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

ShottleBop

From the thread that is stickied to the top of this forum:

Guide lines to the Low-carb lifestlye forum

 

The low carb lifestyle forum is for discussion on following a reduced carbohydrate lifestyle. The use of this forum is for any one following a reduced carbohydrate diet or are interested in learning more about a reduced carbohydrate lifestyle.

 

If you do not follow a low carb lifestyle and would like to particapate in this forum then we ask you to please be respectful of people who do follow a low carb lifestyle. Ridiculing, criticizing, degrading or any other kind of harshness is not tolerated. These posts will be deleted. . . .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ShottleBop
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.

 

I understand where you're coming from. From what I've read, the LCHF WOE (way of eating) actually regularizes blood lipids for about 2/3 of the folks who try it. For others, it can raise LDL. (My own LDL, for example, has increased since diagnosis by 90 points. 92+% of that is the large, fluffy kind, however. My HDL has more than doubled, from 40 to 82, and my trigs have dropped from 155 to below 60 (and, at times, to the low 40s). My ratios (Total Cholesterol/HDL, Trig/HDL, LDL/HDL) are all better now than they were four years ago. NO lipid profile is a guaranty that you will avoid CVD, however--and stress and inflammation are strong candidates for "the cause"--and are far less affected by your fat intake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Jan B
stress and inflammation are strong candidates for "the cause"--and are far less affected by your fat intake.

 

YES! Inflammation is definitely worth fighting - I follow an anti-inflammatory diet as much as possible. I learned years ago from my grandfather how much sweets can make arthritis (inflammation) worse. Now that I'm 50 - I know if from personal experience.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM
Nothing like having to wear a sweat shirt when you get up in the morning.

 

That is actually far more 'natural' though. Central heating is a relatively recent development - my parents' generation would habitually get up to find ice crystals on the window and have to wear thick clothing. It's really only been in the last 30 years or so we've been in a situation where you can wear a t-shirt all year round indoors and where people live in a permanent 20C. Coincidentally, it's also only really in the last 30 years that obesity rates have skyrocketed.

 

You could also look at other comparisons too. Inuit/Eskimo/whatever-people-want-to-call-them-because-the-official-terminology-seems-to-change-depending-on-the-prejudices-of-the-person-you're-talking-to seem to suffer dramatic increases in CVD/CHD when they start living in Western-style heated buildings, while Gulf Arabs (who live in a region where temperatures regularly exceed 50C in summer) have also seen massive increases in the rate of T2 diabetes roughly in line with the introduction of decent air-conditioning. Not saying air-con/central heating causes you to be ill, but it's interesting to speculate whether it has an effect on metabolic issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MCS

Really leaving the OP in the dust here, but I think they left this line of thinking a drift. I worked summers in the Steel Mills of PA along with my father, brothers, grandfather, uncles, etc. It was interesting that no one who worked around the heat, I mean white hot steel, so as you had to wear long johns and flame retardent outwear to keep from getting burned on a 90 degree day outside seldom if ever got a common cold.

 

 

 

 

That is actually far more 'natural' though. Central heating is a relatively recent development - my parents' generation would habitually get up to find ice crystals on the window and have to wear thick clothing. It's really only been in the last 30 years or so we've been in a situation where you can wear a t-shirt all year round indoors and where people live in a permanent 20C. Coincidentally, it's also only really in the last 30 years that obesity rates have skyrocketed.

 

You could also look at other comparisons too. Inuit/Eskimo/whatever-people-want-to-call-them-because-the-official-terminology-seems-to-change-depending-on-the-prejudices-of-the-person-you're-talking-to seem to suffer dramatic increases in CVD/CHD when they start living in Western-style heated buildings, while Gulf Arabs (who live in a region where temperatures regularly exceed 50C in summer) have also seen massive increases in the rate of T2 diabetes roughly in line with the introduction of decent air-conditioning. Not saying air-con/central heating causes you to be ill, but it's interesting to speculate whether it has an effect on metabolic issues.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM

Bet that's a lot of physical labour, too. Another common thread for explaining the obesity epidemic is that people do less physical work and exercise less - generally this is discounted by certain groups claiming that we're all still just as physically active as we were 50 years ago. There's an interesting stat though - UK government research has found that people in 2011 walked on average, 20% less than they did in 1991.

