Jump to content
Maniac Muslim Forums
Sign in to follow this  
AROwnen

Fat vs carb

Recommended Posts

I'm writing this in response to a new report on a study that was very comprehensive. Dealing with fats. It turns out, everything I've ever thought about dieting, weight loss, health nutrition was flawed fundamentally. Though there is a relationship between fats and blood cholesterol levels, ( cholesterol is, of course, a form of fat) plaque depositing is influenced far more by carbohydrate intake, smoking, exercise and family history. So much so that people on low fat diets have a shorter life span than people with high fat diets. People with high carb life styles, especially refined sugar intake- think soda, snack cakes ,processed foods and such had the highest death rates.  Haku made this point to me months ago, but I was too entrenched to listen. He has the name of the study and the math breakdown if desired. Crazy right? I ate beef and felt great.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are a lot of studies showing different associations.

 

Cutting red meat-for a longer life

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/cutting-red-meat-for-a-longer-life

 

If you were not feeling well as a vegan, or if you were feeling constantly hungry, it could mean you were missing some necessary nutrients.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
50 minutes ago, Mufasa said:

There are a lot of studies showing different associations. Your body naturally regulates sugar. Fat tampers with your ability to break that sugar down. 

 

Cutting red meat-for a longer life

https://www.health.harvard.edu/staying-healthy/cutting-red-meat-for-a-longer-life

 

If you were not feeling well as a vegan, or if you were feeling constantly hungry, it could mean you were missing some necessary nutrients.

you can always show a counter example to anything. If there is actually a connection between red-meat and mortality rate, that should be visible in all studies. If it is only visible in some studies, you have to question methods and assumptions of the study.

 

From the link you share

Quote

People in the study who ate the most red meat tended to die younger, and to die more often from cardiovascular disease and cancer. These people also tended to weigh more, exercise less, smoke tobacco more, and drink more alcohol than healthier people in the study. Yet even when the researchers compensated for the effects of unhealthy lifestyle, mortality and meat remained associated.

Although they say they compensated for effects, that remains a big hole in the method. Not to mention, many assumptions needs to be made about effects of lifestyle on health. The very effect they are trying to measure. At very best, they have established a correlation between red meat and mortality rate. Which is not same as causation. A subtle but important distinction.

Red meat does have high omega 6 content, which is inflammatory, which leads to heart diseases. So in the end of the day, they could have only measured the effects of imbalance of omega 3 to omega 6 content in diet. In my opinion no concrete conclusion can be drawn from this study, other than: don't be overweight, lethargic, smoking, alcohol guzzling red-meat overconsuming people.

 

How would you do that though? If you want to loose weight cutting fat or meat is not the answer.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 hours ago, AROwnen said:

 I ate beef and felt great.

 

Good for you. I'd avoid factory produced beef though (corn fed, antibiotic injected, tortured, depressed poor poor animals).

I'd also balance my protein intake

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Haku said:

you can always show a counter example to anything. If there is actually a connection between red-meat and mortality rate, that should be visible in all studies. If it is only visible in some studies, you have to question methods and assumptions of the study.

 

 

Right, the article you have posted is yet another example of findings that are only visible in some studies. That doesn't discredit the findings, but it puts it in context of a much larger body of research that you should be willing to acknowledge too.

 

1 hour ago, Haku said:

 

Red meat does have high omega 6 content, which is inflammatory, which leads to heart diseases. So in the end of the day, they could have only measured the effects of imbalance of omega 3 to omega 6 content in diet. In my opinion no concrete conclusion can be drawn from this study, other than: don't be overweight, lethargic, smoking, alcohol guzzling red-meat overconsuming people.

 

 

Those who connect red meat and heart disease (i.e. most researchers, including the American Heart Association) do not make the claim that Omega 6 is the problem (at least not typically). There's lots of stuff to be found in dead animal flesh, including fat and cholesterol, but also trillions of types of bacteria that still require research. 

This study got some attention: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3650111/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, Mufasa said:

 

Right, the article you have posted is yet another example of findings that are only visible in some studies. That doesn't discredit the findings, but it puts it in context of a much larger body of research that you should be willing to acknowledge too.

 

 

That's what I am saying.

Anyway, more and more studies are coming to light showing  eating meat/fat doesn't cause heart diseases or is not unhealthy. Actually studies always were consistent, but food industry were undermining the results that didn't agree with their marketing strategies of selling "healthy" food.

 

 

Quote

Those who connect red meat and heart disease (i.e. most researchers, including the American Heart Association) do not make the claim that Omega 6 is the problem (at least not typically). There's lots of stuff to be found in dead animal flesh, including fat and cholesterol, but also trillions of types of bacteria that still require research. 

This study got some attention: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3650111/

unfortunately, American heart association and friends ignore every thing else in food but fat.

 

 

 

32 minutes ago, Mufasa said:

also i thought omega 6 is normally considered 'good' for heart health?

omega 3 is the good one. mainstream view on omega 6 is neutral. New evidences points towards too much omega 6 (the ratio of omega6 to omega3) causes inflammatory problems including plaque build-up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At the end of the day you'll meet people on high carb diets that are healthy (non refined carbs, more like fruit, whole foods) and you'll meet people on high fat diets that are healthy.

They'll all swear by their lifestyle like some religion that I don't know what to think anymore.

 

Also research papers in nutritional science can be dubious. Since you're essentially experimenting with the human populations there's a plethora of variables that you can't account for - such as activity levels etc. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Haku said:

how are you recovering? How's work?

Doing well. I've lost seventeen pounds and kept it off, exercising, not smoking so much and keeping my meds on track. I think the difference with this study is the number of people sampled and the time frame. Both quite large and involved. Most studies use much smaller samples.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Haku said:

 

That's what I am saying.

Anyway, more and more studies are coming to light showing  eating meat/fat doesn't cause heart diseases or is not unhealthy. Actually studies always were consistent, but food industry were undermining the results that didn't agree with their marketing strategies of selling "healthy" food.

 

Seriously? The meat, dairy, agriculture industry is one of the largest lobbying sectors in the US. Most would actually make the exact opposite argument -- that agricultural lobbying has had far too much influence. Yes, now many companies are riding this trendy tide of 'healthy foods', but the agricultural industry is still incredibly powerful. For ex: http://time.com/4130043/lobbying-politics-dietary-guidelines/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×