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 Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 11:07
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default Fat or Carbs: Which Is Worse?

This is the print preview: Back to normal view »

Dr. Andrew WeilFounder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine
Posted: July 2, 2010 08:00 AM
Fat or Carbs: Which Is Worse?
In my home state of Arizona, a restaurant named "Heart Attack Grill" does brisk business in Chandler, a Phoenix suburb. Waitresses in nurse-themed uniforms with miniskirts deliver single, double, triple and quadruple "bypass burgers" (featuring one, two, three and four hefty patties, respectively) dripping with cheese, to patrons who wear hospital gowns that double as bibs. The motto: "Taste Worth Dying For!"

Now, there is much for a medical doctor (as opposed to "Dr. Jon," the stethoscope-wearing, burger-flipping owner) to dislike in this establishment. If you visit, I implore you to steer clear of the white-flour buns, the sugary sodas and the piles of "flatliner fries" that accompany the burgers in the restaurant's signature bedpan plates. This is precisely the sort of processed-carbohydrate-intensive meal that, via this and other fast-food establishments, is propelling the epidemic of obesity and diabetes in America.

But the Grill's essential, in-your-face concept is that the saturated fat in beef clogs arteries, and hamburger meat is consequently among the most heart-damaging foods a human being can consume. As the Grill literature puts it, "The menu names imply coronary bypass surgery, and refer to the danger of developing atherosclerosis from the food's high proportion of saturated fat..." Aimed at a certain crowd, this is clever, edgy marketing. Some people enjoy flirting with death.

The problem? It's not true. The saturated fat lauded in this menu won't kill you. It may even be the safest element of the meal.

Saturated fat is made of fatty acid chains that cannot incorporate additional hydrogen atoms. It is often of animal origin, and is typically solid at room temperature. Its relative safety has been a theme in nutrition science for at least the last decade, but in my view, a significant exoneration took place in March of this year. An analysis that combined the results of 21 studies, published in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that "saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk" of coronary heart disease, stroke or coronary vascular disease.

Although this was not a true study, it was a big analysis. It aggregated information from nearly 348,000 participants, most of whom were healthy at the start of the studies. They were surveyed about their dietary habits and followed for five to 23 years. In that time, 11,000 developed heart disease or had a stroke. Researcher Ronald M. Krauss of the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Center in California found that there was no difference in the risk of heart disease or stroke between people with the lowest and highest intakes of saturated fat.

This contradicts nutritional dogma we've heard repeated since 1970, when a physiologist named Ancel Keys published his "Seven Countries" study that showed animal fat consumption strongly predicted heart attack risk. His conclusions influenced US dietary guidelines for decades to come, but other researchers pointed out that if 21 other countries had been included in that study, the association that Keys observed would have been seen as extremely weak.

Meanwhile, in the years since, there has been increasing evidence that added sweeteners in foods may contribute to heart disease. Sweeteners appear to lower levels of HDL cholesterol (the higher your HDL, the better) and raise triglycerides (the lower the better). That's according to a study of more than 6,000 adults by Emory University and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and published in April in The Journal of the American Medical Association.

People who received at least 25 percent of their daily calories from any type of sweetener had more than triple the normal risk of having low HDL levels than those who consumed less than five percent of their calories from sweeteners. Beyond that, those whose sugar intake made up 17.5 percent or more of daily calories were 20 to 30 percent more likely to have high triglycerides.

Science writer Gary Taubes has done more than anyone else to deconstruct the Keys mythos and replace it with a more sensible view, informed by better science. I recommend his book, Good Calories, Bad Calories: Challenging the Conventional Wisdom on Diet, Weight Control and Disease. It presents more than 600 pages of evidence that lead to these conclusions:

Dietary fat, whether saturated or not, is not a cause of obesity, heart disease or any other chronic disease of civilization.
The problem is the carbohydrates in the diet, their effect on insulin secretion, and thus the hormonal regulation of homeostasis -- the entire harmonic ensemble of the human body. The more easily digestible and refined the carbohydrates, the greater the effect on our health, weight and well-being.
Sugars -- sucrose and high-fructose corn syrup specifically -- are particularly harmful, probably because the combination of fructose and glucose simultaneously elevates insulin levels while overloading the liver with carbohydrates.
Through their direct effects on insulin and blood sugar, refined carbohydrates, starches and sugars are the dietary cause of coronary heart disease and diabetes. They are the most likely dietary causes of cancer, Alzheimer's disease and other chronic diseases of modern civilization.
My point here is not to promote meat consumption. I've written here previously about humanitarian and ecological reasons to avoid a meat-centric diet, especially if the meat comes from factory-farmed animals. Instead, my purpose is to emphasize that we would be much healthier as a nation if we stopped worrying so much about fats, and instead made a concerted effort to avoid processed, quick-digesting carbohydrates -- especially added sugars. The average American consumes almost 22 teaspoons of sugars that are added to foods each day. This obscene amount is the principal driver of the "diabesity" epidemic, sharply increases coronary risks and promises to make this generation of children the first in American history that will die sooner than their parents.

