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
  #1   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 04:22
teaser's Avatar
teaser teaser is online now
Senior Member
Posts: 11,239
 
Plan: ketosis/IF
Stats: 190/158/154 Male 67inches
BF:
Progress: 89%
Location: Ontario
Default Dietary plant-iness doesn't equal healthfullness

https://www.sciencedaily.com/releas...70717150851.htm

Quote:
Not all plant-based diets are created equal
Plant-based diets with high intake of sweets, refined grains may increase heart disease risk

Plant-based diets are recommended to reduce the risk of heart disease; however, some plant-based diets are associated with a higher risk of heart disease, according to a study published today in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

In prior studies of the impact of a plant-based diet, there were several limitations. Plant-based diets were defined as "vegetarian" which consist of a variety of dietary patterns that exclude some or all animal foods. These studies treat all plant foods equally, even though certain plant foods like refined grains and sugar sweetened beverages are associated with a higher risk of cardio-metabolic disease.

To overcome these limitations, the researchers created three versions of a plant-based diet: an overall plant-based diet which emphasized the consumption of all plant food and reduced (but did not eliminate) animal food intake; a healthful plant-based diet that emphasized the intake of healthy plant foods such as whole grains, fruits and vegetables; and an unhealthful plant-based diet which emphasized consumption of less healthy plant foods such as refined grains.

Researchers used a baseline sample of 73,710 women from the Nurses' Health Study, 92,320 women from the Nurses' Health Study 2 and 43,259 men from the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. These participants responded to a follow-up questionnaire every two years for over two decades on lifestyle, health behaviors and medical history. Participants with coronary heart disease at baseline were excluded, as were participants with cancer, stroke and coronary artery surgery.

During follow-up, 8,631 participants developed coronary heart disease. Overall, adherence to a plant-based diet was associated with a lower risk of heart disease. A higher intake of a more healthful plant-based diet -- one rich in whole grains, fruits, vegetables, etc. -- was associated with a substantially lower risk of heart disease. However, a plant-based diet that emphasized less healthy plant foods like sweetened beverages, refined grains, potatoes and sweets had the opposite effect.

"When we examined the associations of the three food categories with heart disease risk, we found that healthy plant foods were associated with lower risk, whereas less healthy plant foods and animal foods were associated with higher risk," said Ambika Satija, ScD, a postdoctoral fellow at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health in Boston and the study's lead author. "It's apparent that there is a wide variation in the nutritional quality of plant foods, making it crucial to take into consideration the quality of foods in a plant-based diet."

In an accompanying editorial, Kim Allan Williams, MD, MACC, chair of the division of cardiology at Rush University Medical Center in Chicago, said the study adds to the substantial evidence that a predominately plant-based diet reduces heart disease risk. Not all plant-based foods are equally healthy, but plant-based diets with whole grains, unsaturated fats and an abundance of fruits and vegetables "deserve more emphasis in dietary recommendations."

Williams said, the long-term follow up allowed authors to examine dietary patterns and analyze the effect of gradual adherence to a plant-based diet through reduced animal food intake and increased plant food intake on heart disease risk. They said "just as physical activity is a continuum, perhaps an emphasis on starting with smaller dietary tweaks rather than major changes would be more encouraging and sustainable."

Limitations of the study include its observational nature and the self-reported diet assessments. However, these diet assessments were validated against multiple week diet records and biomarkers.


I think these kinds of study are mostly a big waste of money. They're only worth talking about because lots of people think they're worth talking about.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...735109717375216

Quote:
Results

Over 4,833,042 person-years of follow-up, we documented 8,631 incident CHD cases. In pooled multivariable analysis, higher adherence to PDI was independently inversely associated with CHD (hazard ratio [HR] comparing extreme deciles: 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.83 to 1.01; p trend = 0.003). This inverse association was stronger for hDPI (HR: 0.75; 95% CI: 0.68 to 0.83; p trend <0.001). Conversely, uPDI was positively associated with CHD (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.20 to 1.46; p trend <0.001).



