Intervention study shows that food quality trumps macronutrient ratios

[MarcR]

In this controlled 12-week intervention study, isocaloric, high quality LFHC and vHFLC diets with identical foods and protein content were compared for a group of 38 obese, non-diabetic men ages 30-50. The exceptionally positive health outcomes were identical in both groups. This is the first study I have seen that avoids the food quality variance confounder.

The Science Direct summary is here, and the abstract is here. A scan of the full paper is available on Sci-Hub, and the DOI is 10.3945/ajcn.115.123463.

As a side note, the caloric intake percentages of saturated fat are 12% and 34% respectively, so this study supports Dr. Masterjohn's perspective that saturated fat is benign.

[MAC]

Hi Marc,

A 12 week, n = 40 (net persons) study equates to "trumping" re lifelong dietary protocol and TCM?

How many were E4, extremely pertinent to this forum...no data!

"Furthermore, the present study was designed to compare short-term dynamics in response to the VHFLC and LFHC diets, and possible longer-term differential responses were not addressed. Finally, we studied a relatively homogenous group of middle-aged men without diabetes, which may have decreased interindividual variability, but may also limit the generalizability. For example,VHFLC diets may have better effect in more insulin-resistant"

I believe your prevailing theory is that IR (not lipids, TC, smLdL, LdL-p) is the cause of all key TCM diseases...CVD, AD, diabetes, etc. So you would recommend a LFHC diet for an E4? Clearly you would, since quality of food, NOT metabolic profile/impact trumps?

Sorry, I am always very skeptical when the authors have to disclose the names of corporate sponsors who provided the macronutrients...really, they can't even afford to buy quality food for a scientific study and avoid ANY perception of conflict!?

I am in total agreement re quality of food, without doubt. I am just NOT swayed that for E4's, that overloading on saturated fat is a good TCM outcome.

[MarcR]

A 12 week, n = 40 (net persons) study equates to "trumping" re lifelong dietary protocol and TCM?

Those are your words, not mine, Mac. You're familiar with the straw man fallacy?

I meant what I said, and I said what I meant.

[MAC]

Sorry, I don't want to misinterpret.

Pease explicitly define what you mean by "trump"...in a narrow, no TCM objective, 12 week study, macronutrients themselves are more important (ergo trump) than ratios?

Regardless, how does this study indicate for E4 + persons as it pertains to AD/TCM? Maybe that's your point, it has no bearing/relevance.

[MarcR]

This is what the study means to me:

• Over a 12-week period, improved food quality can foster large improvements in body composition, waist circumference, blood pressure, and other insulin resistance biomarkers in a group of obese, non-diabetic men. Markedly different proportions of carbohydrate, fat, and saturated fat using different proportions of the same high quality, lowly processed foods can yield similar improvements.

This is the first study I have seen that addresses food quality when comparing LFHC and vHFLC. Its findings align well with what we know about pre-industrial cultures thriving on a wide range of macronutrient ratios.

There are many observational studies that fail to distinguish between the saturated fat in junk food (e.g. soybean oil-based margarine spreads) and that found in pastured eggs, grass-fed beef, virgin coconut oil, EVOO, avocados, raw and dry-roasted tree nuts, and other high-quality lowly processed foods. Many studies don't even distinguish between saturated and trans fats! I don't believe their conclusions.

An intervention study using quality food to obtain spectacular results on both low and high saturated fat diets supports my own personal experience as well as the deep knowledge of fellow ApoE ε3/ε4 Dr. Chris Masterjohn. I find it valuable personally. Your mileage may vary.

The study has nothing to say about ε4 status or mortality rates. If there is a controlled intervention study that prescribes lowly processed foods in various proportions to millions of fully genotyped people and follows up with them for decades to ensure that they stick to the diets, I would read it with great interest. In the meantime, I accept this study as valuable grist for my mill.

[ApropoE4]

If there is a controlled intervention study that prescribes lowly processed foods in various proportions to millions of fully genotyped people and follows up with them for decades to ensure that they stick to the diets

Look outside your window

[MarcR]

That's funny, ApropoE4. I get the joke, but now I feel the need to clarify my meaning. I was using "lowly processed foods" in the way the authors of the paper did to mean foods that are unprocessed or lightly processed. For example, shelled, dry roasted, salted pistachios are technically "processed", but I think they're in a different category from, say, cashews fried in cottonseed oil.

Unfortunately, the phrase easily can be understood in the opposite way intended if lowly is read as an adjective rather than an adverb:

Code: Select all

adjective
1. low in status or importance; humble.
"she was too good for her lowly position"
synonyms:	humble, low, low-born, low-ranking, plebeian, proletarian

adverb
1. to a low degree; in a low manner.
"lowly paid workers"

I guess I'll avoid that turn of phrase going forward.

[ApropoE4]

I take no issue with the idea that caloric restriction is key, and the specific dietary composition only has a very small relative effect. I do take issue with researchers trying to promote an agenda around a result that simply shows restricting calories improves health, at least if you started off consuming too many of them.