TIME: Eat butter. Scientists labeled fat the enemy. Why they were wrong.

TIME-600x800

Isn’t it pretty, the cover of the latest issue of TIME?

The paradigm shift continues and the outdated fear of fat is on its way out faster and faster.

You’d wish that some old-school fat phobics subscribed to the magazine. Unfortunately, I think this is hoping for too much, so I just emailed the cover to some of them.

Some people will still spread low-fat margarine on their bread as long as they live, as an old habit. But most people will soon realize that not only does it taste bad, but it’s also completely unnecessary.

Consider passing this on to your friends!

More

WSJ: “The dubious science behind the anti-fat crusade”

Saturated fat completely safe according to new big review of all science!

The real association between butter and heart disease in Sweden

1 2

90 comments

  1. Kay
    and after market is full of full fat yoghurts, olive oil cookies, no carb icecream and people are fat addicted, we need another paradigma shift.

    I prefer 100g fat, 200g protein, 200g carbs. Whole foods, occasional pizza and icecream. And beer and wine.

    Replies: #6, #7, #8
  2. Hallgeir
    Carbs have much more effect on your hormones so I don't believe fat can be as addictive. Humans did just fine having fat as majority of the energy intake for over 2 million years.
    Reply: #86
  3. Alain
  4. Michael
    This is awesome! Paradigm shift is occurring!
  5. Andrew
    Yes!!!
  6. PatrickP
    Fat addicted? Seriously?
  7. erdoke
    You don't seem to understand the meaning of "addicted".
    Also, 200 g protein is the daily dose of a 100 kg bodybuilder. I am 100 kg myself and rather muscular, but eating only 100 g daily without any loss of muscle mass. Why should you eat more than what you need? Fat is at least as satiating as protein and more energy dense while hunger is away or mild when being low on carb. You simply need 2-4 times more protein to relieve the hunger caused by the 200 g carbohydrate... Smart.
  8. bill
    Kay:

    ...and you've come to this way of eating with what
    evidence to back it up?

    Oh, I see. None.

  9. Chris Tunstall
    "Some people will still spread low-fat margarine on their bread as long as they live, as an old habit. But most people will soon realize that not only does it taste bad, but it’s also completely unnecessary."

    Agree: Unnecessary mainly because bread is unnecessary! I regard butter as a food in its own right. Why contaminate it?

  10. Daci
    This just made my day..What a treat seeing this. Butter has been vindicated at last!
    I'm also seeing un-hydrogenated lard in the grocery now..Yes!!!!!
  11. JD
    That's great! Of course it's too bad on one actually reads Time anymore. Personally I didn't even know it still existed.
  12. Kay
    lI tried lchf several times, always ended with mild depression. I agree, our ancestors were healthy eating this way, but maybe they were angry all the time? This blog isnt a worlds happiest place either.

    Also going on ketosis took days, going out hours. So ketosis does not look very natural to me.

    I agree, this diet has all the healt benefits described, But everybody is not overweight and sick. And eating 200g of carbs from rice and potatoes does not make them.

    And paradigma shift has already happened, I see more and more people knowing everything about fat being good and carbs being bad and they still eat carbs like there is no tomorrow.

    Replies: #13, #14, #16
  13. Murray
    "I see more and more people knowing everything about fat being good and carbs being bad and they still eat carbs like there is no tomorrow."

    So people were able to switch from higher to lower fat when they believed carbs were healthier but have serious difficulty switching from higher carb to lower carb when they believe fats are healthier than carbs and see a chronic disease epidemic from high carbs. This seems like evidence that carbs are addictive and fats are not. It correlates with the neurological evidence of glucose-induced addiction at Princeton and Dr. Nicole Avena's continuing work in that vein. Her book Why Diets Fail gets into the neurological difficulties overcoming glucose addiction, which include depression.

  14. greensleeves
    Kay:

    "So ketosis does not look very natural to me."

