A Weightloss and diet forum. WeightLossBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » WeightLossBanter forum » alt.support.diet newsgroups » Low Carbohydrate Diets
Site Map Home Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old November 9th, 2006, 01:40 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Bubba Do Wah Ditty
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

By Stephen Daniells

09/11/2006- Low-carb diets, like the once fashionable Atkins diet, do
not increase the risk of heart disease, says new research from Harvard - and
if vegetables rather than meat are the source of fat and protein then the
risk of heart disease may be cut by 30 per cent.

Low carbohydrate diets, high in protein and fat, have lost popularity
amongst the public with critics saying that the approach puts followers at a
higher risk of clogged arteries and heart attack in the long-term.
But the new research, published in the prestigious New England Journal
of Medicine (Vol. 355, pp. 1991-2002), reports that, after evaluating data
collected over 20 years on 82,802 women, that there is no link between
low-carb diets and an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

"Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrates and higher in
protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart
disease in women," wrote lead author Thomas Halton from Harvard School of
Public Health.

The results, while they indicate no risk with the diet, do not show a
positive effect on heart health, said Halton in a statement.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor a
typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to risk of
CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in
carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat and
protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," he said.

Indeed, the authors found that, when vegetable sources of fat and
protein were chosen instead of animal sources, the low-carb-diet score was
associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of CHD - the cause of 20 per cent
of deaths in the US and 17 per cent of deaths in Europe.

The researchers used dietary data from the Nurses' Health Study
(started in 1976), collected by validated food frequency questionnaires
(FFQ). After 20 years of follow-up, Halton and his colleagues report that
1994 cases of CHD were recorded.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, such as age, BMI,
smoking status, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and so on, the
researchers report that the difference between women with the highest
adherence to a low-carb diet (highest fat and protein intake and lowest
carbohydrate intake) had no statistically difference in the risk of CHD than
those who did not consume a low-carb diet (lowest fat and protein intake and
highest carbohydrate intake).

The Harvard researchers also considered the relative CHD risk as a
function of the percentages of energy from carbohydrate, animal protein and
animal fat, or from carbohydrate, vegetable protein and vegetable fat.

For those who consumed protein and fat from animal sources, no
significant difference in relative CHD risk was observed, regardless of
carbohydrate consumption.

However, the women who consumed protein and fat from predominantly
animal sources and who adhered most closely to the low-carb diet, the
relative risk of coronary heart disease was cut by 30 per cent, compared to
those who followed a more low-fat-type diet.

"When vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, the
low-carbohydrate-diet score was associated with a moderately lower risk of
coronary heat disease than when animal sources were chosen," the researchers
said.

Also, they note that adherence to the low-carb diet had no effect on
body weight.

Senior author Frank Hu added a note of caution, saying that the
results did not mean people should "load [their] plate with steak and
bacon."

"One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of CHD with
low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products might
be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of fat and
carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet should
embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates," he said.

Indeed, the authors did note a link between glycaemic load and CHD.
The use of glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrates according to their
ability to affect blood glucose. To measure of the quality and quantity of
carbohydrate intake, the concept of glycaemic load (GL) was created.

"A low-carbohydrate diet tends to have a lower dietary glycaemic index
and glycaemic load than a high-carbohydrate diet," explained the
researchers.

"We found that the direct association between glycaemic load and
coronary heart disease was much stronger than the association between
carbohydrate and coronary heart disease, probably because glycaemic load
reflects both the quantity and quality of carbohydrates," they said.

Other criticisms of the low-carb diet, like the effects on bone
health, kidney function, and a decrease in fibre intake were not
investigated, said the researchers. Halton and colleagues called for
longer-term investigations on the effects of low-carb, high-protein diets on
kidney function, especially for people with poor kidney function.

In terms of bone health, however, a recent study, published in the
journal Osteoporosis International (Vol. 17, pp. 1398-1403), reported that
15 volunteers eating a low-carb diet for three months did not have higher
levels of bone turnover markers than the 15 controls eating a normal diet.

Concerns were raised since consumption of high-protein diets alters
the body's acid balance, which could lead to increased bone turnover (bone
depletion is faster than formation).



--
Bubba Do Wah Ditty





  #2  
Old November 9th, 2006, 06:41 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

Actually, read the abstract he

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/19/1991

They're much, much less enthused:

"Conclusions[:] Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and
higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of
coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and protein
are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease."

They also state that "A higher glycemic load was strongly associated with
an increased risk of coronary heart disease". One would think that low
carB = low glycemic load.


On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:40:32 -0500, Bubba Do Wah Ditty
wrote:

Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

By Stephen Daniells

09/11/2006- Low-carb diets, like the once fashionable Atkins diet,
do
not increase the risk of heart disease, says new research from Harvard -
and
if vegetables rather than meat are the source of fat and protein then the
risk of heart disease may be cut by 30 per cent.

Low carbohydrate diets, high in protein and fat, have lost
popularity
amongst the public with critics saying that the approach puts followers
at a
higher risk of clogged arteries and heart attack in the long-term.
But the new research, published in the prestigious New England
Journal
of Medicine (Vol. 355, pp. 1991-2002), reports that, after evaluating
data
collected over 20 years on 82,802 women, that there is no link between
low-carb diets and an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

"Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrates and higher
in
protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart
disease in women," wrote lead author Thomas Halton from Harvard School of
Public Health.

The results, while they indicate no risk with the diet, do not
show a
positive effect on heart health, said Halton in a statement.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor a
typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to risk of
CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in
carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat and
protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," he said.

Indeed, the authors found that, when vegetable sources of fat and
protein were chosen instead of animal sources, the low-carb-diet score
was
associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of CHD - the cause of 20 per
cent
of deaths in the US and 17 per cent of deaths in Europe.

The researchers used dietary data from the Nurses' Health Study
(started in 1976), collected by validated food frequency questionnaires
(FFQ). After 20 years of follow-up, Halton and his colleagues report that
1994 cases of CHD were recorded.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, such as age,
BMI,
smoking status, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and so on,
the
researchers report that the difference between women with the highest
adherence to a low-carb diet (highest fat and protein intake and lowest
carbohydrate intake) had no statistically difference in the risk of CHD
than
those who did not consume a low-carb diet (lowest fat and protein intake
and
highest carbohydrate intake).

The Harvard researchers also considered the relative CHD risk as a
function of the percentages of energy from carbohydrate, animal protein
and
animal fat, or from carbohydrate, vegetable protein and vegetable fat.

For those who consumed protein and fat from animal sources, no
significant difference in relative CHD risk was observed, regardless of
carbohydrate consumption.

However, the women who consumed protein and fat from predominantly
animal sources and who adhered most closely to the low-carb diet, the
relative risk of coronary heart disease was cut by 30 per cent, compared
to
those who followed a more low-fat-type diet.

"When vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, the
low-carbohydrate-diet score was associated with a moderately lower risk
of
coronary heat disease than when animal sources were chosen," the
researchers
said.

Also, they note that adherence to the low-carb diet had no effect
on
body weight.

Senior author Frank Hu added a note of caution, saying that the
results did not mean people should "load [their] plate with steak and
bacon."

"One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of CHD
with
low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products
might
be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of fat
and
carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet should
embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates," he said.

Indeed, the authors did note a link between glycaemic load and CHD.
The use of glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrates according to their
ability to affect blood glucose. To measure of the quality and quantity
of
carbohydrate intake, the concept of glycaemic load (GL) was created.

"A low-carbohydrate diet tends to have a lower dietary glycaemic
index
and glycaemic load than a high-carbohydrate diet," explained the
researchers.

"We found that the direct association between glycaemic load and
coronary heart disease was much stronger than the association between
carbohydrate and coronary heart disease, probably because glycaemic load
reflects both the quantity and quality of carbohydrates," they said.

Other criticisms of the low-carb diet, like the effects on bone
health, kidney function, and a decrease in fibre intake were not
investigated, said the researchers. Halton and colleagues called for
longer-term investigations on the effects of low-carb, high-protein
diets on
kidney function, especially for people with poor kidney function.

In terms of bone health, however, a recent study, published in the
journal Osteoporosis International (Vol. 17, pp. 1398-1403), reported
that
15 volunteers eating a low-carb diet for three months did not have higher
levels of bone turnover markers than the 15 controls eating a normal
diet.

Concerns were raised since consumption of high-protein diets alters
the body's acid balance, which could lead to increased bone turnover
(bone
depletion is faster than formation).






--
Bob in CT
  #3  
Old November 9th, 2006, 08:08 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hollywood
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 896
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

I recently read a lot of the Harvard Guide to Men's Health, that is
based on three large studies of men, similar to the nurses study that
looks at women. Similar group of people running it with similar
methodology.

I mention this because that book was very much in the low fat-low cal,
high veggie, fish protein diet camp. Very invested. I think it's
inferable that Harvard Health is fairly invested in this diet paradigm.
So, their conclusions might be swayed a little by 40 years of
Low-Fat-Low-Cal-High-Veg-Lean-Protein thinking.

Their finding is basically that if you drop your glycemic load, you
drop your risk of heart attack. I think they are not ready to accept
that you might be able to eat a good deal of fatty beef and improve
your health. I don't think my doctor was ready to believe it. I'm doing
fitday just so I can show him a journal of what I've been eating to
lower my cholesterol so drastically (3 times his high range expectation
at the last check). I think it will be amusing.

Any rate, news from Harvard is nice, but we can pick the study apart
and pick their motives apart till there's nothing left.

-Hollywood

Bob in CT wrote:
Actually, read the abstract he

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/19/1991

They're much, much less enthused:

"Conclusions[:] Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate and
higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of
coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and protein
are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease."

They also state that "A higher glycemic load was strongly associated with
an increased risk of coronary heart disease". One would think that low
carB = low glycemic load.


On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:40:32 -0500, Bubba Do Wah Ditty
wrote:

Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

By Stephen Daniells

09/11/2006- Low-carb diets, like the once fashionable Atkins diet,
do
not increase the risk of heart disease, says new research from Harvard -
and
if vegetables rather than meat are the source of fat and protein then the
risk of heart disease may be cut by 30 per cent.

Low carbohydrate diets, high in protein and fat, have lost
popularity
amongst the public with critics saying that the approach puts followers
at a
higher risk of clogged arteries and heart attack in the long-term.
But the new research, published in the prestigious New England
Journal
of Medicine (Vol. 355, pp. 1991-2002), reports that, after evaluating
data
collected over 20 years on 82,802 women, that there is no link between
low-carb diets and an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

"Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrates and higher
in
protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary heart
disease in women," wrote lead author Thomas Halton from Harvard School of
Public Health.

The results, while they indicate no risk with the diet, do not
show a
positive effect on heart health, said Halton in a statement.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor a
typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to risk of
CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in
carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat and
protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," he said.

Indeed, the authors found that, when vegetable sources of fat and
protein were chosen instead of animal sources, the low-carb-diet score
was
associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of CHD - the cause of 20 per
cent
of deaths in the US and 17 per cent of deaths in Europe.

The researchers used dietary data from the Nurses' Health Study
(started in 1976), collected by validated food frequency questionnaires
(FFQ). After 20 years of follow-up, Halton and his colleagues report that
1994 cases of CHD were recorded.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, such as age,
BMI,
smoking status, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and so on,
the
researchers report that the difference between women with the highest
adherence to a low-carb diet (highest fat and protein intake and lowest
carbohydrate intake) had no statistically difference in the risk of CHD
than
those who did not consume a low-carb diet (lowest fat and protein intake
and
highest carbohydrate intake).

The Harvard researchers also considered the relative CHD risk as a
function of the percentages of energy from carbohydrate, animal protein
and
animal fat, or from carbohydrate, vegetable protein and vegetable fat.

For those who consumed protein and fat from animal sources, no
significant difference in relative CHD risk was observed, regardless of
carbohydrate consumption.

However, the women who consumed protein and fat from predominantly
animal sources and who adhered most closely to the low-carb diet, the
relative risk of coronary heart disease was cut by 30 per cent, compared
to
those who followed a more low-fat-type diet.

"When vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, the
low-carbohydrate-diet score was associated with a moderately lower risk
of
coronary heat disease than when animal sources were chosen," the
researchers
said.

Also, they note that adherence to the low-carb diet had no effect
on
body weight.

Senior author Frank Hu added a note of caution, saying that the
results did not mean people should "load [their] plate with steak and
bacon."

"One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of CHD
with
low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products
might
be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of fat
and
carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet should
embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates," he said.

Indeed, the authors did note a link between glycaemic load and CHD.
The use of glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrates according to their
ability to affect blood glucose. To measure of the quality and quantity
of
carbohydrate intake, the concept of glycaemic load (GL) was created.

"A low-carbohydrate diet tends to have a lower dietary glycaemic
index
and glycaemic load than a high-carbohydrate diet," explained the
researchers.

"We found that the direct association between glycaemic load and
coronary heart disease was much stronger than the association between
carbohydrate and coronary heart disease, probably because glycaemic load
reflects both the quantity and quality of carbohydrates," they said.

Other criticisms of the low-carb diet, like the effects on bone
health, kidney function, and a decrease in fibre intake were not
investigated, said the researchers. Halton and colleagues called for
longer-term investigations on the effects of low-carb, high-protein
diets on
kidney function, especially for people with poor kidney function.

In terms of bone health, however, a recent study, published in the
journal Osteoporosis International (Vol. 17, pp. 1398-1403), reported
that
15 volunteers eating a low-carb diet for three months did not have higher
levels of bone turnover markers than the 15 controls eating a normal
diet.

Concerns were raised since consumption of high-protein diets alters
the body's acid balance, which could lead to increased bone turnover
(bone
depletion is faster than formation).






--
Bob in CT


  #4  
Old November 9th, 2006, 08:39 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Bob in CT
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 109
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

I wouldn't worry too much about "high cholesterol", as I don't think such
a thing is worrisome at all.

As for the study, they can't on the one hand say that high glycemic load
is bad yet say that low carb (which is, by definition, low glycemic load)
isn't good. Plus, they state, "the relative risk on the basis of the
percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates, vegetable protein, and
vegetable fat" and give this a good relative risk. How can that be, when
this flies in the face of high glycemic load?

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:08:30 -0500, Hollywood wrote:

I recently read a lot of the Harvard Guide to Men's Health, that is
based on three large studies of men, similar to the nurses study that
looks at women. Similar group of people running it with similar
methodology.

I mention this because that book was very much in the low fat-low cal,
high veggie, fish protein diet camp. Very invested. I think it's
inferable that Harvard Health is fairly invested in this diet paradigm..
So, their conclusions might be swayed a little by 40 years of
Low-Fat-Low-Cal-High-Veg-Lean-Protein thinking.

Their finding is basically that if you drop your glycemic load, you
drop your risk of heart attack. I think they are not ready to accept
that you might be able to eat a good deal of fatty beef and improve
your health. I don't think my doctor was ready to believe it. I'm doing
fitday just so I can show him a journal of what I've been eating to
lower my cholesterol so drastically (3 times his high range expectation
at the last check). I think it will be amusing.

Any rate, news from Harvard is nice, but we can pick the study apart
and pick their motives apart till there's nothing left.

-Hollywood

Bob in CT wrote:
Actually, read the abstract he

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/19/1991

They're much, much less enthused:

"Conclusions[:] Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate
and
higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of
coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and
protein
are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease."

They also state that "A higher glycemic load was strongly associated
with
an increased risk of coronary heart disease". One would think that low
carB = low glycemic load.


On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:40:32 -0500, Bubba Do Wah Ditty
wrote:

Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

By Stephen Daniells

09/11/2006- Low-carb diets, like the once fashionable Atkins

diet,
do
not increase the risk of heart disease, says new research from

Harvard -
and
if vegetables rather than meat are the source of fat and protein then

the
risk of heart disease may be cut by 30 per cent.

Low carbohydrate diets, high in protein and fat, have lost
popularity
amongst the public with critics saying that the approach puts

followers
at a
higher risk of clogged arteries and heart attack in the long-term.
But the new research, published in the prestigious New England
Journal
of Medicine (Vol. 355, pp. 1991-2002), reports that, after evaluating
data
collected over 20 years on 82,802 women, that there is no link between
low-carb diets and an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

"Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrates and

higher
in
protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary

heart
disease in women," wrote lead author Thomas Halton from Harvard

School of
Public Health.

The results, while they indicate no risk with the diet, do not
show a
positive effect on heart health, said Halton in a statement.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor

a
typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to

risk of
CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in
carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat

and
protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," he said.

Indeed, the authors found that, when vegetable sources of fat

and
protein were chosen instead of animal sources, the low-carb-diet score
was
associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of CHD - the cause of 20 per
cent
of deaths in the US and 17 per cent of deaths in Europe.

The researchers used dietary data from the Nurses' Health Study
(started in 1976), collected by validated food frequency

questionnaires
(FFQ). After 20 years of follow-up, Halton and his colleagues report

that
1994 cases of CHD were recorded.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, such as age,
BMI,
smoking status, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and so on,
the
researchers report that the difference between women with the highest
adherence to a low-carb diet (highest fat and protein intake and

lowest
carbohydrate intake) had no statistically difference in the risk of

CHD
than
those who did not consume a low-carb diet (lowest fat and protein

intake
and
highest carbohydrate intake).

The Harvard researchers also considered the relative CHD risk

as a
function of the percentages of energy from carbohydrate, animal

protein
and
animal fat, or from carbohydrate, vegetable protein and vegetable fat.

For those who consumed protein and fat from animal sources, no
significant difference in relative CHD risk was observed, regardless

of
carbohydrate consumption.

However, the women who consumed protein and fat from

predominantly
animal sources and who adhered most closely to the low-carb diet, the
relative risk of coronary heart disease was cut by 30 per cent,

compared
to
those who followed a more low-fat-type diet.

"When vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, the
low-carbohydrate-diet score was associated with a moderately lower

risk
of
coronary heat disease than when animal sources were chosen," the
researchers
said.

Also, they note that adherence to the low-carb diet had no

effect
on
body weight.

Senior author Frank Hu added a note of caution, saying that the
results did not mean people should "load [their] plate with steak and
bacon."

"One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of

CHD
with
low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products
might
be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of

fat
and
carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet

should
embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates," he said.

Indeed, the authors did note a link between glycaemic load and

CHD.
The use of glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrates according to their
ability to affect blood glucose. To measure of the quality and

quantity
of
carbohydrate intake, the concept of glycaemic load (GL) was created..

"A low-carbohydrate diet tends to have a lower dietary glycaemic
index
and glycaemic load than a high-carbohydrate diet," explained the
researchers.

"We found that the direct association between glycaemic load and
coronary heart disease was much stronger than the association between
carbohydrate and coronary heart disease, probably because glycaemic

load
reflects both the quantity and quality of carbohydrates," they said..

Other criticisms of the low-carb diet, like the effects on bone
health, kidney function, and a decrease in fibre intake were not
investigated, said the researchers. Halton and colleagues called for
longer-term investigations on the effects of low-carb, high-protein
diets on
kidney function, especially for people with poor kidney function.

In terms of bone health, however, a recent study, published in

the
journal Osteoporosis International (Vol. 17, pp. 1398-1403), reported
that
15 volunteers eating a low-carb diet for three months did not have

higher
levels of bone turnover markers than the 15 controls eating a normal
diet.

Concerns were raised since consumption of high-protein diets

alters
the body's acid balance, which could lead to increased bone turnover
(bone
depletion is faster than formation).






--
Bob in CT





--
Bob in CT
  #5  
Old November 9th, 2006, 09:08 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study


Bob in CT wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about "high cholesterol", as I don't think such
a thing is worrisome at all.


I wouldn't be so sure that high cholesterol isn't worrisome at all.
There is a lot of data that says otherwise. It's possible that they
are wrong, but studies like Framingham, sure seem to suggest that there
is a correlation between high cholesterol and CHD.



As for the study, they can't on the one hand say that high glycemic load
is bad yet say that low carb (which is, by definition, low glycemic load)
isn't good.


In the excerpts I read, I didn't see where the study said LC isn't
good. They said LC and low fat had the same incidence of CHD in women.





Plus, they state, "the relative risk on the basis of the
percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates, vegetable protein, and
vegetable fat" and give this a good relative risk. How can that be, when
this flies in the face of high glycemic load?

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:08:30 -0500, Hollywood wrote:

I recently read a lot of the Harvard Guide to Men's Health, that is
based on three large studies of men, similar to the nurses study that
looks at women. Similar group of people running it with similar
methodology.

I mention this because that book was very much in the low fat-low cal,
high veggie, fish protein diet camp. Very invested. I think it's
inferable that Harvard Health is fairly invested in this diet paradigm.
So, their conclusions might be swayed a little by 40 years of
Low-Fat-Low-Cal-High-Veg-Lean-Protein thinking.

Their finding is basically that if you drop your glycemic load, you
drop your risk of heart attack. I think they are not ready to accept
that you might be able to eat a good deal of fatty beef and improve
your health. I don't think my doctor was ready to believe it. I'm doing
fitday just so I can show him a journal of what I've been eating to
lower my cholesterol so drastically (3 times his high range expectation
at the last check). I think it will be amusing.

Any rate, news from Harvard is nice, but we can pick the study apart
and pick their motives apart till there's nothing left.

-Hollywood

Bob in CT wrote:
Actually, read the abstract he

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/19/1991

They're much, much less enthused:

"Conclusions[:] Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate
and
higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of
coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and
protein
are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease."

They also state that "A higher glycemic load was strongly associated
with
an increased risk of coronary heart disease". One would think that low
carB = low glycemic load.


On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:40:32 -0500, Bubba Do Wah Ditty
wrote:

Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

By Stephen Daniells

09/11/2006- Low-carb diets, like the once fashionable Atkins
diet,
do
not increase the risk of heart disease, says new research from
Harvard -
and
if vegetables rather than meat are the source of fat and protein then
the
risk of heart disease may be cut by 30 per cent.

Low carbohydrate diets, high in protein and fat, have lost
popularity
amongst the public with critics saying that the approach puts
followers
at a
higher risk of clogged arteries and heart attack in the long-term.
But the new research, published in the prestigious New England
Journal
of Medicine (Vol. 355, pp. 1991-2002), reports that, after evaluating
data
collected over 20 years on 82,802 women, that there is no link between
low-carb diets and an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

"Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrates and
higher
in
protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary
heart
disease in women," wrote lead author Thomas Halton from Harvard
School of
Public Health.

The results, while they indicate no risk with the diet, do not
show a
positive effect on heart health, said Halton in a statement.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor
a
typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to
risk of
CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in
carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat
and
protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," he said.

Indeed, the authors found that, when vegetable sources of fat
and
protein were chosen instead of animal sources, the low-carb-diet score
was
associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of CHD - the cause of 20 per
cent
of deaths in the US and 17 per cent of deaths in Europe.

The researchers used dietary data from the Nurses' Health Study
(started in 1976), collected by validated food frequency
questionnaires
(FFQ). After 20 years of follow-up, Halton and his colleagues report
that
1994 cases of CHD were recorded.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, such as age,
BMI,
smoking status, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and so on,
the
researchers report that the difference between women with the highest
adherence to a low-carb diet (highest fat and protein intake and
lowest
carbohydrate intake) had no statistically difference in the risk of
CHD
than
those who did not consume a low-carb diet (lowest fat and protein
intake
and
highest carbohydrate intake).

The Harvard researchers also considered the relative CHD risk
as a
function of the percentages of energy from carbohydrate, animal
protein
and
animal fat, or from carbohydrate, vegetable protein and vegetable fat.

