beware LCHF !High-fat diet may put future generations at risk of disease

this  research is from very from Germany .and is from a highly placed laboratory.


Children whose parents consume a high-fat diet are more likely to develop obesity and diabetes, according to research published in Nature Genetics. The study indicates that epigenetic factors are directly transmitted through sperm and eggs.


Obesity / Weight Loss / Fitness


Nutrition / Diet

High-fat diet may put future generations at risk of disease

Written by Yvette Brazier

Published: Saturday 19 March 2016




Children whose parents consume a high-fat diet are more likely to develop obesity and diabetes, according to research published in Nature Genetics. The study indicates that epigenetic factors are directly transmitted through sperm and eggs.

[High-fat diet]

A high-fat diet can lead to obesity in the next generation, according to researchers.

In recent decades, the world has seen a rise in diabetes so rapid that it seems unlikely that DNA mutations are to blame.

Epigenetic inheritance, on the other hand, could offer some explanation as to the sudden expansion of the condition.

While parents transmit genetic information to their children through DNA, scientists now believe that epigenetic modifications may also be passed on to the offspring's genetic material.

Epigenetic inheritance refers to the passing on of traits that do not feature in the DNA, or genes. Epigenetic information is currently thought to involve RNA transcripts and chemical modifications of the chromatin.

Could environmental influences on parents affect their children?

According to the authors of the current study, both Jean-Baptiste Lamarck and Charles Darwin hypothesized that parents could pass on to their children traits that they acquire as a result of exposure to environmental influences.

However, the extent to which environmental conditions impact future outcomes remains unclear.

Factors that affect the offspring's future health outcomes are thought to include what the mother consumes while she is pregnant or lactating, which molecules are present in the father's semen and the microbiota of either parent.

Peter Huypens, of Helmholtz Zentrum München in Germany, and colleagues fed mice a high-fat, low-fat or normal diet over a period of 6 weeks. The mice were genetically identical.

Mice that consumed a high-fat diet developed obesity and glucose intolerance.

The team then created a new generation by implanting embryos using sperm and eggs from the mice that had eaten different diets into healthy surrogate mothers.

The use of surrogates enabled them to separate environmental factors from the epigenetic factors that were present only in the sperm or eggs.

Parental diet impacts offspring's susceptibility

The new generation of mice then consumed a high-fat diet.

Offspring of two obese parents gained significantly more weight on a high-fat diet than those with only one obese parent. Offspring of two lean parents gained the least weight on a high-fat diet. Similar patterns emerged for glucose intolerance.

However, female offspring were more prone to severe obesity, while males were more affected by blood glucose levels than females.

Maternal influence also appeared to be greater than that of the father. Lead author Prof. Johannes Beckers says this is also true for humans.

The authors conclude that epigenetic factors in gametes play an important role in passing on the risk of obesity and diabetes from parents to offspring.

Prof. Martin Hrabě de Angelis, director of the Institute of Experimental Genetics (IEG), who initiated the study, says:

    "This kind of epigenetic inheritance of a metabolic disorder due to an unhealthy diet could be another major cause for the dramatic global increase in the prevalence of diabetes since the 1960s."

The researchers believe this is the first study to demonstrate that offspring can inherit an acquired metabolic disorder epigenetically, through eggs and sperm, in keeping with the theories of Lamarck and Darwin.

Medical News Today recently reported on the establishment of microbiota in infants. The inherited microbiome is thought to affect children's chance of developing conditions such as obesity in later life.

Written by Yvette Brazier

79 Replies

  • what about carbs ...??

  • please remember ,

    the research is an animal study.

    but the great professors are telling they are true for humans.

    at last, after many centuries, something in favor of the great Lamarchian law of development.

  • MICE?

    Not again please.  We are humans and we don't eat hydrogenated corn oil or hydrogenated coconut oil.

    Get some 20:20:60 research please and on HUMANS. Not these caged mice studies fed with hydrogenated corn oil etc. We don't eat that.

    Scaremongering never works as we can differentiate between Good Science & Bad Science. We don't need professors to help us in seeing medical reports. We are actually sick of these rat studies as it proves absolutely nothing and adds more to nuisance value than any science :)

    Tell the professors to study HUMANS on LCHF diet on any diabetes forum in the world -- Like Dr Unwin did ;)

    As I keep saying, your understanding of LCHF is entirely wrong. Get some 20:20:60 research on humans. Carbs 20% max, Good fat 60% minimum, protein as usual - 15%-20% range.

  • I agree with anup. i too take lot of saturated fat and less carbohydrate. my tg reduced from 380 to 140 and ldl is 117 hdl 37 (of-course it is less). i don't take any medicine except bp tablets. we should not follow others blindly. we have to test ourselves. the researches will be conflicting always. we should not be adamant on our theory. don't criticize lchf. there are many people practicing it and getting good result. may be for some people lchf does not work. it does not mean that it is bad. my request to the members who are practicing lchf  plz share ur experience and views.

  • "We can't prove LCHF is harmful to people, so we'll study animals. We can't prove it's harmful to this generation (though we've been telling you it is for fifty years) so we'll worry you about your children. We'll attempt to keep worrying you about this theory by using artificial fats instead of natural fats. We have hard evidence that excess insulin is harmful, and we don't advise anything about that!"

  • In short -- SCAREMONGERING.

    Does it work?



    Because with every generation people are becoming wiser and google is helping make lot of decisions. Because for every 1 professor doing these rehashing of research there are 10 (or more) humans on LCHF diet talking about ground realities :)

    LEPTIN Injections worked on MICE and failed on HUMANS.

  • But people in this forum are already diabetes is in genes of off-springs already :D it in healthy eating forum ;)

  • You've Got a valid point :)

    Every time I post a success story, I expect a failure story based on MICE cand caged rats. This must be 5th caged rat story in 3 months. Nice to read but bo value and nothing new as such. This has been happening and being rehashed over and over again since more than a decade. :)

  • And mice never bother about their future generations, whatever they eat  :) ...we seem to bother more about our future generations when we observe mice and its future generations...rather than observing our own human race :D :D  

  • 2 decades of human study data shows something else. Heart attack patients are getting younger. Brilliant achievement?

    Lovely impact of balanced diet -- HIGH CARB LOW FAT nonsense that USDA has been pushing since decades.

    Obviously they won't blame the diet. They may blame the diet of great grandparents and try and find some link -- say wrt height difference between parents and CVD/CHD in next generations. Regression analysis can prove anything once we learn the art of data cherry picking ;)

  • Indiacratus

    Unless I am overlooking something the link you provided talks about a high fat diet in general and not specifically about LCHF. The "general diet" studies typically consider populations who consume moderate to high amounts of carbs in addition to high fats. Yes put someone on a pizza diet -- diet loaded with carbs, fats and proteins. It will lead to obesity and all the other things the research found out.

    You probably know by now that I am against patronization of any specific diet, person, medical profession etc. I am always open to looking at "true facts" and interesting in learning new things. In this case I am afraid you are comparing apples with oranges because this is not a research specific to LCHF. My apologies if I didn't understand the article correctly and it indeed is specific to LCHF.

    Good health to all.

  • the only term comparable to lchf,

    in my knowledge,

    comparable to something defined by an authoritative medical body,

     is the low carb diet of the ADA.

    it is 130 grams carbs daily and proteins and fat within limits.they don't say high is for weight reduction.

    LCHF is not defined by any scientific body.the term is missing in any university or encyclopedia except a cursory mention in Wikipedia.

    as such random people recommending high fat indiscriminately ,especially the absurdity of praising vco, saturated fats  etc are to be rejected out right.

    as such there is nothing wrong in my usage of the terms 'lchf' and the 'people advocating lchf' as meaning the same thing.

     it is intended by some vested interests trying an unholy experiment in India. such experiments are unethical in europe and usa--poor indians, any diet will walk for them, some people think.

    since the entire world opposes

    saturated fats above a limit this term is a crime to humanity.

    about two years ago i defined a term LCCF. it means

    low carb and compensatory means:

     from a balanced and calorie limited meal if you want to remove some carbs

    then add only a compensatory amount of fat.and that much only.

    i did not recommend it ;but,  did it as something better than the worst.

    [that was for those who think they failed to reduce weight, which is a must in diabetes treatment]

    kindly keep in mind my presentations are in the style of a theorem in high school geometry.i believe all scientific discourse should be like that.quoting from some isolated doctor in the web is not agreeable.

    i do not read  replies by people forming a political group in a science context--  see terms such as 'we lchf-ers,' 'lchf clan' are always seen together with them ,but say you have an open mind!

    hope you have grasped what i mean. thanks for patient listening.

    good luck.


    It's well known what LCHF is.

    No crazy terms like Low Carb Compensatory Fat etc exists. 

    We don't have Low Fat Compensatory Carbs diet. It's high Carb Low Fat.

    Low Carb by default means High Fat. Whole world acknowledges this term. It's surprising that you used LCHF in title. Well holy or unholy, let those who are switching decide it. ADA community forum is also unholy? 

    Emotional appeals will not work. People have brains so let's talk "SCIENCE of Medical Reports." That's what we talk when we are on LCHF diet. Opinion of three or four people here doesn't matter much.

    Our mind is very open so no need to pass a judgment. It was as a result of open mind that we took to LCHF diet. Those who move in group always think that everyone else is in group. Also, whether you reply or not is our concern. We post so that readers get to know all views and then take a call :)

    But, even if you pass a judgment, doesn't matter. We ain't looking for useless certificates here.

    2 more followers added so number of followers that I have now is 151. Your # of followers at 12 since ages. That matters more than any lopsided opinion about we diabetics on LCHF :)

    Entire world opposes? You mean AMA/AHA/ADA and it cousins who sell their logo in return for money? We don't care what they say unless they stop taking truckload money from Drug and Food industry. They are protecting interest of drug and food industry. Science has no business in telling us what to eat. Our plate, Our body, Our money. We decide what we eat not ADA/AMA/AHA and their cousins around the world.

  • Low carb doesn't mean high fat.

    1) Total calories can be reduced without changing the amount of fat taken.

    2) research has to be done sincerely if high fat should be advised and to whom high fat may not be advised. Which fats are good.

    For centuries cow ghee is advocated by Ayurveda. It contains high amout of short chain triglycerides. Any science ?

  • Well Low Carb and Low calorie isn't the same thing by definition. Low Carb has High Fat as always implied.

  • I don't agree.

    There is one theory that if lipids are high in blood the viscosity of the blood increases. The blood flow in the blood vessels becomes sluggish because of high fats. The blood tends to clot because of this sluggish flow. That's why the lipids in blood should be kept in limits. Obviously the scientists incriminated dietary fats. And logical solution then thought was low fat diet. Over years we now realized that low fat diet plans have failed to achieve the results regarding cvd diabetes obesity and other metabolic diseases.

    My view is that if we cut down the calorie intake by reducing the carbs in the diet the proportion of prot and fats would increase because carbs are a major source of the energy in the presently recommended diet 58:12:30  as c :p : f.

  • No we don't agree to what you say wt Dietary FAT and LIPIDS. Don't confuse lipogensis with dietary fat. They mixed up cholesterol with dietary cholesterol and accepted that it was a lie thaty they were pushing for 35 years.

    Go on 20:20:60, watch LIPIDS for as long as you want to watch -- maybe every six months fofr five years, come back with results and we can take this forward.

    60:20:20 is a FAILED diet. Failing since 50 years. Don't eat carbs beyond what ,liver can store as glycogen for a day. Problem is high insulin (carbs) and not dietary fat.

  • That is what i said. Go through my post once again.

    I recommend high fat diet idea should be researched. I don't disagree with you about your lchf diet but the idea of lchf diet should be established by researchers on scientific basis.

    Metabolism is a complex process. It's not like if you cut down carbs and add fats in the diet our body would start utilising fats for the energy. There are some rules our body has set for its energy requirements. Fats are basically for energy storage in case of future severe starvation. One needs to find out by research which fats are used preferably for storage and which ones for instant energy utilisation. To be specific if sct and mct can be utilized for energy or not if we take lchf diet . A research would substantiate your claim and we would not have any fear in our minds of causing damage to any of our followers of lchf diet.

    I do respect your observations on lchf diet but let the scientific research confirm it. Doctors are not so dumb nor everybody has sold their conscience for money. Let the truth prevail.


  • It has been researched many times. But, the problem with mainstream is, that even after analysis on 300,000 for time line of 3 to 30 years, when they find that Saturated fat and CVD has no link, they want more research. This is precisely how a CORRUPT system behaves. There are many studies which debunk the LIPID-Heart theory and SFA-CVD/CHD theory.

    WE LOVE MCT as MCT gets shunted through portal vein to liver where it releases energy.  Diabetics even with Gall Bladder removed are able to handle MCT. Best source of MCT -- Virgin Coconut Oil. We just LOVE this OIL. We love VCO, Butter, Desi Ghee and hate Canola, Sunflower, Safola, Soy and all such so called HEART FRIENDLY oil. They are most damaging for heart -- the so called heart friend oils.

  • Indiacratus

    Good explanation

  • Indiacratus has made a very elaborate and convincing explanation in the matter of low carb and compensatory diet.

    The calorie limit as prescribed by doctor should always be the criteria.

    If the prescription is 2400kcals ,the normal carbohydrate at 60% would be 1440kcl (converted @4kclper gram equals 360 grams).and 20% normal fat would be equal to 480kcl (converted @ 9kclper gram equals to 53.33 grams).

    If for any reason carbohydrate portion is reduced to 130 grams (520kcl).the deficit of 230 gram (920kcl) of carbohydrate can be added to fat portion which (@9kcl per gram will equal to 102.22grams )

    In otherwords the total fat intake should be limited to 155.55 grams..(1440kcl.

    In short the total kcl limit of 2400 kcl recommended diet protocol should be the optimum limit.One can round of fat in terms of grams to ensure the kcl intake does not exceed 1440kcl in any case .

    This is the correct understanding of what india cratus meant.

    The controversy raised by high fat proponets is they do not count calories and eat to satiety. In that case since fat is calorie dense (almost 2.25 times of carb) there is a possibility of overeating beyond total recommended kcl limit of 2400kcl.if eating to satiety is the criteria..They say  they do not overeat. How do they do it is not clear .

  • Yes we don't count calories and eat to satiety and we do not eat 2400 kcal also -- for sure. Explanation is not at all convincing for anyone living by LCHF diet :)

    Overeating is not possible and this can only be understood by guys who live on that diet. We don't count calories at all and have ZERO Hunger pangs. Ask anyone on and they will tell you the same thing. Give up WHEAT and your hunger will reduce further.

    Over eating is a gift of:


    where eating 8 times a day is a FASHION and they can never understand LCHF unless experienced personally ;)

    Satiety is in the brain ;)

  • Anupji.

    We have to count calorie intake also because obesity is a major cause for t2 diabetes. This obesity develops because of overeating. Obese people are obsessive eaters. So calorie counting along with amt of cabs prot and fats is necessary.

  • Overeating is because of insulin (sugar) spikes and crashes. We on LCHF have never counted calories. We say, eat when hungry and eat to satiety. Overeating is a GIFT of Stupid DIET:

    HIGH CARB LOW FAT nonsense.

    Also, wheat loaded everywhere.

  • The calorie requirement should be far less the 2400 for diabetics

  • Calorie counting is a FAILED concept.

  • how much as per your experience?

  • Depends on the physical activities one is doing.

    For a sedentary worker 1400-1600 calories are enough. One more thing i'd like to elaborate is that body always compensates by reduction in BMR if the calorie intake is reduced . So reduced calorie intake doesn't necessarily result in weight reduction. You have to increase your bmi by exercise.

  • BMR will also depends on diet. 

    BMR highest for Keto > LCHF > HCLF. Dr Peter Attia has proved this while he dissected data of one of the studies.

  • Again studies.

    Bmr doesn't solely depend on diet. There are many factors right from genes to the physical activity to  exercise affecting bmr. Some people have high bmr naturally. We see many people eat a lot but their weight don't increase even if they are sedentary workers. Some eat less but can't control their body weight. Yes bmr is connected to the food in case of starvation. In this situation body has to conserve energy and so bmr gets low. But reverse is not true. If you eat more bmr doesn't increase but body saves the extra calories eaten in form of fat.

    These are only overviews. Exact mechanism of body metabolism is very complex.

  • Given the same person, BMR will vary depending on diet (HC/LC/Keto). Same person cited to eliminate all other extraneous variables like genes etc.

    As long as obesity is just being thought of as calorie in/out one is way off from, reality. Haven't seen any expert here talk about insulin and it's role in obesity, weight gain etc.

    CAN MCT's (from VCO) be STORED?

    What happens if I take 45 ml VCO? What happens to the MCT part? Does it (or can it) get stored?

  • Of course. Insulin is an anabolic hormone. It facilitates glucose utilisation by fat cells and muscles. It not only causes fat formation but also muscle development and glycogen formation.

    But insulin causes extra glucose to be converted into fats and glycogen. Whereas glycogen is instantly available to be converted to glucose during the short starvation say between lunch and dinner, fats are available as energy source in case of prolonged starvation of days as in femine.

  • And what happens to MCT (say from 3 Tablespoon of VCO -- for academic purpose ~390 kcal)? ~60% VCO is MCT

    Does MCT ever get stored?  Dr Attia says MCT cannot be stored and they have to be disposed off. So, this is first example if how calorie-in/out fails if MCT cannot be stored and we on LCHF have VCO in diet by and large :)

    MCT it is said is shunted thru portal vein to liver where it is converted to ketones for energy.

  • Can you share some information about sct found in cow and goat ghee?

  • Right. Mct has triple benefit.

    1) lower calorie content

    2) minimally stored as fat

    3) enhances the metabolism.

    All three actions helpful in weight control

  • (1) Well it's SFA so cal will be 9. In fact MCT is 10% less than LCT. So, if one eats 300 kcal worth of MCT, it's out of the calorie in/out equation. It doesn't get stored.

