High-Fat Diet Is Only Unhealthy In Tandem With A High-Carb One
I recently blogged about the American Heart Association's reprehensible "Bad Fat Brothers" campaign where they use cartoon characters to spoof how allegedly unhealthy saturated fat and trans fat are in your diet. Absolutely abhorrent!
Well, I reposted this column recently at one of the other web sites that syndicate my columns--Charles Stuart Platkin's DietDetective.com. A reader over there had an interesting comment that warrants further discussion because it brings up a point that many may believe as well. Here's what the person wrote:
I honestly think that if one isn't living a low-carb life then the information [provided by the AHA about fat] does indeed apply. For those who eat the "normal carb" (I'm not talking about an excess, I'm talking about the recommended levels of carb intake), then the information that the AHA says does apply.
Hmmm, interesting concept this reader has brought up. Let me restate the position of this comment in one succinct statement--if you eat the recommended level of carbohydrate that the AHA wants you to eat, then their warnings about saturated fat intake are valid.
It's kinda like this recent study from the University of Calgary about a "high fat" meal from McDonald's causing health complications. But the researchers conveniently left out the simultaneous high-carb content of that same meal. So a high-fat diet is harmful only in the presence of lots of carbs.
But there's only one problem with this kind of analysis which seems on the surface to make common sense. Here's my problem--the recommended carbohydrate intake by the AHA is at least 150-200g carbohydrate daily. Who says this is a healthy amount of carbs to eat? I haven't eaten anywhere close to this carb total in over three years.
Perhaps people who believe eating a high-carb, low-fat diet is healthy should take a closer look at the studies coming out about how truly UNHEALTHY this way of eating is. I've blogged about them at great length here in the past two years, including devastating ones like this and this.
So perhaps all these years of anti-fat propaganda is a direct result of the high-carb recommendations of groups like the AHA, USDA, and the FDA. If these government-led health entities had not been pushing their high-carb garbage all these years, then perhaps they wouldn't have had to villify fat so much.
Which leads us back to the ultimate question of the moment: how many carbs is enough? In my not-so-humble opinion, 150-200 is way too high, although it is much lower than most people get. But I think everyone should be eating less than 100g daily and a whole lot less than that for people who need to lose weight or control diseases like diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and the like.
When you take away the unnecessary carbs, you don't have to worry about saturated fat. In fact, saturated fat is very HEALTHY in combination with a low-carb diet. What's so wrong with this dietary plan? Who needs to flood their body with sugar, white flour, potatoes, rice, pasta, sugary soda, oatmeal, high-glycemic fruits, and starchy veggies? It's just junk, pure unadulterated junk!
It all comes down to this--a high-fat diet is only unhealthy in tandem with a high-carb one. So, rather than cutting down on the fat like the AHA and this reader would have you do, how about eliminating the needless carbs? Revolutionary? You betcha! Innovative? Oh yeah!
That's why so many of us are livin' la vida low-carb and happily so. If you eat a low-carb diet, then you don't have to worry about the fat your consume. You just don't and the research is proving it. Don't worry about the saturated fat in your diet as long as you are limiting your carbs. Got it? GOOD! Now, tell me what you think.
Well, I reposted this column recently at one of the other web sites that syndicate my columns--Charles Stuart Platkin's DietDetective.com. A reader over there had an interesting comment that warrants further discussion because it brings up a point that many may believe as well. Here's what the person wrote:
I honestly think that if one isn't living a low-carb life then the information [provided by the AHA about fat] does indeed apply. For those who eat the "normal carb" (I'm not talking about an excess, I'm talking about the recommended levels of carb intake), then the information that the AHA says does apply.
Hmmm, interesting concept this reader has brought up. Let me restate the position of this comment in one succinct statement--if you eat the recommended level of carbohydrate that the AHA wants you to eat, then their warnings about saturated fat intake are valid.
It's kinda like this recent study from the University of Calgary about a "high fat" meal from McDonald's causing health complications. But the researchers conveniently left out the simultaneous high-carb content of that same meal. So a high-fat diet is harmful only in the presence of lots of carbs.
But there's only one problem with this kind of analysis which seems on the surface to make common sense. Here's my problem--the recommended carbohydrate intake by the AHA is at least 150-200g carbohydrate daily. Who says this is a healthy amount of carbs to eat? I haven't eaten anywhere close to this carb total in over three years.
Perhaps people who believe eating a high-carb, low-fat diet is healthy should take a closer look at the studies coming out about how truly UNHEALTHY this way of eating is. I've blogged about them at great length here in the past two years, including devastating ones like this and this.
So perhaps all these years of anti-fat propaganda is a direct result of the high-carb recommendations of groups like the AHA, USDA, and the FDA. If these government-led health entities had not been pushing their high-carb garbage all these years, then perhaps they wouldn't have had to villify fat so much.
Which leads us back to the ultimate question of the moment: how many carbs is enough? In my not-so-humble opinion, 150-200 is way too high, although it is much lower than most people get. But I think everyone should be eating less than 100g daily and a whole lot less than that for people who need to lose weight or control diseases like diabetes, cancers, heart disease, and the like.
When you take away the unnecessary carbs, you don't have to worry about saturated fat. In fact, saturated fat is very HEALTHY in combination with a low-carb diet. What's so wrong with this dietary plan? Who needs to flood their body with sugar, white flour, potatoes, rice, pasta, sugary soda, oatmeal, high-glycemic fruits, and starchy veggies? It's just junk, pure unadulterated junk!
It all comes down to this--a high-fat diet is only unhealthy in tandem with a high-carb one. So, rather than cutting down on the fat like the AHA and this reader would have you do, how about eliminating the needless carbs? Revolutionary? You betcha! Innovative? Oh yeah!
That's why so many of us are livin' la vida low-carb and happily so. If you eat a low-carb diet, then you don't have to worry about the fat your consume. You just don't and the research is proving it. Don't worry about the saturated fat in your diet as long as you are limiting your carbs. Got it? GOOD! Now, tell me what you think.
Labels: American Heart Association, Bad Fat Brothers, fat, high-carb, high-fat, low-carb, low-fat, saturated fat
posted by Jimmy Moore at
5/01/2007 09:49:00 PM
3 Comments:
Jimmy,Jimmy, Jimmy, Don't assume that just because a diet is low fat that it is all sugar and white flour, that is just as idiotic as the assumptions and accusations that all low carb diets are based on bacon and cheese. Even Valerie Berkowitz has said that low fat diets work. And as you yourself have noted its about finding what work for you and sticking with it, and for many folks that thing is a reduced fat diet. Low carb diets are a certainly vaild option for many, but it is only one, of many options.
THANKS, Kevin and I agree. But the point is the seemingly obsessive focus on fat while completely ignoring the role of carbs in the fat/carb connection is as ignorant as it is foolish.
How about we tell people that if you are going to eat carbs, then you had better cut down on your fat and protein? Or, if you want to eat plenty of fat and protein, then reduce your carb intake.
Isn't that better than the shrieking, "CUT YOUR FAT, CUT YOUR FAT" idiocy all the time?
Have you ever read the CHINA STUDY?
Based on your comments about fat and carbs this large scale epidemiological study seems to bear out your observations. For an agricultural based, i.e. high carb diet, the less animal fat in the diet, the lower the incidence of diseases like cancer. The Intuit diet seems to indicate that low carb/high fat is the way to go to keep the big C at bay as well as other chronic diseases.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home