So ask your doctor to translate this into diet protocols for all your needs.
But I bet your stroke hospital is so fucking incompetent it doesn't even have ANY DIET PROTOCOL.
For stroke
prevention; for dementia prevention; for cognitive improvement; for
cholesterol reduction; for plaque removal; for Parkinsons prevention; for
inflammation reduction; for blood pressure reduction.
You can't be expected to figure this out on your own, your doctor is
being paid for medical expertise. Demand that some expertise be
delivered.
Dietary fat: From foe to friend?
See all authors and affiliations
Abstract
For
decades, dietary advice was based on the premise that high intakes of
fat cause obesity, diabetes, heart disease, and possibly cancer.
Recently, evidence for the adverse metabolic effects of processed
carbohydrate has led to a resurgence in interest in lower-carbohydrate
and ketogenic diets with high fat content. However, some argue that the
relative quantity of dietary fat and carbohydrate has little relevance
to health and that focus should instead be placed on which particular
fat or carbohydrate sources are consumed. This review, by nutrition
scientists with widely varying perspectives, summarizes existing
evidence to identify areas of broad consensus amid ongoing controversy
regarding macronutrients and chronic disease.
A
report by the U.S. Senate Select Committee on Nutrition and Human Needs
in 1977 called on Americans to reduce consumption of total and saturated
fat, increase carbohydrate intake, and lower calorie intake, among
other dietary goals (1).
This report, by elected members of Congress with little scientific
training, was written against a backdrop of growing public concern about
diet-related chronic disease, precipitated in part by attention
surrounding President Eisenhower’s heart attack in 1955.
Even
then, the recommendations were hotly debated. The American Medical
Association stated that “The evidence for assuming benefits to be
derived from the adoption of such universal dietary goals as set forth
in the report is not conclusive … [with] potential for harmful effects.”
Indeed, the lack of scientific consensus was reflected in the
voluminous, 869-page “Supplemental Views” published contemporaneously by
the committee. Nonetheless, reduction in fat consumption soon became a
central principle of dietary guidelines from the U.S. government and
virtually all nutrition- and health-related professional organizations.
[Note that modern approaches to the study of diet-related chronic
diseases were at that time in their infancy; previously, nutritional
science was focused on individual nutrients for the prevention of
deficiency diseases (2).]
The
Surgeon General’s Report on Nutrition and Health in 1988 identified
reduction of fat consumption as the “primary dietary priority,” with
sugar consumption only a secondary concern for children at risk for
dental caries (3).
The 1992 Food Guide Pyramid of the U.S. Department of Agriculture
advised eating 6 to 11 daily servings of starchy foods such as bread,
cereal, rice, and pasta while limiting all fats and oils. To facilitate
this goal, the U.S. Healthy People 2000 report of the Department of
Health and Human Services called on the food industry to market
thousands of new “processed food products that are reduced in fat and
saturated fat” (4).
This intensive focus on reducing dietary fat was driven by a prevailing
belief that carbohydrates—all carbohydrates, including highly processed
grains and sugar—were innocuous and possibly protective against weight
gain, cancer, and cardiovascular disease through multiple mechanisms (5).
As
a result, the proportion of fat in the U.S. diet decreased from about
42% in the 1970s to about 34% of total calories today (somewhat greater
than the stated goal of <30%) and the proportion of dietary
carbohydrates increased substantially (6).
During this time, rates of obesity and diabetes increased greatly,
contributing to the first nationwide decrease in life expectancy since
the flu pandemic 100 years ago (7). These trends could be causally connected or unrelated.
If
causal, how could some traditional societies, such as that of Okinawa,
enjoy relative freedom from chronic disease and long lifespan when they
consume a low-fat diet (8)?
In Mexico, Brazil, and China, rates of obesity and diet-related chronic
diseases have also increased without similar government dietary
guidance to individuals and food manufacturers. Moreover, many other
aspects of the American diet changed in the past 40 years, including
increased portion sizes, greater consumption of foods away from home,
and more extreme food processing. At the same time, labor-saving
technology and the digital age have led to declines in occupational and
recreational physical activity, and budget shortfalls in schools have
led to curtailments in physical education classes, recess time, and
after-school recreation opportunities.
Despite a lack of
clear evidence specifically relating fat consumption (as a proportion of
total energy intake) to the epidemics of diet-related disease—and a
lack of high-quality, long-term trials focused on macronutrients in
general—the pendulum has recently swung in the opposite direction, with
rising consumer popularity of low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets. Among
the current top-10 best-selling weight loss books on Amazon.com, four
promote a ketogenic diet with energy intake derived mainly from fat. In
support of higher fat intake, several meta-analyses found slightly
greater weight loss on high-fat rather than low-fat diets (9, 10), and preliminary data suggest the potential for excellent control of diabetes through carbohydrate restriction (11, 12).
But versions of low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets have been around at
least as early as the 1800s, with no clear evidence of superiority for
long-term obesity treatment at present. And regardless of body weight,
high intakes of fat—especially from red meat and dairy products—might
increase risk for heart disease or cancer.
Perhaps both
high-carbohydrate, low-fat and low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets have
benefit for different populations or for different clinical outcomes,
and the critical issue is to identify the optimal macronutrient ratio
for an individual. Or perhaps the focus on macronutrient quantity has
been a distraction, and qualitative aspects (the particular sources of
fat or carbohydrate) and overall eating patterns are more important.
To
explore these issues, we have joined together as scientists with a
diversity of expertise, perspectives, and prior research focus. Our aim
is not to assemble a premature consensus among the like-minded, but
rather to identify areas of general agreement and delineate a research
agenda to address long-standing controversies.
Much more at link.
No comments:
Post a Comment