showme said^ I've actually educated myself a fair amount for a non-expert on my particular problem, so I have no idea why you persist in saying that I wouldn't recognize "good" nutrition advice if I saw it.
I agree that triangulation of advice can lead you off center, not taking any one approach but trying to blend them in a way that doesn't actually work together. That's not what I said. What I said was, as a consumer of health advice, I listen to various sources and, where they differ apply CRITICAL THINKING to decide who I'm going to listen to and how I'm going to approach my own health care.
Not unreasoning advice from an anonymous, rude person on the internet - or, more appropriately, non-advice, as all you've really done is to call me an idiot.
It's great that you can spout diet and heart disease research from memory. Fine if you have a conclusion based on that research, and fine if it differs from mine and, more importantly, those of some other preventive cardiology and nutrition experts. But if you think (I can't tell because you never do tell me what you really think) that the research does not say that carbohydrates encourage the expression of small, dense LDL particles, and that low carb diets don't discourage them, you either weren't taught or don't remember it all.
"Increased dietary carbohydrates, particularly simple sugars and starches with high glycemic index, can increase levels of small, dense LDL and HDL, primarily by mechanisms that involve increasing plasma triglyceride concentrations. Low-carbohydrate diets may have the opposite effects. Diets with differing fatty acid composition can also influence LDL and HDL particle distributions."
"Studies conducted during the past few years have quite unanimously shown that the quantity of carbohydrates ingested is associated with a decrease of LDL particle size and an increase in its density. Conversely, diets that aim at a reduction of carbohydrate intake are able to improve LDL quality."
You sound like the junior lawyers I know who have no practical experience. They think they know EVERYTHING and that no one could ever disagree with them. In fact, the secretaries and legal assistants know far more than they do. They learn, quickly. You will, too. Or you will starve.
Aside from the assumptions made that I am a know-it-all and didn't tell you nicely that you are wrong, here is what I have to say about the linked articles:
1) Unfortunately there is no study design with this abstract. I logged into my university account to get the article. The article is a review article, therefore, it tries to read a variety of articles uncontrolled for type of study (ie a clinical trial vs a cross sectional epidemiological study where people fill out quesitonnaires). The premise is that if you eat a lot of carbohydrate (or a lot of calories in general), then excess carbohydrate gets converted into saturated fat, a type of fat that is discouraged from being eaten in the diet because it raises LDL cholesterol. It is not saying to eat low carb. Low carb to people makes them go all-or-nothing. Certain tissues in the body require carbohydrate because they lack mitochondria and cannot undergo aerobic respiration: red blood cells, nephron of the kidney, lens of the eye. Some tissues prefer to use carbohydrate: nervous system/muscles (however nervous system can, in a famine situation, survive on ketones). This is why it is important to eat a minimum of 130g of carbohydrate per day, but for most people this is not enough to meet the recommendation of 45-65% of total caloric intake.
2) In the absence of exercise, ie if you do not work out, I agree with the article. Do not overconsume carbohydrate if you do not exercise. I would prescribe a patient on the lower end of the carbohydrate recommendation (ie 45%) and let them eat more mono- and poly-unsaturated fats if they have no intention of starting to exercise. Notice they are still getting 45% of their calories from carbohydrates--this includes from lactose (dairy for calcium, or other calcium substitute), fruit and vegetable carbohydrate, and SOME whole grain carbohydrate. I would not recommend soda or cheetohs to reach the 45% mark. The person is not utilizing carbohydrate for energy significantly to require more, therefore, consuming excess would cause an increase in the pathway of conversion of glucose into triglyceride, composed of saturated fatty acids.
3) In people who do exercise, this article is off base. Most studies do not look at people who exercise unless it specifically states that in the title. It is athletic suicide to not consume carbohydrate. It is the primary fuel that is the limiting factor for both endurance/aerobic exercise AND anaerobic exercise. Muscles break down glycogen during exercise and overcompensate with increased glycogen storage post exercise in order to adapt to training. If you're not eating that, then you just break down muscle, and the goal here is not to lose lean mass. So please keep this article in context--for sedentary people, I agree, eat less carbohydrate, but not none. When you say "low carb" people start doing stupid shit with their diet like eliminating all sources of starch, whole grains, fruits, vegetables and dairy. Then they eat way too much red meat, which is high in saturated fat, calories, and thus creates the same issue while losing lean mass thanks to less glycogen storage in muscles. The body has limited ability to convert protein into glucose. It is not efficient. Relying on protein to be converted into glucose is like relying on fructose to be converted into glucose. Both have an extra stop at the liver before that energy can be used by the rest of the body (yes muscles can use amino acids and fructose for energy in limited aspects also, but the primary fuel of muscles is glycogen).
1) Same to say as above. It is a review article of epidemiological studies showing a correlation of high carb intake with bad LDL particle formation due to hypertriglyceridemia. Both excessive fructose and excessive glucose, moreso fructose, will cause hypertriglyceridemia if you are sedentary. If you are active, muscles absorb glucose and fructose can be converted into glucose rather than saturated fat. For sedentary people, pathways convert to saturated fat storage because adipose tissue can grow and grow and grow. Muscles store sugar in a limited capacity for both sedentary people and active people.
Bottom line, if you are inactive, excessive energy intake in any form, fructose, glucose, or saturated fat (saturated fat is the densest form of useless energy for people to eat because you can't convert saturated fat back to glucose in any efficient manner), will cause an increase in triglyceride formation, an increased storage of fat, and an increased production of atherogenic lipoprotein particles, namely LDL types that stick to the walls of damaged areas of your circulatory system.
Where do people get most of their fructose intake (which is fruit sugar, in fruits)? Soda. Soda has a high concentration of high fructose corn syrup, which is the same chemically as Sucrose but perhaps not in disaccharide form.
Diet take aways: If you are physically active everyday or most days of the week, you still need carbs. If you are physically inactive everyday, you still need carbs, but less of them. Avoid "bulking and cutting" cycles. Focus on gaining strength and/or reps in the gym, which WILL cause muscle growth without you modifying your diet to excessive calorie levels, which, as we have seen, cause a negative atherogenic blood profile. Inadequa