Diet/Exercise/Health/Wellness Support Thread

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 1:28am

I don’t think so. There have now been quite a few studies that show consistent results for low carb diets on lowering triglycerides, increasing HDL good cholesterol, lowering blood pressure, and reducing insulin swings. Doctors who use the low carb approach with their patients get consistent results. See Eades, Vernon, Westman, etc. In some of the studies, the improved health markers show up even when controlling for weight loss.

The HDL goes up because lo carb diets are inevitably higher fat diets. The triglycerides go down because the liver metabolises sugar into trigycerides. Reduce sugar and there is less conversion to trigylericides.

Basically, a low carb diet is a an effective way to counter “metabolic syndrome”.

<hr>

But, let’s say that all of the improved health markers are simpy the result of fat loss on low carb diets. That would be a good thing, right? Lose weight and improve your key heath markers. What’s not to like about that?

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 1:34am

Actually, low fat diets tend to lower HDL good cholesterol. That’s the paradox of a low fat diet. It lowers total cholesterol, but may actually increase the risk factors of heart disease because the ratio of HDL good cholesterol gets worse.

BCEagle91 · May 4, 2011, 6:19am

Anyone that has seen my numbers going down and up would probably agree that commitment is tough. But my experience is that the low carb approach is a lot easier which makes it easier to maintain commitment. If something is continually hard to do, you tend to avoid it when times get stressful. You can only keep up sheer willpower up for so long under pressure. That is for most of us.

mimk6 · May 4, 2011, 9:27am

IDad, my husband had a mild heart attack a couple of years ago and a stint put in. Prior to that he’d been on cholesterol medication and diabetes medication. His HDL was always bad. After the heart attack, he went on a strict diet that was pretty low fat and low sodium and started exercising a lot, even though he had exercised before. Over time his HDL has finally come into a good range. I don’t think the low-fat diet worked against him.

BCEagle91 · May 4, 2011, 9:57am

If you have a lot of heart attack risks, then low carb might not be the way to go.

I’ve always participated in vigorous exercise - but my problem was to much weight (fat). I have tried the low fat while continuing with vigorous exercise but I also have a very stressful life so it is easy to get derailed on the diet. Getting the weight down efficiently is what I am trying to do.

The term “low-carb” has been a scary one for me - I had a negative reaction when I first heard about it. But what’s discussed here is just lower-carbs, around 33%; not the single-digits carb diets.

If I didn’t have to work and could train several hours a day and didn’t have stress and responsibilities, I’m sure that I could go with any diet. That’s not realistic for me now.

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 11:09am

Here’s a new study published last year.

[theheart.org:</a> trusted cardiology news and opinions](<a href=“Cardiology News & Opinion – theheart.org | Medscape”>Cardiology News & Opinion – theheart.org | Medscape)

This was a large study (300+ participants) split into two groups (low carb and low fat) with intensive behavior counselling for a two year period, starting with weekly 90 minute sessions for the first five months and bi-weekly for the second five months. The study was designed to produce equal weight loss:

a) Thel** Low-fat **group ate a strict calorie restricted diet (1200-1500 cal per day for women, 1500-1800 calories per day for men). 55% carb, 30% fat, 15% protein.

b) The low-carb group followed an Atkins diet: initial intervention of 20g carb per day for 12 weeks, increasing to 5g per day each week after that. They were encouraged to eat as much protein and fat as they wanted until full. There was no calorie restriction or attempt to count calories. The study does not say what their caloric intake was.

Both groups kept detailed food journals and exercised (walking) four times a week, starting at 20 minutes and increasing to 50 minutes.

Both groups lost 11% of their body weight at 6 months and 12 months, gaiining back to a 7% loss at 24 months, with counseling sessions just every other month during the second year.

Weight loss chart:

<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/bin/nihms228493f2.jpg[/url]”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/bin/nihms228493f2.jpg</a>

LDL bad cholesterol levels were lower 3 and 6 months in the low-fat group, but the same at 12 and 24 months. Triglyceride levels were lower with low-carb at 3 and 6 months, but not at 12 or 24 months. HDL good cholesterol increased significantly more for the low-carb group at all point: 3, 6, 12 and 24 months.

Cholesterol chart:

<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/bin/nihms228493f3.jpg[/url]”>http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/bin/nihms228493f3.jpg</a>

Here’s a link to the (free) full text of the study:

[Weight</a> and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 Years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diet](<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/]Weight”>Weight and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 Years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diet - PMC)

This study shows what has been observed by physicians using the low-carb approach. A very restricted carb diet can provide quick, signficant improvement in most of the cholesterol health markers (as well as blood pressure improvements, reduced blood sugar and insulin response, etc.).

BCEagle91 · May 4, 2011, 11:15am

It also seems to show that you can get the same results with a deprivation approach and with a low-carb approach. I would think that the former would take more effort than the latter.

BTW, the latter approach would not work with me. I could plow through too many bags of pistachio nuts. That would be eating for enjoyment; not because I’m hungry. I think that watching calories is important for most people as most of us can mess up doing it in our head.

mimk6 · May 4, 2011, 1:25pm

Here is what my husband ideally eats – lean meats, mostly chicken and fish, whole grains, fruits, vegetables. So far, not really different than a low-carb diet and actually he is not supposed to have a lot of carbs. But here is where it differs from Atkins which I once did for three miserable weeks: he uses “I Can’t Believe It’s Butter” versus butter loaded with saturated fat, he eats nonfat yogurt, reduced fat cheese, etc. versus the high-fat products. A true Atkins dieter, and I’ve seen them, is frying up ground beef burgers at night an d eating whatever saturated fats they want to. It isn’t reasonable to encourage a high-fat diet like that for a cardiac patient. The rest, though, is good.

mimk6 · May 4, 2011, 1:28pm

Oh, and a limit on eggs. He has some fresh but uses eggbeaters as well. All I know is that a few months ago he showed off his recent blood tests with all the fanfare of a kid who scored straight As after years of trying. It was pretty impressive actually.

ucbalumnus · May 4, 2011, 2:12pm

That does not mean that low carb is the only way to lose body fat, nor does it mean that all low carb dieters will be successful at permanently keeping the body fat off.

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 2:34pm

I don’t think I ever said that low carb was the only way to lose fat. Obviously, if you can stick to a calorie restricted semi-starvation diet, you will probably shed fat (absent some crazy metabolic imbalance).

It goes without saying that anyone who successfully loses weight (low carb or otherwise) will be at risk of regaining the weight if they don’t find a sustainable, permanent diet. For a lot of low carb dieters, that means finding their threshold carb tolerance. For example, I am averaging about 100 g of carbs a day and still drifting downwards, so my “tolerance” is probably somewhere above that.

ucbalumnus · May 4, 2011, 4:55pm

Regarding the study [Weight</a> and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 Years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diet](<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/]Weight”>Weight and Metabolic Outcomes After 2 Years on a Low-Carbohydrate Versus Low-Fat Diet - PMC) , its [Table</a> 2](<a href=“http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2949959/table/T2/]Table”>Table - PMC) shows the following at 24 months:



Measure                30% fat diet   low carb diet</p>

<p>Weight (kg)             -7.37              -6.34
Triglyceride (mg/dl)   -14.58             -12.19
VLDL (mg/dl)            -2.18              -2.18
LDL (mg/dl)             -8.01              -4.78
HDL (mg/dl)             +4.64              +7.75
TC / HDL                -0.61              -0.67
Systolic BP (mmHg)      -2.59              -2.68
Diastolic BP (mmHg)     -0.50              -3.19
Lean mass (kg)          -2.14              -2.35
Fat mass (kg)           -3.84              -3.99

Note that both groups lost only 8-9 pounds of fat, along with about 5 pounds of muscle. Not exactly a huge success after two years. The study does seem to think that the higher HDL (by about 3 mg/dl) among low carb dieters was significant, though most of the other differences at two years were not.

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 5:27pm

Well, this in interesting. Got my blood tests back and I have lost 81 pounds with low, underactive thyroid, that usually results in weight gain! No tellin’ how much I’ll lose now! :)

Lipid profile was about what you would would expect.

My total cholesterol is high (313), a known side effect of low thryroid.

But, everything else was outstanding.

HDL (good) cholesterol was 88. Anything above 39 is good. The 3.6 ratio of HDL to total cholesterol puts me at low risk of heart disease.

Triglycerides were outstanding at 41. Anything below 150 is considered good.

My ratio of triglycerides to HDL (perhaps the best single predictor of heart disease and insulin resistance) is off the charts, good. A ratio of less than 2:1 is considered ideal. My ratio is 0.47:1.

