13 ms·
More Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart
- hackermom 17y agoThe problem is the insulin response generated when the various sugary carbohydrates hit the blood stream; "slow" carbohydrates are nowhere near being a problem.
- carbocation 17y agoWhat you say is almost certainly true with regards to diabetes risk. However, the association is less perfect with regards to atherogenesis; in other words, the glycemic index/heart disease risk may be purely mediated by diabetes. Nevertheless, this article is a great start; I like that the media is now starting to pick up on the correct correlation between carbs and atherosclerosis - and if they also begin to understand and convey the glycemic index, so much the better. As the studies discussed in this reasonably well-cited article indicate, carbohydrate load correlates with the atherogenic lipid profile, whereas saturated fat load does not.
- daniel-cussen 17y agoA few months ago, I thought that sugar was glucose, and therefore good for the brain. On that basis I would drink two liters of Coke a day for the brainpower. Then, while on this forum, someone posted a link to http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM (Sugar, the Bitter Truth), which let me know that sugar is not pure glucose. I resolved to find glucose, and I eventually did. I had to go to one of the more industrial neighborhoods in Santiago (I live in Chile) to find it, and after a few trips there I had myself a 55 lb sack of dextrose mono-hydrate, which dissolves in water to form pure glucose. Now I mix it with water for 250 calories of food for thought per glass or put it in half-liter plastic bottles to drink at school. It's amazing stuff, it's 100% healthy, and it's great for working at hard problems.
- rjurney 17y agoI really, really dig how you think :)
- csmeder 17y agoReally? Does any one have some scientific references to back up this claim? Is this something people are doing a lot of? I'm not being negative, I just have never heard of this.
- dmm 17y agoYour liver will happily produce all of the glucose your nervous system needs.
- OrangeGuutan 17y agoUntil it runs out of glycogen and turns to beta-oxidation... On the plus side, you'll be really sensitive to insulin when you do get some carbs into your system again :) And hey, I just read an article that said lowering insulin levels is the key to the longevity gains resulting from caloric restriction.
- fbru02 17y agoAs I'm a beginner in this I can't really detect sarcasm in this topic. So basically does the liver produce enough amount of glucose? and depriving the body of glucose is that good or dangerous??
- SapphireSun 17y agoThe liver stores long chains of biologically intert glucose in glycogen macromolecules located within hepatocytes. When the body requires more energy, the chains are cleaved and the glucose released into the blood stream. Glucose is essential for life, providing energy for all cellular activities through its conversion to ATP in the citric acid/Krebs/TCA cycle. Reducing your caloric intake won't kill you and it has been shown in rats that it might even be good for you. Your liver only stores glucose, it doesn't create it (That would violate conservation of energy!). This thread is talking about artifically spiking your blood suger which will rape your pancreas and eventually lead to diabetes. I wouldn't do it if I were you, but I might consider eating more vegetables and low calorie foods :-)
- csmeder 17y agoMaybe we will start to finally see products in major super markets that are affordable and don't have tons of refined carbs. Right now it is either really expensive or really time consuming to eat a variety of food that doesn't have refined carbs.
- jules 17y agoWhat do you mean by refined carbs? Does it include bread, pasta, potatoes, etc? Because I don't think those are bad for you because they don't cause blood sugar levels to rise as quickly as stuff like HFCS and sugar (but I could be wrong).
- ig1 17y agoJust because HCFS is worse for you, it doesn't mean refined carbs like white bread are good for you. They do cause an larger increase in blood sugar compared to other foods (such as unrefined carbs).
- ynniv 17y ago"Refined" includes flower and sugar, but not whole starches. I'm not sure where white rice falls, as I have heard that too much white rice is also unhealthy.
- tptacek 17y agoAccording to the spreadsheet 'carbocation posted from the National Cancer Institute, white rice has almost as bad a glycemic impact as white bread.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- xiaoma 17y agoAnd yet, amongst the developed countries, it is those who eat rice at nearly every meal (Japan, Korea, HK, Taiwan) that have the lowest rates of obesity, heart disease diabetes and similar lifestyle diseases.
- puredemo 17y agoI'm always a little perturbed when I read about "refined carbs" being bad for you. This is partially because of the "Paleo Diet" folks who rail against any and all grains (and legumes) all the time. How refined is too refined exactly? Is whole wheat bread considered refined? Oatmeal? Granola? Or are we specifically talking about white flour here?
- weaksauce 17y agoNot an expert by any means but I imagine that they are talking about high fructose corn syrup and bleached white flour.
- tptacek 17y agoNo, I don't think that's true. Grains in general are troublesome (there are some worse than others, so that for instance bran won't kill you and flax is downright good for you [but yech]), but this isn't some fad about how bleached flour is particularly bad for you. Foods consisting primarily of flour are in general not going to be particularly healthy. Here's a link: http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_glycemic_load_for_100_foods.htm http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Glycemic_index_and_gl... 'carbocation posted a link to an Excel spreadsheet of GI listings for lots of foods, too. You'll find that the lists aren't simply about demonizing Coca Cola and Wonder Bread.
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- carbocation 17y agoI think they're really focusing on glycemic index here rather than whole/non-whole wheat. The glycemic index of any food can be determined empirically (it's the AUC of the 2hr blood glucose response curve after ingesting a fixed amount of said substance). Usually, pure glucose is the reference food that is pegged at 100, and everything else is represented as the relative fraction compared to glucose.
- MWinther 17y agoThe Paleo diet is not exactly mainstream science, so I don't think that's neither here nor there in relation to this article. This seems to be a good summary of what refined carbs are: http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/glossary/g/refinedcarbohdrate.htm http://lowcarbdiets.about.com/od/glossary/g/refinedcarbohdra... Or, in short: All sugar including corn suryp, white grains (rice, wheat), starch, and grains in the form of flakes, puffs and so forth.
- gruseom 17y agoThe article contains this astonishing statement: the meta-analysis "found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease". No association! Yet this has been public-health, government, industry dogma for more than a generation. The history of this catastrophe has barely begun to be written.
- Andys 17y agoIt usually takes about a generation for bad ideas to pass.
- irrelative 17y agoIt's too bad that this is the case for facts as well as ideas. Ideally science can turn on a dime when the data is overwhelming, but in practice there's a huge lag.
- stretchwithme 17y agoIt depends on whether government gets behind a bad idea or not. Bureaucracy doesn't like diversity of thought and tends to reinforce current thinking. Look at how long its taken for alternative medicine to get blessed.
- demallien 17y agoHuh? Bad example. "Alternative medecine" that actually works just becomes "medecine". The fact that this happens rarely is due to the fact that most products marketed as alternative medecine are a crock and don't hold up when tested. If anything, the fact that government allows these things to be marketed at all is a perfect example of bureaucracy accepting diversity of thought (when it really shouldn't!)
- Andys 17y agoI'd rather the government accept medicines with centuries of empirical evidence than lab-synthesised chemicals which have been pushed rapidly through official process using cherry-picked clinical trials and promises of lucrative paid positions for soon-to-be-ex-FDA officials.
- carbocation 17y agoBased on the interest generated in the glycemic index by this article, I found a link to the National Cancer Institute's glycemic index chart for over 4,000 foods. Link here: http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/DHQ/database/gi_values.csfii_94-96_foodcodes.xls http://riskfactor.cancer.gov/DHQ/database/gi_values.csfii_94... Discussion here: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1333106 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1333106
- whyenot 17y agoIt's not as simple as avoiding refined carbohydrates. Rice, baked potatoes, watermellon, dates, and parsnips all have a very high (>90) glycemic index, while some refined carbohydrates such as whole wheat bread and pasta have medium to low GI (<70).
- pmccool 17y agoYeah. What's more, the same kind of bread from different makers can have significantly different GI. The sugar content of fruit (and so, presumably, its GI) varies with all sorts of things. So I completely agree that it's not that simple.
- ars 17y agoNobody eats tons of dates or parsnips. Multiply the index by how much of the food you actually eat. Plus mixing high glycemic food with other food will flatten out the curve.
- donaldc 17y agoIt's about glycemic load, rather than glycemic index.
- karzeem 17y agoGary Taubes' Good Calories, Bad Calories is a great book that examines the science behind low-carb diets and attacks low-fat diets as completely lacking scientific support and being essentially the biggest public health disaster of the 20th century.
- MikeCapone 17y agoI recommend it too. The title makes it sound like light pop-science, but he did a lot more research than I expected, and unlike most people commenting on diet, he went to the primary sources, and even went back a far as 150 years to see where the current mainstream view comes from.
- Tichy 17y agoI think I read most of it, but then suddenly I felt no smarter than before. Yes, he presents a lot of evidence for what he is convinced is the right theory. However, just from reading his book, I can not really verify it. Who is to say that the cases he presents are not hand selected (in fact, he admitted himself that they are), and that the opposition could not be possible to line up a similar study of numbers? It is not a very readable book, it is just hundreds of pages describing various health studies and arguing why some of them are wrong and others were wrongly not taken seriously. It makes me a little bit suspicious that it is such a bad read and such a huge collection of studies, because quelling the opposition with an immense amount of information seems more like a rhetorical approach than a scientific approach. Also, on videos I saw Taube still is overweight. Not eating his own dog food?
- jseifer 17y agoI've mentioned Ray Peat's articles before on this site but if you've found this article interesting, have a look at some of his articles: http://raypeat.com/articles/ http://raypeat.com/articles/
- tjstankus 17y agoBarry Sears (of the Zone Diet), among others, has been saying essentially this for 15+ years. But I think ppl are starting to catch on, e.g., most know that corn syrup is terrible for you.
- tumult 17y agoI always wondered about this as a kid in school, when they talked about 'the food pyramid' and that nonsense. It's not like when you eat animal fat, it slides out of your digestive tract unchanged into your own tissue. It has to be broken down and digested and turned into something else. At the time, I remember thinking it would have been like assuming you could eat someone else's brains and gain their knowledge. But I was just a kid and they were the grownups, so I didn't say anything and believed what they were telling me. (Nothing, literally nothing, I learned in school outside of how to read, write, and perform simple arithmetic has been correct or useful in my life.)
- malkia 17y agoDomesticated animals have more fat than wild animals. Maybe wild animals are better for us, than domesticated.
- Kutta 17y agoNot really; pigs in particular have been bred to contain much, much less fat and more muscle than what is typical in wild boars and ancient pig breeds. The relatively rare mangalitsa hog is a perfect example of a fatty breed. Although I note that this preference of lean pigs started only in the 20th century with the anti-fat craze and the advent of vegetable oil production.
- blehn 17y agoAlmost all nutritional research seems inherently flawed to me only because it's so difficult to control the diets, lifestyles, and (obviously) genes of the study participants. The China Study makes some compelling arguments for avoiding "animal-based" foods, but of course, there are people like the Inuit, who don't exhibit high incidence of cancer and heart disease despite eating mostly animal-based foods. I try to take all this stuff with a grain of salt, but the idea of "Eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." seems most sensible to me. And I'd probably add to that, "Get some exercise."
- shpxnvz 17y agoDue to the lack of carbohydrates in their diet, Inuits apparently process protein differently than most others, through gluconeogenesis. I can't say whether that has any substantial impact on their susceptibility to cancer, but it's not necessarily inconsistent with the "China Study" findings.
- donaldc 17y agoThe analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease. Considering that this is the conclusion of the study, the article itself seems to soft-peddle the implications, stating in multiple places that saturated fat may be "less bad" than refined carbohydrates. I'm a little mystified as to why the article itself refuses to conclude that saturated fat is not a cause of heart disease. The evidence that it plays a role has never been particularly compelling.
- strooltz 17y agot colin campbell, michael pollan, & Tim Robbins are probably the 3 most important writers on this topic. while the latter two definitely write more to stir reaction, prof. campbell basically published his results in the china study. basically, all three writers/experts agree that a vegetarian diet consisting of unprocessed foods is the best (although not foolproof) way to ensure that you will lead a long and disease free life. the modern food revolution is only about 60 odd years old at this point - human evolution cannot keep up with how quickly our food has changed and how quickly our caloric intake has increased. perhaps in 10,000 years we will be able to find a way to absorb nutrients from krispy kreme donuts and pizza but for now its best to stick low on the food chain and as michael pollan say - "Eat Food, Not Too Much, Mostly Plants". Anyone looking for sources or more info i recommend the following: The China Study - T Colin Campbell The Food Revolution (Or Diet For a New America) - Tim Robbins The Omnivore Dilemma (Michael Pollan) Healthy At 100 - Tim Robbins one last note - Diet for a new america was written in 1988!!! This information has been out there for decades - politics and misinformation has kept it relatively out of mainstream media and on the sidelines but the statistics and information is out there for those who take the time to look...
- nixme 17y agoI strongly disagree with your recommendations for Campbell and Robbins (and I assume you mean John Robbins, not Tim Robbins). Like most nutritionists, they do agree on eliminating refined carbohydrates and processed foods from your diet. But these two specifically argue that saturated fats are unhealthy and low-fat diets are optimal, the exact opposite of the thesis of the study and article. Robbins is a dietary extremist and his books make Quackwatch's list of non-recommended books that "promote misinformation, espouse unscientific theories, and/or contain unsubstantiated advice" [1]. The National Council Against Health Fraud even had a critical blurb towards his television program about Diet For a New America in their '91 newsletter [2]. While I find Campbell's actual research in the china studies important, the book infers much more than the studies showed, not to mention a lack of supporting follow-up studies that control for the most common criticisms (genetics, rates of exercise, comparisons with mostly meat-eating populations without diseases of civilization, etc.). I have a real issue with taking descriptive information from data and turning it into prescriptive advice before accumulating sound evidence. For a good critique, the always awesome SkepDoc Harriet Hall posted a review on the Science-Based Medicine blog (which I highly recommend) [3], although the comments get bogged down about her linking to a similar criticism by the Weston Price foundation. Oddly enough, as a lifelong vegetarian myself, I find myself wanting to agree with these authors and recommending them to others. But it's disheartening these authors feel the need to fortify their ethical choices with shoddy scientific inferences. Yes, following their recommendations will almost certainly lead to better health, but only because those recommendations merely happen to correlate well with a healthier than average diet, not because their assumed causations about optimal health are necessarily correct. However, I do agree with your recommendation for Pollan. [1] http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecbooks.html http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/nonrecbooks.ht... [2] http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1991/9-10.html http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1991/9-10.html [3] http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=385 http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=385
- deleted 17y ago[deleted]
- patrickgzill 17y agoWeston Price was a prominent dentist and nutritional researcher in the 20s and 30s. He went on a tour around the world, studying isolated groups of people, their diet (including mineral content) and checking their dental health, using it as a proxy for resistance to infection and proof that dietary needs are being met. From studying groups as diverse as a remote Swiss village, windswept Scottish fishing town, African tribes, Pacific Islanders, and Inuit, he came to a series of conclusions which are at least somewhat in agreement with this. A secondary point was also that poor nutrition of the mother, could be seen in children due to crowding of the tooth and other maladies. http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html http://gutenberg.net.au/ebooks02/0200251h.html The book is a little archaic and I am sure that some of the text sounds odd to modern-day ears, however if you can read past that you can find some interesting information. I am aware of the skepticism some have about Weston Price, but recommend at least skimming his own words rather than reading only choice tidbits presented by those who disagree with him or would debunk his views as junk science.