    (2) It doesn't get stored so the classical CALORIE IN/Out theory of DIET -- FAILS. This is why we say Calorie counting is USELESS theory  :)

    (3) If MCT ups the metabolism it also means it ups the BMR. So diet has a role in BMR Keto > LCHF > HCLF in decreasing order ;)

    Just hope that someone doesn't say that VCO / MCT theory is all false as it is not there in encyclopedia :)

  • Good feed back.thanks@suramo

  • Suramo

    On the basis 1400 kcl limit ,the working of ratio of carb:prot:fat works as under in terms of grams

    1) 60:20:20 formula – 210:70:34

    2) 20:20:60 formula— 70:70: 94

    There is an argument that those following formal @2 above do not count calories but eat to ‘satiety” and further the fat portion of 94 grms is minimum.

    Do you think, as a doctor and a diabetic., it is okay and it is not overeating.? What is the definition “satiety”? Is it eating full stomach or anything different from medical point of view.”

    Can you apply your mind and educate on this?

  • Yes we don't ever count calories. Eat as much as you can and yet weight falls till body finds its comfortable weight. We don't tell anyone to start starving.

    Calorie counting is useless Some will say 1400 other will say 2400 to eat. What's the basis of these numbers? No one knows precisely and has too many assumptions built in :)

    try LCHF for 3 months and you would also start believing that calories counting is useless theory. It's a nonsense that has come from food industry to cover the obesity epidemic on High Carb Low fat nonsensical dietary advise.

    Satiety : Eat till feel full. Forget the calories. Doesn't work on HCLF because hunger Pangs will drive overeating.

  • calorie count is not needed. take whatever food u like and test it. effect of food on our body and health is very important. there are parameter to monitor health vs food. i take lot of fat(not fried items)  my weight reduced from 67 kg to 63 (i am not overweight). i test my blood every 3 months. when i started taking sweets my hba1c increased from 5.8 to 6.86. we have to be little cautious about the diet.


  • Eating to satiety is not my view nor ayurveda support this view. It's long been preached by ayurveda ( i'm not talking about half literate ayu doctors) that one should eat only half stomachful. 1/4 for Fluid and rest 1/4 to be kept empty.

    Also i don't recommend 60:20:20 diet. I think this kind of diet may have been developed because carbs are cheaper than prots and fats.

  • Stomach can expand to 10X it's size? 

    So half stomach full of which size? Empty or stretched? And how exactly do we know about volumetric computations?

    Satiety signalling -- does it have something also to do with stomach stretch besides other variables?

    Oh satiety/hunger: If you get a chance try this:

    Person 1: Feed 300 kcal Uncle lays chips (or maybe Kurkure snacks).

    Person 2: 300 kcal of Egg Omelet.

    See who comes running faster asking for more food due to hunger. That will give a clue who will add fat faster and how satiety is important and what is driving obesity :)

  • I don't know if stomach expands 10 times. But one should not eat till esophagus is full.

    Well i don't recommend junk food like lays or kurkure.

    I am not against you. I agree that mct fat is helpful to the diabetics. It has many positive effects on metabolism.

  • Dear indiacratus

    fine. We all agree that carbs should be cut down.

    As far as HF is concerned the medical fraternity should do intense research and find out what should replace carbs. Also do we need to compensate the calory deficit due to low carbs?

     If fats to be added to compensate the calorie deficit which fats and in what amout. 

    It's a duty of medical fraternity to find out what is good for diabetics

  • they have done  all such research through centuries and concluded the modern balanced diet.

    only thing is, it is unknown to many people here and outside this forum.

    it was around 1996

    that the world bodies recommended:

    there is no such thing as a diabetic diet.

    the diabetic and non diabetic should take the same balanced and calorie limited  diet.

  • When it comes to diet, none of these bodies can ever be trusted. They all sell their logo for money and favor the group who buy their logo and also give them donations.

    Biggest world body is millions of diabetics on LCHF, Paleo, Atkins etc diet around the world. No separate research is needed. Just pick their data and diabetes care industry will lose business of $350 billion per year in less than three months if world bodies worked without conflict of interest.

  • yes,what you say is true.please refer to recent guidelines 


  • Yes COKE may have been involved in that 10% calorie from sugar. Then these guys consider themselves as NUTRITION experts. What a JOKE really. Only jokers will recommend 10% sugar calories, despite the obesity and diabetes menace. 50 grams sugar calories daily? CRIMINAL but all for MONEY.

