Chapter 17 Chapter 15 Fat is good for health

Now I would like to invite you to have breakfast.There are a few options, one is a tomato and spinach omelet, with slices of apple and grapefruit; the other is two different oatmeal, traditional whole grain oatmeal or instant oatmeal made with whole oat flour , both whipped with low-fat milk and a dash of low-fat yogurt, fructose and a calorie-free sugar substitute added.The omelette is thirty percent mild fat, but thirty percent rich in protein and only forty percent carbohydrates.The two cereal meals contained 20 percent fat, 16 percent protein and 64 percent carbohydrates.The calories provided by the three breakfasts are the same.

Which would you choose?People who know little about diet and nutrition will think this way: eggs have high cholesterol, but at the same time there are vegetables, and the amount of fat is reasonable, but so much protein may not be good, right?There is less skepticism about cereal: whole wheat is always good, it has a lot of crude fiber, only 20% fat, and a lot of carbohydrates are good, I will choose this, it is healthy, and it will not make you fat, it will not Wrong.Fast Food, or Natural Whole Grains?Of course it is natural. How is the result?Let me tell you, how is your metabolism after this breakfast?Blood sugar and insulin concentrations were highest after eating the instant cereal and lowest after eating the omelette!Three breakfasts, no difference in terms of cholesterol and triglycerides.

This is the result of a metabolic experiment conducted by experts in nutrition and endocrinology at Tufts University in Boston, USA.This is just one side of the story, and there is another interesting phenomenon: how does this meal affect your eating behavior in the following hours, what happens to your appetite at noon, afternoon and evening? We can compare caloric intake throughout the day: subjects who ate instant cereal for breakfast compared with fried eggs consumed 80 percent more calories throughout the day.Even with the traditional whole-grain cereal, you still eat 50% more calories than you would after eating an omelette!It is clear that the quality and quantity of carbohydrates and other nutrients affect not only blood sugar and insulin responses, but also appetite and hunger responses.this is an extremely complex issue

According to the advice of nutrition authorities, we should eat more complex carbohydrates and less fat, although this will worsen the metabolic status, especially for unknown syndromes, as detailed in Chapter 3.The residual particles rich in triglycerides in blood fat are more harmful to people with insulin resistance, and the above diet will also increase their concentration.This increases the risk of coronary atherosclerotic deposits in people with insulin resistance.This doesn't seem to bother our nutrition experts, whose only constant pursuit is lowering LDL cholesterol levels.It's unbelievable. Could it be that they have gone mad?

To reduce the adverse effects of a high-carbohydrate and low-fat diet, you can try to choose foods with a lower glycemic index, eat whole grains, and eat less refined flour.However, I am afraid that the interest of ordinary people in a diet consisting mostly of rough grains and not seeing any oil or water may not last long. In fact, it should be easy to understand that for people with insulin resistance, especially the intake of carbohydrates should be restricted, because these people just cannot metabolize and absorb carbohydrates and glucose normally.Through the example of the breakfast experiment above, it can be found that a low-carbohydrate diet may be a way out, but we have to choose which nutrients to use to compensate for the restricted carbohydrates.protein?Fat?Or both?This choice is not easy to make, because according to the dogma of the authoritative nutrition science, both of them are bad.

Let's talk about fat first.Proteins will be studied in Chapter Eighteen.In Germany, beliefs in the field of nutrition are surprisingly unified.Everyone agrees that less fat is healthy.In the early summer of 1999, the German Nutrition Society and Barmer, one of Germany's largest health insurance institutions, jointly launched a publicity campaign called Eating Less Fat for Better Health.Apparently, the Academy of Nutrition is unwilling to cede this territory to the former president of the Academy, Pudel, and another health insurance organization (AOK). In the US, it's a different story entirely.As we all know, the religious groups there have their own schools and preach their beliefs with great fanfare.They don't buy into each other because it's directly related to the money the missionaries make from their faithful men and women.Similarly, Americans are waging a war of faith over fat consumption.Both sides insisted on their positions and refused to give in to each other.Conservatives insist that fat is enemy number one, the root of all health problems, especially obesity and its related problems, such as heart and circulatory disease and cancer.Liberals, on the other hand, regard fat as an ally and believe that obesity and its consequences cannot be blamed on fat.

What's interesting about this debate is that one faction is often associated with weight loss and related industries, and the other is more closely associated with the oil industry. Oil from soybeans, sunflower seeds, olives. What does fat do to us?In principle, it has three main tasks, one is as a subcutaneous liner to protect us from all kinds of sharp edges and corners, and it is also an effective insulation layer against cold and heat.Second, fatty acids are an integral part of all cell membranes, ensuring their proper functioning.Third, fat is the basis of many important substances in the body, including prostaglandins, which have an impact on the control of blood pressure, blood coagulation, immunity and mood.The first two functions are mainly saturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids. In the third function, polyunsaturated fatty acids play a key role.

Without fat, life cannot be sustained.If fat were truly deadly, our bodies wouldn't have chosen to store fat as a reserve to survive starvation for millions of years. For some people, however unexpected, the fact remains: A high-fat, low-carb diet improves nearly all blood fat indices compared with a low-fat, high-carb diet.It is important that the majority of fat intake should be monounsaturated fatty acids.Although it is different from the propaganda we have heard in the past, it is especially important for unknown syndromes that increasing fat intake, replacing carbohydrates, will not increase insulin resistance.This is Barbara from Washington, USA.Professor Howard (Barbara Howard) presented it at the meeting of the American Diabetes Association in June 2000.Why is it important to avoid bad saturated fats?It has been suspected for decades that it increases insulin resistance.Some epidemiological studies and animal experiments have also shown that this possibility is very high.However, in human experiments, this inference could not be confirmed.All the experimental results on this topic so far are all invalid.In terms of blood sugar and insulin, it has not been confirmed that saturated fatty acids have adverse effects so far, but there are several benefits that people are reluctant to mention.The following is an example of a group of healthy subjects recruited by the research department of St. Vincent Hospital in Sydney, Australia.For the first three weeks, they ate a diet high in carbohydrates and low in fat. In the next three weeks, the diet increased the proportion of fat to more than 45%, and the diet was mainly saturated fatty acids, and the carbohydrates were relatively reduced .There was no difference in the effects of the two diets on blood sugar and insulin.Compared with a high-fat diet, the total cholesterol content under the influence of a low-fat diet is 1% lower, and the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol is 20% lower, but at the same time the low-fat diet reduces the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol by 24%, resulting The overall and LDL-C/HDL-C ratios have worsened!In addition, triglyceride levels also rose by 33%.

Is it possible to eat fatty foods, mainly saturated fatty acids, while hoping to improve blood index? I have one more example to tell the astonished and incredulous reader.In an experiment conducted in New Zealand, some endurance athletes received a diet of 50% fat and mainly saturated fat (P/S ratio 0.2) for the first few weeks.Meanwhile they continue their daily training.In the second phase, they were given a low-fat (15 percent), high-carbohydrate (75 percent) diet.The study tested their athletic performance, and there was no difference between the two diet types.The difference is the blood index, these indexes are significantly improved under the high-fat diet!

This is no accident.Two other studies, also involving the same type of athletes, had similar results.One of them provided a diet with a fat ratio of 42%, and the other diet even reached 69%, and both of them were mainly saturated fatty acids.Is it possible that these bad saturated fatty acids were originally good?But only if we get enough exercise.Could it be our saturated lifestyle rather than the fat itself that is really bad?I have been asking myself, if saturated fatty acids are really harmful to the human body, why do our bodies convert carbohydrates into saturated fats when we have excess calories?

In the new millennium, our nutrition authorities are still adopting the traditional strategy of turning a deaf ear, turning a blind eye, and keeping our mouths shut when it comes to saturated fat.For decades, they just focused on the cholesterol index and LDL cholesterol.Cholesterol can be lowered more or less through the low-fat diet they advertise. However, it is obvious that only the cholesterol index and the risk of disease to the heart and circulatory system will not solve many problems.As you can imagine, most myocardial infarctions occur in people with normal or low cholesterol levels (that is, less than 200 mg per 100 ml). It is especially important to pay attention to the ratio of total cholesterol to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and the ratio of triglycerides to high-density lipoprotein cholesterol for unknown syndromes, because they are much more closely related to myocardial infarction, especially in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol. This is especially true in people with normal protein cholesterol.In the case of reducing fat and saturated fatty acid intake, these two ratios cannot be improved.The ratio of triglycerides and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, which is especially important in patients with unknown syndrome, was significantly worsened on a low-fat diet. If someone does lose weight on a low-fat diet, these depressing effects seem less severe.But the facts show that most people will gradually regain the weight.Therefore, in terms of long-term efficacy, adverse side effects of low-fat diets will be inevitable. Compared with unsaturated fat, saturated fat has several advantages in some aspects.Saturated fat is relatively less prone to oxidation and is more stable against free radicals.They do not overactive platelets and thus relieve clotting caused by high levels of fibrin in the blood.In contrast to unsaturated fat, saturated fat does not inhibit the production of nitric oxide in the lining of blood vessels, and nitric oxide helps maintain the normal function of blood vessel walls. The adverse effect of saturated fatty acids on raising LDL cholesterol seems to be offset by other benign effects.When we add up the above factors, we have to face the question: how important is the elimination of saturated fatty acids for health?In recent years, the US government has also launched an education for all plan for this purpose.What is the ultimate function of saturated fat? Epidemiological and clinical studies provide us with answers.A total of 21 long-term observation studies have been carried out on 28 races all over the world, and the total number of people investigated has reached hundreds of thousands.Among them, only three studies showed that saturated fatty acids may constitute a risk of myocardial infarction, and the remaining 18 could not be confirmed.The disease-preventing effect of mono- or polyunsaturated fatty acids that we hoped to find was confirmed in only two or three studies, and most of the rest failed to reach this result.The vast majority of epidemiological studies show that there is no conclusive evidence that saturated or unsaturated fatty acids have an effect on the formation of myocardial infarction.Clinical studies have also confirmed this point. Reducing the intake of fat and saturated fatty acids, or partially replacing saturated fatty acids with unsaturated fatty acids, does not reduce myocardial infarction and total mortality. Analytical research has revealed this point without a doubt. There is no more typical contradiction in the field of nutritional medicine than the contradiction between scientifically proven facts and long-standing dogma about the health hazards of so-called saturated fatty acids.Although everyone has been discussing this issue for decades, no one has been able to produce credible evidence.What has been learned gives us reason to believe that the problem of fat is just like real life: bad, but also good, and good, can sometimes become harmful.In addition, there is so far no shred of evidence that a diet high in fat increases the risk of heart and circulatory disease.This is also a rumor that has been circulating for many years, but has no basis. How many readers have heard of this?I estimate that the number is very small.why?The studies I have cited are available in scientific journals for anyone interested.The fact seems to be that everyone is unwilling to shake the original foundation of understanding, because if you want to highlight the good and important, you must have the bad as a negative teaching material.So how can the whole program succeed without telling everything to the doctors, nutritional counselors, health insurance agencies, and consumers? I'm not saying that unsaturated fats aren't important.On the contrary, many types of polyunsaturated fatty acids are extremely important.And eating less fat actually means reducing the intake of unsaturated fatty acids.This is not good for health.It should be noted that one of the fatty acids, which we currently eat too much, should be reduced, while increasing the intake of the other.We will address this issue in the next chapter. Maybe you too have been a victim of a myocardial infarction.The disease came suddenly, like a thunderbolt from the blue sky, without warning, and your low-density lipoprotein cholesterol has always been normal, that is to say, it has not exceeded the warning standard.Fortunately, you escaped death.But now doctors have included eggs, butter and sausages in the list of forbidden foods.However, you can at least enjoy poultry without the skin, of course, and low-fat cheese.eat meat?It can only be done occasionally, and it can only be lean meat. Of course, it is wonderful not to eat pork.The doctor will say: It is better not to eat red meat at all, bread, potatoes, noodles and rice can also fill the stomach. Many heart patients have complained to me, even though they don't have high cholesterol, and they are forced to endure this kind of heart disease prevention diet.I think readers and friends can already see for themselves how effective such advice from doctors is.What I'm curious to know is how many patients have insulin resistance checked?Probably very few.The truth is that many people with coronary thromboembolic heart disease do have insulin resistance if you look at it specifically. The situation of patients with type 3 diabetes is relatively clear: a high-fat diet pattern, that is, fat accounts for about 45%, while the ratio of carbohydrates is relatively low, can significantly improve the disordered fat metabolism and show the effect of improving sugar metabolism. tendency.However, none of these experiments have been conducted for a long period of time, allowing us to determine whether this diet can alleviate the glycation of hemoglobin.In 1999, at the Endocrinology Congress held in San Diego, USA, such a study was published for the first time: Limestone Medical Center in Delaware and the U.S. Marine Corps Hospital in Bethesda collaborated on a year-long experiment.One hundred and fifty-seven men and women who participated in the experiment were overweight type 2 diabetic patients.Prior to this, they had all tried to lose weight through a diet based on reducing calorie intake, but none of them worked.In this experiment, they received a completely different diet: carbohydrates basically come from rich fruits and vegetables, while encouraging them to eat nuts, olives and avocados with high fat content, as well as dairy products, eggs, fish, meat and other animal sources food without restricting caloric intake. In this dietary pattern, fat accounts for about 50%, protein accounts for 30%, and carbohydrates account for only 20%.Among them, fats are mainly saturated fatty acids and monounsaturated fatty acids.In the eyes of those who have little knowledge of nutrition, this way of eating is tantamount to suicide.But the facts prove that it is good for health: the average daily calorie intake is 1800 kcal, which is 30% lower than before.As a result, diabetics have controlled their weight, and their body mass index has dropped from 33 to 32.Obviously, with a high-fat diet, they don't need to consume as many calories.This diet reduces total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol, and triglycerides, and increases HDL cholesterol.Such a suicide diet is not bad.And the best news is that the degree of glycation of hemoglobin is significantly reduced, and after one year, it is only slightly higher than 7% of the standard value. This research report at the Endocrinology Congress caused great repercussions.But be careful, the scope of this study is limited, and it was only conducted for one year, which is too short a time.No one knows whether these patients will gain weight later.Nor does anyone know whether they had adverse side effects as they improved in certain measures, and how those measures would continue if the weight loss stopped. In fact, a high-fat and protein diet is not a new invention. As early as the 1970s, Dr. Atkins in the United States and Dr. Lutz in Germany publicized similar theories and confirmed that The aforementioned effects they observed in patients.At the time, however, neither statement was taken seriously, especially in professional circles in their own country, because other experts concluded that the diet was unhealthy without examining its clinical effects.In the face of public opinion, the two were accused of being irresponsible by angry nutritionists.The biggest mistake of Lutz and Atkins is that their revolutionary inferences have never been confirmed by relative human clinical experiments. Now it's finally starting.On March 18, 2000, at the Southern Medical Association Congress held in New Orleans, USA, everyone heard a second similar research report.This is the first clinical study to examine the traditional Atkins diet.The research leader is Aiqiike of Duke University in South Carolina.Dr. Eric Westman.Forty-one patients not only lost weight after four months on a high-fat diet, but their total cholesterol dropped by six percent and their HDL cholesterol rose by seven percent.Therefore, the ratio of the two has improved by 19%.Plus, triglycerides are down forty percent!And this dietary pattern is called by the authoritative consumer consulting organization as contrary to physical health and raising cholesterol. At present, a study is being conducted at the prestigious Harvard University, focusing on investigating the impact of a high-fat Mediterranean diet on body weight and blood fat.In January 2000, at the Oldway Foundation's conference on Mediterranean nutrition in London, the first encouraging results were heard.The head of the study, Catherine of Harvard Medical Center.Dr. McManus (Kathrin McManus) pointed out that the subjects not only continued to lose weight, but also felt particularly good on the high-fat diet.The first batch of detailed research results will be officially announced in the summer of 2000.In this case, the British would say we shall see (We shall see), while we Bavarians would say we shall wait and see. Can the three studies mentioned above, which will soon be published in the professional literature, shake the outdated and rigid dogma in the field of nutrition?I'm worried, it's still hard to do.Because these dogmas are too deep-rooted.Nutrition pundits are sure to find one or another weakness in the research and attack it in order to defend their position.How to do it?Some readers may ask, how can we apply what we already know to real life, or at least try it out on ourselves?Please be patient for a moment, we will come back to this topic shortly. Aren't there other terrible side effects of high-fat diets?Doesn't it mean that it increases the risk of cancer, especially breast and bowel cancer?To elaborate on these issues would require a separate book.Here, I just want to make a long story short that most of these arguments are based on animal and cell culture experiments, and a few less convincing early epidemiological studies. The new, carefully manipulated and analytically rigorous large-scale, long-term observational experiment shows another result.In our experiments, we did not find a clear causal relationship between high fat intake and breast cancer and bowel cancer. Even the prediction of breast cancer patients is not based on fat intake.But the current knowledge has led people to further speculate that the type of fat, especially the ratio between different polyunsaturated fatty acids, may have an impact on the formation of cancer. I can recommend an article to all readers interested in this subject.Walter, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard University.Fat Intake and Cancer Risk: A Paradoxical and Inspiring Tale by Walter Willett.The article is indeed enlightening, and more importantly, it brings a breath of fresh air to the dull and rigid dogma of nutrition.