- martey 17y agoLooking at the websites of the Price-Pottenger Nutrition Foundation <http://www.ppnf.org/ http://www.ppnf.org/ > and the Weston A Price Foundation <http://www.westonaprice.org/ http://www.westonaprice.org/ >, both linked from Price's Wikipedia article, I am not convinced that those who call his views "junk science" are wrong. Among their tenets: * supporting raw whole milk instead of pasteurized milk * believing that facial structure has an effect on health (and that the nutrition of one's parents affects this) * campaigning against the fluoridation of public water
- nixme 17y agoYeah, the modern foundations espousing his ideals do promote junk science like homeopathy. But some of his original research is still interesting. Consider reading some of Stephan Guyenet's blog posts about that research (http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/) (grain of salt implied, like with any prescriptive nutritional advice).
- patrickgzill 17y ago
- stretchwithme 17y agoIf it comes from a factory, factory farm or a lengthy cooking process, the food is optimized for low cost and nice appearance. It may be disastrous for you healthwise. If a food is found in nature and humans evolved with it and like eating it, its more likely to be good for you if eaten with the sort of variety of foods you'd find in nature. The fact that we like it is itself information about how healthy a food is, provided technology isn't fooling our brains somehow.
- SapphireSun 17y agoI too love snickers bars! I pick them from my garden each day.
- Gillius 17y agoAll grains regardless of how wholesome they are have numerous issues with them. 1. Glycemic index / load...all starchy carbohydrates raise your blood sugar quickly and then cause a crash. This includes both white bleached flour as well as whole grains. 2. Gluten is the protein found in many grains, wheat being the most common. Gluten is responsible for SO many of today's problems. Seriously just google "gluten" paired with any autoimmune disease or other health condition and you will find loads of information. This is not just for people who are diagnosed Celiacs but for all. 3. Lectins are found in all grains and legumes. They are the defense mechanism for the plant to warn off predators to not eat them. They are toxic. When we consume them they are considered "anti-nutrients" and bind to various nutrients in our body such as calcium, magnesium, phosphorus, etc. The more you eat, the more your body is leached. 4. Calorie per nutrient, grains are horrible. It is impossible to calculate a grain based diet to meet all the recommended intakes while staying below the recommended calories. When you calculate a diet based on lean meats, fruits, vegetables, seeds, and nuts, it appears you are taking in a multivitamin. 5. Grains are acidic and the body is meant to run on an alkaline base. If you end the day leaning towards the acidic side you again start to leach nutrients, specifically calcium from your body. Replacing grains with fruits and vegetables gets you back to the alkaline side. The only acidic foods that should be consumed are grass-fed meats. The Paleo approach is DEFINITELY the way to go for any person who is trying to get healthier and recover from chronic diseases your doctors have misdiagnosed you with. It is seriously amazing the vast number of misdiagnoses that occur when a holistic nutritional approach isn't considered.
- Kutta 17y ago+ many to what is written above, except the issue with acidity, which is as of now an excessively dubious hypothesis, see: http://www.imminst.org/forum/Acid-base-hypothesis-t40269.html http://www.imminst.org/forum/Acid-base-hypothesis-t40269.htm... Also, I shall point out that oat is a glaring exception to the grain rule; it has NO gluten and lectin, it has a relatively mild impact on blood sugar and has a lot of fiber, with special mention of beta-glucan, an immunoprotectant, anti-cancer and blood sugar regulating fiber. However, make sure that it is plain rolled oats, steel-cut oats or oat bran; Cheerios is not a towering source of oat.
- dkasper 17y agoIt's hard for me to believe I'm saying this, but if this new study is true then apparently it's time to revisit the Atkins diet.
- c00p3r 17y agoBy whom this study was funded? The Association of American pork producers, I guess. =)
- viggity 17y agoHow can this be?!?!?! The scientific consensus was overwhelming!!! Al Gore and Michael Mann tell me I am not to question scientific consensus and to do so I shall be branded a "denier".