Bad Advice

[PinkRose]

Thanks to everyone who addressed my concerns. So my assumption that a LC/HF diet does not necessarily mean high protein may not be correct, it seems. I haven't read Bernstein's classic work but from numerous forum posts I have read that he advocates essentially a diet that consists of meats, dairy products & vegetables. He does not consume any fruits or even nuts I believe (not sure where he stands on legumes).

For the past few months I have essentially followed the following diet:

Breakfast: eggs, tomatoes & cheese with coffee & organic soymilk with supplements.
Dinner: Protein with salad, vegetables, mayonnaise, cheese followed by coffee with lots of nuts.

The only carbs have been a piece of rye toast for breakfast & some croutons or crackers with my dinner. I think this has been a very LC diet & not a particularly high protein diet either.

I've managed to establish good BS control BUT I am now mildly anaemic with high levels of serum urea, as already discussed. I have also had persistent constipation in all this time, which I've never had before. So, I would have to say this diet has not been some miracle cure for me.

I am now instinctively craving fruit & more healthy complex carbs, in moderation of course, and I have started eating more of these foods now. I have noticed that as long as I am careful in matching correct boluses, I am not really experiencing great spikes. In fact the LC diet did not lead to a huge dramatic reduction in insulin requirements as I originally believed. Our BGs are determined it seems by different factors like hormones, liver activity, not just purely on the food we consume. These influences have remained the same irrespective of the diet being followed. I believe my insulin requirements as I introduce more healthy carbs into my diet will only increase by a modest amount (watch this space).

I also thank my lucky stars that I have normal functioning gall bladder that can tolerate a high level of fats. Because people with impaired gall bladder function or have had their g/b removed, simply would not be able to follow a LC/HF diet at all!!! Many people unfortunately do have this problem. Anyone who after eating a lot of fats, experiences nausea & weakness is probably in that category.

Any constructive comments on the above would be greatly appreciated.

[VeeJay]

I also thank my lucky stars that I have normal functioning gall bladder that can tolerate a high level of fats. Because people with impaired gall bladder function or have had their g/b removed, simply would not be able to follow a LC/HF diet at all!!! Many people unfortunately do have this problem. Anyone who after eating a lot of fats, experiences nausea & weakness is probably in that category.

Many ARE able to tolerate the higher fat in the LC/HF diet - myself included. Probably I wouldn't have been able a year or two after my gall bladder was removed. But I don't have any problems with fats now.

I find I need more fiber in my diet now for regularity - I get this from vegetables and flaxmeal (in the form of yummy biscuits and muffins). I also eat a lot of avocados which are also a good fiber source.

I do understand that what works for a Type2 may not work exactly the same for a Type1. You have to do what works for you.

[Tribbles]

I also thank my lucky stars that I have normal functioning gall bladder that can tolerate a high level of fats. Because people with impaired gall bladder function or have had their g/b removed, simply would not be able to follow a LC/HF diet at all!!! Many people unfortunately do have this problem. Anyone who after eating a lot of fats, experiences nausea & weakness is probably in that category.

I don't have a gall bladder and eating a lot of fat definitely upsets my stomach, metformin has nothing on it! That said, I can't tolerate metformin either for the same reason.

This does raise an interesting and unrelated question. I wonder how the incidence of gall bladder disease correlates to Type 2 diabetes since weight, age, and rapid weight loss are all indicators.

[dturney]

I don't know how to respond to this in an intelligent and thoughtful manner.

I am still waiting for someone to post a medical study that shows that saturated fat is bad for your heart. Does anyone have that evidence?

Researchers from the Heart Research Institute in Australia studied the body response from eating meals containing good fats versus bad fats. Participants were fed with meals prepared with either coconut oil (high in "bad" saturated fats) or safflower oil (high in "good" polyunsaturated fats). After only 3 hours, researchers found the participants fed with the coconut meal high in saturated fat had a significantly reduced blood flow due to arteries' reduced ability to expand. After 6 hours, researchers found that the good high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol's anti-inflammatory properties had decreased after the saturated coconut meal, but improved after the polyunsaturated safflower meal. The results of this study were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology . This study once again shows how good fats may improve body functions while bad fats hamper our health. Despite its extreme high level of saturated fat, coconut oil supporters have been promoting coconut oil as a health food. They claimed that coconut oil can cause weight loss, lower blood cholesterol, and is a germ fighter. It is true the structure of some of the saturated fats in coconut oil is different from other saturated fats, but it is scientifically farfetched to claim it as health food to be eaten every day. Like any other foods, moderation is the key.
Saturated fats are mainly found in animal products such as meat, dairy, eggs and seafood. Some plant foods are also high in saturated fats such as coconut, palm oil and palm kernel oil. Although this study is small, it showed that just one "bad" meal can do damage.
Bottom Line


The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute warned that "a high content of saturated fat... found in ..... palm kernel oil, palm oil, coconut oil and cocoa butter" put people at risk for having heart attack or stroke.
For the sake of your heart, minimize the intake of both saturated fats and trans fats. Choose wholesome fresh foods instead of packaged foods, which usually contain these bad fats.
Avoid using cooking oils that are high in saturated fats and trans fats such as coconut oil, palm oil or vegetable shortening. Instead, use oils that are low in saturated fats and high in mono- and polyunsaturated fats such as canola oil, olive oil and safflower oil.
As saturated fats are found in animals products, choose lower-fat version dairy. In addition, trim visible fats and skins from meat products.



Just one in millions Nickp>

[ShottleBop]

And yet, from the the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

[quote]Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

[dturney]

[QUOTE=ShottleBop;664582]And yet, from the the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition:

Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 (95% CI: 0.96, 1.19; P = 0.22) for CHD, 0.81 (95% CI: 0.62, 1.05; P = 0.11) for stroke, and 1.00 (95% CI: 0.89, 1.11; P = 0.95) for CVD. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results.

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Data is a dime a dozen on both sides....

[dturney]

I'm with you Tribbles. I don't have a gall bladder either...but that is not my reason for not eating a LC/HF diet.

[Tribbles]

[QUOTE=dturney;664604]

Data is a dime a dozen on both sides....

This is true. I found an interesting paper (Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States -- Ascherio et al. 313 (7049): 84 -- bmj.com) that basically asserts that although there is an increased risk in a high fat diet it is not a marked increase. Interestingly if you have a high fibre diet you can eat as much fat as you want!

[PinkRose]

I don't have a gall bladder and eating a lot of fat definitely upsets my stomach, metformin has nothing on it! That said, I can't tolerate metformin either for the same reason.

This does raise an interesting and unrelated question. I wonder how the incidence of gall bladder disease correlates to Type 2 diabetes since weight, age, and rapid weight loss are all indicators.

I would say the incidence of gall bladder disorders are quite high in the general population & not just amongst those in middle-age. My close friend has hers removed from gallstones at the age of 32 - when I have her over for dinner it can be tortorous serving meals that are not high in fats. She has strong reactions. A colleague in her 20s had hers removed for the same reason. Another chap in his early 40s was telling me of his ordeal. He mentioned that many people go around only getting small niggly feelings of unease after eating certain fatty foods before mayhem strikes with a severe attack. My impression is that it is relatively common.

This may also not be entirely unrelated either to the central theme of this thread - which seems to be the relative merits of following a LC/HF diet. People with certain conditions may simply not be able to follow it & if they should read that the HF/LC diet is the answer may be severely disappointed.

My own case, as I've advised, is in relation to kidney function and the protein consumption link. The jury is out on this one. My nephrologist does not generally advise his kidney patients to follow a low-protein diet but in my case, given the dramatic rise in Urea levels, he did advise me to cut down on protein for now.

[samorgan]

I think this has already been mentioned, but just to make sure it is clear - proteins have NOTHING to do with a LC/HF diet. You can eat whatever level of proteins you want or need while on a LC/HF diet - average, below average or above average. Nothing about a LC/HF diet precludes any of those. Although I don't think anything is proven, I'm wary of too much protein and only eat the average amount that people eat or slightly lower - about 15% of calories. Personally, I don't think anything over 20% is a good idea.

As to the gall bladder, the cause of this epidemic is the wholesale reduction of natural fats from our diet. When people eat very little fat, the gall bladder stays idle. When it stays idle, the bile in it solidifies. Then, when some fat is consumed, the gall bladder contracts attempting to secret bile to assist in digesting the fats which is its job. But, since after too much disuse the bile has solidified, the result is only pain. With a normal diet, the gall bladder contracts every time you eat, keeping the bile "fresh" and so does not fall into disuse allowing the bile to solidify and cause the stones.

People get confused because the pain shows up when you eat fat and so they think that is the cause. Actually it is eating too little fat before that which was the cause.

Yet another casualty of the most dangerous fad diet of them all - low fat. (Along with something even worse - substituting healthy, natural fats with franken-fats like trans-fats and hydrogenated (rancid) vegetable oils.)

I would say the incidence of gall bladder disorders are quite high in the general population & not just amongst those in middle-age. My close friend has hers removed from gallstones at the age of 32 - when I have her over for dinner it can be tortorous serving meals that are not high in fats. She has strong reactions. A colleague in her 20s had hers removed for the same reason. Another chap in his early 40s was telling me of his ordeal. He mentioned that many people go around only getting small niggly feelings of unease after eating certain fatty foods before mayhem strikes with a severe attack. My impression is that it is relatively common.

This may also not be entirely unrelated either to the central theme of this thread - which seems to be the relative merits of following a LC/HF diet. People with certain conditions may simply not be able to follow it & if they should read that the HF/LC diet is the answer may be severely disappointed.

My own case, as I've advised, is in relation to kidney function and the protein consumption link. The jury is out on this one. My nephrologist does not generally advise his kidney patients to follow a low-protein diet but in my case, given the dramatic rise in Urea levels, he did advise me to cut down on protein for now.

[NickP]

Researchers from the Heart Research Institute in Australia studied the body response from eating meals containing good fats versus bad fats. Participants were fed with meals prepared with either coconut oil (high in "bad" saturated fats) or safflower oil (high in "good" polyunsaturated fats). After only 3 hours, researchers found the participants fed with the coconut meal high in saturated fat had a significantly reduced blood flow due to arteries' reduced ability to expand. After 6 hours, researchers found that the good high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol's anti-inflammatory properties had decreased after the saturated coconut meal, but improved after the polyunsaturated safflower meal. The results of this study were published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology . This study once again shows how good fats may improve body functions while bad fats hamper our health. Despite its extreme high level of saturated fat, coconut oil supporters have been promoting coconut oil as a health food. They claimed that coconut oil can cause weight loss, lower blood cholesterol, and is a germ fighter. It is true the structure of some of the saturated fats in coconut oil is different from other saturated fats, but it is scientifically farfetched to claim it as health food to be eaten every day. Like any other foods, moderation is the key.
Saturated fats are mainly found in animal products such as meat, dairy, eggs and seafood. Some plant foods are also high in saturated fats such as coconut, palm oil and palm kernel oil. Although this study is small, it showed that just one "bad" meal can do damage.


Just one in millions Nickp>

Don, sorry - another flawed analysis. If you go to Chris Masterjohn's website (cholesterol-and-health.com), he wrote an in-depth analysis of this study, the introduction of which is quoted below.

If anyone wants, I will be happy to send you the link to the complete analysis. I thought about quoting this article, but it was too lengthy. The analysis is very in-depth, interesting, and to a certain degree, complex.

Basically, only 14 subjects, after an evening of fasting, were fed a mikshake and a carrot cake breakfast, and their lipids and flow-mediated dilation were measured. One group drank this "healthy" breakfast made with coconut oil, and the other ate it with "safflower oil" - The study claimed that there were less damaging results with the safflower oil than coconut oil, which "proves" that saturated fat is bad for you.

Does anyone else see any "logic violations" with this simple experiment, and the big press release that claimed this "proved" that saturated fat is bad for you???????

So, Don, I would agree with you that eating Coconut Oil as part of a "healthy" breakfast of a milkshake and carrot cake is a bad idea....However, this study did not prove that saturated fat is bad for you.

This has been the issue with nearly every study that tries to prove that fat (or saturated fat) is unhealthy. Nearly all of these studies place the fat in a high carbohydrate diet, and then try to say that it is the Fat that is making your unhealthy....not the sugar or the refined carbs.

Please take a few minutes to read the entire report....I think you would find it entertaining.....

Introduction only - quoted below from Chris Masterjohn's Article "Myth: One High-Saturated Fat Meal Can Be Bad"

Newspapers the world over have recently declared that a single meal rich in saturated fats will disrupt the functioning of your arteries and contribute to the inflammation of your blood vessels, following an Associated Press story by Joe Milicia.1 Milicia reported on a recent study2 published by a team of researchers led by Dr. Stephen J. Nicholls of the Australian Heart Research Institute in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology entitled, "Consumption of Saturated Fat Impairs the Anti-Inflammatory Properties of High-Density Lipoproteins and Endothelial Function."

The news article quoted the Kansas City cardiologist Dr. James O'Keefe as claiming the study showed that "when you eat [saturated fat], inflammation and damage to the vessels happens immediately afterward." Of course, the study showed no such thing.

