Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Harvard Study, thoughts?

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

  • Harvard Study, thoughts?



    I passed by the magazine rack & saw "Low-Carb Diet Risk" on the Fitness Rx for Women front page. So this link goes to the actual harvard study, but the Fitness Rx article is pretty good at summing it up, but i couldn't find that link online. What do you think?


    http://www.harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/low-carb-diets-linked-atherosclerosis-and-impaired-blood-vessel-growth


    Do you think that the types of fats and the carb sources are that important? It doesn't seem like we're all here shooting ourselves in the feet considering we've all had some good to great results from this. Dont know, wanted some opinions/insight!


  • #2
    1



    Humans are not mice. Mice have been eating seeds and grains far longer than primates (just from the sheer fact that they have been on the planet much longer)and have evolved to do so. While they may eat some insects and random dead things from time to time, their primary diet is plant-based. You can't correlate effects on mice to humans in this instance. Bad science again.

    Comment


    • #3
      1



      Well in case you dont have time to read the whole thing, it says that low-carb or ketogenic diets are not at all recommended for those w/ personal or family history of cardiovascular diseases. Their recommendation is that you get sufficient carb intake, estimating at LEAST 60-100g per day. The reasoning is to keep a "baseline insulin presence."


      Their research (of course in mice) showed that cholesterol sky rocketed in the low-carb mice eating 12%fat/45%p/43%f, more so than in the high carb high fat diet mice, but that the low carb diet was not associated with any increase in oxidative damage.


      They also found that the mice on the low carb diet had elevated levels of the hormone that stimulates the production of the cells that help heal & protect the linings of the blood vessels. Even the production hormone was elevated, the actual number of healing cells present had decreased by 80%. The researchers assume that this is where other studies & assumptions have gone wrong; that previous studies measured the hormone levels, assumed a cardiovascular benefit to low carb dieting, but never counted the actual cells being created.


      There's more, but these are 2 of the points that interested me most.

      Comment


      • #4
        1



        Here's another discussion of this article, which along with reiterating that mice are not humans, includes some critique of the methodology. 65% of calories from protein? Um, okay. I'll be sure to avoid that kind of low carb diet.


        http://www.theheart.org/article/994893.do

        Comment


        • #5
          1



          note the reference to low carb / high protein not low carb / high fat.


          Mark promotes getting your fuel from fat, not protein.

          Comment


          • #6
            1



            And the lipid , diet/heart hypotheses are fast sinking ships. NOT proven, no matter the lengths gone to trying to fit data to the theory.

            Comment


            • #7
              1



              Opening the link i read up until the first paragraph said they fed mice a "low carb/high protein diet" then laughed and stopped reading. If they would actually test an alternative diet that people actually used maybe the results would be relevant. Silly Harvard.

              Comment


              • #8
                1



                The fact that they said to eat at least 60-100 grams of carbs each day actually fits in with the "maintenance" part of the PB. Mark actually says 100-150 grams! So what's the big deal for those who are in that area? It means it doesn't apply to us as humans. That and the aforementioned fact that mice are supposed to live mainly on grains. When are scientists going to learn that if you don't want to test a drug/hypothesis on a human, it's not worth it to even try it – mainly because of the difference between humans and animals.

                Comment


                • #9
                  1



                  "The investigators, therefore, looked at the animals’ endothelial or vascular progenitor cell (EPC) counts. Derived from bone marrow, the EPC cells may play a role in vessel regrowth and repair following injury.


                  “Examinations of the animals’ bone marrow and peripheral blood showed that the measures of EPC cells dropped fully 40 percent among the mice on the low-carb diet – after only two weeks,” said Rosenzweig."


                  Question here should be what effect does fat have on these endothelial or vascular progenitor cells?


                  Possible Answer?

                  http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11412051


                  CONCLUSION: In hypercholesterolemic men, diets low in fat (especially saturated fat) and diets rich in monounsaturated fats improve endothelial function.


                  http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/jac/article/PIIS0735109798006810/abstract


                  CONCLUSIONS

                  Ingestion of a meal rich in fat previously used for deep frying in a commercial fast food restaurant resulted in impaired arterial endothelial function. These findings suggest that intake of degradation products of heated fat contribute to endothelial dysfunction.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    1



                    Steve, the comparison is not quite apt, as endothelial cells are not the same as endothelial cell progenitors. If you're talking about EPCs, you're talking about bone marrow cells that are not yet part of the endothelium (the single cell thick lining of blood vessels). The effect of diet on EPCs could be quite different from its effect on the endothelium.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X