The definitive study on dietary fat and weight

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by [email protected] (Larry Weisenthal), Jan 4, 2006.

  1. The largest, best, and most definitive study on the relationship
    between dietary fat intake and weight has just been published in the
    most recent edition of JAMA.

    Howard, B.V., et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7
    years. The women's health initiative dietary modification trial. JAMA
    295:39-49, 2006 (January 4, 2006).

    There is a lot of stuff in it of secondary importance which I'll let
    others talk about.

    But there is one particular finding of blockbuster importance. It is
    absolutely and completely clear-cut and definitive. This was a study
    in which subjects were randomized between a low fat/high carb diet and
    no dietary intervention. Subjects were post-menopausal, obese women.
    19,000 were assigned to the low fat diet. 29,000 were assigned to usual
    diet.

    The low fat diet didn't come close to achieving its goals (20% calories
    as fat). There was no exercise. No caloric restriction. But none of
    that is important. What is of supreme importance are the data shown in
    Fig 5, which I photographed and have temporarily posted on one of my
    websites:

    http://www.weisenthal.org/swimming/jama_295_39-49_2006_fig_5.jpg

    Note that this figure shows results for nearly 50,000 women, followed
    prospectively for 7 years.

    The figure shows the mean weight change in kilograms graphed on the
    ordinate and quintiles of change from baseline in percent dietary fat.
    Low lowest quintile represented those subjects (nearly 10,000) who
    reduced their percent of calories fat intake by 11% or more. The
    highest quintile represented subjects who increased their percent
    calories as fat intake by 3.2% or more. The three other quintiles were
    between these extremes. Each quintile represented data from nearly
    10,000 subjects followed 7 years.

    Nole the perfectly linear relation between percent changes in percent
    calories as fat and weight change, REGARDLESS of which group the
    subjects were in. Those subjects who reduced fat intake lost weight
    and kept it off. Those subjects who did not reduce fat intake did not
    lose weight. Those subjects who increased fat intake (though not,
    obviously, to the ketotic range) gained weight. These trend line
    relationships were highly significant (P2<0.001).

    These data are perfectly consistent with the data from the U Pittsburgh
    registry of people who successfully lost 15 kg and kept it off at least
    5 years. These subjects, on average, ate a diet comprising
    approximately 24% fat and close to 60% carbohydrate, if memory serves.

    These data obviously do not imply that the best diet for everyone is a
    fat restricted diet. These data are, however, definitive in a
    population sense.

    There can be no more serious argument. Body weight is unequivocally
    related, in a highly significant fashion, to dietary fat intake, with
    higher levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight gain and
    lower levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight loss.

    One might argue that these data only apply to obese post-menopausal
    women, and I'm sure that the cult promoting carbohydrates as the true
    cause of obesity will do so.

    But I agree with the conclusions of the authors:

    "There is no reason to assume that these findings cannot be
    extrapolated to younger individuals and both sexes...because trends
    showed that weight loss correlated with fat reduction, it is likely
    these data can be extrapolated to persons who achieve lower fat and
    higher carbohydrate intake."

    A true stake to the heart of the carbohydrate/obesity urban legend.

    - Larry W
     
    Tags:


  2. MMu

    MMu Guest

    <[email protected]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
    news:[email protected]
    < study text cropped>

    > "There is no reason to assume that these findings cannot be
    > extrapolated to younger individuals and both sexes...because trends
    > showed that weight loss correlated with fat reduction, it is likely
    > these data can be extrapolated to persons who achieve lower fat and
    > higher carbohydrate intake."
    >
    > A true stake to the heart of the carbohydrate/obesity urban legend.


    While I do think that fat reduction does lead to weight loss, and that
    low-carbing isn't the best way to loose weight I do not support the
    conclusion that this data can be extrapolated from women to men or from
    post-menopausal to pre-menopausal women without further data.

    Low molecular carbohydrates and fat are both contributors to the obesity
    problem (since there are studies on both sides showing effects), just making
    recommendations for one of them does not seem to be the best way to solve
    the problem.
     
  3. Juhana Harju

    Juhana Harju Guest

    [email protected] wrote:
    : The largest, best, and most definitive study on the relationship
    : between dietary fat intake and weight has just been published in the
    : most recent edition of JAMA.
    :
    : Howard, B.V., et al. Low-fat dietary pattern and weight change over 7
    : years. The women's health initiative dietary modification trial. JAMA
    : 295:39-49, 2006 (January 4, 2006).
    : [...]
    :
    : Nole the perfectly linear relation between percent changes in percent
    : calories as fat and weight change, REGARDLESS of which group the
    : subjects were in. Those subjects who reduced fat intake lost weight
    : and kept it off. Those subjects who did not reduce fat intake did not
    : lose weight. Those subjects who increased fat intake (though not,
    : obviously, to the ketotic range) gained weight. These trend line
    : relationships were highly significant (P2<0.001).

    Thanks for posting. One important point which was not even mentioned in the
    study, is obviously the effect of low fat diet to insulin sensitivity. One
    could expect a low fat diet to increase blood glucose and insulin levels but
    that is not necessarily the case as some studies show:

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&list_uids=12894958&dopt=Abstract

    http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15321807&query_hl=9&itool=pubmed_docsum

    --
    Juhana
     
  4. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]

    > A true stake to the heart of the carbohydrate/obesity urban legend.
    >
    > - Larry W


    I thought it was calories that caused weight gain?
     
  5. Susan

    Susan Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    Joe the Aroma wrote:
    > <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >>A true stake to the heart of the carbohydrate/obesity urban legend.
    >>
    >>- Larry W

    >
    >
    > I thought it was calories that caused weight gain?
    >
    >


    Every study finding lack of weight gain for low fatters necessitated
    calorie restriction.

    Compare that to low carbers in the same studies who don't have to
    restrict calories, and who lose more weight, and this is important,
    without experiencing hunger. Many studies have demonstrated the link
    between hunger and overeating triggered by dietary glycemic load.

    I doubt anyone with a scienfific bent (or stock in the sugar/grain
    market) is buying.

    Susan
     
  6. Susan says:

    >>Compare that to low carbers in the same studies who don't have to

    restrict calories, and who lose more weight, and this is important,
    without experiencing hunger. Many studies have demonstrated the link
    between hunger and overeating triggered by dietary glycemic load.<<

    I don't insist on a one size fits all diet strategy, and neither should
    you.

    Low carb as a diet for the masses had its day. Two years ago, it the
    the next great thing.

    Everyone was buying into it. We all know people who lost weight, but a
    year later gained it all back. Today, the Jack in the Box commercials
    are trumpeting "Bread is back!"

    Dansinger's study showed this to be true for each of 4 diets. Some
    people stayed with the diets. Those that did kept the weight off.

    I'm sure that the people who stuck with the diets were those for whom
    the diets worked and who liked the diets. Which just proves that the
    best thing is to individualize the diet for each person, based on
    lifestyle, exercise, food preferences, and individual results.

    None of this, however, diminishes the monumental importance of this
    JAMA study.

    There is a clear and undeniable relationship between fat consumption
    and weight loss and weight gain, on a population level (though
    obviously not on the individual level, which is why diet MUST be
    individualized.)

    On a population level, the higher the fat/lower the carbs, the less
    weight loss and the more weight gain.

    The myth that carbs cause obesity is finally and irrefutably
    demolished.

    What causes obesity is lack of exercise and too many calories. Higher
    fat diets, taken in an ad libitum setting, have more calories, until
    you get to the point of ultra high fat intake and ketosos, which is a
    diet which can't be followed by the vast majority of people living in
    the real world. If it works for you. Great. If Pritikin works for
    you. Great also.

    Here's to the demise of Diet Naziism.

    Rest in peace.

    - Larry W
     
  7. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >There can be no more serious argument. Body weight is unequivocally
    >related, in a highly significant fashion, to dietary fat intake, with
    >higher levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight gain and
    >lower levels of dietary fat intake associated with weight loss.


    Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small percentages
    of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen the
    study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how this
    says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt.

    >One might argue that these data only apply to obese post-menopausal
    >women, and I'm sure that the cult promoting carbohydrates as the true
    >cause of obesity will do so.


    Oh come on.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  8. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    > Susan says:
    >
    >>>Compare that to low carbers in the same studies who don't have to

    > restrict calories, and who lose more weight, and this is important,
    > without experiencing hunger. Many studies have demonstrated the link
    > between hunger and overeating triggered by dietary glycemic load.<<
    >
    > I don't insist on a one size fits all diet strategy, and neither should
    > you.
    >
    > Low carb as a diet for the masses had its day. Two years ago, it the
    > the next great thing.
    >
    > Everyone was buying into it. We all know people who lost weight, but a
    > year later gained it all back. Today, the Jack in the Box commercials
    > are trumpeting "Bread is back!"
    >
    > Dansinger's study showed this to be true for each of 4 diets. Some
    > people stayed with the diets. Those that did kept the weight off.
    >
    > I'm sure that the people who stuck with the diets were those for whom
    > the diets worked and who liked the diets. Which just proves that the
    > best thing is to individualize the diet for each person, based on
    > lifestyle, exercise, food preferences, and individual results.
    >
    > None of this, however, diminishes the monumental importance of this
    > JAMA study.
    >
    > There is a clear and undeniable relationship between fat consumption
    > and weight loss and weight gain, on a population level (though
    > obviously not on the individual level, which is why diet MUST be
    > individualized.)
    >
    > On a population level, the higher the fat/lower the carbs, the less
    > weight loss and the more weight gain.
    >
    > The myth that carbs cause obesity is finally and irrefutably
    > demolished.
    >
    > What causes obesity is lack of exercise and too many calories.


    Actually couldn't we simply say calories period?

    >Higher
    > fat diets, taken in an ad libitum setting, have more calories, until
    > you get to the point of ultra high fat intake and ketosos, which is a
    > diet which can't be followed by the vast majority of people living in
    > the real world. If it works for you. Great. If Pritikin works for
    > you. Great also.


    Nods. A reasonable position.
     
  9. Susan

    Susan Guest

    x-no-archive: yes

    Joe the Aroma wrote:

    > Actually couldn't we simply say calories period?
    >
    >
    >>Higher
    >>fat diets, taken in an ad libitum setting, have more calories, until
    >>you get to the point of ultra high fat intake and ketosos, which is a
    >>diet which can't be followed by the vast majority of people living in
    >>the real world. If it works for you. Great. If Pritikin works for
    >>you. Great also.

    >
    >
    > Nods. A reasonable position.
    >
    >


    Pediatrics 1999 Mar;103(3):E26 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

    High glycemic index foods, overeating, and obesity.

    Ludwig DS, Majzoub JA, Al-Zahrani A, Dallal GE, Blanco I, Roberts SB.

    Division of Endocrinology, Department of Medicine, Children's
    Hospital,Boston, 300 Longwood Ave, Boston, MA 02115, USA.

    OBJECTIVE: The prevalence of obesity has increased dramatically in
    recent years. However, the role of dietary composition in body weight
    regulation remains unclear. The purpose of this work was to investigate
    the acute effects of dietary glycemic index (GI) on energy metabolism
    and voluntary food intake in obese subjects. METHODS: Twelve obese
    teenage boys were evaluated on three separate occasions using a
    crossover study protocol. During each evaluation, subjects consumed
    identical test meals at breakfast and lunch that had a low, medium, or
    high GI. The high- and medium-GI meals were designed to have similar
    macronutrient composition, fiber content, and palatability, and all
    meals for each subject had equal energy content. After breakfast, plasma
    and serum concentrations of metabolic fuels and hormones were measured.
    Ad libitum food intake was determined in the 5-hour period after lunch.
    RESULTS: Voluntary energy intake after the high-GI meal (5.8 megajoule
    [mJ]) was 53% greater than after the medium-GI meal (3.8 mJ), and 81%
    greater than after the low-GI meal (3.2 mJ). In addition, compared with
    the low-GI meal, the high-GI meal resulted in higher serum insulin
    levels, lower plasma glucagon levels, lower postabsorptive plasma
    glucose and serum fatty acids levels, and elevation in plasma
    epinephrine. The area under the glycemic response curve for each test
    meal accounted for 53% of the variance in food intake within subjects.
    CONCLUSIONS: The rapid absorption of glucose after consumption of
    high-GI meals induces a sequence of hormonal and metabolic changes that
    promote excessive food intake in obese subjects. Additional studies are
    needed to examine the relationship between dietary GI and long-term body
    weight regulation.

    Publication Types:
    Clinical Trial
    Controlled Clinical Trial
    PMID: 10049982 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    Nutr Rev 1999 Sep;57(9 Pt 1):273-6 Related Articles, Books, LinkOut

    Comment in:
    Nutr Rev. 1999 Sep;57(9 Pt 1):297.
    Glycemic index, cardiovascular disease, and obesity.

    Morris KL, Zemel MB.

    Department of Nutrition, University of Tennessee, Knoxville 37996, USA.