My Anti-Inflammatory Food Pyramid emphasizes whole or minimally processed foods -- especially vegetables -- with low glycemic loads. That means consuming these foods keeps blood sugar levels relatively stable, which in turn lowers both fat deposition and heart-disease risk. If you make a concerted effort to eat such foods and avoid sugar, you'll soon lose your taste for it. The natural sugars in fruits and vegetables will provide all the sweetness you desire.

While saturated fat appears to have no effect on heart health, eating too much can crowd out vitamins, minerals and fiber needed for optimal health. So I recommend sticking to a "saturated fat budget" which can be "spent" on an occasional steak (from organic, grass-fed, grass-finished cattle, see LocalHarvest for sources), some butter, or, as I do, high quality, natural cheese a few times a week.

Andrew Weil, M.D., invites you to join the conversation: become a fan on Facebook, follow him on Twitter, and check out his Daily Health Tips Blog. Dr. Weil is the founder and director of the Arizona Center for Integrative Medicine and the editorial director of www.DrWeil.com.

Follow Dr. Andrew Weil on Twitter: www.twitter.com/DrWeil
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 11:28
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 14,550
 
Plan: EpiPaleo/Primal/LowOx
Stats: 220/125/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 136%
Location: USA
Default

It's a start!

I've discovered I love salad greens, which are healthy low starch vegetables. When I can put meat, cheese, and full fat dressings on my salads, they are delicious and nutritious.

You need fat to absorb the vitamins, after all.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 11:44
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,830
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

Dr. Weil has come a long ways! Good for him!
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 14:36
M Levac M Levac is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,498
 
Plan: VLC, mostly meat
Stats: 202/200/165 Male 5' 7"
BF:
Progress: 5%
Location: Montreal, Quebec, Canada
Default

Quote:
While saturated fat appears to have no effect on heart health, eating too much can crowd out vitamins, minerals and fiber needed for optimal health.

In all my readings on the subject, I've never come across anything that would support the statement above even a little bit. How does fat "crowd out" vitamins when vitamin D requires fat to be absorbed? How does fat crowd out minerals when vitamin D, thus fat, is required to absorb calcium? Since when is fiber essential for optimal health and how does fat crowd out fiber anyway?

I sort of agreed with everything right up to that point.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 17:28
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,596
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/185/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 90%
Location: Texas
Default

I'm guessing he's picturing stuffing one's self with too much fat as crowding out other foods like veggies and stuff like people do when they eat too much junk food to the detriment of more nutritious foods, but in reality isn't most food containing saturated fat healthy nutrient-filled food in and of itself? Like meats and cheese. You can eat junk that's practically all sugar and carbs, but you'd be hard pressed to find something that's just saturated fat that you'd want to eat a lot of, like a plain stick of butter or cup of lard. I'm pleased to see he's so open-minded when new facts come around. I discontinued subscribing to his newsletter years ago because it was all low-fat back then. It's refreshing to see someone who's not just locked into the old dogma for the sake of dogma nutritional beliefs who changes his mind when warranted.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 18:48
Hairballz's Avatar
Hairballz Hairballz is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 601
 
Plan: Atkins / M&E
Stats: 000/000/000 Female 5'6"
BF:
Progress:
Default

I was just astonished when I read that article on Huffington Post and realized it was by Weil. He HAS come a long way - 10, even 5 years ago you would have NEVER seen something like this coming from him...
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 19:31
jschwab jschwab is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,378
 
Plan: Atkins72/Paleo/NoGrain/IF
Stats: 285/220/200 Female 5 feet 5.5 inches
BF:
Progress: 76%
Default

I just found out Weil and I went to the same high school. My new doctor was in his class and told me some crazy fool thing he organizes at the reunions (wild foraging? can't remember but it was pretty cool).
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 20:23
sln88 sln88 is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,599
 
Plan: ZC/VLC
Stats: 243/220/140 Female 64 inches
BF:
Progress: 22%
Location: wisconsin
Default

This from Dr Weil? I am shocked

I wonder if he will update his food pyramid to reflect this

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART0299...od-Pyramid.html
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Sun, Jul-04-10, 20:56
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

I believe that his "light-bulb" moment came after reading Gary Taubes. It's encouraging to know that Gary is having an impact Weil is pretty influential.

I remember an interview he participated in, along with Gary, right after his book came out. He praised the book, even though he obviously wasn't quite prepared to embrace it dully. Looks like time and all the recent research has changed his mind.

