disagreeing about? You asked me a series of questions, and I stated that I couldn't C&P the studies here. I said that they contained flaws, as all studies did. I cited them so people, especially trained and knowledgeable people such as yourself, can go examine them and reach your own conclusions. I read them a few years back (doing a paper) and I remember some of it as being quite compelling (the study with the androgens in prepubescent kids was one), some of it as being very limited or questionable.

 

If you go back to my post to Wendy about the China Study, I also included a link to one of the strongest critiques of it (negative). I don't think I'm trying to argue with you or anyone else that there is both positive and negative evidence for different kinds of diets. What I am trying to establish is enough evidence that the LCHF diet can be called into question. That it may pose health risks. That is all I am saying.

[Aelwydd]

A lot of these studies are observational though. They aren't technically scientific in the sense you set up a control group, etc. Which is understandable because that wouldn't be ethical.

 

That's what sucks about nutritional science, IMO. Of all the different epidemiological fields, I think nutrition is probably one my least favorite fields. It's so difficult to find well-designed, prospective cohort studies for large populations, that are able to control for many factors. And so many studies are funded by and biased towards certain industries or groups.

 

And then there is the fact of who funds these studies. Information is left out, etc.

 

Yes, and the beef/pork/chicken industry, and the dairy industry, and the corn industry, and the soy industry -- they all have their own studies.

 

 

I still don't think this is much to go by. I mean can we really conclude a whole bunch of things from these studies?

 

No, I wasn't trying to post an exhaustive list though, just trying to give some different angles on how animal proteins and fats are being studied in relation to different conditions, and the results thus far.

 

I do appreciate you taking the time to type all of this. I have done some reading. I guess it has come down to what I believe and what I have found works for me. And like you said, it's probably a lot individual.

 

I agree, it comes down to your own assessment. We all have our own history and bias. Mine stems from my husband's medical history. And since it's really hard to find truly objective data, I think it does come down to what I feel is best for me, but keeping me mind open for change if I come across new information.

[Aelwydd]

At this point, i think most epidemiological research on nutrition just isn't very convincing.

 

I missed this, but I totally, totally agree. We're still decades away from forming any real scientific theory on diet.

[butterflymommy]

I eat high carb/ low protein diet/ mostly vegan. I'm a picky eater and that is what my food preference tends to be.

 

I've never had a weight problem. After 7 kids I weigh 4 lbs more than when I met my husband 16 years ago (5'9" and 139 lbs). I'm 10 months post partum so those 4 lbs will probably be gone by baby's 1rst bday.

 

There was a study done recently that found little difference between low and high carb in terms of weight. The conclusion was that it comes down to calories. Protein and fats DO have strong suppression on appetite. So if you eat a high fat/ protein diet you're much less likely to knowingly or unknowingly cheat by consuming more food than you had intended to. If you recall the "Fat Head" film, while he did restrict carbs, he also counted calories and exercised moderately.

 

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203462304577138993430777580.html

 

In the study, to be published in Wednesday's issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association, 25 young, healthy men and women were deliberately fed nearly 1,000 excess calories a day for 56 days, but with diets that varied in the amounts of protein and fat.

While those on a low-protein diet—about 5% of total calories—gained less weight than those on a normal- or high-protein regimen, body fat among participants in all three groups increased by about the same amount. Typical protein consumption is about 15% of calories, while the U.S. government recommends it make up between 17% and 21% of total daily calories.

"The body was confronted with excess calories, but it didn't care where they came from," said George Bray, a researcher at Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, La., and lead author of the report. "The only thing it can do is put them into fat."

The findings suggest that it matters little whether a diet is high or low in fat, carbohydrates or protein, it's calories that build body fat.

"That's a very important message," said Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, an obesity researcher at Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minn., who wasn't involved with the study. "Weight gain depends primarily on excess calories, regardless of the composition of the meal."

 

(the quote isn't from the link article but refers to the same study)

 

An interesting anecdote-- when losing baby weight, I decided to try my own version of the twinkie diet. I ate nothing but cookies and raw fruits and veggies but kept my intake to about 1800 calories a day (I'm breastfeeding). Sure enough I continued to lose weight and actually lost more quickly than when I was eating normally and including more fats and proteins. I didn't do it for long or keep careful records, otherwise I might have made my own diet-debunking documentary to counter Fat Head. :) I'm down nearly 20 lbs from my weight post delivery.