    Although Americans have decreased the percent of energy they consume
    from fat, obesity and obesity-related comorbidities have progressively
    increased. Less attention has been paid to the role of carbohydrates,
    especially carbohydrate source, in these metabolic diseases. However,
    recent epidemiologic studies demonstrate consistently higher rates of
    cardiovascular disease and type II diabetes in individuals deriving a
    greater percentage of energy from refined grains and simple
    carbohydrates than from whole grains. Differences in the metabolic
    response to carbohydrates can be classified by glycemic index (GI), the
    blood glucose response to a given food compared with a standard
    (typically white bread or glucose). Classification of carbohydrates as
    "simple" or "complex" is of little use in predicting GI, because GI is
    influenced by starch structure (amylose versus amylopectin), fiber
    content, food processing, physical structure of the food, and other
    macronutrients in the meal. Low-GI diets have been reported to lower
    postprandial glucose and insulin responses, improve lipid profiles, and
    increase insulin sensitivity. Moreover, high-GI diets stimulate de novo
    lipogenesis and result in increased adipocyte size, whereas low-GI diets
    have been reported to inhibit these responses. Thus, the GI of dietary
    carbohydrates appears to play an important role in the metabolic fate of
    carbohydrates and, consequently, may significantly affect the risk of
    cardiovascular disease, diabetes, and obesity.

    Publication Types:
    Review
    Review, Tutorial
    PMID: 10568336 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    The citation
    Sondike, S.B., Copperman, N.M., Jacobson, M.S.,>"Low Carbohydrate
    Dieting Increases Weight Loss but not Cardiovascular>Risk in Obese
    Adolescents: A Randomized Controlled Trial,"Journal of>Adolescent
    Health, 26, 2000, page 91.

    Is available from>sciencedirect.. The Vol 26, issue #2 issue is a
    supplement with a>whole bunch of abstracts from an Annual Meeting for
    the society of>adolescent health.. The article is not published that
    I could>find..

    more accurately the caloric intake of the eight kids on high>fat was
    1830+-615 and those on the low fat was >1100+-297..
    Still the significance is 0.03.. (not sure of how large the>difference
    between the two diets are though just by looking at>significance) very
    weak when you have 9 kids on each diet.. You>start to want to see
    whether any of those kids was an outlier in how much>weight they
    lost.. The difference in weight was significant at 0.05>(barely?)

    the abstract can be found here:>
    http://www.accessv.com/~joemende/ketogenic.jpg

    Am J Clin Nutr. 2003 Jul;78(1):31-9. Related Articles, Links


    Effect of a high-protein, energy-restricted diet on body composition,
    glycemic control, and lipid concentrations in overweight and obese
    hyperinsulinemic men and women.

    Farnsworth E, Luscombe ND, Noakes M, Wittert G, Argyiou E, Clifton PM.

    Department of Physiology, University of Adelaide, SA, Australia.

    BACKGROUND: It is not clear whether varying the protein-to-carbohydrate
    ratio of weight-loss diets benefits body composition or metabolism.
    OBJECTIVE: The objective was to compare the effects of 2 weight-loss
    diets differing in protein-to-carbohydrate ratio on body composition,
    glucose and lipid metabolism, and markers of bone turnover. DESIGN: A
    parallel design included either a high-protein diet of meat, poultry,
    and dairy foods (HP diet: 27% of energy as protein, 44% as carbohydrate,
    and 29% as fat) or a standard-protein diet low in those foods (SP diet:
    16% of energy as protein, 57% as carbohydrate, and 27% as fat) during 12
    wk of energy restriction (6-6.3 MJ/d) and 4 wk of energy balance (
    approximately 8.2 MJ/d). Fifty-seven overweight volunteers with fasting
    insulin concentrations > 12 mU/L completed the study. RESULTS: Weight
    loss (7.9 +/- 0.5 kg) and total fat loss (6.9 +/- 0.4 kg) did not differ
    between diet groups. In women, total lean mass was significantly (P =
    0.02) better preserved with the HP diet (-0.1 +/- 0.3 kg) than with the
    SP diet (-1.5 +/- 0.3 kg). Those fed the HP diet had significantly (P <
    0.03) less glycemic response at weeks 0 and 16 than did those fed the SP
    diet. After weight loss, the glycemic response decreased significantly
    (P < 0.05) more in the HP diet group. The reduction in serum
    triacylglycerol concentrations was significantly (P < 0.05) greater in
    the HP diet group (23%) than in the SP diet group (10%). Markers of bone
    turnover, calcium excretion, and systolic blood pressure were unchanged.
    CONCLUSION: Replacing carbohydrate with protein from meat, poultry, and
    dairy foods has beneficial metabolic effects and no adverse effects on
    markers of bone turnover or calcium excretion.

