Posted by larryhoover on December 27, 2012, at 18:18:48
In reply to Re: Bifidobacteria reduce depression, posted by Trotter on December 27, 2012, at 17:15:41
> > The studies I first referenced make clear that the inflammatory markers are not caused by high fat intake, but arise from refined carbs. Recent work has broken the confound.
> >Unfortunately, you still have not appreciated the point I've been trying to make. Let me try again.
The combination of high fat/high carb is very unhealthy. It leads to all those inflammatory responses that we know contribute to a host of diseases.
Traditionally, studies have ignored carbohydrates in the dietary analysis. If you control for that variable, you see the real problem, which is that insulin changes all the body's metabolic parameters adversely.
If you provide a high-fat diet, but compare it under two conditions, low-carb, and high-carb, you will find that only the high-fat/high-carb combination leads to adverse effects. In fact, the high-fat/low-carb diet also has superior outcomes when compared to low-fat diets of any format.
> This review highlights the inflammatory and insulin-antagonizing effects of saturated fatty acids (SFA), which contribute to the development of metabolic syndrome.
>
> Several studies have demonstrated potential health benefits of substituting SFA with unsaturated FA, particularly oleic acid and (n-3) FA. Thus, reducing consumption of foods rich in SFA and increasing consumption of whole grains, fruits, vegetables, lean meats and poultry, fish, low-fat dairy products, and oils containing oleic acid or (n-3) FA is likely to reduce the incidence of metabolic disease.
>
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19056664This review does not consider the carb intake, which is never controlled scientifically. They mis-attribute the adverse findings to fat, when the independent variable responsible for the adverse outcomes is high-carbs. And they interpret everything in this misleading way.
For example, the main study blames saturated fat intake for crap happening, but this is what the underlying reference actually says:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18394213?dopt=Abstract
"Most studies (twelve of fifteen) found no effect relating to fat quality on insulin sensitivity. However, multiple study design flaws limit the validity of this conclusion. In contrast, one of the better designed studies found that consumption of a high-saturated-fat diet decreased insulin sensitivity in comparison to a high-monounsaturated-fat diet."> http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0012191
> http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0047713
Both of these are: rodent studies; ignore carbohydrate effects; measure the situation after the carb-induced damage is done. I reiterate, a high-fat diet is only dangerous if it is also high-carb.
When a "traditional" diet study compares the high-fat and low-fat diet, they usually don't specify the carbs. But if they do, it is never equivalent to the carb-restricted diets I've been referencing. You have to take insulin out of the picture, or you've got a confounded (meaningless) study, in the context of the fat.
Lar
poster:larryhoover
thread:1033371
URL: http://www.dr-bob.org/babble/20121217/msgs/1034000.html