    Maybe they forgot to add 2 Camel fags a day to the list. Oh wait a minute. AMA cannot make Camel Cash now. So not on the list. They already minted a lot years ago from Camels ads in their journal

  • indiacratus


    Again a study done on mice 

    Nothing wrong. But what is suppressed is that which type of fat is fed to these mice. Usually it's hydrogenated fats which Is harmful 

    So these facts are hidden and lop sided studies are released warning future generations 

    What about the present generations?

    They are exposed to high carbs and sugars. 

    Why is the medical bodies slient?

    Because they eat money from food industry 

    What about the side effects of DPP4 and SGLT2 like cancers and heart failure?? 

    Money is eaten from pharma and like fools we consume these? 

    Who will protect the present generation? 

    You are talking about future generation 

    This will come only if present generation is allowed to survive 

    God only can intervene and show lights to all from persons like you who are misguiding all in the name of main stream recommendation. These Bodies eat money from food industry and pharmaceutical industry..

  • Most important:

    Adding 2 table spoon Virgin Olive Oil to Pasta or lacing the BUN with butter (Joslin did this in one study) is not LCHF. So, first the critics have to understand what is LCHF. Currently, they are way off the target :)

    Obviously Mice would not be fed virgin coconut oil. They are fed corn oil, hydrogenated crap, some standard feed which is soy loaded and of course sugar in name of carbs etc.

  • i agree with you shashikantiyengar.

  • I am also sceptical. We are not dealing with experimental medicine,where effects of different molecules can be measured. We have seen nutritional are not successful with animal models, most of the times.

  • dear patliputra,

    though i presented this article it should not be misunderstood

    as i wish it be true in humans.

    two things may be understood with out confusion.

    1] this research telling that, high fat eating as  having inheritable consequence via epigenetic inheritance.

    2]the phenomenon of epigenome by itself as a scientific matter of fact..

    and further a third thing that Darwin and Lamarck had predicted at that time itself,which is what most people love to agree.

    i will explain the history of evolution ,natural selection etc cursorily.

    when Darwin proposed evolution, it was readily accepted by the

    free thinking European scientific circles,

    because these people did not want to  accept a concept  of creation by God.

    but the scientific men were peaceful types---which gave out a  joke saying:

    Issac Newton believed that the earth was created 64 thousand years on Sundays.

    but on the rest of the week days

    he believed it was many millions of years ago.

    later experiments ,on DNA showed, rather proved that

    a trait acquired in a generation cannot be transmitted to the next generation via sperms and eggs.

    but this has been questioned now. that phenomenon is called epigenetic inheritance.[

    [this inheritance is not through a mutation of the genes - changes of the rungs in the double helix of dna]it is by attachment of some chemicals to dna ,chemicals acquired by our parents.

    this has been for  quite some years in long i do not know .

    and what our German professor is  telling  now is that

    for high fat eaters

    obesity and diabetes like things can go transported to the children.

    epigenesis, any way, is both good and bad.

    bad :because of us,  our children has to suffer.

    good:because our children gets good traits if we live good for a few generations.

    so live correctly so that we get a better world -the common dictum.

    good luck

  • I am well versed in Darwins principles. And I also posses fairly good knowledge of genetics. Nevertheless,thanks for elaborating for common knowledge.

  • High fat consumed whether saturated or otherwise is fatal,for survival. Actually term used as High fat is itself misleading.

  • agreed

  • high fat is not fatal. if u combine high fat with high carbohydrate it will be fatal. i am taking high fat low carbohydrate. my health parameters are ok. mr.adabetic2015 why don't you test yourself? 

  • LCHF is not recommended for normal persons

    Though it's an ideal diet

    It's recommended for diabetics

    The consequences are: 

    Reduced to medicines or stopping totally 

    Being complications free

    Free from cancers and heart failure caused by DPP4 and SGLT2 

    Who gains? The adopters 

    Who loses? The industry, the Dr ( reduced patient inflow and also reduced kickbacks) 

    How many main stream adopters are alive today without complications that too?

    Dr Richard Bernstein a juvenile diabetic on insulin is still alive and kicking today on ultra low LCHF and also preaching the same to his pts 

    I challenge all to show one such model alive today on various drugs....?

  • They maintain A1C 7+ and complain of ED

    So start losing manhood on balanced diet and good diabetes control ... he ... he .... he ...

    Oh Dr Bernstein.

    Some ppl here spread all lies about him. Some declared him dead though he was and is still alive and when caught the user quickly deleted the post instead of saying sorry, someone said he eats supplements worth $2000/month, someone lied that he uses insulin pumps and the latest lie was his book sells for maybe $2 in new york. So much hate and jealousy in some 60 to 80 year old ppl here? Or, all just lie seeking attention and upset that is not happening ... he he he

  • I found this link  :

    Thought this is the right place to post this link.

    Quoted in article :

    "Zoe Harcombe is a great researcher and written some excellent articles on the topic.   Her article "Cholesterol & heart disease – there is a relationship, but it’s not what you think"  is a long article but towards the end she has some great illustrations on cholesterol levels at death measured male and female all cause death and heart disease.  The bottom line is those living longest had the higher cholesterol levles.  Those dieing younger from all cause death were those with low cholesterol levels.   Cholesterol is essential to health. "

    Today I noticed  that they didn't give any option to highlight/bold the text in forum :O

    I desperately wanted to highlight some text here :) 

    Hope it helps :) :)

  • As we grow old we need more cholesterol. Forget what AHA says. They just sell their logo for money.

  • Nice one. 

    Now if this person speaks more against white poisons like sugar and refined wheat (maida) he will be doing a big service to mankind rather than on Fats and cholesterol which is essential for survival 

    God only give some sense.. 

  • how  do we know this researcher has the

    general width of imagination to make such claims when the world's top scientists are advising the other way round.

    such  persons should remain at the correct level  of data  they have found out.

    i will elaborate in a moment.

    who says cholesterol is unwanted inside the body.?

    most of cell wall cell wall synthesis requires lipids.

     body requires cholesterol.

    cholesterol the body can synthesize by itself though it can also be absorbed from the world scientists give a limit.

    in some person if this synthesis is impaired ,

    no doubt, it has to be given from outside ,through diet.what is the doubt?

    my friend has is not an impossibility.

    coming back to the point of hyper-cholesterol-emia :

    if tobacco smoking kills 2%of smokers,

    what advice has to be given to people in general?

    don't worry, smoke- but don't fall in the two percent.ok?

    or every month go and check up your atherosclerosis level? in case of cholesterol,ok?

    some thing that builds up in 20 years ,

    only  the men who has devices to check up

     can give an advice.

    they have advised:

    limit cholesterol in diet.

    who advocates hypo cholesterol?no one

    it is ignorance as to what is the function of cholesterol in the body ,

    that some people going on telling --high cholesterol and longevity.

    hope you have grasped the point.

    good luck.


  • Regrading


    how  do we know this researcher has the

    general width of imagination to make such claims when the world's top scientists are advising the other way round.

    such  persons should remain at the correct level  of data  they have found out.


    ...who verifies that whatever is published in a research paper in favor of low fat is as accurate as it is described in medical community and nothing is actually distorted in experiments?? 

    I have read somewhere (...I dont remember the exact case...)that a scientist gave some theory and people admired the theory for years...followed the same...but years later the scientist himself realize that the theory he given was not right and he admitted it  later on....

    For example :

    What do you want from us...should we set up a medical experiment and ask you to judge the results ...then only you will be convinced ??:)

    Common people like me who are not from medical background can only ague on the basis of some observations coutires where people eat more fat and less grains like Korea , Japan, France are healthier than our country people ...and I am not going to quote any link can google the same and verify upto your satisfaction :) :)

  • thanks,

    i got what i wanted to know about you.

    good luck

  • was regarding high fat . :) :) ... nothing personal

    Thanks for your wishes anyways :)

  • Now your replies will also be claimed not be read by some guys. Don't be surprised if potshots are taken some day. Maybe some more research about u will start -- when did u join, what's you avatar etc :)

  • "What do you want from us...should we set up a medical experiment and ask you to judge the results ...then only you will be convinced ??:)"

    We are willing to discuss "Science Of Medical Reports".

    But he isn't willing to take that up as he is [probably aware how wrong the world bodies will be proved in broad daylight. 

    All he wants is that people should eat high carbs and more drugs as that is the only way Drug industry's interest can be safe. That's exactly what ADA/AMA/AHA and their cousins across the world -- one being NIN Hyderabad in India -- want. 

    Millions across the world who improve their health by rejecting their so called HEALTHY & Balanced diet are fools. Bunch of guys (who only issue position statements and never come in open debates) at so called associations like ADA/AMA/AHA et al are always right and millions who throw challenge at them are wrong :)

    AHA could never gather courage to accept the challenge thrown to them by Atkins team. These bodies work like a Monopoly and don't want/like to be challenged. They just issue "opinion statements" after weighing in how much money their statement can get from donors in food and drug industry. There was a time when AMA was taking money from tobacco industry also -- great men of science and great world bodies. These bodies are just fronting for drug and food industry in the name of science :)

  • "What do you want from us...should we set up a medical experiment and ask you to judge the results ...then only you will be convinced ??:)"

    Everyone talking LCHF diet should either leave or be banned and the moderator of the forum should be a doctor or some nobel prize winner ... and anyone talking LCHF should be handed over to SWAT team ...  he he he

    Experts kept fooling about cholesterol. Took them 30+ years to stop that. Same will apply to dietary fat. After all, isn't it difficult for experts to accept they they have been fooling people about fat and cholesterol for decades? Even after 35 years, they just did not tell why they lied about cholesterol. The just lowered the tempo.

