I am convinced by the overwhelming peer-reviewed research that anyone who eats a low-carb diet is increasing the risk of health issues such as heart problems. Importantly research shows it doesn't matter how much exercise or what exercise these people do makes absolutely no difference to that increased risk.
I post on this because of Bob Harper, a TV supposed diet and exercise guru who advocates a low-carb high-meat diet. Sadly for him he suffered a heart attack earlier this year. Fortunately although being, in his words, dead for two days, he did not actually die and is now recovering. This youtube video takes the instance of Bob Harper's dietary approach to task.
Bob now argues that he has some form of genetic predisposition to heart attacks. I think we all have such a predisposition: just eat enough fat. However that's not the end of the matter. There are rumours that Bob has now become a vegetarian. Perhaps soon he will improve his diet even more!
Written by
andyswarbs
To view profiles and participate in discussions please or .
Thanks for sharing this article, benwl - and I've copied and pasted this from that article:
"After his heart attack, Bob abandoned the Paleo lifestyle for the Mediterranean diet, as it's been proven to improve heart health and reduce the risk of a heart attack, stroke, and heart-disease-related death by about 30 percent. But recently, he's moved closer to a vegetarian regimen.
"I've found more balance works for me," Bob said in relation to his diet. "With my health, I have to be aware of fat [levels]. I eat a lot more vegetarian, [and] I've cut out a lot of animal protein." These days, his protein sources come from eggs, Greek yogurt, and the occasional seafood dish.
The celebrity trainer joked that his friends tell him he's "97 percent vegetarian" and he can't help but shrug his shoulders and agree."
It's interesting. I don't agree with high fat diets - eating more fat than we need to just can't be good for us. But equally fat has unfairly taken a lot of the blame for health issues, and I think it's unhealthy to cut it out of your diet too (I will always think full fat is better than fat free fakes). It all comes back to the whole "moderation" word - but equally making sure that you get your fat from healthy sources (nuts, avocado etc). I think he'll eventually work that out through his Mediterranean diet.
I am asking because I think moderation is a highly personal term. For a person who eats at, say McDonalds on a weekly basis, moderation may be NOT super-sizing their burger occasionally. For someone who, say was brought up on a beef farm moderation may mean a 12oz sirloin steak just once a week, as well as all the other meats they eat.
Often moderation means glugging on highly expensive, highly refined, highly calorific extra virgin olive oil onto salads and in cooking. Add to that fish, say Salmon, at around 25% saturated fats and one of the highest sources of dietary cholesterol, not to mention the mercury.
Often people will mistakenly eat chicken under the misapprehension it is a "healthier" meat. Even if the skin is taken away and the chicken is steamed it is still around 25% saturated fat.
I think many people simply are blind to how much oil and fat they are consuming. And so moderation means nothing to them.
Moderation for many people especially goes out of the window when eating in restaurants when a cheesecake or a chocolate brownie is on the menu. I have sat at the end of a meal when every other person at my table said "yummy" as they devoured a hot chocolate brownie dressed with some kind of toffee sauce and ice cream. These are people who I am totally convinced would say they consume in moderation.
What about me? For me moderation is no refined oils, seeds, at most a handful of nuts about once a month, possibly in a bowl a muesli. I very rarely have a desert, usually a piece of fruit or two or three or four or five.
Moderation for most people is in the eye of the beholder and an excuse to continue eating just as before.
Moderation is a personal thing though, based on your overall diet, lifestyle and exercise regimen. Some people can handle more fat than others. But moderation means you don't have to abstain, you just have to be mindful not to over-indulge.
You are judging your friends quite harshly because they eat a brownie after dinner - they may only eat 1 dessert a month, and there's no consideration for their activity levels.
I know my friends. I am sunk into a hell hole of food intolerance because in the past I too ate however many chocolate whatevers, cheese and biscuit. Fortunately for me with arthritis I have second chance. I do not wish the same or other dietary fate for my friends.
A number of my long term friends are on high-blood pressure tablets, statins, stomach upset tablets, pain killers etc etc aiding them to continue eating chocolate brownies until a heart attack or stroke gets them. The very strong likelhood is one of them will be dead within ten years, 40 years ahead of when they might naturally have died.
Each one thinks they are eating in moderation. That can be 100% guaranteed. My moderation point is please find me someone who does NOT think they eat in moderation!
Each one enjoys their salmon, their rump steak, their cheese and biscuits. Each one enjoys a cream tea "in moderation".
How much exercise a person gets has very little effect on whether a heart attack or stroke will get you. That's not an anecdote, that is good research of life span, where exercise is taken into account.
What make the biggest difference in the biggest killers is diet.
When someone dies everyone says "its in the genes," looking for some excuse. Some genes define colour of eyes, and these genes dictate clearly the future. Others need triggers to activate them. This is the case with arthritis, many cancers, parkinsons, diabetes.
The trigger is food. The evidence is overwhelming.
Type 1 diabetics cannot stop taking their insulin! Their pancreas makes no insulin at all, unlike Type 2s, and if they don't have their injections they will die! You can put Type 2 into remission but once a diabetic, always a diabetic! Type 2s, like me, who get their levels down into pre-diabetes or normal ranges are still considered diabetic!
I do agree though that LCHF doen't mean eat loads of meat and bad fats. I'm Low carb (not no carb) and medium fat - good fats. I also don't have too much of anything, all things in moderation.
"Large nutritional epidemiology studies, with long-term follow-up to assess major clinical end points, coupled with advances in basic science and clinical trials, have led to important improvements in our understanding of nutrition in primary prevention of chronic disease. Although much work remains, sufficient evidence has accrued to provide solid advice on healthy eating. Good data now support the benefits of diets that are rich in plant sources of fats and protein, fish, nuts, whole grains, and fruits and vegetables; that avoid partially hydrogenated fats; and that limit red meat and refined carbohydrates. The simplistic advice to reduce all fat, or all carbohydrates, has not stood the test of science; strong evidence supports the need to consider fat and carbohydrate quality and different protein sources. This article briefly summarizes major findings from recent years bearing on these issues."
p.s. I put the point in bold print myself, to emphasise the point I particularly agree with.
andyswarbs - thank you for sharing that video - I have just watched it, and I am surprised that the Vegan Movement (which I presume the presenters are part of) seem to be advocating 'no oil' (regardless of sources) as per Dr Esselstyn's advice - and especially olive oil - I would have assumed that people who follow a Vegan diet would be eating olive oil as part of that diet...? My apologies if I have misunderstood this.
On a personal note, I really wish Bob Harper well with his recovery and recuperation from his heart attack.
My take on this is that veganism originally developed as an ethical approach to eating - so as long the food doesn't have animal source it's ok for a vegan to eat regardless of how healthy it is.
Recently the term "plant based" is becoming used by some to refer to a non animal based diet that is specifically focused on health.
So a vegan can ethically eat olive oil - but a plant based diet would avoid or minimize it because it's a pure fat with no other nutrients.
I think of added oils in the same way as white sugar. If you eat a fruit for example you get some sugar but it's bound up with lots of other things that make it healthy to eat. But if you refine it to pure sugar you lose all that. Similarly if you eat olives you get the good fat in them bound up with fibre, but if you process it to oil, you're getting too much pure fat.
That's an excellent explaination, benwl. A few vegans I know happily stuff their faces with cr*p & think it's fine if it has a vegan label, which is not the way to be healthy. I avoid processed foods, & feel better for eating high fat low carb, but the fat coming from nuts & seeds, & when I can afford avocado. I prefer my carbs from fruit. I've eaten more starch over the past month, since it's been colder, but store it too easily.
I notice the article makes no mention of nearly 884 calories per 100 grams. We have an obesity epidemic.
There are so many easy ways of getting the omega 3 etc goodness that is in olive oil, with no calorific downsides. Also as we all know quality olive oil is a very expensive item to buy at the supermarket. Also it is bad for cooking at high temperatures.
In the matter of research there are short term studies (less than 6 months) that show initial benefits. But long term the research shows the weight goes on.
Yes, it is an expensive product, but you can buy 'olive oil' instead of 'extra virgin olive oil' (which is cheaper) and also there are often promotions in supermarkets to look out for, to get the overall cost down. A bottle can last a long time - depending on how much you use.
Regarding calorific down-sides, it can be easily measured by tablespoon method, or using it in a spray form, if you want to reduce the amount used - according to your own personal preferences.
Next to my cooker I have a bottle of olive oil . It has lasted two years so far, totally untouched. Long-term studies on the benefits of olive oil, especially ones not funded by the oil industry are what I like to read.
I don't expect to win this argument. People love good news that they can continue to eat fat, salt and sugar. New articles come out daily many funded directly or indirectly by big companies. But also people are dying or suffering very badly each and every day. Something is wrong, badly wrong.
I used to eat a lot of cheese. I used to cook with olive oil, and only the highest quality. But then I was lucky. My life nearly came to an end and was awoken to the benefits of a WFPB diet, and with no oils that becomes - an ultra-healthy diet.
My recent blood test showed very good results. My friends are all beginning to be prescribed high-blood pressure tabs, statins, you name it. They are the same age as me, same education etc etc.
I was lucky because rheumatoid arthritis gives the body an early warning signal. Fortunately I paid attention to that signal and won. Now, not only is my body recovered from RA, but also comprehensive blood tests show that my body is running pretty fine. I take no drugs, just a diet with good exercise. Not one, not the other - both.
Sadly heart attacks generally give no notice and the result is often fatal.
Whole Food Plant Based. Many people on this diet often don't call themselves vegan, because that is associated too strongly with animal rights. The difference is largely a removal of processed & refined foods.
I used to be a "whole food vegetarian" since 1979, which at the time I thought pretty healthy. In those decades I interpreted this as "when cooking at home cook a lot of meals from pulses and legumes".
WFPB becomes pretty strict avoidance of refined foods whenever possible. For some people this means avoiding restaurants, even vegetarian and even vegan ones. Mostly this is because of the high use of oils.
For instance I was in Brighton a few months ago and ate at Food for Friends, Lydea and Terre a Terre. All fabulous restaurants, except for one thing - the oils, even slathered on the salads. I learnt a lesson - don't trust any restaurant.
Another aspect of the WFPB diet is the size of the salads. Gone is the notional side salad. Instead the salad becomes predominant in the meal, possibly a large plateful.
Whilst on holiday this summer I was known as rabbit, because my breakfast and lunch included whole lettuces. In Greece this was my way of getting omega-3 and a whole load of other nutritional power into my body.
I know I am extreme. Most people don't need to go to the lengths I do. But I am fighting a horrible illness that brought me to my knees - and it will not return.
Thanks so much for explaining - I did my edit before seeing your reply, but it's good to hear how your health has improved on your WFPB-diet - and that is fantastic to hear.
I think this is an interesting post - enabling us all to discuss these things.
I do think it's a pity that people are given as examples though - i.e. the people doing the u-tube video you presented are talking about Bob Harper's situation - and I noticed the same thing happened in another website (can't remember the name of the person doing that one) - but they gave the example of the ?President of the American Heart Association having had a heart attack during their Conference - and there were various things said about that person - and as MTCee said, discussing one person's health issue as an 'example' and making points about it - I'm not sure how I feel about it.
I'm not saying you're doing that of course - you are sharing something that is interesting - but I was glad to have been able to see a quote from Bob Harper himself (in the interview article shared by benwl ) because then he can comment on his own behalf (providing it is reported correctly of course!).
Sorry for the long reply - I should be more concise...
I think it's a bit much to slate a whole diet based on just one persons health problem, especially when it can't be the only factor that contributed to It.
I understand that Inuit people have a very high fat, low carb diet and don't suffer from heart problems.
There are always other factors to consider. What works for one person may not necessarily work for another.
"The notion that the incidence of ischemic heart disease (IHD) is low among the Inuit subsisting on a traditional marine diet has attained axiomatic status. The scientific evidence for this is weak and rests on early clinical evidence and uncertain mortality statistics."
Personally I think the problem comes from switching diets. The Inuit people are born that way (if you get what I mean by that), but this guy will have grown up eating meat and 2 veg, the bacteria in his gut will have developed to process meat and 2 veg , and then he cuts out the veg part. The bacteria that like vegetables won't have liked that, and the meat bacteria won't have been able to cope.
I heard an interesting point of view the other day - there are more bacteria in the body than there are human cells. In essence, this makes us a bit like a space ship that is being driven by the desires of our bacteria passengers. If they aren't happy, they will let us know - and they have control over us in more ways than we know! It's a slightly out there idea, but when you start to think of it like that, it can put things in perspective.
There is an option to 'block notifications' on many computers, so that's a way to stop the website getting your personal E-mail. I opted to block notifications, and that enabled me to read the article that benwl had posted, whilst not being bothered with E-mails from the website. Maybe you can opt out of the notifications - that should also be an option.
My point about this person is he did everything according to the book. In fact he wrote the book, lots of them and sold a lot each one of them. So if this is some kind of low-carb guru who is having heart attacks, exactly what does that say? You can ignore my point and I am sure many will. But ignore it at your peril.
The heart is not fussy. Some fats being worse than others is not exactly a glowing recommendation.
This seems to be an issue which has some widely opposed views.
The very low carb diet has been used successfully in the treatment of epilepsy for many years, along with several other medical conditions. It's safe, as long as you do it correctly.
I think of genetics like a loaded gun. It is a pre-disposition that implies a heightened risk given certain circumstances. But someone has to pull the trigger. If you don't yank that trigger then that risk never surfaces, never can surface. Yanking that trigger is a matter of creating the right circumstances.
So with arthritis a circumstance that has been proven to increase its likelihood is smoking. So if you have a genetic disposition to arthritis and you smoke then it is even more likely that you will get arthritis or related auto-immune illness at some stage of your life. If you do not smoke then you decrease the risk and you may never yank on that chain.
I smoked 20 a day for 5 years while at University. Perhaps doing that increased my likelihood of arthritis. I yanked my chain. In 1976, during my first job after University I developed psoriatic arthropathy, and was unable to walk and was undertaking serious physio to get me mobile again. That arthritis has been with me ever since.
Another chain yank, not self-inflicted was some years before aged 13, I had yellow jaundice. That (I now know) increases likelihood of arthritis, in particular psoriasis. In fact the link is so strong that they know it takes 10 years for arthritis to surface. I was aged 23 in 1976. Exactly 10 years later.
So ignorant me and stupid me and two years ago, frankly, I was that close to suicide because of my arthritis.
Now I know. I will never be as either stupid or ignorant again.
But there has ONLY ever been one diet that has been proven in peer-reviewed scientific research to not only halt atherosclerosis, but also reverse it. Other diets have tried to replicate the results, but none, absolutely none have succeeded.
A diet that is powerful enough to actually reverse atherosclerosis must be close to if not right at the top of anyone's list of things to try, surely?
I agree with Hidden that this is an interesting topic, and I have thought about it 'overnight' - digesting the different things that people said within this post, and I am interested in learning more about the Whole Food Plant Based Diet - so I wondered if you could direct me to a particular book or website which would encapsulate it - and I was also interested to know what a typical range of foods might be (i.e. a daily menu of breakfast, lunch and dinner) - so if you have any threads where you've shared your daily intake - or if you could mention an example of a typical day - I'd be interested to see it. But no worries if you've not got time to do that - I just wanted you to know that your post has given me 'Food for thought' and I am interested in knowing more.
Almost the original place to start, in my opinion, is Dr McDougall site drmcdougall.com/ with his starch solution. He is incredibly outspoken and passionate and has arguably ruffled more feathers than anyone else in history!
If you want to go back even further, then arguably the modern day father is Nathan Pritikin and a useful youtube interview with him is at youtube.com/watch?v=qOj4rzS.... He healed himself without any Internet to provide him with any advice, without any support from any quarter. If you want to hear more youtube has a 7 hour lecture from him!
If you look at any, and I mean any of the plant-based doctors etc they all have their own take and own nuances. And this to me is very interesting. Some may limit nuts and seeds for instance. The paddison program which I follow is arguably most restrictive and is tailored to meet the exacting needs of someone in dire straits of many chronic conditions, but focusing on RA.
But then the paddison program whilst restrictive is not prescriptive. This is a critical and I think not widely understood point. We hear so often "everyone is different" perhaps medical history, genes, diet & exercise history, you name it. The paddison program at its heart is teaching people the fundamentals of how to listen to their bodies. This starts with the NoOilsWFPB diet taken to extremes to quieten the body down. Part of that story is around alkalising the body, part is about limiting foods initially to allow healing to happen in a progressive and predictable way.
Other plant-based doctors include Dr Michael Klaper, Dr Alan Goldhammer but again taking us to the fathers of the movement we must list Dr T Colin Campbell and Dr Caldwell Esselstyn. I get these two mixed up but I think it is Colin Campbell of Cornell University who has been doing continuous peer-reviewed plant-based research for sixty years.
So for at least 60 years we've known about the values of a plant based diet. But before the Internet that message was swamped entirely by powerful and intense messages from all governments (search about the notorious checkoff program), charities supported or pressured behind the scenes by food companies (with budgets so big they are unimaginable) who have, in my opinion made modern society ill. And then similar pressure from pharmaceutical companies with similar budgets to supposedly make people well again.
Remember the tobacco industry motto, "doubt is our product." They weren't in the business of selling tobacco. All they had to do was sow seeds of doubt and people would continue to buy cigarettes ad nauseum. The food and pharma industries have followed the same path. So they saturate the media with articles saying "butter is good", "bacon is good" etc etc. All this contradicts the non-industry funded research.
If I was going to recommend one book, the one I would go for is the China Study by T Colin Campbell. An extremely large scale study on the benefits of a WFPB diet. It didn't start with that agenda, but that's the way the study turned out.
I really appreciate this thorough background description and historical perspective, and I will hope to look into this further - especially as the weekend is nearly here, and I am interested. Thank you!
In my opinion, critical is to distinguish between good and bad carbs. Bad carbs are refined, good carbs are unrefined. So I avoid any white bread, white pasta. Whereas a good wholemeal loaf is great. Even the term wholewheat is not enough. Some foods that are sold as wholewheat (such as wholewheat pasta, wholewheat cereals) that if you are sensitive it is better to avoid, simply because although they contain the whole wheat, it is whole processed wheat.
Unfortunately the vast majority of the carb research does not distinguish, lumping all carbs as bad. Since most of the carbs consumed are low nutrient "foods" such as white bread, biscuits & cakes then that is where much of the bad press around high carb diet stems.
(As much as most anyone I used to totally adore my croissant which I now view as one of the least nutritious on the planet.)
What do you use as a substitute for the croissant/bread, andyswarbs ? I eat gluten free breads/pastas when I can find them (while keeping track of the carbs.).
Three months before I started Paddison I went gluten-free. It helped my RA but only in a minor way. At the start of the paddison program the only grains recommended are pseudo grains, specifically quinoa and buckwheat. Some people struggle with even those and basmati rice seems a good fallback.
At some point, and my guess is 3 months after starting Paddison I began to introduce gluten free oats. It could have been 6 months. This was in the form of GF oats for breakfast and also GF oatcakes.
It was over a year later I added gluten back into my diet. My first was a real chapati! That was so delicious. Chapati are so good because they are such a simple food - whole wheat flour, water and salt.
Ever since I have not had any problem from gluten. But always my focus in on whole wheat..
Looking back I think it was important to remove gluten for more than a year (actually 18 months in my case.) The body needs to be in a seriously healing groove before reintroduction.
The body also needs to be clean so that if there are downsides to reintroduction they are clearly identified. By clean I mean animal fat & refined oil free. These are so difficult for the body to process.
If there is no difference then why did they do this research? Go to: pritikin.com/reversing-diab... show that people eating good carbs (my definition) decreased blood sugar levels by 20% and insulin levels by 30%. I mean 20% reduction in sugar levels is not trivial, afaik.
Of course the overwhelming statements on the web are that sugar causes diabetes. And NO ONE is saying sugar is good for you. In fact refined sugar is distinctly bad for anyone. But it is not the cause of diabetes. nutritionfacts.org/2016/11/...
Before you read it here is my take. Reversing diabetes is not easy. As with my own RA it is going to be very difficult, not least because of lots of people saying get rid of those high carbs 24 hours a day in your ear. When I started to fight my RA I had loads of people saying I was stupid. I have people saying I never even had RA! And now to the NoOilsWFPB take on the subject.
"Insulin is a big player in type 2 diabetes. A type 2 diabetic usually has a pancreas that is producing lots of insulin. The problem is that the body of the type 2 diabetic has become insulin resistant. In other words, it takes more and more insulin to push the blood glucose (blood sugar) into the muscle cells. So, lots of blood glucose (blood sugar) ends up in the blood stream and not in the muscle cells where it is supposed to be.
But what if there was a way to get the insulin working more effectively so that the insulin could push the blood glucose into the muscle cells? Solve the problem of insulin resistance and you begin to reverse type 2 diabetes.
You see, low carb diets don’t solve the problem of insulin resistance. Your muscle cells need blood sugar. If you eat a steak instead of a potato, your after meal blood glucose numbers might look better. But your muscle cells need to have glucose for energy. There’s no way around that.
That’s why people on low-carb diets have a difficult time with their type 2 diabetes on a long term basis. They aren’t solving the problem of insulin resistance. They are making it worse by consuming all of that excess fat and protein.
Consume the McDougall diet and insulin resistance will gradually be reversed. But it is a gradual process. So, in the beginning you will see blood glucose spikes. Why? You still have insulin resistance. So, when you eat a potato, your blood glucose will go up. But that’s a short term issue. Over time as your insulin becomes more effective, you will see these spikes become less dramatic.
Others on this forum have seen the results of the McDougall diet for themselves. They eat potatoes, rice, corn, beans. They consume a diet that is about 70 to 85 percent carbohydrate. And often they can get off of all their medication for type 2 diabetes."
Content on HealthUnlocked does not replace the relationship between you and doctors or other healthcare professionals nor the advice you receive from them.
Never delay seeking advice or dialling emergency services because of something that you have read on HealthUnlocked.
Is red meat killing you
My Low Carb High Fat (LCHF)/Keto way of living.
Utterly confused! GP friend talking 'Bol*ocks'! :)
