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
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #16   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 08:31
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

More for me!

Coconut oil is the best fat to put in my tea and not be hungry for hours. That is the result I want, that is the result I get
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #17   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 10:52
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,032
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by thud123
I agree that coconut oil, beef tallow and butter are on par as far has health goes. Please, if you eat them, don't mix them with Grains, Potatoes or Sugars; poor health may result from this.


I've long thought it funny when I see advice to not eat donuts - not because of the carbs, but because they're fried in fat!
Reply With Quote
  #18   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 10:53
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,032
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by WereBear
More for me!

Coconut oil is the best fat to put in my tea and not be hungry for hours. That is the result I want, that is the result I get


I wish it worked that way for me - I still get hungry. But it would be worse if I tried for low fat. Tho if I'm feeling hungry when it isn't time to eat, a bit of coconut oil takes the edge off the hunger.
Reply With Quote
  #19   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 15:29
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,220
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Me, too. Hunger, that is. Also straight coconut oil alone, not good. In my bulletproof-style cocoa (not a coffee drinker) it needs another type of fat mixed in or digestive upset can result.
Reply With Quote
  #20   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 16:08
Bonnie OFS Bonnie OFS is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 2,032
 
Plan: Dr. Bernstein
Stats: 188/160/135 Female 5 ft 4 inches
BF:
Progress: 53%
Location: NE WA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
Me, too. Hunger, that is. Also straight coconut oil alone, not good. In my bulletproof-style cocoa (not a coffee drinker) it needs another type of fat mixed in or digestive upset can result.


I have to be careful not to get too much or I end up spending too much time in the bathroom.
But that's how a lot of things work on me. TMI?
Reply With Quote
  #21   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 21:03
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,249
 
Plan: Paleoish
Stats: 225/175/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 100%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Seven days a week, I pan fry my breakfast eggs in a mixture of coconut oil and butter. I'm not dead yet.
Reply With Quote
  #22   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 21:20
cotonpal's Avatar
cotonpal cotonpal is online now
Posts: 3,237
 
Plan: very low carb real food
Stats: 245/128/135 Female 62
BF:
Progress: 106%
Location: Vermont
Default

I easily have 2-4 tbs of coconut oil a day, not in hot drinks but to saute meat and vegetables. I've been doing this for many years. I'm not worried. So-called "healthy" vegetable oils would worry me.

Jean
Reply With Quote
  #23   ^
Old Sat, Jun-17-17, 21:21
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,220
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Digestive upset from too much coconut or mct oil all at once is actually a pretty common reaction. Mixing it with the butter and food or other fats is good.
Reply With Quote
  #24   ^
Old Sun, Jun-18-17, 06:47
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,965
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/161/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 84%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Zei
Digestive upset from too much coconut or mct oil all at once is actually a pretty common reaction. Mixing it with the butter and food or other fats is good.


I slowly ramped up to my present size-of-a-pecan/walnut serving in tea.
Reply With Quote
  #25   ^
Old Sun, Jun-18-17, 11:51
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Dr. Davis's response to the AHA statement on fats:

https://blog.undoctored.com/america...ion-gets-wrong/

Quote:
The American Heart Association gets it wrong . . . again
June 16, 2017 By Dr. WillIam Davis

I almost have to apologize to you for having you read this. But the clamor of the newly re-frightened public and confident pronouncements of the media (you know, those people who report nothing antagonistic to Big Pharma and healthcare because industry advertising dollars now dominate air time and they love scary health headlines) makes it necessary. It’s prompting absurd headlines like “Coconut oil as bad as beef lard.” What is shocking about this American Heart Association (AHA) announcement is that there is nothing new here, just a rehashing of old arguments, despite all the media fanfare.

We’ve been hearing it for years: Cut total fat and saturated fat, eat more unrefined grains for heart health and reduction of cardiovascular risk. The panel members of this recent AHA Presidential Advisory (refreshingly, only one panel member admitted to deep and substantial ties to the pharmaceutical industry, uncommon for such committees) reiterated several arguments:

Reducing saturated fat reduces cardiovascular risk
Replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturates reduces cardiovascular risk
Replacing saturated fats with refined grains and sugars raises risk
Replacing saturated fats with unrefined grains reduces risk
By now, these arguments should be familiar to you, as they have been repeated countless time by the media, doctors, and the drug industry.

