Re: Carbs vs. protein (ne)

[Guest guest]

Hi ne,

You said;

>Could you please name the studies that show that the Food Pyramid

> has been proven incorrect? Can you also provide any proven

>evidence that the introduction of the food pyramid has a direct

>relationship to the rise in insulin resistance?

>'Coincidence' does not come into it. You need evidence

>demonstrating an association between the two, with strong

>supporting studies.

This article that I pirated should give you an initial basis as to

why the Food Pyramid is wrong and should be thrown out. It has

caused more damage to the health of the American society, including

insulin resistance diseases, than anything I have ever read about.

Keep in mind that the Food Pyramid is essentially a high

carbohydrate, low fat and low protein diet.

Shortly I will be posting another article by Enig who is a

world-renowned researcher on fats and oils that will clarify this

issue further.

Beth

THE WORLDS BIGGEST FAD DIET

(and why you should probably avoid it)

by Dean Esmay

The most common belief about diet in the United States today is that

excessive fat in the diet is the primary cause of obesity, heart

disease, and other health problems. This belief is extraordinarily

widespread in both the popular imagination and in the medical

community, and most especially among popular writers on diet.

Consumer advocacy groups, professional medical organizations, and

government health organizations almost universally endorse this

concept. You can't even listen to stand-up comics talk about health

or fat people without hearing a joke about fatty foods. The belief

that fat is the dietary bad guy is about as close to universal as

any idea in America.

And yet there has long been evidence that the danger of dietary fat

may be greatly exaggerated. Unbeknownst to the general public, the

theory that bad health follows high intake of fats in general or

saturated fats in particular has long had its detractors--and the

list of detractors has been growing noticeably in recent years.

" The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is completely

wrong, but the statement has been 'published' so many times over the

last three or more decades that it is very difficult to convince

people otherwise unless they are willing to take the time to read

and learn what...produced the anti-saturated fat agenda. " (Dr.

Enig, Consulting Editor to the Journal of the American College of

Nutrition, President of the land Nutritionists Association, and

noted lipids researcher.)

" Despite abundant evidence that dietary fat bears no relation to

development of cancer of the breast, the NIH intends...to try once

again to prove a link that is probably not there....Why then does

NIH insist on spending $10 million on a study whose hypothesis seems

to be little more than wishful thinking? Is it only because of the

faddish infatuation with fat as the root of all dietary evil? "

(Editorial in NATURE, Vol. 359, 29 October 1992.)

" The diet-heart hypothesis [which suggests that high intake of

saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease] has been

repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of

pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be

exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies

and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the

greatest health scam of the century. " (Dr. V. Mann,

participating researcher in the Framingham study and author of

CORONARY HEART DISEASE: THE DIETARY SENSE AND NONSENSE, Janus

Publishing 1993.)

" Call it the Big Fat Lie. Fat has, through no real fault of its own,

become the great demon of the American dietary scene. It is no myth

that one-third of Americans are overweight. It is, however, a myth

that Americans are overweight due to excessive fat consumption. (Dr.

K. Bernstein, Type I Diabetic and noted diabetic

researcher.)

Another popular view has been that the key to weight loss for the

chronically overweight is to view fat as the enemy. The popular

notion can be phrased in this simple formulation: " Eating fat makes

you fat, eat less fat and you'll be less fat. " Although this

simplistic view is not embraced by most professional dieticians, a

surprising number of health professionals, personal trainers, and

weight-loss gurus continue to make this claim to a public eager to

shed its extra pounds.

More conservative dietary authorities don't make the claim that

cutting fat intake will automatically lead to weight loss (or easy

weight management). The more conservative low-fat advocates restrict

their claims only to saying that fat has more calories than protein

or carbohydrate, and therefore cutting fat is an easy way to cut

down on calories without feeling hungry. But there is a significant

and growing amount of evidence to question even this more cautious

view.

" There is evidence that altering the proportion of the calories in

the diet from fat, carbohydrate, and protein can have a limited

effect on weight loss; however the effects appear to be quite

small. " (Methods for Voluntary Weight loss and Control, NIH

Technology Assessment Conference Panel, ls of Internal Medicine

June 1992, 116;11)

A growing number of authors, most of them medical doctors or people

with doctorates in fields such as biology or biochemistry, have

recently exploded onto the American diet scene with popular books

offering easier weight loss and substantial health benefits from

diets higher in fat, higher in protein, and significantly lower in

carbohydrate than the popular low-fat diets. Time and more research

will probably tell whether the likes of Dr. Atkins, Dr. Barry

Sears, Drs. Rachael and Heller, Drs. Dan and R.

Eades, and other diet book authors who go against the prevailing

views on diet are right or wrong. Nevertheless it's astonishing how

frequently and even viciously these people who question the reigning

dietary dogma are dismissed, even angrily attacked, by defenders of

the low-fat diet. In the meantime, evidence that low-fat diets are

by and large ineffective and possibly even dangerous continues to

accumulate in some of the world's most respected medical journals.

LOW-FAT DIETS ARE INEFFECTIVE

Low-fat (30% or less total calories daily from fat) diets are

generally eaten with a low intake of protein (around 15% is typical)

and a very high intake of carbohydrates (60% or more is usually

considered " healthy " by low-fat diet gurus).

And yet there is a good deal of evidence that such diets are

ineffective for weight loss, may in fact even cause weight gain in

some individuals, and that they are completely unnecessary for most

individuals seeking to improve their health.

A recent study involving over 40,000 middle-aged and older American

men over a period of six years found that there was no link between

saturated fat intake and heart disease in men. It also supported the

contention that linolenic acid (a form of fat) is preventive against

heart disease. (Ascherio A et. al. Dietary fat and risk of coronary

heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States.

British Medical Journal, 1996 Jul 13, 313:7049, 84-90.)

The average U.S. daily fat consumption is 2.52 ounces, with 10% of

males obese; the average Australian daily fat consumption is much

less, but 14% are obese. (LONGEVITY, May 1992)

" Even with extreme changes in the fat-carbohydrate ratio (fat energy

varied from 0% to 70% of total intake), there was no detectable

evidence of significant variation in energy need as a function of

percentage fat intake. " (Leibel RL. Energy intake required to

maintain body weight is not affected by wide variation in diet

composition. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1992;55;350-5)

" We found no evidence of a positive association between total

dietary fat intake and the risk of breast cancer. There was no

reduction in risk even among women whose energy intake from fat was

less than 20 percent of total energy intake. In the context of the

Western lifestyle, lowering the total intake of fat in midlife is

unlikely to reduce the risk of breast cancer substantially. "

(Hunter, DJ et. al. Cohort studies of fat intake and the risk of

breast cancer - A pooled analysis. New England Journal of Medicine,

334: (6) FEB 8 1996)

" In the presence of dietary carbohydrate, the preferred fuel is

glucose and the capacity to mobilize fat is limited. Factors that

increase blood glucose during dieting may stimulate insulin release

and all the metabolic sequelae of circulating insulin. Fatty acid

synthesis is activated and lipolysis is profoundly inhibited by

insulin even at very low concentrations of the hormone. " (American

Journal of Clinical Nutrition 1992;56:217S-23S) [Note: Fatty acid

synthesis is the creation of body fat. Lopolysis is the burning of

body fat.]

At least so far as the risk of heart disease goes, the simple fact

is that there is no longer any proof that lowering fat (or

cholesterol) intake offers any protection whatsoever against heart

disease. This is perhaps best summed up by Drs. A. Corr

(Consultant Cardiologist to Guy's and St. ' Hospitals, London

U.K.) and M.F. Oliver (of the National Heart and Lung Institute in

London, U.K.), in the concluding paragraphs of their recently-

published review of all studies to date of low-fat or low-

cholesterol diets as a treatment for heart disease:

" The commonly-held belief that the best diet for prevention of

coronary heart disease is a low saturated fat, low cholesterol diet

is not supported by the available evidence from clinical trials. In

primary preventions, such diets do not reduce the risk of myocardial

infarction or coronary or all-cause mortality. Cost-benefit analyses

of extensive primary prevention programmes, which are at present

vigorously supported by governments, health departments, and health

educationalists, are urgently required....Similarly, diets focused

exclusively on reduction of saturated fats and cholesterol are

relatively ineffective for secondary prevention and should be

abandoned. There may be other effective diets for secondary

prevention of coronary heart disease but these are not yet

sufficiently well defined or adequately tested. " (European Heart

Journal, Volume 18, January 1997.)

Furthermore, despite more than a decade of American diet gurus

recommending low-fat diets for weight loss, there remains no study

which clearly shows that low-fat diets result in long-term,

significant weight loss among the chronically obese. In fact, most

such studies show quite marginal improvements in weight, and some

actually show significant weight gain among test subjects.

In a two-year study, 171 women on a low-fat diet achieved a maximum

weight loss of only about seven and a half pounds at 6 months, and

by year two some of that weight was regained. Most significantly,

the standard deviation was more than twice the average weight loss,

showing that a number of subjects actually gained weight on the low-

fat diet, not counting the 13 that dropped out of the program.

(Sheppard L et. al. Weight Loss In Women Participating in a

Randomized Trial of Low-Fat Diets. American Journal of Clinical

Nutrition 1991;54:821-8.).

As astonishing as this may sound, it's in no way surprising to those

who've spent time reviewing the peer-reviewed scientific literature.

The truth is that not one clinical study has ever shown that low-fat

diets allow long-term reversal of obesity in most subjects, whether

combined with exercise or not. Perhaps most damning of all,

according to the USDA, Americans' fat consumption has consistently

gone down over the last 20 or so years while the American national

rates of obesity have gone up at precisely the same time.

Correlation is not causation, but it is hard to jibe this fact with

claims that lowering fat intake helps those who are overweight to

reduce their body fat, or the widespread claim that lowering fat

intake makes it possible to eat more food without gaining weight.

Some explanations have been offered to continue to support the low-

fat paradigm as a workable weight-loss diet, but none are very

compelling and none have strong clinical support.

" In the adult US population the prevalence of overweight rose from

25.4% from 1976 to 1980 to 33.3% from 1988 to 1991, a 31% increase.

During the same period, average fat intake, adjusted for total

calories, dropped from 41.0% to 36.6%, an 11% decrease. Average

total daily calorie intake also tended to decrease, from 1,854 kcal

to 1,785 kcal (-4%). Men and women had similar trends. Concurrently,

there was a dramatic rise in the percentage of the US population

consuming low-calorie products, from 19% of the population in 1978

to 76% in 1991. From 1986 to 1991 the prevalence of sedentary

lifestyle represented almost 60% of the US population, with no

change over time...Reduced fat and calorie intake and frequent use

of low-calorie food products have been associated with a paradoxical

increase in the prevalence of obesity. " (Heini AF; Weinsier RL.

Divergent trends in obesity and fat intake patterns: the American

paradox.) American Journal of Medicine, 1997 Mar, 102(3):259-64)

(Note: I'm interested in hearing about any scientific literature

which DOES support the low-fat diet as an effective weight-loss

diet; if you have any please email me at my first name (dean) at my

deanesmay.com domain.

LOW-FAT DIETS ARE DANGEROUS

Not only is there reason to question the belief that low-fat diets

improve health or give significant help in weight loss efforts, but

there is a growing amount of evidence that such diets are actually

quite unhealthy, raising the risk of heart disease, diabetes, and

cancer, not to mention certain psychiatric disorders such as

depression and schizophrenia.

A recent American study showed that low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets

(15% protein, 60% carbohydrate, 25% fat) increase risk of heart

disease in post-menopausal women over a higher fat, lower

carbohydrate diet (15% protein, 40% carbohydrate, 45% fat).

(Jeppeson, J., et. al. Effects of low-fat, high-carbohydrate diets

on risk factors for ischemic heart disease in postmenopausal women.

American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 1997;65:1027-33)

The largest and most comprehensive study on diet and breast cancer

to date, studying over 5,000 women between 1991 and 1994, showed

that women with the lowest intake of dietary fat had a significantly

higher incidence of breast cancer than the women with the highest

intake of dietary fat. It also found that women with the highest

intake of starch had a significantly higher incidence of breast

cancer than the women with the lowest intake of starch. The study

found no evidence that saturated fat had any effect one way or the

other on breast cancer, and that unsaturated fat had a significantly

protective effect against breast cancer. (Franceschi S et. al.

Intake of macronutrients and risk of breast cancer. Lancet; 347

(9012):1351-6 1996)

A study involving tens of thousands of American women showed that

diets high in carbohydrate (which almost all low-fat diets are)

significantly raise women's risk of developing diabetes, although

cereal fibre intake seems to have a limited protective effect.

( Salmeron et. al. Dietary Fiber, Glycemic Load, and Risk of

Non-insulin-dependent Diabetes Mellitus in Women. Journal of the

American Medical Association. 1997;277:472-477)

High intake of fats from the Omega-3 group increase HDL cholesterol,

which is considered protective against heart disease. Obviously it

would be difficult to eat an Omega-3 rich diet while following a

traditional fat reduced diet, especially if one were following one

of the popular American diets that has one eating only 20-30 grams

of fat per day. (Franceschini G. et. al. Omega-3 fatty acids

selectively raise high-density lipoprotein 2 levels in healthy

volunteers. Metabolism, 1991 Dec, 40:12, 1283-6. See also Journal of

the American College of Nutrition 1991:10(6);593-601)

A strong correlation exists between schizophrenia and deficiencies

in fats, especially in the n-3 series. Schizophrenics who naturally

eat lots of Omega-3 fats tend to have less severe symptoms than

those who don't. Supplementation with extra fats in the Omega-3

group significantly improves symptoms of schizophrenia in most

patients. Close relatives of schizophrenics show similar

deficiencies in Omega-3 fats. The possibility that diets generally

low in fat might worsen schizophrenia or even bring on the condition

among those already predisposed to it is hard to ignore. (Laugharne

JD; Mellor JE; Peet M. Fatty acids and schizophrenia. Lipids, 1996

Mar, 31 Suppl:, S163-5. See also Peet M et. al. Essential fatty acid

deficiency in erythrocyte membranes from chronic schizophrenic

patients, and the clinical effects of dietary supplementation.

Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids, 1996 Aug, 55:1-2, 71-5)

" Our results do not support the recommendation of an isoenergetic

high carbohydrate, low fat diet for improving peripheral insulin

action in adults with glucose intolerance ... the increase in

insulin action that we observed previously with vigorous exercise

training was negated when combined with a diet high in carbohydrates

and fiber. ... The subjects in this study are at increased risk for

developing NIDDM. " (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition

1995;62:426-33) [note: NIDDM is Non-Insulin Dependent Diabetes

Mellitus -- the most common form of diabetes.]

Low-fat high-carbohydrate diets eaten by patients with diabetes

(NIDDM) have been shown to lead to higher day-long plasma glucose,

insulin, triglycerides, and VLDL-TG, among other negative effects.

In general, study has demonstrated that multiple risk factors for

coronary heart disease are worsened for diabetics who consume the

low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet so often recommended to reduce these

risks. (Chen YD et. al. Why do low-fat high-carbohydrate diets

accentuate postprandial lipemia in patients with NIDDM? Diabetes

Care, 1995 Jan, 18:1, 10-6)

" Conventional wisdom holds that low fat diets improve insulin

sensitivity. Unfortunately, this is true only after an ultra-low

carbohydrate diet. No changes in glucose tolerance and substrate

oxidation were measured after a high-carbohydrate low fat diet. In

addition, these studies confirm a growing body of evidence that

increasing dietary carbohydrate increases plasma triglycerides and

decreases plasma high-density-lipoprotein (HDL), increasing the risk

of cardiovascular disease. " (Metabolism 1993:42:365-70)

Numerous studies have shown that high-carbohydrate low-fat diets

lead to high triglycerides, elevated serum insulin levels, lower HDL

cholesterol levels, and other factors known to raise the risk of

coronary artery disease. (See Liu GC; Coulston AM; Reaven GM. Effect

of high-carbohydrate low-fat diets on plasma glucose, insulin and

lipid responses in hypertriglyceridemic humans. Metabolism, 1983

Aug, 32:8, 750-3. See also Coulston AM; Liu GC; Reaven GM. Plasma

glucose, insulin and lipid responses to high-carbohydrate low-fat

diets in normal humans. Metabolism, 1983 Jan, 32:1, 52-6. See also

Olefsky JM; Crapo P; Reaven GM. Postprandial plasma triglyceride and

cholesterol responses to a low-fat meal. American Journal of

Clinical Nutrition, 1976 May, 29:5, 535-9. See also Ginsberg H et.

al. Induction of hypertriglyceridemia by a low-fat diet. Journal of

Clin Endocrinol Metab, 1976 Apr, 42:4, 729-35)

IS THAT ALL?

The references given above do not represent all the evidence against

the low-fat diet as a worthless, possibly dangerous, diet. They

represent merely a sampling of some of the more relevent studies.

Below is some recommended reading for those interested in learning

more on the subject.

The simple fact of the matter is that the low-fat diet is a fad

diet. Warnings about the dangers of fat in the diet are constant in

the media. Fat-phobia is ubiquitous among health-conscious

Americans, and a surprising number of people from all walks of life

(including most health professionals) continue to recommend a low-

fat diet and to preach the " dangers " of fat. Such messages often

take on an almost hysterical, or even belligerant, tone. Yet a

growing mound of scientific data not only suggests that this diet

fad is pointless, but suggests that it may actually be dangerous to

the health of millions of Americans and others worldwide.

RECOMMENDED WEB SITES:

The Low Fat/Low Cholesterol Diet is Ineffective. This is a reprint

of the Corr paper mentioned above, as originally published in the

European Heart Journal.

Chuck Forsberg's Adiposity 101. This document is a wellspring of

useful information. Anyone interested in understanding the current

state of obesity research should read this document thoroughly. A

good bit of my own work in this document was cribbed directly from

Forsberg's work, which provided numerouos useful references and

helpful guidance for further research.

An Interview with Enig: [Part 1] [Part 2] [Part 3]. The

President of the land Nutritionists Association and a bench

chemist with the authorship of numerous scientific papers and many

chapters of books on nutrition talks about why the fear of saturated

fat is bogus and relates information about what may be the real

cause of heart disease, obesity, and other health hazards.

Trans-Fat Info Page. Enig and associate give valuable

information refuting many myths about fat and its role in the human

diet, and discuss one form of fat they do believe is dangerous: the

trans-fatty acids in margarine and other hydrogenated and partially

hydrogenated oils.

Low Carb and Ketogenic Diet Resources. The many web pages and other

resources referenced here will provide quite a few hours of

worthwhile exploration.

RECOMMENDED BOOKS:

I recommend the following books for popular references on

alternatives to the low-fat diets. I don't endorse everything in any

of these books as, but they do contain ideas worth exploring for

people looking for a different dietary approach, and I know

individuals who have had success on all the diets described in them,

although as yet there is little formal research on any of them--

except, perhaps, the Bernstein book. (Diabetics especially are urged

to see the Bernstein book.)

• PROTEIN POWER by Drs. R. and Dan Eades

• DIET EVOLUTION by Hunt.

• NEANDERTHIN by Ray Audette

• THE CARBOHYDRATE ADDICT'S LIFESPAN PROGRAM by Drs. Rachael

and Heller.

• THE ZONE by Dr. Barry Sears

• THE NEW DIET REVOLUTION by Dr. Atkins.

• DR. BERNSTEIN'S DIABETES SOLUTION by Dr. Bernstein

> >

> > Hi Beth H,

> >

> > I will have to disagree with this Easter Seal's evaluation and

> > the Atkins diet part. Your evaluation is based

> > off the Food Pyramid model which has been proven faulty and

should

> > be thrown out. This Food Pyramid has done more harm and

> essentially

> > driven the past two generations into insulin resistance

diseases.

> > It is not coincidental that the rise of insulin resistance

> diseases

> > tracks perfectly with the introduction of the Food Pyramid 30+

> years

> > ago.