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 5:36pm

ucb:

11 kg (low calorie) and 12 kg (lo carb) is pretty impressive weight loss at the one year mark. The lo carb weight loss is particularly striking, given that there was no calorie limit and they were encouraged to eat protein and fat until full. At least for me, that would be easier than trying to hit a 1500 to 1800 calorie restriction. I’m OK at the top end of that range, but 1500 calories would be really tough for me. Of course, there’s a de facto calorie restriction because it’s really hard to rack up massive calories while holding carb consumption to 20g to 50g a day.

It’s not 70 pounds, but I would say that most people would be happy to lose 25 pounds. Of course, with the amount of counseling in this study, I would expect decent results.

worknprogress2 · May 4, 2011, 7:29pm

Interesteddad - I have sworn I would not enter this discussion, but somehow I am not listening to my own good sense.

Somehow, when people talk about low-fat diets they assume that the carbs are simple carbs. We have been on a low-fat diet for 16 years and what we eat are complex carbs. After DH had his heart attack and by-pass surgery we were walking (slowly) in the mall and saw a book titled “Reversing Heart Disease.” We had already been following the AHA recommendations prior to the incident, so we were feeling a little discouraged about what we might do to improve the chance that DH wouldn’t have another heart attack.

We bought the book and have never looked back. The book is more than about low-fat diet - exercise, meditation, loving relationships - are all examined.

DH faces repercussions from the original heart attack. He now has a defibrillator, but his arteries are outstanding. Much better than they were at age 44. Since going on the diet, he has lost a couple of pounds, but that wasn’t an issue. He is 6’3" and now weighs about 180, 16 years ago he weighed maybe 185.

His numbers look like this:
Total 157
HDL 41
LDL 101
Tri - 75

Full disclosure - 10 mg. of lipitor.

Anyway - to each his own. But when he went into VT last year, if his arteries hadn’t been as clear as they were he wouldn’t be alive today.

So - I’m happy this is working for you, but your approach is not for everyone, particularly those with high cholesterol.

BunsenBurner · May 4, 2011, 7:38pm

I do not care if she re-married the same guy, but this is hard to top!

[Marie</a> Osmond Remarries First Husband In Las Vegas - Stop The Presses!](<a href=“http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/392196/marie-osmond-remarries-her-first-husband/]Marie”>http://new.music.yahoo.com/blogs/stopthepresses/392196/marie-osmond-remarries-her-first-husband/)

How many of us can squeeze in our wedding clothes now? :eek:

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 7:50pm

That’s not cut and dried. The latest thinking on correlations with coronary artery disease are:

1) High HDL lowers your risk

2) High Triglycerides increases your risk

3) Small, dense LDL are very high risk. These are the culprit in plaque build-up in arteries.

4) Large fluffy LDL is low risk. These molecules are too big to embed in damaged artery walls.

5) Total cholesterol is largely irrelevant. The devil is in the details.

Until recently, the thnking was that you had to lower LDL cholesterol. Now, they understand that there are two types.

Anyway, I think if someone does well on the American Heart Association high carb/low fat diet, then that’s fantastic. I’m not trying to convince anyone to change their diet. I’m just explaining what I eat and the rationale behind it. Actually, my diet would probably best be described as adequate protein, moderate carb, high fat. 100 g of carbohydrate a day isn’t super low. I am generally very low on sugar and refined carbs. So I am in agreement with the AHA on reducing sugar and elminating trans fats.

In reality, genetics probably plays a bigger role in all this than diet and exercise and none of us have much control over that!

ucbalumnus · May 4, 2011, 8:13pm

However, both groups appear to have regressed at 2 years (-7.37 and -6.34 kg respectively). Also, less of that loss was fat loss (-3.84 and -3.99 kg respectively); loss of muscle is not good.

Also, it is no secret that the biggest calorie bombs are foods high in both carbohydrates and fat, since the carbohydrates absorb fat (so it has the calories in the carbohydrates plus the calories in the absorbed fat), as well as drinkable sugars, which is why low carb dieters who stick to the limitations of the diet eat low calorie.

worknprogress2 · May 4, 2011, 8:13pm

IDad - you are correct. I know all about VLDL and their make-up and properties. And about CRP and homocysteine. You name it, we have read about it. This is not a new topic for us. All I know is that with the low fat approach, DH went from having two arteries that required by-pass at age 44 (and as I said, his diet was pretty darn good & he did triathlons, marathons, lifted weights, etc. - he just made a poor maternal choice) to having arteries that look good. Anyway - we can each stick to what works for us.

interesteddad · May 4, 2011, 8:49pm

I’m just glad that your husband is doing well!

Diet/Exercise/Health/Wellness Support Thread

CONNECT WITH US