 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / August 2007Are low fat diets dead?
I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet. These pretty much boiled down to: 1. Studies "debunking" low fat diets did not look at truly low fat diets. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Low fat diets are diets where 10% or fewer calories are from fat. Participants were not sufficiently monitored to ensure compliance. 2. Most Americans never went on low fat diets ---------------------------------------------------------------------- 1. # 1 from the previous paragraph. 2. People just added low fat foods to their diets without taking other foods out. I heard this at a conference from Jeff Novick, head of the Pritikin centers. He had many graphs from research he did ( I don't have citations ) showing that during the low fat craze people just added more food ( low fat) to their usual diets. Interestingly, he said people did something similar in the hey day of low carb diets. They just ate more. 3. Not all low fat diets are equal ----------------------------------------------------- 1. Low fat diets should have been composed of high bulk ( naturally high in water and fiber together ) unprocessed foods. This would have kept calorie counts down and taken advantage of it being very difficult for a human body to convert excess carbohydrate calories into fat. These arguments piqued my interest and I decided to google around on "low fat". Almost every hit was some anecdotal account or pop journalist interpretation of studies that show that "low fat diet do not work". I only found one site that explained low fat diets ( fatfree.com ). I am wondering if this is just due to the low fat diet going out of fashion before the web became really big and/or the low fat dieters out there are simply not putting up low fat diet sites? Your opinion? It depends upon what you mean by "low fat." If there are only trace amounts of lipids in the diet, but the diet is sufficient and has no problematic foods, then you will replace the arachidonic acid in your body with Mead acid, which is very important to do for long term health. However, the major problem seems to be that it's not very tasty or satisfying, and you might eat too much calorically-dense foods. I suggest you eat very low lipid foods, with the exception of cheese, dark chocolate, and eggs, and then add coconut oil or butter to the items to make them more satisfying, such as putting a little butter or coconut oil on a no-fat cookie. Just don't cook dairy, and only boil eggs. Shredded coconut might enhance the diet as well - I grind up shredded coconut very fine and put it on all kinds of things. Small amounts of nutritional yeast is good for intake of trace minerals and B vitamins. Steve <veganstirfry@gmail.com> wrote in part: >1. Low fat diets should have been composed of high bulk ( naturally >high in water and fiber together ) unprocessed foods. This would >have kept calorie counts down and taken advantage of it being very >difficult for a human body to convert excess carbohydrate calories >into fat. "Difficult?" -- Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchinnis@alum.mit.edu > "Difficult?" > -- If that was an IQ test, the OP just flunked. Nothing is stored as fat more quickly or efficiently than carbohydrate. Susan As biologist Ray Peat pointed out, the old animal studies showed clearly that fat free diets resulted in hardly any cancer. Basically, without dietary PUFAs, there is very little cancer risk. You can read more about the relevant evidence, along with some essays I wrote on this and related subjects, at my free site: http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum- On Aug 15, 10:47 pm, monty1...@lycos.com wrote: > As biologist Ray Peat pointed out, the old animal studies showed > clearly that fat free diets resulted in hardly any cancer. Basically, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum- Fat free diets also result in death. Moron. > x-no-archive: yes > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Susan In my life experience those who label people as idiots without bothering with details, such as what they actually said, let alone the reasons for it, say much more about the level of their own learning and depth of thoughtfulness than the people the label. FYI, could be wrong, but http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.nutrition/browse_frm/thread/15f5aeec261e4 3a2/4eb1f815e98e50ef?hl=en#4eb1f815e98e50ef BTW, that is not what my original post was about, if you had bothered to read it before commenting. - the "idiot" OP > Steve <veganstir...@gmail.com> wrote in part: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA jchin...@alum.mit.edu I didn't want to get technical, since the question in my original post was about the near absence of low fat diet sites on the web and in other popular media as compared to other diets, but usenet being usenet. Well here is what I mean. Care to comment on my original question? J Clin Invest. 1995 December; 96(6): 2735-2743. Short-term alterations in carbohydrate energy intake in humans. Striking effects on hepatic glucose production, de novo lipogenesis, lipolysis, and whole-body fuel selection. Summary: Excess carbohydrates are not significantly converted to fat by the liver. When excess carbohydrates are taken in, carbohydrate oxidation increases, fat oxidation decreases. Even with a 50% excess in calories in carbohydrates "absolute hepatic DNL accounted for < 5g fatty acids synthesized per day" It would take 3 months eating excess carbohydrates to make a single pound of fat. Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Jul;62(1):19-29. Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding in humans: different effects on energy storage. Summary: Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat accumulation than does excess dietary carbohydrate, and the difference was greatest early in the overfeeding period."Carbohydrate overfeeding produced progressive increases in carbohydrate oxidation and total energy expenditure resulting in 75-85% of excess energy being stored. Alternatively, fat overfeeding had minimal effects on fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of 90-95% of excess energy." > I didn't want to get technical, since the question in my original post > was about the near absence of low fat diet sites on the web and in > other popular media as compared to other diets, but usenet being > usenet. Well here is what I mean. Care to comment on my original > question? > J Clin Invest. 1995 December; 96(6): 2735-2743. Short-term alterations > in > carbohydrate energy intake in humans. Striking effects on hepatic > glucose > production, de novo lipogenesis, lipolysis, and whole-body fuel > selection. > Summary: > Excess carbohydrates are not significantly converted to fat by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > synthesized per day" It would take 3 months eating excess > carbohydrates to make a single pound of fat. > Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Jul;62(1):19-29. Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding > in humans: different effects on energy storage. > Summary: > Excess dietary fat leads to greater fat [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of > 90-95% of excess energy." Good finds. A Danish study in Ugeskr Laeger. 2000 Sep 4;162(36): 4794-9. by Dich J, Grunnet N, Lammert O, Faber P, Bj?rnsbo KS, Larsen LO, Neese RA, Hellerstein MC, Quistorff B. states: "Ten pairs of normal young men were overfed by 5 MJ per day for 21 days with either a carbohydrate-rich or a fat-rich diet (C- and F- group). The two subjects of a pair were requested to follow each other throughout the day to ensure similar physical activity. The increase in body weight and fat mass were not significantly different between the C- and the F-group. Heat production during sleep did not change during overfeeding. The accumulated faecal loss of energy, dry matter, carbohydrate and protein was significantly higher in the C- than in the F-group. Hepatic de novo lipogenesis was 212 g per 21 days in the C-group and was too low to be determined in the F-group. Whole body de novo lipogenesis was positive in six of the ten subjects in the C- group (mean: 332 g per 21 days). It is concluded that the increase in body weight and fat mass during overfeeding of isocaloric amounts of diets rich in carbohydrate or in fat was not significantly different, and that surplus of carbohydrate seemed to be converted to fat both by hepatic and extrahepatic de novo lipogenesis." Although the DNL (fatty acid production) was twice as large, it doesn't give a mechanism for rapid weight gain. The second article you quote shows reduced weight gain per excess calorie consumption for a high carbohydrate diet compared to a high fat diet, but does the body have another mechanism for eliminating calories on a very high carbohydrate diet? I assume that the liver has limited capability for holding large amounts of glycogen. Since DNL is low even in the high carbohydrate diet, a normal diet is going to accumulate fatty acids in the ratios that they are consumed. -- Ron DNL = de novo lipogenesis "Ron Peterson" < >Although the DNL (fatty acid production) was twice as large, it doesn't give a mechanism for rapid weight gain. The second article you quote shows reduced weight gain per excess calorie consumption for a high carbohydrate diet compared to a high fat diet, but does the body have another mechanism for eliminating calories on a very high carbohydrate diet? I assume that the liver has limited capability for holding large amounts of glycogen. The liver has the capability proportional for the size. The size do not change from day to day. So such studies (few weeks on healthy pople) have no sense. > Good finds. A Danish study in Ugeskr Laeger. 2000 Sep 4;162(36): > 4794-9. by Dich J, Grunnet N, Lammert O, Faber P, Bj?rnsbo KS, Larsen [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > and that surplus of carbohydrate seemed to be converted to fat both by > hepatic and extrahepatic de novo lipogenesis." Good find yourself. One study doesn't mean anything, but this makes sense with my personal experience and what I hear from other people. No matter what magic trick diet you are on ( low carb or low fat ) if you eat too many calories, you will gain weight. My tastes naturally go towards low fat meals ....about 15%, but I count calories. It lets me eat what I want and control my weight. > My tastes naturally go towards low fat meals ....about 15%, but I > count calories. It lets me eat what I want and control my weight. I am basically trying to cut my consumption of saturated and trans fats, while slightly increasing PUFA. I think that my total fat consumption is less than 50 g/day but probably more than 30 g/day. I was able to drop my weight 20 lbs and don't think that I need to go lower immediately. My spouse is up a little from her normal weight because she was eating close to the same portion size I was. She has cut back her portion size and stopped gaining. -- Ron "Steve" >Good find yourself. One study doesn't mean anything, but this makes sense with my personal experience and what I hear from other people. No matter what magic trick diet you are on ( low carb or low fat ) if you eat too many calories, you will gain weight. >My tastes naturally go towards low fat meals ....about 15%, but I count calories. It lets me eat what I want and control my weight. If you "want" eat animal products when you eat 30% (minimum) calories from fat. Below this you must eat mainly plant products. S* > "Steve" > If you "want" eat animal products when you eat 30% (minimum) calories from > fat. Below this you must eat mainly plant products. > S* Well even before the carb vs fat wars any grandmother would tell you that you want to eat things other than just animal products. The Ornish as well as the Pritikin diets are very low fat, yet both allow some fish and dairy products. > > "Steve" > > If you "want" eat animal products when you eat 30% (minimum) calories from > > fat. Below this you must eat mainly plant products. > > S* > Well even before the carb vs fat wars any grandmother would tell you > that you want to eat things other than just animal products. The > Ornish as well as the Pritikin diets are very low fat, yet both allow > some fish and dairy products. With average consumption of fat at 100 g/day, even 50 g/day would be a significant reduction of fat consumption and that can be done by choosing leaner cuts of meat and using reduced fat dairy products. Most of the harm from eating fat comes from saturated fat, so low fat diets are now being modified into low saturated fat diets making fish a preferred source of protein. -- Ron "Steve" > Summary: > Excess carbohydrates are not significantly converted to fat by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > synthesized per day" It would take 3 months eating excess > carbohydrates to make a single pound of fat. Why pigs are different? > Am J Clin Nutr. 1995 Jul;62(1):19-29. Fat and carbohydrate overfeeding > in humans: different effects on energy storage. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > fat oxidation and total energy expenditure, leading to storage of > 90-95% of excess energy." They do not know that we can digest only 150g of fats per day. The excess dietary fat pass thru. Easy to check. S* > "Steve" > > Summary: > > Excess carbohydrates are not significantly converted to fat by the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > synthesized per day" It would take 3 months eating excess > > carbohydrates to make a single pound of fat. > Why pigs are different? Pigs aren't different. Increasing their fat in their diet increases the amount of fat deposits in the body. > They do not know that we can digest only 150g of fats per day. The excess > dietary fat pass thru. Easy to check. I couldn't find any reference to a maximum digestion of 150 g of fats per day. One overfeeding experiment was able to cause a gain of 54 g per day of fat on average. Another study showed 80% efficiency on an intake of 133 g/day. -- Ron >> "Steve" > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Pigs aren't different. Increasing their fat in their diet increases > the amount of fat deposits in the body. " Excess carbohydrates are not significantly converted to fat by the liver." Before WW2 pigs were feed without fats and pork fat was 6 fingers thick. >> They do not know that we can digest only 150g of fats per day. The excess >> dietary fat pass thru. Easy to check. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > per day of fat on average. Another study showed 80% efficiency on an > intake of 133 g/day. You are taking about todays study. The most valuable were done in XIX century. In that time was also found that the high fat diet is most effective in weight losss. S* > I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet. > These pretty much boiled down to: > 1. Studies "debunking" low fat diets did not look at truly low fat > diets. > Low fat diets are diets where 10% or fewer calories are from fat. > Participants were not sufficiently monitored to ensure compliance. That's actually a very low fat diet. A low fat diet contains 30% or fewer fat calories. > 2. Most Americans never went on low fat diets Without reading the nutrition labels, one doesn't know what they are eating. > I only found one site that explained low fat diets ( fatfree.com ). Too many ads, no explanation, but recipes look interesting. > I am wondering if this is just due to the low fat diet going out of > fashion before the web became really big and/or the low fat dieters > out there are simply not putting up low fat diet sites? Very low fat diets don't seem to be necessary for reducing CVD or diabetes as long as trans fats and saturated fats are kept low. -- Ron > I recently heard some proactive defenses of the low fat diet. > [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > Your opinion? The concept of low fat diets comes from the whole bogus calorie bullshit. The idea is that fat contains more energy (9 calories) per gram and carbs contain 4 cal per gram, therefore politicians and ag dept researchers thought that they could sell more grains by trumpeting the magical weight loss paradigm of eating less fat and more carbs. But more than 95% of those restricting calories by restricting fats fail to lose and appreciable weight and/or to keep it off. Low fat diets have never worked and they never will. The only practical approach to real weight loss is to cut refined and manufactured carbs and manufactured foods in general and eat real meat and real veggies that contain real nutrition. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.