    Gosh Kay but you go into mild ketosis every night when you sleep. Have you ever wondered why you don't wake up every 3 or 4 hours with a need to eat? How is it that people can sleep 8 or 9 hours through the night? Because they go into light ketosis. It's perfectly natural Kay, you've been doing it your whole life.

  15. Alain
    @Kay
    "lI tried lchf several times, always ended with mild depression. I agree, our ancestors were healthy eating this way, but maybe they were angry all the time?"

    This is not the case on the contrary, read the book : "Nutrition and Physical Degeneration" Author: Weston A. Price

  16. Misko
    @Kay
    Perhaps that anger you felt was during the transitory phase while you were not yet keto-adapted?

    Because one of the great things about being keto-adapted is that our mood is very stable compared to when we're running on glucose. I used to get frustrated and angry easily when I was on a carb-based diet, but now that I'm keto-adapted and hence I have practically endless stocks of energy - 40 000+ calories - to tap into, I no longer have low bloodsugar induced mood swings, weaknesses, etc.

  17. Hallgeir
    One persons worsen mood is hardly anything scientific. You need a large test group to show a certain diet can make you depressed.

    Although I haven't seen a study, the common pattern I see with other keto people is that the mood can get worse in the first few weeks and then it gets better (better than before doing low-carb) and more stable with keto-adaptation.

    Some people just give up on things too quickly.

  18. Kay
    I was huge fan of paleo and lchf. I have read all artickles in this blog and also Mark Sissons. I really tried this. I wait and wait this adaption period to end, had terrible withdrawal symptoms all the time. Worst was, when finally feeling fysically good like after 4 weeks of nausea, brainfog and low energy, then depression hits.
    Maybe there is good steady energy levels and happy feeling with low carb, I cannot get there. Usually after like 3 weeks of trying, only one carb night took me back where i started,

    Maybe problem is somewhere else, I need like 3000kcal a day, with low carb its hard to eat that much. Feeling full all the time. Maybe I wasnt getting just enough calories. But that will not change that low carb is not for me.
    I googled it also and find many other cases similar to mine.

    Replies: #20, #41
  19. Christian
    How are your macros anyway?

    I am quite low on calories but full BUT on a complete stall.

    What else can I do!?

    Do you refeed?

    Do you raise calories once a week on low carb?

  20. bill
    Kay said:

    "Usually after like 3 weeks of trying, only one carb night took me back where i started"

    So consider not doing that, maybe. Just a thought.

  21. Drasko
    DEAR DIET DOCTOR!
    ONE CRUCIAL QUESTION: FROM WHERE YOU WILL GET THE BUTTER FO 7 BILION PEOPLE?
    Dont you see that the rest of menkind must eat the margarin because there is not inogh cows on this miserable World!
    Replies: #22, #23
  22. bill
    Doctor, don't you see? We must lie to the people to save the planet!!!!
    It's for their own good!!!!!

    Okay, I'm gonna start donating a dollar for every troll post too.

  23. Boundless
    > ... there is not inogh cows on this miserable World!

    Not enough spell checkers either, apparently.

    Anyway, it's myth that the population is now so high that we can only feed them industrial waste.

    Google "Joel Salatin Polyface Farms" and watch some of the videos. With intelligent management, you'd be amazed at how much useful, healthy, minimally processed food you can get, sustainably, from an acre of grass.

  24. Damocles
    Its true, that a good diet with variety (lets say a Paleo Diet based on Meats and Vegetables)
    cant be afforded by everyone on the planet.

    So see it as an optimal diet people from rich countries can afford ;)

    Why should I eat junk, because other are poor?

  25. François
    Some myths are tough to kill. While it is true that the industrial production of meat, feeding grain to cattle, is non sustainable, it is absolutely false to state that a diet based on non starchy vegetables and meat is impossible for everyone, rich or poor. I strongly recommend watching the TED talk by Alan Savory. There was a hyperlink to the presentation on this website. For those who did not see it, here is the hyperlink. http://www.ted.com/talks/allan_savory_how_to_green_the_world_s_desert...

