Yet another survey that will make some people happy and some people sad...

[DeusXM]

Unusually for me, I’m not going to take a position here. I’m just going to throw this out there as something for discussion.

Fatty Foods Affect Memory and Exercise - Well Blog - NYTimes.com (http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/13/fatty-foods-affect-memory-and-exercise/)

This bit is the really interesting one.

It’s not clear why fatty foods would cause a short-term decline in cognitive function. One theory is that a high-fat diet can trigger insulin resistance, which means the body becomes less efficient at using the glucose, or blood sugar, so important to brain function.

[foxl]

Duh huh, duh huh. I read this yesterday, but FORGOT what it said. :cool:

This work was done in rats, by the way. And ... they are scavenging omnivores. Not sure how applicable to humans, would not entirely discredit it, but would interpret applicability with caution.

[ShottleBop]

Just this weekend, I was listening to an interview by Jimmy Moore, of Livin' La Vida Low Carb (with either Dr. Davis, of Track Your Plaque, or with one of the founders of Nutrition and Metabolism. They discussed a similar study, and noted that it takes several days for your body to convert from using glucose to using fat as a primary source of energy. Once that conversion is made, however, the effect disappears.

[fgummett]

I thought I had read similar research a short while back as well?

The NYTimes article does mention -- as yet unpublished -- human research with similar observations BUT as pointed out above, what happens AFTER this "short-term decline in cognitive function"?

As for the exercise/stamina observations I have a few of mine own: Inuit (and their sled dogs), Masai, Sherpas etc...
In fact, as I recall one reason touted for why the Masai could subsist on milk & blood yet still maintain excellent lipid/cholesterol levels and low CVD risk, was due to the amount of running they do every day... you can't have it both ways :D

---

First thing I noticed about this NYTimes article was the prejudice/preconception as in: "...the new research shows how indulging in fatty foods over the course of a few days can affect the brain and body long before the extra pounds show up." As if it is a foregone conclusion that eating fat = storing excess fat mass.

[fgummett]

BTW: anyone care to take a stab at the nutritional breakdown for the meal used to illustrate this story?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/13/health/burger_480.jpg

[MCS]

Did you have to post that picture, man that looks good!



BTW: anyone care to take a stab at the nutritional breakdown for the meal used to illustrate this story?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/13/health/burger_480.jpg

[fgummett]

My apologies MCS :T my point was that this story is about a 55% fat diet fed to rats... in that picture -- of human "food" -- so far as fat is concerned I see 1 (maybe 2) slices of cheese, deep-fried chips/fries and "where's the beef?!?". Waay more carbs than fat. Again I was simply underlining the myths/assumptions promoted and supported by the media... "everyone *knows* that burger and fries is a fatty meal" :eek:

---

By posting this picture I am not attempting to discredit the article referred to in this story and posted by DeusXM (I am genuinely interested in the discussion)... BUT I am pointing out the media bias which so many folks seem to read without even noticing these days.

[fgummett]

Sorry to be "spamming" this post but I just noticed this in the OPs quote "...high-fat diet can trigger insulin resistance, which means the body becomes less efficient at using the glucose, or blood sugar, so important to brain function"

Does this imply that IR makes it harder for the Brain to use Glucose... because it was my understanding that the Brain does not use Insulin in order to access Glucose :confused:

[Granny Shanny]

Shure, Frank . . . a likely story! You just wanted to get us drooling all over our keyboards! :D :D :D

My apologies MCS :T my point was that this story is about a 55% fat diet fed to rats... in that picture -- of human "food" -- so far as fat is concerned I see 1 (maybe 2) slices of cheese, deep-fried chips/fries and "where's the beef?!?". Waay more carbs than fat. Again I was simply underlining the myths/assumptions promoted and supported by the media... "everyone *knows* that burger and fries is a fatty meal" :eek:

---

By posting this picture I am not attempting to discredit the article referred to in this story and posted by DeusXM (I am genuinely interested in the discussion)... BUT I am pointing out the media bias which so many folks seem to read without even noticing these days.