[Nestof3]

I have gotten so lost in this thread. Could all those who eat meat neat every day and/or full-fat dairy please post how much weight you lost by switching to this and how long it took. Please also note whether you added any form of exercise.

[justamouse]

I eat meat and vegetables. And like the caveman, who found meat to be a relatively scarce item (due to varying availability, conditions for hunting, and the high energy expenditure involved), I also limit my portions. I doubt very much that there were many cavemen who ate meat three times a day, or in near the portions we eat nowadays. A man or a tribe might go for many days before making a kill.

 

See, this is where I get peeved. No one who advocates HFLC says to eat meat three meals a day.

They heavily subsidized eating anything they might find: an egg, a lizard, some insects. But these are minute portions of animal fat and protein.

 

Whereas plants, berries, nuts, legumes, mushrooms would be more accessible, more of the time (winter, though, makes for hard times all around).

 

Again, no one who advocates HFLC says to not eat these foods-they're practically on the freebie list (though I am too sensitive to eat berries at this time)

 

Unlike the cavemen, I do not wake up and spend 90% of my day walking, walking, moving, walking, running, walking, climbing, and so forth, all over the landscape looking for food.

 

This is a fact of modern life, I agree, and I am spoiled in that I can. Though people who live in cities walk a LOT, so I can't say that a Manhattan dweller gets no exersize.

 

So, yes, they ate meat, but it was the following equation:

 

 

(Energy-rich meat) - (scarcity of such food source) - (high energy expenditure finding it) - (high energy toll from environment) + (Plant based food sources) = either little or no net gain in caloric intake.

 

I would like to also put in here that the meat was far superior, non corn fed, wild and was an abundant source of nutrients and trace minerals.

 

That is far and away much different from the average American diet filled with energy dense foods such as red meat (with no energy spent hunting it), cheese, breads, etc, combined with our artificially cooled and heated shelter, our yearly access to food (no scarcity in the winter), and a diet based on foods full of antibiotics and hormones.

 

I'm sorry, but I just can't put a 12 oz. NY steak, some broccoli, and a cup of ice cream for dessert on the same level as the cavemen eating some dried beef jerky (from lean, grass fed animals) and some berries for dinner.

Again, those who advocate for a HFLC diet wouldn't contemplate ice cream. Another reason my head spins in these responses.

 

 

I'm not saying you should change your diet, BTW. I am just protesting the equivocation of the cavemen diet with the LCHF diet. They are worlds apart in terms of lifestyle.

 

Anthropolgical evidense and even remote peoples such as the Kung! and Inuit show that fat consumption was very high.

[nono]

For Nestof3:

 

I eat full fat dairy, and some form of protein daily. The majority of my food is vegetables. This is the way I ate until 2 years ago, when I decided I needed to rearrange my diet and eat more carbs because I wanted to take my running to the next level. So more carbs was basically wheats, pasta and rice. I consumed the same number of calories. I ran slightly more mileage on a year over year basis.

 

I gained 20 lbs.

 

Since returning to my normal eating habits, and adding bacon at breakfast 4x a week:tongue_smilie:, I am down 10 lbs., and it is clearly the excess fat that was around my middle and thighs. I'm still in the 1800-1950 calories per day range. I do have an extremely active lifestyle. I run 30-40 mpw, I swim 1-2x a week on a masters swim team. Yoga a couple times a week. Dog walking daily. I don't live in air conditioning (much -- though I did have it on for the last 3 days). Most days, my car never leaves the driveway, but I do leave the house. So more walking there. :D 70-75% of my grocery items are fresh produce. The check out ladies always marvel at how much veggies I buy. In the summer, we get a lot of local fruit. The rest of the year? Mostly apples and citrus. My children don't know that dessert is a course. They have no concept! :lol:

 

The only change for me in the last 60 days was swapping out the grains (mostly whole, but not the rice) for more fat varieties to mostly make more sauces and such for my veggies. Also, I've been consciously working to get more fiber into my system. It's frustrating to realize how little fiber is in even our "whole" wheats.

 

I'm a study of one. But if the Indians are correct with the dosha concept, that means about 33% of the folks out there might benefit just like I have.

[justamouse]

I have gotten so lost in this thread. Could all those who eat meat neat every day and/or full-fat dairy please post how much weight you lost by switching to this and how long it took. Please also note whether you added any form of exercise.

 

 

I've been eating this way for 21 days. At first I lost 15 pounds and then as I played with carbs such as fruits I gained back. So now I'm at a loss of 13 pounds.

 

I eat eggs almost every morning witth heavy cream in my coffee. Cheese, and pastured butter. I think I posted about 14oo calories in a previous thread.

 

Lunch was a small salad and blue cheese dressing.

 

Dinner was zuchinni, string bean, onions, and garlic sautee, with coconut oil and butter, in a balsalmic reduction and about 1/2 a porkchop because I was so full.

 

I do have and eat full fat, 10%, yogurt, but if I eat a less fat yogurt, it's too much lactose for me and I'll gain weight right back. I Feed my stringbean kids full fat milk, but right now I can't even drink that.

 

I don't exersize. Not like going to classes and such. But I am very active. Even today before these crazy storms came though I was in the pool swimming, and teaching the kids how to dive. We are in a walking town so we walk, and we hike often on weekends because we have a lot of state park trails BUTBUTBUT, we've not been doing that because my Dd is still recovering from an operation.

 

Like I said, I've lost about 13 pounds.

[swellmomma]

What made americans fat?

 

 

I did. *phew* it is such a relief to get that off my chest. You have no idea what a weight I was carrying around with me. I didn't mean to make them all fat, it started as a test of subliminal messaging, and unfortunately I forgot to include a stop term and so now people eat and eat and eat, and it is all my fault! Please forgive me.

[dm379]

What made americans fat?

 

 

I did. *phew* it is such a relief to get that off my chest. You have no idea what a weight I was carrying around with me. I didn't mean to make them all fat, it started as a test of subliminal messaging, and unfortunately I forgot to include a stop term and so now people eat and eat and eat, and it is all my fault! Please forgive me.

 

can I sue for that? I need a new car

[swellmomma]

can I sue for that? I need a new car

 

No, or I will increase the messages to make you eat more ;)

[Aelwydd]

Anthropolgical evidense and even remote peoples such as the Kung! and Inuit show that fat consumption was very high.

 

But that doesn't really tell me anything though. How much is "very high?" That's a relative term. It's hard for me to imagine our earliest predecessors being able to hunt and gather enough food from their dangerous, and extreme environment to constitute a "very high" fat consumption in their diets.

 

According to this document, on early hominid development, it is believed that the last common ancestor between humans and primates, the first hominid species, had a diet very similar to what primates eat today.

 

 

It states, "Total fat intake, especially of serum-cholesterol-raising saturated and trans fatty acids, must have been greatly below current American and European levels; cholesterol intake would have been minimal."

 

It goes on to explain how the addition of animal meat helped provide the amino acids necessary for complex brain structure, and a resultant evolutionary step forward. However, it states that,

 

"

Increasing dependence on cereal grains as an energy source decreased dietary breadth and necessarily reduced consumption of fruits and vegetables which had been prime foodstuffs throughout primate and hominid evolution. Paleolithic humans commonly obtained 65% of their food energy from fruits and vegetables (often from 50 to 100 individual species over a year’s time), but becoming dependent on grains may have reduced intake of fruits and vegetables to 20% or less of total energy intake."

 

If 65% of their diet is obtained from fruits and vegetables, are they only eating or primarily eating only those which have high fat content? Most vegetables are not fatty, though nuts do have a high content. I find it difficult to fathom a situation where they could consistently and easily maintain a diet of >35% fat consumption, given the difficulties and vagaries of life during that time period. I have heard and read many times that our ancestors constantly faced the problem of food scarcity. Fat is the most caloric-dense macro nutrient there is. I don't understand how that could make up the majority of their diets, when such nutrient-rich foods tended to be the hardest to obtain.

