Negative Health Implications of Low-carb Diets

[CharlesV 0]

Acrylamides are known carcinogen and are produced when carbohydrate foods are cooked at high temperature. Blame the preparation method, not the food itself.

Post WWII japan also introduced refined carbohydrates and other dietary poison in the food supply. What says those aren't to blame?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with whatever you're trying to prove, but overwhelming people with bad articles and random "facts" isn't an effective way of proving your point.

[uncle buck 93]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1407826

"Nutrient intakes in 94 Japanese centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher proportion of animal protein to total proteins than in contemporary average Japanese. 2. High intakes of milk and fats and oils had favorable effects on 10-year (1976-1986) survivorship in 422 urban residents aged 69-71. The survivors revealed a longitudinal increase in intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, fish and meat over the 10 years. 3. Nutrient intakes were compared, based on 24-hour dietary records, between a sample from Okinawa Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and 65 were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. Intakes of Ca, Fe, vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy from proteins and fats were significantly higher in the former than in the latter. Intakes of carbohydrates and NaCl were lower."â€

[Drizzler 2]

I'm continuing my research on low-carb diets and animal protein and their influence on chronic disease.

An interesting thing I've learned is that Japan pre-World War II was a nation free of acne and male pattern baldness. As meat consumption increased after WW II, so did rates of acne and male pattern baldness. Now the rates of these conditions are the same in Japan as in Western nations like the USA.

Where are you getting that information? That's ridiculous, especially to think that meat consumption is the only thing that changed

One theory I've seen posited is that the Omega 6/saturated fats in meat have a negative on hormone regulation and that this might be responsible for what happened to Japan.

Omega 6s are definitely a factor to consider- partially why corn/soy-fed beef is so much worse than grass-fed. You know bigger sources of omega 6? Soy, corn etc vegetable oils, grain products.

Edited September 18, 2010 by Drizzler

[mike_wf 1]

Acrylamides are known carcinogen and are produced when carbohydrate foods are cooked at high temperature. Blame the preparation method, not the food itself.

Post WWII japan also introduced refined carbohydrates and other dietary poison in the food supply. What says those aren't to blame?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree with whatever you're trying to prove, but overwhelming people with bad articles and random "facts" isn't an effective way of proving your point.

You're attributing things to me that I never stated--a classic straw man argument. I never said that meat consumption was the only factor in Japan's situation. But it is a theory to be considered.

In addition I have to disagree with your mentioning of "bad articles." Many of these studies are by the most prestigious research institutions in the world. They might not be perfect but should not be summarily dismissed.

By making blanket statements you're being more disingenuous than you claim I am.

[mike_wf 1]

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1407826

"Nutrient intakes in 94 Japanese centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher proportion of animal protein to total proteins than in contemporary average Japanese. 2. High intakes of milk and fats and oils had favorable effects on 10-year (1976-1986) survivorship in 422 urban residents aged 69-71. The survivors revealed a longitudinal increase in intakes of animal foods such as eggs, milk, fish and meat over the 10 years. 3. Nutrient intakes were compared, based on 24-hour dietary records, between a sample from Okinawa Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and 65 were the longest in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. Intakes of Ca, Fe, vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy from proteins and fats were significantly higher in the former than in the latter. Intakes of carbohydrates and NaCl were lower."”

Do you REALLY think Japanese people didn't eat meat before? Do you REALLY think they needed Americans to get access to meat? Do you REALLY think no OTHER foods were introduced from America? Your generalising of cultures and fact-twisting is borderline insulting. Disease has increased EVERYWHERE not just Japan. How do you attribute THAT to animal meat when intake of fats in most places has gone DOWN?

People here aren't stupid, go and find another board to brainwash.

I never said Japanese people didn't eat meat before WW II. I said meat consumption increased. And I never said no other foods were introduced from the US. YOU"RE the one fact-twisting.

Go take you're misrepresentations of my positions and your pseudo-science away from this thread.

[mike_wf 1]

I've been continuing my research this weekend and have found some information that high dietary fat, especially saturated fat, is associated with higher hormonal activity. Omega 3 fatty acids seem to regulate hormonal activity.

Since Acne is often attributed to hormonal dysfunction, does this mean we should curtail our intake of dietary fat, including saturated fat and omega 6?

[Drizzler 2]

I've been continuing my research this weekend and have found some information that high dietary fat, especially saturated fat, is associated with higher hormonal activity. Omega 3 fatty acids seem to regulate hormonal activity.

Since Acne is often attributed to hormonal dysfunction, does this mean we should curtail our intake of dietary fat, including saturated fat and omega 6?

You are making the mistake of automatically assuming heightened hormonal activity = hormonal dysfunction.

You are also making the mistake of lumping all "hormones" together. Their are tons of different hormones derived from all sorts of things. Dietary fat intake may increase synthesis/activity of some hormones, mostly the sex hormones. But again, to say increased activity = hormonal dysfunction makes no sense. In fact, it could very well be the exact opposite. You should be looking at specifically which hormones go up and which go down, and what exact physiologic effects those vary levels have.

You should definitely curtail you intake of omega 6 and increase omega 3. That is known. I don't know why you keep lumping saturated fat in there.

[mike_wf 1]

I've been continuing my research this weekend and have found some information that high dietary fat, especially saturated fat, is associated with higher hormonal activity. Omega 3 fatty acids seem to regulate hormonal activity.

Since Acne is often attributed to hormonal dysfunction, does this mean we should curtail our intake of dietary fat, including saturated fat and omega 6?

You are making the mistake of automatically assuming heightened hormonal activity = hormonal dysfunction.

You are also making the mistake of lumping all "hormones" together. Their are tons of different hormones derived from all sorts of things. Dietary fat intake may increase synthesis/activity of some hormones, mostly the sex hormones. But again, to say increased activity = hormonal dysfunction makes no sense. In fact, it could very well be the exact opposite. You should be looking at specifically which hormones go up and which go down, and what exact physiologic effects those vary levels have.

You should definitely curtail you intake of omega 6 and increase omega 3. That is known. I don't know why you keep lumping saturated fat in there.

I'd urge you to do some research on dietary fat intake, especially saturated fat intake, and increased androgens in adults. It might be more helpful so we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

[mike_wf 1]

One interesting study I've seen mentioned was done by UCLA. The study subjects were put on a low fat and high fiber diet. Levels of androgens were decreased in the study subjects. I believe there was even a discussion of this study on one of the threads a little while back.

[Drizzler 2]

Dietary fat intake may increase synthesis/activity of some hormones, mostly the sex hormones.

I'd urge you to do some research on dietary fat intake, especially saturated fat intake, and increased androgens in adults.

... Hmm, am I missing something here?

Newsflash - There are different types of androgens. It has been discussed and acknowledged on these boards and elsewhere, that overall levels of androgens are not the determining factor in acne and certainly not in overall health- rather it's related to varying levels of the different types of androgens ; i.e. testosterone, androsterone, DHT, DHEA.

Furthermore, your implication that increased androgens in adults is a bad thing is ridiculous and clearly shows zero understanding of the subject. Have you ever picked up a book on mens health? Or even a Mens Health magazine? Half the shit in there is addressing diminishing levels of testosterone in agine men, and foods/workouts/supplements etc e.g. strategies for boosting testosterone.

Higher levels of testosterone in men is health-protective; increasing levels of testosterone in aging men is extremely desirable. The benefits to aging women are pretty well substantiated as well. Why the hell do you think Americans spend millions of dollars on testosterone supplements, DHEA mainly?

It might be more helpful so we can have an intelligent discussion on the topic.

You are the one who keeps making these idiotic overarching statements that not only exhibit your total lack of understanding, but complete ignorance of the complexity of all these things in regards to health. You are making such simplistic, A-->B assumptions that appear to be more influenced by your own preconceptions about what is or isn't good/healthy, rather than thinking critically and objectively about the science.

My previous post was certainly [attempted] intelligent conversation... but it requires a degree of reciprocation...

Edited September 19, 2010 by Drizzler

[mike_wf 1]

If there is a relationship b/w dietary fat (especially saturated fat) and increased androgens, and androgens stimulate the sebaceous glands, doesn't this mean we should follow a low fat, plant based diet?

The Japanese once followed a low fat, plant based diet high in things such as sweet potatoes and sea vegetables. They were free of acne and male pattern baldness. Would not emulating the pre-WW II Japanese diet be prudent?

[uncle buck 93]

No, because a high fat diet is what has cured the most people. Including myself. I'm not going to bother explaining it to you, if you LOOK for the research supporting high fat, you'll find it. In bucketloads. Bucketloads of nice tasty chicken and pork fat.

Every single person with bad skin or weak hair, eats sugar. Fact. The answer is so easy, so obvious, but only you can turn your head towards it. One day of ACTUALLY EATING this way, is all it takes. It's so easy.

Edited September 20, 2010 by uncle buck

[alternativista 1243]

One interesting study I've seen mentioned was done by UCLA. The study subjects were put on a low fat and high fiber diet. Levels of androgens were decreased in the study subjects. I believe there was even a discussion of this study on one of the threads a little while back.

I've seen studies on PCOS that involve low carb and low fat improving hormone balance. There should be at least one in the pinned Clinical studies thread. Also some diets for diabetes are both moderate to low carb and fat.

No, because a high fat diet is what has cured the most people....

Every single person with bad skin or weak hair, eats sugar. Fact. The answer is so easy, so obvious, but only you can turn your head towards it. One day of ACTUALLY EATING this way, is all it takes. It's so easy.

A high fat diet has not cured most people. Some people follow high fat and got results, most likely simply due to the reduction in sugar. Most people have gotten results from reducing refined carbs and thus the GL of their meals. And by avoiding foods they have an intolerance for.

Edited September 20, 2010 by alternativista

[Drizzler 2]

One interesting study I've seen mentioned was done by UCLA. The study subjects were put on a low fat and high fiber diet. Levels of androgens were decreased in the study subjects. I believe there was even a discussion of this study on one of the threads a little while back.

I've seen studies on PCOS that involve low carb and low fat improving hormone balance. There should be at least one in the pinned Clinical studies thread. Also some diets for diabetes are both moderate to low carb and fat.

Do you mean to say "... that involve low-carb and low-fat together" i.e. high-protein?

Or do you mean different studies, some saying low-fat, and some saying low-carb?

It was a little unclear...

[alternativista 1243]

One interesting study I've seen mentioned was done by UCLA. The study subjects were put on a low fat and high fiber diet. Levels of androgens were decreased in the study subjects. I believe there was even a discussion of this study on one of the threads a little while back.

I've seen studies on PCOS that involve low carb and low fat improving hormone balance. There should be at least one in the pinned Clinical studies thread. Also some diets for diabetes are both moderate to low carb and fat.

Do you mean to say "... that involve low-carb and low-fat together" i.e. high-protein?

Together. But I don't believe there were extreme low anything, therefore no need to be high anything. I think they were low carb in that they were low sugar and processed crap, low fat in that they were low fried food and crap. Although, knowing our medical establishment, they probably limited saturated fat.

Edited September 20, 2010 by alternativista

[ben90 0]

If there is a relationship b/w dietary fat (especially saturated fat) and increased androgens, and androgens stimulate the sebaceous glands, doesn't this mean we should follow a low fat, plant based diet?

The Japanese once followed a low fat, plant based diet high in things such as sweet potatoes and sea vegetables. They were free of acne and male pattern baldness. Would not emulating the pre-WW II Japanese diet be prudent?

And then you have inuits who only really rely on seal meat and fish they are able to hunt. That means they have HUGE levels of saturated fat and very high protein, and yet are completely clear of acne.

Rather than if saturated fat itself causes acne, you should rather focus on the damage done by OTHER foods which cause problems in food that shouldnt.

[mike_wf 1]

If there is a relationship b/w dietary fat (especially saturated fat) and increased androgens, and androgens stimulate the sebaceous glands, doesn't this mean we should follow a low fat, plant based diet?

The Japanese once followed a low fat, plant based diet high in things such as sweet potatoes and sea vegetables. They were free of acne and male pattern baldness. Would not emulating the pre-WW II Japanese diet be prudent?

And then you have inuits who only really rely on seal meat and fish they are able to hunt. That means they have HUGE levels of saturated fat and very high protein, and yet are completely clear of acne.

Rather than if saturated fat itself causes acne, you should rather focus on the damage done by OTHER foods which cause problems in food that shouldnt.

The inuits relied on wild animals like whale and fish that are high in omega 3, not high in saturated fat. Your mention of the inuits actually helps support the revelations on this thread.

Wild animals that range freely and eat what nature intended, says Dewailly, have fat that is far more healthful. Less of their fat is saturated, and more of it is in the monounsaturated form (like olive oil). What’s more, cold-water fishes and sea mammals are particularly rich in polyunsaturated fats called n-3 fatty acids or omega-3 fatty acids. These fats appear to benefit the heart and vascular system.

From the Inuit Paradox Discover Magazine

[joris 2]

ok mike heres one thing:

people here eat organic/free range meat (at least thats the idea behind the "high" fat diets, which arent really that high in fat because most still eat more carbs as fat.)

people in your study didnt

you see the difference?

Edited September 22, 2010 by joris

[tdot 3]

Hey Mike....

Check out this website: http://www.healingnaturallybybee.com/index.php

Make sure you read through EVERYTHING. This woman was helped SO many people over come their illnesses by advising them to eat a paleo based diet. She advises that we need animal fat and protein to heal properly. Make sure you read the success stories too...

I agree with many people on here who have been saying that these studies you have brought up are probably not based on people who eat balanced healthy meals. These people probably eat the typical american diet... And yeah I can see why eating burgers, steak, subs, and stuff like that with red meat in them could cause problems.... If they dont come from organic meat they are all packed with hormones and antibitiocs.... plus the lunch meat is FULL of chemicals to preserve them. It's because of the CRAP we add to our food that makes it unhealthy. Although I'm sure if someone ate red meat three times a day with very little veggies, that could cause issues... but having read meat 3-4 times a week is GOOD for you.... as long as you are getting it from a good source and you are eating a balanced diet with it.

[Drizzler 2]

Mike, reading your posts is seriously like watching a fly trying to get outside through a closed window... banging against it over and over again...

The inuits relied on wild animals like whale and fish that are high in omega 3, not high in saturated fat. Your mention of the inuits actually helps support the revelations on this thread.

[tdot 3]

It's the same fatty acid makeup as lard, tallow, and even your own ass.

LOLOLOLOL

I had to just say that I actually laughed out loud when I read that. Good post.

[mike_wf 1]

Mike, reading your posts is seriously like watching a fly trying to get outside through a closed window... banging against it over and over again... :doh:

First of all, why do you just immediately assume that being high in omega-3 and saturated fat is mutually exclusive?

Since you again demonstrate your apparent inability to research or cross-check anything yourself, I'll do it for you- more for the benefit of anyone else reading this, so as not to buy into your haphazardly-assembled logic.

Look at the seasonal fat composition of wild caribou. You are aware that most of the year, it's pretty damn cold in Alaska, correct? In order for an animal to not freeze to death, it needs insulation. Subcutaneous fat. Subcutaneous fat = monounsaturated, saturated and a little polyunsaturated fats. It's the same fatty acid makeup as lard, tallow, and even your own ass.

Wild Alaskan Caribou definitely has plenty of good, healthy saturated fat.

Oily fish, whale blubber/oil all have lots lots of omega-3s yes- also lot's of monounsaturated and still plenty of saturated fats.

I feel sorry for you that you have to resort to disrespecful behavior to try and get your point across (including your last post where you called me a name) or misrepresenting my positions. I think this just confirms that you are not capable of having an intelligent discussion with me.

"The solution to the paradox may lie in the fact that not all fat is created equal. [The Inuit] ate a lot of marine animals, like walruses and seals, whales and so forth, and the blubber of these animals is a very high source of monounsaturated fat," says Cordain. "So if you contrast the Inuit diet to the Western diet, it actually turns out to be lower in saturated fat- very high in fat, but high in healthful fat, monounsaturates and polyunsaturates, high in a specific type of polyunsaturates called omega-3 fatty acids that come from the marine food chain."

--Cordain (author of the Paleo Diet)

:doh:

Edited September 22, 2010 by mike_wf

[ben90 0]

Mike, reading your posts is seriously like watching a fly trying to get outside through a closed window... banging against it over and over again... :doh:

First of all, why do you just immediately assume that being high in omega-3 and saturated fat is mutually exclusive?

Since you again demonstrate your apparent inability to research or cross-check anything yourself, I'll do it for you- more for the benefit of anyone else reading this, so as not to buy into your haphazardly-assembled logic.

Look at the seasonal fat composition of wild caribou. You are aware that most of the year, it's pretty damn cold in Alaska, correct? In order for an animal to not freeze to death, it needs insulation. Subcutaneous fat. Subcutaneous fat = monounsaturated, saturated and a little polyunsaturated fats. It's the same fatty acid makeup as lard, tallow, and even your own ass.

Wild Alaskan Caribou definitely has plenty of good, healthy saturated fat.

Oily fish, whale blubber/oil all have lots lots of omega-3s yes- also lot's of monounsaturated and still plenty of saturated fats.

I feel sorry for you that you have to resort to disrespecful behavior to try and get your point across (including your last post where you called me a name) or misrepresenting my positions. I think this just confirms that you are not capable of having an intelligent discussion with me.

"The solution to the paradox may lie in the fact that not all fat is created equal. [The Inuit] ate a lot of marine animals, like walruses and seals, whales and so forth, and the blubber of these animals is a very high source of monounsaturated fat," says Cordain. "So if you contrast the Inuit diet to the Western diet, it actually turns out to be lower in saturated fat- very high in fat, but high in healthful fat, monounsaturates and polyunsaturates, high in a specific type of polyunsaturates called omega-3 fatty acids that come from the marine food chain."

--Cordain (author of the Paleo Diet)

:doh:

The fact your failing to come to terms with clear facts even after all the evidence he has given gives pretty good reason to be annoyed IMO.

And if you do a little bit of research Cordain has admitted in many interviews that his original view of saturated fat on health was not accurate. Its been proven for a long time that saturated fat is not a bad source for health, even in high quanitites (unprocessed of course).

[joris 2]

Cordain changed his mind about saturated fats indeed. (i think already for many years). Also his published book was changed a lot and simplified by the publisher. Hes new book coming in a few months will probably have his updated view in it.

[mike_wf 1]

I'm just summarizing some of the red flags I've come across during my investigation into low carb diets, meat consumption and chronic disease

Death risk http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/09/07/...in6841541.shtml

Chronic Disease http://health.usnews.com/health-news/diet-...n-lifespan.html

Cognitive Ability http://www.articleseen.com/Article_low-car...lity_32807.aspx

Red Meat and Colon Cancer by Harvard University http://www.health.harvard.edu/fhg/updates/...on-cancer.shtml

Animal protein raises endometrial cancer risk http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSCOL16846020070321

Vegetarians less likely to develop cancer than meat eaters http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2009/jul...ancer-diet-risk

Breast Cancer http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/conte...6111300824.html

Red Meat consumption and DNA changes http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/4088824.stm