 

As John's already pointed out in this thread, the equation is EXTREMELY complicated, and there isn't a single, easily definable and tackle-able cause for obesity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xMenace

This new release suggests improved insulin resistance may not be the good thing one might assume it should be.

 

Insulin-Linked Hormone May Also Raise Alzheimer's Risk - US News and World Report

 

"It is well established that insulin signaling is dysfunctional in the brains of patients with AD, and since adiponectin enhances insulin sensitivity, one would also expect beneficial actions protecting against cognitive decline," van Himbergen said in a journal news release. "Our data, however, indicate that elevated adiponectin level was associated with an increased risk of dementia and AD in women."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cormac_Doyle

x ... that doc does not say that improved insulin resistance is bad, but rather that elevated levels of adiponectin is bad ...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ant hill
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.

With this Diet Practice of Low Carb & High fat is the fact it is very very hard to stay away from carbs entirely!!!!!!!! The moment you eat a carb, You are eating FAT!!!

 

This is the main hurdle in getting slimmer. Oh, Don't forget to exercise!! ;):)

 

Bet that's a lot of physical labour, too. Another common thread for explaining the obesity epidemic is that people do less physical work and exercise less - generally this is discounted by certain groups claiming that we're all still just as physically active as we were 50 years ago. There's an interesting stat though - UK government research has found that people in 2011 walked on average, 20% less than they did in 1991.

 

As John's already pointed out in this thread, the equation is EXTREMELY complicated, and there isn't a single, easily definable and tackle-able cause for obesity.

 

HA! You have hit a very crucial nerve Deus!!!!!! :D

Let's go back 100 years and see what people are doing in those days? OK foods were scarce and they had physically go out to cut wood to have a fire in their house!!!

Today it's quite the reverse now isn't it. ;) today we just flick a switch. Whare's the effort in that?? :confused:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Chanson13

Aside from the questionable scientific conclusions, and the rudeness, I am offended by the bad theology of the op. "The universe doesn't work that way. It's why fiber-rich foods taste like **** but are the best for you."

 

I refuse to believe that this universe is a trial and travail only to be endured and not enjoyed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
xMenace

But, if you raise IR, are you not raising this adiponectin stuff? Oops, that's like saying cholesteol is bad, saturated fat raises cholesterol; threfore saturated fat must be bad, even though it cannot be tied to heart disease. My bad.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Cormac_Doyle

Nope, the paper said that ap improved insulin resistance, but that high levels of ap cause other problems, thus supplementing ap would not be a good way of improving insulin resistance

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM

There's nothing in this release linking AP with diabetes or carbohydrates. It simply states that AP has a role in reducing insulin resistance but also seems to trigger Alzheimer's.

 

It wouldn't exactly be a massive leap of logic to suggest that people with IR or T2 produce an excess of AP and that perhaps the crucial difference between obese people with T2 and obese people without T2 is that in the second category, the AP works. Perhaps T2s have some sort of defect that also makes them resistant to AP which results in excess AP production, putting them at risk for dementia.

 

I don't understand what any of this has to do with cholesterol or how you could possibly read this as 'reducing insulin resistance is bad', unless you purposefully ignore what is actually written simply to validate your own pre-existing conclusions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MsTCB

At least from my own personal experience, carb intake doesn't seem to be related to my lipid profile. I've never had a problem with my lipid numbers regardless of whether my Diabetes is under control or out of control. For example, on 9/28/2012 my Ha1c was 12.7, but my HDL was 43 and my LDL was 113. So, I'm not convinced that it's such a black-and-white issue as the OP alleges.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Pixi Stix

I'm chiming in here with low carb, low fat and eating less in general. I disagree that if it taste good it's bad for you because I abhor the taste of plenty of foods that are also bad for you and love the taste of healthy foods. It's all what you become accustomed to eating and our diets (american, anyway) have been crappy for so long, that we think lousy food tastes good. Moderation in everything is really the only for sure philosophy that you can rely on. I tried the ultra low carb, high fat and maybe its good for you, but for me, it was unrealistic and I not the way I want to live. I've adopted a moderately low carb, moderately low fat, low calorie diet and I'm actually doing very well on that and losing weight for the first time in my life.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Howie
Hidden

kibescorp - I just posted this reply below in another area on snacking - Explain why I am OFF MY MEDICATION oh brilliant one! Thank God I never listened to opinionated people who "think" they know what they are talking about like you - I only know wht my PERSONAL experience has been and it's far different than what you are saying!

 

=======================

Hi,

 

Just wanted to mention that I have been a type 2 diabetic since 2009 and have been able to stop taking my two metformins and glimepiride since I have embarked on a low carb regimen. My Diabetes is under control now.

 

The only time I take anything is an occasional glimepiride on a day that I know I will be "cheating" like a birthday or holiday.

 

I try to keep my carbs down below 30g per day, but seldom meet that strict goal. I still miss the potato chips and other crunchy, salty snacks, but I have been able to find decent replacements for them so I can keep the carbs low.

 

One snack that I recently discovered and now depend on is Williams Ridge Cheese Crisps. They come in two types - Parmesan and Cheddar, both of them are absolutely awsome! They are nothing but cheese, nothing else in them so they are pretty much carb free and they are really crunchy and really taste good. I use them like crackers with dips and other cheese spreads. They are not calorie free, but they do not have any carbs so they fit right in my low carb diet.

 

I can't speak for everyone, but as for me, I am glad to be off those meds (even though they are relatively harmless).

 

Just thought I'd pass that along!

 

Howie

Share this post


Link to post
kibescorp

Oh wow, I just came back to this thread for the first time since my last post. I was surprised at the tone that I had written in, and have no idea what was up with me that day ... I believe I was PMS-ing hard.

 

And unless I'm mistaken, I think I had originally posted the question on Yahoo! Answers after having been enraged by some of the answers given to a particular question relating to the subject. (and then re-posted it here)

 

So at any rate, I was not implying that anyone on this forum is "dumb" or anything of the sort.

 

In fact, I was quite impressed by some of the posts in this thread. My post seems to have generated quite a bit of voiceful argument, and while that is a great thing, I would be remiss if I did not point out that given where I posted this topic, it is fair to say that most of the posts are going to BIASED towards arguing in favor of low carbs.

 

Don't get me wrong ... I would like nothing more than to get a definitive, truthful answer as to which is the healthier alternative, but sadly ... all there seems to be are conflicting arguments from the entire scientific/medical community which make it impossible to decipher who is absolutely in the right.

 

Now, I was arguing for a more BALANCED diet, absolutely not one with a carbohydrate bias.

 

However, there is one thing that I must address, and that is the notion of there existing a "low-carb, low-fat" diet. Generally speaking, a low-carb diet implies high-fat, and low-fat implies high-carb. This is because a decrease in the one means an increase in the other in order to maintain the same amount of calorie intake.

 

Unless you are overweight, there is no such thing as a "low-carb, low-fat" diet. Those of us who are normal weight or even underweight would lose mass rapidly on such a diet (and you would have to eat a surplus of calories at SOME POINT anyway in order to bring your weight back up to a healthy level).

 

Assuming that you need to MAINTAIN your weight, not lose weight, you need to eat a diet of either high fat, high carbs, or a balance of both. To my knowledge, there is no "magical" calorie food that you can get energy from without any negative impact on your health (if there was, anyone with diabetes or any other diet-related health issue would be all over it, and all of this discussion would be moot).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MsTCB
Assuming that you need to MAINTAIN your weight, not lose weight, you need to eat a diet of either high fat, high carbs, or a balance of both.

 

I must disagree with you on this. A diet of "high carbs" is NEVER okay for a Diabetic to eat and it does not matter what your weight is!! I think you might be missing the point. The LC/HF diet is NOT a weight loss "diet," it is a method of controlling the symptoms of Diabetes. Although if you follow this eating plan, you are most likely to achieve an ideal body weight, that is not its intended purpose. Diabetes is a disease whereby our bodies do not properly process Carbs - hence the need to eat LOW Carbs. "Fat" in our foods is not the "enemy" - our body's can properly process fats, hence no need to overly control them. Thank goodness that we are able to enjoy fats and proteins just fine and dandy or else eating would be no fun at all. :)

 

This subforum is not a "biased" - it is full of people who happen to know the TRUTH and practice it. For whatever reason, not everyone with Diabetes chooses to be this enlightened. But there is a difference between being "biased" and being "committed to the truth."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM

To be honest, MsTCB, your attitude isn't really any better than the OP's first post.

