== Scott ==
That sounds painful! Ha ha !
1 Like
Excess carbohydrates increases the liverâs production of triglycerides. Eating a diet high in carbs could therefore be a clue as to why TG is elevated not your fat intake?
Increased TG is also one of the 5 markers of metabolic disfunction, so may be worth reviewing the rest.
Edit: on above point about fat. My lasts bloods had my TG at 0.73 mmol (64.6 mg/dl). Anything under 1.7 is good (apparently). And I was routinely consuming 6 eggs and 1.5 - 2lbs beef daily as part of the carnivore diet.
If you have some form of insulin resistance, then ingesting excessive carbs in any form is a bad idea. For example, there are studies showing how the presence of lectins, commonly found in so-called low GI carb sources like beans, actually augments the release of insulin in people with insulin resistance. Fructose is equally deleterious for the same population. Short answer: if you have metabolic health issues, reduce your carbs full stop.
Whether or not high carb diets are a good thing is quite a contentious topic, one that will generate endless debate. I was just remembering that, even among people who favor high carb/extreme low fat diets for health reasons (Dean Ornish, John McDougall), a reduction in heavily refined starchy carbs is recommended for those who experience high triglycerides.
1 Like
Am I incorrect in saying that high carb and medium fat intake would also increase the triglyceridesâŠtherefore, the reason I am going low fat intake?
One of the energy sources should be high and the other should be low would be my assumption of how we should eat, correct?
Well it depends. The impact on your triglyceride levels will be contingent on your metabolic health.
What is undisputed is the role of insulin. When insulin is high, it is essentially opens the door of fat cells by stimulating lipoprotein lipase, which allows the triglycerides in the blood to be broken down and stored. Similarly, by stimulating the glut 4 transporter, insulin also allows glucose to enter the fat cell, convert to glycerol and then reform with the fatty acids to form triglycerides again. For the process to be reversed, and fatty acids to re-enter the bloodstream to be burned, you need to stimulate hormone sensitive lipase. Unsurprisingly, raised insulin also blunts this response.
I suppose that was quite a circuitous way of saying that, if you have decent metabolic health, insulin should do a good job of clearing energy from your blood, regardless of whether itâs triglycerides or glucose. However, you will appreciate that a diet high in glucose could predispose you to fat gain because you are locked in a cycle of storage due to its effect on insulin.
I donât disagree with JBâs observations.
But I will add this: Extremely low carbohydrate diets (<20-50 grams per day), and extremely low fat diets (<10% of calories) both seem to have some unique metabolic effects that are beneficial when it comes to modern day diseases of affluence. (https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/)
This seems to have divided the nutrition extremists into two distinct camps: low carb keto folks who see carbohydrates as poisin, and the vegan plant food guruâs who see fat as the deadly macronutrient. Then you also have those who worship at the altar of protein, thinking that more is almost always better, and if you are high enough you wonât have to worry about wanting to overeat the other two.
For those of use who opt not to follow diets that lie at compositional extremes, I think understanding what happens metabolically is actually kind of complicated.
As best I can tell, the number one sin is excessive calorie intake. For protein, there clearly is a level that you donât want to drop below, but once you are into the adequate range (20% of calories?) stuffing down more whey protein, or beef, or chicken just makes your meal plan quite expensive. As for the other two, fat and carbs: get most of it from unrefined whole foods, consume a decent amount of fiber from plant sources. Donât go overboard on saturated fat, sugar, alcohol, or low fiber and highly refined starches. Of course, I will undoubted end up dead following that kind of moderate approachâŠ. just hopefully not too soon.
Others, of course, can draw their own conclusions from the information that is out there.
1 Like
Appreciate the response
I am losing fat with high carb, low fat way of eating
When I was eating high fat, low carb, I could not lose anything
My metabolic health is very good
2 Likes
Cheers Al,
I am similarly reluctant to go into this rabbit hole again, all I will say on the matter is something I posted on another thread only yesterday when someone brought up the âsaturated fatâ topic. I have re-posted below. Read it and then ask yourself if you should be worried about going âoverboard on saturated fatâ?
The Journal of the American College of Cardiology published an article (2020) reviewing the data on saturated fat. The abstract of which is below:
The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA) intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects against stroke. Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL particles, which are much less strongly related to CVD risk. It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be predicted by their content in any nutrient group without considering the overall macronutrient distribution. Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, and dark chocolate are SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.
Well⊠âdonât go overboardâ was intentionally vague. Restricting saturated fat to the levels that used to be recommended may not be necessary for health. But that doesnât mean saturated fat is benign or a health food.
My sense is that if other aspects of your diet are good, some saturated fat is OK. But if you are eating too much, are overweight and insulin resistant, Iâd be more worried about it.
Well, the point of that quote was to highlight, amongst other things, that: The totality of available evidence does not support further limiting the intake of such foods.
Further, the fact there is an inverse relationship between higher saturated fat consumption and strokes does suggest it is a âhealth foodâ. And be mindful that excessive glucose is the primary driver of insulin resistance.
Not entirely true!
It is an interesting paper, but is the collective opinion of those researchers the definitive word on the subject? I wonder if other nutritional experts have weighed in with a critique of their conclusions? I understand that opinions about the health risks and benefits of saturated fats in the diets have started to change. But has a new consensus formed that there is zero risk, or even a positive benefit to elevated saturated fat consumption?
Also, it is one thing to argue that the evidence doesnât support restrictions on certain kinds of foods which contain saturated fat (i.e., unprocessed meat, full fat dairy, chocolate). It is something else to suggest that a dietary pattern which results a high level saturated fats from a variety of sources is neutral or even beneficial health wise. I donât think they made a case for the latter (even if that seems to be the bias of some of the authors).
With a few obvious exceptions, e.g, smoking, I doubt you will ever have concensus.
What you do have is an acknowledgement of several high profile clinical trials which were launched to test the opposite, namely that diets rich in PUFAs will lower CVD and all cause mortality. Only for the results to show otherwise.
It has also been shown that the lipid heart hypothesis, which has governed mainstream medicine for more than 50 years was founded on bad science.
And this is without going into the anthropology or sociological exploration of modern day obesity.
I will need to try and access this study to reply.
What I can say is a fat rich diet does result in a loss of insulin sensitivity, that is not disputed. However, the current metabolic health epidemic is not caused by high fat dietary habits, I would argue. That was my original point.
Please argue!
Be sure of facts and logic!
A balanced view of heart disease, statin usage!
Well, whenever you have suffered from a cardiovascular event, there is overwhelming scientific documentation in favor of statins (among other risk reducing agents).
Prior to having had a cardiovascular event (so called primary prevention) the indication for statins is questionable, which leads us into the above discussion.
If you want doctors as a group to get polarized, you should definitely bring lipids up (or choose other heated subjects like hypothyroid, or even vitamin D).
1 Like
Statins are bad, bad news. From someone who has taken them
That paradox has always fascinated me. I suppose it means that the criteria for who determining who is at high risk, and therefore likely to benefit from a statin is simply too broad?