Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


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!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low-Carb Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 10:27
j_the_p's Avatar
j_the_p j_the_p is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 216
 
Plan: VLC (for now)
Stats: 282/274/220 Male 6'6"
BF:
Progress: 13%
Location: Toronto
Default Cardio health responds better to low-fat diets

I haven't seen this posted, but if it has been, then I apologize for the duplicate thread.

Sigh...

Quote:
Cardio health responds better to low-fat diets
By Shari Rudavsky
Posted: March 18, 2008


Score one for the anti-Atkins camp in the ever-raging war between low-fat and low-carb diets.

A new study finds that low-fat diets do a better job of keeping the cardiovascular system healthy than their hold-the-pasta counterparts.
Advertisement

Even the study authors admit to some surprise at the results: "We thought that the main driving force that causes overweight people to develop cardiovascular disease was body fat composition and anything that would reduce that would improve their vascular health," said Dr. Jason Jurva, an assistant professor of medicine at the Medical College of Wisconsin.

"Even though people on the low-carb diet lost weight, their vascular health actually worsened," he added in a telephone interview.

Previous research has assumed that if people lost weight, their heart health would improve. Other studies have looked at cholesterol levels, finding that they did not change significantly while blood pressure did decrease, suggesting these diets might actually work for overall health.

But the researchers in this study, published in Hypertension, tested a measure that's considered an early indicator of heart disease. Their findings show that low-carb diets are not as healthy, Jurva said.

This study looked at 20 overweight and obese people between the ages of 18 and 50. Half were fed a daily diet with 20 grams of carbs and protein and fat along the lines of Atkins. The other half were fed a diet that was 30 percent fat. In general, low-carb diets tend to be lower in the nutrients found in fruits and vegetables that support overall health, Jurva said.

Still, Jurva conceded, the study found Atkins successful in at least one respect: "If you're only interested in losing weight for appearance, it does work as well as other diets."


http://www.indystar.com/apps/pbcs.d...307/1306/LIVING
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 10:54
1000times 1000times is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 440
 
Plan: eat less, exercise more
Stats: 229/185/154 Male 66 inches
BF:41%/28%/13%
Progress: 59%
Default

Obi-Wan: I hear...a great disturbance in the Force.
Luke Skywalker: Do you mean as though millions of low-carb dieters suddenly cried out in terror and were just as suddenly silenced?
Obi-Wan: Well, maybe...or perhaps it was Dr. Dean Ornish having an orgasm.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 11:07
catfishghj's Avatar
catfishghj catfishghj is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 428
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 330/217/190 Male 70 in
BF:?/30/less than 20
Progress: 81%
Location: Tucson, AZ
Default

What were their findings? How did they determine that it was worse?
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 11:20
Lorisa's Avatar
Lorisa Lorisa is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 270
 
Plan: atkins
Stats: 184/170/150 Female 5'4"
BF:
Progress: 41%
Location: Pennsylvania
Default

Well I read the abstract in "Hypertension", which by the way, is the AHA's publication, and the study only lasted 6 weeks - doesn't that make you wonder?
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 11:30
OregonRose's Avatar
OregonRose OregonRose is offline
Wag more, bark less.
Posts: 692
 
Plan: Meat.
Stats: 216/149/145 Female 65.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Eugene
Default

Assuming for argument's sake that the study results as reported are true, I still think everything in life is a trade-off. There's no diet or any other regimen that's going to result in eternal life; we're all going to die of something. Not to sound glib, but I'd much rather die of a fairly quick heart attack than of lingering cancer. (NB: Both my biological parents were obese, extremely carb-sensitive, and both died of cancer.) It'd be great if these studies would look at overall mortality rates, not just mortality rates from one disease--so maybe heart disease goes down on a low-fat diet, but what if cancer skyrockets (for instance)?

Also, there's a quality-of-life issue. As the old joke goes, you might be able to live forever if you stopped drinking, screwing, and having fun, but would you really want to?
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 11:44
esoteric's Avatar
esoteric esoteric is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 216
 
Plan: Combination LC / Paleo
Stats: 205/194/170 Male 71.5 inches
BF:25%/23%/15%
Progress: 31%
Location: Revelstoke, BC, Canada
Default

Quote:
Score one for the anti-Atkins camp in the ever-raging war between low-fat and low-carb diets.


Why does everything have to be a "battle" or a "war"??

But seriously, where's the meat of this story? How would I possibly base my dietary choices on a story with no real background on what they did and how they did it?

Pass!
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 11:47
Songwriter Songwriter is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 245
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 218/199/189 Male 74"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: North Louisiana
Default

Yeah, I'm looking for info and it's certainly not in that article. And if the AHA has anything to do with it, I'm certainly skeptical. Many of the powers that be will do much to save face.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 11:56
ruthla ruthla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,011
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 190/169/140 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 42%
Location: New York
Default

Exactly how did they determine "vascular health"- actual heart attack numbers between the two groups? A lab test that can be interpreted in more than one way? My guess would be the latter- the "low carb" group has some lab result that the researchers deemed "undesirable"- such as total cholesterol without looking at HDL/LDL ratios or something with the "fluffy" vs "non fluffy" cholesterol.
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 12:18
Mama Lu's Avatar
Mama Lu Mama Lu is offline
Intermittent Feaster
Posts: 464
 
Plan: DSTSS
Stats: 280/188/175 Female 67"
BF:
Progress: 88%
Location: Canada
Default

Here's a link to the abstract if anyone wants to take a closer look: http://hyper.ahajournals.org/cgi/co...stract/51/2/376. It makes my brain hurt.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 12:18
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

I'm guessing it is this study.

When you want to find out, go to pubmed.org and plug in the name of one of the authors.

Quote:
Benefit of Low-Fat Over Low-Carbohydrate Diet on Endothelial Health in Obesity
Shane A. Phillips; Jason W. Jurva; Amjad Q. Syed; Amina Q. Syed; Jacquelyn P. Kulinski; Joan Pleuss; Raymond G. Hoffmann; David D. Gutterman

From the Department of Medicine (S.A.P., J.W.J., AmjadQ.S., AminaQ.S., J.P.K., D.D.G.), Cardiovascular Center (S.A.P., J.W.J., AmjadQ.S., AminaQ.S., J.P.K., D.D.G.), and General Clinical Research Center (J.P., R.G.H.), Medical College of Wisconsin, Milwaukee; and the Department of Physical Therapy (S.A.P.), University of Illinois at Chicago.

Correspondence to Shane A. Phillips, University of Illinois at Chicago, 1919 W Taylor St, Chicago, IL 60612. E-mail shanep{at}uic.edu

Obesity is associated with impaired endothelial-dependent flow-mediated dilation, a precursor to hypertension and atherosclerosis. Although dieting generally improves cardiovascular risk factors, the direct effect of different dietary strategies on vascular endothelial function is not known. The purpose of this study was to test the hypothesis that a low-fat (LF) diet improves endothelial function compared with an isocaloric low-carbohydrate (LC) diet. Obese (n=20; body mass index: 29 to 39; mean systolic blood pressure: 107 to 125 mm Hg) and otherwise healthy volunteers were randomly assigned to either the American Heart Association modeled LF (30% fat calories) diet or an isocaloric LC Atkins’ style diet (20 g of carbohydrates) for 6 weeks (4-week weight loss and 2-week maintenance phase). Brachial flow-mediated dilation and dilation to nitroglycerin were measured with ultrasound using automated edge detection technology (baseline, week 2, and week 6). Blood pressure, weight loss, and cholesterol profiles were measured throughout the study. Weight loss was similar in LF (100±4 to 96.1±4 kg; P<0.001) and LC (95.4±4 to 89.7±4 kg; P<0.001) diets. Blood pressure decreased similarly in both groups (LF: 8/5 mm Hg; LC: 12/6 mm Hg) at 6 weeks. After 6 weeks, the percentage of flow-mediated dilation improved (1.9±0.8; P<0.05) in the LF diet but was reduced in the LC diet (–1.4±0.6; P<0.05) versus baseline. Dilation to nitroglycerin and lipid panels was similar at 0, 2, and 6 weeks. Despite similar degrees of weight loss and changes blood pressure, LF diets improved brachial artery flow-mediated dilation over LC diets. LF diets may confer greater cardiovascular protection than LC diets.


I think this is along the lines of that milk-shake study done awhile back. Where the high fat milk shake (with lots of sugar) had an adverse effect, while the milk shake with mono unsaturated fats had a good effect.

