Dangers of Ultra Low Fat Diet?

[aka23]

REMOVED due to one poster using this post to discredit me in threads that unrelated to this topic.

[GonePostal]

You need fat. Fat is a good thing not a bad thing. You need fat to create hormones and create new cells.

[bradley]

http://www.mercola.com/2002/mar/16/omega3.htm

http://www.mercola.com/nutritionplan/beginner_fats.htm

These two articles may be of interest to you.

[EdgeCrusher]

Are you overweight? Because you're taking in way too many carbs and not enough protein. Also, fat is good when they are the "good fats." Which generally come from non-processed stuff and not from meat. You should increase your fat, but avoid that "partially hydrogenated" crap and meat if you are already getting a good intake.

[aka23]

Are you overweight? Because you're taking in way too many carbs and not enough protein.

No, I am not overweight. I am 6ft, 160lb, and a little under 5% bodyfat. I am taking in ~1g protein per lb. This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.

Also, fat is good when they are the "good fats." Which generally come from non-processed stuff and not from meat. You should increase your fat, but avoid that "partially hydrogenated" crap and meat if you are already getting a good intake.

The majority of the fat that I do get comes from natural non-meat sources, such as oatmeal. However, according to the articles that bradley listed meat fat has benefits. They suggested that people need to increase their ratio of omega3 (fish/fish oil) to omega 6 (vegatable oil) fats.

In any case, I do not eat any unnatural foods or foods that contain "partionally hydrogenated" fat. I bought some EFA suppliments today that contain both omega3 and omega6, to be on the safe side.

[_-_v_-_]

Honestly, you sound exactly like I was two years ago.

You do NOT want to know what you are doing to your testosterone levels by doing this. Trust me.

I'm two years out and still not recovered.

Eat. Fat.

It. Is. Not. Bad. For. You.

Repeat: Fat is a Good Thing (TM).

[EdgeCrusher]

Originally posted by aka23


No, I am not overweight. I am 6ft, 160lb, and about 4% bodyfat. I am taking in about 150g of protein per day or .94g protein per lb. This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.



The majority of the fat that I do get comes from natural non-meat sources, such as oatmeal. However, according to the articles that bradley listed meat fat has benefits. They suggested that people need to increase their ratio of omega3 (meat/fish oil) to omega 6 (vegatable oil) fats. I suspect that the article is giving a distorted impression and both types of fats are important.

In any case, I do not eat any unnatural foods or foods that contain "partionally hydrogenated" fat. I know I should increase my fat intake, but I am uncomfortable making any drastic changes. I bought some EFA suppliments today that contain both omega3 and omega6, to be on the safe side.

The you sound like you're doing decent right now. I'd still increase my fat and protein a decent amount, but from what you've said, you're doing OK.

[Saint Patrick]

I'd say make carbs no more than 40% of your total coloric intake. Given your low BW and BF I'm assuming you're trying to bulk. I'd recommend 40c/40p/20f or something like that. Invest in some olive oil for some healthy monounsaturated fat and some flax or fish oil for some EFA's. These guys are right, eat more fat, but also eat more protein.

[restless]

Originally posted by aka23


No, I am not overweight. I am 6ft, 160lb, and about 4% bodyfat. I am taking in about 150g of protein per day or .94g protein per lb. This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.

If they're recommending this either they don't know what they're talking about, or that book is outdated by around 20 years.

The majority of the fat that I do get comes from natural non-meat sources, such as oatmeal. However, according to the articles that bradley listed meat fat has benefits. They suggested that people need to increase their ratio of omega3 (meat/fish oil) to omega 6 (vegatable oil) fats. I suspect that the article is giving a distorted impression and both types of fats are important.

He is not giving a distorted view, he is just recommending the necessary adjustments for regular crap diets that are way to high in O6 and O3 deficient.

Read this one too:

Big fat lie

In any case, I do not eat any unnatural foods or foods that contain "partionally hydrogenated" fat. I know I should increase my fat intake, but I am uncomfortable making any drastic changes. I bought some EFA suppliments today that contain both omega3 and omega6, to be on the safe side.

Unnatural is a very relative term, to me, most food you're eating is unnatural and a low fat diet is the most unnatural of them all. Try to find a hunther gatherer tribe that still lives like we did for a couple of million years that's on a lowfat diet. The Enuiq for example, had a diet of only animal protein and fat and had absolutely no heart disease or diabetes.

Fat is used to mantain hornonal balance and has many structural functions too. Only some amino acids and those two kinds of fatty acid that have been mentioned are really essential to our healths, but even this simple fact people fail to understand.

You can be sure you are damaging your health, and the longer you do it the worst it will be.

[aka23]

You do NOT want to know what you are doing to your testosterone levels by doing this. Trust me.

I did a search on the Internet on low fat diets and testosterone. Unfortunately, I could little find little consistent data in the amount of decrease. The article linked below gives a good summary of the recent studies:

http://www.thinkmuscle.com/articles/incledon/diet02.htm

They found that "the best type of diet to follow if your only concern is to increase testosterone levels and make more of it available to the body for the purpose of improving lean body mass and/or performance" should have the following:

1. Carb needs to exceeds protein by at least 40% to keep the bioactive fraction of Testosterone high.
2. Fat intake should be at least 30%
3. Saturated fat needs to be higher than polyunsaturated fatty acids
4. Fiber intake needs to be low

Their example diet to increase Testosterone levels was 55% carbs, 15% protein, 30% fat.

To lower testosterone in order to minimize cardiovascular disease risk factors and/or hormone-dependent cancer risks, their example diet was 50% carbs, 30% protein, 20% fat.

[aka23]

Originally posted by aka23
This is above the recommended levels of protein for athletes according to the American College of Sports Medicine, American Dietetic Association, the Dietitians of Canada, and my nutrition textbook.

Originally posted by restless
If they're recommending this either they don't know what they're talking about, or that book is outdated by around 20 years.

I dont think the American College of Sports Medicine and those other organizations all don't know what they are talking about. They have a lot of recent scientific studies to back up their numbers. The following article gives a good summary of needs:

http://www.power-nutrition.com/healt...ing/amino.html

Here is a quote:
Peter Lemon, PhD, an exercise physiologist at Kent State University in Ohio, has spent his career studying the protein requirements of strength and endurance athletes. Based on his studies, Lemon advises no more than 1 gram of protein per pound of body weight per day. Consuming protein above this amount will probably not offer any additional benefits. Greater intakes than 1 gm/lb mean you're likely wasting money on excess protein. Extra protein breaks down into nitrogen that is excreted in urine. The calories are either used for energy or stored as fat. The following table can provide a guideline for how much protein you should eating.

Table 1. Recommended Grams of Protein Per Pound of Body Weight Per Day*
_________________________________________
RDA for sedentary adult 0.4
Adult recreational exerciser 0.5 - 0.75
Adult competitive athlete 0.7 - 0.9
Adult building muscle mass 0.7 -1.0
Growing teenage athlete 0.9 -1.0
__________________________________________


My .94g/day is above the 0.7-0.9 recommeded range for competitive athletes.

[restless]

I have no issue whatsoever with 1gr per pound protein intake, I myself don't go much above that. I do have an issue with the low fat argument though. The 30 % guideline is a good place to start, and be sure to have some saturated fat in that diet too.

[_-_v_-_]

Exactly.

I myself use a 45/30/25 c/p/f split, and it's been working well.

[Shao-LiN]

At least 20% of your caloric intake should come from fats. Fats are pretty beneficial to a bulk, especially in maintaining a good hormonal profile. You'd also need fat to keep the fat off.

[aka23]

Originally posted by restless
Unnatural is a very relative term, to me, most food you're eating is unnatural and a low fat diet is the most unnatural of them all. Try to find a hunther gatherer tribe that still lives like we did for a couple of million years that's on a lowfat diet. The Enuiq for example, had a diet of only animal protein and fat and had absolutely no heart disease or diabetes.

It depends on your perspective. All primates evolved from a low-fat , high-carb diet. If you look at our nearest primate neighbor, the chipanzee, they eat more than 80% carb and under 9% fat. Some might call the hunter-gatherer unnatural. There were plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate low fat diets. For example the men of the Oto tribe in the forests of Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. There were also plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate high proetin, high-fat diets.

The Enuiq's no heart disease/no diabetes is not unique. For example tribes in Africa, New Guinea, Ecuador, and Mexico, all of which eat diets containing less than 10 percent fat and protein respectively, and about 80 percent complex carbohydrate have rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, and diabetes of near zero. After introducing the traditional Western diet, they often develop numerous problems.

I am not saying that high-carb diets are good and low-carb diets are bad. I am saying that humans have evolved do well on a wide variety of diets. One of the few diets that we haven't evolved to do well on is the Western diet of junk food, partially hydrogenated fats, etc.

[restless]

Originally posted by aka23


It depends on your perspective.

Well, everything does...

All primates evolved from a low-fat , high-carb diet. If you look at our nearest primate neighbor, the chipanzee, they eat more than 80% carb and under 9% fat. Some might call the hunter-gatherer unnatural. There were plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate low fat diets. For example the men of the Oto tribe in the forests of Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. There were also plenty of hunter gatherer tribes that ate high proetin, high-fat diets.

No point in bringing the chimpanzee diet into discussion. One of the biggest diferences between us and them is exactly the stomach and intestine flora. We can't digest most stuff they eat, so I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here.

The Enuiq's no heart disease/no diabetes is not unique. For example tribes in Africa, New Guinea, Ecuador, and Mexico, all of which eat diets containing less than 10 percent fat and protein respectively, and about 80 percent complex carbohydrate have rates of obesity, coronary heart disease, and diabetes of near zero. After introducing the traditional Western diet, they often develop numerous problems.

Interesting. Can you tell me what were their carb sources and since when they had these nutritional habits?

I was talking from about 1.8 million years ago to around 10 000 years ago, time of the agricultural revolution.

I am not saying that high-carb diets are good and low-carb diets are bad. I am saying that humans have evolved do well on a wide variety of diets. One of the few diets that we haven't evolved to do well on is the Western diet of junk food, partially hydrogenated fats, etc.

I agree with this. It is my belief that generally speaking, mankind evolved on a relatively high fat diet, but not the kind of mutant fats people eat these days.

[restless]

There was a nice thread about this a while ago:

Carb craze thread.

[aka23]

My point was to show that the traditional human diet depended on your perspective. In some regards a low fat diet is traditional, and a paleolithic diet is not. Also note that the majority of the late primate diet consists of things that are edible to homasapiens, such as ripe fruit.

It is oversimplifying things to think that all Paleolithic men and women ate a high protein, high fat diet. Early humans lived in ecological niches with widely varying food sources. They likely ate meat only when they were lucky enough to catch it. Their diet likely depended on the season and likely included insects, leaves, and possibly even other people. If they lived near water, they probably ate lots of fish instead of meat. Some paleothic humans ate no meat, some ate moderate amounts, and some ate large amounts. In many groups, the amount depended on the season.

The evidence about their diet is based on things like tooth marks and fossil remails. In reality nobody knows the exact percentages of fat/protein /carb that early humans ate. Some groups probably ate low fat diets. Some groups probably ate high fat diets. There have been a wide variety of estimates.

In addition, the traditional paleolithic diet was likely to have several nutritional deficiencies that may have been evident if they did not die at such a young age. We believe that Paleolithic men rarely suffered heart disease and cancer. We also believe they rarelly lived to the usual age when these diseases set in and were not exposed to many of the damaging effects of modern civilization.

I do not think one can assume that it is desireable to eat a high fat/protein diet because a large portion of paleolithic humans may have eaten this way prior to agriculture. I think we should focus on more modern dietary studies.

[restless]

Originally posted by aka23
My point was to show that the traditional human diet depended on your perspective. In some regards a low fat diet is traditional, and a paleolithic diet is not.

Well, I can't understand the things you say, really. I have seen no evidence of low fat diets in any "tradicional" culture prior to agriculture, nor do I see how it would be possible.

Also note that the majority of the late primate diet consists of things that are edible to homasapiens, such as ripe fruit.

What do you mean by late primates? I'm concerned with humans only.

In addition, the traditional paleolithic diet was likely to have several nutritional deficiencies that may have been evident if they did not die at such a young age. We believe that Paleolithic men rarely suffered heart disease and cancer. We also believe they rarelly lived to the usual age when these diseases set in and were not exposed to many of the damaging effects of modern civilization.

Then how come the fossil records show they had better bone density than we have? And how come there was a drop in lifespan with the advent of the agricultural revolution, and it's subsequent increase in dietary carbohydrate and decrease in protein/fat?


The extended life span is essentially a product of modern science, not improved nutritional habits. I guess the only thing we agree is that modern diets are, generally speaking, crap.

Most of us have been down the road you're traveling, we tried something different and saw improvements. If you start by adding a few gr of EFA's to your diet, in the NATURAL 1 to 1 ratio of moega 6 to omega 3, like mankind ate through evolution, you0ll see some imporvements in all areas, including body mass composition.

[restless]

Speaking of modern science:

Dietary fat: assessing the evidence in support of a moderate-fat diet; the benchmark based on lipoprotein metabolism.

Kris-Etherton PM, Kris-Etherton PM, Binkoski AE, Zhao G, Coval SM, Clemmer KF, Hecker KD, Jacques H, Etherton TD.

Nutrition Department, The Pennsylvania State University, University Park, PA, USA. pmk3@psu.edu

There is a growing database that has evaluated the effects of varying amounts of total fat on risk factors for cardiovascular disease, diabetes and overweight and obesity. The evidence clearly suggests that extremes in dietary fat should be avoided, and instead a diet moderate in total fat (25-35 % energy) is preferable for the majority of individuals. Moreover, we now appreciate the importance of individualizing dietary fat recommendations within this range of total fat. With respect to cardiovascular disease, a diet higher in total fat (30-35 % energy) affects the lipid and lipoprotein risk profile more favourably than a lower-fat diet; this is also the case for individuals with diabetes, with the added benefit of better glycaemic control. Dietary fibre (> or = 25 g/d) attenuates and even prevents the potentially adverse lipid and lipoprotein effects of a lower-fat diet. With respect to weight control, a moderate-fat diet can be as, or even more, effective than a lower-fat diet, because of advantages with long-term adherence and potentially favourable effects on lipids and lipoproteins. Thus, there is now a convincing scientific basis to advocate a diet moderate in total fat for the majority of individuals. Implicit to this position is that unsaturated fat has numerous beneficial health effects. However, because fat is energy dense, moderation in fat intake is essential for weight control. Consequently, a simple message to convey is to avoid diets that are very low and very high in fat. Moreover, within the range of a moderate-fat diet it is still important to individualize the total fat prescription. Nonetheless, the guiding principle is that moderation in total fat is the defining benchmark for a contemporary diet that reduces risk of chronic disease.


Of course, you can find a million of them stating the opposite...

[restless]

Dietary fat plays a major role in obesity: no.

Willett WC.

Departments of Epidemiology and Nutrition, Harvard School of Public Health, 665 Huntington Avenue, Boston, MA 02115, USA. WWillett@hsph.harvard.edu

The percentage of dietary energy from fat has been suggested to be an important determinant of body fat, and this presumed effect has been invoked to justify the general promotion of low-fat diets. Dietary fat and the prevalence of obesity are lower in poor countries than in affluent countries. However, these contrasts are seriously confounded by differences in physical activity and food availability; within areas of similar economic development, per capita intake of fat and the prevalence of obesity have not been positively correlated. Randomized trials are the preferable method for evaluating the effect of dietary fat on adiposity because they avoid problems of confounding that are difficult to control in other studies. In short-term trials, a small reduction in body weight is typically seen in individuals randomized to diets with a lower percentage of calories from fat. In a meta-analysis of these trials, it was estimated that a decrease in 10% of energy from fat would reduce weight by 16 g d-1, which would correspond to a 9-kg weight loss by 18 months. However, compensatory mechanisms appear to operate because in trials lasting one year or longer, fat consumption within the range of 18-40% of energy has consistently had little, if any, effect on body fatness. Moreover, within the United States (US), a substantial decline in the percentage of energy from fat during the last two decades has corresponded with a massive increase in obesity, and similar trends are occurring in other affluent countries. Diets high in fat do not account for the high prevalence of excess body fat in Western countries; reductions in the percentage of energy from fat will have no important benefits and could further exacerbate this problem. The emphasis on total fat reduction has been a serious distraction in efforts to control obesity and improve health in general.

[restless]

Advice on low-fat diets for obesity.

Pirozzo S, Summerbell C, Cameron C, Glasziou P.

School of Population Health, University of Queensland, Herston Rd, Herston, Queensland, Australia, 4006. s.pirozzo@sph.uq.edu.au

BACKGROUND: Overweight and obesity are global health problems contributing to an ever increasing noncommunicable disease burden. Calorie restriction can achieve short-term weight loss but the weight loss has not been shown to be sustainable in the long-term. An alternative approach to calorie restriction is to lower the fat content of the diet. However, the long-term effects of fat-restricted diets on weight loss have not been established. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of advice on low-fat diets as a means of achieving sustained weight loss, using all available randomised clinical trials. This review focused primarily on participants who were overweight or clinically obese and were dieting for the purpose of weight reduction. Since we were particularly interested in the ability of participants to sustain weight loss over a longer period of time, we focused on studies of 'free living' men and women who were given dietary advice rather than provision of food or money to purchase food. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched the Cochrane Library (issue 2, 2001), MEDLINE (up to February 20002), and EMBASE (up to February 20002). We also searched the Science Citation Index (up to January 2001) and bibliographies of studies identified. Date of latest search: February 2002. SELECTION CRITERIA: Trials were included if they fulfilled the following criteria: 1) they were randomised controlled clinical trials of low-fat diets versus other weight-reducing diets, 2) the primary purpose of the study was weight loss, 3) participants were followed for at least six months, 4) the study participants were adults (18 years or older) who were overweight or obese (BMI >25 kg/m2) at baseline. Studies including pregnant women or patients with serious medical conditions were excluded. Two people independently applied the inclusion criteria to the studies identified. Disagreement was resolved by discussion or by intervention of a third party. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Data were extracted by three independent reviewers and meta-analysis performed using a random effects model. Weighted mean differences of weight loss were calculated for treatment and control groups at 6, 12 and 18 months. MAIN RESULTS: Four studies were included at the six month follow-up, five studies at the 12 month follow-up and three studies at the 18 month follow-up. There was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups at six months (WMD 1.7 kg, 95% CI -1.4 to 4.8 kg). The weighted sum of weight loss in the low fat group was -5.08 kg (95% CI -5.9 to -4.3 kg) and in the control group was -6.5 kg, (95% CI -7.3 to -5.7 kg). There was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups at 12 months (WMD 1.1 kg, 95% CI -1.6 to 3.8 kg). The weighted sum of weight loss in the low fat group was -2.3 kg (95% CI -3.2 to -1.4 kg) and in the control group was -3.4 kg (95% CI -4.2 to -2.6 kg). There was no significant difference in weight loss between the two groups at 18 months (WMD 3.7 kg, 95% CI - 1.8 to 9.2). The weighted sum of weight loss in the control group was -2.3 kg (95% CI -3.5 to -1.2 kg) and in the low fat group there was a weight gain of 0.1 kg (95% CI -0.8 to 1 kg). There was significant heterogeneity in the results for weight loss at six months and 12 months. Apart from one study which showed a slight but statistically significant difference in total cholesterol in the low fat group at one year follow-up, there were no significant differences between the dietary groups for other outcome measures such as serum lipids, blood pressure and fasting plasma glucose. Studies measuring other factors such as perceived wellness and quality of life reported conflicting results. REVIEWER'S CONCLUSIONS: The review suggests that fat-restricted diets are no better than calorie restricted diets in achieving long term weight loss in overweight or obese people. Overall, participants lost slightly more weight on the control diets but this was not significantly different from the weight loss achieved through dietary fat restriction and was so small as to be clinically insignificant.

[aka23]

Originally posted by restless
I have seen no evidence of low fat diets in any "tradicional" culture prior to agriculture, nor do I see how it would be possible.

It would be possible in any group that lived in an area or a season in which fatty meat was not readily available. I already mentioned that the hunter-gatherer Oto tribe in Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. During the wet season, when hunting is better the fat percent increases to 28%. Many authors propose that the average hunter-gatherer diet was not high fat. For example in the book the Paleolithic Prescription, Eaton suggests a late Paleolithic diet of 21% fat. The professors who teach B27 Human Evolution at Harvard suggest an even smaller percentage.

What do you mean by late primates? I'm concerned with humans only.

I was responding to your erroneous comment that we can not digest the foods most of the foods that chimpanzees (late primates) eat.

And how come there was a drop in lifespan with the advent of the agricultural revolution, and it's subsequent increase in dietary carbohydrate and decrease in protein/fat?

Actually there was an increase in average lifespan following the agricultural revolution. (see www.hawkhill.com/764s.html)

"Life for the average human in the agricultural ages was a little but not a lot better than the previous hunting and gathering times. Average life spans increased to 30 or 35 years."

This increase in lifespan was most likely more related to having more reliable food supply than changes in than protein/fat/carb ratios.

[carolinagirl]

I don't want to get involved in the debate about what the evolutionary diet was (don't know enough to really contribute much!), but usually the problem in people's diets is the ratio of omega-6 to omega-3 fats, not necessarily the total fat intake.

I've been trying to eat low fat (ie, lower intake of omega-6's) and supplement with omega-3's to get my ratios closer to the optimal range. (I don't have time to look now, but I know that there have been numerous studies done proving that O-3's are very conducive to overall health and well being.) It sounds like you have your diet down pat in the lowering of O-6 intake (and in general cleanness) - just adding some fish and flax oil each day would probably bring you up to the levels than most people are recommending and get your O-6 to O-3 ratios to a really good level too.

[restless]

Originally posted by aka23


It would be possible in any group that lived in an area or a season in which fatty meat was not readily available. I already mentioned that the hunter-gatherer Oto tribe in Zaire eat a diet consisting of 18% protein, 11% fat, 65% carb during the dry season. During the wet season, when hunting is better the fat percent increases to 28%. Many authors propose that the average hunter-gatherer diet was not high fat. For example in the book the Paleolithic Prescription, Eaton suggests a late Paleolithic diet of 21% fat. The professors who teach B27 Human Evolution at Harvard suggest an even smaller percentage.

This increase in lifespan was most likely more related to having more reliable food supply than changes in than protein/fat/carb ratios.

Interesting, have any links on this?

I was responding to your erroneous comment that we can not digest the foods most of the foods that chimpanzees (late primates) eat.

Most of what they eat is leaves from the trees, and we can't use the protein they get this way because we lack the digestive enzimes to do so. Monkeys nutrition is defenitely not my main area of interest but I'm pretty sure of this. They eat bugs too and that would be fine to us, but I mantain my statement that their diet is of no relevance to us, while the paleolithic man diet is because they were genetical identical to modern man.

Actually there was an increase in average lifespan following the agricultural revolution. (see www.hawkhill.com/764s.html)

"Life for the average human in the agricultural ages was a little but not a lot better than the previous hunting and gathering times. Average life spans increased to 30 or 35 years."

I'll check this latter.