--posted from my iPad (woot)
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Mon, Jul-05-10, 05:30
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 15,075
 
Plan: mostly milkfat
Stats: 190/152.4/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: Ontario
Default

This saturated fat allowance thing is just the dense calorie thing seen from another angle, high calorie foods driving out more nutrient-dense, low calorie foods. But it's silly, no matter how high in fat a diet is, you can just add in green veggies 'til there's no tomorrow, if you're all that worried about getting enough fiber or water-soluble nutrients.
Reply With Quote
  #11   ^
Old Mon, Jul-05-10, 06:41
kindke's Avatar
kindke kindke is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 451
 
Plan: my own
Stats: 278/217/185 Male 5 feet 11 inches
BF:
Progress: 66%
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by M Levac
In all my readings on the subject, I've never come across anything that would support the statement above even a little bit. How does fat "crowd out" vitamins when vitamin D requires fat to be absorbed? How does fat crowd out minerals when vitamin D, thus fat, is required to absorb calcium? Since when is fiber essential for optimal health and how does fat crowd out fiber anyway?

I sort of agreed with everything right up to that point.


I think that quote is his way of covering himself in the fact that although he knows taubes is right, he doesnt want to publicly be seen as FULLY comitting himself to the notion that saturated fat is harmless and that fruit and veg is largely irrelevant to health.

I consume fruit when I want something sweet, and the only vegtables I eat are sauerkraut to make meat dishes more interesting and avacados to help buffer potassium levels.
Reply With Quote
  #12   ^
Old Mon, Jul-05-10, 08:17
Judynyc's Avatar
Judynyc Judynyc is offline
Attitude is a Choice
Posts: 30,111
 
Plan: No sugar, flour, wheat
Stats: 228.4/209.0/170 Female 5'6"
BF:stl/too/mch
Progress: 33%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Angeline
I believe that his "light-bulb" moment came after reading Gary Taubes. It's encouraging to know that Gary is having an impact Weil is pretty influential.

I remember an interview he participated in, along with Gary, right after his book came out. He praised the book, even though he obviously wasn't quite prepared to embrace it dully. Looks like time and all the recent research has changed his mind.

--posted from my iPad (woot)

I saw that interview, the one on Larry King? Joy Behar was hosting.
Weil spoke very highly of Taubes work and they cut him off!!
I think that they were expecting him to challenge Taubes work and views for the support of low fat. Didn't happen that way at all.
Reply With Quote
  #13   ^
Old Mon, Jul-05-10, 09:02
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by kindke
I think that quote is his way of covering himself in the fact that although he knows taubes is right, he doesnt want to publicly be seen as FULLY comitting himself to the notion that saturated fat is harmless and that fruit and veg is largely irrelevant to health.


I think that's a bit unfair. He's obviously shown that he's willing and able to change his opinion, once presented with convincing evidence. I guess he's just not yet willing to totally give up on his saturated fat phobia. But considering how far he's come, we can overlook that.
Reply With Quote
  #14   ^
Old Mon, Jul-05-10, 14:57
kyrasdad's Avatar
kyrasdad kyrasdad is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,060
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 338/253/210 Male 5'11"
BF:
Progress: 66%
Location: Broken Arrow, Oklahoma
Default

It's good to see that the man has a mind capable of opening, unlike so many modern nutritional "experts". The interesting thing is that someone like Dean Ornish has been forced to admit that simple carbohydrates are unhealthy. When you admit this, you are well on your way to acknowledging that the metabolic difference between white bread and whole grain bread isn't very significant. There are a few more nutrients, but the whole grain slice will act very, very similary to the white bread once it's down the hatch.

If you have an open mind, you cannot escape that conclusion. It's sitting right there for you. Ornish, of course does not have an open mind - when he wrote of simple carbohydrates as if he'd always believed that, and it is easy to prove otherwise. He simply adapts all information to his quasi-religious zeal to remove meat from the American diet at all costs.
Reply With Quote
  #15   ^
Old Mon, Jul-05-10, 15:59
CMCM's Avatar
CMCM CMCM is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 4,264
 
Plan: Keto / Atkins VLC
Stats: 173/148.6/135 Female 5'6"
BF:23.9
Progress: 64%
Location: N. Calif. Sierra Nevadas
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sln88
This from Dr Weil? I am shocked

I wonder if he will update his food pyramid to reflect this

http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART0299...od-Pyramid.html


I just looked at his pyramid. Certainly an improvement, but I look at his second level from the bottom and see 3-5 servings of whole & cracked grains per day, pasta 2-3 per week, beans & legumes 1-2 a day. For someone like me (celiac disease) and also for gluten intolerant folks, this just doesn't work. I also don't handle the beans/legumes well, so I rarely eat these and when I do, I suffer for it.

If the grains are so vital, what was man's state pre-agriculture when perhaps SOME wild grains were gathered and eaten, but the nature of the early, wild grains was entirely different from what we see today and these wild grains were probably a minimal part of man's diet.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

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 02:00.


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