The High FAT Diet Vs The High Carb Diet. The Pukapuka And Tokelau Island Vs Japanese

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,372
Location
USA
I wanted to open a discussion on this topic and see what peoples thoughts and experiences have been with specific diets.

Studying the The Pukapuka and Tokelau Island diets which consist a high percentage of saturated fat in their Diet they seek to have zero CVD.

same goes for the Japanese with high carb percentage. One thing to note i believe the Japanese do not over consume, so they don't overload their body. They too have like zero CVD

To me it seems like it comes down to rice vs coconut

So is this genetic thing? Or is this a matter of choosing one energy source of the other?

what are peoples experiences. How has their skins fared in these diets?

thanks
 

SOMO

Member
Joined
Mar 27, 2018
Messages
1,094
I know of this study, and the islanders that ate Higher-Fat (63% of calories from Coconut) weighed more and had higher waist circumference.

Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau Island studies
Tokelauans obtain a much higher percentage of energy from coconut than the Pukapukans, 63% compared with 34%, so their intake of saturated fat is higher. The serum cholesterol levels are 35 to 40 mg higher in Tokelauans than in Pukapukans.

Pukapuka get more of their calories from Starch (cereals.)
Tokelau get more of their calories from Fat (coconuts.)
Tokelau+Pukapuka+Diets.png


Who do you think was fatter? Coconut Group or Starch Group?


Unsurprisingly, the Tokelau, the group eating more FAT was fatter - yes, even healthy saturated fat.

Maybe if their PUFA intake was 0 (both groups ate similar amounts of fish) the results would be different, or maybe not. But these 2 islanders are a great face-to-face comparison of HEALTHY HIGH-CARB + HEALTHY HIGH-FAT.



But wait there's more - what is Breadfruit?

Breadfruit is a fruit, that contains very little sucrose and a lot of STARCH. Breadfruit is closer to potatoes in nutritional composition than apples.

The Higher-Fat Tokelau's also ate more Starch, but it is "hidden" under the category of breadfruit.
usa1.jpg



So at first glance, this study compares High-Fat vs. High-Carb.

But in reality it is High-Fat+High-Starch vs. High-Carb.


What can we learn from the Pukapukas and Tokelau's? That eating High-Carb and High-Fat will make you fatter than just eating High-Carb.

 
Last edited:
OP
GorillaHead

GorillaHead

Member
Joined
Oct 21, 2018
Messages
2,372
Location
USA
I know of this study, and the islanders that ate Higher-Fat (63% of calories from Coconut) weighed more and had higher waist circumference.

Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau Island studies


Pukapuka get more of their calories from Starch (cereals.)
Tokelau get more of their calories from Fat (coconuts.)
Tokelau+Pukapuka+Diets.png


Who do you think was fatter? Coconut Group or Starch Group?


Unsurprisingly, the Tokelau, the group eating more FAT was fatter - yes, even healthy saturated fat.

Maybe if their PUFA intake was 0 (both groups ate similar amounts of fish) the results would be different, or maybe not. But these 2 islanders are a great face-to-face comparison of HEALTHY HIGH-CARB + HEALTHY HIGH-FAT.

but they probably got fat because of a surplus right? I would assume they still healthy with higher subcutaneous fat.

So basically high carb and High fat means body fat increase. While high carb alone does not mean fat increase.

But does total calories input make a difference
 
Last edited:
Joined
Dec 18, 2018
Messages
2,206
Subcutaneous ectopic fat is not associated with disease seemingly, we would have to measure visceral fat. Also, Coconut Fat is an odd fat and does not contain MUFA in any meaningful amounts, which i believe can lead to many problems, because there is some unsaturation requirement for tissues which has to be obeyed, or else the normal trafficking of membranes and expression of surface proteins is disturbed. Maybe they get issues from an uneven fatty acid profile.
 

Uselis

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2015
Messages
333
Would high starch + fat be more fattening instead of high other sugars + high fats?
 

Vegancrossfit

Member
Joined
Jul 24, 2020
Messages
170
300-400 extra kcal per day (table 5) on the fatter island. Interestingly, trigs are far better in spite of trashed cholesterol. It's as expected.... this ain't hard folks. Eat 2500kcal per day, weigh 80kg. Eat 2000kcal per day, weigh 70kg. Newsflash...

Sci-Hub | Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau Island studies. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 34(8), 1552–1561 | 10.1093/ajcn/34.8.1552

@Uselis if calories and macros % are equivalent there's no such thing as a 'more fattening' food
 
Last edited:

Jessie

Member
Joined
Jul 9, 2020
Messages
1,018
Would high starch + fat be more fattening instead of high other sugars + high fats?
Depends on the context. In a healthy host I don't think it would matter much. But we can create scenarios in animal models where starch based diets lead to weight gain despite remaining in a caloric maintenance. Starch's propensity to increase the bacterial load is what makes it more fattening then sugar.

In fact, a bad microbiome is one of the biggest factors driving the obesity pandemic. We all see and hear about fat people getting fat, or fat people unable to lose weight, and for many of them their dietary choices aren't awfully different from people with normal BMIs. Endotoxin can severely damage the host's ability to convert calories into energy.

I think at face value there's not much different in starch and sugar, but starch can cause some problems that will lead to metabolic dysfunction in the long run, particularly if it's combined with a high-fat diet. In fact, most of the high-starch cultures that have been successfully implementing starch into their diets have done so by eating really low fat diets. Like the Okinawa for example.
 

Summer

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2019
Messages
851
I would be interested in seeing the difference (if any) in their teeth.
 

Andy316

Member
Joined
Jul 18, 2018
Messages
275
But wait there's more - what is Breadfruit?

Breadfruit is a fruit, that contains very little sucrose and a lot of STARCH. Breadfruit is closer to potatoes in nutritional composition than apples.
Only clue I have in my personal case consuming the 7-8 foods I can tolerate, breadfruit is the best digesting out of all of them. Its starchy (the only other starch I tolerate is white rice), fibrous ( can't do most fibers). Is there something special in breadfruit which is not present in others? Its amazingly tasty too.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom