U.S.A Cholesterol Guidelines are changing
Options
Replies
-
I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers. It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet. A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.
so hit your calorie/micro/macro goals for the day and one will have no issues. < why is that so ground breaking/hard to understand?
Not everyone in the world counts calories. And if you do, how are your goals informed? The conventional suggestion is that a "balanced" diet is 60% carbs. Even though it is common, accepted, and encouraged for people to eat 300grams of carbs a day does not make it moderate; that would be considered a very high carb diet. How is that more balanced than say 40/30/30 c/p/f? Or 30/40/30 c/p/f, which may look "low carb" to many, but is really just moderate carb.
not really sure what your response has to do with what I said..
if people don't count their calories then how do t hey know if they are high/low/moderate carb?
I have to say with a real real heavy
I agree.
Will sun set in East today? UGH!!!
Good Morning.0 -
Very interesting! Thanks for posting these.0
-
benjaminhkohl wrote: »I was never taking food advice from the feds anyway.
- Feds fund universities and institutions for R & D.
- Some of the brightest minds from the society get involved.
- They look into areas where last left off R & Ds need to be looked into.
- Test are done, people sign up to volunteer for the research.
- This research goes on for months, sometimes years.
- Evidences and Results are gathered and presented to the committee.
- Panel of members challenge, re-challenge the study.
- Then bright minds from the society, other research institutions, universities get together and come to conclusion of what has been proven in the new research and what needs to be discarded from the old. i.e. what stays and what needs to go away.
- Because Fed had funded this R & D they reserve the authority to publish it in their little .org website
- Once this gets published the nutritionist, dietitians, physicians, ... get the update of this new research.
I tried summarizing in layman's language of what happens behind the scenes when things get posted in the "Fed" journal. To take it or not to take it is of course individuals' choice.
Furthermore, I'll take advice from federal funded studies over food industry funded studies all day long. Though the two are so intertwined thanks to lobbying that I think I prefer European studies over both.0 -
MoiAussi93 wrote: »About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.
Keep in mind, it took FEMA three days to send a boat to New Orleans. Someone didnt send the memo.
I think the goal of any study is to find if there are any physiological advantages to any particular diet. The law of conservation of matter tells us that it is CICO for weight loss. But what is the best method? What gives you more bang for your buck? But dont wait for those studies...run a study on yourself! Eat a certain way, and see how it makes you feel. Take a lipid profile. Thats what I will be doing. I couldnt care less about what America says. If everyone ate the low grades of meat bc they were found to be healthy, ground round would be $10/lb, and that Big Mac would cost you $15. So, let em say what they want about fat. But with almost half a billion people in this country, how many cows you think there are, and how fast do you think they reproduce?0 -
peter56765 wrote: »I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers.
You're using loaded terms here. Yes, all government work is ultimately supervised by "political policy makers" but civil servants themselves are not subject to the changing whims of politicians, i.e. they generally can't be fired, even if they refuse to go along with the conclusion of a political appointee. On the other hand, all "scientists in the field" are paid by grants from one organization or another and pretty much all of them have some political agenda. To proscribe bias to one group but not the other is misleading at best.
Science does have an edge with peer review and retrials, however these generally take a lot of time to complete properly. Also, it's become a standard practice for groups with political agendas to fund multiple studies in order to lend more credence to the viewpoint they wish to push. Nowadays, you need a long period of time with multiple, independent studies, preferably international, before a true scientific consensus is reached.
The media, however, is quick to jump on the latest study, "OMG! You can totally eat cheeseburgers and french fries all day and still lose weight!" and then splash these latest diet "scoops" all over the headlines or in one of those click-bait links you see on websites. Which link do you think would generate more hits? The above link or "Study on cheeseburgers and fries generally inconclusive: sample size too small, trial too short"It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet.
This has been common knowledge for decades.A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.
Anyone claiming something is "100% proven" is severely overstating the case. Nothing is ever fully "proven" in science. Research either supports, contradicts or (quite often) modifies an existing scientific theory. Also, it's almost a tautology to say that our bodies need to be nourished with food that has high nutritional value - that concept is pretty much contained within the definitions of the words "nutrition" and "nourish".
Thanks for a thought provoking post! I hadn't considered that indeed scientists may be working under grants that *might* result in bias.
Regarding the original study linked in the OP, it looks to me like it was planned in early January 2014. Shouldn't we be seeing some results from the original 16 men?
0 -
peter56765 wrote: »I'm reading the 'Calorie Myth' by Jonathan Bailor right now and it very concisely explains a lot of what the OP mentions and how not all calories are created equal; quality of food absolutely does matter. It is also very well referenced with studies and peer reviewed papers from Harvard, Princeton, and the like. We are just beginning to get through the dark ages of misguided conventional dietary wisdom. Paying attention to science and understanding basic biochemistry, and anatomy and physiology helps clear up so much of the confusion and controversy surrounding nutrition. To begin with The Food Pyramid/ My Plate was not devised by scientists in the field, but by political policy makers.
You're using loaded terms here. Yes, all government work is ultimately supervised by "political policy makers" but civil servants themselves are not subject to the changing whims of politicians, i.e. they generally can't be fired, even if they refuse to go along with the conclusion of a political appointee. On the other hand, all "scientists in the field" are paid by grants from one organization or another and pretty much all of them have some political agenda. To proscribe bias to one group but not the other is misleading at best.
Science does have an edge with peer review and retrials, however these generally take a lot of time to complete properly. Also, it's become a standard practice for groups with political agendas to fund multiple studies in order to lend more credence to the viewpoint they wish to push. Nowadays, you need a long period of time with multiple, independent studies, preferably international, before a true scientific consensus is reached.
The media, however, is quick to jump on the latest study, "OMG! You can totally eat cheeseburgers and french fries all day and still lose weight!" and then splash these latest diet "scoops" all over the headlines or in one of those click-bait links you see on websites. Which link do you think would generate more hits? The above link or "Study on cheeseburgers and fries generally inconclusive: sample size too small, trial too short"It's important that dietary guidelines change because the U.S. Is bogged down by healthcare costs from heart disease and metabolic diseases such as obesity and type II diabetes. On the most part researchers have found that these issues can be prevented and even reversed with the proper diet.
This has been common knowledge for decades.A proper diet is therapeutic in addressing not only the symptoms of the disease, but gets to the underlying cause. Did you know that most morbidly obese people are actually undernourished? It has also been proved 100% that the quality of the food matters. What is meant by quality is nutritional value.
Anyone claiming something is "100% proven" is severely overstating the case. Nothing is ever fully "proven" in science. Research either supports, contradicts or (quite often) modifies an existing scientific theory. Also, it's almost a tautology to say that our bodies need to be nourished with food that has high nutritional value - that concept is pretty much contained within the definitions of the words "nutrition" and "nourish".
Thanks for a thought provoking post! I hadn't considered that indeed scientists may be working under grants that *might* result in bias.
Regarding the original study linked in the OP, it looks to me like it was planned in early January 2014. Shouldn't we be seeing some results from the original 16 men?
Not necessarily. There are a lot of steps between gathering data and releasing it.0 -
Great summary.benjaminhkohl wrote: »I was never taking food advice from the feds anyway.- Feds fund universities and institutions for R & D.
- Some of the brightest minds from the society get involved.
- They look into areas where last left off R & Ds need to be looked into.
- Test are done, people sign up to volunteer for the research.
- This research goes on for months, sometimes years.
- Evidences and Results are gathered and presented to the committee.
- Panel of members challenge, re-challenge the study.
- Then bright minds from the society, other research institutions, universities get together and come to conclusion of what has been proven in the new research and what needs to be discarded from the old. i.e. what stays and what needs to go away.
- Because Fed had funded this R & D they reserve the authority to publish it in their little .org website
- Once this gets published the nutritionist, dietitians, physicians, ... get the update of this new research.
I tried summarizing in layman's language of what happens behind the scenes when things get posted in the "Fed" journal. To take it or not to take it is of course individuals' choice.
0 -
Regarding the original study linked in the OP, it looks to me like it was planned in early January 2014. Shouldn't we be seeing some results from the original 16 men?
The full study is here:
http://www.normanmarcuspaininstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Effects-of-Low-Carbohydrate-and-Low-Fat-Diets.pdf
Our study found that a low-carbohydrate diet induced
greater weight loss and reductions in cardiovascular risk
factors at 12 months than a low-fat diet among black and
white obese adults who did not have diabetes, CVD, or
kidney disease at baseline.
0 -
Regarding the original study linked in the OP, it looks to me like it was planned in early January 2014. Shouldn't we be seeing some results from the original 16 men?
The full study is here:
http://www.normanmarcuspaininstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Effects-of-Low-Carbohydrate-and-Low-Fat-Diets.pdf
Our study found that a low-carbohydrate diet induced
greater weight loss and reductions in cardiovascular risk
factors at 12 months than a low-fat diet among black and
white obese adults who did not have diabetes, CVD, or
kidney disease at baseline.
I looked at the PDF. It wasn't the same study. The PDF study you linked included 148 participants.
0 -
Yes, but the basic assertion that dietary cholesterol is somehow deleterious is absurd, it always has been and I can only imagined that he as a Dr. should have some common sense or at least read the journals over the last 50 years to at least cast some doubt, but nope, it never happened.MoiAussi93 wrote: »
I think that's a problem with nutritional recommendations in general. Doctors and scientists are taught one thing early on. Or they build a career on certain findings...and then they are resistant to new evidence that contradicts what they believed. It's human nature to some degree. You need to have the same smoking gun show up in 100 different studies before they will finally be convinced to change their thinking. That's probably why certain recommendations...like limiting cholesterol...stick around much longer than they should.neanderthin wrote: »
When Walter Willett agrees on something that was the cornerstone of his philosophy, you know he's ready to retire.....lol just kidding, but seriously, he must be eating crow.MoiAussi93 wrote: »About time they changed those cholesterol guidelines. The US is pretty much the only country to still be telling people to not eat too many eggs. They were years behind the science on this one.0 -
No, it's just the full study of the second link, where only the abstract was provided.Regarding the original study linked in the OP, it looks to me like it was planned in early January 2014. Shouldn't we be seeing some results from the original 16 men?
The full study is here:
http://www.normanmarcuspaininstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Effects-of-Low-Carbohydrate-and-Low-Fat-Diets.pdf
Our study found that a low-carbohydrate diet induced
greater weight loss and reductions in cardiovascular risk
factors at 12 months than a low-fat diet among black and
white obese adults who did not have diabetes, CVD, or
kidney disease at baseline.
I looked at the PDF. It wasn't the same study. The PDF study you linked included 148 participants.
The study of 16 is through NuSI, the third link. It's basically a company who's philosophy is grounded in a low carb approach and their team is there to gather supporting information and I suspect their "findings" will support previous research on the subject. Personally I don't get why they're doing it except to add some credibility to their front office, who in a scientific sense, could use it.
0 -
What about the 25% who are sensitive to cholesterol in their diets? "Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets." (also from the Post article). I happen to be one of them. I don't eat much saturated fat and have to cut way back on animal fat and cholesterol before I get tested or the results can really get skewed. Also, if dietary cholesterol isn't that bad, does that mean those of us with high numbers should just give up controlling our diets and go on a statin? Does it also mean that the "risk" of having high cholesterol is exaggerated? So many unanswered questions. I'm actually schedule for my test this week and my follow-up next week, so it'll be interesting. I haven't been below 200 in at least two years, despite diet and exercise.0
-
What about the 25% who are sensitive to cholesterol in their diets? "Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets." (also from the Post article). I happen to be one of them. I don't eat much saturated fat and have to cut way back on animal fat and cholesterol before I get tested or the results can really get skewed. Also, if dietary cholesterol isn't that bad, does that mean those of us with high numbers should just give up controlling our diets and go on a statin? Does it also mean that the "risk" of having high cholesterol is exaggerated? So many unanswered questions. I'm actually schedule for my test this week and my follow-up next week, so it'll be interesting. I haven't been below 200 in at least two years, despite diet and exercise.
Do you have familial hypercholesterolemia? Are you ApoE4? Do you have a specific genetic situation?
Generally people wind up in a high cholesterol state due to de novo lipogenesis and when looking at dietary intake it's easy to blame it on dietary cholesterol instead of foods that create a state de novo lipogenesis. Generally, alcohol and carbohydrates are the main causes of de novo lipogenesis.
There are two things emerging from the science in regards to lipid epidemiology outside of genetic confounders (i.e. your normal):
1) If you're going to get a majority of your energy from carbohydrates, you must eat low fat (and not just animal fats, every fat).
2) If you're going to get a majority of your energy from fat, you must eat low carb.
