PDA

View Full Version : Low-Carb Diet May Cut Heart Risks in Severely Obese


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums

Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!



bvtaylor
Tue, Oct-12-04, 22:00
Low-Carb Diet May Cut Heart Risks in Severely Obese (http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=594&u=/nm/20041012/hl_nm/obese_carbs_dc&printer=1)



Tue Oct 12, 4:54 PM ET



NEW YORK (Reuters Health) - A low-carbohydrate diet can help severely obese people improve their cholesterol levels, and it may curb markers of inflammation better than a reduced-fat diet, preliminary research suggests.



In obesity, the body tends to be in a state of chronic inflammation, and this inflammation is believed to conspire with others factors -- including high cholesterol -- to promote the hardened, narrowed arteries that can lead to heart attack and stroke.



Low-carb diets have been shown to cut excess pounds, but whether they reduce inflammation in the body has been unknown, according to the authors of the new study, led by Dr. Prakash Seshadri of the Philadelphia Veterans Affairs Medical Center.



Theoretically, the high fat content in low-carb diets could raise levels of an inflammatory marker in the blood called C-reactive protein, or CRP.



But when the researchers compared the effects of a low-carb diet with a traditional fat- and calorie-restricted diet among 78 extremely obese adults, they found that CRP levels typically fell to a greater degree with the carb-cutting diet.



Specifically, men and women whose CRP levels were high to begin with showed a greater CRP drop on the low-carb diet than with the low-fat regimen -- and most study participants did start out with high levels. However, those with lower to moderate CRP saw their levels go up on the low-carb plan.



The significance of the findings is not fully clear, and they should be considered "exploratory," Seshadri's team reports in the American Journal of Medicine.



Still, the low-carb diet showed some other advantages over its low-fat counterpart, according to the report. While both diets generally showed similar benefits for participants' cholesterol levels, one type of "bad" cholesterol known as large very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) declined to a greater degree with the low-carb diet.



This subtype of LDL cholesterol is rich in blood fats called triglycerides, the researchers note, and studies have linked it to the progression of artery disease.



In addition, the low-carb group lost more weight after six months -- an average of 11 pounds more than those following a fat-conscious menu. The low-carb group ate about 43 percent of their calories from fat, compared with 33 percent in the reduced-fat group; but they also consumed fewer daily calories.



The low-carb group did, however, show an increase in chylomicrons, tiny particles containing fat and cholesterol that are deposited in the blood during digestion. This finding, the authors note, "is of potential concern."



They say more research is needed to see how the metabolic effects in this study influence the long-term risk of cardiovascular disease.



SOURCE: American Journal of Medicine, September 15, 2004.

tom sawyer
Wed, Oct-13-04, 09:28
43% of calories from fat, wonder what the % from carbs was on this low carb diet of theirs? Still, they did see what a restriction of carbs can do. INteresting that the low to moderate CRP folks saw their values go up, wonder if this wasn't just transient?

tortoise
Wed, Oct-13-04, 15:11
Tom, I just got a hold of the whole article, because I'm going to blog about it.

They instructed people to eat no more than 30 grams of carbs per day. However, what they *actually* ate was clearly quite different, and there was a huge range in that - the mean was 32% of calories from carbs, and the standard deviation was 20% - that's enormous. It could be that a few people really didn't follow it at all and that threw the means off - they should mention a skewed distribution in that case, but they might not.

I haven't started really reading it yet, but if you have any other questions I'll try to answer them.

tortoise
Thu, Oct-14-04, 16:49
One of the things that really strikes me about this study is that it was published a month ago, Reuters picked up on it two days ago, and the only other media that have carried it forward, as far as I can tell, are outside of North America. Whereas any research that is even vaguely negative on low-carb gets huge play instantly.

:mad: