Carbs more harmful than saturated fats: study

[Suzanimal]

Not that this is news to anyone here but I found it interesting.

Long-derided saturated fats -- associated with an array of health problems such as heart disease -- caught a break Friday when research revealed their intake could be doubled or even nearly tripled without driving up their level in a person's blood.

Carbohydrates, meanwhile, are associated with heightened levels of a fatty acid linked to increased risk for diabetes and heart disease, the same study showed.

"The point is you don't necessarily save the saturated fat that you eat, and the primary regulator of what you save in terms of fat is the carbohydrate in your diet," senior author Jeff Volek of Ohio State University, said in the report.

To conduct the study, which appeared in the journal PLOS ONE, scientists put 16 participants on a strict dietary regime that lasted four and a half months.

Every three weeks their diets were changed to adjust carbohydrate and total fat and saturated fat levels.

The scientists found that when carbs were reduced and saturated fat was increased, total saturated fat in the blood did not increase, and even went down in most people.

The fatty acid called palmitoleic acid, which is associated with "unhealthy metabolism of carbohydrates that can promote disease," went down with low-carb diets and gradually increased as carbs were re-introduced, the study said.

An increase in this fatty acid indicates that a growing proportion of carbohydrates is being converted into fat instead of being burned by the body, the researchers said.

"When you consume a very low-carb diet your body preferentially burns saturated fat," Volek said.

"We had people eat two times more saturated fat than they had been eating before entering the study, yet when we measured saturated fat in their blood, it went down in the majority of people," he said.

The finding "challenges the conventional wisdom that has demonized saturated fat and extends our knowledge of why dietary saturated fat doesn't correlate with disease," Volek added.

By the end of the trial, participants saw "significant improvements" in blood glucose, insulin and blood pressure and lost an average of 22 pounds (10 kilograms).

"There is widespread misunderstanding about saturated fat. In population studies, there's clearly no association of dietary saturated fat and heart disease, yet dietary guidelines continue to advocate restriction of saturated fat. That's not scientific and not smart," Volek said.

http://news.yahoo.com/carbs-more-har...094755624.html

[Zippyjuan]

"Carbs" is a pretty broad term and is often misused. Sugars are simple carbs. They are the least desirable because they only provide calories. Complex carbs provide nutrients and fiber as well. Soda and apple are both high in carbs. Apples are good for you- sodas aren't. Apple has sugars but also lots of complex carbs and nutrients. Soda is flavored sugar water. Saying all carbs are bad is misleading. The diet which reduced their carbs probably cut back on simple sugars and adding fat probably also added more protein (unless they were say eating sticks of butter and ice cream) which you also need. Dropping sugars was probably the most significant factor in the diet change.

[heavenlyboy34]

"Carbs" is a pretty broad term and is often misused. Sugars are simple carbs. They are the least desirable because they only provide calories. Complex carbs provide nutrients and fiber as well. Soda and apple are both high in carbs. Apples are good for you- sodas aren't. Apple has sugars but also lots of complex carbs and nutrients. Soda is flavored sugar water. Saying all carbs are bad is misleading. The diet which reduced their carbs probably cut back on simple sugars and adding fat probably also added more protein (unless they were say eating sticks of butter and ice cream) which you also need. Dropping sugars was probably the most significant factor in the diet change.

Apples are good within reason. Fruit is "nature's junk food", as Dr. Dreher used to say. Most fruits have loads of fructose. They have to be consumed whole (that is, not processed or juiced) to get enough fiber to benefit from it.

That said, you're right that not all carbs are bad. Complex carbs are important to a balanced diet, and simple carbs help replenish the body after a strenuous workout or exertion of energy. Pretty much every recovery drink has some carbs in them.

[amy31416]

"Carbs" is a pretty broad term and is often misused. Sugars are simple carbs. They are the least desirable because they only provide calories. Complex carbs provide nutrients and fiber as well. Soda and apple are both high in carbs. Apples are good for you- sodas aren't. Apple has sugars but also lots of complex carbs and nutrients. Soda is flavored sugar water. Saying all carbs are bad is misleading. The diet which reduced their carbs probably cut back on simple sugars and adding fat probably also added more protein (unless they were say eating sticks of butter and ice cream) which you also need. Dropping sugars was probably the most significant factor in the diet change.

Perhaps it depends on the person. I keep hearing and reading this info, but when I had gestational diabetes, the source of the carbs didn't matter--what did do the trick was taking at least a 15 minute walk after eating something that had carbs in it. Personally, my body processed them the same way--refined or complex. I did a ton of experiments, and that's what worked for me--afterwards, I did Atkins and eventually went to more of a Paleo diet.

[jj-]

Perhaps it depends on the person. I keep hearing and reading this info, but when I had gestational diabetes, the source of the carbs didn't matter--what did do the trick was taking at least a 15 minute walk after eating something that had carbs in it. Personally, my body processed them the same way--refined or complex. I did a ton of experiments, and that's what worked for me--afterwards, I did Atkins and eventually went to more of a Paleo diet.

My guess is that higher blood glucose is a natural and healthy thing in pregnancy.

[jj-]

Probably what's going on here isn't that sat fat is better than carbs.

What's happening is that by consuming saturated fat, we reduce the proportion of polyunsaturated fatty acids in the blood, and that's what produces benefits. When we don't eat fats, our fatty acids of course come from our adipose tissue, which reflects our long term intake, and is typically high in polyunsaturated fats.

But after long term restriction of polyunsaturated fats, I think consuming carbs from good sources will have a better positive effect than consuming saturated fat.

[Zippyjuan]

It was also a small (16 people), short term study (diets were changed every three weeks).

[Acala]

"Carbs" is a pretty broad term and is often misused. Sugars are simple carbs. They are the least desirable because they only provide calories. Complex carbs provide nutrients and fiber as well. Soda and apple are both high in carbs. Apples are good for you- sodas aren't. Apple has sugars but also lots of complex carbs and nutrients. Soda is flavored sugar water. Saying all carbs are bad is misleading. The diet which reduced their carbs probably cut back on simple sugars and adding fat probably also added more protein (unless they were say eating sticks of butter and ice cream) which you also need. Dropping sugars was probably the most significant factor in the diet change.

Fruit often contains a variety of micronutrients. Other than that, carbs are unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. In fact grain contains chemicals that BLOCK nutrient absorption. Complex versus simple means nothing. They both cause an insulin spike and inflammation.

[Acala]

Complex carbs are important to a balanced diet.

There is NO need for dietary carbohydrates whatsoever.

[heavenlyboy34]

There is NO need for dietary carbohydrates whatsoever.

Almost all fruits and veggies have carbs. You're going to have a seriously unbalanced diet without carbs. Not to mention severe constipation. :P Also, if you have an extremely active lifestyle, you need carbs to keep blood sugar healthy and provide the sort of energy proteins can't. You could supplement these things, but that's too expensive for me and probably most people.

[heavenlyboy34]

Fruit often contains a variety of micronutrients. Other than that, carbs are unnecessary at best and harmful at worst. In fact grain contains chemicals that BLOCK nutrient absorption. Complex versus simple means nothing. They both cause an insulin spike and inflammation.

Actually, it means a great deal.

As a dietitian, I'm often asked to explain the difference between simple and complex carbohydrates. While most people have heard that complex carbohydrates are better for you than simple carbohydrates, what's often unclear is how the two differ, and why the differences between the two affect your health.

There are three types of carbohydrates: starch, sugar and fiber. Starches and sugars provide your body with its main source of energy. They're all comprised of carbon, oxygen and hydrogen, which are organized into single units. Sugars contain just one or two of these units and are "simple," while starches and fibers have many units of sugar, making them "complex".



Simple Carbohydrates

Sugars can occur naturally or artificially in foods, but your body can't distinguish between the sources. When people talk about "sugar," they're likely referring to table sugar, which is sucrose (a two-unit sugar). Table sugar belongs to a larger group of sugars, though, known as simple carbohydrates.

Simple carbohydrates include monosaccharides (one-unit sugars) and disaccharides (two-unit sugars). Monosaccharides include glucose, fructose and galactose. These can be absorbed directly and don't require further breakdown from enzymes, unlike disaccharides and polysaccharides.

Disaccharides are formed chemically when two monosaccharides combine to create once of the following:

Lactose: glucose and galactose
Sucrose: glucose and fructose
Maltose: glucose and glucose

Again, sucrose is just table sugar, and it occurs naturally in several fruits, grains and vegetables. Lactose is also a natural sugar, and it can be found in milk and other dairy products. Maltose forms naturally when starches break down from complex carbohydrates into simple sugars.

Complex Carbohydrates

Both fiber and starch are polysaccharides, meaning they are made up of many units of sugar and resemble a long chain. Plant foods, including grains, potatoes and legumes, contain starches.

All carbohydrates, except for fiber, are broken down by your body into monosaccharides as your body digests them. Your body breaks them down into simple sugars so they can be absorbed in your bloodstream and then transported to your cells and converted to energy.

What about fiber, you ask? Fiber isn't completely broken down in your digestive tract, and some of it remains whole in your body because you lack the enzymes to break it down. This actually confers numerous health benefits.

What's the Difference?

Regarding your health, the real difference is where the sugar comes from. While your body can't distinguish the difference between the source of sugar once it's broken down and absorbed, the food from which the sugar originated has a huge impact on your overall health. This is due to the nature other nutrients that may be in the food you consumed.

Since complex carbohydrates come from plant-based foods, we know that those foods also contain a plethora of beneficial nutrients in addition to their carbs, including vitamins, minerals and antioxidants.

The complex carbs are broken down into simple sugars. However, some simple sugars that are added to foods don't give you any beneficial nutrients. For example, fructose can be found in candies, soda, and other sweets lacking in health-promoting nutrients, but fructose is also present in fruit.

Even though both foods contain fructose, fruit is obviously a healthier choice because it's not solely made up of simple carbohydrates -- it also contains fiber, vitamins and antioxidants. The fiber in fruit helps slow the digestion of carbs, which is why your blood sugar doesn't spike as much after eating fiber-filled fruit like it does when you gulp down a soda or candy bar.

Vegetables and grains also contain some simple sugars in addition to their starches, mostly in the form of sucrose, but they give you a hefty dose of vitamins, minerals and antioxidants too, none of which you'll find in candies, soda and other sucrose-packed sweets.

The Bottom Line

When given the option, you should choose complex carbohydrates, such as those found in vegetables, whole grains and legumes, more often than simple carbohydrates. Not only will complex carbohydrates provide a more steady supply of energy and cause a less dramatic increase in your blood glucose levels, the foods in which complex carbs are found also provide a plethora of beneficial nutrients.

http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articl...ohydrates.html

[RJB]

Almost all fruits and veggies have carbs. You're going to have a seriously unbalanced diet without carbs. Not to mention severe constipation. :P Also, if you have an extremely active lifestyle, you need carbs to keep blood sugar healthy and provide the sort of energy proteins can't. You could supplement these things, but that's too expensive for me and probably most people.

Natives in the tundra regions traditionally ate nothing but animal products through the year. Many hunter-gathers ate nothing but meat through the winter. I've lived primitively off the land for a week of two at different times and in winter, it can be very hard finding even nuts and tubers.

[heavenlyboy34]

BTW, for those with a sedentary lifestyle (extremely common in the US), it is best to avoid starchy/sugary foods. Unless you've won the genetic lottery, the SAD (standard American diet) diet will give you inflammation and a host of other problems.

[heavenlyboy34]

Natives in the tundra regions traditionally ate nothing but animal products through the year. Many hunter-gathers ate nothing but meat through the winter. I've lived primitively off the land and in winter times it can be very hard finding even nuts and tubers.

Source?

[RJB]

Source?

I'll find it, but I'll just ask if you could provide photo evidence of a wheat field planted by an Eskimo

[Zippyjuan]

There is NO need for dietary carbohydrates whatsoever.

So you avoid all fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains? The body treats both kinds of carbs differently. Complex carbs release the sugars more slowly. They also take more energy for the body to digest.

The important thing is to have a BALANCED diet with some of everything but not too much of any one thing. People who have problems with sugars are consuming too much of them. That does not mean everybody else should consume none. Just that those people should consume less. Too many "diets" focus on either not eating from one category or mostly eating from another. That is still going to put your body and health out of balance. Even sodas are fine unless you drink lots of them every day.

[heavenlyboy34]

I'll find it, but I'll just ask if you could provide photo evidence of a wheat field planted by an Eskimo

I never said anything about wheat. Until relatively recently, mankind did very well on fruits, veggies, and such. Wheat did not become a staple anywhere until the agricultural revolution, AFAIK.

[RJB]

I read of a white explorer who lived for years with the Inuit who claim he ate nothing but animals for a year or more-- I forget where I read it. But traditionally all the wild caught fish and game is very nutritious and very high in Omega-3. They also eat a lot of the organ meats as well.

Here is something quick:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

[Zippyjuan]

Source?

Might find this interesting: it helped that they ate not just the meat but also most of the organs of animals they caught and killed. Fat was important too- it stored some fat soluble vitamins.

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

One might, for instance, imagine gross vitamin deficiencies arising from a diet with scarcely any fruits and vegetables. What furnishes vitamin A, vital for eyes and bones? We derive much of ours from colorful plant foods, constructing it from pigmented plant precursors called carotenoids (as in carrots). But vitamin A, which is oil soluble, is also plentiful in the oils of cold-water fishes and sea mammals, as well as in the animals’ livers, where fat is processed. These dietary staples also provide vitamin D, another oil-soluble vitamin needed for bones. Those of us living in temperate and tropical climates, on the other hand, usually make vitamin D indirectly by exposing skin to strong sun—hardly an option in the Arctic winter—and by consuming fortified cow’s milk, to which the indigenous northern groups had little access until recent decades and often don’t tolerate all that well.

As for vitamin C, the source in the Eskimo diet was long a mystery. Most animals can synthesize their own vitamin C, or ascorbic acid, in their livers, but humans are among the exceptions, along with other primates and oddballs like guinea pigs and bats. If we don’t ingest enough of it, we fall apart from scurvy, a gruesome connective-tissue disease. In the United States today we can get ample supplies from orange juice, citrus fruits, and fresh vegetables. But vitamin C oxidizes with time; getting enough from a ship’s provisions was tricky for early 18th- and 19th-century voyagers to the polar regions. Scurvy—joint pain, rotting gums, leaky blood vessels, physical and mental degeneration—plagued European and U.S. expeditions even in the 20th century. However, Arctic peoples living on fresh fish and meat were free of the disease.

Four years ago, Cordain reviewed the macronutrient content (protein, carbohydrates, fat) in the diets of 229 hunter-gatherer groups listed in a series of journal articles collectively known as the Ethnographic Atlas. These are some of the oldest surviving human diets. In general, hunter-gatherers tend to eat more animal protein than we do in our standard Western diet, with its reliance on agriculture and carbohydrates derived from grains and starchy plants. Lowest of all in carbohydrate, and highest in combined fat and protein, are the diets of peoples living in the Far North, where they make up for fewer plant foods with extra fish. What’s equally striking, though, says Cordain, is that these meat-and-fish diets also exhibit a natural “protein ceiling.” Protein accounts for no more than 35 to 40 percent of their total calories, which suggests to him that’s all the protein humans can comfortably handle.

This ceiling, Cordain thinks, could be imposed by the way we process protein for energy. The simplest, fastest way to make energy is to convert carbohydrates into glucose, our body’s primary fuel. But if the body is out of carbs, it can burn fat, or if necessary, break down protein. The name given to the convoluted business of making glucose from protein is gluconeogenesis. It takes place in the liver, uses a dizzying slew of enzymes, and creates nitrogen waste that has to be converted into urea and disposed of through the kidneys. On a truly traditional diet, says Draper, recalling his studies in the 1970s, Arctic people had plenty of protein but little carbohydrate, so they often relied on gluconeogenesis. Not only did they have bigger livers to handle the additional work but their urine volumes were also typically larger to get rid of the extra urea. Nonetheless, there appears to be a limit on how much protein the human liver can safely cope with: Too much overwhelms the liver’s waste-disposal system, leading to protein poisoning—nausea, diarrhea, wasting, and death.

Whatever the metabolic reason for this syndrome, says John Speth, an archaeologist at the University of Michigan’s Museum of Anthropology, plenty of evidence shows that hunters through the ages avoided protein excesses, discarding fat-depleted animals even when food was scarce. Early pioneers and trappers in North America encountered what looks like a similar affliction, sometimes referred to as rabbit starvation because rabbit meat is notoriously lean. Forced to subsist on fat-deficient meat, the men would gorge themselves, yet wither away. Protein can’t be the sole source of energy for humans, concludes Cordain. Anyone eating a meaty diet that is low in carbohydrates must have fat as well.

More at link. (looks like we found the same article at the same time!)

[heavenlyboy34]

I read of a white explorer who lived for years with the Inuit who claim he ate nothing but animals for a year or more-- I forget where I read it. But traditionally all the wild caught fish and game is very nutritious and very high in Omega-3. They also eat a lot of the organ meats as well.

Here is something quick:

http://discovermagazine.com/2004/oct/inuit-paradox

This is not to say that people in the Far North were fat: Subsistence living requires exercise—hard physical work. Indeed, among the good reasons for native people to maintain their old way of eating, as far as it’s possible today, is that it provides a hedge against obesity, type 2 diabetes, and heart disease.

See? Even your own source stresses the importance of exercise to compliment the diet.

[Acala]

Almost all fruits and veggies have carbs. You're going to have a seriously unbalanced diet without carbs. Not to mention severe constipation. :P Also, if you have an extremely active lifestyle, you need carbs to keep blood sugar healthy and provide the sort of energy proteins can't. You could supplement these things, but that's too expensive for me and probably most people.

You will have a less than optimal diet without fruit and vegetables, but NOT because of the lack of carbs. You don't need dietary carbs at all. Your body can make all the carbs you need to manage blood sugar levels and replenish glycogen. It is called gluconeogenesis. And fat is a better energy source than sugar in every way.

[Acala]

Actually, it means a great deal.


http://www.fitday.com/fitness-articl...ohydrates.html

Actually, no it doesn't. The problem with trying to fuel your body on carbs is the constant insulin spikes and inflammation. Complex carbs are no less harmful in this regard than simple carbs. So it doesn't matter.

[Acala]

So you avoid all fruits, vegetables, nuts, and grains?

I never said that. I said there is NO requirement for dietary carbohydrates, and that is fact. I eat large amounts of vegetables, although not many of the starchy one. I eat small amount of fruit. I eat nuts in moderation. I eat no grain.

The body treats both kinds of carbs differently. Complex carbs release the sugars more slowly. They also take more energy for the body to digest.

There is no significant difference in the glycemic index of complex and simple carbs. They both cause insulin spikes and inflammation. The fact that something takes more energy for the body to digest suggests to me that it is not optimal food.

The important thing is to have a BALANCED diet with some of everything but not too much of any one thing.

So a little arsenic? A little botulism toxin? As long as it is in moderation? Your guideline is useless.

People who have problems with sugars are consuming too much of them. That does not mean everybody else should consume none. Just that those people should consume less. Too many "diets" focus on either not eating from one category or mostly eating from another. That is still going to put your body and health out of balance. Even sodas are fine unless you drink lots of them every day.

I didn't say to eat no carbohydrates. I said there is no dietary requirement for carbohydrates. I DO say that your main fuel should be fats. Carbohydrates make a poor fuel because, among other reasons, your body has a very limited capacity for sugar in the blood and freaks out when you exceed it.

[Acala]

Might find this interesting: it helped that they ate not just the meat but also most of the organs of animals they caught and killed. Fat was important too- it stored some fat soluble vitamins.

Did anyone here say protein is a good source of energy? FAT is the optimal energy source.

[Zippyjuan]

There is no significant difference in the glycemic index of complex and simple carbs. They both cause insulin spikes and inflammation. The fact that something takes more energy for the body to digest suggests to me that it is not optimal food.

Fats and proteins take even more energy to convert to things the body can use. That is why the body processes them last. Are they then even less optimal foods? That would make sugar the most desirable food source which I don't think you are saying.

There is no significant difference in the glycemic index of complex and simple carbs.

The glycemic index can vary considerably for different carbs. Chart listing 100 foods: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newswe..._100_foods.htm

Cornflakes for example is listed as 93 while oatmeal is 55. Coca Cola is rated 63.

[Acala]

I'm going to make one more post here to explain something and then move on.

Science is far from understanding everything about human nutrition and I am far from understanding everything science has discovered. So what I am about to say is just a slice. But it is an important slice.

The human bloodstream has a very limited carrying capacity for glucose, the ultimate product of most carbohydrate metabolism (we will ignore fructose here). If the carrying capacity for glucose is exceeded, you can go into a coma and ultimately die. So your body gets excited about glucose levels getting out of hand. On the other end of the spectrum, if glucose levels get too low, you can also go into a coma and die. So your body doesn't like that either. When your glucose levels rise, your body produces insulin. Insulin forces glucose out of your blood stream and into muscle tissue and the liver as glycogen (if there is room) and into adipose tissue as fat. If your glucose level drops too low, your body produces cortisol which, among other things, stimulates the production of glucose from various sources (including fat, if necessary). All well and good. But there is a problem. This system is not designed to be constantly managing huge carb loads and over time it starts to break down.

Hormones like insulin and cortisol act on receptor cells - cells that are designed to act in response to the hormonal signal. Under the stress of too much stimulation, these receptor cells start to lose sensitivity. They can even be killed off. In the case of insulin, this is known as insulin resistance and results in Type II diabetes. Your body is still producing insulin but the receptor cells are no longer functioning to remove glucose from the blood stream. They burned out from over-stimulation. Big problem.

Something similar happens with cortisol. When blood glucose levels spike, your body secretes insulin. The insulin strips the glucose out of your blood stream (causing the energy drop that follows the sugar high). The lowered glucose level causes the body to release cortisol which keeps the glucose level from going too low. But cortisol also has another function - it is an anti-inflammatory hormone. So while cortisol is stimulating glucose production, it is also working on anti-inflammatory receptor cells as a side effect. Just like insulin receptors, those anti-inflammatory receptor cells will also burn out under too much stimulation. When the cortisol receptor cells burn out, the body's ability to control inflammation is impaired. That means chronic inflammation. (Chronic stress also results in cortisol burn out and leads to chronic inflammation.)

Chronic inflammation has been linked to a laundry list of degenerative illnesses including cancer, CVD, dementia, arthritis, and various auto-immune disorders.

Because the human blood stream has such a limited capacity for glucose, it is very difficult to eat just enough carbohydrates to stay within the range. It is like trying to run a big truck on a thimble-sized gas tank. You have to keep refilling it to keep from running out and every time you are in danger of overflow. When you are young, your cortisol/insulin regulation system can usually keep it under control. But eventually the system starts to lose control and the consequences are dire.

Using fat as fuel avoids these problems.

So there you have it. Take it or leave it as you wish.

[dannno]

Almost all fruits and veggies have carbs. You're going to have a seriously unbalanced diet without carbs. Not to mention severe constipation. :P Also, if you have an extremely active lifestyle, you need carbs to keep blood sugar healthy and provide the sort of energy proteins can't. You could supplement these things, but that's too expensive for me and probably most people.

Protein doesn't provide any energy, fat provides energy. Protein is for tissue healing.

If you eat a lot of carbs, your body is on a constant cycle of energy bursts and crashes. If you largely remove carbs from your diet, or keep them below 40-60g / day then your body goes into fat burning mode after a few days or up to a couple of weeks. In the mean time, your body will be a little tired because it hasn't switched to fat burning mode yet. Once it dose, you can use body fat and/or dietary fat as a constant source of fuel and you avoid the energy bursts/crashes. You have a more constant energy throughout the day.

So there is certainly some room for fruits and veggies and they do have good nutrients, but good pastured or grass fed meats can provide the same and while fruits and veggies may provide some benefit they are not completely necessary. I certainly wouldn't turn down berries, greens or tomatoes though.

[Zippyjuan]

Interesting study: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...index-and.html

A large new study just published in the American Journal of Clinical nutrition has taken the evidence to a new level (8). At 6 months and 720 participants, it was both the largest and one of the longest studies to address the question. Participants were assigned to one of the following diets:

High saturated fat, high glycemic index
High monounsaturated fat, high glycemic index
High monounsaturated fat, low glycemic index
Low fat, high glycemic index
Low fat, low glycemic index

Compliance to the diets was pretty good. From the nature of the study design, I suspect the authors were expecting participants on diet #1 to fare the worst. They were eating a deadly combination of saturated fat and high glycemic carbohydrate! Well to their dismay, there were no differences in insulin sensitivity between groups at 6 months. Blood pressure also didn't differ between groups, although the low-fat groups lost more weight than the monounsaturated fat groups. The investigators didn't attempt to determine whether the weight loss was fat, lean mass or both. The low-fat groups also saw an increase in the microalbumin:creatinine ratio compared to other groups, indicating a possible deterioration of kidney function.

[heavenlyboy34]

Protein doesn't provide any energy, fat provides energy. Protein is for tissue healing.

If you eat a lot of carbs, your body is on a constant cycle of energy bursts and crashes. If you largely remove carbs from your diet, or keep them below 40-60g / day then your body goes into fat burning mode after a few days or up to a couple of weeks. In the mean time, your body will be a little tired because it hasn't switched to fat burning mode yet. Once it dose, you can use body fat and/or dietary fat as a constant source of fuel and you avoid the energy bursts/crashes. You have a more constant energy throughout the day.

So there is certainly some room for fruits and veggies and they do have good nutrients, but good pastured or grass fed meats can provide the same and while fruits and veggies may provide some benefit they are not completely necessary. I certainly wouldn't turn down berries, greens or tomatoes though.

I don't disagree with any of that and didn't say almost anything contrary prior to this^^. But thanks for posting anyway. Good stuff. ~hugs~

My nit to pick with you is when you say grass fed meats can replace fruits and veggies. Here is a nutrient profile for sirloin steak. Notice 0 fiber and the only vitamin content is B. (Not this is bad-B is important and extremely difficult to get without meat). You are a complicated organism and need lots of nutrients. (some more than others depending on your genetic makeup, lifestyle, etc) AFAIK, the only way you could get all the nutrition you need on a meat-only diet is supplements.

[heavenlyboy34]

Interesting study: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...index-and.html

IMO, this study isn't controlled enough to be useful. i.e. activity level of participants, age, etc. The first commenter makes a good point:

Ludicrously stupid in my opinion. Carbohydrates have a very different impact on the health of people with rock solid blood sugars (A1c 4.3-4.9)who can eat all they want without health impacts, than they do on people with higher ones ranging into the pre-diabetic range (usually undiagnosed) who risk glucose toxicity, and they are toxic to many organ systems in anyone diabetes.

Without knowing starting blood sugar status, and breaking out results by that status the results are meaningless.

Plus it takes a good 10 years of exposure to significantly high blood sugars to produce visible damage to health. The impact of those carbs won't show up in just six months.

Finally, all diets studied result in very different test results at 6 months than they do at two or three years.

Who are the imbeciles who come up with these badly designed studies and why aren't they doing the menial jobs their limited intelligence would make more appropriate for them?