Higher-fat diet may not be as big a problem as assumed
posted at 1:45 pm on June 1, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
If you’ve struggled with weight control for most of your life as I have, you’ve probably gotten advice from doctors to avoid fats in your diet for better vascular health. A new study suggests that low-fat diets may not do much at all for vascular health, however, except to get in the way of weight reduction — which is actually the best goal for hearts and arteries. Exercise combined with a low-carbohydrate diet that ignores fat content sheds weight the fastest and makes people healthier more quickly:
Low-carbohydrate diets that require patients to fill up on fats won’t lead to harder arteries, researchers say — at least not in the short-term.
Those who lost 10 pounds after curbing their carb intake had no differences in arterial stiffness than those on a more traditional, low-fat diet, Dr. Kerry Stewart of Johns Hopkins and colleagues reported at the American College of Sports Medicine meeting in Denver. …
Some researchers have raised concerns that replacing carbs with fats may have adverse effects on blood vessels, especially since promoting consumption of fats runs “counter to what the public has been told [about reducing fat intake] for the last 20 or so years,” Stewart said.
Yet studies have shown that a low-carb diet can have positive effects on blood pressure, cholesterol, and other parameters that may reduce the risk of the artery disease atherosclerosis and subsequent heart disease.
This doesn’t mean that those who are overweight can start stuffing themselves on heavy fats with abandon, of course. It does mean that the thrust of medical advice and in some cases public policy may be misguided, though. For instance, the new data strongly suggests that the bans on trans-fats in New York City and Los Angeles restaurants are much less meaningful in terms of public health than their nanny-state backers claim.
How much less meaningful? ABC News offers this example from another study:
In a companion study, 66 patients had no changes in endothelial function after eating a 900-calorie, 50-grams-of-fat meal from McDonald’s. In fact, arterial stiffness significantly improved by 16 percent after that feast, the researchers found.
“It really seemed to make the arteries relax more, but we’re not entirely sure how,” Stewart said. “We’ll have to look more deeply into that.”
The best way to control weight is to eat less and exercise more, and the best targets for reduction in diet are carbohydrates. Low-carb diets use more meats (and vegetables and fruits), which means a higher intake of fat, but exercise and careful selection of meat can balance that effect. Many of us have already come to that conclusion through trial and error anyway, but the new study shows that higher consumption of meat doesn’t hurt vascular health — and that tilting towards protein rather than carbs gives people a faster path to overall health.
The McDonald’s test shows us just how much we have to learn about the connections between diet and health in the short term, let alone the long term. That’s why it’s a bad idea to put current assumptions into fixed public policy. Let the scientists continue to look more deeply into those connections, and let the individual make the choices of what to eat and when.









Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2
I’m thinking that before too long we’ll all be on a diet.
We have plastic rice, meat glue, pink slime, GMO crops, and now test tube-grown hamburger.
Remember, Tuesday is Soylent Green day.
Dr. ZhivBlago on June 1, 2011 at 5:25 PM
Yeah, that Rush has got nothing going for him. Unless you count common sense.
Amazing just how far it’s carried him.
There Goes The Neighborhood on June 1, 2011 at 5:28 PM
The government and “health experts” have been so full of shit for so long that anyone who listens to anything they say is a fool. The fact is that eating food is healthy. People who don’t eat food die. End of story. Your health is more a condition of your genes than what you eat or any exercise you might do.
woodNfish on June 1, 2011 at 5:28 PM
Soreness is definitely the biggest downside to high-intensity exercise. Of course, it’s not such a problem for just walking or other light exercise.
I watched “Fat Head” on Hulu a few months back, and it’s a pretty solid take on the subject. The guy lost weight on a McDonald’s diet. He did limit his intake of fries and soft drinks, but not extremely.
It was funny to see his doctor’s reaction on discovering he had been on a McDonald’s diet for several weeks.
There Goes The Neighborhood on June 1, 2011 at 5:35 PM
In truth, we all know what it takes to stay trim and healthy.
Every time we eat 3 rolls before the huge plate of pasta gets there, followed by the slice of cake the size of a human head, we know that we are killing ourselves.
We lie to ourselves by washing all of that down with a toxic, chemical cocktail called Diet Coke and tell ourselves that we are healthy. But we know better.
watson007 on June 1, 2011 at 6:24 PM
What in Diet Coke is toxic to us?
If your answer includes high fructose corn syrup, I’m going to give you a pre-emptive “LOL”.
spinach.chin on June 1, 2011 at 9:15 PM
1. I want to see the raw data of that study.
2. I doubt the research actually exists. Diet studies are incredibly expensive because of the large number of patients required. Large number of patients are required because both control groups and patient compliance is incredibly difficult to maintain.
3. Few diet clinic studies are conducted because there is no incentive to pay for them. Usually, the NIH is the sole sponsor.
4. That wasn’t my point anyway. My point was the nutritionists claimed that it was unhealthy to replace fat (thought to be unhealthy) with carbs (thought to be healthy). They made these claims without sufficient research – which is very typical of both nutritionists and climate scientists.
blink on June 1, 2011 at 9:32 PM
Most of what I wrote came from a layman’s book The Omega Diet by Artemis Simopoulos, M.D. I don’t have a peer reviewed citation. However, Dr.Simopolis chaired the Nutritional Coordinating Committe at the NIH for nine years and co-chaired the Interagency Committee for Human Nutritional Research at the Office of Science and Technology at the White House for five years.
I am a very poor speller. In my prior comment I managed to mispell cis as sis.
burt on June 1, 2011 at 9:40 PM
Watson probably means the aspartame, which while FDA approved, is highly controversial as to effects on health. I would not say it’s toxic, but I do wonder about the health issues because I started having an allergic-type reaction to it a few years ago (numbness in mouth, tight throat, etc.)
BakerAllie on June 1, 2011 at 9:55 PM
And if you read Good Calories Bad Calories you will find out that much if not all that is said about saturated fat is not backed up by any studies. It is entirely conjecture…
PierreLegrand on June 2, 2011 at 11:12 AM
Fixed it for you. The problem is that nutrition studies are incredibly expensive (often much more expensive than pharmaceutical studies), and nobody has the incentive to fund them.
blink on June 2, 2011 at 11:53 AM
The Food Plate reminds me of the Wreckovery logo – sans toilet.
Philly on June 2, 2011 at 8:02 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2