Re: High-fat diet increased LDL-cholesterol
It's obvious that you have no interest in discussing the subject at
hand and probably don't even understand what the study in this thread
reports (even after Chris provided details). It appears you think that
if you supply links that have the key words, fat, cholesterol, N3, N6,
LDL scattered about (without any regard for context), you have
supplied a sufficient counter argument.
I don't even think you've paid much attention to the links you
provided. Most of them have no bearing on the study under discussion.
Some of the studies even provide evidence and conclusions that are
contrary to your central views.
I'm going to get very specific with each of your links to illustrate
how misleading your strategy of "I'll bombard them with links (without
discussion). That will show them that I know what I'm talking about"
There are intelligent folks out there that probably believe much of
what you and your fanatical brethen spout. I just want to illustrate
how a closer look at your arguments show your conclusion are not so
open and shut.
Here's a review of the study discussed in this thread:
1. A collection of obese (BMI 30-40) were proscribed either a reduced
calorie low fat high carb diet or a High Fat low carb diet (<20grams).
2. After 6 weeks these were the findings:
a. Both groups lost the same amount of weight (no sig. differences)
b. Both groups reduced thier TGs the same amount.
c. The high carb group reduced their LDL levels, the low carb group
did not decrease
their LDL levels (they increased non-significanlty)
d. The low carb group had high serum FFAs all the time. The authors
this to the lack of reduction of LDL in
the low carb group.
Now lets look at how the links deal with these findings:
This was a paper discussing large and small LDL and their implication.
How does this relate to what we are talking about?
If your implying that low carb diets will produce "bigger" ldl
particles that are harmless I quote from the introduction of the
"Large LDL particles also can be associated with increased coronary
disease risk, particularly in the setting of normal or low
triglyceride levels. Like small LDL, large LDL exhibits reduced LDL
receptor affinity compared with intermediate sized LDL. "
Nevertheless this is an important topic and desevered more discussion.
There have been threads devoted to this topic. For a quick summary
refer to my response to Billy in this thread.
BUT- This is not what's being discussed in this thread that started
This was a paper on the benefits of Low GI carbs and the adverse
effects of High GI carbs.
This is totally consistent with the kind of diets that I've defended
in the past. Whenever I've presented benefits of higher carb diets
it's always about low GI high fiber. Always!
I know of know one that recommends Hi GI diets!
Here's the conclusion from the paper:
"Conclusion: Mixed meals containing slowly digestible carbohydrate
that induces low glycemic and insulinemic responses reduce the
postprandial accumulation of both hepatically and intestinally derived
triacylglycerol-rich lipoproteins in obese subjects with insulin
Their recommendation are consistents with what I've said in the past
and what you have condemned.
And what relevance does this have to the study under question.
This was a study showing that very high sugar diets (45% of calories)
will increase TGs.
Why is this relevant?? Do you think I recommend high sugar intake. Do
you claim I posted this on other sites in the past.
I've always said Higher Carbs. Low GI, High Fiber
And what relevance does this have to the study under question?
Well this study does have some relevance to the thread and does show
some benefit to lower carb diets.
Here's what they found:
a. Low carb diet increased LDL more than the the high carb diet did,
just like the study under question.
b. HDL was increased more on the low carb diet.
c. The TC/HDL level was the same on both diets, so there was no
difference in CAD. (note apoB/apoA were not used for a more accurate
d. Insulin and Glucose were reduced on the low carb diet.
BUT (and this is a criticism I have for all of this groups studies)
they did not use the Low Gi High Fiber diet. They used a plain Jane
crap high carb diet and still the results were only marginally better
on the low carb arm and LDL was increased just like the study that Gys
Here's a study using the kind of high carb diet I've referred to:
This was a study about comparing fructose to glucose. I would never
recommend eating either one in any quantity. What does this have to do
with what we're talking about.
Once again : High Carb means Low Gi High Fiber (>25 grams/1000
This study compared a low calorie low fat diet to a lower calorie
reduced low carb diet. Both groups lost weight but the low carb group
ate less and loss more weight. Unless calories are equal, any other
comparisons are not valid. Calorie intake must be controlled.
Also the low fat diet was the same plain jane crappy diet that this
group uses for their test.
Here's a study using the kind of higher carb diet I've been
Effect of a Short-Term Diet and Exercise Intervention on Oxidative
Stress, Inflammation, MMP-9
and Monocyte Chemotactic Activity in Men with Metabolic Syndrome
This was a high carb high fiber unlimited calorie diet that achieved
results as good as or better the the low carb arm of the previous
study without any weight loss!
This is a study about the benefits of n-3 fatty acids. How is that
I supplement with fish oils and eat a handfull of walnuts on most
days. The data on the positve effects of n-3 oils are massive.
But here's what the authors of this paper have to say about saturated
"On the basis of estimates from studies in Paleolithic nutrition and
modern-day hunter-gatherer populations, it appears that human beings
evolved consuming a diet that was much lower in saturated fatty acids
than is today's diet (21)."
"The hypolipidemic effects of n-3 fatty acids are similar to those of
n-6 fatty acids, provided that they replace saturated fats in the
"In developing protocols, it should be considered essential to use a
ratio of n-6 to n-3 PUFAs of 1–2:1, to keep saturated fat intake low,
and to limit trans fatty acid intake to 2% of total energy intake."
The findings of this study are the odd ball finding. In this case CAD
decreased with increased saturated fat on a relatively low fat diet.
This association was true for decreased and increased Hi Gi carbs
(once again contra indicated on any higher carb diet).
At the end of the study the authors state:
"Confirmation of these findings in other studies and examination of
potential mechanisms and alternative explanations are warranted."
As far as I know these results haven't been duplicated but lead author
has continued to report on the benefits of reduced saturated fat
intakes (just opposite of what was reported here).
His latest very recent paper on the value of replacing saturated fats
with polys is here:
Please note the conclusion of this paper:
"Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies
showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that
dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or
CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to
be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated
Note the last sentence:
" More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be
influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat."
This same group (including Krauss RM) has published a recent paper
where they acknowledge the benefit of replacing saturated fats with
As anyone can see these issues deserve more discussion than the rash
generalizations you continually provide. Providing a collection of
links without context and relevance will not lead to anything
- Prev by Date: Re: Recipe ideas for diabetics
- Next by Date: help with medications
- Previous by thread: Re: High-fat diet increased LDL-cholesterol
- Next by thread: Re: High-fat diet increased LDL-cholesterol