    The only ones who would suffer here would be the grain and pesticide industry. Let's simply hope their lobby will not kill this revolution.

  26. Zepp
    For those not prenumerantes on Times.. I think this is the article?

    https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/35825844/Ending%20the%20War%20on%...

  27. eddy
    Inisde the body of Henry V111
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fCbZ60q9NYo

    The elizabethean diet
    Supesizers Go
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f_ZC4wXK2TQ

    Food for thought

  28. Molly
    Eddy I LOVED the Supersizers :D They found the same thing on the diet of the French Court in the 18th century - they stuffed themselves with meat, butter, cream and rich sauces, and drank like fish, and both of them lost weight and their bloods improved !

    Thanks for reminding me of this excellent series !

    ....now where did I put my wig ?!

  29. TrondO
    This TIME article is just the familiar meat and dairy promotion in mass media.

    To their credit, though, Dr Dean Ornish is also featured. He says: "These studies just tell people what they want to hear." Well said.

    Go low fat vegan, there is no better way of staying healthy.

    Replies: #30, #36, #42
  30. Paul the rat
    How far are you with your '30 bananas a day' today - almost done?
    Still full mouth of healthy teeth ? - good!
    Still restless and militant ?, well that's vegan eating for you!
    p.s. you should stick to just one alias.
    Reply: #31
  31. TrondO
    > How far are you with your '30 bananas a day' today - almost done?

    Not fruit only, but whole food plant based.

    > Still restless and militant ?, well that's vegan eating for you!

    Not militant, just vegan. That is, most of the time. In some social settings even I eat meat occasionally.

    Keep working on that heart attack :) just kidding, hope you wake up before that happens!! :)

    Replies: #32, #43
  32. Paul the rat
    We reverse coronary heart diseases with LCHF in all our patients.
    One of your life goals should be to have heart in the condition I have, when you are my age.

    Done with bananas yet?, how about some cherries for dessert.
    Do you suffer from heartburn yet, or are you still too young for it?. Wait cupel of years, it will arrive no doubt.

    Reply: #33
  33. TrondO
    > One of your life goals should be to have heart in the condition I have, when you are my age.

    If you think I am so young, why don't you ask Dr Ellsworth Wareham, a cardiothoracic surgeon whose health allowed him to continue working until age 95? Click on the link and hear him tell about his vegan lifestyle. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FX58PyQwrcI

    Reply: #34
  34. Paul the rat
    I am familiar with the work of dr Wareham (for long time) - the only thing, which I try to work on hard, is to have an open mind.
    Do you know that your heart is using mostly long chain saturated fatty acids for energy?
    Replies: #35, #40
  35. TrondO
    > Do you know that your heart is using mostly long chain saturated fatty acids for energy?

    No, I was unaware of this before you told me.

  36. erdoke
    Low fat vegan. Isn't that something Steve Jobs followed as well? Not exactly the perfect example marketing guys like you put up on their flags...
    Does anybody know who his adviser was on nutrition?
    Reply: #37
  37. Paul the rat
    My understanding is that it was Dean Ornish, but it is not the first hand information. (but you knew this)
    p.s.
    regardless of what diet Steve Jobs followed, I doubt that the cancer he had can be cured just by nutritional intervention, at least at the stage of the knowledge we have now.
    Reply: #38
  38. erdoke
    Yes, I have heard about the Ornish link, but without any citation so far. I don't recall that this information was included in the biography by Walter Isaacson for example. Just starting a web search...
    With respect to SJ's eating habits I was rather thinking of dietary causation/prevention than cure. Obviously there are stages when it's too late. :o(
    Reply: #39
  39. erdoke
    OK, it seems that SJ was a pescatarian before diagnosed with cancer and went to Ornish to help cure the disease. It might very well have accelerated the cancer, as we all know about the glucose hunger of these cells. Not to mention the lack of essential or ineffective to synthesize fatty acids and fat soluble vital nutrients.
  40. murray
    Paul, "mostly" long-chain saturated fat is important. I have been corresponding with a researcher who does biomedical engineering with respect to heart arrhythmia. The leading explanation is that heart muscles in the left ventricle proliferate due to mitochondrial weakness in individual muscles cells, thus requiring more cells to get the same power. The bulking of the ventricle distorts the electrical signal propagation, resulting in arrhythmia.

    It is interesting that almost all of their subjects they study are endurance athletes. The arrhythmia is aggravated by the low resting heart rate, which requires more muscle power.

    Of course there are many reasons for weakened mitochondria, but a big one is burning glucose for fuel instead of fatty acids. So an endurance athlete downing sports drinks and carb-laced "energy" bars during a long run or mountain bike ride will spike glucose while exercising and presumably convert the heart from using fat as fuel to free radical-generating glucose for fuel. Sic transit glorious mitochondria.

    As someone who enjoys mountain biking, kayaking, swimming, skiing and snowshoeing, this was sobering news. That and seeing two of my firm partners and three clients in their late 50s who had always been avid endurance athletes all develop serious heart arrhythmia (requiring operations). So in my early 50s I put endurance exercise on hold for a couple of years and after researching all I could and speaking to researchers in the area, I have transformed the way I train. On the weekend I did two one-hour mountain bike rides on difficult terrain (numerous heart rate peaks in the 155-165 range, max rate 172) on about 30 grams of carbs over two days. (I tried a scoop of low-glycemic Superstarch day one, which was 22 grams carbs and it took me both rides to clear out the carbs, based on ketone readings. Next time I will experiment with half the carb dose.) Interestingly, my blood glucose went from 4.3/4.4 mmol/L before the ride to 4.9/5.2 after the rides (it was 4.3 to 5.7 the weekend before). With the high intensity bursts going up steep pitches, there would be anaerobic glycolysis, producing plenty of lactate. Being well fat-adapted, the liver converts lactate back into glucose (the liver using fat as fuel). So with this cycling recycling a little glucose goes a long way, and blood sugar would be higher from the lactate conversion for a while after the ride. I figure my ride was fueled over 90% by fat (net, since the glucose to lactate to lactate is ultimately paid for by burning fat in the liver). So on a ride that has intense short uphills punctuated by less intense downhills, the pace is mostly within fat-burning aerobic (which gets higher once the metabolism is fat-adapted) and lactate-producing anaerobic, and the net carb draw is minimal. Also interesting, I found my max heart rate rose 10 beats (to about 178 -- I am 55) once I became fat-adapted in exercise. I expect that is because the intensity at which the switch from fat-burning aerobic to glucose-burning aerobic occurs at a much higher intensity. So my strategy has been to avoid the glucose-burning aerobic range of intensity as much as possible.

    Replies: #45, #47, #52
  41. Martin Levac
    @Kay, low-carb is not merely low-carb, it's also high-fat. Andreas Eenfeldt calls his diet LCHF, not just LC. He's the smarter doc of the bunch.

    There's no consensus on what a Paleo diet truly is, it's entirely possible to eat high-carb and low-fat by using the Paleo idea, i.e. starchy tubers and lean meat. I'm not saying _you_ were doing it wrong (cuz you know, I wasn't there), I'm saying the likelihood of doing Paleo wrong is high because of the lack of consensus and bias from the original author, Loren Cordain. I believe the Paleo idea suffers from a fundamental flaw, it's influenced by the products of modern agriculture, when in fact there was no such thing during the paleolithic era. For example, Cordain shunned saturated fat, and instead advised to eat plant oils like olive oil. Now if you believe olive oil is good for us, consider the originator of this idea is the same person who sent us all on the fat-phobia roller coaster 40+ years ago, Ancel Keys. And now Time tells us Keys was wrong about saturated fat all along. What happens to olive oil, now? If we question olive oil, then don't we also have to question the Paleo idea which originally relied on olive oil? And if we question that, then don't we also have to re-examine more closely the results we obtained by eating according to this idea?

