TL Health and Fitness Initiative 2010 - Page 182

On November 23 2010 05:35 Koagel wrote:
First of all, your link mostly criticises the DGAC for only using data that supports their claims and omitting the ones that oppose them. They don't "debunk" the links I posted. They add a meta-analysis that implies that the weight loss from a low carb diets is higher on short notice, but doesn't differ significantly with time, which, albeit maybe insignificantly (again, low number of participants, small deviations in the curve don't have to mean anything), is shown in a graph in the first study I posted.
The links I posted were taken from a publication by a nutrition physician (or whatever the english word is) that teaches at our university and is respected in his field. Although this does not make the claims true, it can be assumed that he can discriminate crappy designs from good ones. Just because the results of studies differ from your expectations, they don't have to be bad.

The problem with fats is not that they're all bad, but most foods that contain high amounts of fat do contain the ones you don't want. I don't think there are good or bad fats, just those you get too much of and those you don't. Our script on nutrition said that you don't want to deviate too much from the recommendations, because it can lead to misreactions if the ratio is off since the lipids "compete" for the enzymes that build lipid cell membranes and lipoproteins. The ratio given was 14:5:1 (n9:n6:n3).

Btw, holy crap it takes long to participate in these discussions in a foreign language. :-/


Why exactly do you believe that this is not enough?

EDIT:
I don't defend any of the recommandations by DGAC, how could I, I haven't read it. I'm just very critical about diets that center around cutting just one of the macro nutrients.
The point that evidence that supports a benefit from ketogenic diets is lacking is still valid.

The NEL contains evidence that is not consistent with this conclusion; several included studies show that a low-carbohydrate diet can produce significantly greater weight loss than a low-fat diet, even when caloric intake is held constant between diets [15], [16], [17], [18]. Figure 2 shows results from a study by Volek et al. [15] demonstrating greater weight loss on a low-carbohydrate diet compared with a low-fat diet, with similar caloric intake. Several studies in the NEL demonstrate equivalent or increased weight loss on low-carbohydrate diets that do not explicitly control calories or impose restrictive eating behaviors [15], [19], [20], [21], [22], [23], [24]. A full assessment of the science would recognize these departures from the stated conclusion.

•There were significant differences between the groups for weight, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, triglycerides, and systolic blood pressure favoring the low-carbohydrate diet.

•There was a higher attrition rate in the low-fat as compared with the low-carbohydrate groups suggesting a patient preference for a low-carbohydrate/high-protein approach [in contrast to the statement from D1-47 that they are “difficult to adhere to”].

•Evidence from this systematic review demonstrates that low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets are more effective at 6 months and are as effective, if not more, as low-fat diets in reducing weight and cardiovascular disease risk up to one year.

Table 2 presents the effect on cardiovascular risk markers of total and saturated fat [15], [26], [27], [28], [43], [44]. The data, from studies and meta-analyses included in the NEL and elsewhere, show that when participants switched from their habitual diet to a low-carbohydrate diet (<45% of calories), neither total fat nor saturated fat consumption changed significantly, whereas positive changes occurred in cardiovascular risk markers. These findings are inconsistent with concerns regarding fat, specifically saturated fat. A comprehensive assessment of the science would necessarily result in a conclusion that addresses this inconsistency.