Dr. Nicholls, the lead author of the study, was quoted in the article as saying the study showed the "need to aggressively reduce the amount of saturated fat consumed in the diet." The AP article then clarified for us that this meant reducing our intake of beef, pork, lard, poultry fat, butter, milk, cheeses, coconut oil, palm oil and cocoa butter, and replacing them with safflower oil, sesame oil, sunflower seeds, corn and soybeans. Wow! This study had the power to make sweeping conclusions about over 15 different foods! But in reality, of course, the study showed no such thing.

…this was a well-designed and interesting study; the authors of the report, however, unfortunately made unjustified conclusions from their data in the report itself, and the press articles further sensationalized the story and distorted the study's findings, making rather hysterical claims, unfortunately with the support of the study's lead author.

You may be surprised to find out that arterial function was actually better after the coconut oil meal than the safflower oil meal! Or that, contrary to the claims of the Associated Press article, the authors never measured inflammatory components in the subjects' blood. Or further, that they provided absolutely no evidence that different types of fatty acids, such as saturated or unsaturated, had anything to do with their findings!

In fact, they completely overlooked an alternative explanation that has substantial evidence in the scientific literature to support it: the differences they observed between the anti-inflammatory effects of the different diets may have been due largely or entirely to the difference in vitamin E content of the diets rather than the type of fatty acids present in the oils.

[dturney]

[QUOTE=Tribbles;664677]

This is true. I found an interesting paper (Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States -- Ascherio et al. 313 (7049): 84 -- bmj.com) that basically asserts that although there is an increased risk in a high fat diet it is not a marked increase. Interestingly if you have a high fibre diet you can eat as much fat as you want!

I am going to stick to what I have been doing seems to work.

[dturney]

Don, sorry - another flawed analysis. If you go to Chris Masterjohn's website (cholesterol-and-health.com), he wrote an in-depth analysis of this study, the introduction of which is quoted below.

If anyone wants, I will be happy to send you the link to the complete analysis. I thought about quoting this article, but it was too lengthy. The analysis is very in-depth, interesting, and to a certain degree, complex.

Basically, only 14 subjects, after an evening of fasting, were fed a mikshake and a carrot cake breakfast, and their lipids and flow-mediated dilation were measured. One group drank this "healthy" breakfast made with coconut oil, and the other ate it with "safflower oil" - The study claimed that there were less damaging results with the safflower oil than coconut oil, which "proves" that saturated fat is bad for you.

Does anyone else see any "logic violations" with this simple experiment, and the big press release that claimed this "proved" that saturated fat is bad for you???????

So, Don, I would agree with you that eating Coconut Oil as part of a "healthy" breakfast of a milkshake and carrot cake is a bad idea....However, this study did not prove that saturated fat is bad for you.

This has been the issue with nearly every study that tries to prove that fat (or saturated fat) is unhealthy. Nearly all of these studies place the fat in a high carbohydrate diet, and then try to say that it is the Fat that is making your unhealthy....not the sugar or the refined carbs.

Please take a few minutes to read the entire report....I think you would find it entertaining.....

Introduction only - quoted below from Chris Masterjohn's Article "Myth: One High-Saturated Fat Meal Can Be Bad"

Nick, this could go on forever.....I am to old to switch, and what I have been doing seems to work....I will eat some fat, some protine, some carbs...etc.....leave the HF diets to you folks....I was thinking about that eating lunch today...went to LOgans had their fried shrimp bake potato with butter...hot roll and a salad...I said to myself "this is about as HF as I get...."but it was good.

[NickP]

I am going to stick to what I have been doing seems to work.

Hey Don....It's great that you are happy with your plan. No one is trying to get you to change. For yourself, you may have actually found the perfect balance.

However, your diet does not work for me! My BG would have blown past 200 eating what you did tonight.

All I am asking from you is to consider the fact that maybe we are different (although we are both "old" Navy guys), and are bodies are metabolically different. Therefore, a low carb/high fat diet might be the best diet that my body can handle. Is that such a stretch to accept?

Can't we all get along?????

[Tribbles]

[QUOTE=NickP;665083However, your diet does not work for me! My BG would have blown past 200 eating what you did tonight.[/QUOTE]
I am curious - would it if you used insulin? I understand you don't want to use any medication but I think that is the difference and less that his diet wouldn't work for you. If I ate that without insulin I would go hurtling past 200 but I am pretty certain I could keep it under 140 with insulin.