    PMID: 12816768 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

    Kopp W.
    High-insulinogenic nutrition--an etiologic factor for obesity and the
    metabolic
    syndrome?
    Metabolism. 2003 Jul;52(7):840-4. Review.
    PMID: 12870158 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
    <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12870158&dopt=Abstract>

    the author writes:

    "This report postulates a critical role for the quantity and quality
    of dietary carbohydrate in the pathogenesis of obesity and the
    metabolic syndrome. Significant changes in human nutrition have
    occurred during the last 10,000 years, culminating in the current
    high-glycemic/high-insulinogenic nutrition. A high insulinogenic
    nutrition represents a chronic stimulus to the beta cells that may
    induce an adaptive hypertrophy and a progressive dysregulation of
    the cells, resulting in postprandial hyperinsulinemia, especially in
    genetically predisposed subjects. Significant evidence suggests that
    postprandial hyperinsulinemia promotes weight gain and the
    development of insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome. The hypothesis
    is able to explain the current epidemic of obesity and the metabolic
    syndrome in most industrialised countries, as well as some of the
    genetics of obesity, including the extreme high incidence of obesity
    and the metabolic syndrome in certain ethnic groups."

    --

    Susan
     
  10. >>Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small percentages
    of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen
    the
    study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how
    this
    says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt. <<

    Jim, you don't understand the data (not your fault; you can't without
    access to the full text).

    Forget about diet. The data from figure 5 shows that diet, per se,
    doesn't matter. In fact, the average fat intake for the so called "low
    fat" intervention group ended up being 30% calories as fat (compared to
    the target goal of 20% calories as fat). In contrast, the control (non
    intervention group) consumed an average of 38% calories as fat. Yes,
    there was a very modest (but highly significant) difference in weight
    favoring the "low fat" diet group. But the purpose of the study was
    not to compare diets for weight loss. These were primarily cancer,
    heart disease, etc. studies. There was, for example, no attempt to
    restrict calories. There was no exercise program. But this is not
    what's important about the study (in this context).

    What's important is this: There were 50,000 women followed
    prospectively for 7 years. Some of the women on the intervention group
    significantly reduced their fat intake. Also, some of the women in the
    NON-intervention group, for whatever reason, significantly reduced
    THEIR fat intake. Now, it didn't matter which group the women were
    assigned to. Those that reduced their fat intake the most lost the
    most weight. Those that increased their fat intake the most gained
    most weight. And there was a perfectly linear relationship in between.

    These were 50,000 free living women, prospectively followed, eating all
    sorts of diets. Some exercised. Some didn't. Some probably went on
    "diets" on their own. Some didn't. So obviously there is a lot of
    heterogeneity and background noise.

    But what shines through, loud and clear, is this:

    Cut through all the noise and there is a perfectly linear relationship
    between weight loss to weight gain and dietary fat.

    Carbohydrate does NOT make you fat! What makes you fat is too many
    calories for the level of exercise you are getting in your life, and,
    just as common sense would tell you, fat is more calorie dense, less
    filling, on average less satiating (or whatever, it truly doesn't
    matter, when you look at the forest, rather than the trees).

    Type II diabetes is, overwhelmingly, not a genetic disease but a
    lifestyle disease. Caused by a pathologic lack of exercise and
    caloric/exercise imbalance. The way to prevent diabetes is not to sit
    on your couch and gorge on fat; it is to get the amount of daily
    exercise for which the human body was designed and to fuel that body
    with a well balanced variety of nutritious foods, most definitely
    including an abundance of healthy carbohydrates and not containing an
    excess of harmful carbohydrates or harmful fats and, for the average
    person, containing less fat, rather than more fat.

    - Larry W
     
  11. Susan, what precisely is your point?

    That too much sugar is bad for you? The low glycemic foods are, on
    average, to be preferred over high glycemic foods? You are preaching
    to the choir.

    Per capita sugar intake increased by about 10 Kg per year between the
    late 70s and mid 90s, during a period of time when per capital calorie
    intake increased slightly and per capita exercise (objectively document
    by nationalized physical fitness testing in school children and
    military recruits) plummeted.

    So people started putting sugar in their whole milk and stopped
    exercising.

    And they got fat and diabetic.

    None of the above in anyway negates the monumental importance of the
    JAMA study of 50,000 women.

    Some of the women ate "good" carbs. Some ate "bad" carbs. Some ate
    "good" fats. Some ate "bad" fats. Some exercised. Some didn't. So
    there is obviously a lot of background noise.

    But, clear as a bell, there was an inverse linear relationship between
    changes dietary fat intake and changes in body weight. You may never
    see such a clear and striking relationship in any large population
    study in another 10 years. The dose response relationship between
    dietary fat intake (on a population basis) and weight change is about
    as clear as the dose response relationship between incidence of lung
    cancer and cigarettes per day smoked.

    - Larry W
     
  12. Susan quotes a study

    >>"This report postulates a critical role for the quantity and quality

    of dietary carbohydrate in the pathogenesis of obesity and the
    metabolic syndrome. Significant changes in human nutrition have
    occurred during the last 10,000 years, culminating in the current
    high-glycemic/high-insulinogenic nutrition. A high insulinogenic
    nutrition represents a chronic stimulus to the beta cells that may

    induce an adaptive hypertrophy and a progressive dysregulation of
    the cells, resulting in postprandial hyperinsulinemia, especially
    in
    genetically predisposed subjects. Significant evidence suggests
    that
    postprandial hyperinsulinemia promotes weight gain and the
    development of insulin resistance/metabolic syndrome. The
    hypothesis
    is able to explain the current epidemic of obesity and the
    metabolic
    syndrome in most industrialised countries, as well as some of the
    genetics of obesity, including the extreme high incidence of
    obesity
    and the metabolic syndrome in certain ethnic groups." <<

    Comments: The "low fat" diet was 27% calories as fat. Hardly low fat.
    Carbohydrate quality wasn't controlled. The diets were isocaloric (ie.
    controlled and forced feeding) and not ad libitum. All successful
    diabetes prevention studies have been based on fat restriction and not
    carbohydrate restriction. Postprandial blood sugars were significantly
    lower in the prospective, randomized study previously quoted on insulin
    resistant women when they ate 49% carbohydrates than when they ate 11%
    carbohydrates. Postprandial triglycerides (probably more important
    than fasting, though seldom measured) are higher on higher fat diets.

    There has been a greater than 10 Kg per year per capita increase in
    sugar intake in the US at a time when overall caloric intake has
    slightly increased and exercise has plummeted. Americans have added
    sugar to their whole milk and stopped exercising. These are the causes
    of the diabetes epidemic.

    - Larry W
     
  13. Susan:

    >>>Several studies have shown that high-carbohydrate low-fat diets

    lead
    to high triglycerides, elevated serum insulin levels, lower HDL
    cholesterol levels, and other factors known to raise the risk of
    coronary artery disease. (See Liu GC; Coulston AM; Reaven GM. Effect
    of high-carbohydrate low-fat diets on plasma glucose, insulin and
    lipid responses in hypertriglyceridemic humans. Metabolism, 1983 Aug,
    32:8, 750-3. *

    All of these studies are fatally flawed, because (1) they are based on
    an isocaloric, forced feeding design, (2) they do not control the
    quality of the carbs, and (3) they do not include exercise programs.

    When people eat a diet rich in "good" carbs, low in total fat and
    especially low in "bad" fat, and exercise, they lose weight, improve
    their lipids, improve their blood pressure, and lessen their insulin
    resistance.

    The true pathologies behind the obesity and diabetes epidemics are lack
    of exercise and explosive increase in sugar intake, in a setting of
    overall increased caloric intake.

    - Larry W
     
  14. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>>Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small
    >>>percentages

