Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Uk tv programme fat v sugar -omg!!!!

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Uk tv programme fat v sugar -omg!!!!

    Who has watched this? I just did. I was hoping they would finally tell the truth about fats and sugars, - NOPE

    They are totally saying that a high fat low sugar diet could give you diabetes.

    I'm so angry.

    BBC2
    'Myths which are believed in tend to become true'
    George Orwell

  • #2
    Funny... High fat, low sugar got rid of my DH's Diabetes......
    Every time I hear the dirty word 'exercise', I wash my mouth out with chocolate.

    http://primaldog.blogspot.co.uk/

    Comment


    • #3
      that is why it is up to all of us to do the research ourselves.........trusting others only ends in disappointment!

      Comment


      • #4
        If you are not a reader, and you see this they are saying high fat makes your insulin low which then give you high blood glucose.

        And that the bad thing is fat and sugar together - which is at least true
        'Myths which are believed in tend to become true'
        George Orwell

        Comment


        • #5
          I was torn between that and the Big Brother final !!
          Just catching the end now

          Comment


          • #6
            What did anyone else make of this?
            'Myths which are believed in tend to become true'
            George Orwell

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by jacobsen001 View Post
              What did anyone else make of this?
              I thought it was very interesting. I thought there were some nuggets of good information in there, however I was a little disappointed that they were reluctant to say that saturated fat is "not bad for you"; although they did make the distinction between saturated fats and transfats.

              They did admit that the experiment was not completely scientific i.e. very small cohort of two. There's no evidence that either twin stuck religiously to the diet; both seemed to be craving the missing macro-nutrient which seems a bit odd in the case of the high fat diet, as appetite for carbs should have diminished, especially after 1 month.

              It was going well until near the end when they indicated that a high fat diet was causing one of the twins to become borderline diabetic. I must admit it cast a shadow of doubt in my mind regarding low carb diets, especially as I have never had any glucose or insulin blood tests done on myself and the tests appeared to be cutting edge and scientific; however we don't know who funds the research facilities and experts running them.

              It is possible that the twin moving from a 'normal' (high carb) diet to the high fat diet experienced higher blood sugars at the end of the experiment because his body was compensating for the lack of sugar in the diet (homeostatic processes that we have built up over the years, I suppose; the body expects higher glucose/insulin levels so manufactures more glucose), however that is just speculation on my part, as I have no scientific knowledge or proof. It's also possible that the higher levels of glucose in the blood are the result his body becoming fat adapted. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't body fat have to be converted to glucose before if could be used as fuel?

              I was also confused as to why the twin on the high fat diet lost so much muscle mass (neither twin was engaged in LHT or sprinting). Could a reduced level of protein intake cause that much muscle mass to be lost?
              As the twin's muscle was used to store glucose, and there was a reduced carb intake, could the body require less muscle mass for the storage of glucose, especially if the twins are not using muscle to lift heavy things? Back to the homeostatic body, I guess; If it's not needed then the body gets rid of it.

              I thought the part on the concentration levels and ketones / glucose levels for brain fuel was puzzling (the stocks and shares experiment). There was no evidence to show that the twin on the high fat diet had become ketone-adapted at that stage and that his brain would function optimally. His brain could still have been glucose adapted and simply be feeling the effects of a reduced amount of fuel.

              I understand these are simple questions and statements I have made, and that I could be completely off the mark with some of them.

              I though overall the programme raised some interesting questions, but then back-tracked in the conclusions; you could see the puzzlement on their faces when they though conventional wisdom was being challenged.

              My fiancee, who loyally follows conventional wisdom, was left very confused as to what she should be eating (she worries about a lot of things anyway), and now doesn't know who or what to believe. I'm glad the programme has raised some debate on the mainstream media, but concerned that a clear message hasn't been put forward.

              Comment


              • #8
                I've yet to watch it, but according to this article, One twin gave up sugar, the other gave up fat. Their experiment could change YOUR life | Mail Online the high fat twin was allowed NO fruit or veg at all! That was never going to be a healthy out come. Or is the article incorrect?

                Comment


                • #9
                  yeah that sounds right; the twin on the high fat diet was told no fruit or veg at all.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Another factor to consider here was that we all are not the same. This was about 2 twins. They have different needs than I have. Many have learned here that low carb causes them many problems, while some do great and cure health problems. Interesting stuff to study, but no real conclusions can be made for everyone. I found the fat and sugar dopamine test interesting. I explains why some can eat fruit without binging, but cake not so much.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by ConorC View Post
                      I thought it was very interesting. I thought there were some nuggets of good information in there, however I was a little disappointed that they were reluctant to say that saturated fat is "not bad for you"; although they did make the distinction between saturated fats and transfats.

                      They did admit that the experiment was not completely scientific i.e. very small cohort of two. There's no evidence that either twin stuck religiously to the diet; both seemed to be craving the missing macro-nutrient which seems a bit odd in the case of the high fat diet, as appetite for carbs should have diminished, especially after 1 month.

                      It was going well until near the end when they indicated that a high fat diet was causing one of the twins to become borderline diabetic. I must admit it cast a shadow of doubt in my mind regarding low carb diets, especially as I have never had any glucose or insulin blood tests done on myself and the tests appeared to be cutting edge and scientific; however we don't know who funds the research facilities and experts running them.

                      It is possible that the twin moving from a 'normal' (high carb) diet to the high fat diet experienced higher blood sugars at the end of the experiment because his body was compensating for the lack of sugar in the diet (homeostatic processes that we have built up over the years, I suppose; the body expects higher glucose/insulin levels so manufactures more glucose), however that is just speculation on my part, as I have no scientific knowledge or proof. It's also possible that the higher levels of glucose in the blood are the result his body becoming fat adapted. Please correct me if I'm wrong here, but wouldn't body fat have to be converted to glucose before if could be used as fuel?

                      I was also confused as to why the twin on the high fat diet lost so much muscle mass (neither twin was engaged in LHT or sprinting). Could a reduced level of protein intake cause that much muscle mass to be lost?
                      As the twin's muscle was used to store glucose, and there was a reduced carb intake, could the body require less muscle mass for the storage of glucose, especially if the twins are not using muscle to lift heavy things? Back to the homeostatic body, I guess; If it's not needed then the body gets rid of it.

                      I thought the part on the concentration levels and ketones / glucose levels for brain fuel was puzzling (the stocks and shares experiment). There was no evidence to show that the twin on the high fat diet had become ketone-adapted at that stage and that his brain would function optimally. His brain could still have been glucose adapted and simply be feeling the effects of a reduced amount of fuel.

                      I understand these are simple questions and statements I have made, and that I could be completely off the mark with some of them.

                      I though overall the programme raised some interesting questions, but then back-tracked in the conclusions; you could see the puzzlement on their faces when they though conventional wisdom was being challenged.

                      My fiancee, who loyally follows conventional wisdom, was left very confused as to what she should be eating (she worries about a lot of things anyway), and now doesn't know who or what to believe. I'm glad the programme has raised some debate on the mainstream media, but concerned that a clear message hasn't been put forward.
                      I thought it was out dated and biased.
                      I was hoping they were going to talk more about the newish evidence that saturated fat is not the devil. (they mentioned one sentence on it, but quickly swept it aside) I thought they might move past the old cholesterol myths, but no, they were still banging on about the importance of LDL and HDL readings.

                      I felt the tests were chosen to show how bad fat was.

                      I was v annoyed that they showed the weight loss of the guy eating fats to be 50% muscle. There was no emphasis on weight lifting. There was no mention that nearly all diets make people lose mostly muscle.

                      A calorie is a calorie is a calorie was still the adage. The fact that the fat eating guy ate much less overall was just down to the protein being more filling. There was no in depth explanation of how sugar makes you gorge.

                      And the stock market test was v v irritating as you said.

                      And really? Does a low carb diet cause diabetes??

                      I really thought it had the potential to be a ground breaking show, full of the same old news, and biased as hell.

                      It would have been much more interesting if the one twin was on a low carb, paleo style diet, and the other on a typical processed high carb diet.

                      I had read all the stuff on the rats before so that was not news to me.
                      'Myths which are believed in tend to become true'
                      George Orwell

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        I spent a lot of the first half shouting at the TV!

                        The second half I found more interesting, especially that nothing in nature is both fat and sugar combined, and when they were discussing the addiction theory.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          I was also one shouting at the TV.
                          Apart from the fact that the low carb twin was permitted no vegetables at all (which would have a number of deleterious effects on mineral/nutrient deficiency, and gut macrobiota - all which have implications for insulin resistance). This was ridiculous and not indicative of a typical low carb diet.

                          The bit at the end with the LC twin allegedly becoming pre-diabetic was the most annoying. As far as I can tell, the doctor ascertained this by a simple glucose response test (though I may be wrong) and found the LC twin to be less capable of bringing his blood sugar down. Of course if he has been ketogenic for the past month, then his pancreas would down regulate insulin production. But more importantly, it is well documented that ketogenic diets (as oppose to lower carb) cause insulin resistance in body tissues, as a way to ensure that the scarce glucose there is, is available for the brain (although, admittedly, I do not have a reference for that theory of preserving glucose for the brain, anyone?). This case does not indicate diabetes at all.

                          The talk on heart disease and cholesterol was benign and way to simplistic.
                          The fact that LC twin lost more muscle mass was misrepresented as he also lost more weight. And as ratio to muscle and fat, he was not much more different than LF twin. Again veggies I predict would have prevented this, as they would supply glucose to his brain and nutirents, without adversely stimulating insulin levels.

                          Also, the effects of sugar on metabolic syndrome and insulin resistance, accrue over years not weeks, especially on a hypo-calorie diet - so the low fat twins response proved nothing.

                          The part on the LC twin feeling less hungry because of protein was abysmal, as many studies show that low carb diets suppress appetite even when protein is low. That part was simply bad science, as the researcher did not control for protein.

                          However, in the bicycle sprint section they decided to control for protein, by giving LF twin sugar, and LC butter just before. And then said that the LC twin was worse off because in the absence of sugar or protein he would have to breakdown his own muscle for glucose... Well if you gave him a fast acting protein with that fat, then his body could have used that for glucose, thus sparing his own muscle mass. -- It seems these two examples were contrived either knowingly or unknowingly to make fat look bad.

                          The stock market thing was unexpected, and perhaps ketogenic diets do have an adverse effect on cognition in normal adults. Most of the research attesting to improving cognitive function seem to be for elderly and dementia ridden populations (possibly because the brain can no longer metabolise glucose anyway).

                          The last part on the mixture of fat and sugar was good, but kinda of undermined the first part of the program. They claim at the end that it is too simple to treat each macro nutrient separately in a hermetic seal, and that it's the interaction between things that mater... yet this is what they spent the first 45 minutes doing! It was intersting how they said that the combination of fat and sugar is not found in nature (expect milk) call to nature you say? what does that remind one off? hmmm), as it's something I picked up from reading the effects of both low fat and low carb diets, and how both could work, but the worst is when the two are mixed.

                          It would of been far better to see a low carb (but full of leafy green veggies etc) vs high sugar study that lasted at least 3 months, with say 3 sets of twins, from young to middle age to elderly.
                          Last edited by alexkx3; 01-30-2014, 10:36 AM.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by jacobsen001 View Post
                            Who has watched this? I just did. I was hoping they would finally tell the truth about fats and sugars, - NOPE

                            They are totally saying that a high fat low sugar diet could give you diabetes.

                            I'm so angry.

                            BBC2

                            Actually it suggested that it was neither sugar or fat that was the enemy but processed foods that combined the two with 50:50 being human's sweet spot. The twin on the fat/protein diet did have pretty high blood sugar so they were going off the evidence they had in that case.
                            -Ryan Mercer my blog and Genco Peptides my small biz

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by jacobsen001 View Post
                              Who has watched this? I just did. I was hoping they would finally tell the truth about fats and sugars, - NOPE

                              They are totally saying that a high fat low sugar diet could give you diabetes.

                              I'm so angry.

                              BBC2
                              Of course it can. If it's the wrong type of fat. Diabetes is a combination of dietary health problems causing your body to burn fat even when given sugars. It's not sugar itself causing diabetes, it is a large intake of polyunsaturated fat and an extremely unhealthy gut biome. A great way to get Type 2 Diabetes is to eat a high fat, low carbohydrate diet full of polyunsaturated fats. Eating lots of sugar and starch in the form of fruits and tubers with an overall low fat intake is a great way to prevent diabetes because it ensures a healthy gut biome from all the soluble fiber and a very low intake of polyunsaturated fat, which is what ruins your glucose tolerance.
                              Don't put your trust in anyone on this forum, including me. You are the key to your own success.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X