 

The fact is that diabetes is an extremely individual condition and frankly I'm astonished that someone who's had diabetes as long as you still hasn't realised that the only absolute truths there are to having diabetes are that you need to keep your BGs at normal levels and that there are as many successful ways of doing this as there are people with diabetes.

 

It's precisely this attitude that one certain group of people apparently only knows 'the TRUTH' that really p***es me off and it's by no means limited to low-carbers.

 

A diet of "high carbs" is NEVER okay for a Diabetic to eat and it does not matter what your weight is!

 

Really? 'Never'? Careful what you wish for - it's certainly not a strategy I'd recommend for everyone, but who on earth are you to say that someone with diabetes who eats a lot of carbs and keeps their BGs in check without gaining weight is a 'bad' person with diabetes? Those with particularly active lifestyle could certainly benefit from a higher carb intake - we've had posts from members here before who cycle over 30 miles a day and found that a low-carb/high-fat diet screwed up their control. Shouldn't they have the opportunity to explore and find options that work for them, rather than having to stick to some narrow-minded "only this way works" approach?

 

For whatever reason, not everyone with Diabetes chooses to be this enlightened.

 

An 'enlightened' person with diabetes is one who isn't so closed-minded to think their way's the only one that works. I eat way more carbs than you and looking at your results, my A1C's over 1% lower than yours and I'd be willing to bet my BMI's a lot better too. By your 'truth', my 'unenlightened' approach is wrong, but it seems to be working for me. That's not to say your approach is wrong - if it works for you, great, I wish you every success and hope you share your tips with everyone to pick up if they wish. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy and not call my approach 'unenlightened'? Don't kid yourself that people who don't follow your approach will all end up with high A1cs and poor control.

 

You don't have a handle on 'the truth' any more than me or anyone else on this board. People need to find what works for them, and calling people 'dumb' for going with a LCHF approach or calling people 'unenlightened' for not going for a LCHF approach doesn't help anyone actually learn how to manage their diabetes better. This is about what you eat, it's not supposed to be like supporting a sports team!

 

Enough with the diet battles - everyone just needs to accept that what works for them won't always work for someone else. If you find something that works for you, great. Share it with people. Tell them about YOUR success. It's a shame we have to have this separate board and it's largely because there are people on both sides of the fence who can't play nice and won't listen to the possibility that there's more than one way to skin a cat. The 'enlightened' ones are the one who look at the range of approaches and create something that's individual to them, suits their lifestyle and gives them the health outcomes they want. That's the real TRUTH, and I hope everyone will practice it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kibescorp

Well, needless to say this is a touchy subject, but I think it's far more important to explore it.

 

That said, I gathered some of the opposing statements/studies/findings I found online.

 

 

PRO-FAT / ANTI-CARB

 

The effect of dietary fat is largely or completely overridden if the high-fat diet is modified to contain nontrivial quantities (in excess of 5–10% of total fat intake) of polyunsaturated omega-3 fatty acids. This protective effect is most established with regard to the so-called "marine long-chain omega-3 fatty acids", EPA and DHA, found in fish oil; evidence in favor of other omega-3's, in particular, the most common vegetable-based omega-3 fatty acid, ALA, also exists, but it is more limited; some studies find ALA only effective among people with insufficient long-chain omega-3 intake, and some studies fail to find any effect at all (ALA can be partially converted into EPA and DHA by the human body, but the conversion rate is thought to be 10% or less, depending on diet and gender). The effect is thought to explain relatively low incidence of IR, type 2 diabetes, and obesity in polar foragers such as Alaskan Eskimos consuming their ancestral diet (which is very high in fat, but contains substantial amounts of omega-3). However, it is not strong enough to prevent IR in the typical modern Western diet. Unlike their omega-6 counterparts (which can be cheaply produced from a variety of sources, such as corn and soybeans), major sources of omega-3 fatty acids remain relatively rare and expensive. Consequently, the recommended average intake of omega-3 for adult men in the United States is only 1.6 grams/day, or less than 2% of total fat; the actual average consumption of omega-3 in the United States is around 1.3 grams/day, almost all of it in the form of ALA; EPA and DHA contributed less than 0.1 grams/day.

