Off Topic · OT:Fasting & detoxification (page 4)

Blue, I looked at some of the excerpts you posted. I found a couple of them interesting and I will try and get to them later.

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by EnySpree:

I'm trying my best....I guess my best isn't good enough for you, huh?

Respect. Just trying to share the knowledge. If you want to squander it and burn in hell that's up to you.

Lmao!

I'm exploring. So far I do feel as if I can take this a step further in my next fast. I could see myself doing this several times of the year.

Today will be a big test cuz I'm off from work and will be out and about.

Posted by codeunknown:

Blue, I looked at some of the excerpts you posted. I found a couple of them interesting and I will try and get to them later.

I'll have to do this piecemeal, will not get a stretch of time today. I'll start with the ladies who wrote about the Framingham study. Haven't been able to find any corroboration of their quote from the Framingham director but was able to find a journal article written by Dr. Castelli (Framingham director 40 years post-inception) that directly contradicts their assertion. Regardless, those ladies provide a flagrantly inaccurate depiction of the results and the following abstract, written by Castelli himself, should remove any doubts about his interpretation of the study's findings.

-->
1: Am J Kidney Dis. 1990 Oct;16(4 Suppl 1):41-6.Links
Diet, smoking, and alcohol: influence on coronary heart disease risk. Castelli WP.
Framingham Heart Study, MA 01701.

The Framingham study on coronary heart disease (CHD) has shown that life-style, particularly diet, smoking, and alcohol consumption, has a great impact on the incidence of CHD. Blood lipoproteins, rather than total blood cholesterol, have been found to be more accurate predictors of CHD risk. Blood triglyceride, previously considered to have little bearing on CHD risk, was found to have a negative impact in many cases. A population subgroup with high triglyceride greater than or equal to 1.7 mmol/L (greater than or equal to 150 mg/dL), low high-density lipoprotein less than or equal to 1.04 mmol/L (less than or equal to 40 mg/dL), increased insulin resistance, and a higher incidence of diabetes mellitus has been found to be at increased risk for CHD. Diet intervention trials have shown that a reduction in total cholesterol and saturated fat consumption produced reduction in CHD incidence proportionate to the fall in cholesterol. Cigarette smoking increased CHD risk moderately; those who smoked one pack per day had twice the risk of nonsmokers. Alcohol consumption actually lowered CHD incidence in the Framingham study; however, when alcohol consumption was greater than two drinks per day, a rise in mortality from cancer and stroke was observed.

Code, that Framingham study should have no relevance to anyone until we know which saturated fats, and other dietary parameters, were involved. Many industrialized saturated fats are trans fats, and everyone knows they are to be avoided. But not all saturated fats are trans fats. The quality of fats studied is a serious confound that you've thus far yet to account for.

I showed in the other excerpts reports of African tribesmen who thrive on healthy saturated fats, but when they are introduced to Western industrialized diets their cholesterol and heart disease sky rocket. The sad thing is that in this society, rather than being told to return to their native, healthy, high saturated fat diet, they will be told to consume more Lean Cuisine and Nabisco crackers that proclaim themselves to be "part of a healthy low fat diet". This overdose of carbs and sugars will drive up their insulin levels, leading to insulin resistance and predispose them to diabetes and heart disease. IOW, they will told to more strictly adhere to the high carbohydrate and over processed oils that corrupted their health in the first place. They'll be left under-nourished, carb addicted, hungry and insulin resistant - thusly predisposed to diabetes and heart disease. Then they'll be put on statins. But never to go back to their wholesome high fat diet.

The whole approach is so misguided it's criminal

Lets take a quick look at how people's minds get messed up by the saturated fats fiasco. One could assume they could go to McDonalds and oder a value meal, and to protect their heart they'll throw away the burger because of its saturated fat, and do better by eating the bun, fries (polyunsaturated fat) and coke, and be better off for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. That meal would yield close to zero nutrition and predispose them to diabetes, heart disease, allergies, and any other malady of the body and soul imaginable. OTOH, if one has to eat at McD, a far better approach would be to order the biggest burger they have, throw away the bun but eat the meat. Then instead of fries (laden with overly processed oils) and soda, go for a salad and water. That would yeiled a heart healthy meal, saturated fat not withstanding.

This fixation on fat is killing our society. Consumption of saturated fats are stable or down while heart disease skyrockets. Talk about a disconnect.

---------

Study: Low-carb diet best for weight, cholesterol

By MIKE STOBBE – Jul 16, 2008

ATLANTA (AP) — The Atkins diet may have proved itself after all: A low-carb diet and a Mediterranean-style regimen helped people lose more weight than a traditional low-fat diet in one of the longest and largest studies to compare the dueling weight-loss techniques.

A bigger surprise: The low-carb diet improved cholesterol more than the other two. Some critics had predicted the opposite....

Other experts said the study — being published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine — was highly credible.

"This is a very good group of researchers," said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity....




But the low-carb approach seemed to trigger the most improvement in several cholesterol measures, including the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, the "good" cholesterol. For example, someone with total cholesterol of 200 and an HDL of 50 would have a ratio of 4 to 1. The optimum ratio is 3.5 to 1, according to the American Heart Association.

Doctors see that ratio as a sign of a patient's risk for hardening of the arteries. "You want that low," Stampfer said.

The ratio declined by 20 percent in people on the low-carb diet, compared to 16 percent in those on the Mediterranean and 12 percent in low-fat dieters.

The study is not the first to offer a favorable comparison of an Atkins-like diet. Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year found overweight women on the Atkins plan had slightly better blood pressure and cholesterol readings than those on the low-carb Zone diet, the low-fat Ornish diet and a low-fat diet that followed U.S. government guidelines.

-------

So, in more than one study, of the three diets tested the low fat approach proved to be the least productive. Interesting...

http://www.medicalconsumers.org/pages/Al...

Cholesterol as a Disease:

To understand today's obsession with cholesterol, it helps to have a little background regarding this particular risk factor and how it came to be treated as if it were a disease. High blood levels of cholesterol emerged as a risk factor for heart disease in the Framingham Heart Study, whose results have been misrepresented, according to some researchers. Begun in 1948, it followed 5,000 healthy men and women living in Framingham, Massachusetts, to determine which factors distinguished those who eventually suffered a heart attack.

Cholesterol was identified as one, but only one of 240 risk factors that included short stature, male baldness, creased ear lobes, and being married to a highly educated woman. Research focused on cholesterol because it is a modifiable risk factor (translation: drug industry opportunity). Though the Framingham Study found a strong association between blood levels of cholesterol and heart disease only in young and middle-aged men, the entire population was, in time, instructed to fear this particular risk factor.

Contrary to conventional medical wisdom, the Framingham study did not find that a high-fat diet doomed people to a heart attack. A subgroup of Framingham participants was assessed for their intake of saturated fats, dietary cholesterol and overall calories. None had any effect on the development of heart disease.

The idea that a low-fat diet prevents heart disease lives on, despite a 2001 review of all relevant clinical trials. The combined results showed that reducing or modifying dietary fat intake had no effect on heart disease mortality or total mortality (Hooper et al. British Medical Journal, 3/31/01).

Posted by BlueSeats:

Code, that Framingham study should have no relevance to anyone until we know which saturated fats, and other dietary parameters, were involved. Many industrialized saturated fats are trans fats, and everyone knows they are to be avoided. But not all saturated fats are trans fats. The quality of fats studied is a serious confound that you've thus far yet to account for.

I showed in the other excerpts reports of African tribesmen who thrive on healthy saturated fats, but when they are introduced to Western industrialized diets their cholesterol and heart disease sky rocket. The sad thing is that in this society, rather than being told to return to their native, healthy, high saturated fat diet, they will be told to consume more Lean Cuisine and Nabisco crackers that proclaim themselves to be "part of a healthy low fat diet". This overdose of carbs and sugars will drive up their insulin levels, leading to insulin resistance and predispose them to diabetes and heart disease. IOW, they will told to more strictly adhere to the high carbohydrate and over processed oils that corrupted their health in the first place. They'll be left under-nourished, carb addicted, hungry and insulin resistant - thusly predisposed to diabetes and heart disease. Then they'll be put on statins. But never to go back to their wholesome high fat diet.

The whole approach is so misguided it's criminal

Lets take a quick look at how people's minds get messed up by the saturated fats fiasco. One could assume they could go to McDonalds and oder a value meal, and to protect their heart they'll throw away the burger because of its saturated fat, and do better by eating the bun, fries (polyunsaturated fat) and coke, and be better off for it. Nothing could be further from the truth. That meal would yield close to zero nutrition and predispose them to diabetes, heart disease, allergies, and any other malady of the body and soul imaginable. OTOH, if one has to eat at McD, a far better approach would be to order the biggest burger they have, throw away the bun but eat the meat. Then instead of fries (laden with overly processed oils) and soda, go for a salad and water. That would yeiled a heart healthy meal, saturated fat not withstanding.

This fixation on fat is killing our society. Consumption of saturated fats are stable or down while heart disease skyrockets. Talk about a disconnect.

---------

Study: Low-carb diet best for weight, cholesterol

By MIKE STOBBE – Jul 16, 2008

ATLANTA (AP) — The Atkins diet may have proved itself after all: A low-carb diet and a Mediterranean-style regimen helped people lose more weight than a traditional low-fat diet in one of the longest and largest studies to compare the dueling weight-loss techniques.

A bigger surprise: The low-carb diet improved cholesterol more than the other two. Some critics had predicted the opposite....

Other experts said the study — being published Thursday in the New England Journal of Medicine — was highly credible.

"This is a very good group of researchers," said Kelly Brownell, director of Yale University's Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity....




But the low-carb approach seemed to trigger the most improvement in several cholesterol measures, including the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL, the "good" cholesterol. For example, someone with total cholesterol of 200 and an HDL of 50 would have a ratio of 4 to 1. The optimum ratio is 3.5 to 1, according to the American Heart Association.

Doctors see that ratio as a sign of a patient's risk for hardening of the arteries. "You want that low," Stampfer said.

The ratio declined by 20 percent in people on the low-carb diet, compared to 16 percent in those on the Mediterranean and 12 percent in low-fat dieters.

The study is not the first to offer a favorable comparison of an Atkins-like diet. Research published in the Journal of the American Medical Association last year found overweight women on the Atkins plan had slightly better blood pressure and cholesterol readings than those on the low-carb Zone diet, the low-fat Ornish diet and a low-fat diet that followed U.S. government guidelines.

-------

So, in more than one study, of the three diets tested the low fat approach proved to be the least productive. Interesting...

Again, not so much time. Still, a couple of important corrections to your post above. Number 1 - trans fats are by definition unsaturated fats, they are the result of a trans configuration a cross a carbon-carbon double bond. They are produced in industrial hydrogenation and have a clear negative effect on the lipid profile. When polyunsaturated fats replace saturated fats in an isocaloric study, trans fats a priori are increased in the polyunsaturated cohort --> making the pathogenicity of saturated fats all the more significant. In other words, trans fats are a confounder that would make it more difficult to achieve a statistical increase in CHD risk with saturated fats. Yet, its been done consistently and with impressive statistical power. Just a few of those I've placed at the bottom of this post.

Number 2 - the Framingham study has relevance to everyone, including you, whether or not you'd like to believe it. Its milestones far exceed a connection between cholesterol and heart disease - 1500 articles have come out of it, including the identification of a host of risk factors, development of prediction models, and, currently, genomic analysis. I've included below nutrition studies that specifically evaluate LDL as an independent risk factor for heart disease and specifically evaluate the relationship between saturated fat and serum LDL - from the Framingham and various other studies. As expected, saturated fats demonstrate a direct relationship with serum LDL cholesterol levels. I'll reitterate that trans fat, if anything, confounds against saturated fat as a risk factor.

Its not an exaggeration to say that the Framingham study and the development of statin therapy has saved millions of lives - including, probably, the lives of some of your family members. So, dismissing it based on 2 selected excerpts, 1 of which is on the readers digest level, is imprudent to say the least. Calling the approach of ~100% of physicians criminal is something I personally take offense to - because I've been involved with some of these developments both at their intellectual beginnings and at their clinical endpoints. While I realize that this was not your intent, when you start criminalizing doctors because you think trans fats are saturated, it strikes me that you're making bold declarations based on very limited knowledge.

One article you posted I did think was very good was the one in Circulation - describing an inverse relationship between saturated fat intake and stroke. There is also a documented inverse relationship between cholesterol and stroke at a certain low threshold. I'm not suggesting, by any means, that we have all the answers. What I am suggesting is that we know that cholesterol exceeding certain levels is very bad and that saturated fat is a primary culprit in our society. I am also suggesting that people listen to their doctors, who are trained experts in these fields, instead of heeding the advice of amateurs with a limited grasp of the literature.

Finally, I don't think you've made very clear which of the following contentions you're trying to make --> is it that serum cholesterol is not a risk factor for heart disease?, dietary fat is not a contributor to serum cholesterol?, or only that saturated fat is not a contributor to serum cholesterol? etc. If I'm missing anything, please fill me in. Here's a sample of the literature which refutes the above 3 contentions.

-----------

1: Eur J Clin Nutr. 1998 Oct;52(10):728-32.Links
The effect of a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet on serum high density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride.Turley ML, Skeaff CM, Mann JI, Cox B.
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To determine whether substituting carbohydrate for saturated fat has any adverse effects on serum high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and triglycerides in free-living individuals. DESIGN: Randomised crossover trial. SETTING: General community. SUBJECTS: Volunteer sample of 38 healthy free-living men with mean (s.d.) age 37 (7) y, moderately elevated serum total cholesterol 5.51 (0.93) mmol/l and body mass index 26.0 (3.6) kg/m2. INTERVENTIONS: Participants completed two six week experimental periods during which they consumed either a traditional Western diet (36%, 18%, and 43% energy from total, saturated, and carbohydrate, respectively) or a low-saturated fat high-carbohydrate diet (22%, 6% and 59% energy from total, saturated, and carbohydrate, respectively). Dietary principles were reinforced regularly, but food choices were self-selected during each experimental period. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Serum lipids, body weight and plasma fatty acids. RESULTS: Reported energy and nutrient intakes, plasma fatty acids, and a drop in weight from 79.1 (12.5) kg on the Western diet to 77.6 (12.0) kg on the high-carbohydrate diet (P < 0.001) confirmed a high level of compliance with experimental diets. Total and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol fell from 5.52 (1.04) mmol/l and 3.64 (0.88) mmol/l, respectively on the Western diet to 4.76 (1.10) mmol/l and 2.97 (0.94) mmol/l on the high-carbohydrate diet (P < 0.001). HDL cholesterol fell from 1.21 (0.27) mmol/l on the Western diet to 1.07 (0.23) mmol/l on the high-carbohydrate diet (P = 0.057), but the LDL:HDL cholesterol ratio improved from 3.17 (1.05) on the Western diet to 2.88 (0.97) on the high-carbohydrate diet (P = 0.004). Fasting triglyceride levels were unchanged throughout the study. CONCLUSIONS: Replacement of saturated fat with carbohydrate from grains, vegetables, legumes, and fruit reduces total and LDL cholesterol with only a minor effect on HDL cholesterol and triglyceride. It seems that when free living individuals change to a fibre rich high-carbohydrate diet appropriate food choices lead to a modest weight reduction. This may explain why the marked elevation of triglyceride and reduction of HDL cholesterol observed on strictly controlled high-carbohydrate diets may not occur when such diets are followed in practice.

PMID: 9805219 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

N Engl J Med. 1990 Feb 8;322(6):402-4.
Effect of a diet enriched with monounsaturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids on levels of low-density and high-density lipoprotein cholesterol in healthy women and men.
Mensink RP, Katan MB.
Department of Human Nutrition, Agricultural University, Wageningen, the Netherlands.

Polyunsaturated fatty acids are thought to lower the serum cholesterol level more effectively than monounsaturated fatty acids. It is unclear whether the difference--if any--is due to a lowering of the level of high-density lipoprotein (HDL) or low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. We therefore placed 31 women and 27 men on a mixed natural diet rich in saturated fat (19.3 percent of their daily energy intake from saturated fat, 11.5 percent from monounsaturated fat, and 4.6 percent from polyunsaturated fat) for 17 days. For the next 36 days, they received a mixed diet with the same total fat content, but enriched with olive oil and sunflower oil ("monounsaturated-fat diet": 12.9 percent saturated fat, 15.1 percent monounsaturated fat, and 7.9 percent polyunsaturated fat) or with sunflower oil alone ("polyunsaturated-fat diet": 12.6 percent saturated fat, 10.8 percent monounsaturated fat, and 12.7 percent polyunsaturated fat). The serum LDL cholesterol level decreased by 17.9 percent in those on the monounsaturated-fat diet and by 12.9 percent in those on the polyunsaturated-fat diet (95 percent confidence interval for the difference between the effects of the two unsaturated-fat diets, -9.9 percent to 0.0 percent). In men, the HDL cholesterol level fell slightly but not significantly with both diets. In women, the HDL cholesterol level did not change with either. We conclude that a mixed diet rich in monounsaturated fat was as effective as a diet rich in (n-6)polyunsaturated fat in lowering LDL cholesterol. Both diets lowered the level of HDL cholesterol slightly in men but not in women.


1: Eur J Clin Nutr. 2001 Oct;55(10):908-15. Links
The effect of replacing dietary saturated fat with polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat on plasma lipids in free-living young adults.Hodson L, Skeaff CM, Chisholm WA.
Department of Human Nutrition, University of Otago, Dunedin, New Zealand.

OBJECTIVE: To examine, in free-living adults eating self-selected diets, the effects on plasma cholesterol of substituting saturated fat rich foods with either n-6 polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat rich foods while at the same time adhering to a total fat intake of 30-33% of dietary energy. DESIGN: Two randomised crossover trials. SETTING: General community. SUBJECTS: Volunteer sample of healthy free-living nutrition students at the University of Otago. Trial I, n=29; and trial II, n=42. INTERVENTIONS: In trials I and II participants were asked to follow for 2(1/2) weeks a diet high in saturated fat yet with a total fat content that conformed to nutrition recommendations (30-33% energy). During the 2(1/2) week comparison diet, saturated fat rich foods were replaced with foods rich in n-6 polyunsaturated fats (trial I) whereas in trial II the replacement foods were rich in monounsaturated fats. Participants were asked to maintain a total fat intake of 30-33% of energy on all diets. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Energy and nutrient intakes, plasma triglyceride fatty acids, and plasma cholesterol. RESULTS: When replacing saturated fat with either n-6 polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat, total fat intakes decreased by 2.9% energy and 5.1% energy, respectively. Replacing saturated fat with n-6 polyunsaturated fat (trial I) lowered plasma total cholesterol by 19% [from 4.87 (0.88) to 3.94 (0.92) mmol/l, mean (s.d.)], low density lipoprotein cholesterol by 22% [from 2.87 (0.75) to 2.24 (0.67) mmol/l], and high density lipoprotein cholesterol by 14% [from 1.39 (0.36) to 1.19 (0.34) mmol/l], whereas replacing saturated fat with monounsaturated fat (trial II) decreased total cholesterol by 12%, low density lipoprotein cholesterol by 15%, and high density lipoprotein cholesterol by 4%, respectively. The change in the ratio of total to high density lipoprotein cholesterol was similar during trial I and trial II. CONCLUSIONS: Young adults are very responsive to dietary-induced changes in plasma cholesterol even when an isocaloric replacement of saturated fat with n-6 polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat is not achieved. Replacing saturated fat with either n-6 polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat is equally efficacious at reducing the total to high density lipoprotein cholesterol ratio. SPONSORSHIP: University of Otago, Meadow Lea Ltd.

PMID: 11593354 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]


N Engl J Med. 1989 Aug 17;321(7):436-41.Links

Effects of different forms of dietary hydrogenated fats on serum lipoprotein cholesterol levels.
Lichtenstein AH, Ausman LM, Jalbert SM, Schaefer EJ.
Lipid Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer U.S. Department of Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, Boston, MA 02111, USA. lichtenstvli@hnrc.tufts.edu

BACKGROUND: Metabolic studies suggest that fatty acids containing at least one double bond in the trans configuration, which are found in hydrogenated fat, have a detrimental effect on serum lipoprotein cholesterol levels as compared with unsaturated fatty acids containing double bonds only in the cis configuration. We compared the effects of diets with a broad range of trans fatty acids on serum lipoprotein cholesterol levels. METHODS: Eighteen women and 18 men consumed each of six diets in random order for 35-day periods. The foods were identical in each diet, and each diet provided 30 percent of calories as fat, with two thirds of the fat contributed as soybean oil (<0.5 g of trans fatty acid per 100 g of fat), semiliquid margarine (<0.5 g per 100 g), soft margarine (7.4 g per 100 g), shortening (9.9 g per 100 g), or stick margarine (20.1 g per 100 g). The effects of those diets on serum lipoprotein cholesterol, triglyceride, and apolipoprotein levels were compared with those of a diet enriched with butter, which has a high content of saturated fat. RESULTS: The mean (+/-SD) serum low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level was 177+/-32 mg per deciliter (4.58+/-0.85 mmol per liter) and the mean high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level was 45+/-10 mg per deciliter (1.2+/-0.26 mmol per liter) after subjects consumed the butter-enriched diet. The LDL cholesterol level was reduced on average by 12 percent, 11 percent, 9 percent, 7 percent, and 5 percent, respectively, after subjects consumed the diets enriched with soybean oil, semiliquid margarine, soft margarine, shortening, and stick margarine; the HDL cholesterol level was reduced by 3 percent, 4 percent, 4 percent, 4 percent, and 6 percent, respectively. Ratios of total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol were lowest after the consumption of the soybean-oil diet and semiliquid-margarine diet and highest after the stick-margarine diet. CONCLUSIONS: Our findings indicate that the consumption of products that are low in trans fatty acids and saturated fat has beneficial effects on serum lipoprotein cholesterol levels.

1: N Engl J Med. 1982 Sep 30;307(14):850-5.Links
Effect of diet on serum lipoproteins in a population with a high risk of coronary heart disease.
Ehnholm C, Huttunen JK, Pietinen P, Leino U, Mutanen M, Kostiainen E, Pikkarainen J, Dougherty R, Iacono J, Puska P.

The population of North Karelia, a county in Finland, has a high rate of coronary heart disease. It also has a high prevalence of hypercholesterolemia, but whether this reflects a diet rich in animal fats or is a result of genetic factors is unclear. We studied the effect on serum lipoproteins of a low-fat diet with a high ratio of polyunsaturated to saturated fatty acids in 54 middle-aged volunteers in North Karelia. Total serum cholesterol decreased, from 263 +/- 8 mg per deciliter (mean +/- S.E.) to 201 +/- 5 mg in men (P less than 0.0001) and from 239 +/- 8 to 188 +/- 8 mg in women (P less than 0.0001), along with low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and apoprotein B. High-density lipoprotein decreased from 54 +/- 2 mg per deciliter to 44 +/- 2 in men (P less than 0.0001) and from 56 +/- 3 to 47 +/- 2 mg in women (P less than 0.0001). A small but significant reduction occurred in serum apoprotein A-I, whereas apoprotein A-II increased slightly. The individual changes in low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol correlated with those in high-density-lipoprotein cholesterol. The changes in serum lipids and apoproteins were reversed when the participants returned to their original diets. Our results suggest that the hypercholesterolemia characteristic of this population is due at least in part to dietary factors.

PMID: 6810175 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

1: JAMA. 1995 Jul 12;274(2):131-6.Links
Serum total cholesterol and long-term coronary heart disease mortality in different cultures. Twenty-five-year follow-up of the seven countries study.
Verschuren WM, Jacobs DR, Bloemberg BP, Kromhout D, Menotti A, Aravanis C, Blackburn H, Buzina R, Dontas AS, Fidanza F, et al.
National Institute of Public Health and Environmental Protection, Bilthoven, The Netherlands.

OBJECTIVE--To compare the relationship between serum total cholesterol and long-term mortality from coronary heart disease (CHD) in different cultures. DESIGN--Total cholesterol was measured at baseline (1958 through 1964) and at 5- and 10-year follow-up in 12,467 men aged 40 through 59 years in 16 cohorts located in seven countries: five European countries, the United States, and Japan. To increase statistical power six cohorts were formed, based on similarities in culture and cholesterol changes during the first 10 years of follow-up. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES--Relative risks (RRs), estimated with Cox proportional hazards (survival) analysis, for 25-year CHD mortality for cholesterol quartiles and per 0.50-mmol/L (20-mg/dL) cholesterol increase. Adjustment was made for age, smoking, and systolic blood pressure. RESULTS--The age-standardized CHD mortality rates in the six cohorts ranged from 3% to 20%. The RRs for the highest compared with the lowest cholesterol quartile ranged from 1.5 to 2.3, except for Japan's RR of 1.1. For a cholesterol level of around 5.45 mmol/L (210 mg/dL), CHD mortality rates varied from 4% to 5% in Japan and Mediterranean Southern Europe to about 15% in Northern Europe. However, the relative increase in CHD mortality due to a given cholesterol increase was similar in all cultures except Japan. Using a linear approximation, a 0.50-mmol/L (20-mg/dL) increase in total cholesterol corresponded to an increase in CHD mortality risk of 12%, which became an increase in mortality risk of 17% when adjusted for regression dilution bias. CONCLUSION--Across cultures, cholesterol is linearly related to CHD mortality, and the relative increase in CHD mortality rates with a given cholesterol increase is the same. The large difference in absolute CHD mortality rates at a given cholesterol level, however, indicates that other factors, such as diet, that are typical for cultures with a low CHD risk are also important with respect to primary prevention.

1: J Clin Epidemiol. 1996 Jun;49(6):657-63. Links
Diet and plasma lipids in women. I. Macronutrients and plasma total and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol in women: the Framingham nutrition studies.Millen BE, Franz MM, Quatromoni PA, Gagnon DR, Sonnenberg LM, Ordovas JM, Wilson PW, Schaefer EJ, Cupples LA.
Boston University School of Public Health, Massachusetts 02118, USA.

This study examined relationships between diet and plasma total and LDL cholesterol levels in a population-based sample of 695 premenopausal and 727 postmenopausal women participating in the Framingham Offspring/Spouse Study. Regression analyses controlled for age, caloric intake, apolipoprotein E isoform type, estrogen use, and important CVD risk factors indicated that plasma total and LDL-cholesterol levels were directly associated with consumption of saturated fat and inversely associated with total calorie intake. In contrast, dietary cholesterol was not a predictor of plasma total or LDL cholesterol levels. Total cholesterol levels were also directly associated with total fat, oleic acid, and animal fat, and inversely associated with carbohydrate intake. Stepwise regressions with key nutrients indicated that saturated fat was consistently associated with total and LDL cholesterol levels in Framingham women.

N Engl J Med. 1993 Jul 8;329(2):138.
Serum cholesterol in young men and subsequent cardiovascular disease.Klag MJ, Ford DE, Mead LA, He J, Whelton PK, Liang KY, Levine DM.
Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD 21205.

BACKGROUND. The increased risk of cardiovascular disease associated with higher serum cholesterol levels in middle-aged persons has been clearly established, but there have been few opportunities to examine a potential link between serum cholesterol levels measured in young men and clinically evident premature cardiovascular disease later in life. METHODS. We performed a prospective study of 1017 young men (mean age, 22 years) followed for 27 to 42 years to quantify the risk of cardiovascular disease and total mortality associated with serum cholesterol levels during early adult life. The mean serum cholesterol level at entry was 192 mg per deciliter (5.0 mmol per liter). RESULTS. During a median follow-up of 30.5 years, there were 125 cardiovascular-disease events, 97 of which were due to coronary heart disease. The serum cholesterol level at base line was strongly associated with the incidence of events related to coronary heart disease and cardiovascular disease, as well as to total mortality and mortality due to cardiovascular disease. The risks were similar whether the events occurred before or after the age of 50. [b]In a proportional-hazards analysis adjusted for age, body-mass index (the weight in kilograms divided by the square of the height in meters), the level of physical activity, coffee intake, change in smoking status, and the incidence of diabetes and hypertension during follow-up, a difference in the serum cholesterol level at base line of 36 mg per deciliter (0.9 mmol per liter)--the difference between the 25th and 75th percentiles of cholesterol level in the study population at base line--was associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease (relative risk, 1.72; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.39 to 2.14), coronary heart disease (relative risk, 2.01; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.59 to 2.53), and mortality due to cardiovascular disease (relative risk, 2.02; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.23 to 3.32). A difference in the base-line serum cholesterol level of 36 mg per deciliter was significantly associated with an increased risk of death before the age of 50 (relative risk, 1.64; 95 percent confidence interval, 1.03 to 2.61), but not with the overall risk of death (relative risk, 1.21; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.93 to 1.58). CONCLUSIONS. These findings indicate a strong association between the serum cholesterol level measured early in adult life in men and cardiovascular disease in midlife.



[Edited by - codeunknown on 08-08-2008 8:47 PM]

Posted by codeunknown:


Calling the approach of ~100% of physicians criminal is something I personally take offense to - because I've been involved with some of these developments both at their intellectual beginnings and at their clinical endpoints. While I realize that this was not your intent, when you start criminalizing doctors because you think trans fats are saturated, it strikes me that you're making bold declarations based on very limited knowledge.

Point taken. I acknowledged up front I was unqualified to speak on such matters.