The reason in both cases comes down to excessive carbohydrate. Those beyond what your glycogen stores can take up and you can burn off in a reasonable amount of time, measured in hours. The excess carbohydrates that are left need to be cleared from the blood stream, which puts your liver to work making fat from the carbohydrates. It's during de novo lipogenesis that your serum triglycerides and LDL will become persistently high, and your HDL will plummet. Some are more susceptible to these affects than others. If you consume fat while eating a lot of carbohydrates, this is exasperated by adding fat to a situation where the liver is making fat.
Also, it is possible to eat no fat and only carbohydrates for energy, and force yourself into a state of de novo lipogenesis. This has to do with how much carbohydrate energy your cells can take up, what you glycogen stores are like, but when that is all maxed out that's it. You can kind of say that T2 diabetics are in a super heightened state of this situation. Their cells do not want to take up any more glucose. This is also why T2 diabetics have such a strong correlation with heart disease.
An aside, if you are actively losing a lot of weight from fat you will have necessarily high triglycerides.
0 -
What about the 25% who are sensitive to cholesterol in their diets? "Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets." (also from the Post article). I happen to be one of them. I don't eat much saturated fat and have to cut way back on animal fat and cholesterol before I get tested or the results can really get skewed. Also, if dietary cholesterol isn't that bad, does that mean those of us with high numbers should just give up controlling our diets and go on a statin? Does it also mean that the "risk" of having high cholesterol is exaggerated? So many unanswered questions. I'm actually schedule for my test this week and my follow-up next week, so it'll be interesting. I haven't been below 200 in at least two years, despite diet and exercise.
Do you have familial hypercholesterolemia? Are you ApoE4? Do you have a specific genetic situation?
Generally people wind up in a high cholesterol state due to de novo lipogenesis and when looking at dietary intake it's easy to blame it on dietary cholesterol instead of foods that create a state de novo lipogenesis. Generally, alcohol and carbohydrates are the main causes of de novo lipogenesis.
There are two things emerging from the science in regards to lipid epidemiology outside of genetic confounders (i.e. your normal):
1) If you're going to get a majority of your energy from carbohydrates, you must eat low fat (and not just animal fats, every fat).
2) If you're going to get a majority of your energy from fat, you must eat low carb.
The reason in both cases comes down to excessive carbohydrate. Those beyond what your glycogen stores can take up and you can burn off in a reasonable amount of time, measured in hours. The excess carbohydrates that are left need to be cleared from the blood stream, which puts your liver to work making fat from the carbohydrates. It's during de novo lipogenesis that your serum triglycerides and LDL will become persistently high, and your HDL will plummet. Some are more susceptible to these affects than others. If you consume fat while eating a lot of carbohydrates, this is exasperated by adding fat to a situation where the liver is making fat.
Also, it is possible to eat no fat and only carbohydrates for energy, and force yourself into a state of de novo lipogenesis. This has to do with how much carbohydrate energy your cells can take up, what you glycogen stores are like, but when that is all maxed out that's it. You can kind of say that T2 diabetics are in a super heightened state of this situation. Their cells do not want to take up any more glucose. This is also why T2 diabetics have such a strong correlation with heart disease.
An aside, if you are actively losing a lot of weight from fat you will have necessarily high triglycerides.
It sounds like you know this, and all of it sounds very logical.
Thanks for sharing the studies0 -
Is your Dr. not aware of your familial hypercholesterolemia and therefore your not sure what course of action to take, or because you haven't been under 200 you think you might have the genetic defect that is FH.What about the 25% who are sensitive to cholesterol in their diets? "Scientists say some people -- about 25 percent -- appear to be more vulnerable to cholesterol-rich diets." (also from the Post article). I happen to be one of them. I don't eat much saturated fat and have to cut way back on animal fat and cholesterol before I get tested or the results can really get skewed. Also, if dietary cholesterol isn't that bad, does that mean those of us with high numbers should just give up controlling our diets and go on a statin? Does it also mean that the "risk" of having high cholesterol is exaggerated? So many unanswered questions. I'm actually schedule for my test this week and my follow-up next week, so it'll be interesting. I haven't been below 200 in at least two years, despite diet and exercise.
0
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.5K Getting Started
- 259.7K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 397 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.3K MyFitnessPal Information
- 23 News and Announcements
- 934 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions