Welcome to Debate Club! Please be aware that this is a space for respectful debate, and that your ideas will be challenged here. Please remember to critique the argument, not the author.
afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?
Replies
-
aqsylvester wrote: »To quote the newest USDA 2015 dietary Guidelines:
Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.2 35 Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.
source: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/06-chapter-1/d1-2.asp
Even mainstream USDA and AHA organizations are finally coming along! Yet, somehow this hasn't made enough headlines to counter years of misinformation.
I'm curious why they still have cholesterol on the new nutritional information labeling requirements.
1 -
About 20% of my body fat is saturated so I can't fear saturated fat.4
-
My brothers and I must be genetic anomalies. We have all had bad cholesterol levels in the past, all reduced our saturated fats and all of our numbers were worse or retesting. All numbers improved with animal fats in our diets. Two of us lift weights and now our cholesterol numbers look great. Two of are.couch potatoes and their numbers are still bad, but not as bad as without animal fats.2
-
MelissaPhippsFeagins wrote: »My brothers and I must be genetic anomalies. We have all had bad cholesterol levels in the past, all reduced our saturated fats and all of our numbers were worse or retesting. All numbers improved with animal fats in our diets. Two of us lift weights and now our cholesterol numbers look great. Two of are.couch potatoes and their numbers are still bad, but not as bad as without animal fats.
Not an anomaly. That's where most current thinking is now: cholesterol levels tend to go up with a high carb diet and lower fat, and down with a higher fat and lower carb diet.... and with exercise too, of course.1 -
Wow, even Mark Hyman, MD is coming around... I'm impressed! Open-mindedness for the win!
https://youtu.be/zN-nUtDW1iY 0 -
MelissaPhippsFeagins wrote: »My brothers and I must be genetic anomalies. We have all had bad cholesterol levels in the past, all reduced our saturated fats and all of our numbers were worse or retesting. All numbers improved with animal fats in our diets. Two of us lift weights and now our cholesterol numbers look great. Two of are.couch potatoes and their numbers are still bad, but not as bad as without animal fats.
Not an anomaly. That's where most current thinking is now: cholesterol levels tend to go up with a high carb diet and lower fat, and down with a higher fat and lower carb diet.... and with exercise too, of course.
I would make an argument that its more about the type of carb than carbs itself, especially considering plant based diets, even when compared to other low fat diets, have shown to see improvements.
http://nutrition.stanford.edu/documents/Plant_based.pdf <--I am trying to find a copy of the full text.
Even so, most of the recent low carb studies I have seen have replaced sat fats with unsaturated fats. I would be curious to see two low carb studies compared, one with limitations on sat fat and one without.3 -
Sure, go on ignoring all official things that look at all available research and instead keep posting youtube videos and anecdotes.7
-
I'd like to see studies investigating why @MelissaPhipps and I both saw the same outcome from diametrically opposite approaches. Understanding why this could be so, would be far more useful than a lot of the hot air floating around nutrition. I've no idea how such studies would be designed though..0
-
aqsylvester wrote: »JanetYellen wrote: »Disappointed numbers were not given.
No site seems to give numbers.
Only 1 site told me:
I ate more saturated fats and my LDL went up.
I ate an avocado for breakfast. So I am not afraid.
I want info on limits - no one is offering this.
I want studies, results, cholesterol numbers, heart disease risks.
Maybe taking a vegetarian and seeing if eating 40+ grams of sat fat a day makes him healthier.
Real numbers. Data.
By now, everyone should know cholesterol in eggs is ok.
There are no numbers when it comes to diet. Enjoy cholesterol rich foods
To quote the newest USDA 2015 dietary Guidelines:
Previously, the Dietary Guidelines for Americans recommended that cholesterol intake be limited to no more than 300 mg/day. The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.2 35 Cholesterol is not a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.
source: http://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/06-chapter-1/d1-2.asp
Even mainstream USDA and AHA organizations are finally coming along! Yet, somehow this hasn't made enough headlines to counter years of misinformation.
On a side note, if you are worried about heart disease, avoid things that cause inflammation: lack of sleep, stress, smoking, sugar and refined carbohydrates (insulin resistance the greatest risk factor), and excess omega 6 fatty acids and trans fats (found in all the refined, processed fats like margarine and soybean oil... not nature).
Would like to point out, that same report suggest that we are still eating too much saturated fats and it should be limited to 10% of calories.
"Saturated fat. The DGAC used the 2013 American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology (AHA/ACC) report on lifestyle management to reduce CVD risk2 for its evaluation of saturated fat intake. The DGAC concurred with the AHA/ACC report that saturated fat intake exceeds current recommendations in the United States and that lower levels of consumption would further reduce the population level risk of CVD. The DGAC also convened a working group on saturated fat (see Part D. Chapter 6: Cross-Cutting Topics of Public Health Importance for details). In addition, the DGAC conducted food pattern modeling to demonstrate the dietary changes that would be necessary to have diets with various levels of saturated fat as a percent of total energy (see USDA Food Patterns Modeling Report in Appendix E-3.5: Reducing Saturated Fats in the USDA Food Patterns). It is important to note that the median intake of saturated fat in the United States was 11.1 percent of total energy for all age groups in the 2007-2010 WWEIA data. However, a large majority (71 percent) of the total population consumed more than 10 percent of calories from saturated fat, with a range by age group from 57 percent to 92 percent (Figure D1.4). Further, 65 percent to 69 percent of the age groups at highest risk of CVD (males and females older than age 50 years) had intakes more than 10 percent of total calories were from saturated fat, the DGAC concluded that the U.S. population should continue to monitor saturated fat intake. Saturated fat is still a nutrient of concern for overconsumption, particularly for those older than the age of 50 years."2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Sure, go on ignoring all official things that look at all available research and instead keep posting youtube videos and anecdotes.
LOL, Steven, I guess by "official" you mean mainstream like the American Heart Association (which btw I did link the current USDA guidelines related to cholesterol, and I'd consider them "official," but anyway... ). Do you think mainstream/industry-sponsored groups like that keep up with the latest research? I mean if the AHA started accepting saturated fat as benign or even protective against heart disease, they'd have to stop selling their "heart-check" logo to Kellogg's, poptarts, marshmallows, jolly ranchers, processed cheese food, and whatever else crap, garbage you see it posted on. That sure would be a revenue loss.
In the hospitals where I have worked (and work), the AHA diet is still low fat, low cholesterol, low sodium with vegetable based butter-flavored "product"... that's it. They STILL have not addressed sugar. I'm not waiting for them to catch up to real heart health science anytime soon.1 -
Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.4 -
stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
Wait, we can't have it both ways?2 -
stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
Awesome.
The WHO says you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fatty acids, and substitute PUFAs or at least MUFAs when possible, as that has been shown to lower CVD risk and improve cholesterol numbers.6 -
-
stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I think they just haven't gotten there yet. For some sixty years now the health authorities have been telling people to eat low fat, low cholesterol diets with lots of omega 6 and whole grains. Lots of reputations on the line. Science advances one funeral at a time. I do believe we will see the strict limits on SFAs lifted, possibly in my lifetime. Happened just recently with cholesterol. Trouble is, a lot of the older studies lumped trans fats in with sat fats, making trans fats look less harmful and sat fats appear more harmful. I believe science will progress and eventually the health organizations will catch up. It just takes time.
2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
How about the NIH?
https://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/ency/patientinstructions/000104.htm
https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/news/spotlight/new-dietary-guidelines-urge-americans-eat-less-added-sugars-saturated-fat-and-sodium
"The guidelines also target saturated fats, so-called “bad” fats that come from animal sources, such as butter, cheese, and fatty meats. Major sources include burgers, sandwiches, tacos, and pizza. The guidelines recommend that less than 10 percent of calories per day come from these fats and urge people to read food labels and choose foods that are lower in saturated fats. Instead, choose foods that are higher in polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fats, which are also known as “good” fats, such as those found in vegetable oils and nuts. "0 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
Awesome.
The WHO says you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fatty acids, and substitute PUFAs or at least MUFAs when possible, as that has been shown to lower CVD risk and improve cholesterol numbers.
Hey, if you wanna stick with mainstream advice, more power to you. They're not completely off base. If you follow them over a standard American processed food diet, you're probably going to improve your health.
Despite WHO's current guidelines, I'd wager WHO will catch up well before AHA does.
Either way, the science is already here The latest available data from WHO and FAO (https://www.bhf.org.uk/publications/statistics/european-cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2008), statistics over the average intake of saturated fat in 41 European countries in 1998 and the age-adjusted risk of dying from heart disease show an inverse relationship between SF intake and cardiovascular related death. No one seems to know how to account for this "paradox." In fact, France had the highest intake of SF and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease... now called the "French Paradox." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
Yet again, you're going back to "cholesterol numbers," but that doesn't translate well to actual risk. Yeah, processed PUFAs might lower "numbers" but still increase death rate. http://time.com/4291505/when-vegetable-oil-isnt-as-healthy-as-you-think/0 -
tlflag1620 wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I think they just haven't gotten there yet. For some sixty years now the health authorities have been telling people to eat low fat, low cholesterol diets with lots of omega 6 and whole grains. Lots of reputations on the line. Science advances one funeral at a time. I do believe we will see the strict limits on SFAs lifted, possibly in my lifetime. Happened just recently with cholesterol. Trouble is, a lot of the older studies lumped trans fats in with sat fats, making trans fats look less harmful and sat fats appear more harmful. I believe science will progress and eventually the health organizations will catch up. It just takes time.
Ultimately, the government is very slow with making sweeping changes in their recommendation until there is enough studies to repeatedly demonstrate the same result. Unfortunately, too often, we try to use one study to disprove previous theories. But not until its been repeated several times with the same results will there be any movement.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
Awesome.
The WHO says you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fatty acids, and substitute PUFAs or at least MUFAs when possible, as that has been shown to lower CVD risk and improve cholesterol numbers.
Hey, if you wanna stick with mainstream advice, more power to you. They're not completely off base. If you follow them over a standard American processed food diet, you're probably going to improve your health.
Despite WHO's current guidelines, I'd wager WHO will catch up well before AHA does.
Either way, the science is already here The latest available data from WHO and FAO (https://www.bhf.org.uk/publications/statistics/european-cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2008), statistics over the average intake of saturated fat in 41 European countries in 1998 and the age-adjusted risk of dying from heart disease show an inverse relationship between SF intake and cardiovascular related death. No one seems to know how to account for this "paradox." In fact, France had the highest intake of SF and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease... now called the "French Paradox." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
Yet again, you're going back to "cholesterol numbers," but that doesn't translate well to actual risk. Yeah, processed PUFAs might lower "numbers" but still increase death rate. http://time.com/4291505/when-vegetable-oil-isnt-as-healthy-as-you-think/
You link to "Mainstream" when it fits what you believe, but dismiss it when it doesn't.14 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
Awesome.
The WHO says you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fatty acids, and substitute PUFAs or at least MUFAs when possible, as that has been shown to lower CVD risk and improve cholesterol numbers.
Hey, if you wanna stick with mainstream advice, more power to you. They're not completely off base. If you follow them over a standard American processed food diet, you're probably going to improve your health.
Despite WHO's current guidelines, I'd wager WHO will catch up well before AHA does.
Either way, the science is already here The latest available data from WHO and FAO (https://www.bhf.org.uk/publications/statistics/european-cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2008), statistics over the average intake of saturated fat in 41 European countries in 1998 and the age-adjusted risk of dying from heart disease show an inverse relationship between SF intake and cardiovascular related death. No one seems to know how to account for this "paradox." In fact, France had the highest intake of SF and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease... now called the "French Paradox." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
Yet again, you're going back to "cholesterol numbers," but that doesn't translate well to actual risk. Yeah, processed PUFAs might lower "numbers" but still increase death rate. http://time.com/4291505/when-vegetable-oil-isnt-as-healthy-as-you-think/
You link to "Mainstream" when it fits what you believe, but dismiss it when it doesn't.
Steven, when you tell me that what I'm saying is counter to mainstream institutional advice, you're making an argument against me by appealing to the power of authority. However, it's a logical fallacy to assume a statement is true simply because it came from "authority." I encourage you and others to do your own thinking and research... it may or may not line up with mainstream. When it does, great. When it doesn't, great. It really has very little bearing on determining what is true... I would look to the evidence for that.2 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
Awesome.
The WHO says you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fatty acids, and substitute PUFAs or at least MUFAs when possible, as that has been shown to lower CVD risk and improve cholesterol numbers.
