Paleo Diet Relevant News Briefs

High Fructose Diet May Contribute to High Blood  Pressure  

"To examine whether increased fructose consumption has contributed to rising rates of hypertension, Diana Jalal, MD (University of Colorado Denver Health Sciences Center) and her colleagues analyzed data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (2003-2006). The study involved 4,528 US adults 18 years of age or older with no prior history of hypertension. Study participants answered questions related to their consumption of foods and beverages such as fruit juices, soft drinks, bakery products, and candy. Dr. Jalal’s team found that people who consumed a diet of 74 grams or more per day of fructose (corresponding to 2.5 sugary soft drinks per day) had a 26%, 30%, and 77% higher risk for blood pressure levels of 135/85, 140/90, and 160/100 mmHg, respectively. (A normal blood pressure reading is below 120/80 mmHg.)"

Beware, this was an epidemiological study; it found a correlation between fructose and hypertension, but does not establish that fructose in the diet causes hypertension.  Perhaps the typical high fructose diet also contains a lot of salt; high salt and high fructose may interact to produce hypertension.  As the article states:  

“Our study identifies a potentially modifiable risk factor for  high blood pressure. However, well-planned prospective randomized  clinical studies need to be completed to see if low fructose diets will  prevent the development of hypertension and its complications,” said Dr.  Jalal.

Cutting Carbs is More Effective than Low-Fat Diet for  Insulin-Resistant Women  

Jenny Craig funded and produced prepared, calorie-controlled foods for this study which compared the effects of a high (60%) carbohydrate diet to a lower (45%) carbohydrate diet for insulin-resistant women.   

"The composition of the low-fat diet was 60 percent of calories from carbs, 20 percent from fat and 20 percent from protein. Although the lower-carb diet also had 20 percent of calories from protein, it had 45 percent from carbs and 35 percent from primarily unsaturated fats, such as nuts. Menus included a minimum of 2 fruits and 3 vegetable servings a day."

So assuming a 1500 kcal meal plan, the high carb group dieter would eat 225g carbohydrate daily, and the lower-carb group 169g daily.  The lower carb group would have cut about 60g of carbohydrate from the diet--the equivalent of four slices of bread.  

Of course they had to eat "primarily unsaturated fats" since it seems hard for the mainstream to accept that saturated fats do not have any harmful properties.  Again assuming a 1500 kcal meal plan, the high carb group would eat a total of 33g of fat daily, and the lower carb group 58g daily.  I would consider both of these diets low-fat.   I would typically suggest a minimum of 50% of energy from fat, which on a 1500 kcal diet would allow at least 83g of delicious fats. 

"Both groups lost weight at each monthly weigh-in, but by 12 weeks, the insulin resistant group receiving the lower-carb diet lost significantly more weight, 19.6 pounds versus 16.2 pounds in the low-fat diet group – approximately 21 percent more on average."

So they obtained pretty good results.  The lower carb group lost about 1.6 pounds per week vs. 1.4 pounds per week in the low-fat diet group.  

Of course I imagine that if they would have tried a real low carb diet, like 55% fat, 25% carbohydrate, and 20% protein, they would have acheived even better results. 

According to the report, the lead researcher, Plodkowski, believes that "Use of prepared meals helped make the structured diets easier and more palatable for the  dieters."

"We wanted to make this study real-world—anyone could follow this plan by making moderate changes as part of a healthy menu," he said

Thanks for the contradictory spin.  On the one hand, "anyone could follow this plan by making moderate changes" to his diet, and on the other "use of prepared meals helped make the structured diets easier" for the dieters.  "In the real world," few people can distinguish between 60% and 45% carbohydrate diets.  The reality here is if you are aiming for a specific carbohydrate content of the diet while allowing nearly half of the energy to come from carbohydrate in the "lower" carb diet, most people need a "structured" diet prepared by someone else who knows how to calculate such things. 

Whereas with paleo dieting you simply remove the foods that produce high carbohydrate diets (cereals, legumes, pasta, breads, juices, sugars, etc.).  "In the real world," anyone can eat a practically paleo diet without getting a Jenny Craig membership. 

This past weekend Tracy and I took a day trip to Payson, AZ.  I drove on my fast, and when we got to Payson we stopped at a busy diner for breakfast.  The menu listed a steak and eggs platter.  The menu described it as 6 oz steak, 2 eggs, choice of hash browns or country-style potatoes, toast, and jam.  I asked the waitress for a rare steak, 2 eggs sunny side up, country-style potatoes, and asked her to substitute a fruit cup for the toast and jam.  The whole breakfast had about 60g carbohydrate. 

In the middle of the day we went to the Tonto Natural Bridge.  At the park we shared a Paleo Kit and each had an apple.  That supplied me with another 30-40g carbohydrate. 

After we explored the Bridge,  we drove back to Payson and stopped at a local grill for another meal.  I ordered an 8oz green chili burger with cheese, and told the waitress that I didn't want the bun.  I chose cole slaw as the side dish instead of fries, and drank water.   That meal had no more than 15g carbohydrate.  My total carbohydrate intake for the day did not exceed 120g, and I ate "in the real world."