Why Fat is the Preferred Fuel for Human Metabolism

Two years ago, I pretty much stopped eating meat. I eat chicken on rare occasions, but no more beef, pork, or fish. I don't eat eggs and I drink fat free milk. I obtain my protein from the fat free milk and soybeans. In the past one year, my total cholesterol has dropped from 253 to 206. I haven't lost weight at all, not that I want to, since I have always been thin. I am 5'10 and weigh 140 lbs.

So many people are brainwashed into thinking that they have to eat tons of beef and eggs to obtain their protein...a big myth that is perpetuated. That's why we have so many unhealthy people in this country and alot of obese people with diabetes and heart disease. Of course, the doctors, hospitals, and drug companies all benefit from all of the medical problems.

 

Fat is fat is fat is fat. Coconut oil is just another scam promoted on the internet.

More on this here and here.

Plant based whole foods is the way to go .

 

"On the Larry King show, you recently defended Gary Taubes, the science writer who questions the value of low-fat diets, and who says saturated fats have gotten a bum rap. Is this a change in your views?
No, I have said this in my books. I have never felt that saturated fat was as bad as it is made out to be, if it is eaten in the context of a diet that includes mostly monounsaturated fats, plenty of omega 3 fatty acids, and plenty of antioxidants. With regard to saturated fat, I tell people that you can have some saturated fat in your diet; just think about where you want to spend your saturated fat budget. I choose to spend mine on quality cheese.

So what ideas have you changed?
I think there is more of a change in my thinking about carbohydrates. In the past five or six years, there has been a real explosion of quality research into the glycemic load and its effect on weight gain and insulin sensitivity.


And are you using this insight personally? You were on the Martha Stewart show recently, and she was quite effusive about how good you looked.
Yes, I think I am quite sensitive to high-glycemic-load carbohydrates. Most of the processed, refined, manufactured foods are the ones that are quick digesting and problematical. Cutting back on them has helped me get my weight down, because my metabolism is certainly carbohydrate sensitive.

How much have you lost?
I don’t get weighed. I judge my condition by the fit of my clothing, and these days, I am much happier with it.

What, specifically, did you change?
Mostly, it was eating less bread and pasta, and cutting back on my sugar intake. In restaurants, I would sometimes eat dessert. I don’t do that now."
http://www.drweil.com/drw/u/ART02945/How-Dr-Weil-Eats.html

 

Evidence that Refined Carbohydrates, not Fats, Threaten the Heart
Whether the new thinking will be reflected in this year's revision of the federal dietary guidelines remains unclear

By Melinda Wenner Moyer | April 27, 2010 | 119


"Eat less saturated fat: that has been the take-home message from the U.S. government for the past 30 years. But while Americans have dutifully reduced the percentage of daily calories from saturated fat since 1970, the obesity rate during that time has more than doubled, diabetes has tripled, and heart disease is still the country’s biggest killer. Now a spate of new research, including a meta-analysis of nearly two dozen studies, suggests a reason why: investigators may have picked the wrong culprit. Processed carbohydrates, which many Americans eat today in place of fat, may increase the risk of obesity, diabetes and heart disease more than fat does—a finding that has serious implications for new dietary guidelines expected this year.

In March the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition published a meta-analysis—which combines data from several studies—that compared the reported daily food intake of nearly 350,000 people against their risk of developing cardiovascular disease over a period of five to 23 years. The analysis, overseen by Ronald M. Krauss, director of atherosclerosis research at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute, found no association between the amount of saturated fat consumed and the risk of heart disease.

The finding joins other conclusions of the past few years that run counter to the conventional wisdom that saturated fat is bad for the heart because it increases total cholesterol levels. That idea is “based in large measure on extrapolations, which are not supported by the data,” Krauss says.

One problem with the old logic is that “total cholesterol is not a great predictor of risk,” says Meir Stampfer, a professor of nutrition and epidemiology at the Harvard School of Public Health. Although saturated fat boosts blood levels of “bad” LDL cholesterol, it also increases “good” HDL cholesterol. In 2008 Stampfer co-authored a study in the New England Journal of Medicine that followed 322 moderately obese individuals for two years as they adopted one of three diets: a low-fat, calorie-restricted diet based on American Heart Association guidelines; a Mediterranean, restricted-calorie diet rich in vegetables and low in red meat; and a low-carbohydrate, nonrestricted-calorie diet. Although the subjects on the low-carb diet ate the most saturated fat, they ended up with the healthiest ratio of HDL to LDL cholesterol and lost twice as much weight as their low-fat-eating counterparts.

Stampfer’s findings do not merely suggest that saturated fats are not so bad; they indicate that carbohydrates could be worse. A 1997 study he co-authored in the Journal of the American Medical Association evaluated 65,000 women and found that the quintile of women who ate the most easily digestible and readily absorbed carbohydrates—that is, those with the highest glycemic index—were 47 percent more likely to acquire type 2 diabetes than those in the quintile with the lowest average glycemic-index score. (The amount of fat the women ate did not affect diabetes risk.) And a 2007 Dutch study of 15,000 women published in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology found that women who were overweight and in the quartile that consumed meals with the highest average glycemic load, a metric that incorporates portion size, were 79 percent more likely to develop coronary vascular disease than overweight women in the lowest quartile. These trends may be explained in part by the yo-yo effects that high glycemic-index carbohydrates have on blood glucose, which can stimulate fat production and inflammation, increase overall caloric intake and lower insulin sensitivity, says David Ludwig, director of the obesity program at Children’s Hospital Boston."
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=carbs-against-cardio

 

Thanks for posting that NoDoji! Success stories like this are the reason I chose the path.

 

If only life were so clear cut.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/

http://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cancer/the-china-study-vs-the-china-study/

 

Yes, tendlover and gabfly, I've seen al the stuff by Dr. Weil (who sells supplements and is overweight), and those attempting to make the results of the Cornell studies ("China Study") appear confusing. Always look at the ulterior motives of the blogger/writer, especially if the person or organization sells supplements of any kind. Nutritional supplements are the snake oil of our time, incredibly expensive and totally unnecessary products. I'm sure they provide a powerful placebo effect for many people, which alone could be worth money for the emotional well-being of a person; but as for rapid physical health improvement, nothing beats the spectrum of whole plant foods.

Overwhelming scientific evidence (not opinions of "science writers" and supplement pushers) is where the truth is found.

Still waiting for ten valid published studies demonstrating anything other than a whole foods plant-based diet prevents or reverses heart disease, symptoms of heart disease such as high cholesterol and high blood pressure, and type II diabetes, which the WFPBD has been proven to for decades.

Let's add to the challenge while we're at it. Can someone find just two valid published studies demonstrating that a WFPBD is in any way dangerous to one's health?

These need to be actual studies published in a peer-reviewed medical journal and not funded by any for-profit food, supplement or pharmaceutical companies; do not reference blogs, websites or opinion pieces derived from anecdotal evidence.

I'd like to add that refined carbs and sugars indeed threaten the heart and threaten health in many ways. They are nutritionally void and downright dangerous in the quantities most people consume, whether they're non-fat, low-fat or full-fat.

 

there is no doubt that the "western diet" is metabolistic terrorism.

"everything in moderation" is an important concept, however, "moderation" is a relative term.

various societies have healthy lifestyles without clinging on to the notion of a rigid "all or none" belief that a certain diet is the "holy grail".

yes, by all means, reduce or eliminate refined carbohydrates, reduce or eliminate red meat, increase complex carbohydrates (legumes, fresh fruits and veggies, whole grains) increase fats from whole nuts, get off you buttocks, get some fresh air, appreciate your environment, and limit your caloric intake.

what i find intriguing about incorporating more raw food in your diet is minimal body odor.

 

Where are your ten studies demonstrating reversal of heart disease thru adopting a plant food diet?

The only "proof" you've offered up for this claim are several well known vegans that also have something to sell.

The China Study and its methodology and conclusions has recieved plenty of valid critique. Epidemiological study (the China Study is just such a study) alone are rarely able to prove cause.

I turn the tables on you, let's see your ten CLINICAL studies.

 

As NoDoji said, there are problems with the critics credibility. Minger, the raw foods lady and amateur scientist, claims that eating vegan made her anorexic and mentally ill.

Taubs has a key piece of data wrong. Americans did not cut the amount of fat they consumed over the last 40 years. Instead they increased total calories while keeping the amount of fat fairly constant- so what decreased was the percent of calories from fat.