WRT trans fats, I got confused between your admonitions specifically against saturated fats vs the overly prescribed recommendations for a low fat diet. My point was that all fats are not equal - you know that, but I don't think that point is clear enough to the general public, as evidenced by high sales of nutritional garbage under the banner of "low fat," where fat is replaced by sugar. is sugar any better for heart disease?

Another example of what I mean by all fats not being equal is the disproportionate amounts of high omega-6 oils we consume vs omega-9 and omega-3. This imbalance is considered unhealthy and the disproportion arises in no small part because, ostensibly in the name of health, we've substituted overly processed polyunsaturated oils for higher quality saturated and monounstaurated oils.

WRT using the term "criminal." It was a poor figure of speech. However, I do have a philosophical opposition to the approach of much of allopathic medicine. I think it's too much based on suppressing symptoms rather than addressing root causes; I think it too often views the body as a series of parts rather than a whole; and I think it's too financially beholden to big pharma and, by proxy, the US government and the food industries. So perhaps it's inevitable that I'd eventually offend you by association. However, I trust you know I have the utmost respect for you.

If we are to continue dialog on this subject we're going to have to choose not to take each other too personally. I can try to be more delicate in my phrasings, but you'll also have to be a little thicker skinned and a bit less offended by my ignorance. most importantly, you'll have to accept that the suggestion to blindly trust in doctors will not fly.

I am also suggesting that people listen to their doctors, who are trained experts in these fields, instead of heeding the advice of amateurs with a limited grasp of the literature.

I'm not sure who you are referring to here. If it's me, I agree nobody should do anything on my advice. But unlike you, I do suggest if their interest is peaked they should indulge their curiosity in further study. OTOH, if you are referring to the articles and studies I've offered I see no basis for the assumption that those who conclude differently than you must be ill informed. You know as well as anyone how routinely prevailing wisdom and conventional dogma is overturned with time.

What I am suggesting is that we know that cholesterol exceeding certain levels is very bad and that saturated fat is a primary culprit in our society.

Well, I am among the many who are unconvinced that this is as certain as you maintain. Why is saturated fat a "primary culprit" in our society while societies that consume higher amounts have lower incidences of heart disease? Why did heart disease markedly increase with the introduction of "safer alternatives" like Margarine and refined polyunsaturates as replacements for traditional saturated fats, like butter, cream and lard? Which, specifically, ARE the unsaturated fats you believe to be primary culprits in our culture? you really think all this heart disease is a result of too much butter and bacon - the consumption of which is probably lower now than before the era of epidemic heart disease - and not all the refined starches, sugars, and refined polyunsaturated oils that define our modern diet?

If it were so simple a country like France, with all it's butter, cream, pate and caviar would fare far worse in the heart department, but they don't.

Finally, I don't think you've made very clear which of the following contentions you're trying to make --> is it that serum cholesterol is not a risk factor for heart disease?, dietary fat is not a contributor to serum cholesterol?, or only that saturated fat is not a contributor to serum cholesterol? etc. If I'm missing anything, please fill me in.

You've picked up well. I confess to confusion on these matters, but I suggest anyone who doesn't is deceiving themselves. There are simply too many interdependent factors involved to try to boil things down to one singular issue, like that saturated fats are a primary culprit in heart disease in our culture when they aren't in other's.

I don't have all the answers, but as a representative of the community we should put blind faith in, do you?

----

Meanwhile, I've not yet given your studies a close enough look. I will. I just have to be honest with you, I think one runs the risk of losing themselves in minutia and missing the big picture. This conversation came about in the context of the theory of eating like a caveman. Eating the foods nature provides in a form that is as whole, raw, virgin and unadulterated as possible. This is how animals live, and this is how the human species arrived here so many tens of thousands of years since it began. That's a proven track record, and a record that includes many saturated fats, including fish oil, whale blubber, meats of all kinds, milk, butter, caviar, coconut oil, eggs, palm oil, etc.

For a bunch of present day "lab coats" to think all these foods that our species have thrived on since time immemorial are what's bad for us and at the root of todays health problems, I feel, is terribly shortsighted and misguided. Sorry to offend.

That said, if a patient comes in and refuses to stop eating a surplus of refined grains, overly processes food-like substances, refined oils, mega-slurpies, Snickers Bars, Pop Tarts, potato chips, etc, it probably IS good advice to tell them to at least cut back on the bacon and sausage, as they will benefit from a reduction in caloric surplus by any means.



[Edited by - blueseats on 08-09-2008 01:14 AM]

Code, above I alluded to my reservations about much of mainstream allopathic medicine. Here is another article, written by an MD (so you can take it on faith... just needling ya, man). I think it's a good read, but I present it specifically because buried within, IMO, it asks the pertinent question in the cholesterol debate that I think is all too often neglected.

For most of us the whole thing is an informative read. For you I imagine the discussion of the essential role that cholesterol plays in the the body is old hat, but it might be enjoyable review none the less. I bolded what I consider to be the core of the piece.

---

Cholesterol: Friend Or Foe?

By Natasha Campbell-McBride, MD

The art of medicine consists in amusing the patient while nature cures the disease. --Voltaire

In our modern world, cholesterol has become almost a swear word. Thanks to the promoters of the diet-heart hypothesis, everybody "knows" that cholesterol is "evil" and has to be fought at every turn. If you believe the popular media, you would think that there is simply no level of cholesterol low enough. If you are over a certain age, you are likely to be tested for how much cholesterol you have in your blood. If it is higher than about 200 mg/100ml (5.1 mol/l), you may be prescribed a "cholesterol pill." Millions of people around the world take these pills, thinking that this way they are taking good care of their health. What these people don’t realize is just how far from the truth they are. The truth is that we humans cannot live without cholesterol. Let us see why.

Our bodies are made out of billions of cells. Almost every cell produces cholesterol all the time during all of our lives. Why? Because every cell of every organ has cholesterol as a part of its structure. Cholesterol is an integral and very important part of our cell membranes, the membranes that enclose each of our cells, and also of the membranes surrounding all the organelles inside the cell. What is cholesterol doing there? A number of things.
Structural Integrity

First of all, saturated fats and cholesterol make the membranes of the cells firm—without them the cells would become flabby and fluid. If we humans didn’t have cholesterol and saturated fats in the membranes of our cells, we would look like giant worms or slugs. And we are not talking about a few molecules of cholesterol here and there. In many cells, almost half of the cell membrane is made from cholesterol. Different kinds of cells in the body need different amounts of cholesterol, depending on their function and purpose. If the cell is part of a protective barrier, it will have a lot of cholesterol in it to make it strong, sturdy and resistant to any invasion. If a cell or an organelle inside the cell needs to be soft and fluid, it will have less cholesterol in its structure.

This ability of cholesterol and saturated fats to firm up and reinforce the tissues in the body is used by our blood vessels, particularly those that have to withstand the high pressure and turbulence of the blood flow. These are usually large or medium arteries in places where they divide or bend. The flow of blood pounding through these arteries forces them to incorporate a layer of cholesterol and saturated fat in the membranes, which makes it stronger, tougher and more rigid. These layers of cholesterol and fat are called fatty streaks. They are completely normal and form in all of us, starting from birth and sometimes even before we are born. Various indigenous populations around the world, who never suffer from heart disease, have plenty of fatty streaks in their blood vessels in old and young, including children. Fatty streaks are not indicative of the disease called atherosclerosis.
Lipid Lifesavers

All the cells in our bodies have to communicate with each other. How do they do that? They use proteins embedded into the membrane of the cell. How are these proteins fixed to the membrane? With the help of cholesterol and saturated fats! Cholesterol and stiff saturated fatty acids form so-called lipid rafts, which make little homes for every protein in the membrane and allow it to perform its functions. Without cholesterol and saturated fats, our cells would not be able to communicate with each other or to transport various molecules into and out of the cell. As a result, our bodies would not be able to function the way they do. The human brain is particularly rich in cholesterol: around 25 percent of all body cholesterol is accounted for by the brain. Every cell and every structure in the brain and the rest of our nervous system needs cholesterol, not only to build itself but also to accomplish its many functions. The developing brain and eyes of the fetus and a newborn infant require large amounts of cholesterol. If the fetus doesn’t get enough cholesterol during development, the child may be born with a congenital abnormality called cyclopean eye.1

Human breast milk provides a lot of cholesterol. Not only that, mother’s milk provides a specific enzyme to allow the baby’s digestive tract to absorb almost 100 percent of that cholesterol, because the developing brain and eyes of an infant require large amounts of it. Children deprived of cholesterol in infancy may end up with poor eyesight and brain function. Manufacturers of infant formulas are aware of this fact, but following the anti-cholesterol dogma, they produce formulas with virtually no cholesterol in them.
Vital Brain Matter

One of the most abundant materials in the brain and the rest of our nervous system is a fatty substance called myelin. Myelin coats every nerve cell and every nerve fiber like the insulating cover around electric wires. Apart from insulation, it provides nourishment and protection for every tiny structure in our brain and the rest of the nervous system. People who start losing their myelin develop a condition called multiple sclerosis. Well, 20 percent of myelin is cholesterol. If you start interfering with the body’s ability to produce cholesterol, you put the very structure of the brain and the rest of the nervous system under threat.

The synthesis of myelin in the brain is tightly connected with the synthesis of cholesterol. In my clinical experience, foods with high cholesterol and high animal fat content are an essential medicine for a person with multiple sclerosis. One of the most wonderful abilities we humans are blessed with is the ability to remember things—our human memory. How do we form memories? By our brain cells establishing connections with each other, called synapses. The more healthy synapses a person’s brain can make, the more mentally able and intelligent that person is. Scientists have discovered that synapse formation is almost entirely dependent on cholesterol, which is produced by the brain cells in a form called apolipoprotein E. Without the presence of this factor we cannot form synapses, and hence we would not be able to learn or remember anything. Memory loss is one of the side effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs.