    > of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen
    > the
    > study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how
    > this
    > says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt. <<
    >
    > Jim, you don't understand the data (not your fault; you can't without
    > access to the full text).
    >
    > Forget about diet. The data from figure 5 shows that diet, per se,
    > doesn't matter. In fact, the average fat intake for the so called "low
    > fat" intervention group ended up being 30% calories as fat (compared to
    > the target goal of 20% calories as fat). In contrast, the control (non
    > intervention group) consumed an average of 38% calories as fat. Yes,
    > there was a very modest (but highly significant) difference in weight
    > favoring the "low fat" diet group. But the purpose of the study was
    > not to compare diets for weight loss. These were primarily cancer,
    > heart disease, etc. studies. There was, for example, no attempt to
    > restrict calories. There was no exercise program. But this is not
    > what's important about the study (in this context).
    >
    > What's important is this: There were 50,000 women followed
    > prospectively for 7 years. Some of the women on the intervention group
    > significantly reduced their fat intake. Also, some of the women in the
    > NON-intervention group, for whatever reason, significantly reduced
    > THEIR fat intake. Now, it didn't matter which group the women were
    > assigned to. Those that reduced their fat intake the most lost the
    > most weight. Those that increased their fat intake the most gained
    > most weight. And there was a perfectly linear relationship in between.
    >
    > These were 50,000 free living women, prospectively followed, eating all
    > sorts of diets. Some exercised. Some didn't. Some probably went on
    > "diets" on their own. Some didn't. So obviously there is a lot of
    > heterogeneity and background noise.
    >
    > But what shines through, loud and clear, is this:
    >
    > Cut through all the noise and there is a perfectly linear relationship
    > between weight loss to weight gain and dietary fat.
    >
    > Carbohydrate does NOT make you fat! What makes you fat is too many
    > calories for the level of exercise you are getting in your life, and,
    > just as common sense would tell you, fat is more calorie dense, less
    > filling, on average less satiating (or whatever, it truly doesn't
    > matter, when you look at the forest, rather than the trees).
    >
    > Type II diabetes is, overwhelmingly, not a genetic disease but a
    > lifestyle disease. Caused by a pathologic lack of exercise and
    > caloric/exercise imbalance. The way to prevent diabetes is not to sit
    > on your couch and gorge on fat; it is to get the amount of daily
    > exercise for which the human body was designed and to fuel that body
    > with a well balanced variety of nutritious foods, most definitely
    > including an abundance of healthy carbohydrates and not containing an
    > excess of harmful carbohydrates or harmful fats and, for the average
    > person, containing less fat, rather than more fat.
    >
    > - Larry W


    Protein is more sating than both carbs and fat, personally.
     
  15. >>Protein is more sating than both carbs and fat, personally. <<

    Thanks, Joe. I agree with you 100% that protein is more satieting for
    you, personally. It may well be that protein is more satiating for the
    average person. But it is not true for everyone. For example, in
    people who are exercising regularly, protein intake is not an efficient
    way to replete muscle glycogen. With depleted muscle glycogen, eating
    turkey slices or tuna or a hamburger patty won't dull the appetite.
    Nor will fat intake.

    I remember a Hawaii ironman broadcast a few years back. There was a
    top triathlete who had a Zone Diet endorsement contract. In the middle
    of the race, someone handed him a bottle of Zone Diet special 40-30-30
    replacement drink. He said, no, give me Gatorade. Now that was an
    embarrassing moment for someone!

    That's the whole point. You have to individualize, based on personal
    biology and lifestyle.

    - Larry W
     
  16. <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]
    >>>Protein is more sating than both carbs and fat, personally. <<

    >
    > Thanks, Joe. I agree with you 100% that protein is more satieting for
    > you, personally. It may well be that protein is more satiating for the
    > average person. But it is not true for everyone. For example, in
    > people who are exercising regularly, protein intake is not an efficient
    > way to replete muscle glycogen. With depleted muscle glycogen, eating
    > turkey slices or tuna or a hamburger patty won't dull the appetite.
    > Nor will fat intake.


    For me something has done exactly that. It's wonderful.

    > I remember a Hawaii ironman broadcast a few years back. There was a
    > top triathlete who had a Zone Diet endorsement contract. In the middle
    > of the race, someone handed him a bottle of Zone Diet special 40-30-30
    > replacement drink. He said, no, give me Gatorade. Now that was an
    > embarrassing moment for someone!


    Indeed, a high protein diet is not optimal for certain conditions. Fat and
    carbs give you energy. If you're trying to lose weight, you want to take in
    less energy than you are expending, to reach into those fat cells. One way
    or the other, you must take in less energy than you spend.

    > That's the whole point. You have to individualize, based on personal
    > biology and lifestyle.
    >
    > - Larry W


    Agreed.
     
  17. Hey, Joe (I like your name, being a coffee lover).

    One of the greatest things which has happened in diet research is the
    finding that black coffee is actually a health food. It does all sorts
    of things, including being a richer source of anti-oxidants than
    blueberries. Topic for another thread. The infamous Dr. Willett
    himself was recently quoted as saying "if you are drinking 5-6 cups of
    coffee per day, I'd be hard pressed to think of a reason why you should
    cut back."

    For those who think that I'm Pritikin's poodle, this was one of the
    things he "prohibited" in his diet/exercise plan. He was a visionary,
    but he didn't get it completely right. No disrespect at all.

    Among black coffee's other benefits, for me, personally, it is very
    "satiating." When I get some hunger cravings, and I don't want to eat,
    for whatever reason, I just pour out a little Starbucks from my thermos
    bottle, feel contentment warm me over as it goes down, and then get
    back to work, duly anti-oxidized in the bargain.

    - Larry W
     
  18. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >>>Your argument seems to be based on a study of relatively small percentages

    >of fat within the context of a high-carbohydrate diet. I haven't seen
    >the
    >study yet, myself, so maybe I am wrong... I'm not at all clear on how
    >this
    >says anything about a low-carb diet, if it does--which I doubt. <<
    >
    >Jim, you don't understand the data (not your fault; you can't without
    >access to the full text).
    >
    >Forget about diet. The data from figure 5 shows that diet, per se,
    >doesn't matter.


    I used the term only to mean what was consumed--nothing more.

    > In fact, the average fat intake for the so called "low
    >fat" intervention group ended up being 30% calories as fat (compared to
    >the target goal of 20% calories as fat). In contrast, the control (non
    >intervention group) consumed an average of 38% calories as fat. Yes,
    >there was a very modest (but highly significant) difference in weight
    >favoring the "low fat" diet group. But the purpose of the study was
    >not to compare diets for weight loss. These were primarily cancer,
    >heart disease, etc. studies. There was, for example, no attempt to
    >restrict calories. There was no exercise program. But this is not
    >what's important about the study (in this context).
    >
    >What's important is this: There were 50,000 women followed
    >prospectively for 7 years. Some of the women on the intervention group
    >significantly reduced their fat intake. Also, some of the women in the
    >NON-intervention group, for whatever reason, significantly reduced
    >THEIR fat intake. Now, it didn't matter which group the women were
    >assigned to. Those that reduced their fat intake the most lost the
    >most weight. Those that increased their fat intake the most gained
    >most weight. And there was a perfectly linear relationship in between.
    >
    >These were 50,000 free living women, prospectively followed, eating all
    >sorts of diets. Some exercised. Some didn't. Some probably went on
    >"diets" on their own. Some didn't. So obviously there is a lot of
    >heterogeneity and background noise.
    >
    >But what shines through, loud and clear, is this:
    >
    >Cut through all the noise and there is a perfectly linear relationship
    >between weight loss to weight gain and dietary fat.


    ....in the context of a high-carb diet, at least.

    Don't get me wrong. I appreciate what you are saying. i think i understand
    just fine. But I'm betting that the "heterogeneity" of the diets followed by
    the participants was pretty minimal with respect to % CHO. I'm sure some
    lost weight with an Atkin's diet, but the graph you show is driven by the
    bulk of the participants, who, if they are anything like modern Western
    human beings, ate mostly diets with % kcal CHO > 50%.

    I think your graph is important, and it should certainly be acknowledged
    that it is a major bit of evidence in support of reduction of fat in the
    "population's" diet. But low-carbers have written for a long time that
    fat-restriction was important in a high carb diet, not that I have believed
    the logic behind their arguments.

    I like the graph, though, and I certainly see its meaning and importance.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  19. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >When I get some hunger cravings, and I don't want to eat,
    >for whatever reason, I just pour out a little Starbucks from my thermos
    >bottle, feel contentment warm me over as it goes down, and then get
    >back to work, duly anti-oxidized in the bargain.


    I hit my La Pavoni and pull a couple of shots of espresso. I do add some
    steamed skim milk, though.
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
  20. Jim Chinnis

    Jim Chinnis Guest

    "[email protected] (Larry Weisenthal)" <[email protected]> wrote in part:

    >All of these studies are fatally flawed, because (1) they are based on
    >an isocaloric, forced feeding design, (2) they do not control the
    >quality of the carbs, and (3) they do not include exercise programs.


    I regard the first point as a flaw, but far from a fatal one. The third may
    be irrelevant for the purposes of the studies.

    The second is important, i think.

    >When people eat a diet rich in "good" carbs, low in total fat and
    >especially low in "bad" fat, and exercise, they lose weight, improve
    >their lipids, improve their blood pressure, and lessen their insulin
    >resistance.


    What is your concept of a "good" carb? Does a decent (all whole grain, dense
    and tasty) loaf of whole-wheat bread count?

    Are you mostly referring to low glycemic load?
    --
    Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA [email protected]
     
Loading...