Jump to content
Diabetes forums
  • Welcome To Diabetes Forums!

    Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today to contribute and support the site.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

kibescorp

Fat promotes insulin resistance FAR more than carbs do

Recommended Posts

kibescorp

Studies have proven that fats of all kinds (with the exception of omega-3 polyunsaturated) increase insulin resistance far more than carbs will in the long run. I suggest you get educated about this if you are still in denial.

 

Promoting high-fat, low-carb diets may seem fun and tasty and keep your blood sugar levels low in the short term.

 

Of course your BG levels will be low ... 70-90% of your calories are from FAT.

 

However, in the long run, this will only increase your IR far more than eating a balanced diet would, not to mention the effects that it's going to have on your heart.

 

Simple fact of nature: foods that taste like **** are healthier for you than foods you actually want to eat. That's yin yang. It's how the universe runs. You pay for what tastes good, because they're less healthy for you.

 

And most people would agree that foods rich in FAT taste far better than starchy carbs.

 

Do you really think that a diet of foods that actually taste BETTER is going to be healthy?

 

The universe doesn't work that way. It's why fiber-rich foods taste like **** but are the best for you. You're paying for the price of a high-fat, low-carb diet sooner or later in the way of drastically increased IR and heart problems. The people who claim that carbs raise your cholesterol more than fats do are complete quacks.

 

Your short-term BG levels won't reflect any of that (they'll be nice and low ... because you're NOT EATING ANY CARBS!), but that doesn't mean you're at all healthy.

 

That's why high-carb diets have been recommended for decades ... until recently now that a high-fat mentality has taken over. It won't end well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cormac_Doyle

If you believe that fats "except omega 3" cause insulin resistance, please provide us with scientific studies (not carried out in rats that do not metabolize fat the way humans do) that support your assertion. So far, the only thing you have said is "if it tastes good, it can't be good for you".

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kibescorp
Studies have proven that fats of all kinds (with the exception of omega-3 polyunsaturated) increase insulin resistance far more than carbs will in the long run ...

 

 

Apparently I can't edit posts, so I'll have to add this:

 

Influence of dietary fat composition on development of insulin resistance in rats. Relationship to muscle triglyceride and omega-3 fatty acids in muscle phospholipid.

Current Atherosclerosis Reports, Volume 1, Number 3 - SpringerLink

Habitual dietary intake and insulin sensitivity in lean and obese adults

 

 

Higher triglycerides and higher levels of LDL promotes insulin resistance and very often LEADS to the development of type-2 diabetes.

 

Hmm ... I wonder what raises bad cholesterol more ... carbs or fats? *rolls eyes*

 

Even the biggest idiot will refrain from debating that.

 

The people who claim that diet plays NO ROLE in the development of IR/diabetes and that ONLY genetics, weight, and physical activity are factors are ... simply put, complete morons.

 

Dumber still are those that think they can gorge on fatty meats full of saturated fat every day and even possibly be healthy. People need to get real. A low BG level simply because you're not eating carbs doesn't mean you won't suffer serious long-term complications in the future. Because you will.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan B

Hi Kibescorp,

 

You have to edit your post within a few minutes (and before anyone else posts), or you won't be able to.

 

Idiot, moron, dumb . . . not the greatest way to bring people over to your way of thinking!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vilya

Say what you want, but my triglycerides went DOWN 150 points from eating fats. And my HDL went UP.

 

I have to wonder why you're coming into the low-carb forum to pick a fight? Your opposing viewpoint might be better received if it wasn't accompanied with snarky *eye rolls* and calling people morons.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
jpearce
Higher triglycerides and higher levels of LDL promotes insulin resistance and very often LEADS to the development of type-2 diabetes.

 

Hmm ... I wonder what raises bad cholesterol more ... carbs or fats? *rolls eyes*

 

Even the biggest idiot will refrain from debating that.

 

The people who claim that diet plays NO ROLE in the development of IR/diabetes and that ONLY genetics, weight, and physical activity are factors are ... simply put, complete morons.

 

Dumber still are those that think they can gorge on fatty meats full of saturated fat every day and even possibly be healthy. People need to get real. A low BG level simply because you're not eating carbs doesn't mean you won't suffer serious long-term complications in the future. Because you will.

 

You seem rather rude. I do not know if one diet is better then another however if eating LCHF means that I would never have to experience DKA again I think it is something I would look into! I would also like to point out every person is different, so how is it you know someone will suffer complications in the future?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cormac_Doyle

Triglyceride levels are more closely associated with carb intake rather than lipid intake. Specifically, all dietaryfructose MUST be stored as triglycerides!

 

Long term human studies HAVE been Performed in respect to high fat/protein diets - the Eskimo/Inuit/native Siberian diets are all this type of diet, yet in all of these populations, heart disease ONLY becomes a factor with the adoption of a significant level of carbs. Note that in other populations, other extreme diets have been tested. I am not blind to that. However, this gives a lie to your unfounded statements.

 

If you want to debate these issues, please refrain from name calling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Vilya
Triglyceride levels are more closely associated with carb intake rather than lipid intake. Specifically, all dietary fructose MUST be stored as triglycerides!

 

Thanks, Cormac. I stand corrected; I didn't know the specifics of it. I just meant it as low carb + high fat = lower trigs for me. :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Peggy_TX

Hmm ... I wonder what raises bad cholesterol more ... carbs or fats? *rolls eyes*

Even the biggest idiot will refrain from debating that.

 

My LDL is 65.... I feel so dumb ... my cholesterol should CLEARLY know it's supposed to be higher!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MCS

At least buy me a doughnut before you call me nut. My chl has improved dramatically eating LC/HF. Trigs are now 38, whats yours, be curious to know. You on a Statin to help correct all the carbs you are ingesting.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
notme

While I agree that eating too much fat is not good for most of us, I totally disagree with calling fellow posters morons or idiots.

 

When joining a new forum, I find it is very helpful to ask questions about why someone is doing things a certain way or just state your beliefs and the reason for your beliefs and then discuss any of the topics that may come from your posts like the intelligent adult you are.

 

Please refrain from name calling and try and use a filter when posting a clearly controversial subject.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xMenace

A little basic math goes a long way. How much does IR increase with fat, ten percent? One hundred percent? One thousand percent? Fat doesn't need insulin. A million percent of zero is still zero. If I eat 100g of carbs I need, on a ggod day, ten units of insulin. If I eat those four hundred calories in fat, then I need zero units of insulin. My IR increases? Big whoop!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xMenace

 

Higher triglycerides and higher levels of LDL promotes insulin resistance and very often LEADS to the development of type-2 diabetes.

 

Carbs cause higher trigs.

 

Hmm ... I wonder what raises bad cholesterol more ... carbs or fats? *rolls eyes*

 

Even the biggest idiot will refrain from debating that.

 

Show me first the evidence that fat raises cholesterol. I can't find anything convincing.

 

The Friedwald is a decades only test that divides serum centrifugally. It's a measure of volume. It is now known that particle size predicts atherosclerosis much more than the Friedwald values. Size matters with this measurement. Fill a bucket ful of sand, count the particles, then place teh same quantity of pebbles back in to the bucket. They won't fit. Yes oatmeal lowers cholesterol, but does it also lower particle size? High carbs create conditions of high triglycerides and high glycation, both are shown to cause small dense LDL. Every low carber I've seen get particle size tests has large fluffy particles.

 

UCLA study shows 3/4 of heart attack victims have normal LDL.

The Iranian Study shows Iranian women with very low triglycerides have very overstated LDL values - actual counts of APO B¿ are much lower.

 

The people who claim that diet plays NO ROLE in the development of IR/diabetes and that ONLY genetics, weight, and physical activity are factors are ... simply put, complete morons.

 

I agree with you here.

 

Dumber still are those that think they can gorge on fatty meats full of saturated fat every day and even possibly be healthy. People need to get real. A low BG level simply because you're not eating carbs doesn't mean you won't suffer serious long-term complications in the future. Because you will.

 

I've had zero signs of any retinopathy since spring 2008. I was dx'd with proliferative retinopathy in 1994 and had a vitrectomy in 2006. Every time I see my optho I ask if he sees any signs of atherosclerosis. He sees none.

 

There is absolutely no proof saturated fats and cholesterol are bad for us. On the contrary, there's plenty of proof they are good for us. You are a poor blind soul being led astray by the corporate controlled medical research establishment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Subby
A little basic math goes a long way. How much does IR increase with fat, ten percent? One hundred percent? One thousand percent? Fat doesn't need insulin. A million percent of zero is still zero. If I eat 100g of carbs I need, on a ggod day, ten units of insulin. If I eat those four hundred calories in fat, then I need zero units of insulin. My IR increases? Big whoop!

 

If your IR were to increase, you'd see it in elevated basal needs, and that could be a big whoop. That said, I agree that the onus is on the op to put their comments in some kind of context and back it up with a little more than a hostile attitude and mystical rantings about the balance of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM

There are several issues with the studies presented.

 

The first looks at the effect of dietary fat in rodents - evidently the OP missed the point where someone asked for a human-relevant study. Rats predominantly eat cereals and have evolved to do so to a greater extent than humans, so it seems there are not exactly an ideal candidate for biological comparison.

 

The next two studies are unclear as they do not appear to isolate carbohydrate from the studies - a diet that is high in fat AND carbohydrates will indeed lead to severe consequences. HOWEVER, it doesn't appear that there is a study that demonstrates that high fat in isolation is bad. There's nothing that suggests (in the studies presented) that reducing carbohydrate intake while increasing fat intake has a negative impact.

 

Simple fact of nature: foods that taste like **** are healthier for you than foods you actually want to eat. That's yin yang. It's how the universe runs.

 

Actually, it's not. In evolutionary terms, it'd be a very unfortunate species that actively disliked eating what its body needed. The issue isn't about taste; it's about portion control. The human body is designed to crave both fat and carbohydrate as these are key energy sources. Humans instinctively tend to high calorie foods because we've been around for about 150,000 years yet it's really only in the last 50 years that access to food has stopped being a problem (in the West, anyway). A diet that is high in fat AND carbs but is in limited quantities would be absolutely fine - the problem is people don't have any sense of portion control and think nothing of polishing off a supersize Big Mac meal with regular Coke for lunch and then having another three meals in a day. And if you look at the nutritional contents of that 'meal', you may be a bit surprised to see where the majority of the calories come from - because it's not from fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shyam

Almost all low carbers will report better cholesterol numbers after making the change. The OP should first try the LCHF diet & not rely on studies which are conducted on rats or rabbits.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM

I thought I'd come back to this as I think there's some points I didn't quite address (if anyone cares).

 

Of course your BG levels will be low ... 70-90% of your calories are from FAT.

 

Let's take an example of someone who uses 2,500 calories a day. Let's say they eat a diet whereby 70% of their calories are from fat - and they eat 2,000 calories a day.

 

Will this therefore be a problem? If they are metabolising their dietary fat instead of storing it, will they suffer from health problems? They have a 500 calorie deficit, so presumably, in addition to metabolising their dietary fat, they will also be metabolising their stored fat as well. Which then raises a further question. People lose weight by metabolising stored fat. When people metabolise stored fat, they don't seem to suffer from the supposed consequences of eating dietary fat. Yet biologically, it's the same 'stuff'. Why is it that metabolising dietary fat is bad, but suddenly the chemistry conveniently changes when we're talking about stored fat?

 

And most people would agree that foods rich in FAT taste far better than starchy carbs.

 

Really? I enjoy an omelette, but given the choice, I'd much rather eat a bowl of spag bol made with fresh tomatoes and basil. I also would rather have a nice bit of baguette as well. However, I'd say foods rich in BOTH starchy carbs and fat taste better than anything else - crisps, chips, fried hash browns, burgers, deep-fried breaded chicken.

 

Your short-term BG levels won't reflect any of that (they'll be nice and low ... because you're NOT EATING ANY CARBS!), but that doesn't mean you're at all healthy.

 

I guess there's really two questions here. The first is, why would the blood sugar benefits of a low-carb, high-fat diet only be for the short term? The second is, are the supposed blood sugar benefits of such a diet outweighed by the supposed inevitable consequences of such a diet? Generalised rates of complications in people with diabetes (which include CVD/CHD) drop dramatically with better blood sugar management. If we assume there is some sort of trade-off (and I'm not convinced that there is), which actually causes more damage, high fat or high blood sugar? My money's on the BG - high fat MAY increase risk of CVD/CHD. High blood sugar WILL make you blind, impotent, trash your kidneys, cause neuropathy, could make you lose a foot AND will increase your risk of CVD/CHD.

 

And throughout all of this, please bear in mind that I am NOT a low-carber, nor do I eat a high-fat diet. I'm just someone who gets incredibly annoyed when someone says one particular diet is the ONLY way of managing health and diabetes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xMenace

 

Simple fact of nature: foods that taste like **** are healthier for you than foods you actually want to eat. That's yin yang. It's how the universe runs.

Actually, it's not. In evolutionary terms, it'd be a very unfortunate species that actively disliked eating what its body needed. The issue isn't about taste; it's about portion control. The human body is designed to crave both fat and carbohydrate as these are key energy sources. Humans instinctively tend to high calorie foods because we've been around for about 150,000 years yet it's really only in the last 50 years that access to food has stopped being a problem (in the West, anyway). A diet that is high in fat AND carbs but is in limited quantities would be absolutely fine - the problem is people don't have any sense of portion control and think nothing of polishing off a supersize Big Mac meal with regular Coke for lunch and then having another three meals in a day. And if you look at the nutritional contents of that 'meal', you may be a bit surprised to see where the majority of the calories come from - because it's not from fat.

 

You forgot the one animal it does hold true for: The Common Forum Troll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
PinkRose
While I agree that eating too much fat is not good for most of us, I totally disagree with calling fellow posters morons or idiots.

 

 

I agree with this statement, eating too much fat is not good for most of us, particularly as we get older. What I have found when increasing my fat intake & reducing my carb intake is that trigs & HDL cholesterol numbers improve BUT LDL cholesterol increases quite a bit. If anyone is content to have high LDL cholesterol levels, then that is their individual choice to make. I, for one, do not feel safe walking around with high LDL. So I am now reducing my fat intake as an experiement to see how it will fare. If I can't reduce it to a satisfactory level then I plan on taking some meds (natural supplement in the first instance). I don't subscribe to the 'conspiracy theories' that high LDL is not harmful & doctors are simply wanting to foist statins on us to prop up the profits of big pharm, etcetera.

 

Also the HF diets that the arctic people have traditionally enjoyed is part of their acclimitization to their cold environment. I'm not sure the same diet would serve us as well if we adopted it while living in a much warmer or different climate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MCS

I have read several articles pertaining to this very subject. It seems their is some truth to this assumption that when you eat fat you increase IR. But it only occurs when you reach the point of Ketosis. Your body raises your IR to preserve what glucose you do have, once you reach ketosis the IR reverses. It a simple biological process for survival.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cormac_Doyle

Acclimatization to the cold shifts the balance between brown fat and white fat; if you live all your life in climate controlled housing (or in areas where you rarely see cold weather), you will not have much brown fat.

 

Brown fat tissue is used not only as passive insulation, but also actively to generate heat from lipid deposits. (white fat simply stores it). Consequently, in cold environments, the ability to store fat is not enough - you need to store it as brown fat to get any real benefit.

 

If you want to slowly build up your brown fat deposits instead of just having visceral (white) deposits, you gotta keep your central heating between 15-19 degrees centigrade/celsius (59-66 degrees fahrenheit).

 

Personally, I hate being cooped up in houses where they consistently keep the heat above 21 C (70 F), and am happy enough with numbers like the ones above!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MCS

A little deviation from the OP but my wife has changed into an Eskimo, I have had to reduce the temp to 60 in our house. Nothing like having to wear a sweat shirt when you get up in the morning.

 

 

Acclimatization to the cold shifts the balance between brown fat and white fat; if you live all your life in climate controlled housing (or in areas where you rarely see cold weather), you will not have much brown fat.

 

Brown fat tissue is used not only as passive insulation, but also actively to generate heat from lipid deposits. (white fat simply stores it). Consequently, in cold environments, the ability to store fat is not enough - you need to store it as brown fat to get any real benefit.

 

If you want to slowly build up your brown fat deposits instead of just having visceral (white) deposits, you gotta keep your central heating between 15-19 degrees centigrade/celsius (59-66 degrees fahrenheit).

 

Personally, I hate being cooped up in houses where they consistently keep the heat above 21 C (70 F), and am happy enough with numbers like the ones above!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
GrammaBear

Clearly the OP is not even courteous enough to state the type of diabetes they have (if they are diabetic). He/she seems to be bent on picking a argument.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
raffi

I did read a recent study impugning fat and I dare say, if you are a mouse, you really should avoid the high fat diet. Now for us people, the evidence seems to point the other way.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Terms of Use.