For those who consumed protein and fat from animal sources, no
significant difference in relative CHD risk was observed, regardless
of
carbohydrate consumption.

However, the women who consumed protein and fat from
predominantly
animal sources and who adhered most closely to the low-carb diet, the
relative risk of coronary heart disease was cut by 30 per cent,
compared
to
those who followed a more low-fat-type diet.

"When vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, the
low-carbohydrate-diet score was associated with a moderately lower
risk
of
coronary heat disease than when animal sources were chosen," the
researchers
said.

Also, they note that adherence to the low-carb diet had no
effect
on
body weight.

Senior author Frank Hu added a note of caution, saying that the
results did not mean people should "load [their] plate with steak and
bacon."

"One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of
CHD
with
low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products
might
be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of
fat
and
carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet
should
embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates," he said.

Indeed, the authors did note a link between glycaemic load and
CHD.
The use of glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrates according to their
ability to affect blood glucose. To measure of the quality and
quantity
of
carbohydrate intake, the concept of glycaemic load (GL) was created.

"A low-carbohydrate diet tends to have a lower dietary glycaemic
index
and glycaemic load than a high-carbohydrate diet," explained the
researchers.

"We found that the direct association between glycaemic load and
coronary heart disease was much stronger than the association between
carbohydrate and coronary heart disease, probably because glycaemic
load
reflects both the quantity and quality of carbohydrates," they said.

Other criticisms of the low-carb diet, like the effects on bone
health, kidney function, and a decrease in fibre intake were not
investigated, said the researchers. Halton and colleagues called for
longer-term investigations on the effects of low-carb, high-protein
diets on
kidney function, especially for people with poor kidney function.

In terms of bone health, however, a recent study, published in
the
journal Osteoporosis International (Vol. 17, pp. 1398-1403), reported
that
15 volunteers eating a low-carb diet for three months did not have
higher
levels of bone turnover markers than the 15 controls eating a normal
diet.

Concerns were raised since consumption of high-protein diets
alters
the body's acid balance, which could lead to increased bone turnover
(bone
depletion is faster than formation).






--
Bob in CT





--
Bob in CT


  #6  
Old November 10th, 2006, 01:15 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jbuch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

Bob in CT wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about "high cholesterol", as I don't think
such a thing is worrisome at all.

As for the study, they can't on the one hand say that high glycemic
load is bad yet say that low carb (which is, by definition, low
glycemic load) isn't good. Plus, they state, "the relative risk on the
basis of the percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates,
vegetable protein, and vegetable fat" and give this a good relative
risk. How can that be, when this flies in the face of high glycemic load?




Please don't forget that Cardiologist Dr. Atkins promoted Low Carb in
direct opposition to the AHA political attempts in the 1970's to get
"Low Fat" as the official position to cure and prevent heart disease.

Dr. Atkins was a TRAITOR to his profession. And he still is, in many
circles, a TRAITOR to the cardiology profession - or at least many of
the now senior and aging members.

Expect very little objectivity from cardiologists on Low Carb until the
contemporaries of Atkins all die out, and about a half a generation of
the early inductees of that period also die out.

The younger cardiologists may be less brainwashed and less inclined to
remember Atkins as the TRAITOR he was.

And frankly, he was indeed a TRAITOR - to the group pushing the LOW FAT
mentality - who lacked the scientific basis to recommend Low Fat as the
cure.... and the data still doesn't conclude that Low Fat will
dramatically reduce the incidence of heart disease.

You may be witnessing some reviewers lasso themselves or paint
themselves into corners with subtle evasions.

Jim
  #7  
Old November 10th, 2006, 01:24 AM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Jbuch
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 429
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

wrote:
Bob in CT wrote:

I wouldn't worry too much about "high cholesterol", as I don't think such
a thing is worrisome at all.



I wouldn't be so sure that high cholesterol isn't worrisome at all.
There is a lot of data that says otherwise. It's possible that they
are wrong, but studies like Framingham, sure seem to suggest that there
is a correlation between high cholesterol and CHD.


In statistics classes, correlations are not the same as causes.

There is a high correlation between the number of fire engines a
community has, and the number of fires it has.

Would you conclude that fire engines are dangerous because they cause
fires.... from this data correlation?

Not me.

In the early part of the 20th century there was a very good correlation
between (the number of new radios and TV's sold) and (the number of
cases of heart disease). This correlation was really quite good.

The correlation over the same time period between the saturated fat
available for consumption (USA) and heart attacks (USA)was incorrect...
saturated fat available decreasing and heart attacks increasing. Saying
that the lipid hypothesis was inconsistent with the USA data then
available.

Both correlations taken from "The Cholesterol Myths" by Uffe Ravnoskow,
MD PhD copyright 2000.


Jim





As for the study, they can't on the one hand say that high glycemic load
is bad yet say that low carb (which is, by definition, low glycemic load)
isn't good.



In the excerpts I read, I didn't see where the study said LC isn't
good. They said LC and low fat had the same incidence of CHD in women.





Plus, they state, "the relative risk on the basis of the

percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates, vegetable protein, and
vegetable fat" and give this a good relative risk. How can that be, when
this flies in the face of high glycemic load?

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:08:30 -0500, Hollywood wrote:


I recently read a lot of the Harvard Guide to Men's Health, that is
based on three large studies of men, similar to the nurses study that
looks at women. Similar group of people running it with similar
methodology.

I mention this because that book was very much in the low fat-low cal,
high veggie, fish protein diet camp. Very invested. I think it's
inferable that Harvard Health is fairly invested in this diet paradigm.
So, their conclusions might be swayed a little by 40 years of
Low-Fat-Low-Cal-High-Veg-Lean-Protein thinking.

Their finding is basically that if you drop your glycemic load, you
drop your risk of heart attack. I think they are not ready to accept
that you might be able to eat a good deal of fatty beef and improve
your health. I don't think my doctor was ready to believe it. I'm doing
fitday just so I can show him a journal of what I've been eating to
lower my cholesterol so drastically (3 times his high range expectation
at the last check). I think it will be amusing.

Any rate, news from Harvard is nice, but we can pick the study apart
and pick their motives apart till there's nothing left.

-Hollywood

Bob in CT wrote:

Actually, read the abstract he

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/19/1991

They're much, much less enthused:

"Conclusions[:] Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate
and
higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of
coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and
protein
are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease."

They also state that "A higher glycemic load was strongly associated
with
an increased risk of coronary heart disease". One would think that low
carB = low glycemic load.


On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:40:32 -0500, Bubba Do Wah Ditty
wrote:


Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

By Stephen Daniells

09/11/2006- Low-carb diets, like the once fashionable Atkins

diet,

do
not increase the risk of heart disease, says new research from

Harvard -

and
if vegetables rather than meat are the source of fat and protein then

the

risk of heart disease may be cut by 30 per cent.

Low carbohydrate diets, high in protein and fat, have lost
popularity
amongst the public with critics saying that the approach puts

followers

at a
higher risk of clogged arteries and heart attack in the long-term.
But the new research, published in the prestigious New England
Journal
of Medicine (Vol. 355, pp. 1991-2002), reports that, after evaluating
data
collected over 20 years on 82,802 women, that there is no link between
low-carb diets and an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

"Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrates and

higher

in
protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary

heart

disease in women," wrote lead author Thomas Halton from Harvard

School of

Public Health.

The results, while they indicate no risk with the diet, do not
show a
positive effect on heart health, said Halton in a statement.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor

a

typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to

risk of

CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in
carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat

and

protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," he said.

Indeed, the authors found that, when vegetable sources of fat

and

protein were chosen instead of animal sources, the low-carb-diet score
was
associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of CHD - the cause of 20 per
cent
of deaths in the US and 17 per cent of deaths in Europe.

The researchers used dietary data from the Nurses' Health Study
(started in 1976), collected by validated food frequency

questionnaires

(FFQ). After 20 years of follow-up, Halton and his colleagues report

that

1994 cases of CHD were recorded.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, such as age,
BMI,
smoking status, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and so on,
the
researchers report that the difference between women with the highest
adherence to a low-carb diet (highest fat and protein intake and

lowest

carbohydrate intake) had no statistically difference in the risk of

CHD

than
those who did not consume a low-carb diet (lowest fat and protein

intake

and
highest carbohydrate intake).

The Harvard researchers also considered the relative CHD risk

as a

function of the percentages of energy from carbohydrate, animal

protein

and
animal fat, or from carbohydrate, vegetable protein and vegetable fat.

For those who consumed protein and fat from animal sources, no
significant difference in relative CHD risk was observed, regardless

of

carbohydrate consumption.

However, the women who consumed protein and fat from

predominantly

animal sources and who adhered most closely to the low-carb diet, the
relative risk of coronary heart disease was cut by 30 per cent,

compared

to
those who followed a more low-fat-type diet.

"When vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, the
low-carbohydrate-diet score was associated with a moderately lower

risk

of
coronary heat disease than when animal sources were chosen," the
researchers
said.

Also, they note that adherence to the low-carb diet had no

effect

on
body weight.

Senior author Frank Hu added a note of caution, saying that the
results did not mean people should "load [their] plate with steak and
bacon."

"One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of

CHD

with
low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products
might
be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of

fat

and
carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet

should

embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates," he said.

Indeed, the authors did note a link between glycaemic load and

CHD.

The use of glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrates according to their
ability to affect blood glucose. To measure of the quality and

quantity

of
carbohydrate intake, the concept of glycaemic load (GL) was created.

"A low-carbohydrate diet tends to have a lower dietary glycaemic
index
and glycaemic load than a high-carbohydrate diet," explained the
researchers.

"We found that the direct association between glycaemic load and
coronary heart disease was much stronger than the association between
carbohydrate and coronary heart disease, probably because glycaemic

load

reflects both the quantity and quality of carbohydrates," they said.

Other criticisms of the low-carb diet, like the effects on bone
health, kidney function, and a decrease in fibre intake were not
investigated, said the researchers. Halton and colleagues called for
longer-term investigations on the effects of low-carb, high-protein
diets on
kidney function, especially for people with poor kidney function.

In terms of bone health, however, a recent study, published in

the

journal Osteoporosis International (Vol. 17, pp. 1398-1403), reported
that
15 volunteers eating a low-carb diet for three months did not have

higher

levels of bone turnover markers than the 15 controls eating a normal
diet.

Concerns were raised since consumption of high-protein diets

alters

the body's acid balance, which could lead to increased bone turnover
(bone
depletion is faster than formation).






--
Bob in CT



--
Bob in CT





--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)
  #8  
Old November 10th, 2006, 01:12 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
Hannah Gruen
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 163
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

"Bob in CT" wrote

"As for the study, they can't on the one hand say that high glycemic load
is bad yet say that low carb (which is, by definition, low glycemic load)
isn't good. Plus, they state, "the relative risk on the basis of the
percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates, vegetable protein, and
vegetable fat" and give this a good relative risk. How can that be, when
this flies in the face of high glycemic load?"

***********************************************

Not necessarily, IMO. I agree that low carb must equate with a low glycemic
load. But a relatively low CHO diet can be accomplished lots of different
ways. The classic media portrait, of course, is the guy wolfing down a pound
of bacon and eggs for breakfast, beef patties with melted cheese for lunch,
and a big steak with a lettuce leaf or two for dinner. That's definitely low
carb, but most of us eat diets that include a lot more vegetables, a bit of
fruit, a fair amount of fat, but quite a bit less protein.

And we've had people here at asdl-c who have been successful eating low carb
while staying completely strict vegetarian, or ovo-lacto vegetarian.
Induction-level low carb would be difficult to do, healthfully, using only
vegetable protein sources. But if you are doing something that is at the
high end of ketogenic (100 g), or even a bit higher, you've still got a
relatively low glycemic load and can do this without consuming much animal
protein or fat. Beans are very doable on lc if your carb limit is high, and
there are lots of vegitarian sausages and other meat analogues that are
pretty tasty and low in carbohydrates. And of course, mayonnaise and olive
oil are vegetable fats. Olive oil can be used in cooking in many instances
where you'd use butter. Soy milk and soy creamers can sub for dairy products
and are fairly low in carbs.

I don't think this study's finding of lowered heart disease risk associated
with higher intake of vegetable protein and fat necessarily indicates
causality, however. I'm assuming confounding factors here, because those who
eat more vegitarian stuff are often more health-focused, and could be
expected to have other habits that might be responsible for reduction in
heart disease risk. However, I don't think that lowered glycemic load and
increased proportion of vegetable protein and fat are mutually exclusive.

HG



  #9  
Old November 10th, 2006, 01:21 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study


Jbuch wrote:
wrote:
Bob in CT wrote:

I wouldn't worry too much about "high cholesterol", as I don't think such
a thing is worrisome at all.



I wouldn't be so sure that high cholesterol isn't worrisome at all.
There is a lot of data that says otherwise. It's possible that they
are wrong, but studies like Framingham, sure seem to suggest that there
is a correlation between high cholesterol and CHD.


In statistics classes, correlations are not the same as causes.


Proving cause and effect isn't even a part of statistics classes. And
if you read what I said above, I said the data suggests a correlation,
not that it conclusively proves it.



There is a high correlation between the number of fire engines a
community has, and the number of fires it has.

Would you conclude that fire engines are dangerous because they cause
fires.... from this data correlation?


No, but fire engines aren't found inside burned out buildings either,
are they? But cholesterol is found in the plaque of clogged arteries,
which is what brought it to attention in the first place. And people
with high cholesterol levels do have a much higher rate of CHD. And
statins have been shown in studies to reduce cholesterol and reduce
heart attacks and strokes.

Now, is that absolutely conclusive? No. But it's more than enough
for me to not dismiss high cholesterol as not being worrisome at all.




Not me.

In the early part of the 20th century there was a very good correlation
between (the number of new radios and TV's sold) and (the number of
cases of heart disease). This correlation was really quite good.


But TV's weren't found clogging arteries in people with heart disease.
And reducing the number of TV's with drugs wasn't shown to reduce the
incidence of heart disease either.






The correlation over the same time period between the saturated fat
available for consumption (USA) and heart attacks (USA)was incorrect...
saturated fat available decreasing and heart attacks increasing. Saying
that the lipid hypothesis was inconsistent with the USA data then
available.

Both correlations taken from "The Cholesterol Myths" by Uffe Ravnoskow,
MD PhD copyright 2000.


Jim





As for the study, they can't on the one hand say that high glycemic load
is bad yet say that low carb (which is, by definition, low glycemic load)
isn't good.



In the excerpts I read, I didn't see where the study said LC isn't
good. They said LC and low fat had the same incidence of CHD in women.





Plus, they state, "the relative risk on the basis of the

percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates, vegetable protein, and
vegetable fat" and give this a good relative risk. How can that be, when
this flies in the face of high glycemic load?

On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 14:08:30 -0500, Hollywood wrote:


I recently read a lot of the Harvard Guide to Men's Health, that is
based on three large studies of men, similar to the nurses study that
looks at women. Similar group of people running it with similar
methodology.

I mention this because that book was very much in the low fat-low cal,
high veggie, fish protein diet camp. Very invested. I think it's
inferable that Harvard Health is fairly invested in this diet paradigm.
So, their conclusions might be swayed a little by 40 years of
Low-Fat-Low-Cal-High-Veg-Lean-Protein thinking.

Their finding is basically that if you drop your glycemic load, you
drop your risk of heart attack. I think they are not ready to accept
that you might be able to eat a good deal of fatty beef and improve
your health. I don't think my doctor was ready to believe it. I'm doing
fitday just so I can show him a journal of what I've been eating to
lower my cholesterol so drastically (3 times his high range expectation
at the last check). I think it will be amusing.

Any rate, news from Harvard is nice, but we can pick the study apart
and pick their motives apart till there's nothing left.

-Hollywood

Bob in CT wrote:

Actually, read the abstract he

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/short/355/19/1991

They're much, much less enthused:

"Conclusions[:] Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrate
and
higher in protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of
coronary heart disease in women. When vegetable sources of fat and
protein
are chosen, these diets may moderately reduce the risk of coronary heart
disease."

They also state that "A higher glycemic load was strongly associated
with
an increased risk of coronary heart disease". One would think that low
carB = low glycemic load.


On Thu, 09 Nov 2006 07:40:32 -0500, Bubba Do Wah Ditty
wrote:


Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study

By Stephen Daniells

09/11/2006- Low-carb diets, like the once fashionable Atkins

diet,

do
not increase the risk of heart disease, says new research from

Harvard -

and
if vegetables rather than meat are the source of fat and protein then

the

risk of heart disease may be cut by 30 per cent.

Low carbohydrate diets, high in protein and fat, have lost
popularity
amongst the public with critics saying that the approach puts

followers

at a
higher risk of clogged arteries and heart attack in the long-term.
But the new research, published in the prestigious New England
Journal
of Medicine (Vol. 355, pp. 1991-2002), reports that, after evaluating
data
collected over 20 years on 82,802 women, that there is no link between
low-carb diets and an increased risk of coronary heart disease (CHD).

"Our findings suggest that diets lower in carbohydrates and

higher

in
protein and fat are not associated with increased risk of coronary

heart

disease in women," wrote lead author Thomas Halton from Harvard

School of

Public Health.

The results, while they indicate no risk with the diet, do not
show a
positive effect on heart health, said Halton in a statement.

"This study suggests that neither a low-fat dietary pattern nor

a

typical low-carbohydrate dietary pattern is ideal with regards to

risk of

CHD; both have similar risks. However, if a diet moderately lower in
carbohydrates is followed, with a focus on vegetable sources of fat

and

protein, there may be a benefit for heart disease," he said.

Indeed, the authors found that, when vegetable sources of fat

and

protein were chosen instead of animal sources, the low-carb-diet score
was
associated with a 30 per cent lower risk of CHD - the cause of 20 per
cent
of deaths in the US and 17 per cent of deaths in Europe.