 

Elevated levels of free fatty acids and triglycerides in the blood stream and tissues have been found in many studies to contribute to diminished insulin sensitivity. Triglyceride levels are driven by a variety of dietary factors. They are correlated with excess body weight. They tend to rise due to overeating and fall during fat loss. At constant energy intake, triglyceride levels are positively correlated with trans fat intake and strongly inversely correlated with omega-3 intake. High-carbohydrate, low-fat diets were found by many studies to result in elevated triglycerides, in part due to higher production of VLDL from fructose and sucrose, and in part because increased carbohydrate intake tends to displace some omega-3 from the diet.

 

On a high-carbohydrate diet, glucose is used by cells in the body for the energy needed for their basic functions, and about 2/3 of body cells require insulin in order to use glucose. Excessive amounts of blood glucose are thought to be a primary cause of the complications of diabetes; when glucose reacts with body proteins (resulting in glycosolated proteins) and change their behavior. Perhaps for this reason, the amount of glucose tightly maintained in the blood is quite low. Unless a meal is very low in starches and sugars, blood glucose will rise for a period of an hour or two after a meal. When this occurs, beta cells in the pancreas release insulin to cause uptake of glucose into cells. In liver and muscle cells, more glucose is taken in than is needed and stored as glycogen (once called 'animal starch'). Diets with a high starch/sugar content, therefore, cause release of more insulin and so more cell absorption. In diabetics, glucose levels vary in time with meals and vary a little more as a result of high carbohydrate content meals. In non-diabetics, blood sugar levels are restored to normal levels within an hour or two, regardless of the content of a meal.

 

Potential favorable changes in triglyceride and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol values should be weighed against potential unfavorable changes in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and total cholesterol values when low-carbohydrate diets to induce weight loss are considered. A 2008 systematic review of randomized controlled studies that compared low-carbohydrate diets to low-fat/low-calorie diets and found that measurements of weight, HDL cholesterol, triglyceride levels and systolic blood pressure were significantly better in groups that followed low-carbohydrate diets. The authors of this review also found a higher rate of attrition in groups with low-fat diets, and concluded that "evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to 1 year," but they also called for more long-term studies.

 

MIXED / NEUTRAL

 

One study observed that a low-fat diet high in simple sugars (but not in complex carbohydrates and starches) significantly stimulates fatty acid synthesis, primarily of the saturated fatty acid palmitate, therefore, paradoxically, resulting in the plasma fatty acid pattern that is similar to that produced by a high-saturated-fat diet. It should be pointed out that virtually all evidence of deleterious effects of simple sugars so far is limited to their concentrated formulations and sweetened beverages. In particular, very little is known about effects of simple sugars in whole fruit and vegetables. If anything, epidemiological studies suggest that their high consumption is associated with somewhat lower risk of IR and/or metabolic syndrome.

 

A study of more than 100,000 people over more than 20 years within the Nurses' Health Study came to the result that a low-carbohydrate diet high in vegetables, with a large proportion of proteins and oils coming from plant sources, decreases mortality with a hazard ratio of 0.8. In contrast, a low-carbohydrate diet with largely animal sources of protein and fat increases mortality, with a hazard ratio of 1.1. This study, however, has been met with criticism, due to the unreliability of the self-administered food frequency questionnaire, as compared to food journaling, as well as classifying "low-carbohydrate" diets based on comparisons to the group as a whole (decile method) rather than surveying dieters following established low-carb dietary guidelines like the Atkins or Paleo diet.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kibescorp

(apparently there is a 10,000 character limit, so I had to double post)

 

 

PRO-CARB / ANTI-FAT

 

