Cycling and vegetarianism - Page 71 - Cycling Mob: Road Cycling, Mountain Biking and More

09-02-2004, 07:48 AM

"the black rose" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:iQFZc.52851$[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].com
> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they
>>> can - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat
>>> intake. It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on
>>> low fat diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised
>>> immune system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the
>>> person on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth
>>> is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know,
>> a very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
>> disease.
>
> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.

Most low fat food is mind-bogglingly high corn syrup food instead.

> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works
> if you don't eat more calories than you expend.

That's true but the point - as I keep saying - is that it's the high protein
and low sugars that produces satiety so most people naturally eat less.

> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion,
> that diets don't work if you don't exercise.

Not true. If you consistently eat below maintenance you will lose weight.
Exercise helps but you can do it on diet alone.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:54 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:kYEZc.357486$%_6.260689@attbi_s01
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can
>> - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>> It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat
>> diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune
>> system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the person
>> on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth is that
>> dietary fats are not the enemy.
>
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a
> very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
> disease.

Tell it to Atkins.

> I have only one personal data point, my father, who after
> many years of poor diet, smoking, and no exercise, had an
> angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet (<10% fat),
> successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

It sounds like he would have benefited from any non-retarded eating plan.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries
> for others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues
> regarding quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the
> current findings are hardly a "great lie".

The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie. The idea that you can keep
on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is a great
lie.

> Most expectations of
> people adopting low fat diets seemed to be for weight control, any
> nutritionist would tell you that total calories are what counts
> there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced calories varies among
> individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no clear
> statistical winner.

People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not constantly
battling hunger.

> The long term health consequences of some of
> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
> evangelicalism.

That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one and it's
just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to confront the
truth even when it's right in front of their faces. Low carb's been around
for decades and we know damn well what the long term consequences are. You
live healthier.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:54 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:kYEZc.357486$%_6.260689@attbi_s01
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can
>> - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>> It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat
>> diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune
>> system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the person
>> on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth is that
>> dietary fats are not the enemy.
>
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a
> very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
> disease.

Tell it to Atkins.

> I have only one personal data point, my father, who after
> many years of poor diet, smoking, and no exercise, had an
> angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet (<10% fat),
> successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

It sounds like he would have benefited from any non-retarded eating plan.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries
> for others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues
> regarding quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the
> current findings are hardly a "great lie".

The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie. The idea that you can keep
on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is a great
lie.

> Most expectations of
> people adopting low fat diets seemed to be for weight control, any
> nutritionist would tell you that total calories are what counts
> there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced calories varies among
> individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no clear
> statistical winner.

People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not constantly
battling hunger.

> The long term health consequences of some of
> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
> evangelicalism.

That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one and it's
just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to confront the
truth even when it's right in front of their faces. Low carb's been around
for decades and we know damn well what the long term consequences are. You
live healthier.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:54 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:kYEZc.357486$%_6.260689@attbi_s01
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can
>> - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>> It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat
>> diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune
>> system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the person
>> on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth is that
>> dietary fats are not the enemy.
>
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a
> very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
> disease.

Tell it to Atkins.

> I have only one personal data point, my father, who after
> many years of poor diet, smoking, and no exercise, had an
> angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet (<10% fat),
> successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

It sounds like he would have benefited from any non-retarded eating plan.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries
> for others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues
> regarding quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the
> current findings are hardly a "great lie".

The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie. The idea that you can keep
on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is a great
lie.

> Most expectations of
> people adopting low fat diets seemed to be for weight control, any
> nutritionist would tell you that total calories are what counts
> there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced calories varies among
> individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no clear
> statistical winner.

People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not constantly
battling hunger.

> The long term health consequences of some of
> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
> evangelicalism.

That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one and it's
just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to confront the
truth even when it's right in front of their faces. Low carb's been around
for decades and we know damn well what the long term consequences are. You
live healthier.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:54 AM

"Peter Cole" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote in message
news:kYEZc.357486$%_6.260689@attbi_s01
> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can
>> - should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>> It's the Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat
>> diets suffer for it with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune
>> system and so on. As I keep saying, you can always tell the person
>> on the low fat diet because they look like ****. The truth is that
>> dietary fats are not the enemy.
>
> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
> US. As far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a
> very low fat diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v
> disease.

Tell it to Atkins.

> I have only one personal data point, my father, who after
> many years of poor diet, smoking, and no exercise, had an
> angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal" diet (<10% fat),
> successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy > 20 years
> later (age 85).

It sounds like he would have benefited from any non-retarded eating plan.

> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries
> for others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues
> regarding quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the
> current findings are hardly a "great lie".

The idea that fats make you fat is a great lie. The idea that you can keep
on reducing your dietary fats intake without harming your health is a great
lie.

> Most expectations of
> people adopting low fat diets seemed to be for weight control, any
> nutritionist would tell you that total calories are what counts
> there. What diet is best for tolerating reduced calories varies among
> individuals, and the studies I've read to date show no clear
> statistical winner.

People stay on high protein diets longer because they're not constantly
battling hunger.

> The long term health consequences of some of
> these diets are unknown, which I think should temper the
> evangelicalism.

That's a backhanded swipe at low carb diets if ever I've seen one and it's
just bull**** scaremongering from people who are afraid to confront the
truth even when it's right in front of their faces. Low carb's been around
for decades and we know damn well what the long term consequences are. You
live healthier.

--

A: Top-posters.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?

09-02-2004, 07:55 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:09:18 GMT, the black rose
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can -
>>> should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>>> It's the
>>> Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat diets suffer
>>> for it
>>> with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune system and so on. As I
>>> keep
>>> saying, you can always tell the person on the low fat diet because
>>> they look
>>> like ****. The truth is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As
>> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low
>> fat
>> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease.

There is absolutely no evidence that a low fat diet reverses c-v disease.
Moreover, if that were true, why are blood values better on low carb than
on low fat?

> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.
>
> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works if
> you don't eat more calories than you expend.
>
> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion, that
> diets don't work if you don't exercise. I don't know about you guys,
> but the only people I've known who lost a lot of weight and kept it off
> were the ones who changed their lifestyles and started exercising.
>
> -km
>

The problem with low fat diets is that some people, like me, are or become
insulin resistant on them. Insulin is much, much more of a problem than
eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total hogwash. Pasta and
rice simply should not be consumed at the levels recommended by the food
pyramid. Moreover, fats are not bad. Finally, I worked out almost as
much on low fat as I do on low carb. The only time this wasn't true was
when I got injured and couldn't exercise. That's when the 400-500 grams
of carbs per day really begin taking their toll on you. That's when you
realize how much your blood sugar shoots up when you eat pasta or rice.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

09-02-2004, 07:55 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:09:18 GMT, the black rose
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can -
>>> should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>>> It's the
>>> Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat diets suffer
>>> for it
>>> with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune system and so on. As I
>>> keep
>>> saying, you can always tell the person on the low fat diet because
>>> they look
>>> like ****. The truth is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As
>> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low
>> fat
>> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease.

There is absolutely no evidence that a low fat diet reverses c-v disease.
Moreover, if that were true, why are blood values better on low carb than
on low fat?

> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.
>
> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works if
> you don't eat more calories than you expend.
>
> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion, that
> diets don't work if you don't exercise. I don't know about you guys,
> but the only people I've known who lost a lot of weight and kept it off
> were the ones who changed their lifestyles and started exercising.
>
> -km
>

The problem with low fat diets is that some people, like me, are or become
insulin resistant on them. Insulin is much, much more of a problem than
eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total hogwash. Pasta and
rice simply should not be consumed at the levels recommended by the food
pyramid. Moreover, fats are not bad. Finally, I worked out almost as
much on low fat as I do on low carb. The only time this wasn't true was
when I got injured and couldn't exercise. That's when the 400-500 grams
of carbs per day really begin taking their toll on you. That's when you
realize how much your blood sugar shoots up when you eat pasta or rice.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

09-02-2004, 07:55 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:09:18 GMT, the black rose
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can -
>>> should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>>> It's the
>>> Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat diets suffer
>>> for it
>>> with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune system and so on. As I
>>> keep
>>> saying, you can always tell the person on the low fat diet because
>>> they look
>>> like ****. The truth is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As
>> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low
>> fat
>> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease.

There is absolutely no evidence that a low fat diet reverses c-v disease.
Moreover, if that were true, why are blood values better on low carb than
on low fat?

> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.
>
> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works if
> you don't eat more calories than you expend.
>
> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion, that
> diets don't work if you don't exercise. I don't know about you guys,
> but the only people I've known who lost a lot of weight and kept it off
> were the ones who changed their lifestyles and started exercising.
>
> -km
>

The problem with low fat diets is that some people, like me, are or become
insulin resistant on them. Insulin is much, much more of a problem than
eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total hogwash. Pasta and
rice simply should not be consumed at the levels recommended by the food
pyramid. Moreover, fats are not bad. Finally, I worked out almost as
much on low fat as I do on low carb. The only time this wasn't true was
when I got injured and couldn't exercise. That's when the 400-500 grams
of carbs per day really begin taking their toll on you. That's when you
realize how much your blood sugar shoots up when you eat pasta or rice.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

09-02-2004, 07:55 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 14:09:18 GMT, the black rose
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> Peter Cole wrote:
>> "DRS" <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ].ihug.com.au> wrote
>>
>>> Yes, but too many people don't understand that. They think they can -
>>> should - just keep reducing and reducing their dietery fat intake.
>>> It's the
>>> Great Lie of the low fat movement and people on low fat diets suffer
>>> for it
>>> with bad skin, bad hair, a compromised immune system and so on. As I
>>> keep
>>> saying, you can always tell the person on the low fat diet because
>>> they look
>>> like ****. The truth is that dietary fats are not the enemy.
>>
>>
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As
>> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low
>> fat
>> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease.

There is absolutely no evidence that a low fat diet reverses c-v disease.
Moreover, if that were true, why are blood values better on low carb than
on low fat?

> You know, from what I understand, lowering fat didn't help the obesity
> problem in the US largely because obese people were still eating too
> much, it's just that they were eating too much low-fat food instead of
> too much full-fat food.
>
> I'm NOT saying that's what Bob in CT was doing, k? But it *was* one
> general trend. I think the same people who overate on low-fat are now
> overeating on low-carb. "I don't have to count calories as long as I
> count carbs." I've heard it and read it. Problem is, it only works if
> you don't eat more calories than you expend.
>
> The root of the problem is, in my only partially informed opinion, that
> diets don't work if you don't exercise. I don't know about you guys,
> but the only people I've known who lost a lot of weight and kept it off
> were the ones who changed their lifestyles and started exercising.
>
> -km
>

The problem with low fat diets is that some people, like me, are or become
insulin resistant on them. Insulin is much, much more of a problem than
eating fat. Furthermore, the food pyramid is total hogwash. Pasta and
rice simply should not be consumed at the levels recommended by the food
pyramid. Moreover, fats are not bad. Finally, I worked out almost as
much on low fat as I do on low carb. The only time this wasn't true was
when I got injured and couldn't exercise. That's when the 400-500 grams
of carbs per day really begin taking their toll on you. That's when you
realize how much your blood sugar shoots up when you eat pasta or rice.

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply

09-02-2004, 08:05 AM

On Thu, 02 Sep 2004 09:37:00 -0500, Preston Crawford
<[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:

> On 2004-09-02, Peter Cole <[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]> wrote:
>> It's true that lowering fat hasn't helped the obesity problem in the
>> US. As
>
> I think that's where the Low Carb nuts (and yes, I'll call them nuts
> also,
> equal opportunity) get it wrong. Low Fat hasn't helped people lose weight
> because the way it was done or pushed on people (minimal exercise, lots
> of
> sugary, high glycemic foods instead of fat) wasn't healthy either. I
> think
> there's a happy medium between both extremes. Where you can cut down on
> your fat intake (as I think any sane person would want to do for the
> reasons you mention later) while also making sure to eat some of the
> essential fat they need.

There is absolutely no reason why you can't get all the "healthy" fats you
want on a low carb diet. And, I'm not a nut, though I like them.

>> far as cardio-vascular health goes though, as far as I know, a very low
>> fat
>> diet is the only method demonstrated to reverse c-v disease. I have
>> only one
>> personal data point, my father, who after many years of poor diet,
>> smoking,
>> and no exercise, had an angioplasty, then went on an Ornish "reversal"
>> diet
>> (<10% fat), successfully cleared his arteries, and is heart healthy >
>> 20 years
>> later (age 85).
>
> I've heard that too. About the Ornish diet. It's backed up by plenty of
> evidence. Not just "I feel good", but by thousands of people who have
> gone
> from heart attack sufferers to functioning human beings. Ornish just
> isn't
> a household name like Atkins because he doesn't slap his name on
> products.
> Hard to do that when your "products" you push are fruits, veggies and
> whole grains.

Orish is not backed up, by any evidence. Zero. I ate Ornish for years,
and I have better blood chemistry now (low carb) than on Ornish.

>> Weight control is a problem for some, blood sugar or clogged arteries
>> for
>> others. The medical mainstream jury is still out on some issues
>> regarding
>> quality and quantity of fat in the diet, but I think the current
>> findings are
>> hardly a "great lie". Most expectations of people adopting low fat diets
>
> You don't understand, though. That's what makes the Low Carbers feel
> better. They act like they've figured out something all those fancy-pants
> doctors haven't figured out. I think it feels to some people to think
> they're smarter than others, especially doctors. Me, I just want to base
> my diet on solid science and evidence. And if that means I need a little
> meat, so be it. If that means I stick mostly with carbs, however, same
> thing, so be it.

Eat whatever you want. Your diet isn't based on solid evidence.
Seriously. Check it out -- do the research. Here are some places to
start (see [Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

High Carbohydrate Diets, Triglyceride-Rich Lipoproteins, and Coronary
Heart Disease Risk (Journal Abstract) Added on: 12/3/2002 Hits: 589
From Stanford University and the journal American Journal of Cardiology,
2000: Stanford researchers compared the effects of two diets. One diet was
high carbohydrate (60%) and low fat (25%). The second diet was lower
carbohydrate (40%) and higher fat (45%). They found that group who ate the
high carbohydrate, low fat diet had higher tryglyceride levels and higher
cholesterol levels. Their LDL ("bad cholesterol") did not change. The
researchers concluded that "...it seems appropriate to question the wisdom
of recommending that all Americans should replace dietary fat with
carbohydrate." [This link takes you to an error page at Science Direct.
Click on the JOURNAL tab at the top of the page --> Select THE AMERICAN
JOURNAL OF CARDIOLOGY --> VOLUME 85 --> Issue 1 (January 2000) -->PAGES
45-48]

Lipids, Carbohydrates, and Heart Disease (Scientific Statement) Added on:
1/30/2004 Hits: 346
From the State University of New York in Buffalo and the journal Metabolic
Syndrome and Related Disorders, 2003: In this excellent summary, three
researchers review the existing data on dietary fat and carbohydrate in
relation to heart disease. They conclude that glycemic load and
carbohydrate intake is clearly related to heart disease and type 2
diabetes. They state, "In view of the above observations about the effects
of carbohydrates on oxidative stress and inflammation, it is of interest
that Dr. Atkins foresaw the potential ill effects of carbohydrates in
terms of atherogenesis and heart disease decades earlier." (Adobe Acrobat
Reader Required)

Insulin resistance and Risk for Stroke (Journal Abstract) Added on:
9/26/2002 Hits: 165
From Yale University and the journal Neurology, 2002: Researchers from the
Yale School of Medicine reviewed studies published between 1977 and 2001
that related to insulin resistance and stroke. They concluded that there
is a prevalent connection between chronically high insulin levels (insulin
resistance) and stroke.

Effect of High-Carbohydrate Feeding on Triglyceride and Saturated Fatty
Acid Synthesis (Journal Abstract) Added on: 9/25/2002 Hits: 337
From the Rockefeller University in New York and the journal Proceedings of
the Society for Experimental Biology and Medicine, 2000: A researcher
reviews a series of studies that investigate the connection between high
carbohydrate meals and increased triglyceride levels. The researcher
concluded that very low fat, high carbohydrate diets increases the levels
of triglycerides in the blood in both lean and overweight people. She also
concluded that higher fat diets (30% fat or more) decreases triglyceride
levels. She recommended that public dietary recommendations be revised to
take into account the effects of carbohydrate, especially simple
carbohydrate, on triglyceride levels.