The researchers used dietary data from the Nurses' Health Study
(started in 1976), collected by validated food frequency

questionnaires

(FFQ). After 20 years of follow-up, Halton and his colleagues report

that

1994 cases of CHD were recorded.

After adjusting for potential confounding factors, such as age,
BMI,
smoking status, physical activity levels, multivitamin use, and so on,
the
researchers report that the difference between women with the highest
adherence to a low-carb diet (highest fat and protein intake and

lowest

carbohydrate intake) had no statistically difference in the risk of

CHD

than
those who did not consume a low-carb diet (lowest fat and protein

intake

and
highest carbohydrate intake).

The Harvard researchers also considered the relative CHD risk

as a

function of the percentages of energy from carbohydrate, animal

protein

and
animal fat, or from carbohydrate, vegetable protein and vegetable fat.

For those who consumed protein and fat from animal sources, no
significant difference in relative CHD risk was observed, regardless

of

carbohydrate consumption.

However, the women who consumed protein and fat from

predominantly

animal sources and who adhered most closely to the low-carb diet, the
relative risk of coronary heart disease was cut by 30 per cent,

compared

to
those who followed a more low-fat-type diet.

"When vegetable sources of fat and protein were chosen, the
low-carbohydrate-diet score was associated with a moderately lower

risk

of
coronary heat disease than when animal sources were chosen," the
researchers
said.

Also, they note that adherence to the low-carb diet had no

effect

on
body weight.

Senior author Frank Hu added a note of caution, saying that the
results did not mean people should "load [their] plate with steak and
bacon."

"One likely explanation that we did not see increased risk of

CHD

with
low-carbohydrate diets is that the adverse effects of animal products
might
be counterbalanced by reducing refined carbohydrates. The quality of

fat

and
carbohydrate is more important than quantity. A heart-healthy diet

should

embrace healthy types of fat and carbohydrates," he said.

Indeed, the authors did note a link between glycaemic load and

CHD.

The use of glycaemic index (GI) ranks carbohydrates according to their
ability to affect blood glucose. To measure of the quality and

quantity

of
carbohydrate intake, the concept of glycaemic load (GL) was created.

"A low-carbohydrate diet tends to have a lower dietary glycaemic
index
and glycaemic load than a high-carbohydrate diet," explained the
researchers.

"We found that the direct association between glycaemic load and
coronary heart disease was much stronger than the association between
carbohydrate and coronary heart disease, probably because glycaemic

load

reflects both the quantity and quality of carbohydrates," they said.

Other criticisms of the low-carb diet, like the effects on bone
health, kidney function, and a decrease in fibre intake were not
investigated, said the researchers. Halton and colleagues called for
longer-term investigations on the effects of low-carb, high-protein
diets on
kidney function, especially for people with poor kidney function.

In terms of bone health, however, a recent study, published in

the

journal Osteoporosis International (Vol. 17, pp. 1398-1403), reported
that
15 volunteers eating a low-carb diet for three months did not have

higher

levels of bone turnover markers than the 15 controls eating a normal
diet.

Concerns were raised since consumption of high-protein diets

alters

the body's acid balance, which could lead to increased bone turnover
(bone
depletion is faster than formation).






--
Bob in CT



--
Bob in CT





--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)


  #10  
Old November 10th, 2006, 01:42 PM posted to alt.support.diet.low-carb
[email protected]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 993
Default Vegetable-rich low-carb cuts heart disease risk, says study


Jbuch wrote:
Bob in CT wrote:
I wouldn't worry too much about "high cholesterol", as I don't think
such a thing is worrisome at all.

As for the study, they can't on the one hand say that high glycemic
load is bad yet say that low carb (which is, by definition, low
glycemic load) isn't good. Plus, they state, "the relative risk on the
basis of the percentage of energy from intake of carbohydrates,
vegetable protein, and vegetable fat" and give this a good relative
risk. How can that be, when this flies in the face of high glycemic load?




Please don't forget that Cardiologist Dr. Atkins promoted Low Carb in
direct opposition to the AHA political attempts in the 1970's to get
"Low Fat" as the official position to cure and prevent heart disease.




Dr. Atkins was a TRAITOR to his profession. And he still is, in many
circles, a TRAITOR to the cardiology profession - or at least many of
the now senior and aging members.

Expect very little objectivity from cardiologists on Low Carb until the
contemporaries of Atkins all die out, and about a half a generation of
the early inductees of that period also die out.

The younger cardiologists may be less brainwashed and less inclined to
remember Atkins as the TRAITOR he was.

And frankly, he was indeed a TRAITOR - to the group pushing the LOW FAT
mentality - who lacked the scientific basis to recommend Low Fat as the
cure.... and the data still doesn't conclude that Low Fat will
dramatically reduce the incidence of heart disease.

You may be witnessing some reviewers lasso themselves or paint
themselves into corners with subtle evasions.

Jim




You make it sound like Atkins stated that high cholesterol was of no
concern. In his later books, he talked about having your cholesterol
tested, how LC could improve it, especially the ratios and
triglycerides, and suggested supplements that could lower it if it was
too high. He also advocated using polyunsaturated oils that were
believed to be heart healthy, where possible.

And BTW, the notion to use healthy oils, which most folks agree with,
is supported by what? Is there any conclusive proof? In fact, it
has less evidence than that there is a link between high cholesterol
and CHD.

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Weight Loss Surgery Cuts Heart Disease By Half Sweet Zombie Jesus! General Discussion 0 July 6th, 2006 01:43 PM
Study Shows Drug Reverses Heart Disease Nunya B. General Discussion 11 March 15th, 2006 06:59 PM
Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 8th, 2006 12:52 PM
Study Finds Low-Fat Diet Won't Stop Cancer or Heart Disease Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 February 8th, 2006 12:52 PM
Exercise Cuts Men's Heart Death Risk by 50%, Regardless of Cholesterol Levels Roger Zoul Low Carbohydrate Diets 0 September 11th, 2005 08:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:50 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 WeightLossBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.