Incidence of Insulin resistance is lowered with diets higher in monounsaturated fats (especially oleic acid), while the opposite is true for diets high in polyunsaturated fats (especially large amounts of arachidonic acid) as well as saturated fats (such as arachidic acid), these ratios can be indexed in the phospholipids of human skeletal muscle and in other issues as well. This relationship between dietary fats and insulin resistance is presumed secondary to the relationship between insulin resistance and inflammation, which is partially modulated by dietary fat ratios (Omega3/6/9) with both omega 3 and 9 thought to be anti-inflammatory, and omega 6 pro-inflammatory (as well as by numerous other dietary components, particularly polyphenols, and by exercise as well, with both of these anti-inflammatory). Although both pro-inflammatory and anti-inflammatory types of fat are biologically necessary, fat dietary ratios in most US diets are skewed towards Omega 6, with subsequent disinhibition of inflammation and potentiation of insulin resistance.

 

... some monounsaturated fatty acids (in the same way as saturated fats) may promote insulin resistance, whereas polyunsaturated fatty acids may be protective against insulin resistance. In contrast to this, the large scale KANWU study found that neither dietary monounsaturated or supplemented polyunsaturated fats (in the form of fish oil) affected insulin sensitivity while increased consumption of saturated fat significantly decreased insulin sensitivity.

 

The diets of most people in modern western nations, especially the United States, contain large amounts of starches and often substantial amounts of sugars, including fructose. Most westerners seldom exhaust stored glycogen supplies and hence rarely go into ketosis. This has been regarded by medical science in the last century as normal for humans. Ketosis had widely been regarded as harmful and potentially life-threatening, unnecessarily stressing the liver and causing destruction of muscle tissues, and ketosis had sometimes been confused with ketoacidosis, a dangerous and extreme ketotic condition associated with diabetes. A perception developed that getting energy chiefly from dietary protein rather than carbohydrates causes liver damage and that getting energy chiefly from dietary fats rather than carbohydrates causes heart disease and other health problems. This view is still held by the majority of those in the medical and nutritional science communities.

 

Based on the effects on risk of heart disease and obesity, the Institute of Medicine recommends that American and Canadian adults get between 45–65% of dietary energy from carbohydrates. The Food and Agriculture Organization and World Health Organization jointly recommend that national dietary guidelines set a goal of 55–75% of total energy from carbohydrates, but only 10% directly from sugars (their term for simple carbohydrates).

 

American Diabetes Association

The ADA revised their Nutrition Recommendations and Interventions for Diabetes in 2008 to acknowledge low-carbohydrate diets as a legitimate weight-loss plan. The recommendations fall short of endorsing low-carbohydrate diets as a long-term health plan nor do they give any preference to these diets. Nevertheless, this is perhaps the first statement of support—albeit for the short-term—by one of the foremost medical organizations. In its 2009 publication of Clinical Practice Recommendations, The ADA again reaffirmed its acceptance of carbohydrate-controlled diets as an effective treatment for short-term (up to one year) weight loss among obese people suffering from type two diabetes.

 

American Dietetic Association

As of 2003 in commenting on a study in the Journal of the American Medical Association, a spokesperson for the American Dietetic Association reiterated the association's belief that "there is no magic bullet to safe and healthful weight loss." The Association specifically endorses the high-carbohydrate diet recommended by the National Academy of Sciences.

 

American Heart Association

The official statement from the AHA regarding these diets states categorically that the association "doesn't recommend high-protein diets." A science advisory from the association further states the associations belief that these diets are "associated with increased risk for coronary heart disease." The AHA has been one of the most adamant opponents of low-carbohydrate diets. Dr. Robert Eckel, past president, noted that the association supported low-fat and low-saturated-fat diets, but that a low-carbohydrate diet could potentially meet AHA guidelines.

 

Australian Heart Foundation

The position statement by the Heart Foundation regarding low-carbohydrate diets states that "the Heart Foundation does not support the adoption of VLCARB diets for weight loss." Although the statement recommends against use of low-carbohydrate diets it explains that their major concern is saturated fats as opposed to carbohydrate restriction and protein. Moreover, other statements suggest that their position might be re-evaluated in the event of more evidence from longer-term studies.