Relationship Between Obesity, Insulin Resistance, and Coronary Heart
Disease Risk (Journal Abstract) Added on: 9/18/2002 Hits: 238
From Stanford University and The Journal of American College of
Cardiology, 2002: A group of Stanford researchers, including Dr. Gerald
Reaven, studied the effects of obesity and insulin resistance on cardiac
disease. They measured insulin levels, glucose levels, blood pressure,
total cholesterol, triglycerides, HDL and LDL cholesterol levels in the
study volunteers. They concluded that a chronically elevated glucose level
(insulin resistance) is a risk factor for both cardiac disease and
diabetes that is as powerful as obesity.

Insulin, Insulin-Like Growth Factors and Colon Cancer: A Review of the
Evidence (Journal Abstract) Added on: 7/10/2002 Hits: 284
From Harvard University and The Journal of Nutrition, 2001: This Harvard
researcher reviewed over 250 studies relating to insulin and insulin-like
growth factors and their affects on colon cancer growth. He concluded that
there is strong evidence that high carbohydrate intake and high insulin
production fosters colon cancer growth.

Dietary Fat Intake and Endogenous Sex Steroid Hormone Levels in
Postmenopausal Women (Journal Abstract) Added on: 8/25/2003 Hits: 116
From Harvard University and the International Union Against Cancer
Information Services, 2000: A team of researchers from the Harvard
Department of Nutrition studied 381 postmenopausal women for 4 years. They
reviewed the association between the women's intake of dietary fat and
their levels of sex hormones, including estrogen. They found that there
was no association between dietary fat intake and elevated estrogen. In
fact, they found that the *less* dietary fat the women in the study ate,
the more likely they were to have elevated estrogen, quite to the surprise
of the researchers. They concluded that these results are "inconsistent
with the hypothesis that fat intake predisposes to breast cancer risk by
raising endogenous estrogen levels.

The Healing Power of Your Fork: A Brain Tumor Survivor's Eating Plan
(Advisory Statement) Added on: 7/11/2002 Hits: 556
From The National Brain Tumor Foundation, 2002: This national foundation
instructs brain tumor survivors to avoid sugars and other high fiber, high
glycemic foods because of the scientific evidence that sugar accelerates
tumor growth. They also warn patients to avoid low fat diets because of
evidence that selected dietary fats are beneficial in slowing tumor growth
and decreasing siezure activity. (Adobe Acrobat Reader required) If you
get an error page, go to the home page at [Only registered and activated users can see links. ] and
click on the "patient info" link, click on the "publication & newsletter"
hyperlink and choose the third "fact sheet" hyperlink.

Changes In Renal Function During Weight Loss Induced by High vs
Low-Protein Low-Fat Diets in Overweight Subjects (Journal Abstract) Added
on: 7/12/2002 Hits: 1558
From the Royal Veterinary and Agricultural University, Denmark and the
International Journal of Obesity, 1999: The researchers conducted this
study to assess the renal affects of high vs low protein diets. They found
moderate adaptive alterations in renal size but found no indications of
adverse affects on kidney function.

A Randomized Trial of a Low-Carbohydrate Diet for Obesity (Journal
Abstract) Added on: 6/26/2003 Hits: 2253
From the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center, Washington University
in St. Louis, The University of Colorado, and The New England Journal of
Medicine, 2003: These multi-center researchers conducted a 12 months study
of a low carbohydrate, high protein diet with the conventional high
carbohydrate, low fat, low calorie diet. They found that the low
carbohydrate group lost more weight at 3, 6 and 12 months and had lower
triglyceride levels, and improved HDL cholesterol levels ("good"
cholesterol).

A Low-Carbohydrate as Compared with a Low-Fat Diet in Severe Obesity
(Journal Abstract) Added on: 6/26/2003 Hits: 1454
From the University of Pennsylvania Medical Center and The New England
Journal of Medicine, 2003: A team of medical researchers compared the
effects of a very low carbohydrate diet with the effects of a traditional
low fat, low calorie diet among obese multi-racial men and women, some of
which had diabetes and metabolic syndrome. At the end of 6 months, the low
carbohydrate diet participants lost more weight, had greater drops in
triglyceride levels, and improved insulin sensitivity.

There are tons more.

See:

[Only registered and activated users can see links. ]

--
Bob in CT
Remove ".x" to reply