"PDI" here is a plant based diet, hPDI is a healthier version of plant based, uPDI is a sugary, more refined version. If this study was worth talking about--then I'd think that the headline should be that the quality of the plant foods eaten, which is mostly the carbohydrate portion of the diet, has a stronger correlation to heart disease than whether there's meat in the diet. None of these numbers really excite me, but a hazard ration of .92 for lowest vs. highest meat intake is especially dull.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 04:49
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,847
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by teaser
I think these kinds of study are mostly a big waste of money. They're only worth talking about because lots of people think they're worth talking about.

For me, the following statement is all one needs to know:

Quote:
These participants responded to a follow-up questionnaire every two years for over two decades on lifestyle, health behaviors and medical history.


Submitting a questionnaire every two years over two decades? This makes the "impressive" statistical calculations a farce, as there can be no degree of accuracy or veracity to these questionnaires. I believe that people think these studies are worth talking about when the results are consistent with their beliefs and biases.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 07:59
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,411
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Great point, Rob. Even the useless National weight loss registry bugs me once every year.

A helpful graph from Dr Naiman, based on USDA food availability data. What is actually sold a more valuable metric than a recall of the last two years.

https://www.dietdoctor.com/already-...lant-based-diet

Quote:
We already have a plant-based diet, as Dr. Ted Naiman recently tweeted. 70% of calories in America in 2010 were plant-based.
Sadly, 60% were GRAINS, SUGARS, and OILS:


Graphs of 2000 vs 2010 of major categories of plant and animal foods at link.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Fri, Jul-21-17, 09:19
GRB5111's Avatar
GRB5111 GRB5111 is online now
Posts: 1,847
 
Plan: Ketogenic (LCHFKD)
Stats: 227/186/185 Male 6' 0"
BF:
Progress: 98%
Location: Herndon, VA
Default

The referenced graphs from Naiman tell a very interesting story about what constitutes the majority of the diet consumed by Americans. As the quote points out, in 2010, the amount of grains, added plant-based fats and oils, and sugars and sweeteners is really over the top compared to the remainder of the dietary categories. Again, and I'm being as accurate as any epidemiological study based on questionnaires, one could hypothesize that the majority of Americans are eating processed foods due to greater consumption of these three dietary categories. Others could also point to the presence of animal foods and hypothesize that this is the issue. Neither claim ever answers the real question. No wonder people are confused while attempting to follow a very unstable dietary path.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Sat, Jul-22-17, 04:19
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is online now
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,411
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

The presence of "animal based foods" totals decreased 4% from 2000 to 2010, while at the same time, obesity and diabetes continued to rise. So if anyone thinks food availability is a valid marker for what the US is eating and how it is impacting our health...it ain't the beef Only need look at that majority 60% to at least find association. The total calories of the plant based segment actually decreased, and sugars decreased, but plant based oils increased 8%.

Nina Teicholz talk on vegetable oils dominating the American diet.
https://www.paleofx.com/videos/vege...an-food-health/

Last edited by JEY100 : Sat, Jul-22-17 at 05:45.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Sat, Jul-22-17, 05:44
WereBear's Avatar
WereBear WereBear is offline
Posts: 9,916
 
Plan: Epi-Paleo/IF
Stats: 220/162/150 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 83%
Location: USA
Default

Quote:
Plant-based diets with high intake of sweets, refined grains may increase heart disease risk


And this is the basis of the vegan diet -- I now avoid all such products because they are loaded with carbs. So much so I wonder if they are somehow tripping into the Rice Diet? They are the one third who can thrive on this bizarre concoction?

Don't get me wrong; I could probably be happy eating nothing but Smarties if I didn't get such overwrought reactions from my body by so doing
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Jul-27-17, 16:12
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,073
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/174/175 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 102%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

An conclusion in search of data to back it up?
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Thu, Jul-27-17, 16:54
Zei Zei is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 1,216
 
Plan: Carb reduction in general
Stats: 230/213/180 Female 5 ft 9 in
BF:
Progress: 34%
Location: Texas
Default

Study's results seem unsurprising. Junk food isn't good for you regardless of what other foods you eat. Also, the vast majority of what I think of as junk food (chips, candy, sugary drinks, cake and so on) is manufactured from plants. Even lower quality animal foods like fast food CAFO-produced burger patties are consumed typically with buns, sugary drinks, fries....so who's to say which part of the meal caused any possible resulting health problems?

Last edited by Zei : Thu, Jul-27-17 at 17:00.
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 13:16.


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