 

Food Standards Agency (UK)

The consumer advice statements of the FSA regarding low-carbohydrate diets state that "rather than avoiding starchy foods, it's better to try and base your meals on them." They further state concerns regarding fat consumption in low-carbohydrate diets.

 

Heart & Stroke Foundation (Canada)

The official position statement of the Heart & Stroke Foundation states "Do not follow a low carbohydrate diet for purposes of weight loss." They state concerns regarding numerous health risks particularly those related to high consumption of "saturated and trans fats".

 

U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

The HHS issues consumer guidelines for maintaining heart health which state regarding low-carbohydrate diets that "they're not the route to healthy, long-term weight management." Nevertheless HHS has issued some statements indicating wavering on this position.

 

 

 

I'd almost be inclined to side with the "pro-fat" group were it not for one simple but significant obstacle:

 

That the vast majority of governmental and medical organizations (including the American Heart Association and the American Diabetes Association) still oppose low-carb diets and promote low-fat ones. In addition, the FDA still recommends that most of your calories come from carbs. Unlike some people, I can't in good conscience shrug that off as simply being a "conspiracy" for monetary gain. I'd expect the "pro-fat" people to have a better explanation than THAT for almost the entire medical community continuing to oppose the "low-carb" mantra.

 

That aside, I believe I can make a few conjectures based on all of these findings and claims which more or less most of the community can agree upon:

 

• Saturated fats and trans fats are more unhealthy than any other type of calorie. Saturated fats will raise LDL levels as well as promote insulin resistance.

• Fats from plant sources (monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fats) are healthier than fats from animal sources, in terms of both insulin sensitivity as well as healthy cholesterol levels.

• Omega-3 polyunsaturated fat is likely the most healthy of all calorie types, but it is extremely impractical and difficult to include a very high portion in your diet. Fish is the most obvious source of omega-3, but eating too much fish is going to subject you to toxicity of various substances, including mercury. Yin yang.

• The relationship between Omega-6 polyunsaturated fat, monounsaturated fat, cholesterol levels, and insulin sensitivity is too complex at this point to draw conclusions from ... further studies are necessary, as a variety of factors come into play.

• Eating too much protein is HIGHLY hazardous to your heart (I wanted to add this part because there are many out there who are unaware of what too much protein does to your body ... and believe they can eat as much protein as they want without consequence. There have been fatalities due to people eating high-protein, low-the-other-two diets.).

• Processed sugars and those found in cereals, pastries, cookies, and candies are the most unhealthy kind of carbohydrate and will increase insulin resistance as well as triglyceride levels the most.

• Simple sugars that come from natural sources (fruits and certain vegetables) as well as starchy (complex) carbohydrate foods are healthier.

• Fiber is beneficial, but it is NOT a calorie. I added this part because I'm so sick and tired of hearing people say to eat more fiber. Yes you should do so without a doubt, but it has absolutely no relevance to the argument between carbs and fats, as, despite being technically a carbohydrate, fiber PROVIDES NO CALORIES!

 

BOTTOMLINE: While a low-carb diet high in UNSATURATED fats may result in lower triglyceride and higher HDL levels, it will also result in higher LDL and total cholesterol levels. Conversely, a low-fat diet high in COMPLEX carbs may result in lower LDL and total cholesterol levels, but should also result in higher triglyceride and lower HDL levels. Take your pick. Once again, yin yang is the universal force driving everything here. Almost a "pick-your-poison between a rock and a hard place" deal.

 

 

Again, these conjectures are based upon what I read (what I posted above).

 

And I'm not even considering how "inflammation" factors into everything. I think it's controversial enough as it is.

 

In retrospect, the thread title should probably read that SATURATED fat promotes IR more than COMPLEX carbs do. Although I'm sure there are those that will disagree with even this.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MsTCB
An 'enlightened' person with diabetes is one who isn't so closed-minded to think their way's the only one that works. I eat way more carbs than you and looking at your results, my A1C's over 1% lower than yours and I'd be willing to bet my BMI's a lot better too. By your 'truth', my 'unenlightened' approach is wrong, but it seems to be working for me. That's not to say your approach is wrong - if it works for you, great, I wish you every success and hope you share your tips with everyone to pick up if they wish. Perhaps you could extend me the same courtesy and not call my approach 'unenlightened'? Don't kid yourself that people who don't follow your approach will all end up with high A1cs and poor control.

