Australian Heart Foundation Position Statement on Very Low Carb Diets
 

http://www.heartfoundation.com.au/d..._dietsPP_04.pdf

I thought I might give a link to this literature review, becuase I really think it is quite interesting, and a scholarly literature review.

The Australian Heart Foundation is a charitable organisation in Australia funding research into cardiovascular disease, but also issues dietery advice/guidelines that are very influential. They have a high profile due to the use of the 'heart foundation tick' - a label on foods that are comparitively low in salt, saturated fat, and energy density (i think?) for foods of there type.

Anway, there was a bit of shock lately becuase they came out and said - gasp - that fat isn't bad, and that there is no evidence that fat (alone) leads to obesity. There are other indepedent variables. However, they stand by the claim that saturated fat is likely bad - they now reccomend rather then lowering fat below 30% (old reccomendaton) we look at achieving a 1:1 balance between sats and other fats. There position paper on this seperate issue is also on their website.

However, they have also come up with this literature review on studies into Very low carb diets, which they define as diets with less then 100g of carbs a day. I think this a very objective review, which reports on the benefits of low carbing (weight loss, improved blood lipids) as well as areas where we need more research.

I think all too often hard-core low carbers full into the mistake of saying 'no research that bad = therefore not bad' (without admitting there is an element of gambling involved) wheras these sorts of political organisations say 'no research that good and indications that bad = very bad'. It is enlightening to see such an influential organisation that, while not reccomending VLC diets over others - doesn't feel the need to condemn them or twist research either. Even admitting they improve some profiles.

But the research that fat is bad and low fat is good was very bad research, no research and very old research that didn't stand up to picking apart.

So which are you supposed to believe? All the heart experts have been droning a mantra for years that sure looks like they're sending everyone to early graves with diabetes, and subsequently heart disease, by encouraging everyone to eat lots of carbs and develop a metabolic disorder.

There's always room for dissenting studies and new opinions and facts to come to light in my mind. Unfortunately it seems like the medical establishment doesn't take to new information like cats don't take to water.

Exactly, all the research that supposedly lead our collective society to believe fat was bad is tenuous at best. It was based on faulty science that eventually avalanched to being universally accepted.

It's sort of like, "not any one of us can be as dumb as all of us combined" sort of meeting these people must have had to reach the low fat conclusion based on such perforated science.

There is nothing positive about this paper: The summary at the beginning states:

1. As present, there is insufficient evidence to support the adoption of very low carbohydrate diets for long-term weight loss.
2. The Heart Foundation is concerned that:
a) The high and unrestricted saturated fat content of many VLCarb diets may contribute to cardiovascular risk, and
b) many VLCarb diets do not provide adequate nutrition, particularly in dietary folate, calcium and dietary fiber...
etc. etc. etc.
then on to pages 8, 9, & 10 showing what to eat and not to eat is exactly what they have been saying ad nauseum for decades, for example under comments for Dairy products: Saturated fats from full fat dairy products increase plasma cholesterol and therefore heart disease risk.

Obviously, the heart foundations world wide are still wearing blinders when it comes to looking at the blood lipid results of low-carb dieters. I don't know why that is? Perhaps someone could clue me in?

I think you are right that this is a step forward, if only a small one. The British Heart Foundatioin website doesn't even mention the subject.

The BHF is still in the dark ages, lumping animal fats and hydrogenated vegetable fats under the term "saturated fats". Here's a quote from the Healthy Eating section: "too much saturated fat from red meat, *biscuits*, *cakes*, *chips* and dairy products can clog up your arteries." This is one of the ways cholesterol research became so distorted in the past. Is the Australian HF doing the same? If so, bear it in mind when interpreting their statements concerning saturated fats.

Don't feel alone, Evelyn, I think its the case in every country.