    So, when the scientists stop lieing about dietary fat (like they have done for cholesterol) then some ppl will understand how wrong they were. We can't wait for 35 years ...

    he ... he ... he

    Some guys here should go through the message of admin staff on ADA forum on Ketogenic diet on following URL:



    Those who don't like LCHF ot Keto diet should shout on ADA forums also.

  • It is well known what

    (1) ANCEL KEYS did to FUDGE the data

    (2) Scientists of Sydney Diet Heart Study threw part of data  tapes in a garage because they were PAID (by vegetable oil industry perhaps) to prove PUFA is better than SFA. But investigation of data set decades down the line prove SFA to be winner and proved that the study was all FUDGED in favor of PUFA. Now there are attempts to bring back the ghost of PYFA alive once again. Similar rigged studies to show PUFA better than SFA being done.

    Degrees doesn't mean integrity. Some of the world's top corrupt guys are also highly educated. Industry can have any research RIGGED, like they did in case of Sydney Diet Heart Study.

    (3) Go through this --

    We don't believe in CORRUPT bodies.

    Hope you could grasp the point

  • In spite of medical research advances

    The incidence of diabetes is increasing

    The incidence of cardiovascular problems increasing 

    The incidence of metabolic problems increasing

    The medical bodies recommendations have abandoned the diet followed by our grandma which was a balance of carbs+fats+ proteins. 

    Instead low fat foods are available 

    How will our body absorb fat soluble vits like A, D, E if we stop consuming fats. How will our body synthesize Vid D if we don't take fats 

    We have heard of essential fatty acids and essential amino acids. 

    Have we heard of essential carbohydrates or sugars?!?

    Low fat nonsense is being spread and followed by many. 

    These so called GODs have very less knowledge 

    And in india we just have parrots who repeats what these so called bodies says 


  • "These so called GODs have very less knowledge "

    They are robots controlled by the industry money.

    The experts recommended 10% calorie from SUGAR. So 50 grams sugar/day is healthy. What BULL CR@P.

    Coke campaigns a lot that SUGAR is HARMLESS. Looks like Coke $$$ made few zombies out of experts. Shows how CORRUPT these so called EXPERTS can be. Even a casual student of nutrition will know that this is criminally high.

    Good we follow the Swedes, more specifically LCHF where SUGAR has no place. Also, no place for sickening vegetable oils like canola, soya etc :)

  • Not only sugar from colas 

    But also the high acidic contents due to phosphoric acid levels in these colas 

    This leads to osteoporosis. 

    The medical bodies show only a casual link to it 

    Research is so influenced that they cannot point a direct finger to these colas. 

    And we abide by these bodies!! 

    Ha ha..

  • Great Men Of Science and their cheer leaders :)

  • Did you see in 10 years mobile price have reduced drastically...better mobile with lesser price...memory chips size reduced and price reduced...a lot of funded research actually reason behind it because of amount of profit

     ...but why didnt we see such revolution in glucometer or test strips(really costly you think a middle class common earning man can afford to test 2 times a day) being a electronic device,though the number of diabetics have increased many times world wide... There is no willingness of medical industry is the main funded research ...Do you smell a conspiracy??

  • Medicare industry is all about 

    "How can we skin more"

    The day the desire to live that one extra day/week/year ceases, the whole game-plan will fall flat on face. 

  • India is zero in research. Rightly said we are parrots repeat all what "they " say overimpressed by "their " charisma. Not only in medicine but also in economy. Our all the economic policies are decided by their principles without considering the different socioeconomic conditions.

  • india is zero in research. i agree with you. even though many of us are not doctors we can test the effect of food pattern on our health. its research only. instead we are arguing here. my sincere request to all the members, plz don't indulge in argument on baseless issues. it makes no sense. be practical and share ur views, instead of quoting so many literature. 

  • "In spite of medical research advances

    The incidence of diabetes is increasing

    The incidence of cardiovascular problems increasing 

    The incidence of metabolic problems increasing"

    I fully agree with you. This obviously means that present medical practice  needs to be reviewed.

    For years we all including doctors have been fooled by zero cholesterol and fat free diet. The market is flooded with fat free oil, fat free diet and nonstick cookwares but the incidence of cvd, diabetes and metabolic diseases. All money game.

You may also like...