Slashdot Mirror
Doubling Saturated Fat In Diet Does Not Increase It In Blood
An anonymous reader writes: A new study by researchers at Ohio State University found that dramatically increasing the amount of saturated fat in a person's diet did not increase the amount of saturated fat found in their blood. Professor Jeff Volek, the study's senior author, said it "challenges the conventional wisdom that has demonized saturated fat and extends our knowledge of why dietary saturated fat doesn't correlate with disease."
The study also showed that increasing carbohydrates in the diet led to an increase in a particular fatty acid previous studies have linked to heart disease. Volek continued, "People believe 'you are what you eat,' but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat. The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat that you eat. And the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet. Since more than half of Americans show some signs of carb intolerance, it makes more sense to focus on carb restriction than fat restriction."
The study also showed that increasing carbohydrates in the diet led to an increase in a particular fatty acid previous studies have linked to heart disease. Volek continued, "People believe 'you are what you eat,' but in reality, you are what you save from what you eat. The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat that you eat. And the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet. Since more than half of Americans show some signs of carb intolerance, it makes more sense to focus on carb restriction than fat restriction."
...is such shit advice because it assumes all calories are equal when more and more evidence is coming out that they're not, especially calories from carbohydrates.
// file: mice.h
#include "frickin_lasers.h"
When asked for advice you'll get the best recommendation scientists have at the time it's given.
You make the mistake of thinking that the whole nutrition business is based on what scientists think.
Every time there is a "nutritional discovery", marketing forces take over, and soon we are consuming vast amounts of oatmeal, completely overdosing on carbohydrates, eliminating eggs, eliminating fat, and consuming so many phytoestrogens than men are growing boobs. Which is just a small portion of the food fad industry, and the people who are convinced that if they only eat the right foods - or better put - eliminate the right foods, they'll live happy, healthy, lives in to their mid 100's.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Before everyone jumps on the low-carb bandwagon there are a few caveats to note:
1) All the participants had metabolic syndrome so the results might not be generally applicable.
2) The meals were fixed portions, so we don't know how it affected appetite or how it compared to previous eating habits.
3) We don't know what would happen long term. For instance all the participants followed the same pattern of steadily increasing carbs and decreasing fat, so it could be the body reacting to the delta.
I just mention because most people are really interested in the question "if I want to lose weight and/or reduce my risk of heart disease should I eat more/less fat and more/less carbs". But that question is incredibly specific to one person and very poorly defined beyond that. This study says in these very specific circumstances the answer is more fat and less carbs, but that's not necessarily true in general. To think it does give the general answer only sets one up for a future accusation that science is always wrong when a future study with slightly different parameters seems to reach a different conclusion.
I stole this Sig
"The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations."
As a foreigner I can easily see where USA's obesity epidemy comes from and it is not from any given food pyramid: have you paid attention lately to the ridiculously big rations you ingest? The ridiculously high levels of processed food? The ridiculously high comsumption of snacks and soda drinks?
"The low-fat diet and food pyramid is probably the worst thing ever foisted on the American people. With 30 years of run-away obesity and diabetes, maybe it's time to admit failure with those recommendations."
As a foreigner I can easily see where USA's obesity epidemy comes from and it is not from any given food pyramid: have you paid attention lately to the ridiculously big rations you ingest? The ridiculously high levels of processed food? The ridiculously high comsumption of snacks and soda drinks?
No, it really doesn't matter how much you consume on a low carb, high fat diet as long as you remain in nutritional ketosis.
Here, one guy used himself as a guinea pig:
5,800 kcal/day low carb high fat diet, then he repeated the experiment with a 5,000 kcal/day diet with high carb intake.
These results make sense because the biochemical pathway signals are overloaded: the same hormones/substrates are used to signal more than one condition. That is to say, while your body is burning fat in nutritional ketosis it disables the pathways for laying down new fat stores. Essentially, a high fat/low carb diet tricks the body into thinking it is starving when it is not (the overloaded signals can't distinguish between the diet and true starvation), and it obviously makes no sense to store more fat if you're starving/burning fat. So, the body doesn't do it.
But, yeah, all the soft drinks and shit are killing people. No argument from me there. Drop the carbs.
it is amazing to me how SURE everyone is that carbs are bad for you.
carbs are, traditionally, the bedrock of human consumption. Hell, we look at the start of society by farming of a carbohydrate source. And frankly, some of the longest living countries have diets where carbs form the backbone of caloric intake. There may be a huge issue with constantly spiking your blood sugar with sweets (i.e. the american way), but just a little thought would show you how ridiculous it is to claim that carbs are the grim reaper.
Example, Japan. Diets here (I live there so will speak where I have direct experience) are extremely carb heavy. In fact, rice forms the backbone of your ENTIRE DAY. Literally every meal has rice as a central part of your caloric intake. Meats, on the other hand, even fish, are not as common. And very few foods outside of restaurants are high fat. Other places, like Italy, have a high carb, high fat diet.
What do most of the long lived countries have in common? their total calorie intake is low! The one thing that has never had any question mark: caloric restriction is the best indicator for long life. Not carbs, not fats, not saturated fats, not any of those. Just eat less. And it will lower all you blood markers simultaneously. Or, if you want, work out a hell of a lot (not this 3 hour a week BS, I am talking 10-15 hours a week of intense exercise). Then you can basically eat anything and your markers will be amazing.
else, you have to find the diet that works for your genetics. For some, that will be low carb. or some, that will be low fat.