[Grunch]

BTW: anyone care to take a stab at the nutritional breakdown for the meal used to illustrate this story?

It has more calories from fat than carbs assuming it was a big mac and medium french fries.

Waay more carbs than fat. Again I was simply underlining the myths/assumptions promoted and supported by the media... "everyone *knows* that burger and fries is a fatty meal" :eek:

What about the myths/assumptions promoted and supported by the low carbers in this forum? You don't seem so eager to point those out.

[fgummett]

It has more calories from fat than carbs assuming it was a big mac and medium french fries.OK assuming a Big Mac and Medium Fries and according to the Canadian McDonald's Nutrition Calculator .:: McDonald's Nutrition Calculator ::. (http://www.mcdonalds.ca/NutritionCalculator/index_en.html) that would be a total of 890 Calories made up of 47g Fat (47 * 9 = 423 Calories), 91g Carbohydrates (91 * 4 = 364 Calories) and 28g Protein (28 * 4 = 112 Calories) so yes! you are correct... based on your assumption. For me it looks more like a Large Fries which bumps it to 1,090 Calories made up of 56g Fat (56 * 9 = 504 Calories), 118g Carbohydrates (118 * 4 = 472 Calories) and 30g Protein (30 * 4 = 120 Calories) AND I've gotta say that does not look like McDonald's food to me... as above where's the beef?!? So in my view there is even less Fat and Protein. The fries even look fatter than McDonald's which implies less surface area and yet again.. less Fat.

Nonetheless in neither case above is the Fat at 55% of Calories, as in the story... NOR does it look anything like Rat Chow to me ;)

Is your position that the media is fair, balanced and unbiased in its reporting... both in general and in this story in particular?

What about the myths/assumptions promoted and supported by the low carbers in this forum? You don't seem so eager to point those out.As for this I assume you have some concrete examples and I have started a new thread so you can air them and we can discuss without taking DeusXM's thread even more off topic:
http://www.diabetesforums.com/forum/carbohydrate-and-calories/42597-myths-assumptions-promoted-supported.html

[notme]

I think it IS fair to assume that most people on these boards would eat neither of those foods mentioned. Most do not eat high carb and most do not eat high fat. Once again, I think balance is the key and chosing the right foods. Veggies, some fruits a few whole grains and salmon and nuts.

Generally, the people on this site are quite intelligent enough to know how we should be eating and what we should be not eating. Big Macs or anything on a burger bun would not be on the list.

The American public is catching on that we have been duped. That is why McDonalds and many of the other fast food restaurants are trying to offer "healthy" substitutes. We are on to that also. Most are not healthy choices.

[xMenace]

BTW: anyone care to take a stab at the nutritional breakdown for the meal used to illustrate this story?

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2009/08/13/health/burger_480.jpg

I was trying to do this in my head

*see the 3 buns? this is no Big Mac!

Fries 80g carbs and 16g of fat
Burger 90g of carbs, 48g of fat, and 64g of protein.

I don't really count fat and protein so I'm lost there.

They point fingers at insulin resistance, but did they measure insulin levels? Higher resistance would mean higher levels and high BGs, no?

Does this really measure cognitive ability? One thing high carb diets supposedly does is create a desire for more carbs due to both high insulin levels and that brain-drug-like effect. Sorry, the name escapes me. But what was tehe prize for these carb induced rats? Carbs of course. Rats on high fat diets don't crave carbs!

BTW standard rat chow has 59% carbs. LabDiet 5001 Rodent Diet at SouthernAgriculture.com (http://www.southernagriculture.com/southag/product.asp?dept_id=3164&pf_id=PAAAIALOPBEELJAP&ad_id=nextag&key_id=6264_LabDiet5001RodentDiet)

[xMenace]

most do not eat high fat.

I eat high fat. I'm sure many low carbers do. And my last post proves I'm thinking just fine! :eek:

[xMenace]

Half of the rats had also been trained to run on a treadmill. After only a few days on the high-fat diet, the rats performed 30 percent worse on the treadmill. After five days of testing, the treadmill performance of the rats eating fatty foods had declined by half. The study results appear in The Faseb Journal, which is the journal of the Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology.

