Tag Archives: diet

Saturated fat, cholesterol, and carbohydrates

“You catch more flies with honey…”

^^^good policy in general, but especially for debating in the realm of nutritional sciences.

 

A short while back, Nina Teicholz discussed low carb ketogenic diets and plant-based diets with John Mackey.  Although I disagree with the dichotomy (keto vs. plant-based), it’s well-worth a watch:

 

 

Three topics that could not be avoided in such a discussion: saturated fat, cholesterol, and carbohydrates.

 

 

Continue reading

Share

Good calories

Nuts are good calories.

I’m not a big fan of the omega-6 fatty acid linoleate, but that’s largely in the context of processed foods and confectioneries, where it’s more than likely no longer in it’s native form (Dc9,1218:2n6)… but in the context of unprocessed whole foods (eg, nuts), a little n6 is fine imo.

What are good calories?  They’re nutrient-dense and don’t generally lead to overeating… like the opposite of soda and junk food.  Nuts are low carb and many are highly ketogenic (eg, Brazils, macadamias, and pecans are ~90%fat).  Mr. Ramsey may even approve of macadamias because they have virtually zero PUFAs.

BONUS: magnesium, copper, selenium, many trace minerals and micronutrients, etc., etc.

I’m not saying you should crack open a can of Deluxe Mixed Nuts and sit down with nothing to do other than NOM NOM NOM ALL THE NUTZ.  I’m talking about a few nuts with a meal.  Possibly earlier in the day (coinciding with LIGHT); nuts are tryptophan-rich and this may improve melatonin onset -> good for circadian rhythms:

 

nuts and melatonin

 

 

Appetitive, dietary, and health effects of almonds consumed with meals or as snacks: a randomized controlled trial (Tan and Mattes, 2013)

In this study, the participants were instructed to eat a serving of almonds (~43g, ~245 kcal) daily for four weeks, at different times of the day (with breakfast, midmorning snack, lunch, or afternoon snack).

Regardless of when the almonds were consumed, the calories were practically completely compensated for.  The participants unwittingly ate less other stuff.  And in 3 out of 4 of the conditions, the almonds were so satiating that the participants actually ended up eating fewer overall calories.

That, in a nutshell, is what I call “good calories,” and I don’t think it’s too far from Taubes’ original definition… especially because it was accompanied with [modest] reductions in body fat (NS).  To be clear, they were instructed to eat more (in the form of almonds), but ended up eating less, BECAUSE ALMONDS.  This wasn’t a cross-sectional study, so no healthy user bias or other obvious confounders.

Further, the participants clearly weren’t obesity resistant.  They were overweight, obese, or lean with a strong family history of type 2 diabetes.  Sam Feltham would’ve been excluded.

This is not an isolated finding: another study showed a dose-dependent response to almonds: 28g or 42g consumed in the morning resulted in a compensatory reduction of hunger and total energy intake at lunch and dinner (Hull et al., 2014).  This wouldn’t happen with soda or junk food.

 

 

Another study tested ~350 kcal almonds daily for 10 weeks and concluded: “Ten weeks of daily almond consumption did not cause a change in body weight. This was predominantly due to compensation for the energy contained in the almonds through reduced food intake from other sources” (Hollis and Mattes, 2007).

Almonds vs. complex carbs? Almonds, FTW.

1 Brazil nut daily: “After 6 months, improvements in verbal fluency and constructional praxis (two measures of cognitive performance) were significantly greater on the supplemented group when compared with the control group.”    ONE FRIGGIN’ NUT!

 

http://www.dreamstime.com/-image11630100

 

Walnuts protect against alcohol-induced liver damage (in rats) (Bati et al., 2015) and may improve brain health (in humans) (Poulose et al., 2014).

Pistachios improve metabolic and vascular parameters (Kasliwal et al., 2015).

Meta-analysis (not an intervention study): nut consumption is associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality (Grosso et al., 2015). Yeah yeah yeah, I know, correlation =/= causation.  Whatever.

Nuts are good calories.  That’s all I’m saying.

 

Tl;dr: buy these and one of these, not this.

 

 

calories proper

 

 

Share

Non-celiac gluten sensitivity

Gluten is protein, not carbs.  A gluten-free diet is frequently low-carb, because most dietary gluten comes in the form of bread (and wheaty foods).  But believe it or not, bread is an incredibly complex food… many different proteins, carbohydrates, and nutrients that could be problematic for some people (more on this later).

Gluten is not a FODMAP, but most gluten-containing foods are.  Gluten is actually very rich in the amino acid glutamine.  Gluten, not bread.

So we have three studies on purified “gluten,” asking if it’s the gluten, FODMAPs, or something else in wheaty food that is problematic.

Study #1. No effects of gluten in patients with self-reported non-celiac gluten sensitivity after dietary reduction of FODMAPs (Biesiekierski et al., 2013)

Strong study design; patient population was people who thought they were gluten sensitive (but definitely not celiac).

This is the study which led journalists to claim non-celiac gluten sensitivity doesn’t exist, and it’s really sensitivity to FODMAPs, in part, because of this:

 

 

low FODMAPs and gluten free

 

 

Baseline = low gluten diet
Run-in = low gluten and low FODMAPs

 

Here’s the fly in the ointment:

 

symptoms returned in all participants

 

After the run-in period, subjects still followed their gluten-free diets but also received either 16g relatively pure gluten/d (High gluten), 2g gluten + 14g whey protein (Low gluten), or 16g whey protein (placebo).  GI symptoms returned in all participants.  So, low FODMAPs worked for about a week, but then symptoms returned regardless of whether they were eating gluten or not.  In other words, neither low FODMAPs nor low/no gluten worked very well in this study.

But this study may have introduced a brilliant new confounder: food intake was strictly controlled — the experimental diets were different from their normal diets.  Restricting gluten and FODMAPs may have provided some transient benefit, but if the new experimental diet introduced something else that caused problems, then that may explain the gradual return of symptoms…

bollixed?

 

 

Study #2. Small Amounts of Gluten in Subjects with Suspected Nonceliac Gluten Sensitivity: a Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over Trial (Di Sabatino et al., 2015)

It was another high quality study design: “Randomized, Double-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Cross-Over.”  And it was addressing a basic question: do people who strongly suspect they have non-celiac gluten sensitivity (NCGS) really have NCGS?  Alternatively, is NCGS real?

Intervention was strong:

1) 4.375 grams of gluten or placebo (rice starch) daily for a week.  This is roughly equivalent to two slices of bread (note: this is way more than enough gluten to destroy the intestines of a patient with bona fide celiac disease).

2) important: they defined the what they would classify as NCGS prior to starting the trial.  A priori.

61 patients strongly suspected of NCGS started the trial, and one withdrew due to gluten-related symptoms in both the gluten and placebo groups.

 

Results:  regardless of whether they were assigned to gluten or placebo FIRST (prior to the crossover), most patients reported gluten-related symptoms.  More importantly, 3 of the 59 patients exhibited significantly worse symptoms on gluten relative to placebo according to the endpoint they defined prior starting the trial.  In one sense, this could be interpreted to mean 5% of people who strongly believe they have NCGS actually have NCGS.

 

gluten sensitive patients

 

Two patients reacted just as selectively strongly to the placebo as the three “real” NCGS patients did to gluten.  Rice-starch sensitivity?

 

See here for a more detailed description of the statistics involved in this study.  I’m willing to accept the “5%” rate, despite the strength of the placebo-responders, whereas the author of that blog post is not.  That’s fair, imo.

And here is another article which questions the legitimacy of NCGS based on this study.  I don’t think that’s totally fair.

And Raphael’s post, where he humorously concludes: “[Gluten-free] does not include advice to sport a gas mask when walking past bakeries.”

 

 

Study #3. Effect of gliadin on permeability of intestinal biopsy explants from celiac disease patients and patients with non-celiac gluten sensitivity (Hollon et al., 2015)

 

 

gluten increases intestinal permeability

 

 

“Delta TEER” is basically the amount of intestinal permeability in intestinal explants exposed to media + gluten (experimental condition) minus those exposed to plain media (control condition).  A better control condition, imo, would’ve been something like they did above: substitute gluten with another protein like whey protein.

 

NC: healthy people
RCD: celiac patients in remission
ACD: celiac patients with active disease
GS: non-celiac gluten sensitivity

 

Active celiac samples responded significantly worse than those in remission, which is good as it functions as a positive control for the experimental protocol.

 

However, gluten sensitive samples responded significantly worse than celiac remission samples; actually, they responded just as badly as celiac samples with active disease.  Celiac disease is supposed to be a million times worse than non-celiac gluten sensitivity… and statistically speaking, even permeability the normal samples declined as much as NCGS samples.

 

This led some to conclude that gluten is bad for EVERYONE.  I’d say it means the assay is bollixed.  Occam’s razor?

 

 

My advice: don’t be anti-science, but don’t use bad science to justify diet choices.  We simply need better studies on non-celiac gluten sensitivity and FODMAPs.

If bread doesn’t work for you, don’t eat bread.  You’re not missing much.

 

calories proper

 

Share

LIGHT, Leptin, and Environmental Mismatch

For a long time, the melanocortin system was basically thought to control the color of skin and hair.  It still does, and many redheads are redheaded due to polymorphisms in one of the melanocortin receptors.

Fast forward to 2015: to make a long story short, melanocortins are HUGE players in circadian biology.

 

POMC ACTH a-MSH

 

Brief background (also see figure above):

Fed state -> high leptin -> a-MSH -> MC4R (the receptor for a-MSH) = satiety, energy production, fertility, etc.

Fasted state -> low leptin -> AgRP blocks MC4R = hunger, energy conservation, etc.

MC4R polymorphisms in humans are associated with obesity.  Melanotan II causes skin darkening (marketed as “photoprotection” [no bueno, imo]), enhanced libido, and appetite suppression.

 

Continue reading

Share

Meal timing and peripheral circadian clocks

More on why breakfast in the morning, with light onset is important to avoid circadian desynchrony.

FOOD is excellent at entraining peripheral circadian clocks: if you restrict animals to one meal per day, their peripheral circadian clocks rapidly become entrained to this, regardless of when the meal is administered (Hirao et al., 2010):

 

zeitgeber entraining

ZT0 = “zeitgeber time 0,” or “lights on.” pZT indicates a phase shift coinciding almost exactly with meal timing. Mice normally eat at night, but this doesn’t stop their peripheral clocks from entraining to the day time if that’s when their fed.

This study took it to the next level: they fed 2 meals per day, varying in size, time of day, and duration between meals in almost every conceivable combination.  Actually, it was a quite epic study… some poor grad students working, literally, around the clock, for months…

Continue reading

Share

OmniCarb

Why Low Carb?

OmniCarb (Sacks et al., 2014)

Study design & results in a nutshell:

5 weeks, low(ish) vs. high carb (40 vs. 58%) with the calorie difference split between protein (23 vs. 16%) and fat (37 vs. 27%).  In other words, the low(ish) carb diet was higher in protein and fat.  And there was 2 versions of each diet —  a high and low glycemic index.  Lots of crossing over; all in all, weak intervention but decent study design & execution.

Aaaand nothing drastic happened.  Goal was insulin sensitivity, not weight loss.

 

glucose and insulin

 

Important points:

1) The participants were relatively healthy at baseline.  Anyone on meds was excluded.  Average BMI 32.  Mostly educated non-smokers.  This population is expected to respond reasonably well to any diet (wrt body weight… see next point).

2) “Calorie intake was adjusted to maintain initial body weight.”

^^^this really knocks the wind out of low carb. One of the big benefits of cutting carbs is spontaneous appetite suppression –- two points here: 1) this effect is most prominent in obese IR; and 2) it is more relevant to weight loss.  By not targeting insulin resistant and/or type 2 diabetics, and feeding specifically to prevent weight loss, I ask you this: Why Low Carb?

3) the biggest difference between the two diets was carbs (45% higher in low[ish] fat group), but the biggest difference from baseline, was protein in the LC group (53% increase).  In other words, the Low Carb group had their carbs decreased from 50 to 40% of calories. *meh*

4) Body composition wasn’t assessed; so even if LCHP induced nutrient partitioning and improved body comp, we wouldn’t know it.

5) Everyone was eating cereal or oatmeal for breakfast, bread with most meals, and pasta or rice for dinner.  What did you expect?  Really?

REALLY?

Prior posts in what seems to be developing into a series of rants:
2 New Diet Studies
CICO and rant 

 

calories proper

Share

Circadian phase: role of diet

Circadian phase advance: going to bed earlier, waking up earlier.  Blue blockers at sunset, bright light at sunrise.  Flying east.  Autumn.

Circadian phase delay: staying up late, sleeping in.  Flying west.  Spring.  Using smart phones, tablets, and iPads in bed at night.  Light pollution.

Relative to adolescents, infants and children are circadian phase advanced.  This is part of what is fueling the movement to delay high school start times.  Kids are mentally better prepared to work later in the day.  With early school start times, performance is down in the morning, but they kill it on video games after school.  Delaying start time by an hour won’t totally fix this, but could help.

Edit: it seems like a similar movement is happening for adults, too – ie, starting work an hour later.

I’m not saying everything healthwise deteriorates with age, but the gradual circadian phase delay that occurs with aging and overusing blue light-emitting devices at night might not be a good thing.  If a particular diet can promote phase advance, why not? (at least it’d be countering the phase delay).

 

 

Possible role of diet

In the top half of the figure below, it’s mice fed a “normal diet (ND) (high carbohydrate)” (Oishi et al., 2012).  During normal “light dark (LD)” conditions, movement and feeding is concentrated in the active phase.  When the lights are permanently turned off in “dark dark (DD)” conditions, the free-running circadian clock begins to shift slightly forward (phase advance), but nothing drastic.

 

Phase advance high protein diet

 

In the bottom half of the figure, during normal LD conditions the mice are switched to a low carb, high protein diet.  Note how activity shifts leftward (phase advance) during the LD condition.  When low carb, high protein-fed mice are then switched to DD, we can see a clear circadian phase advance.

 

High protein metabolism

 

Low carb, high protein-fed mice ate more but didn’t get fat; physical activity and body temperature were unchanged.  But this post isn’t about that.  Gene expression of key circadian transcription factors in liver and kidney exhibited phase advances.

The next figure is study to the one above, although instead of switching to a low carb, high protein diet, the mice were switched to a low carb, high fat diet (Oishi et al., 2009).

Note the similarity of control (high carb diet) mice: gradual phase advance when switched to DD:

 

Ketogenic circadian phase

 

The phase advance is markedly enhanced in low carb, high fat-fed mice.

The circadian regulation of activity is similarly affected by low carb, high protein, and low carb, high fat diets.  What do those two diets have in common?

A bit of a stretch? carbohydrate restriction mimics some aspects of avoiding artificial light at night and being young: phase advance.  Whether the carbs are replaced with protein or fat doesn’t seem to matter in this aspect.

 

Wanna know what else can do this?  FOOD.  The food-entrainable oscillator (FEO) kickstarts circadian rhythms.  Rodent studies have shown that timed feeding, regardless of the actual time, consistently realigns the circadian expression of numerous genes (eg, Polidarova et al., 2011 and Sherman et al., 2012).

So what’s the hack?  Food: do more of it, earlier in the day.  Phase advance.  Kind of like avoiding artificial light at night or being young.

 

Oh, and mice exposed to dim light at night (who are pretty much metabolically screwed)? phase DELAYED (Fonken et al., 2010).

 

Dim light at night phase delay

 

 

 

calories proper

 

Share

CICO and rant

“Wait… what?  nutrient partitioning?”

Calories In, Calories Out should not be interpreted as “eat less, move more,” but rather kept in its more meaningless form of: “if you eat less than you expend, you’ll lose weight.”  At least then, it’s correct… meaningless, but correct.  Eating less and moving more is no guarantee of fat loss, in part, because total energy expenditure isn’t constant and there’s that whole thing with nutrient partitioning.

For obese insulin resistant folks, this is Low Carb’s strong suit: it causes “eat less, move more”spontaneously.

For some obese insulin sensitive patients, for whatever reason, their adherence and success is greater with Low Fat.  You might say, “yeah, but those suckers had to count calories.”  To that, I’d counter with: “it doesn’t matter, THEY WERE MORE SUCCESSFUL COUNTING CALORIES ON LOW FAT THAN NOT COUNTING ON LOW CARB.”  The spontaneous reduction in appetite obviously didn’t cut it.  Do not be in denial of these cases.

Continue reading

Share

Sweet’n Low

I didn’t want to blog about the artificial sweetener study; to be honest, I didn’t even want to read it.  I just wanted to report: 1) how many Diet Cokes are we talking about; and 2) when are you going to die.

Artificial sweeteners induce glucose intolerance by altering the gut microbiota (Suez et al., 2014)

Non-caloric artificial sweeteners (NAS) = saccharin, sucralose, and aspartame. Saccharin worked the best (worst) in the mouse study, so they tested it in humans.  This was the part I found most relevant: seven healthy volunteers (5 men & 2 women, aged 28-36) who did not typically consume a lot of sweeteners were recruited and given 120 mg saccharin three times per day.  360 mg saccharin is ~10 packets of Sweet’n Low.

Continue reading

Share

2 New Diet Studies

*ugh* journalists

I’m talking to you, Mandy Oaklander!

Regarding the new low carb vs low fat study, she writes: “Popular diets are pretty much the same for weight loss, study finds.

Effects of low-carbohydrate and low-fat diets: a randomized control trial (Bazzano et al., 2014)

Further, “An earlier study in Annals of Internal Medicine did find that low-carb dieters lost slightly more weight than low-fat dieters after one year. The study today reached similar conclusions, but the differences in weight loss were not significant.”

Perhaps Mandy just doesn’t realize there’s a difference between significant, as in “meaningful,” and significant, as in “P<0.05.”  Pro-tip: you can tell them apart relatively easily, because the latter is usually accompanied by a cute little asterisk.  For example, the differences in weight loss were quite statistically significant (P<0.05):

Bazzano BW
She goes on to say “After a year follow-up, some of those pounds crept back for people on both diets…”

To that I say: yeah, but fat mass continued to decline in those on the low carb diet, meaning some of that weight re-gain was muscle:

Bazzano FM

So, between 6 and 12 months, carbs and calories were creeping up in the LC group, yet fat mass was still declining.  Perhaps this way of eating improved their metabolism, or restored the ability to effectively partition nutrients.

***in real-time: at this point, I realize that Mandy was actually talking about the other study, which she was covering accurately.  Sorry, Mandy!***

Bazzano PA

…so maybe the low-carb (LC) diet improved muscle mass because it was also high protein? …perhaps, but 19% vs 24% (71 vs 85 grams) isn’t a very big difference.  Alternatively, since the LC group really just maintained absolute protein intake (86 grams at baseline, 85 at month 12), whereas low-fat (LF) dieters decreased (86 grams at baseline, 71 at 12 months); perhaps this is why LF lost muscle mass..?  Still, those changes in protein intake are small, and I think people can be too quick to chalk up the benefits of LC to “high protein.”

In sum, this is actually one of the more “pro” LC studies.  And it wasn’t even a huge difference in carbs: 198 vs 127 grams/d at month 12 (54% vs 34%).  Big difference in fat mass; and CRP, a marker of inflammation, even declined in the LC group.

Low fat diet advocates have been giving me headaches for years… the low fat diet caused headaches (P<0.05):

Adverse Events 1

 

 

Adverse Events 2

The study Mandy was actually talking about: Comparison of weight loss among named diet programs in overweight and obese adults: a meta-analysis (Johnston et al., 2014)

It was a meta-analysis, which is just about the only type of study capable of taking down LC.

 

 

…but at least it had this cool chart (modified):

cool chart (modified)

cool chart (modified)

 

*ugh* scientists

crap

The macro’s in “Low fat” overlap with “Moderate,” implying “Low carb” is “EXTREME”  …the authors’ bias is subtle, I’ll give ‘em that, but I’m getting too old for this.

Dear Obesity Researchers,

If you want to design a study showing a low fat diet is as good as low carb for fat loss, here’s your best bet: recruit young, exercise-tolerant overweight patients who aren’t on any meds.  PROOF (see Ebbeling study).  Or find 10 similar ones and write up a pro-LF meta.

If you want to show low carb is better, recruit patients with obesity.

 

calories proper

Share