There's nothing new about mono-unsaturated fats doing thing generally regarded as good. But they attributed the adverse effects to saturated fats, not that perhaps mono-unsaturated fats have a good effect not found in other fats.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 12:28
probiotic probiotic is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 109
 
Plan: SCD/Lutz/Atkins/PP hybrid
Stats: 115/115/120 Male 5'1"
BF:
Progress: 0%
Location: SF Bay Area
Default

Here's another abstract that suggests that brachial flow-mediated dilation (the thing they compared in the LF and LC diet groups) is a strong predictor of coronary events:
http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/con...act/115/18/2390

It does concern me if this is true, because the LC WOE, while it has raised my TC and LDL has also rocketed up my HDL and lowered my triglycerides, and my LDL are of the Pattern A, fluffy less harmful type, and I am skinny and work out alot... so I thought I was safe and could ignore my doc's whining. So this study does concern me and can't be dismissed, and I am hoping that there is more to this story. I won't be ever going low fat / high carb though since it wrecks my gut (the reason I happen to be a LC fanatic.)
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 13:14
KarenJ's Avatar
KarenJ KarenJ is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,564
 
Plan: tasty animals with butter
Stats: 170/115/110 Female 60"
BF:maintaining
Progress: 92%
Location: Northeastern Illinois
Default

Quote:
flow-mediated dilation improved (1.9±0.8; P<0.05) in the LF diet but was reduced in the LC diet (–1.4±0.6; P<0.05) versus baseline


Look at the percentage of error. The FMD improved 1.9 plus or minus 0.8. That 0.8 is important when you're dealing with such a tiny number. Same with the 0.6 percent error in the LC group.

That could mean that at one time the LC FMD may measure 2 and the LF could measure 1.1.

And does FMD matter?
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 13:23
ruthla ruthla is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,011
 
Plan: Protein Power
Stats: 190/169/140 Female 62 inches
BF:
Progress: 42%
Location: New York
Default

Wah. It looks like my long, well thought out post got lost in cyberspace (this forum wouldn't load for a while, I guess BEFORE my post went through.)

In a nutshell, the study was only 6 weeks long- who knows what would happen if they repeated these lab tests after a year or longer on the LC vs LF diets?

Secondly, it doesn't look like there's any strong evidence that the lab test they're relying on is an accurate predictor of heart disease.

Thirdly, even if LF is better than LC in terms of cardiac health, the simple fact that LC diets work better may more than compensate: who has the healthier heart, the trim person on the LC diet or the fat one on the AHA diet?
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 14:13
1000times 1000times is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 440
 
Plan: eat less, exercise more
Stats: 229/185/154 Male 66 inches
BF:41%/28%/13%
Progress: 59%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenJ
Look at the percentage of error. The FMD improved 1.9 plus or minus 0.8. That 0.8 is important when you're dealing with such a tiny number. Same with the 0.6 percent error in the LC group.

That could mean that at one time the LC FMD may measure 2 and the LF could measure 1.1.


The LC number is a decrease, while the LF number is an increase. A 0.6 error in the LC measurements means that the best-case scenario for LC is "only" a .8 decrease in FMD, while the worst-case scenario for LF is "only" a 1.1 increase. Combine the two and LF is still much better for FMD than LC (providing this study's results are replicated in longer trials).

Quote:
Originally Posted by KarenJ
And does FMD matter?

I don't have a family history of strokes, but if I did, I think this study would make me burn my Atkins books faster than an evangelist clearing the gay porn out of his browser cache. YMMV, of course.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Thu, Mar-27-08, 14:32
Rose1942's Avatar
Rose1942 Rose1942 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 319
 
Plan: Bernstein-ish
Stats: 148/125/125 Female 5'0"
BF:Started 1/5/08
Progress: 100%
Location: Charlotte NC
Default

If they were going to say 'score one for Atkins' and then go on to say that:

Even though people on the low-carb diet lost weight, their vascular health actually worsened .....

I fail to see why they would say 'score one for Atkins' in the first place. Somebody didn't get an A in their journalism class, but they got hired anyway..........

Makes you wonder if something isn't screwed up either in the study or the reporting.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 14:11.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.