After only a few days on the high-fat diet, the rats performed 30 percent worse on the treadmill.

Worse than who, rats on the other diet? Are there any studies that show performace of any rats on treadmills over time? If treadmill running needs to be trained, it can't be natural. How long do you expect rats to keep running on them? This section is severly lacking in facts.

[notme]

I don't eat high fat and I don't eat high carb. I think (cept for lows) that my thinking process works just fine.

No amount of scientific research will ever get me to eat high fat. I would be physically ill. Just can't do it.

[fgummett]

I guess I don't really see it as "high Fat"... but rather "the way nature intended"... I don't go out of my way to eat spoons full of lard but I do leave the skin on chicken, choose a nicely marbled grass-fed steak, eggs, bacon, unadulterated milk/cream, nuts, dark-chocolate, butter and so on. It is only when compared to the low-fat message of the last few decades that this may seem like high-fat... but if my Grandma were still alive I'm sure she would see it as only natural to eat real whole food this way.

It seems common sense to me when so much of our natural food comes with both fat and protein combined... why do we think we are smarter than nature and need to strip out the fat?

[butterflykisses]

Shure, Frank . . . a likely story! You just wanted to get us drooling all over our keyboards! :D :D :D

And it worked!:D

[fgummett]

I just have to say that although I have fond recollections of enjoying a burger and fries I can honestly say that I am not the least bit tempted by that picture I posted... not interested! I am finally back in control of my hunger and I've no intentions of giving that up ever again.

[notme]

I guess I don't really see it as "high Fat"... but rather "the way nature intended"... I don't go out of my way to eat spoons full of lard but I do leave the skin on chicken, choose a nicely marbled grass-fed steak, eggs, bacon, unadulterated milk/cream, nuts, dark-chocolate, butter and so on. It is only when compared to the low-fat message of the last few decades that this may seem like high-fat... but if my Grandma were still alive I'm sure she would see it as only natural to eat real whole food this way.

It seems common sense to me when so much of our natural food comes with both fat and protein combined... why do we think we are smarter than nature and need to strip out the fat?


I am not convinced that nature intended us to eat marbled meat, cows milk, chickens with skin on it, bacon, or dark chocolate and butter. I must admit, I do have cream in my coffee and I buy butter rather than margarine, but I keep both to a minimum. Nuts, berries, veggies and fish work best for me. I don't buy into the high carb diet, but can't embrace marbled meat nor steak and bacon. I think the low fat diet was not such a bad idea, they just gave us the wrong alternatives.

[fgummett]

I am not convinced that nature intended us...So you'd spend all day setting a trap or hunting down some food to feed your family and then throw half of the edible parts away? :) Surely common sense suggests otherwise.

No-one is suggesting that you force down food that is not to your taste but have you considered the brainwashing factor of "Artery Clogging Fats!" or "Heart Attack On A Plate!" or any other of the numerous catch-phrases we have been force fed over recent decades? Fat is an essential nutrient that has gotten a bad rap.

[Grunch]

I love how you nitpick and distort things all the time for lack of real arguments.

Notme made a very good point and you didn't respond to it, you just twisted things in a way that suits you best.

You said nature intended us to eat butter, chocolate and cow's milk. How did you reach that conclusion?

And nature never intends anything. It just eliminates individuals who don't adapt properly to the circumstances. Most people who eat the recomended balanced diets (including all the carbs) are healthy, so your assumption that nature "intended" us to eat high fat makes absolutely no sense.

[fgummett]

Notme made a very good point and you didn't respond to it...What point did I not respond to?

[Grunch]

That nature didn't intend us to eat butter, cows milk and chocolate.

[fgummett]

I did not make the statement that "Nature Intended us to eat butter, cows milk and chocolate" I DID say "I guess I don't really see it as "high Fat"... but rather "the way nature intended"... I don't go out of my way to eat spoons full of lard but I do leave the skin on chicken, choose a nicely marbled grass-fed steak, eggs, bacon, unadulterated milk/cream, nuts, dark-chocolate, butter and so on. It is only when compared to the low-fat message of the last few decades that this may seem like high-fat..."

My intention with "the way nature intended" was to get across the meaning that this is basically unadulterated food that has not been tampered with in some industrial factory process. The same idea which I went on to expand with "...so much of our natural food comes with both fat and protein combined."

---

We have eaten fat in some form since "whenever"... so it makes sense our bodies are naturally adapted to deal with it and to let us know when we have eaten enough of it -- unlike the refined/concentrated carbohydrates and other additives in so much of what we are now offered in our stores... we have not had time to adapt to these "foods"

[PERKDOUG]

I would mud wrestle but it's too hot under my rock here in Texas (98 today)! So, I will try to make some points regarding the OP. I tried to get at the details this rat research noted by the OP. I am too cheap to pay the $$ to get a copy via the Net. But I call your attendion to this bit of rat research that might be similar in design:

Maternal diet rich in saturated fats has deleterious effects on plasma lipids of mice (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2274858)

I enjoyed reading this research. They get into details of how they conducted the rat experiment. This is the usual 'Saturated fat Is bad" research stuff. They used lard and safflower oil purchased at the local grocery store to fuel the little critters in their experiment. The carbohydrate to fuel the little guys you will find more interesting. They used sugar and corn starch as the sole source of carbohydrates. Now, even you Low-Fat advocates will admit that a high sugar (50% glucose 50% fructose) confounds the experiment. Much recent research shows that "Fructose Be bad" when taken as a large fraction of carb input. I calculated that 27% of the total calorie intake was sugar (sucrose). I conclude nothing here because of the fructose confounding this work. And just as an aside, Lard should not be considered a saturated fat. Lard contains saturated fat, but the principal fat in lard is a monounsaturate. Lard is about 46% saturated and 54 % mono and polyunsaturated fat. Coconut oil would have been a better choice if saturated fat was the real objective. But of cource with coconut oil, you could not desparage animal fats.
I don't want to appear to beat up to much on this research, the researchers that did it were very upfront about their methods, kudos to them!

Let me know if this kind of stuff bores you, I find it interesting and even entertaining.

Thanks for reading my response.

[foxl]

I did not make the statement that "Nature Intended us to eat butter, cows milk and chocolate" I DID say "I guess I don't really see it as "high Fat"... but rather "the way nature intended"... I don't go out of my way to eat spoons full of lard but I do leave the skin on chicken, choose a nicely marbled grass-fed steak, eggs, bacon, unadulterated milk/cream, nuts, dark-chocolate, butter and so on. It is only when compared to the low-fat message of the last few decades that this may seem like high-fat..."

My intention with "the way nature intended" was to get across the meaning that this is basically unadulterated food that has not been tampered with in some industrial factory process. The same idea which I went on to expand with "...so much of our natural food comes with both fat and protein combined."

---

We have eaten fat in some form since "whenever"... so it makes sense our bodies are naturally adapted to deal with it and to let us know when we have eaten enough of it -- unlike the refined/concentrated carbohydrates and other additives in so much of what we are now offered in our stores... we have not had time to adapt to these "foods"


Nancy does make a good point -- our butterfat might be consumed, more naturally in milk from cows that were not overbred to have so much fat in their milk ... and having fed on grasses, NOT GRAINS. Birds eating in the wild, likewise. Flightless chickens that tip over when they stand up are NOT natural, nor are eggs therefrom that are loaded with the products of their highly unnatural diets. The fatty acid compostion of these foods is entirely different from "wild type" products we may once have had access to.

And yes, I DO eat eggs, cream, butter, and chocolate refined as it is from the cacao bean, myself. Our choices from what is available today are definitely influenced by economics.

But stuffing ourselves with the same grain we are feeding these animals ... well, I know where that (among other factors) got ME ...

[fgummett]

...nicely marbled grass-fed steak...Sheesh..! ya can't win for trying... type too much and get complaints for being too long-winded, try to be concise and get lambasted for not being specific enough :T

[foxl]

Okay -- GRASS-FED steak, butter, cream, and FREE-RANGE chicken?

(Is there such a thing as free-range cacao? LOL).

[notme]

So you'd spend all day setting a trap or hunting down some food to feed your family and then throw half of the edible parts away? :) Surely common sense suggests otherwise.

No-one is suggesting that you force down food that is not to your taste but have you considered the brainwashing factor of "Artery Clogging Fats!" or "Heart Attack On A Plate!" or any other of the numerous catch-phrases we have been force fed over recent decades? Fat is an essential nutrient that has gotten a bad rap.


Because our ancestors ate trapped meat to survive doesn't mean we can't evolve to a better system. We also used outhouses and slept on beds made of straps. I would not go back to that "old way" of doing things, just because my ancestors did. I think what we have now was a positive evolution. I don't believe that most of the meat today is healthy to eat. Great if you can find or afford grain fed meats and free range chicken, but unless you raise these yourself or from a trusted rancher, I don't trust the meat that is purchased in local stores today. My common sense suggests that there is a better way than the way my ancestors did things.

I don't entirely believe that we are being "brainwashed". I think that we have gotten into some cheap ways of eating and buying foods. I think large companies have discovered our taste for sugar and flour and it is cheap to create cheap tasty food. I think scientists are learning that their original food pyramid may be incorrect, but I am not a conspiracy theorist that believes they are out to kill us. We learn as we go and make changes as we learn.

When I was first diagnosed with diabetes my doctor had me eating low fat, high carb diet. I honestly don't think he was trying to kill me off, I think they didn't have all the facts yet on diabetes. Now, my doctor suggests low carb and he also suggests limited healthy fats. I tend to agree as it seems to be working for me.

As you say yourself, Frank, there is no proof in either direction. There is the Mediterranean diet that is mostly fresh fruits, nuts, veggies, and fish. They seem to be living longer than us without the heart attacks and clogged arteries. So, for now, common sense has me following that type of diet.

[fgummett]

Nancy are you suggesting that I am saying "conspiracy theory" or "out to kill me"? That is not my intention. Of course our Doctors etc.. are working from a standpoint where they feel they are doing their best... that doesn't mean they are right.

[notme]

Nancy are you suggesting that I am saying "conspiracy theory" or "out to kill me"? That is not my intention. Of course our Doctors etc.. are working from a standpoint where they feel they are doing their best... that doesn't mean they are right.

I think that is the impression I got from this part of your post. have you considered the brainwashing factor of "Artery Clogging Fats!" or "Heart Attack On A Plate!" or any other of the numerous catch-phrases we have been force fed over recent decades? Fat is an essential nutrient that has gotten a bad rap.

I agree, it definitely doesn't mean they are right, but at some point they will get it right. So, it doesn't mean they are wrong this time either. There is a lot of research on the Mediterranean diet and it does make sense to me and it appeals to my taste.

We also agree that fat is an essential nutrient. What we don't seem to agree on is the type of fat or the quantity needed. Thats ok. We certainly don't have to agree. We may both be wrong, only time and research will tell.

[davef]

For me, I guess if we are looking back (to the good ol' days) for inspiration on what we should/shouldn't eat, it comes down to what grandparents would have said, all things in moderation.

My grandfather was a butcher so I know that meat was always cooked and served with fat on it. I do know that meat cooked with fat or marbled beef will give a better flavour.

My father is a product of my grand-parents approach to food, he always believed in all things in moderation, but certainly had a blind spot when applying that to eating fats. He never consumed much in the way of sweets/candy (just doesn't like them, the lucky fecker), I have never in my life seen him eat breakfast cereal, he rarely ate rice/pasta - in short he was/is a stereotypical Irishman eating "Meat and two veg". Not into high doses of carbs at all, baring potatoes.

All in all he lived and ate an ol' time healthy diet.

Four years ago he had a MAJOR heart attack, did the fats "get him", don't know, no way of really knowing but today he is now really applying all things in moderation.

I think what it comes down to is we need to make the best food choices available to us in today's world.