  42. Martin Levac
    @TrondO, how does that work exactly? I mean, it's not like you have the ability to digest plant fiber, so where do you actually get your nutrition from if not from the plants you can't digest? How about B12, do you get it like our good friend Durian Rider and inject it straight into your thigh? Or vitamin D3, do you get it from super-concentrated pills made in a factory? Or what about o3, do you also get it from super-concentrated pills made in another factory, using actual genuine real live fish? How about vitamins A, E, K, where do you get those from, more super-concentrated pills from various factories? And then, once you got those fat-soluble essential vitamins, how can you possibly absorb them on such a low-fat diet, fat-soluble = fat required?

    Look, maybe it works for you, but I truly deeply don't believe a single word you wrote.

  43. Martin Levac
    @TrondO, wait a goddamn minute, you said you eat meat occasionally?!? Well, if "VEGAN" means to "EAT MEAT OCCASIONALLY", then allow me to call you a goddamn LIAR. Oh, sorry, I'm not very polite. Well, lying isn't exactly very polite either.

    HA! I was right not to believe a single word you wrote!

    Replies: #44, #48
  44. FrankG
    I also understand "vegan" to be one or those all or nothing terms but then who can you trust these days?

    http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2014/04/is-bill-clinton-lying-ab...

    ...Clinton family doctor, Mark Hyman, revealed in the New York Times interview that he has advised Clinton to “occasionally eat fish and lean protein.”

    “It’s hard being a vegan to eat enough good, quality protein and not have too much starch,” Hyman told The Times. “I know a lot of fat vegans.”

    If he follows his doctor’s advice, Clinton is not a vegan “according to strict definitions,” American Vegan Society President Freya Dinshah points out...
    ...
    Just last month, former first daughter Chelsea Clinton called her father “the world’s most famous vegan.”

    But be warned... no vegan diet, no vegan powers :-P

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TP_e_nUDMtU

    Reply: #46
  45. Martin Levac
    @Murray, it's possible to generate a different hypothesis regarding that topic. For example, glucose - in the specific form of free glucose as opposed to glycogen or glycerol for example - is found strictly where it needs to be, in the blood, to feed the cells that absolutely require glucose, red blood cells. On Steve Cooksey's site, we can read about his experiments with a continuous glucose meter during bouts of exercise. We learn that BG rises during exercise, and presumably in response to the greater demand specifically from those cells which absolutely require it, red blood cells.

    Some research shows restricting blood flow causes muscle hypertrophy. We can't be sure why this is so, but we can surmise there's a form of compensation going on here. If muscles grow bigger to compensate for a blood flow restriction, and if restricting blood flow also restricts the things contained in this blood, then we can reasonably assume restricting those specific things contained in the blood - but without restricting blood flow itself - will produce the same effect.

    Dietary carbs have an inhibitory effect on ketogenesis at the liver through their effect on insulin in the blood. We have restriction of one of the things found in the blood, i.e. ketones.

    Normal cellular functions could require a specific quantity of glucose, which is to say normal functions require a specific ratio of different fuel substrates, i.e. glucose/ketones or glucose/FFAs. We can reasonably assume normal functions continue to require this same specific ratio independently of dietary carbs. From that, we can reasonably assume excess glucose from diet is not immediately used for normal functions, but rather stored as glycogen especially under the action of insulin through its inhibition of glycogenolysis. We can also reasonably assume the bulk of excess glucose from diet will be stored in the liver precisely because it's the organ with the greatest storage capacity for it.

    It's highly simplified, but still, combine all this and we end up with the hypothesis of compensatory cardio-hypertrophy due to restriction of at least one fuel substrate, substrate required for normal functions by virtue of required substrate ratio. Basically, there's not enough fuel for the current amount of muscle cells to perform their function, therefore more and/or bigger muscle cells are required to compensate for this deficiency. The alternative is that we stick with our old paradigm, which says glucose is the preferred fuel, or rather glucose can perform all the functions ketones and FFAs perform with equal efficiency. That doesn't make sense. Glucose, ketones and FFAs cannot be interchanged in this fashion. They each perform highly specific functions, and they are all required in highly specific ratios.

  46. erdoke
    Just yesterday I checked out what pescatarian means following up on a discussion about the relationship of Dean Ornish and Steve Jobs. Of course I should have known from the first part "pesce" that means fish in most of Latin languages...
    Then I realized that actually this is something I could follow if somebody managed to convince me to shift to a vegetarian diet. If fish, dairy and eggs are included together with all plants I was just doing fine. On the other hand being vegan seems to be a ridiculous idea.
  47. Martin Levac
    Additional notes on the topic. Consider a bird's eye view of the situation. In spite of a wide array of foods we eat, any of which containing an equally wide array of macros, our blood and its content hardly vary to such an extent as that food and its content. It follows that we must have extensive systems that regulate the blood and its content to provide all cells with a stable level of all the various materials and fuel substrates. From that, it's easy to believe all cells must require such a stable level of all these materials to perform their various functions properly, and that a disruption of these systems - therefore a disruption of the flow of materials - will cause those cells to compensate one way or another.

    Another way of saying the same thing is that individual cells are not widely adaptable, but the organism must be so to compensate for the wide array of raw materials that go into it. And, compensation can only go so far, past which we get disruption of those same compensatory systems, at which point individual cells begin to suffer. And this means there must be a selection of raw materials that is optimal, i.e. that is closest to the point where compensatory systems don't work very hard or at all. I believe LCHF must be very close to this optimal point.

  48. TrondO
    Martin:

    > I mean, it's not like you have the ability to digest plant fiber, so where do you actually get your nutrition from if not from the plants you can't digest?

    Humans digest plant foods very well. The fiber, among other things, adds bulk and lowers cholesterol, and is considered important for health. Fiber must be obtained from plant foods. Nutrition comes from other components of the plants. It is a perfect blend of healthy starches, proteins, fats, vitamins, minerals, and antioxidants and other phytochemicals.

    In short, plant based food is the best!!

    > How about B12, do you get it like our good friend Durian Rider and inject it straight into your thigh? Or vitamin D3, do you get it from super-concentrated pills made in a factory?

    I take a supplement for vitamin B12, and for D3 in the winter. Pills, low concentration. Both are considered safe. Deficiency of B12 and D are common in the general population, and is only rarely attributed to a strict vegetarian diet. The requirement for B12 is extremely small, and for D you have to eat quite much fish to compensate for a little sunshine.

    Maybe you should consider to take some low dose vitamin D pills in the winter yourself :)

    > How about vitamins A, E, K, where do you get those from, more super-concentrated pills from various factories?

    Vitamin A is made in the body from beta carotene in the correct amount. High doses of vitamin A is toxic. The others are of course plentiful in plants.

    > And then, once you got those fat-soluble essential vitamins, how can you possibly absorb them on such a low-fat diet, fat-soluble = fat required?

    A whole food plant based (aka "low fat vegan") diet has about 7 to 15 E% of fat, enough for this.

    > ... then allow me to call you a goddamn LIAR. Oh, sorry, I'm not very polite. Well, lying isn't exactly very polite either.

    I felt I was completely open about my habits the way I wrote it. To my friends I call myself "flexitarian," but the amount of animal based food I eat is so little that I consider it unimportant from a nutritionally point of view. I don't want to prove anything, just want the best diet.

    I think you should consider to go vegan (or flexitarian) too. It would minimize your risk for many serious diseases that are common in rich countries.

    It would also be a great help for the environment if more people like you did that.

