LCHF- Low Carb / High-Healthy Fat lifestyle.

Remove this Banner Ad

Spuddage said:
Uh oh.
http://m.smh.com.au/lifestyle/diet-...-a-factor-in-shorter-life-20140304-3456a.html

Low carbs may give you a world class cover drive, but it literally takes years off your life.
Click to expand...
Glad im not a mouse. Plus that article had nothing to do with this thread as that was about low carb high protein, and this thread is about Low carb high fat and "low/moderate" protein.

The article said
While the study was conducted on mice, the findings, published in the journal Cell Metabolism, are in line with recent epidemiological studies that have found people on low protein or vegetarian diets have better long-term health.
Click to expand...

For example my macros are 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fat. Fat is around 60% mono +30% sat and -10% poly.
So Spud maybe you should move this link to the general diet thread where it would be more relevant
 

Log in to remove this ad.

King Elvis said:
Except most of these people recommend high fat, moderate protein, low carb; as high protein and low everything else does put stress on the body (kidneys, I think), isn't that the case?
Click to expand...
Sounds right - 58% of protein is converted to carbs anyway (largely by the kidneys)
 
Mofra said:
Probably more anti-Paleo than anything else, where was that other article that put the Paleo diet last out of a list of 30?
Click to expand...
It was last and LCHF was second last, but the top three were designed by three powerful organisations like diabetes ass and heart ass who have massive funding behind them, and the so called experts who ranked the diets didnt want to rock their funding boat by going against them

And my weight started to rapidly gain over Xmas and it was a concern, i then started wtiting down what i was consuming and measuring the macros and realised my protein had doubled through higher meat consumption, i dropped it back to around 80grams and the weight just fell back off.
 
Bazzar said:
It was last and LCHF was second last, but the top three were designed by three powerful organisations like diabetes ass and heart ass who have massive funding behind them, and the so called experts who ranked the diets didnt want to rock their funding boat by going against them

And my weight started to rapidly gain over Xmas and it was a concern, i then started wtiting down what i was consuming and measuring the macros and realised my protein had doubled through higher meat consumption, i dropped it back to around 80grams and the weight just fell back off.
Click to expand...
That's the folly in ranking diets anyway - it doesn't take into account goals.

I'm reasonably lean (6'2", 86kgs currently) and would like to add ~2kgs in weight so my ideal diet is going to be substantially different to a 5'4" 120kgs female who does far less intense exercise (if at all).
I'm actively adding extra fat-calories to my diet (ie butter in PWO shake, extra olive oil on salads, pouring the fat from the pan over my steak at dinnertime) to avoid losing more weight.
 
Its an interesting read, but they say at this stage they dont know how it relates to humans.
Here is the summary
The fundamental questions of what represents a macronutritionally balanced diet and how this maintains health and longevity remain unanswered. Here, the Geometric Framework, a state-space nutritional modeling method, was used to measure interactive effects of dietary energy, protein, fat, and carbohydrate on food intake, cardiometabolic phenotype, and longevity in mice fed one of 25 diets ad libitum. Food intake was regulated primarily by protein and carbohydrate content. Longevity and health were optimized when protein was replaced with carbohydrate to limit compensatory feeding for protein and suppress protein intake. These consequences are associated with hepatic mammalian target of rapamycin (mTOR) activation and mitochondrial function and, in turn, related to circulating branched-chain amino acids and glucose. Calorie restriction achieved by high-protein diets or dietary dilution had no beneficial effects on lifespan. The results suggest that longevity can be extended in ad libitum-fed animals by manipulating the ratio of macronutrients to inhibit mTOR activation.
Click to expand...


And here is the conclusion
Our results show that healthy aging is not achieved in mice fed high-protein diets and/or diluted diets to reduce calorie intake, but rather by low-protein diets (especially, we might predict, those low in BCAAs), where additional energy requirements are met by dietary carbohydrates rather than fats. A priority is to establish whether the same applies for humans, especially considering that high-protein diets are widely promoted for weight loss and health. An additional priority is to consider the makeup of lipids in the diet and the quality of carbohydrates. Given the profound effects of the balance of macronutrients on energy intake, health, and longevity, it is clear that dietary interventions aimed at influencing health or aging outcomes must be considered in the context of the underlying dietary landscape.
Click to expand...

http://www.cell.com/cell-metabolism/fulltext/S1550-4131(14)00065-5#Summary
 
Spuddage said:
Thought this part applied somewhat:
"Mice on low-protein, high-fat diets or those with a restricted calorie intake were the least healthy and died younger."
Click to expand...
They also said the highest life span was low protein high carb but the mice were the fattest. So do you think that means we as a society should stop with all this diet nonsense and all get fatter?
 
This was an interesting response in the UK Independent
However Dr Gunter Kuhnle, a food nutrition scientist at the University of Reading, criticised the study for making a link to smoking.
“While this study raises some interesting perspectives on links between protein intake and mortality… It is wrong, and potentially even dangerous, to compare the effects of smoking with the effect of meat and cheese,” he said.

“The smoker thinks: 'Why bother quitting smoking if my cheese and ham sandwich is just as bad for me?'”

And Professor Tim Key, of Cancer Research UK, said: “Further research is needed to establish whether there is any link between eating a high protein diet and an increased risk of middle aged people dying from cancer.”
Click to expand...
http://www.independent.co.uk/life-s...mful-as-smoking-scientists-claim-9169335.html
 
Bazzar said:
Glad im not a mouse. Plus that article had nothing to do with this thread as that was about low carb high protein, and this thread is about Low carb high fat and "low/moderate" protein.

The article said


For example my macros are 5% carbs, 15% protein and 80% fat. Fat is around 60% mono +30% sat and -10% poly.
So Spud maybe you should move this link to the general diet thread where it would be more relevant
Click to expand...
The article is irrelevant as its from the SMH and written in a way to cater to someone who likes their information in bite sized chunks.

The actual study warns against high fat diets too so it is entirely relevant.

http://www.abc.net.au/am/content/2014/s3956951.htm

DAVID LE COUTEUR: The healthiest diets were the ones that had the lowest protein, 5 to 10 to 15 per cent protein, the highest amount of carbohydrate, so 60, 70, 75 per cent carbohydrate, and a reasonably low fat content, so less than 20 per cent. They were also the diets that had the highest energy content. We found that diluting the diets to reduce the energy intake actually made the animals die more quickly.
Click to expand...

Sorta amusing the SMH article was written by someone called nicky
 
Bazzar said:
They also said the highest life span was low protein high carb but the mice were the fattest. So do you think that means we as a society should stop with all this diet nonsense and all get fatter?
Click to expand...
I'd rather be slightly overweight and live to a ripe old age than be skinny and dead
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Mancey said:
I'd rather be slightly overweight and live to a ripe old age than be skinny and dead
Click to expand...
Did you read the study, especially the bit that said
A priority is to establish whether the same applies for humans,
Click to expand...

Here is one from PubMed
"Low-carbohydrate diets and all-cause and cause-specific mortality: two cohort studies.

CONCLUSION:A low-carbohydrate diet based on animal sources was associated with higher all-cause mortality in both men and women, whereas a vegetable-based low-carbohydrate diet was associated with lower all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality rates."

I think you will find most carbs consumed by LCHF and Paleo are of the plant variety.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?cmd=Search&term=Ann. Intern. Med.[ta] AND 153[vol] AND 289[page]&doptcmdl=Abstract

[I edited the herbivore bit as it was wrong, mice are omnivores]
 
Last edited:
Not exactly a useful study for this argument given it is basically comparing 2 types of low carb diets, rather than low carb vs normal diets vs high carb

Low-carbohydrate diets, either animal-based (emphasizing animal sources of fat and protein) or vegetable-based (emphasizing vegetable sources of fat and protein), were computed from several validated food-frequency questionnaires assessed during follow-up.
Click to expand...

And it seems to back up the Sydney study which said low carb, high animal based fat diets increase mortality

A priority of all animal based studies is to establish a human correlation. Easier said than done though considering a rat trial takes 3-5 years and human epidemiological studies 20-50, by which time a lot of people have died from poor dietary choices.

Not to mention a human trial has a million confounding factors influencing results like exercise, lifestyle, employment history, exposure to toxins etc etc that are all tightly controlled in a lab experiment. Animal testing has been shown to be an extremely good surrogate for human testing, that said a scientist always wants more data
 
Mofra said:
That's the folly in ranking diets anyway - it doesn't take into account goals.

I'm reasonably lean (6'2", 86kgs currently) and would like to add ~2kgs in weight so my ideal diet is going to be substantially different to a 5'4" 120kgs female who does far less intense exercise (if at all).
I'm actively adding extra fat-calories to my diet (ie butter in PWO shake, extra olive oil on salads, pouring the fat from the pan over my steak at dinnertime) to avoid losing more weight.
Click to expand...

U should try switching the butter to MCT oil in ya post w/o shake, MCT oil can increase protein synthesis & prolong the post w/o HGH benefits from the workout.
 
Bazzar said:
I did read this comment on another forum and found it interesting

Mice are natural herbivores, not designed by evolution to eat a high protein diet. The study is total garbage, just as with most mouse studies. Results are not applicable to humans.
Click to expand...
Click to expand...

Yes... interesting, but it is a perfect example of why believing things written by internet experts is generally not recommended.

The C57BL/6 mice used in the study are omnivorous. Anyone who uses a catchall argument like "Mice are natural herbivores" is obviously an idiot
 
Mancey said:
Yes... interesting, but it is a perfect example of why believing things written by internet experts is generally not recommended.

The C57BL/6 mice used in the study are omnivorous. Anyone who uses a catchall argument like "Mice are natural herbivores" is obviously an idiot
Click to expand...

I was editing as you wrote it as it was retracted by the original poster.
 
Mofra said:
Sounds right - 58% of protein is converted to carbs anyway (largely by the kidneys)
Click to expand...

Can someone please explain this concept that has a good understanding of it (mofra, bazaar, ablett, etc)? I remember trying to look into it before but couldnt find a great deal.
I was basically wondering is it along these lines or something similar.
-e.g. say if you eat 200 grams of protein throughout the day and that is enough for your body to use, then if you were to eat an additional 100 grams of protein the body can not use it and therefore converts that 100 grams (or 58% of it?) to glycogen or glucose?
- Or is it a percentage of all protein. E.g. if you only eat 50 grams per day is 58% of that still converted to carbs?
- And lastly, what's the pro's/con's of getting this carb source from protein? Is it better just to eat straight carbs rather than protein that gets converted?
Thanks!
 
metcard99 said:
Can someone please explain this concept that has a good understanding of it (mofra, bazaar, ablett, etc)? I remember trying to look into it before but couldnt find a great deal.
I was basically wondering is it along these lines or something similar.
-e.g. say if you eat 200 grams of protein throughout the day and that is enough for your body to use, then if you were to eat an additional 100 grams of protein the body can not use it and therefore converts that 100 grams (or 58% of it?) to glycogen or glucose?
- Or is it a percentage of all protein. E.g. if you only eat 50 grams per day is 58% of that still converted to carbs?
- And lastly, what's the pro's/con's of getting this carb source from protein? Is it better just to eat straight carbs rather than protein that gets converted?
Thanks!
Click to expand...

The 58% (on average) of Protein is broken down into glucose by hydrolysis, it is then converted to glycogen and stored. If there is too much its converted to fat.
In every 100grams of protein food, there are about 20 grams of actual protein, 58% can become carbohydrate and ends up as 11.5 grams of sugar. Insulin slows down the livers process of making sugar from protein but if your insulin resistant its unable to use that to its best advantage.

1 gram per 1.1kg of "targeted" bodyweight is preferd, and for someone who trains with weights add an extra 10-20grams per day.

The interesting part is all the low carb experts have already factored this in, so a 50gram carb a day plan has the protein/carb count added. For me thats an extra 45-50grams of protein carbs to add to my 30 grams of vegie carbs.
 
I've been doing this, dabbling in keto (not eating enough fat, initially) for weight loss as well, to a certain extent for a while.

Ordered half a dozen HFLC cookbooks from Amazon today; will start doing it properly in the next week or two.

Always feel better when I eat low carb, it's just upping the fat a little that'll take some getting used to.
 
King Elvis said:
I've been doing this, dabbling in keto (not eating enough fat, initially) for weight loss as well, to a certain extent for a while.

Ordered half a dozen HFLC cookbooks from Amazon today; will start doing it properly in the next week or two.

Always feel better when I eat low carb, it's just upping the fat a little that'll take some getting used to.
Click to expand...

Sounds great :thumbsu: Let us know how they go.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top