Quote from: WendyA on February 08, 2016, 04:09:26 AM
You constantly say carbs will make you gain weight without regard to the type of carbs. I average about 400g carbs a day and have lost over 100lbs and I'm now currently well inside the "normal" BMI for my height. Refined carbs when combined with high fat (30% or more of caloric intake) is a killer combination that will contribute to all the ills you refer to. But whole food carbs combined with low fat (10% or less of caloric intake) comprise a health promoting diet that has been clinically proven to halt and reverse most chronic diseases. Making generalizations does no one any good.
It is true that refined carbs are the worst but for some, cutting even some carbs like lentils, whole grains and some very sweet fruits is the only means of achieving better weight loss and improvement in health. High fat is not the problem, refined carbs are. Studies have shown high fat, low carb to be safe and healthy. Fats are important for health.
Nutr Res. 2013 Nov;33(11):905-12."We hypothesized that a CRD (<50 g carbohydrate/d) for 6 weeks would improve lipid profiles and insulin sensitivity, reduce blood pressure, decrease cellular adhesion and inflammatory biomarkers, and augment VEF (flow-mediated dilation and forearm blood flow) in statin users. Participants (n = 21; 59.3 ± 9.3 y, 29.5 ± 3.0 kg/m(2)) decreased total caloric intake by approximately 415 kcal at 6 weeks (P < .001). Daily nutrient intakes at baseline (46/36/17% carb/fat/pro) and averaged across the intervention
(11/58/28% carb/fat/pro) demonstrated dietary compliance, with carbohydrate intake at baseline nearly 5-fold greater than during the intervention (P < .001). Compared to baseline, both systolic and diastolic blood pressure decreased after 3 and 6 weeks (P < .01). Peak forearm blood flow, but not flow-mediated dilation, increased at week 6 compared to baseline and week 3 (P ≤ .03). Serum triglyceride, insulin, soluble E-Selectin and intracellular adhesion molecule-1 decreased (P < .01) from baseline at week 3, and this effect was maintained at week 6. In conclusion, these findings demonstrate that individuals undergoing statin therapy experience additional improvements in metabolic and vascular health from a 6 weeks CRD as evidenced by increased insulin sensitivity and resistance vessel endothelial function, and decreased blood pressure, triglycerides, and adhesion molecules."
Lipids. 2009 Apr;44(4):297-309. "We recently proposed that the biological markers improved by carbohydrate restriction were precisely those that define the metabolic syndrome (MetS), and that the common thread was regulation of insulin as a control element. We specifically tested the idea with a 12-week study comparing two hypocaloric diets (approximately 1,500 kcal): a carbohydrate-restricted diet (CRD) (%carbohydrate:fat:protein = 12:59:28) and a low-fat diet (LFD) (56:24:20) in 40 subjects with atherogenic dyslipidemia. Both interventions led to improvements in several metabolic markers, but subjects following the CRD had consistently reduced glucose (-12%) and insulin (-50%) concentrations, insulin sensitivity (-55%), weight loss (-10%), decreased adiposity (-14%), and more favorable triacylglycerol (TAG) (-51%), HDL-C (13%) and total cholesterol/HDL-C ratio (-14%) responses. In addition to these markers for MetS, the CRD subjects showed more favorable responses to alternative indicators of cardiovascular risk: postprandial lipemia (-47%), the Apo B/Apo A-1 ratio (-16%), and LDL particle distribution. Despite a threefold higher intake of dietary saturated fat during the CRD, saturated fatty acids in TAG and cholesteryl ester were significantly decreased, as was palmitoleic acid (16:1n-7), an endogenous marker of lipogenesis, compared to subjects consuming the LFD. Serum retinol binding protein 4 has been linked to insulin-resistant states, and only the CRD decreased this marker (-20%). The findings provide support for unifying the disparate markers of MetS and for the proposed intimate connection with dietary carbohydrate. The results support the use of dietary carbohydrate restriction as an effective approach to improve features of MetS and cardiovascular risk."
Am J Epidemiol. 2012 Oct 1;176 Suppl 7:S44-54."The effects of low-carbohydrate diets (≤45% of energy from carbohydrates) versus low-fat diets (≤30% of energy from fat) on metabolic risk factors were compared in a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. "
"Compared with participants on low-fat diets, persons on low-carbohydrate diets experienced a slightly but statistically significantly lower reduction in total cholesterol (2.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 0.8, 4.6), and low density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.7 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 1.0, 6.4), but a greater increase in high density lipoprotein cholesterol (3.3 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: 1.9, 4.7) and a greater decrease in triglycerides (-14.0 mg/dL; 95% confidence interval: -19.4, -8.7). "
Am J Med. 2004 Sep 15;117(6):398-405."In this 6-month study involving severely obese subjects, we found an overall favorable effect of a low-carbohydrate diet on lipoprotein subfractions, and on inflammation in high-risk subjects."
Mol Cell Biochem. 2006 Jun;286(1-2):1-9."Various studies have convincingly shown the beneficial effect of ketogenic diet (in which the daily consumption of carbohydrate is less than 20 grams, regardless of fat, protein and caloric intake) in reducing weight in obese subjects. However, its long term effect on obese subjects with high total cholesterol (as compared to obese subjects with normal cholesterol level is lacking. It is believed that ketogenic diet may have adverse effect on the lipid profile."
"This study shows the beneficial effects of ketogenic diet following its long term administration in obese subjects with a high level of total cholesterol. Moreover, this study demonstrates that low carbohydrate diet is safe to use for a longer period of time in obese subjects with a high total cholesterol level and those with normocholesterolemia."
JAMA. 2007 Mar 7;297(9):969-77."In this study, premenopausal overweight and obese women assigned to follow the Atkins diet, which had the lowest carbohydrate intake,
lost more weight at 12 months than women assigned to follow the Zone diet, and had
experienced comparable or more favorable metabolic effects than those assigned to the Zone, Ornish, or LEARN diets [corrected] While questions remain about long-term effects and mechanisms, a low-carbohydrate, high-protein, high-fat diet may be considered a feasible alternative recommendation for weight loss."
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2006 Jun 21;3:24."Because of its effect on insulin, carbohydrate restriction is one of the obvious dietary choices for weight reduction and diabetes. Such interventions generally lead to higher levels of dietary fat than official recommendations and have long been criticized because of potential effects on cardiovascular risk although many literature reports have shown that they are actually protective even in the absence of weight loss. A recent report of Krauss et al. (AJCN, 2006) separates the effects of weight loss and carbohydrate restriction. They clearly confirm that carbohydrate restriction leads to an improvement in atherogenic lipid states in the absence of weight loss or in the presence of higher saturated fat. In distinction, low fat diets seem to require weight loss for effective improvement in atherogenic dyslipidemia."
Nutr Metab (Lond). 2005; 2: 21."We believe restriction of saturated fat is not warranted on a low-carbohydrate diet because of our work showing favorable responses in clinical risk factors for diabetes and cardiovascular disease in low-carbohydrate diets that were rich in saturated fat [2]. In addition, German & Dillard [3] have reviewed several experimental studies of the effects of saturated fats and the results are found to be variable and there is a general failure to meet the kind of unambiguous predictions that would justify the recommendation to reduce saturated fat in the population [3]. Other critical reviews of the evidence [4] have questioned whether public health recommendations for reducing saturated fat intake [5] are appropriate."
"For these reasons, we believe that the recommendation to restrict saturated fat in favor of unsaturated fat on a low-carbohydrate diet is unnecessary and may even diminish some of the beneficial physiological effects associated with carbohydrate restriction. At the very least, the food restriction required to reduce saturated fat will compromise the palatability of the diet and ultimately the acceptance of the approach to diabetes management"
Ann Intern Med. 2014 Mar 18;160(6):398-406."Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar;91(3):535-46."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."
BMJ. 2003 Oct 4;327(7418):777-82."These findings do not support associations between intake of total fat, cholesterol, or specific types of fat and risk of stroke in men."
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Oct;92(4):759-65."SFA intake was inversely associated with mortality from total stroke, including intraparenchymal hemorrhage and ischemic stroke subtypes, in this Japanese cohort."
Cutting fats to 10% or less isn't something that appears desirable. Carbs will be eaten in excess, even if not processed or refined, you will be hungrier and over time, most likely, you will suffer for it...increased insulin levels, increased triglycerides. Taking in so much sugar is just not healthy even if from whole foods, sugar is sugar! My 2 cents, based on all my readings and experience.
I have personally benefited from including more fat and less carbs in my diet. My test results, my overall health are a reflection of this.
Should you wish to pursue this discussion, please PM me. Let's get back to the main subject of this thread. But, I insisted on replying to you publicly and providing these studies because I think these may be important for everyone to know, for their health and just general knowledge. I am not a licensed nutritionist, nor a doctor but I have researched extensively on this matter and personally tested it out.