What is astounding about this document is that many of the old, tired arguments and bad science are still being held up as proof, for instance, that saturated fats cause heart disease. The same twisted and misrepresented data, mostly from the 1950s and 1960s, that was originally used to prop up the arguments are once again offered as proof, such as the 1960s Los Angeles VA Study in which 850 elderly men living in a VA home had consumption of a saturated fat-rich diet compared with a polyunsaturated oil-rich diet (soybean, safflower, cottonseed, corn). There were 70 deaths among the saturated fat group compared to 48 in the polyunsaturated group–small numbers, but concerning . . . and the original study failed to factor in that there were twice as many smokers among the saturated fat group. Also, the number of cancers in the polyunsaturated group was twice that of the saturated fat group. In other words, there may have been a reduction in heart disease deaths, but the total effect was nil, suggesting the apparent heart benefit was illusory, a statistical anomaly and due to mismatched groups with regards to smoking. (Incredibly, the AHA panel trumpet reductions in total cholesterol over and over again, a worthless observation given the nearly useless nature of total cholesterol, since it typically drops because HDL cholesterol contained within drops–not good.) All four of these old studies similarly are plagued by serious problematic flaws. Yet these flawed studies were once again held up as the reason that the AHA sticks to its argument that replacing saturates with polyunsaturates reduces cardiovascular risk by 30%.

Despite this astounding recycling of flawed and outdated data, the AHA panel did concede that the advice offered by AHA and doctors for years to replace fats with carbohydrates does not work and may even increase cardiovascular risk. They should have conceded this years ago, but at least they do so now—better late than never. And this is a big, though mentioned only minimally, admission. What they should have said is that “You know how we’ve recommended cutting fat and increasing grain consumption? Not only did it not work in reducing cardiovascular disease, but it added to the nation’s burden of type 2 diabetes and obesity.” No such admission will ever be made, of course—too much liability, too much loss of credibility, too much loss of revenues.

The best funded and largest trial studying a lower fat diet was the Women’s Health Initiative that began in 1993 and compared 30,000 women consuming their usual “high-fat” diet (37% of calories as fat) with 20,000 women instructed to reduce their fat and include more whole grains. This study was indeed mentioned by the AHA panel. But, as many conventional dietary thinkers have done in past, they dismiss the lack of any reduction in cardiovascular events, cancers, or weight as a fluke.

Given the lack of real evidence that reducing saturated or total fat reduces cardiovascular risk, the panel then resorts to the weakest source of data of all: observational epidemiological studies, the sorts of studies that rely largely on questionnaires on what participants ate, a study design that is widely accepted to almost never establish cause-effect relationships, only potential associations or hypotheses. The deficiencies in such studies have been widely debated (here is a terrific summary by journalist Gary Taubes). Note that it is this very same study design, for example, that led doctors to prescribe Premarin because in observational studies this form of horse estrogens was shown to reduce breast, endometrial, and other cancers, as well as cardiovascular disease, causing the drug to be the #1 top selling drug for many years—until the proper prospective, blinded study demonstrated that, not only did Premarin not reduce cancer or heart disease, it increased the incidence of both. This occurred, of course, after millions of women had been exposed to the drug. (More about the Premarin debacle here.) This has been the problem that has plagued observational epidemiological studies all along, but that does not stop the scientists who embrace such study design (the AHA panel’s Walter Willett is the chief proponent of this method) to make pronouncements such as “Red meat consumption causes heart disease and cancer.” And, by the way, a growing body of epidemiological data suggest that polyunsaturates are linked to causing cancer. In other words, taking epidemiological data seriously leads to false conclusions, confusion . . . and spectacular headlines.

The media reported this as if it was some new big study, a new revelation, a confirmation of conventional medical wisdom, when it is little more than a tired, old chronology of an astounding collection of blunders. And why would you believe anything that comes from an organization that labeled Crisco, Count Chocula, and Cocoa Puffs “heart healthy”? Oh, by the way, remember that AHA advice to keep sodium intake to no more than 2300 mg per day? That has now been conclusively shown to increase death from cardiovascular disease.

Encouragingly, the panel made a lengthy acknowledgement of the lipoprotein and metabolic distortions—small LDL particles, reduction in HDL, rise in triglycerides, rise in abnormal postprandial lipoprotein metabolism, increased blood sugar, inflammation—that develops with carbohydrate consumption, a small step in the right direction, but only mechanistic. But, perhaps in another 10, 20, or 30 years, the AHA panel will be saying something like “Grains and sugars should be consumed in minimal amounts and, in the setting of strict carbohydrate limitation, the atherogenicity (heart disease-causing potential) of saturated fats is disabled. It is therefore clear that saturated fat consumption is benign and does not contribute to cardiovascular risk.” Perhaps this will only happen, however, only if Big Pharma develops drugs to “treat” the patterns that emerge from such a dietary shift.
Reply With Quote
  #26   ^
Old Sun, Jun-18-17, 11:57
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

For those who like David Diamond, who digs into CVD and cholesterol studies, and shows their absolute vs relative risks with charming humor; his new updated lecture at the The IHMC was published on YouTube.
The talk was given end May, so before this was published, but it was and still is the same flawed advice from the AHA.


David Diamond - An Update on Demonization and Deception in Research on Saturated Fat...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc1...eature=youtu.be

https://www.ihmc.us/lectures/20170531/

Last edited by JEY100 : Sun, Jun-18-17 at 13:10.
Reply With Quote
  #27   ^
Old Sun, Jun-18-17, 12:09
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,900
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

I hope at least one person of the AHA reads Davis' full response.
Reply With Quote
  #28   ^
Old Mon, Jun-19-17, 09:47
Squarecube's Avatar
Squarecube Squarecube is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 840
 
Plan: atkins/paleo/IF
Stats: 186.5/159.0/160 Male 5' 11"
BF:
Progress: 104%
Location: NYC
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Merpig
A new Fresh Market grocery opened near me this week and I went to take a look. They had both natural beef tallow and natural lard! I was so tempted, but I still have a lot of homemade lard that I rendered from a bunch of pig fat I bought from a local farmer.


Be tempted. I purchased some recently cuz I've never seen it before. Do you like the smell of a standing rib roast cooking away in the kitchen, yum.
Reply With Quote
  #29   ^
Old Mon, Jun-19-17, 13:03
deirdra's Avatar
deirdra deirdra is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,714
 
Plan: HF/vLC/GF,CF,SF
Stats: 197/136/150 Female 66 inches
BF:
Progress: 130%
Location: Alberta
Default

I don't think any cultures eat 100% CO. But eating 50% CO + 50% sugar is metabolically different than eating 50% CO + 50% protein, or 50% CO + 25% protein + 25% sugar.
Reply With Quote
  #30   ^
Old Mon, Jun-19-17, 15:20
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,491
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

This crazy AHA statement has brought out a number of the good nutritionists who support the use of saturated fats to restate their position:


Dr Mercola noticed the interesting timing of this restatement of old advice...it followed shortly after Dr Fred Kummerow's death.

http://blogs.mercola.com/sites/vita...out-coconut-oil


Dr. Zoe Harcombe tweeted:

Dear ~American_Heart Here's ALL the evidence on dietary fats & CVD.
http://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/10/769
Your cherry picking is shameful & revealing.

Intro to this extensive review:

Quote:
Abstract

Introduction: National dietary guidelines were introduced in 1977 and 1983, by the US and UK governments, with the aim of reducing coronary heart disease (CHD) mortality. The 2 specific dietary fat recommendations were to reduce total fat and saturated fat consumption to 30% and 10% of total energy intake, respectively.

Methods: 4 systematic reviews (3 with meta-analysis) were undertaken to examine the evidence for these dietary fat guidelines: (1) randomised controlled trial (RCT) and (2) prospective cohort (PC) evidence at the time the guidelines were introduced; and (3) RCT and (4) PC evidence currently available. This narrative review examines all evidence collated.

Results: The RCT and PC evidence available to the dietary committees did not support the introduction of the dietary fat guidelines. The RCT and PC evidence currently available does not support the extant recommendations. Furthermore, the quality of the evidence is so poor that it could not be relied on had it provided support.

Conclusions: Dietary fat guidelines have prevailed for almost 40 years. The evidence base at the time of their introduction has been examined for the first time and found lacking. Evidence currently available provides no additional support. Public health opinion differed when the guidelines were introduced. Opposition to the guidelines is becoming more strident. Substantial increases in diet-related illness over the past four decades, particularly obesity and type 2 diabetes, indicate that a review of dietary advice is warranted.

Study continues at above link



Nora Gedgaudas wrote a long blog post: Saturated Fat: Health Food or Health Hindrance?

http://www.primalbody-primalmind.co...alth-hindrance/

Last edited by JEY100 : Tue, Jun-20-17 at 05:05.
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 08:02.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.