 

The paper goes on to say:

 

"Dietary fat and coronary heart disease (CHD) - While many other dietary, behavioral and genetic factors influence the inception and progression of coronary heart disease, hypercholesterolemia is a paramount factor. Recently-studied hunter-gatherers have serum total cholesterol levels averaging 125 mg/dl (Eaton, 1988), a value within the range for free-living non-human primates (Eaton, 1992). Human societies with similar average serum total cholesterol levels have vanishingly low prevalences of CHD. Americans and other affluent Westerners, conversely, have average total serum cholesterol values exceeding 200 mg/dl - well outside the "natural" primate range - and, for these populations, CHD is the single leading cause of mortality.

 

Evidence linking dietary fat to serum total cholesterol concentrations is incontrovertible: the prime agents are saturated and trans fatty acids.

For ancestral humans the cholesterol-raising saturated fatty acids constituted about 5% of total energy intake and trans fatty acid intake was almost negligible.

For Americans, cholesterol-raising saturated fatty acids approach 15% of dietary energy while hydrogenated vegetable fats and oils provide an unprecedented quantity of trans fats (Eaton, 1997)."

 

 

 

Am I missing something? I don't get the impression at all that primitive man had frequent or reliable enough access to such fat rich sources as meats, eggs, nuts to comprise the majority, or even a huge portion of it.

 

 

 

 

 

Also, as a side note, the LCHF diet is a variant of the "Ketogenic Diet," which has been used to treat epileptics. You can read about it here.

 

 

I do agree that highly refined grains and many carbs are really detrimental. I just don't know that the kinds of meats, veggies, grains, and so forth that most of us eat can be compared to what they eat, especially in terms of portions. There are tens of thousands of years that separate us in cultural/pastoral practices and development, too. We have far more hormones and chemicals in our food now. All that is readily stored in fat, and is why, again, I am not sanguine about pursuing a diet high in fat.

 

 

 

Maybe I'm totally misunderstanding anyway. To be frank, I don't keep careful tabs on my fat intake. I eat in ratios like, 1/2 of my plate is vegetables, 1/4 is rice or beans, and maybe 1/4 is a fruit or a meat. The vegetable may be an eggplant or an avocado, which obviously both have high fat. Usually, it's something like tonight though, where I had a plate full of baby spinach salad (with cucumber slices, tomatoes, and no salad dressing), and 3/4 cup of home made black bean soup (vegetarian).

 

I drank water with it. I did not have bread, or butter, or sour cream, or anything else on the side. Another common meal for me is to take an onion, some mushrooms, and a red or yellow pepper, slice them up, and saute them in olive oil for a lunch.

 

 

 

 

I often make smoothies out of spinach leaves, bananas, berries, raw local honey, coconut or almond milk, and carrots. I mix and match, but is something I usually have one a day. I juice beets and carrots and drink tons of water.

 

Sometimes we eat things like potato chips (made from organic, non-GMO sources) or granola (again, organic, non-GMO). If we eat pizza, we make it ourselves. Last night, we had salmon, wild rice, and peas.

 

 

 

But yeah, that's the "diet" we're on, although mostly it's just light snacking most of the day and then dinner. We don't eschew carbs, but we do limit them. Fat, we limit. Protein, we don't worry about. We get enough.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Juniper]

But that doesn't really tell me anything though. How much is "very high?" That's a relative term.

 

I grew up in part around the inuit population. I cannot give you an exact number on how much fat they ate, but the quantity is huge.

 

Here is a great article detailing this from back in 004, what amazes me is this was being discussed in detail already.

 

 

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox/article_view?b_start:int=0&-C=

 

After living in Alaska we moved to Hawaii. Tropical paradise where the Native population consumes huge amounts of fat. I am sorry that my childhood memory cannot pull up all the details, but I remember a lot of coconut products and hog products.

 

I do not understand the idea that these groups did not consume large amounts of fat. The animals that the hunter gatherers consumed were done so in total. This includes the extremely fatty organs and the layers of fat spread throughout the body. It is also my understand that most hunter gatherer types steered clear of lean animals as the meat without the fat sent them into metabolic starvation. That made the summer and fall hunting season especially important, for they lived through the winter on prepared lard concoctions.

Edited July 19, 2012 by Juniper