Its fairly impossible to provide hard evidence that low carb high fat is inherently better because anyone who looks at the studies will instantly point out one of a couple confounders: 1. the LCHF diet eliminates wheat or other allergens 2. the LCHF has a higher protein content 3. the LCHF has a more nutrient dense profile. There is some interesting stuff that I have read regarding carbohydrate full oxidation requiring more complex I activity which would ultimately lead to more ROS production by the mitochondria. Oxidative stress is basically the factor in aging and metabolic disease. Does this pan out beyond biochem though? Dunno. Have to wait for more studies or till someone points them out I suppose.
"Therefore shifting away from glucose utilization toward lipid and amino acid utilization would be expected to substantially reduce the production of reactive oxygen species, without necessarily reducing ATP production. As described below, other beneficial effects also occur as a result of this altered pattern of glucose fuel use, including a shift toward producing antioxidizing NADPH and increased protein and lipid turnover, which reduces the accumulation of oxidized protein and lipids.
Jeff Volek recently did allude to some unpublished research about the antioxidative properties of a VLC diet and its implications in better recovery from exercise. Hopefully it hits the wire soon to have a look at.
Last edited by Neckhammer; 10-25-2013 at 06:50 AM.
3 years "low carb" Primal.
Dietary hierarchy is: Fatty and gelatinous meat/eggs/seafood/offal > raw and fermented dairy > nuts and seeds > fruit > starch > veggies > everything else.
Backyard permaculture, gardening, and fermentation as healthy hobbies. Lift heavy stuff and move a lot.
Female, 5'3", 48, Starting weight: 163lbs. Current weight: 135.
Starting squat: 45lbs. Current squat: 145 x 4.
Stanford, big study, sufficient period of time, people stuck with it. Atkins blew away everyone including Ornish, better weight loss, HDL, TRI, better everything. The vegan who ran the study was pretty amazed, but accepted it.
The Battle of the Diets: Is Anyone Winning (At Losing?) - YouTube
But it doesn't matter, people worship science, yet they don't believe science. You'll just say "but yeah correlation doesn't mean causation", or "but yeah you don't know for sure what they ate", or "but yeah, whatever".
Science won't ever proving anything, not in the field of nutrition.
Just because you can eat slices of bread and feel healthy doesn't mean everyone can.
Just because you get sore joints when you eat sugar, doesn't mean every one does.
Just because you feel crappy eating meat, doesn't mean every one does.
n=1 is useless generalising for other people, and for long term health effects. Period. I'm not even sure how this is up for discussion when you have people (some of this forum), who feel bad (joint pain, low energy, bad mood, constipation etc) after eating:
-Wheat/high carb products
If n=1 is any kind of logical basis you would be left with nothing. Yes, absolutlety if you feel bad eating milk, then don't eat it, no matter what 'science' or the government or any one else says. But you cannot generalise that "You shouldn't eat milk" or "Milk is bad for you!".
Nor does n=1 allow you to determine is long term health effects. Many people feel fine eating wheat and omega 6's, yet wheat is perhaps the most commonly demonised food on here.
I feel enraged with this logic considering fucking vegans promote this crap (Forks and Knives interview with doctors who spout the magic of veganism), Dean Ornish promotes how good thousands of people feel on a high grain diet and you have crystal healers or other bullshitters who claim "Well if I and others feel good on it, thats all the evidence I need!".
Last edited by AMonkey; 10-28-2013 at 11:24 PM.
The work of Yudkin which Keys bullied out.
Shorter-term studies show consistent adverse effects of sugar consumption on HDL and triglyceride levels, which could accelerate atherosclerosis. High sugar consumption may worsen diabetes control, and the combination of sugar with protein and fats promotes formation of dietary AGEs, which may be especially detrimental to those with diabetes.
Sugar and Cardiovascular Disease
Sugar highs and lows: the impact of diet on cognitive function
There is a paucity of studies that give definitive answers about the negative health consequences of consuming sugars, The scientific basis of recent US guidance on sugars intake
Too much sugar, too much carbohydrate, or just too much?
The purpose of this report is to review the effects of dietary sugar on health, with an emphasis on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and its risk factors. Although there are no dietary trials linking sugar consumption and CVD, there are several reasons why sugar consumption should be limited.
Sugar and Cardiovascular Disease
And this explains a lot
"Our results indicate that even in the absence of manifest type 2 diabetes mellitus or impaired glucose tolerance, chronically higher blood glucose levels exert a negative influence on cognition, possibly mediated by structural changes in learning-relevant brain areas." http://www.neurology.org/content/ear...35561.00234.ee
And that is a simple 5 second Google....Please feel free to post any real science that says sugar is good for you, because you won't....but good luck to you.
Why do you come onto a primal forum and try and promote non-primal foods?????
Last edited by Dirlot; 10-28-2013 at 11:32 PM.
Eating primal is not a diet, it is a way of life.
Don't forget to play!
Higher glucose levels associated with lower memory and reduced hippocampal microstructure
This particular article is talking about fasting glucose levels, it isn't about glucose consumption. It also seems that Hb1Ac was more strongly correlated than blood glucose.
I have only skimmed the other articles but from what I've seen they all talk about associations i.e. epidemiological data and using these studies is inappropriate to make any nutritional conclusions. This is evident by the 20 years of nutritionists and the government damning dietary fat and cholesterol because of epidemiological date (which consistently shows that saturated fat is bad, meat/red meat is bad, salt is bad etc).
@Neckhammer. Interesting article, nutritional science moves awfully slow though. Obviously the data I pulled up was all short term, I didn't come across anything that dealt with some long term biomarkers.