In my clinic, I see growing numbers of people with memory loss who have been taking cholesterol- lowering pills. Dr Duane Graveline, MD, former NASA scientist and astronaut, suffered such memory loss while taking his cholesterol pill. He managed to save his memory by stopping the pill and eating lots of cholesterol-rich foods. Since then he has described his experience in his book, Lipitor: Thief of Memory, Statin Drugs and the Misguided War on Cholesterol. Dietary cholesterol in fresh eggs and other cholesterol-rich foods has been shown in scientific trials to improve memory in the elderly. In my clinical experience, any person with memory loss or learning problems needs to have plenty of these foods every single day in order to recover.
Necessary Product Of The Body

These foods give the body a hand in supplying cholesterol so it does not have to work as hard to produce its own. What a lot of people don’t realize is that most cholesterol in the body does not come from food! The body produces cholesterol as it is needed. Scientific studies have conclusively demonstrated that cholesterol from food has no effect whatsoever on the level of our blood cholesterol. Why? Because cholesterol is such an essential part of our human physiology that the body has very efficient mechanisms to keep blood cholesterol at a certain level.

When we eat more cholesterol, the body produces less; when we eat less cholesterol, the body produces more. As a raw material for making cholesterol the body can use carbohydrates, proteins and fats, which means that your pasta and bread can be used for making cholesterol in the body. It has been estimated that, in an average person, about 85 percent of blood cholesterol is produced by the body, while only 15 percent comes from food. So, even if you religiously follow a completely cholesterol-free diet, you will still have a lot of cholesterol in your body. However, cholesterol-lowering drugs are a completely different matter! They interfere with the body’s ability to produce cholesterol, and hence they do reduce the amount of cholesterol available for the body to use.
Dangers Of Low Cholesterol

If we do not take cholesterol-lowering drugs, most of us don’t have to worry about cholesterol. However, there are people whose bodies, for whatever reason, are unable to produce enough cholesterol. These people are prone to emotional instability and behavioral problems. Low blood cholesterol has been routinely recorded in criminals who have committed murder and other violent crimes, people with aggressive and violent personalities, people prone to suicide and people with aggressive social behavior and low self-control.

I would like to repeat what the late Oxford professor David Horrobin warned us about: "Reducing cholesterol in the population on a large scale could lead to a general shift to more violent patterns of behavior. Most of this increased violence would not result in death but in more aggression at work and in the family, more child abuse, more wife-beating and generally more unhappiness."

People whose bodies are unable to produce enough cholesterol do need to have plenty of foods rich in cholesterol in order to provide their organs with this essential-to-life substance.

What else does our body need all that cholesterol for?
Endocrine System

After the brain, the organs hungriest for cholesterol are our endocrine glands: adrenals and sex glands. They produce steroid hormones. Steroid hormones in the body are made from cholesterol: testosterone, progesterone, pregnenolone, androsterone, estrone, estradiol, corticosterone, aldosterone and others. These hormones accomplish a myriad of functions in the body, from regulation of our metabolism, energy production, mineral assimilation, brain, muscle and bone formation to behavior, emotions and reproduction. In our stressful modern lives we consume a lot of these hormones, leading to a condition called "adrenal exhaustion." This condition is diagnosed very often by naturopaths and other health practitioners. There are many herbal preparations on the market for adrenal exhaustion. However, the most important therapeutic measure is to provide your adrenal glands with plenty of dietary cholesterol.

Without cholesterol we would not be able to have children because every sex hormone in our bodies is made from cholesterol. A fair percentage of our infertility epidemic can be laid at the doorstep of the diet-heart hypothesis. The more eager we became to fight animal fats and cholesterol, the more problems with normal sexual development, fertility and reproduction we started to face. About a third of western men and women are infertile, and increasing numbers of our youngsters are growing up with abnormalities in their sex hormones. These abnormalities lead to many physical problems.

Recent research has "discovered" that eating full-cream dairy products cures infertility in women.2 Researchers found that women who drink whole milk and eat high-fat dairy products are more fertile than those who stick to low-fat products. Study leader Dr Jorge Chavarro, of the Harvard School of Public Health, emphasized: "Women wanting to conceive should examine their diet. They should consider changing low-fat dairy foods for high-fat dairy foods, for instance by swapping skimmed milk for whole milk and eating cream, not low-fat yoghurt."
The Liver And Vitamin Regulation

One of the busiest organs in terms of cholesterol production in our bodies is the liver, which regulates the level of our blood cholesterol. The liver also puts a lot of cholesterol into bile production. Yes, bile is made out of cholesterol. Without bile we would not be able to digest and absorb fats and fat-soluble vitamins. Bile emulsifies fats; in other words, it mixes them with water, so that digestive enzymes can get to them. After it completes its mission, most of the bile gets reabsorbed in the digestive system and brought back to the liver for recycling. In fact, 95 percent of our bile is recycled because the building blocks of bile, one of which is cholesterol, are too precious for the body to waste. Nature doesn’t do anything without good reason. This example of the careful recycling of cholesterol alone should have given us a good idea about its importance for the body!

Bile is essential for absorbing fat-soluble vitamins: vitamin A, vitamin D, vitamin K and vitamin E. We cannot live without these vitamins. Apart from ensuring that fat-soluble vitamins get digested and absorbed properly, cholesterol is the major building block of one of these vitamins: vitamin D. Vitamin D is made from the cholesterol in our skin when it is exposed to sunlight. In those times of the year when there isn’t much sunlight, we can get this vitamin from cholesterol-rich foods: cod liver oil, fish, shellfish, butter, lard and egg yolks. Our recent misguided fears of the sun and avoidance of cholesterol-rich foods have created an epidemic of vitamin D deficiency in the Western world.

Unfortunately, apart from sunlight and cholesterol-rich foods there is no other appropriate way to get vitamin D. Of course, there are supplements, but most of them contain vitamin D2, which is made by irradiating mushrooms and other plants. This vitamin is not the same as the natural vitamin D. It does not work as effectively and it is easy to get a toxic level of it. In fact, almost all cases of vitamin D toxicity ever recorded were cases where this synthetic vitamin D2 had been used. Toxicity is almost impossible with natural vitamin D obtained from sunlight or cholesterol-rich foods because the body knows how to deal with an excess of natural substances. What the body does not know how to deal with is an excess of synthetic vitamin D2.

Vitamin D has been designed to work as a team with another fat-soluble vitamin: vitamin A. That is why foods rich in one tend to be rich in the other. So, by taking cod liver oil, for example, we can obtain both vitamins at the same time. As we grow older, our ability to produce vitamin D in the skin under sunlight is considerably diminished. Taking foods rich in vitamin D is therefore particularly important for older people. For the rest of us, sensible sunbathing is a wonderful, healthy and enjoyable way of getting a good supply of vitamin D.

Skin cancer, blamed on sunshine, is not caused by the sun. It is caused by trans fats from vegetable oils and margarine and other toxins stored in the skin. In addition, some of the sunscreens that people use contain chemicals that have been proven to cause skin cancer3.
Immune System Health

Cholesterol is essential for our immune system to function properly. Animal experiments and human studies have demonstrated that immune cells rely on cholesterol in fighting infections and repairing themselves after the fight. In addition, LDL-cholesterol (low-density lipoprotein cholesterol), the so-called "bad" cholesterol, directly binds and inactivates dangerous bacterial toxins, preventing them from doing any damage in the body. One of the most lethal toxins is produced by a widely spread bacterium, Staphylococcus aureus, which is the cause of MRSA (Methicillin- resistant Staphylococcus aureus), a common hospital infection. This toxin can literally dissolve red blood cells. However, it does not work in the presence of LDL-cholesterol. People who fall prey to this toxin have low blood cholesterol. It has been recorded that people with high levels of cholesterol are protected from infections; they are four times less likely to contract AIDS, they rarely get common colds and they recover from infections more quickly than people with "normal" or low blood cholesterol.

People with low blood cholesterol are prone to various infections, suffer from them longer and are more likely to die from an infection. A diet rich in cholesterol has been demonstrated to improve these people’s ability to recover from infections. So, any person suffering from an acute or chronic infection needs to eat high-cholesterol foods to recover. Cod liver oil, the richest source of cholesterol (after caviar), has long been prized as the best remedy for the immune system. Those familiar with old medical literature will tell you that until the discovery of antibiotics, a common cure for tuberculosis was a daily mixture of raw egg yolks and fresh cream.
Varying Blood Cholesterol Levels

The question is, why do some people have more cholesterol in their blood than others, and why can the same person have different levels of cholesterol at different times of the day? Why is our level of cholesterol different in different seasons of the year? In winter it goes up and in the summer it goes down. Why is it that blood cholesterol goes through the roof in people after any surgery? Why does blood cholesterol go up when we have an infection? Why does it go up after dental treatment? Why does it go up when we are under stress? And why does it become normal when we are relaxed and feel well? The answer to all these questions is this: cholesterol is a healing agent in the body. When the body has some healing jobs to do, it produces cholesterol and sends it to the site of the damage. Depending on the time of day, the weather, the season and our exposure to various environmental agents, the damage to various tissues in the body varies. As a result, the production of cholesterol in the body also varies.

Since cholesterol is usually discussed in the context of disease and atherosclerosis, let us look at the blood vessels. Their inside walls are covered by a layer of cells called the endothelium. Any damaging agent we are exposed to will finish up in our bloodstream, whether it is a toxic chemical, an infectious organism, a free radical or anything else. Once such an agent is in the blood, what is it going to attack first? The endothelium, of course. The endothelium immediately sends a message to the liver. Whenever our liver receives a signal that a wound has been inflicted upon the endothelium somewhere in our vascular system, it gets into gear and sends cholesterol to the site of the damage in a shuttle, called LDL-cholesterol. Because this cholesterol travels from the liver to the wound in the form of LDL, our "science," in its wisdom calls LDL "bad" cholesterol. When the wound heals and the cholesterol is removed, it travels back to the liver in the form of HDLcholesterol (high-density lipoprotein cholesterol). Because this cholesterol travels away from the artery back to the liver, our misguided "science" calls it "good" cholesterol. This is like calling an ambulance travelling from the hospital to the patient a "bad ambulance," and the one travelling from the patient back to the hospital a "good ambulance."

But the situation has gotten even more ridiculous. The latest thing that our science has "discovered" is that not all LDL-cholesterol is so bad. Most of it is actually good. So, now we are told to call that part of LDL the "good bad cholesterol" and the rest of it the "bad bad cholesterol."
Marvelous Healing Agent

Why does the liver send cholesterol to the site of the injury? Because the body cannot clear the infection, remove toxic elements or heal the wound without cholesterol and fats. Any healing involves the birth, growth and functioning of thousands of cells: immune cells, endothelial cells and many others. As these cells, to a considerable degree, are made out of cholesterol and fats, they cannot form and grow without a good supply of these substances. When the cells are damaged, they require cholesterol and fats to repair themselves. It is a scientific fact that any scar tissue in the body contains good amounts of cholesterol.4

Another scientific fact is that cholesterol acts as an antioxidant in the body, dealing with free radical damage.5 Any wound in the body contains plenty of free radicals because the immune cells use these highly reactive molecules for destroying microbes and toxins. Excess free radicals have to be neutralized, and cholesterol is one of the natural substances that accomplishes this function.

When we have surgery, our tissues are cut and many small arteries, veins and capillaries get damaged. The liver receives a very strong signal from this damage, so it floods the body with LDL-cholesterol to clean and heal every little wound in our blood vessels. That is why blood cholesterol goes high after any surgical procedure. After dental treatment, in addition to the damage to the tissues, a lot of bacteria from the tooth and the gums finish up in the blood, attacking the inside walls of our blood vessels. Once again, the liver gets a strong signal from that damage and produces lots of healing cholesterol to deal with it, so the blood cholesterol goes up.

The same thing happens when we have an infection: LDL-cholesterol goes up to deal with the bacterial or viral attack.

Apart from the endothelium, our immune cells need cholesterol to function and to heal themselves after the fight with the infection.

Our stress hormones are made out of cholesterol in the body. Stressful situations increase our blood cholesterol levels because cholesterol is being sent to the adrenal glands for stress hormone production. Apart from that, when we are under stress, a storm of free radicals and other damaging biochemical reactions occur in the blood. So the liver works hard to produce and send out as much cholesterol as possible to deal with the free radical attack. In situations like this, your blood cholesterol will test high. In short, when we have a high blood cholesterol level, it means that the body is dealing with some kind of damage. The last thing we should do is interfere with this process! When the damage has been dealt with, the blood cholesterol will naturally go down. If we have an ongoing disease in the body that constantly inflicts damage, then the blood cholesterol will be permanently high. So, when a doctor finds high cholesterol in a patient, what this doctor should do is to look for the reason. The doctor should ask, "What is damaging the body so that the liver has to produce all that cholesterol to deal with the damage?" Unfortunately, instead of this sensible procedure, our doctors are trained to attack the cholesterol.

Many natural herbs, antioxidants and vitamins have an ability to reduce our blood cholesterol. How do they do that? By helping the body remove the damaging agents, be they free radicals, bacteria, viruses or toxins. As a result, the liver does not have to produce so much cholesterol to deal with the damage. At the same time, vitamins, minerals, antioxidants, herbs and other natural remedies help to heal the wound. When the wound heals there is no need for high levels of cholesterol anymore, so the body removes it in the form of HDL-cholesterol or so-called "good" cholesterol. That is why herbs, vitamins, antioxidants and other natural remedies increase the level of HDL-cholesterol in the blood.

In conclusion, cholesterol is one of the most important substances in the body. We cannot live without it, let alone function well. The pernicious diet-heart hypothesis has vilified this essential substance. Unfortunately, this hypothesis has served many commercial and political interests far too well, so they ensure its long survival. However, the life of the diet-heart hypothesis is coming to an end as we become aware that cholesterol has been mistakenly blamed for the crime just because it was found at the scene.

http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats...



[Edited by - blueseats on 08-09-2008 12:41 AM]

Enyspree, you should have gotten a juicer before you went on a juice fasting. I am pretty surprised you don't have one since you're a vegetarian. You're missing out on blending a lot of good drinks that is nutritious and cheap. Also, you can bring what you make to work instead of buying processed beverages.

I am reading the stuff you say, and it seems like the system you have in place of getting food is what making it hard for you to be a healthy vegetarian. Eating healthy is a habit you develop over the years, and you have a plan set up to turn it into a habit. You should survey your work area and home area to see what kind of products are out there. If there is nothing you like in your workplace, then prepare on making the food you like at home and bringing it to work. This way you have control of what you're eating, instead of letting your environment dictate what you eat, which is usually bad for a health concious vegetarian. I use to love greasy food and chips and soda, but after years of changing my diet gradually, I no longer crave them (maybe once every few months). And if I do eat too much junk food at one sitting, my body just feels nasty afterward. I also become less incline to eat all that junk food the next time. It's pretty interesting to see my food preferences adjusting over the years; I no no longer desire, and actually feel reluctant, to consume something I use to consume everyday for years (soda is one example).

About consuming proteins after working-out, you might want to consider just drinking milk and have some peanuts/beans (I just have a can of peanuts at my desk and buy a half-pint of milk at the local deli). Too much protein is bad for human, since our body are not meant to process a heavy load of protein (see below). Also, unless you're looking for peak performance and to play sports competitively, you may want to consider decreasing your protein in-take.

"Finally, we require proteins to build, maintain, and repair the body, but they too can be converted to glucose (and therefore serve as an energy source) when needed. They are composed of 20 amino acids, 10 of which must be supplied by foods on a regular basis. Ingesting too much protein increases the workload of the digestive system and may strain the liver and kidneys. Too little will cause malnutrition, increased susceptibility to infection, and possibly early death, Weil says."

http://www.webmd.com/diet/dr-andrew-weil...

Codeunknown and BlueSeats, what's your view on high protein intake? I am reading the stuff below, and I am trying to find a good amount of protein I should consume (for a person who works out everyday)?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_in_...

"Excess consumption
Because the body is unable to store energy in the form of protein, excess consumed protein is broken down and converted into sugars or fatty acids. The liver removes nitrogen from the amino acids, so that they can be burned as fuel, and the nitrogen is incorporated into urea, the substance that is excreted by the kidneys. These organs can normally cope with any extra workload but if kidney disease occurs, a decrease in protein will often be prescribed.[15]

Many researchers think excessive intake of protein forces increased calcium excretion. If there is to be excessive intake of protein, it is thought that a regular intake of calcium would be able to stabilize, or even increase the uptake of calcium by the small intestine, which would be more beneficial in older women.[16]

Specific proteins are often the cause of allergies and allergic reactions to certain foods. This is because the structure of each form of protein is slightly different; some may trigger a response from the immune system while others remain perfectly safe. Many people are allergic to casein, the protein in milk; gluten, the protein in wheat and other grains; the particular proteins found in peanuts; or those in shellfish or other seafoods."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/NH4

"Ammonium ions are a toxic waste product of the metabolism in animals. In fish and aquatic invertebrates, it is excreted directly into the water. In mammals, sharks, and amphibians, it is converted in the urea cycle to urea, because it is less toxic and can be stored more efficiently. In birds, reptiles, and terrestrial snails, metabolic ammonium is converted into uric acid, which is solid, and can therefore be excreted with minimal water loss. [3]

Ammonium is toxic to humans in high concentrations, and can cause injury to the mucosal lining of the lung, or alkali burns. [4]"





[Edited by - hank on 08-09-2008 12:25 PM]

Posted by Hank:

Codeunknown and BlueSeats, what's your view on high protein intake? I am reading the stuff below, and I am trying to find a good amount of protein I should consume (for a person who works out everyday)?

I'll defer to Code on this one.

But I think it somewhat depends on your fitness goals. You say you work out every day. What style of training? I know the guys trying to pack on muscle mass, like bodybuilders and powerlifters, recommend 1.5 to 2 grams per pound of body weight per day. But I suspect less is needed for general health and fitness. Something in the 1 to 1.25 gr per day per pound might suffice.

But as in the rest of the conversation, when you're looking at overall health, I also the think the quality of the food source is important. Can't just look at macro nutrient break downs. For instance, I think your body will do better with fat and protein that comes from an unadulterated source, like say, organic grass fed beef, than from something with added sugars and emulsified, like say Jiff peanut butter, and molecularly altered pasteurized/homogenized milk.

I don't think we can begin to look at more subtle health issues until we've first eliminated all the phony, processed food-like substances from the equation. There are lots of things killing us in our diet today, but froie gra (fatty goose liver pate) ain't really it.

i did a juice fast...i think most of the important stuff is covered in this thread. all i can add is that the toughest part is mental. you want to eat all the time...you don't really get physically too hungry. the phyisical part is reasonably easy.
good luck!

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by Hank:

Codeunknown and BlueSeats, what's your view on high protein intake? I am reading the stuff below, and I am trying to find a good amount of protein I should consume (for a person who works out everyday)?

I'll defer to Code on this one.

But I think it somewhat depends on your fitness goals. You say you work out every day. What style of training? I know the guys trying to pack on muscle mass, like bodybuilders and powerlifters, recommend 1.5 to 2 grams per pound of body weight per day. But I suspect less is needed for general health and fitness. Something in the 1 to 1.25 gr per day per pound might suffice.

That's a lot of protein you're talking about. Even 1 to 1.25 grams per day is a lot for the normal person. Imagine eating a Whopper from Burger King. That's 28 grams of protein, and try to consume 3 of it a day, and you will have 28*3=84 grams of protein. If you want some extra protein, add 3 cups of milk at 8 grams each, and you have 84+24= 108 grams. If a person is 216 lbs, you only have consumed .5 grams of protein per pound. I only used the Whopper as an example, because I assume most people know how big a Whopper is and how filling one Whopper can be, even without the buns. The link below gives you a picture of a Whopper and it's nutruitional facts.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whopper

I looked around, and found the website below saying 1/2 gram of protein per pound is sufficient for a person whose physically active. I agree with what you're saying about consuming processed food (with added chemicals for flavoring) is bad for the human body. I remember talking to a personal trainer, and he told me bodybuilder eat steak every meal and in between meal. And another guy told me, try to liquidify your food as much as possible, so your body can absorb the nutrients faster and rid of it faster, so you can consume more food and have more energy to work out. So, I am just looking around for some concrete information to tell these personal trainers/body builders you're overdoing it with the protein consumption.

http://www.everydiet.org/articles/protei...

"What about excessive protein consumption?
Be wary of high-protein diets, which may also be high in fat and may lead to high cholesterol, heart disease or other diseases, such as gout. A high-protein diet may put additional strain on the kidneys when extra waste matter (the end product of protein metabolism) is excreted in the urine. "


"Daily Protein Intake
A minimum daily intake of protein is about ¼ ounce per lb or 0.8 grams per kilogram of body weight, while excess protein is defined as anything more than twice that amount. For an average-build 155 lb/70 kg man in good health, the RDA amounts to 2oz/56g as a minimum, but less than 4oz/112g per day. A percentage of the population, however - growing children, pregnant and lactating women, the elderly, anyone undergoing severe stress (trauma, hospitalization, surgery), disease or disability - need more protein than the RDA. Also anyone doing endurance training (not resistance training which builds muscle and uses protein more efficiently) requires higher dietary protein - from ¼ to ½ as much again per day."


[Edited by - hank on 08-09-2008 10:52 PM]

Hank, I quite agree with you. I'm not a food weigher, so I can't say with certainty, but I'd be surprised if I come close to 1gm/lb/day even on a heavy protein day.

But those numbers are not uncommon for serious lifters. However, that may be irrelevant for the rest of us.

But for argument sake, lets just call those ranges the high end of the scale. I'd just like to also suggest that some of Recommended Daily Values also represent something analogous to the Recommended Daily allowances for vitamins, which represent minimum acceptable values to sustain basic health, which is quite different than optimal values for optimal health. So the truth probably lies somewhere in the middle.

I think if one chooses from healthy food groups and eats sensible portions they'll be fine. But as we can see, what constitutes "healthy" and "sensible" can be hotly debated.

Hank, I've not read any of his books but I know he's pretty well respected about town and he participates on his own message board:

http://forums.lylemcdonald.com/

You could post the question on his board, or see if it's already been asked. In fact, I peeked around a bit and he seems to recommend at least 1gm/lb/day

My understanding is that the high protein advocates feel that excess protein consumption is a lesser crime than too little, and that while excess protein consumption can be problematic for people who already have kidney problems (in which case higher protein consumption would not be recommended for them) it is in no way a cause of kidney problems.

I think Lyle's approach is to determine how many calories you should consume for your goals (weight gain, maintenance or reduction,) then determine your protein needs and fatty acid needs, subtract those calories from your target, and then let carbohydrates make up the difference. So in determining proper macro nutrient ratios, first make sure your protein and fat needs are adequately met, then add only so many carbs as are required to meet your total caloric needs.

I don't usually have time to cook anything. If I do have time I spend it bullshitting and sleeping.

I've been a vegetarian for 3 years. I gave up a lot of things I enjoyed kinda cold turkey. I just woke up one day and said "this was wrong" and that was the end of it.

As I said I'm kinda on a personal high right now. I just said "you know what I want to fast" and bang I just did it. Nothing premeditated. I read some things for about 2-3 days and just did it to where it felt ok to me. To me its not about what I used. Its more about the reason I was doing it in the first place.

We've been told to forgo egg yolks (the most fat, protein and nutrient rich part of the egg) because the saturated fat is bad for our cholesterol, and ergo our hearts. But a new study shows that relative to a bagel of similar caloric density the eggs enhanced weight loss and body fat improvement with no increases in cholesterol levels.

Wouldn't that be good for our hearts?

Give it time, the paradigm is shifting.

--------

International Journal of Obesity advance online publication 5 August 2008; doi: 10.1038/ijo.2008.130
Egg breakfast enhances weight loss

JS Vander Wal1, A Gupta2, P Khosla3 and N V Dhurandhar2

1. 1Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA
2. 2Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
3. 3Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Correspondence: Dr NV Dhurandhar, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. E-mail: nikhil.dhurandhar@pbrc.edu

Received 19 February 2008; Revised 19 June 2008; Accepted 8 July 2008; Published online 5 August 2008.


Objective:


To test the hypotheses that an egg breakfast, in contrast to a bagel breakfast matched for energy density and total energy, would enhance weight loss in overweight and obese participants while on a reduced-calorie weight loss diet.
Subjects:


Men and women (n=152), age 25–60 years, body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to25 and less than or equal to50 kg m-2.
Design:


Otherwise healthy overweight or obese participants were assigned to Egg (E), Egg Diet (ED), Bagel (B) or Bagel Diet (BD) groups, based on the prescription of either an egg breakfast containing two eggs (340 kcal) or a breakfast containing bagels matched for energy density and total energy, for at least 5 days per week, respectively. The ED and BD groups were suggested a 1000 kcal energy-deficit low-fat diet, whereas the B and E groups were asked not to change their energy intake.
Results:


After 8 weeks, in comparison to the BD group, the ED group showed a 61% greater reduction in BMI (-0.95plusminus0.82 vs -0.59plusminus0.85, P<0.05), a 65% greater weight loss (-2.63plusminus2.33 vs –1.59plusminus2.38 kg, P<0.05), a 34% greater reduction in waist circumference (P<0.06) and a 16% greater reduction in percent body fat (P=not significant). No significant differences between the E and B groups on the aforementioned variables were obtained. Further, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, did not differ between the groups.

Conclusions:


The egg breakfast enhances weight loss, when combined with an energy-deficit diet, but does not induce weight loss in a free-living condition. The inclusion of eggs in a weight management program may offer a nutritious supplement to enhance weight loss.

[Edited by - blueseats on 08-11-2008 09:46 AM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

We've been told not to forgo egg yolks (the most fat, protein and nutrient rich part of the egg) because the saturated fat is bad for our cholesterol, and ergo our hearts. But a new study shows that relative to a bagel of similar caloric density the eggs enhanced weight loss and body fat improvement with no increases in cholesterol levels.

Wouldn't that be good for our hearts?

Give it time, the paradigm is shifting.

--------

International Journal of Obesity advance online publication 5 August 2008; doi: 10.1038/ijo.2008.130
Egg breakfast enhances weight loss

JS Vander Wal1, A Gupta2, P Khosla3 and N V Dhurandhar2

1. 1Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Saint Louis, MO, USA
2. 2Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
3. 3Department of Nutrition and Food Science, Wayne State University, Detroit, MI, USA

Correspondence: Dr NV Dhurandhar, Pennington Biomedical Research Center, Louisiana State University System, Baton Rouge, LA 70808, USA. E-mail: nikhil.dhurandhar@pbrc.edu

Received 19 February 2008; Revised 19 June 2008; Accepted 8 July 2008; Published online 5 August 2008.


Objective:


To test the hypotheses that an egg breakfast, in contrast to a bagel breakfast matched for energy density and total energy, would enhance weight loss in overweight and obese participants while on a reduced-calorie weight loss diet.
Subjects:


Men and women (n=152), age 25–60 years, body mass index (BMI) greater than or equal to25 and less than or equal to50 kg m-2.
Design:


Otherwise healthy overweight or obese participants were assigned to Egg (E), Egg Diet (ED), Bagel (B) or Bagel Diet (BD) groups, based on the prescription of either an egg breakfast containing two eggs (340 kcal) or a breakfast containing bagels matched for energy density and total energy, for at least 5 days per week, respectively. The ED and BD groups were suggested a 1000 kcal energy-deficit low-fat diet, whereas the B and E groups were asked not to change their energy intake.
Results:


After 8 weeks, in comparison to the BD group, the ED group showed a 61% greater reduction in BMI (-0.95plusminus0.82 vs -0.59plusminus0.85, P<0.05), a 65% greater weight loss (-2.63plusminus2.33 vs –1.59plusminus2.38 kg, P<0.05), a 34% greater reduction in waist circumference (P<0.06) and a 16% greater reduction in percent body fat (P=not significant). No significant differences between the E and B groups on the aforementioned variables were obtained. Further, total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglycerides, did not differ between the groups.

Conclusions:


The egg breakfast enhances weight loss, when combined with an energy-deficit diet, but does not induce weight loss in a free-living condition. The inclusion of eggs in a weight management program may offer a nutritious supplement to enhance weight loss.

Here's a hint, Blueseats, don't declare that paradigms are changing when the authors of the article themselves don't. Once again, its not my goal to embarass you or put you on the spot but I keep wondering why you're, rather uncharacteristically, making these wild proclamations. To cut to the chase, you've unfortunately garbled this article as well - the authors are making a satiety argument and protein (found in far greater quantities in eggs as opposed to bagels) has, by far, been shown to be the major component implicated in satiety. Just in case you don't believe me, the article you posted is a follow-up to a 2005 article these authors presented -- the conclusion of that article is that "Compared to an isocaloric, equal weight bagel-based breakfast, the egg-breakfast induced greater satiety and significantly reduced short-term food intake." Now, keep in mind and this is of utmost importance, the article above doesn't even attempt to control for total fat, saturated fat or total caloric intake in the whole diet - merely the breakfast component is controlled -- and this, of course, was done intentionally because disparities in weight gain can only occur through changes in input or output. They are NOT AT ALL exploring the relationship between cholesterol, heart disease or saturated fat as you might have hoped; they are simply making the case that there may be a synergistic relationship between conscious dieting + an egg breakfast and short-term satiety and, thus, weight loss. For the sake of completion, it should also have raised a red flag to you that E vs. B data is not presented in the abstract - if there is no discrepancy between those groups, perhaps the pyschological compomenent is dominant and that realization should have prompted, at least, a randomization across diet history. But, again, it seems that you're not so interested in objectively evaluating the data as in claiming some sort of strange victory.

I don't have an agenda here - I don't own Lipitor stock - although I should. In fact, the more heart disease there is, the more CABG surgeries I do, the more money I make. So Blue, as a buddy and easily one of my favorite posters on this site, I'm not asking you to "blindly" follow my wisdom but it might do you well to at least consider my >30 years of experience leading research in this field and dissecting the literature before telling me and the rest of us that we're missing some major paradigm shift that never occurred.

The 2005 article is below:

Short-term effect of eggs on satiety in overweight and obese subjects.Vander Wal JS, Marth JM, Khosla P, Jen KL, Dhurandhar NV.
Department of Psychology, Saint Louis University, Missouri, USA.

OBJECTIVE: To test the hypotheses that among overweight and obese participants, a breakfast consisting of eggs, in comparison to an isocaloric equal-weight bagel-based breakfast, would induce greater satiety, reduce perceived cravings, and reduce subsequent short-term energy intake. SUBJECTS: Thirty women with BMI's of at least 25 kg/M2 between the ages of 25 to 60 y were recruited to participate in a randomized crossover design study in an outpatient clinic setting. DESIGN: Following an overnight fast, subjects consumed either an egg or bagel-based breakfast followed by lunch 3.5 h later, in random order two weeks apart. Food intake was weighed at breakfast and lunch and recorded via dietary recall up to 36 h post breakfast. Satiety was assessed using the Fullness Questionnaire and the State-Trait Food Cravings Questionnaire, state version. RESULTS: During the pre-lunch period, participants had greater feelings of satiety after the egg breakfast, and consumed significantly less energy (kJ; 2405.6 +/- 550.0 vs 3091.3 +/- 445.5, Egg vs Bagel breakfasts, p < 0.0001), grams of protein (16.8 +/- 4.2 vs 22.3 +/- 3.4, Egg vs Bagel breakfasts, p < 0.0001), carbohydrate 83.1 +/- 20.2 vs 110.9 +/- 18.7, Egg vs Bagel breakfasts, p < 0.0001), and fat 19.4 +/- 5.1 vs 22.8 +/- 3.2, Egg vs Bagel breakfasts, p < 0.0001) for lunch. Energy intake following the egg breakfast remained lower for the entire day (p < 0.05) as well as for the next 36 hours (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Compared to an isocaloric, equal weight bagel-based breakfast, the egg-breakfast induced greater satiety and significantly reduced short-term food intake. The potential role of a routine egg breakfast in producing a sustained caloric deficit and consequent weight loss, should be determined.

Posted by codeunknown:

Here's a hint, Blueseats, don't declare that paradigms are changing when the authors of the article themselves don't. Once again, its not my goal to embarass you or put you on the spot but I keep wondering why you're, rather uncharacteristically, making these wild proclamations.

Truth be told, when you do chose to embarrass someone you do it so thoroughly and meticulously that it's worth being the victim just for the show. I'm clearly baiting you, so please don't stop now!

And thanks for the flattery about being a favorite poster. Right back at you.

That said, I do believe the paradigm is shifting, and the momentum will pick up as better tests are conducted.

To cut to the chase, you've unfortunately garbled this article as well - the authors are making a satiety argument and protein (found in far greater quantities in eggs as opposed to bagels) has, by far, been shown to be the major component implicated in satiety. Just in case you don't believe me, the article you posted is a follow-up to a 2005 article these authors presented -- the conclusion of that article is that "Compared to an isocaloric, equal weight bagel-based breakfast, the egg-breakfast induced greater satiety and significantly reduced short-term food intake."

Now, keep in mind and this is of utmost importance, the article above doesn't even attempt to control for total fat, saturated fat or total caloric intake in the whole diet - merely the breakfast component is controlled -- and this, of course, was done intentionally because disparities in weight gain can only occur through changes in input or output. They are NOT AT ALL exploring the relationship between cholesterol, heart disease or saturated fat as you might have hoped; they are simply making the case that there may be a synergistic relationship between conscious dieting + an egg breakfast and short-term satiety and, thus, weight loss. For the sake of completion, it should also have raised a red flag to you that E vs. B data is not presented in the abstract - if there is no discrepancy between those groups, perhaps the pyschological compomenent is dominant and that realization should have prompted, at least, a randomization across diet history. But, again, it seems that you're not so interested in objectively evaluating the data as in claiming some sort of strange victory.

I understand that. It's a shotcoming of the test, Everyone already knew protien is more satiating than empty carbs. And they could have used egg whites to prove that.

But the same is true for fats. It's one of the great failures of the low fat diet approach. On a low fat diet fat calories, which are much more satiating than glucose and other simple sugars, are generally replaced by carbohydrates (and far too often refine grains) which surge insulin levels and leave people hungry. Eventually insulin resistance can set in. Diet compliance becomes a major issue too because carbs are a lot more addictive than fats. Typically people are far more likely to splurge in things like breads, cookies, chips, chocolate, etc, than they are on, say, animal fat or olive oil.

I don't have an agenda here - I don't own Lipitor stock - although I should. In fact, the more heart disease there is, the more CABG surgeries I do, the more money I make. So Blue, as a buddy and easily one of my favorite posters on this site, I'm not asking you to "blindly" follow my wisdom but it might do you well to at least consider my >30 years of experience leading research in this field and dissecting the literature before telling me and the rest of us that we're missing some major paradigm shift that never occurred.

I understand that you have a very high IQ, are well schooled, know a sh-t load about many things, and can write about things I'll never understand with a vocabulary so broad I can barely read it. But that doesn't make you right. Nor can I say I know you to be wrong. What I am saying is there is compelling evidence that calls your position into question, and more and more people are carrying the drum.

There are just too many holes in your theory. Low fat diets have been the rage for what, 20-30 years now but obesity is up. Smoking is down and people consume less saturated fats, yet heart disease is just as high. Cultures with higher intake of saturated fats have lower rates of heart disease. So what gives?

[Edited by - blueseats on 08-11-2008 01:04 AM]

Posted by BlueSeats:

Posted by codeunknown:

Here's a hint, Blueseats, don't declare that paradigms are changing when the authors of the article themselves don't. Once again, its not my goal to embarass you or put you on the spot but I keep wondering why you're, rather uncharacteristically, making these wild proclamations.

Truth be told, when you do chose to embarrass someone you do it so thoroughly and meticulously that it's worth being the victim just for the show. I'm clearly baiting you, don't stop now! And thanks for the flattery about being a favorite poster. Right back at you.

That said, I do believe the paradigm is shifting, and the momentum will pick up as better tests are conducted.

To cut to the chase, you've unfortunately garbled this article as well - the authors are making a satiety argument and protein (found in far greater quantities in eggs as opposed to bagels) has, by far, been shown to be the major component implicated in satiety. Just in case you don't believe me, the article you posted is a follow-up to a 2005 article these authors presented -- the conclusion of that article is that "Compared to an isocaloric, equal weight bagel-based breakfast, the egg-breakfast induced greater satiety and significantly reduced short-term food intake."

Now, keep in mind and this is of utmost importance, the article above doesn't even attempt to control for total fat, saturated fat or total caloric intake in the whole diet - merely the breakfast component is controlled -- and this, of course, was done intentionally because disparities in weight gain can only occur through changes in input or output. They are NOT AT ALL exploring the relationship between cholesterol, heart disease or saturated fat as you might have hoped; they are simply making the case that there may be a synergistic relationship between conscious dieting + an egg breakfast and short-term satiety and, thus, weight loss. For the sake of completion, it should also have raised a red flag to you that E vs. B data is not presented in the abstract - if there is no discrepancy between those groups, perhaps the pyschological compomenent is dominant and that realization should have prompted, at least, a randomization across diet history. But, again, it seems that you're not so interested in objectively evaluating the data as in claiming some sort of strange victory.

I understand that. But the same is true for fats. It's one of the great failures of the low fat diet approach. Fat calories, which are much more satiating than glucose and other simple sugars, are generally replaced by carbohydrates (and far too often refine grains) which surge insulin levels and leave people hungry. Eventually insulin resistance can set in. Diet compliance becomes a major issue too because carbs are a lot more addictive than fats. Typically people are far more likely to splurge in things like breads, cookies, chips, chocolate, etc, than they are on, say, animal fat or olive oil.

I don't have an agenda here - I don't own Lipitor stock - although I should. In fact, the more heart disease there is, the more CABG surgeries I do, the more money I make. So Blue, as a buddy and easily one of my favorite posters on this site, I'm not asking you to "blindly" follow my wisdom but it might do you well to at least consider my >30 years of experience leading research in this field and dissecting the literature before telling me and the rest of us that we're missing some major paradigm shift that never occurred.

I understand that you have a very high IQ, are well schooled, know a sh-t load about many things, and can write about things I'll never understand with a vocabulary so broad I can barely read it. But that doesn't make you right. Nor can I say I know you to be wrong. What I am saying is there is compelling evidence that calls your position into question, and more and more people are carrying the drum.

There are just to many holes in your theory. Low fat diets have been the rage for what, 20-30 years now but obesity is up. Smoking is down and people consume less saturated fats, yet heart disease is just as high. Cultures with higher intake of saturated fats have lower rates of heart disease. So what gives?

Great. I'm not sure where that leaves us. I'm not sure what paradigm is shifting. I'm not sure where exactly your objection lies along the lipid hypothesis. I'm not sure why you value crude epidemiology over large, controlled clinical trials. I'm not sure why you think that I'm discounting other undiscovered risk factors when I'm merely making the case for serum LDL and saturated fat as important risk factors. And so I'm not really sure how to respond without provoking a sarcastic, baiting post. So the show, in which you consider yourself a victim, is officially over.