Hey, if you wanna stick with mainstream advice, more power to you. They're not completely off base. If you follow them over a standard American processed food diet, you're probably going to improve your health.
Despite WHO's current guidelines, I'd wager WHO will catch up well before AHA does.
Either way, the science is already here The latest available data from WHO and FAO (https://www.bhf.org.uk/publications/statistics/european-cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2008), statistics over the average intake of saturated fat in 41 European countries in 1998 and the age-adjusted risk of dying from heart disease show an inverse relationship between SF intake and cardiovascular related death. No one seems to know how to account for this "paradox." In fact, France had the highest intake of SF and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease... now called the "French Paradox." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
Yet again, you're going back to "cholesterol numbers," but that doesn't translate well to actual risk. Yeah, processed PUFAs might lower "numbers" but still increase death rate. http://time.com/4291505/when-vegetable-oil-isnt-as-healthy-as-you-think/
You link to "Mainstream" when it fits what you believe, but dismiss it when it doesn't.
Steven, when you tell me that what I'm saying is counter to mainstream institutional advice, you're making an argument against me by appealing to the power of authority. However, it's a logical fallacy to assume a statement is true simply because it came from "authority." I encourage you and others to do your own thinking and research... it may or may not line up with mainstream. When it does, great. When it doesn't, great. It really has very little bearing on determining what is true... I would look to the evidence for that.
And out of curiousity how about the information i have posted? Both from your own links and other sources3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
Awesome.
The WHO says you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fatty acids, and substitute PUFAs or at least MUFAs when possible, as that has been shown to lower CVD risk and improve cholesterol numbers.
Hey, if you wanna stick with mainstream advice, more power to you. They're not completely off base. If you follow them over a standard American processed food diet, you're probably going to improve your health.
Despite WHO's current guidelines, I'd wager WHO will catch up well before AHA does.
Either way, the science is already here The latest available data from WHO and FAO (https://www.bhf.org.uk/publications/statistics/european-cardiovascular-disease-statistics-2008), statistics over the average intake of saturated fat in 41 European countries in 1998 and the age-adjusted risk of dying from heart disease show an inverse relationship between SF intake and cardiovascular related death. No one seems to know how to account for this "paradox." In fact, France had the highest intake of SF and the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease... now called the "French Paradox." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1768013/
Yet again, you're going back to "cholesterol numbers," but that doesn't translate well to actual risk. Yeah, processed PUFAs might lower "numbers" but still increase death rate. http://time.com/4291505/when-vegetable-oil-isnt-as-healthy-as-you-think/
You link to "Mainstream" when it fits what you believe, but dismiss it when it doesn't.
Steven, when you tell me that what I'm saying is counter to mainstream institutional advice, you're making an argument against me by appealing to the power of authority. However, it's a logical fallacy to assume a statement is true simply because it came from "authority." I encourage you and others to do your own thinking and research... it may or may not line up with mainstream. When it does, great. When it doesn't, great. It really has very little bearing on determining what is true... I would look to the evidence for that.
And out of curiousity how about the information i have posted? Both from your own links and other sources
@psulemon Sorry I had to go back and look... Your most recent two posts are just sharing standard mainstream nutrition advice. I don't see any evidence there to talk about.. just the same old same old based on the outdated lipid hypothesis. For example, the NIH article states, "A diet high in saturated fat increases cholesterol buildup in your arteries (blood vessels). Cholesterol is a soft, waxy substance that can cause clogged, or blocked, arteries." We now know heart disease is not a simple formula of eat cholesterol --> it clogs your arteries --> you get heart disease. The documentary at the beginning of the thread does a good job of explaining problems with that theory. Newer evidence points to instigators of inflammation as the real cause.
As far as your post about plant-based low fat diets having a greater effect lowering plasma lipids than a standard low fat diets... I guess I didn't comment on it because it makes sense to me. Switching from processed food to whole food is always going to be beneficial--whether it's a low fat regime or not. I didn't see a direct relationship to the context of this conversation.
The study I linked from JAMA showed more lipid lowering effects from Atkins (with no limits on saturated fat) than from the standard low fat... but I guess your making a point that maybe they did low fat wrong? That low fat would be more effective than low carb it was limited to whole plant foods? *shrug* Maybe?1 -
I've used an 81mg "baby" aspirin daily for several years. Let's call it a hypothetical that it will reduce inflammation, reduce atherosclerosis, and at the slight risk of induced bleeding on the brain and stomach ulcers be generally harmless. It was my own idea, as my GP seems to be hook-line-and-sinker in with the Cholesterol Theory of Heart Disease. The aspirin wasn't her idea. It was mine in response to reports several years ago explaining the inflammation root of atherosclerosis. I'm still alive. I have type B+ blood. I've read that B-type blood is a little thicker than other types. I do not subscribe to the Blood Type Diet. Still, I was regularly using 81 mg aspirin one day 4 years ago when I experienced an arhythmia of my heart. While seated at rest it suddenly began beating at 200 bpm. I was confused and didn't know what to do. I sat around the house for an hour with my heart running wild before I decided to go to the hospital. I drove myself. When I checked-in at the ER they sprang into action doing all the proper things and then, just as suddenly as it began, it stopped before the medical staff actually got any drug into me. They kept me a day before releasing me, finding no sign of damage. A cardiologist explained that the rapid contractions of the arhythmia can prevent oxygenated blood from reaching the heart muscle, directly causing heart damage and often death. We know that the risk of brain bleeds from aspirin is a result of the fact that aspirin thins the blood. I do believe that the thinning effect on my blood allowed just enough oxygenated blood to reach my entire heart muscle in that hour of indecision that I survived the event with no damage. I know this isn't a direct response to the "cholesterol' purpose of the discussion, but the first video did mention inflammation and I hope this story can help several someones survive surprises.0
-
stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
It is pretty baseless. I suspect there's an interesting story behind why the group that did the research to come to that recommendation was switched part way through the process. Asking the forestry woman from NZ to do it practically determined the answer.
Apart from dental caries (if only there were toothbrushes) they have to rely on very vague epidemiology from self reported consumption data to try and tease out small associations between the top 20% of sugar consumers and something bad. These recommendations always end up designed by committee.1 -
stevencloser wrote: »aqsylvester wrote: »stevencloser wrote: »Don't try to be a hipster.
Also if you're against mainstream, I'm sure you also agree that the WHO's suggestion for no more than 10% of calories coming from added sugar is just as wrong.
I have a much greater respect for the WHO than the AHA. Do you know how fiercely industry fought that recommendation? They threatened them with pulling funding, basically blackmail. http://www.theguardian.com/society/2003/apr/21/usnews.food
WHO is not tied to industry like the AHA.
I'm not a hipster, I just prefer to do my own thinking.
Awesome.
The WHO says you shouldn't get more than 10% of your calories from saturated fatty acids, and substitute PUFAs or at least MUFAs when possible, as that has been shown to lower CVD risk and improve cholesterol numbers.
Cool. Links to 3 RCTs substituting PUFAs for sat fat and showing reduced CVD outcomes ?
Here's a massively expensive WHI fat reduction intervention trial, as opposed to replacement http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202339
"Conclusions Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk".
2 -
MRFIT trial Failure in 13,000 men http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=377969
"Mortality from CHD was 17.9 deaths per 1,000 in the SI group and 19.3 per 1,000 in the UC group, a statistically nonsignificant difference of 7.1% (90% confidence interval, —15% to 25%)"
Look AHEAD intervention trial aborted due to futility in 5000 diabetics reducing fat to <30% and reducing calories, adding exercise, etc etc. http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1212914
" The primary outcome occurred in 403 patients in the intervention group and in 418 in the control group (1.83 and 1.92 events per 100 person-years, respectively; hazard ratio in the intervention group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval, 0.83 to 1.09; P=0.51)."2 -
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/133/2/187/T3.expansion.html summarises areas of agreement and controversy on aspects of nutrition.
"Substantial Controversy and Uncertainty" surrounds the harms of Saturated fats, dietary cholesterol
Unprocessed red meats, eggs, Butter
and the benefits of Total or animal-derived monounsaturated fats
to name but two. Little chance of agreement here then ;-)
He also summarises the failed WHI low fat effort nicely, comparing the low fat nutrient focus with a food based approach in the PREDIMED trial:
3 -
And then you have this which shows more sat fats = higher fasting glucose and 2 hours after getting an oral glucose test.
http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.01501480 -
All I have to say is Paleo.
3
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 176K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.6K Fitness and Exercise
- 431 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.6K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions