The good fat bad fat controversy!

OneLeggedPig · 29 May 2016 at 3:41PM

NewShadow wrote: »

Your stomach is just a membrane sack - the more you eat the bigger it gets (like skin).

If you train your body to only be full when your stomach is at capacity, then you will eat increasingly large portions - thus the success of the 'belly band' at helping those with distended stomachs lose weight.

A lot of studies have shown that people unconsciously consume the same volume of food each day, to feel full, so I think it would be hard for most people to get away from that.

Actually, in the text it explains they gave participants 240 kcal's of each food and monitored how hungry they reported being, and how much they ate, after two hours.

.

Sorry, I skimmed and somehow managed to miss that. But in general their study supports what I've been saying (that low fat, high fibre plant foods are the best for filling yourself without eating a lot of calories), and they state that in their conclusions. I'm not surprised high protein foods did well too, but I think there are other health issues with those.

And boiled potatoes did come top.

I'd be interested to see if that experiment has been repeated at all on a larger scale. I definitely still maintain that calorie density is the simplest and safest way to lose/maintain weight (or gain if it's done in reverse).

NewShadow · 29 May 2016 at 4:15PM

OneLeggedPig wrote: »

A lot of studies have shown that people unconsciously consume the same volume of food each day, to feel full, so I think it would be hard for most people to get away from that.

Would you be able to link to one please?

GwylimT · 29 May 2016 at 6:56PM

OneLeggedPig wrote: »

You wouldn't have a dangerously high level. If you read the study I posted earlier, the patients following the plant-based 75% carbohydrate diet saw significant improvements in those areas.

If you read my original post you will see that such a diet gives me a blood sugar reading of around 25 for hours on end. If that isn't a dangerous level what is?!

Our diabetes centre specifically bans this diet as so many people on it are on a constantly dangerously high and they gain weight. My previous trust followed it, now they don't their diabetes success rating has improved dramatically.

OneLeggedPig · 31 May 2016 at 1:16PM

NewShadow wrote: »

Would you be able to link to one please?

I keep getting blocked by paywalls on studies that would be useful to cite.

But it can be seen here:
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/73/6/1010.full.pdf+html
In this study, the groups were given food with different calorie-densities. But they ate consistently similar volumes of food, they didn't compensate for the higher caloric content by eating less food as a volume/weight amount. (They measured how much of the meal was eaten, rather than making them eat a set amount.)

And here (only the abstract is free unfortunately but I'm showing it because the authors comment specially on what we're talking about in the abstract:
Results showed that subjects consumed a similar amount of food (by weight) across the three conditions of energy density.
(Here they had 3 groups with Low, Med, and high caloric densities of food intake. They all ate roughly the same "amount" of food. So the lower calorie-density group consumed less calories overall, without eating any "less" food. The foods between the groups were quite different so it's a good indicator that we tend to eat the same volume/weight of food regardless (almost) of what it is. I'd guess the exception would be very highly processed foods or certain situations of emotional/mental stress.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/67/3/412.abstract

I was looking for a particular study I remembered, without success, which would have been more helpful. If I find it, I’ll post it.

I also think it’s not a surprise at all, it makes sense completely that we would eat the same amount of food day to day (with some exceptions), to feel satisfied. I think most people fail when dieting because they aim to eat less calories by eating less of the same food, and so can’t fill their stomachs and feel satisfied, as opposed to eating foods of a lower calorie-density and filling up on those. No one can bear being hungry day after day.

OneLeggedPig · 31 May 2016 at 1:22PM

GwylimT wrote: »

If you read my original post you will see that such a diet gives me a blood sugar reading of around 25 for hours on end. If that isn't a dangerous level what is?!

Our diabetes centre specifically bans this diet as so many people on it are on a constantly dangerously high and they gain weight. My previous trust followed it, now they don't their diabetes success rating has improved dramatically.

I’d be surprised if you had tried to diet used in the study. As far as I know there are only two sets of people who do: 1) A very small sub-set of health-conscious vegans, and 2) People who have researched the program specifically and deliberately followed it.

But possibly you may have done something vaguely similar- such as the standard recommended diabetes diet which acted as the control in the study? That didn’t have great results. But those who did follow the diet were more successful:

Among participants in the vegan group with no changes to diabetes medications, Hb A1c had fallen 1.23 by 22 wk (n = 24) and 0.82 by 74 wk (n = 14). Among medication-stable participants in the conventional diet group, the Hb A1c reduction was 0.38 at 22 wk (n = 33), and 0.21 (n = 21) at 74 wk.

As said before, if what you do works, then great.

GwylimT · 31 May 2016 at 1:29PM

OneLeggedPig wrote: »

I’d be surprised if you had tried to diet used in the study. As far as I know there are only two sets of people who do: 1) A very small sub-set of health-conscious vegans, and 2) People who have researched the program specifically and deliberately followed it.

But possibly you may have done something vaguely similar- such as the standard recommended diabetes diet which acted as the control in the study? That didn’t have great results. But those who did follow the diet were more successful:

Among participants in the vegan group with no changes to diabetes medications, Hb A1c had fallen 1.23 by 22 wk (n = 24) and 0.82 by 74 wk (n = 14). Among medication-stable participants in the conventional diet group, the Hb A1c reduction was 0.38 at 22 wk (n = 33), and 0.21 (n = 21) at 74 wk.

As said before, if what you do works, then great.

Again, read my post properly, it isn't difficult. You also fail to mention the weight gain experienced by participants or the lack of vital proteins and B-12 without relying heavily on tablets.

NewShadow · 31 May 2016 at 1:49PM

While general discussion around nutrition is one thing, I think some of these posts are coming a little too close to medical advice.

Just sayin'

OneLeggedPig · 31 May 2016 at 2:12PM

GwylimT wrote: »

Again, read my post properly, it isn't difficult. You also fail to mention the weight gain experienced by participants or the lack of vital proteins and B-12 without relying heavily on tablets.

? The group with the special diet lost 4.4 kg
Adjusted to include only those who stuck to the diet well, it was 6.8 kg

Yes, B12 is made by bacteria and absent in most of our food nowadays, which is very clean. It is still present in animal products. Vegans should definitely take a B12 supplement to make up for this. Some vegetarians and some meat eaters can also be at risk of deficiency but the consensus is that they don't need to supplement unless they've been diagnosed.

Sharon87 · 2 June 2016 at 12:29AM

I find the high fat or low fat diet subject interesting, but confusing at the same time! I've tried all sorts of diets - fad ones, WW, low carb.etc The fad diets - all low fat ones have contributed to why I'm about 3 stone overweight. I lose weight on them, then put more on when I stop.

I do avoid a lot of 'low fat' products, apart from some dairy products and I'm conscious about the added sugar in everything, but sometimes it confuses me! 'Juice used to be seen as healthy, now it's not... so did low fat yoghurt, but all that sugar...'

I find it hard to figure out what to eat these days because of the conflicting advice given by well, everyone! I've just had my gallbladder out because I got gallstones - I don't know why I had them, whether it was diet related or not. So this means I may find it hard digesting fats if I have a large meal (or I might not, time will tell). The NHS website tells me to eat a low fat diet after getting it removed, but I find that low fat diets equals hungry all the time!

I guess I just need to find the right foods for me. There are health benefits to nearly every food, except junk processed food and added sugar.

I do think every since companies/the government have told us to 'diet' the problem has gotten worse and that could be down to the overprocessed, low fat, added sugar foods and our lifestyles.

No matter what though I will always incorporate exercise - cardio and strength training, to my life. I'm the heaviest I've ever been right now, but my waist has been bigger and that's because I have a bit more muscle than I had a few years ago. Now I'm just waiting to recover from surgery so I can go back to the gym...

milasavesmoney · 2 June 2016 at 5:08AM

NewShadow wrote: »

While general discussion around nutrition is one thing, I think some of these posts are coming a little too close to medical advice.

Just sayin'

I agree whole heartedly. When someone has type 2 diabetes it is important to be monitored by a physician and to do the things set out by them. Period.
Looking at interesting studies is fine but should never ever take the place of what the diabetic's physician is telling them. An article could be discussed with said physician but should never be implemented without the doctor's approval.

And how on earth did this thread get hijacked to carbs and diabetes?

PLEASE READ BEFORE POSTING

The good fat bad fat controversy!

Comments

Categories

Get our FREE Weekly email full of deals & guides - and it’s spam-free