    Reply: #49
  49. Martin Levac
    @TrondO, sorry, maybe I didn't make myself clear enough. I'll try again. I don't believe a single you wrote. What makes you think I'm going to believe any other word you write after that?

    Let me explain how this works. I was faced with the same accusation a while ago. You know what? They were right. I could not honestly continue to claim I ate only meat, when in fact I also ate some veggies once in a while. So I lied. In fact, I also used this "nutritional point of view" argument to justify my own words. Doesn't work. A lie is a lie is a lie. That's it for that. Either you stop presenting yourself to us as a vegan - which you just acknowledged you aren't - or accept being called a liar - which you just showed you are.

    What about your claim that a vegan diet is best? How then do you justify the supplements you take? If it's the best, then it must be wholly nutritious and must not require any supplementation. Why do you feel the need to supplement, is it because you don't actually believe it is the best diet? Maybe what you really believe is that it's the least deficient, but still deficient enough to warrant supplementation. Well then, why do you tell _us_ it's the best? Are you lying again?

    About digesting plant fiber. Perhaps you aren't adequately familiar with the term "digestion". You can look it up for yourself. But basically, it means to break down food into its elements for absorption. We can't do this with plant fiber, ergo, we can't digest plant fiber nor can we extract any of the nutrition contained therein. But maybe your idea of digestion is the simple act of passing stuff through our gut undigested? Well, think about that for a second. Why would I intentionally eat something which provides me with exactly nothing, only to crap it out the other end intact, all of which wastes resources which I must then obtain from other foods which I can actually digest? Might as well not eat any of that to begin with, and only eat stuff which actually feeds me.

    Look, I understand where you come from. You want what's best for yourself, but you also want what's best for your image and that's why you also advocate for the environment. Well, and believe me when I say this, when it comes to my personal health, the environment is a distant worry. Me first, everything else second. And since it's all about my personal health, my BS meter is finely tuned. Isn't yours?

  50. TrondO
    Martin:

    Here is the difference really simple.

    Eating animal based foods = heart disease, stroke, atherosclerosis, cancer, type 2 diabetes (maybe type 1, too), hypertension, gallstones, pancreatitis, diverticular disease, kidney disease, and much more

    Vegan or near vegan = healthy, long life, comfortable life

    Make your choice.

    Your remarks about fiber are lacking in common knowledge. Fiber is healthy, not because it provides nutritients, but because it adds bulk (providing satiety, alleviates constipation, facilitates regular defecation) and lowers cholesterol, as I wrote in a previous post.

    And do you think I try to improve my own "image" by writing a pro-vegan post on a LCHF website, anonymously? Strange... And "lying" about being vegan when my eating practice is clearly stated? Also strange.

    Your best remark is to question why I take supplements on a diet which is "perfect." It's a valid point. My comments:

    1. Vitamin D deficiency is common regardless of being LCHF or vegan or whatever. If you don't believe me, believe your hero, Dr Andreas Eenfeldt, who is selling a vitamin D supplement from his Swedish website ***more than six times stronger*** than the one I take. He recommends it for all his followers. I presume that includes you. His explanation for why you should take it is basically the same as I wrote in my previos post. I recommend you read it, since it provides information on vitamin D which I agree with, except for the high dose of his supplement. Here is a translated link: https://translate.google.com/translate?sl=auto&tl=en&js=y&#...

    2. Vitamin B12 deficiency also relatively common in the general population, and nearly always caused by impaired uptake due to various reasons, such as lack of intrinsic factor. Only in rare cases can it be attributed to dietary deficiency. However B12 is safe in doses at least thousand times higher than the adequate amount, so if one supplement is safe, this is the one.

    Martin, I wish you the best of health, but remember: you health and the environmant are not in conflict, they both benefit from a whole food plant based diet.

    Replies: #51, #53, #54, #55, #56
1 2

Leave a reply

Reply to comment #0 by

Older posts