 

1) Sorry that the info here "pi$$es" you off, but it IS a sub-forum for people who SUPPORT and follow this LC/HF lifestyle. I am free to express my "support" using any positive adjective I see fit. :) Rah, Rah, LC/HF !! Go Team!! Rah, Rah. :)

2) I didn't call your "approach" (whatever it is) "unenlightened." If you are in the LC/HF sub-forum then I assume you are following the LC/HF lifestyle?

3) Re: Your comparison of our A1c's is an "apples and oranges" comparison. I'm still on an EXTREMELY FAST DECENT from 12.7 a mere 4 MONTHS ago. I am doing an AWESOME job - down 5 points in just 4 MONTHS!! Go me!! Rah, Rah!! :) (I only started medical treatment 4 MONTHS ago and my meds are still currently being adjusted. The reason being that the Doctor I WAS seeing told me (and I trusted and believed him) that I did not need any medications despite having A1cs ranging from 9.9 to 12.7 over these past 3 years. My A1c's climbed b/c I was losing beta cells; hence lost a lot of insulin production.]

4) Re: Your desire to compare our BMI's - well I'm not going to comment on that b/c I think that's kinda rude.

 

Sorry you find the LC/HF lifestyle so offensive.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MsTCB

OP...

The "bottom line" is that I have NEVER had a problem with ANY of my lipid levels - always had normal Cholesterol, normal Triglycerides, normal HDL, and normal LDL and I have followed a variety of diets in my lifetime.

 

What exactly is the point you are trying to make on this LC/HF lifestyle subforum? You are new to the Diabetes forum. Do you even have Diabetes? A good place to start would be to go to the Introductions section and introduce yourself. What type of Diabetes do you have? How long? What treatment are you following? etc. Read through the forum and learn.

 

If you have questions about following the LC/HF diet, please feel free to ask questions.

In the meantime, I would suggest NOT coming onto this sub-forum to insult and criticize. This is the place we come to for SUPPORT and to exchange ideas on the LC/HF lifestyle. Perhaps your musing would be more appropriate for the 'CHIT CHAT' section.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DeusXM
Sorry you find the LC/HF lifestyle so offensive.

 

And this is why it's SO important to read what people actually post.

 

Nowhere did I say I found the LC/HF lifestyle offensive. What I said was offensive was ANYONE who believes that there is only one approach to treating diabetes that works (their approach) and that anyone who doesn't follow it is dumb or unenlightened or wilfully ignorant.

 

I think the successes that you and and anyone else who is low-carbing are brilliant and should be celebrated and shared. The problem is, I rarely see this courtesy ever extended back. The point I was making about your own treatment outcomes wasn't to belittle them - it was to show you that people don't have to follow your approach to do well, a fact that you seem to have difficulty acknowledging.

 

The reason I made the point about 'team sports' is being wonderfully illustrated here. Perhaps it'd be worth remembering that being proud of one approach doesn't mean you should think any the less of anyone else's approach that works. Look back through the thread. Look what I wrote originally in response to the OP. You'll see that, far from finding low-carbing 'offensive', I defended it as a perfectly valid lifestyle choice for someone with diabetes. Now look at me. I'm now also defending other options. Why can't you recognise and respect other options can work?

 

You've said yourself that some of my comparisons are like apples and oranges. Guess what? That's true for all comparisons for people with diabetes. My situation is very different from yours and we'll be both be very different to someone else. So you simply can't make these grand claims that only one group of people on one particular diet know the truth and everyone else is ignorant.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
MsTCB

I'm not here to engage in petty arguments with you, Dues.

My beliefs and opinions still stand.

 

You are obviously very proud of how you turned out and whatever you are doing is obviously working for you.

That's great - it really is.

 

This thread content in the LC/HF lifestyle sub-forum seems to be very emotionally upsetting to you.

I am sorry for your pain and wish you the best!

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.