General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Study Shows Low-Carb Diet Improves Cholesterol

Started by Email address hidden · · Last activity · 16 posts · 470 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
9 December 2005
Last activity
12 December 2005
Original author
Email address hidden
Posts
16
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
470
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–16 of 16
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. http://news.mc.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=9412

    People who followed a low-carbohydrate diet for six months raised their
    good cholesterol and lowered their triglycerides, changes that can help
    lower the risk of heart disease, Duke University Medical Center
    researchers found.

    The Duke study compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet, which
    included nutritional supplements, with a low-fat, low-cholesterol,
    low-calorie diet. The two diets improved cardiac risk in different
    ways, said lead researcher Eric Westman, M.D., associate professor of
    medicine at Duke University Medical Center.

    The low-carb diet improved HDL, or good cholesterol levels, and lowered
    triglycerides, the researchers found. The reduced fat diet lowered
    total cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels. Both diets brought
    down blood levels of small LDL particles, the form of bad cholesterol
    most likely to lead to hardened arteries, they found.

    The results appeared early online November 16, 2005 in the
    International Journal of Cardiology and will appear in print in 2006.
    The research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Robert C.
    Atkins Foundation. The study authors have no financial interest in
    Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.

    "I think the emerging science shows different diets improve cardiac
    risk in different ways. We are moving from a one-size-fits-all approach
    to considering many different diets to fit the many different types of
    cardiac risk," Westman said.

    Overall, both diets had positive effects on cholesterol, Westman said.
    The triglyceride levels improved significantly in both groups, falling
    74.2 points for the low-carb group and 27.9 points for the low-fat
    group. People on the low-carb diet showed an increase in HDL
    cholesterol by 5.5 points, a positive change, while those following the
    low-fat diet did not have a significant change. LDL cholesterol levels
    did not change significantly in either group but small LDL particles
    decreased 17.4 points for the low-carb dieters and 19.2 points for the
    low-fat dieters, a similar improvement. The total cholesterol of the
    low-fat dieters saw a 13.7 point decline over 6 months but did not
    change significantly in the low-carb dieters.

    The 120 study participants were randomly assigned to either the
    low-carbohydrate diet or the low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie
    diet. All were between 18 and 65 years old and in generally good
    health, with a body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 60, indicating
    obesity, and a total cholesterol level of more than 200 mg/dL. None had
    tried dieting or weight loss pills in the previous six months.

    The low-carbohydrate group was permitted daily unlimited amounts of
    animal foods (meat, fowl, fish and shellfish); unlimited eggs; 4 oz. of
    hard cheese; two cups of salad vegetables such as lettuce, spinach or
    celery; and one cup of non-starchy vegetables such as broccoli,
    cauliflower or asparagus. They also received daily nutritional
    supplements -- a multivitamin; essential oils including flax seed oil,
    borage oil and fish oil; and chromium picolinate. There were no
    restrictions on total calories, but carbohydrates were kept below 20
    grams per day at the start of the diet.

    The low-carbohydrate diet appears to have a favorable effect on cardiac
    risk, Westman said. "While the low-carbohydrate group received extra
    nutritional supplements, and experienced greater weight loss, these
    differences did not fully account for the changes in cardiac risk
    factors that we saw," he said.

    The low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie group followed a diet
    consisting of less than 30 percent of daily caloric intake from fat;
    less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat; and less than 300
    milligrams of cholesterol daily. They were also advised to cut back on
    calories. The recommended daily calorie level was 500 to 1,000 calories
    less than the participant's maintenance diet -- the calories needed to
    maintain current weight.

    Westman noted that the diets have one often-ignored similarity. "It's
    possible that the common denominator of these diets is what they're not
    eating - both diets did not allow refined sugar or junk food,"
    Westman said.

    Study participants were encouraged to exercise 30 minutes at least
    three times per week, but no formal exercise program was provided. Both
    sets of dieters had group meetings at an outpatient research clinic
    regularly for six months.

    Co-authors include William Yancy, Jr., M.D., Maren Olsen, Ph.D., Tara
    Dudley and John Guyton, M.D., all of Duke.

  2. wow...interesting study....finally, too.

    Since going LC i've watched my HDL go from 44 to 100+ while my trigs are now
    frozen at 49.

    [email hidden] wrote:
    :> http://news.mc.duke.edu/news/article.php?id=9412
    :>
    :> People who followed a low-carbohydrate diet for six months raised
    :> their good cholesterol and lowered their triglycerides, changes that
    :> can help lower the risk of heart disease, Duke University Medical
    :> Center researchers found.
    :>
    :> The Duke study compared the effects of a low-carbohydrate diet, which
    :> included nutritional supplements, with a low-fat, low-cholesterol,
    :> low-calorie diet. The two diets improved cardiac risk in different
    :> ways, said lead researcher Eric Westman, M.D., associate professor of
    :> medicine at Duke University Medical Center.
    :>
    :> The low-carb diet improved HDL, or good cholesterol levels, and
    :> lowered triglycerides, the researchers found. The reduced fat diet
    :> lowered total cholesterol levels and triglyceride levels. Both diets
    :> brought down blood levels of small LDL particles, the form of bad
    :> cholesterol most likely to lead to hardened arteries, they found.
    :>
    :> The results appeared early online November 16, 2005 in the
    :> International Journal of Cardiology and will appear in print in 2006.
    :> The research was funded by an unrestricted grant from the Robert C.
    :> Atkins Foundation. The study authors have no financial interest in
    :> Atkins Nutritionals, Inc.
    :>
    :> "I think the emerging science shows different diets improve cardiac
    :> risk in different ways. We are moving from a one-size-fits-all
    :> approach to considering many different diets to fit the many
    :> different types of cardiac risk," Westman said.
    :>
    :> Overall, both diets had positive effects on cholesterol, Westman
    :> said. The triglyceride levels improved significantly in both groups,
    :> falling
    :> 74.2 points for the low-carb group and 27.9 points for the low-fat
    :> group. People on the low-carb diet showed an increase in HDL
    :> cholesterol by 5.5 points, a positive change, while those following
    :> the low-fat diet did not have a significant change. LDL cholesterol
    :> levels did not change significantly in either group but small LDL
    :> particles decreased 17.4 points for the low-carb dieters and 19.2
    :> points for the low-fat dieters, a similar improvement. The total
    :> cholesterol of the low-fat dieters saw a 13.7 point decline over 6
    :> months but did not change significantly in the low-carb dieters.
    :>
    :> The 120 study participants were randomly assigned to either the
    :> low-carbohydrate diet or the low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie
    :> diet. All were between 18 and 65 years old and in generally good
    :> health, with a body mass index (BMI) between 30 and 60, indicating
    :> obesity, and a total cholesterol level of more than 200 mg/dL. None
    :> had tried dieting or weight loss pills in the previous six months.
    :>
    :> The low-carbohydrate group was permitted daily unlimited amounts of
    :> animal foods (meat, fowl, fish and shellfish); unlimited eggs; 4 oz.
    :> of hard cheese; two cups of salad vegetables such as lettuce,
    :> spinach or celery; and one cup of non-starchy vegetables such as
    :> broccoli, cauliflower or asparagus. They also received daily
    :> nutritional supplements -- a multivitamin; essential oils including
    :> flax seed oil, borage oil and fish oil; and chromium picolinate.
    :> There were no restrictions on total calories, but carbohydrates were
    :> kept below 20 grams per day at the start of the diet.
    :>
    :> The low-carbohydrate diet appears to have a favorable effect on
    :> cardiac risk, Westman said. "While the low-carbohydrate group
    :> received extra nutritional supplements, and experienced greater
    :> weight loss, these differences did not fully account for the changes
    :> in cardiac risk factors that we saw," he said.
    :>
    :> The low-fat, low-cholesterol, low-calorie group followed a diet
    :> consisting of less than 30 percent of daily caloric intake from fat;
    :> less than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat; and less than
    :> 300 milligrams of cholesterol daily. They were also advised to cut
    :> back on calories. The recommended daily calorie level was 500 to
    :> 1,000 calories less than the participant's maintenance diet -- the
    :> calories needed to maintain current weight.
    :>
    :> Westman noted that the diets have one often-ignored similarity. "It's
    :> possible that the common denominator of these diets is what they're
    :> not eating - both diets did not allow refined sugar or junk food,"
    :> Westman said.
    :>
    :> Study participants were encouraged to exercise 30 minutes at least
    :> three times per week, but no formal exercise program was provided.
    :> Both sets of dieters had group meetings at an outpatient research
    :> clinic regularly for six months.
    :>
    :> Co-authors include William Yancy, Jr., M.D., Maren Olsen, Ph.D., Tara
    :> Dudley and John Guyton, M.D., all of Duke.

  3. "Overall, both diets had positive effects on cholesterol, Westman said.

    The triglyceride levels improved significantly in both groups, falling
    74.2 points for the low-carb group and 27.9 points for the low-fat
    group. People on the low-carb diet showed an increase in HDL
    cholesterol by 5.5 points, a positive change, while those following the

    low-fat diet did not have a significant change. LDL cholesterol levels
    did not change significantly in either group but small LDL particles
    decreased 17.4 points for the low-carb dieters and 19.2 points for the
    low-fat dieters, a similar improvement. The total cholesterol of the
    low-fat dieters saw a 13.7 point decline over 6 months but did not
    change significantly in the low-carb dieters. "

    Am I the only one here that thinks something here isn't quite right?
    They say for the LC group triglycerides fell 74 pts, HDL increased 5
    pts, LDL and total cholesterol stayed about the same. By my
    calculation, the math doesn't add up. If trig went down 74, HDL went
    up 5 and LDL stayed the same, then total chol should be down about 10
    pts, shouldn't it?

  4. Keep in mind that "improving cholesterol" means much higher mortality
    from "bleeding" strokes, cancer, etc. Read my posts and learn. Search
    the group for montygram.

  5. [email hidden] wrote:
    :> "Overall, both diets had positive effects on cholesterol, Westman
    :> said.
    :>
    :> The triglyceride levels improved significantly in both groups,
    :> falling
    :> 74.2 points for the low-carb group and 27.9 points for the low-fat
    :> group. People on the low-carb diet showed an increase in HDL
    :> cholesterol by 5.5 points, a positive change, while those following
    :> the
    :>
    :> low-fat diet did not have a significant change. LDL cholesterol
    :> levels did not change significantly in either group but small LDL
    :> particles decreased 17.4 points for the low-carb dieters and 19.2
    :> points for the low-fat dieters, a similar improvement. The total
    :> cholesterol of the low-fat dieters saw a 13.7 point decline over 6
    :> months but did not change significantly in the low-carb dieters. "
    :>
    :> Am I the only one here that thinks something here isn't quite right?
    :> They say for the LC group triglycerides fell 74 pts, HDL increased 5
    :> pts, LDL and total cholesterol stayed about the same. By my
    :> calculation, the math doesn't add up. If trig went down 74, HDL went
    :> up 5 and LDL stayed the same, then total chol should be down about 10
    :> pts, shouldn't it?

    It would seem so, but it does depend on the baseline levels you start from.

  6. Another benefit of low carb diet is tighter range of blood sugars.

  7. montygram wrote:
    || Keep in mind that "improving cholesterol" means much higher mortality
    || from "bleeding" strokes, cancer, etc. Read my posts and learn.
    || Search the group for montygram.

    BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

    --
    Peter

  8. I recently did a low fat 10% high carb diet using vegetables, legumes
    and some fruit as source of carbs. I normally eat about 35% fat and
    25% protein. Fat from nuts, olive oil and protein from egg white, non
    fat dairy, whey powder, fish. The low fat diet cut my total cholesterol
    by 17 points but my triglycerides doubled from 30's to 60's and my
    HDL's dropped from hi 70's to mid fifties. So even though the total
    dropped on low fat the overall effect was negative. I am back on the
    25P 35F 40C diet. I am also practicing mild calorie restriction.

    Mike C.

  9. mike <[email hidden]> wrote:
    :>I recently did a low fat 10% high carb diet using vegetables, legumes
    :> and some fruit as source of carbs. I normally eat about 35% fat and
    :> 25% protein. Fat from nuts, olive oil and protein from egg white, non
    :> fat dairy, whey powder, fish. The low fat diet cut my total
    :> cholesterol by 17 points but my triglycerides doubled from 30's to
    :> 60's and my HDL's dropped from hi 70's to mid fifties. So even
    :> though the total dropped on low fat the overall effect was negative.
    :> I am back on the 25P 35F 40C diet. I am also practicing mild calorie
    :> restriction.

    Shift the carbs down to 8% or so, and up the fat to around 60-65% and you'll
    see some real improvement. Eat real eggs (yolk and all) and real fat
    dairy.

  10. This one is interesting:

    Quoted message said:

    Westman noted that the diets have one often-ignored similarity. "It's
    possible that the common denominator of these diets is what they're not
    eating - both diets did not allow refined sugar or junk food,"
    Westman said.

    Mirek

  11. This one is interesting:

    Quoted message said:

    Westman noted that the diets have one often-ignored similarity. "It's
    possible that the common denominator of these diets is what they're not
    eating - both diets did not allow refined sugar or junk food,"
    Westman said.

    Mirek

  12. Mirek Fidler <[email hidden]> wrote:
    :> This one is interesting:
    :>
    :>> Westman noted that the diets have one often-ignored similarity.
    :>> "It's possible that the common denominator of these diets is what
    :>> they're not eating - both diets did not allow refined sugar or junk
    :>> food,"
    :>> Westman said.

    Yes, most reasonable diets remove junk foods. However, I think the
    differences in the results for the different eating styles tell yet another
    story....

  13. "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Mirek Fidler <[email hidden]> wrote:
    :> This one is interesting:
    :>
    :>> Westman noted that the diets have one often-ignored similarity.
    :>> "It's possible that the common denominator of these diets is what
    :>> they're not eating - both diets did not allow refined sugar or
    junk
    :>> food,"
    :>> Westman said.

    Yes, most reasonable diets remove junk foods. However, I think the
    differences in the results for the different eating styles tell yet
    another story....

    Good choice of word "story." It's facts that seem to be in need. We get
    stories every day from the current administration.

    -DF

  14. Doug Freese <[email hidden]> wrote:
    :> "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    :> news:[email hidden]...
    :>> Mirek Fidler <[email hidden]> wrote:
    :>> :> This one is interesting:
    :>> :>
    :>> :>> Westman noted that the diets have one often-ignored similarity.
    :>> :>> "It's possible that the common denominator of these diets is
    :>> :>> what they're not eating - both diets did not allow refined
    :>> :>> sugar or
    :>> junk
    :>> :>> food,"
    :>> :>> Westman said.
    :>>
    :>> Yes, most reasonable diets remove junk foods. However, I think the
    :>> differences in the results for the different eating styles tell yet
    :>> another story....
    :>
    :> Good choice of word "story." It's facts that seem to be in need. We
    :> get stories every day from the current administration.

    In case you don't know, facts don't equate to truth.

  15. "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    In case you don't know, facts don't equate to truth.

    a piece of information presented as having objective reality
    - in fact : in truth

    I can see why your world is cloudy.

  16. Doug Freese <[email hidden]> wrote:
    :> "Roger Zoul" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    :> news:[email hidden]...
    :>> In case you don't know, facts don't equate to truth.
    :>
    :> a piece of information presented as having objective reality
    :> - in fact : in truth
    :>
    :> I can see why your world is cloudy.

    Something believed to be true or real

    doesn't make it so.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.