Saturated fat, eat or don't eat?

toadg53

I totally agree with Keliandra. My doctor put me on an Atkins type diet last August. High protein, low carb, don't bother counting fat, lots of veggies, and 1 fruit a day, diet. no sugar, no sugar subs except truvia/stevia. full fat cheese, full fat greek yogurt, he wanted me to drink whole milk, but I don't like it so I do skim. I can have bacon, lunch meat IF I want. My cholesterol went from 212 to 168; my HDL went from so-so to optimal; LDL from high to optimal and triglycerides the same. I've done really well on my journey. I'm pleased with this diet and find it easy to stick to. For the first time, I feel I've found a diet that I truly think I can make it to my goal. It actually seems kind of like a mediterranean/atkins diet. but trans-fats are a real no-no. things like margarine, and vegetable oils are very bad for your arteries.

Lesa_Sass

in regards to diabetes, probably. Diabetes is a very confusing disease. My brother went into a diabetic coma after consuming one too many mountain dews, was rushed to the hospital, then told his blood sugar was 1000. My dad died of diabetes, and his blood sugar level was 550. I'm just trying to prevent getting this awful disease.

You should also be worried about becoming a Serial Killer. Sugar is of the devil and causes people to go on mass murder sprees. I saw it on True Detective, so there is fact based evidence.

I guess SOMEBODY didn't get any Valentine's presents. How sad!

I got a gorgeous valentines day present, thank you very much.

I am not believing in the sincerity of this thread. The whole 700 club and sugar is the devil was bad enough, but the whole Mt Dew sent my brother into a coma thing was beyond the scope of what I can rationally believe to be true.

Please do not send me any more private messages.

I am done with this thread.

cwolfman13

The American Heart Association website continues to indicate that:

"Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood."

and

"The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of saturated fats you eat to less than 7 percent of total daily calories. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 140 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 16 grams of saturated fats a day."

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

Meh....

I had soaring levels of cholesterol and triglycerides were off the charts when I started all of this. My doctor wanted me to go very low fat diet...I did a bit of my own research and determined that was a bad idea. I upped my total fat consumption overall (I used to eat a bunch of low fat/no fat bull****) to about 30-35% of my diet and get around 20-25 grams of saturated fats daily...my LDL cholesterol has gone from 160 to 115 and my HDL has gone from 22 to 55. My triglycerides went from 463 to 125. So...I call BS on the AHA at this point.

I would also point out that I eat a very balanced diet that is also rich in fruits and vegetables and I get around 40 grams of fiber daily and I rock the frack out of my fitness. They're just making those recommendations based on old and flawed studies that try to isolate causality...in the real world, it just doesn't work that way and is a far more complex issue than just saturated fats or whatever.

IMHO and in my personal experience, issues with cholesterol are largely 1) hereditary and 2) a bi-product of an overall ****ty dietary lifestyle that is largely lacking in proper nutrition and sedentary lifestyles. I really don't think there is one singular cause like saturated fat.

rocknlotsofrolls

in regards to diabetes, probably. Diabetes is a very confusing disease. My brother went into a diabetic coma after consuming one too many mountain dews, was rushed to the hospital, then told his blood sugar was 1000. My dad died of diabetes, and his blood sugar level was 550. I'm just trying to prevent getting this awful disease.

You should also be worried about becoming a Serial Killer. Sugar is of the devil and causes people to go on mass murder sprees. I saw it on True Detective, so there is fact based evidence.

leave it alone already. People are here asking for help or they wouldn't be here. Sounds like you are the Troll! Look at my replies compared to yours.



I guess SOMEBODY didn't get any Valentine's presents. How sad!

I got a gorgeous valentines day present, thank you very much.

I am not believing in the sincerity of this thread. The whole 700 club and sugar is the devil was bad enough, but the whole Mt Dew sent my brother into a coma thing was beyond the scope of what I can rationally believe to be true.

Please do not send me any more private messages.

I am done with this thread.

neanderthin

The American Heart Association website continues to indicate that:

"Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood."

and

"The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of saturated fats you eat to less than 7 percent of total daily calories. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 140 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 16 grams of saturated fats a day."

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

AHA's (American Heart Association) own data base showed that 75% of recorded hospital heart attach patients admitted from 540 different hospitals over a 5 year period who had their cholesterol levels recorded upon admission, showed that 75% had LDL under 130, which is considered the safe level, and of those people, 50% had levels just under 100, and around 18% of those had LDL under 70. If high cholesterol levels especially LDL increases risk of heart attach why were the patients with higher levels (25% of admitted patients) that were over these numbers more protected from heart disease? What are your thoughts on that particular statistic?

Dragonwolf

The American Heart Association website continues to indicate that:

"Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood."

and

"The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of saturated fats you eat to less than 7 percent of total daily calories. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 140 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 16 grams of saturated fats a day."

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

Except for the fact that the "evidence" they use says no such thing...

https://player.vimeo.com/video/45485034

paperpudding

The American Heart Association website continues to indicate that:

"Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood."

and

"The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of saturated fats you eat to less than 7 percent of total daily calories. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 140 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 16 grams of saturated fats a day."

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

AHA's (American Heart Association) own data base showed that 75% of recorded hospital heart attach patients admitted from 540 different hospitals over a 5 year period who had their cholesterol levels recorded upon admission, showed that 75% had LDL under 130, which is considered the safe level, and of those people, 50% had levels just under 100, and around 18% of those had LDL under 70. If high cholesterol levels especially LDL increases risk of heart attach why were the patients with higher levels (25% of admitted patients) that were over these numbers more protected from heart disease? What are your thoughts on that particular statistic?

I know I am not poster you asked this question to - but my thoughts are that heart disease is multi factored and above statistics reflect this.
There are risks like family history and age which we cant change - but cholesterol, weight, diabetes are also well known risks and are things we can control, to at least some extent.

Whilst the relative importance of cholesterol and saturated fats is debated, I don't think many mainstream medical sources think it is not important at all.

I think limiting one's intake of both saturated fats and sugar is wise - but I don't mean obsessively doing so or going to extremes or trying to cutting them out altogether.

Just being sensible and limiting them to moderate levels.

toddis

This thread confuses me. People that say they've changed their fat intake and pointing directly at that as to why their numbers are better, but disregard losing weight, changing what they eat (which includes eating different foods) likely exercising, etc. etc.

neanderthin

The American Heart Association website continues to indicate that:

"Eating foods that contain saturated fats raises the level of cholesterol in your blood."

and

"The American Heart Association recommends limiting the amount of saturated fats you eat to less than 7 percent of total daily calories. That means, for example, if you need about 2,000 calories a day, no more than 140 of them should come from saturated fats. That’s about 16 grams of saturated fats a day."

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/GettingHealthy/FatsAndOils/Fats101/Saturated-Fats_UCM_301110_Article.jsp

AHA's (American Heart Association) own data base showed that 75% of recorded hospital heart attach patients admitted from 540 different hospitals over a 5 year period who had their cholesterol levels recorded upon admission, showed that 75% had LDL under 130, which is considered the safe level, and of those people, 50% had levels just under 100, and around 18% of those had LDL under 70. If high cholesterol levels especially LDL increases risk of heart attach why were the patients with higher levels (25% of admitted patients) that were over these numbers more protected from heart disease? What are your thoughts on that particular statistic?

I know I am not poster you asked this question to - but my thoughts are that heart disease is multi factored and above statistics reflect this.
There are risks like family history and age which we cant change - but cholesterol, weight, diabetes are also well known risks and are things we can control, to at least some extent.

Whilst the relative importance of cholesterol and saturated fats is debated, I don't think many mainstream medical sources think it is not important at all.

I think limiting one's intake of both saturated fats and sugar is wise - but I don't mean obsessively doing so or going to extremes or trying to cutting them out altogether.

Just being sensible and limiting them to moderate levels.

It's important, it's very important to understand the mechanisms involved and if they make sense to the point that we can justify the agricultural shift that took place to accommodate such recommendations back in the 80's........and so far I don't see the evidence. The simple fact that through trial and error that people that have some education regarding nutrition have increased protein and reduced carbs from those recommendations 40 years ago. A decade ago if someone talked about a diet increasing protein in a setting like this you would have been inundated with the popular opinion that it was either not needed or dangerous.....of course now we see the pendulum swinging from that stance to carbs are evil.....never any balance it seems.

I agree 100% with your argument that heart disease, diabetes, obesity are multifaceted and why this whole thread and whether it's correct or not will never make any difference with the health of the nation until we understand that we can't blame it on saturated fat or sugar or fructose or wheat or carbs or whatever the new trend might be. It's how someone's lifestyle including diet, social network, daily stress, exercise, genetics and more influence our health. The outright difference in diet from around the world should have proved that beyond a shadow of as doubt, that's it's not any particular ingredient but a combination of lifestyle factors that are less that ideal that attribute to overall health.

neanderthin

This thread confuses me. People that say they've changed their fat intake and pointing directly at that as to why their numbers are better, but disregard losing weight, changing what they eat (which includes eating different foods) likely exercising, etc. etc.

Who said that?

sheermomentum

OK, just to be clear, you concern is with the possible effect of saturated fat intake on the liklihood of developing DIABETES, right? As opposed to high cholesterol and heart disease, which is what alot of people associate with saturated fat.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote the ADA official position that recommends moderate fat intake, and fairly low saturated fat intake. However, there seems to be xome evidence that it may not be the fat intake itself that increases the risk, but the high weight that often comes along with a high-fat diet: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620.full

Here's the most relevent quote from the above study: " [the study] finds that consumption of a high-fat diet and high intakes of saturated fat are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. However, this association disappears when they adjust for BMI."

Now, before people start jumping down my throat for implying that you MUST gain weight on a high-fat diet, I'm gonna point out that I am not implying that, and I don't think it could be concluded from this study either. However, if you eat a high-fat diet that is also high-carb and low fiber, you're likely to be over-eating.

Here's another study that concludes that both saturated fats and trans fats have a negative effect on insulin sensitivity, and mono-and-un-saturated fats do not: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654180/

So, basically, like with alot of these questions, the jury is out. I know that's not incredibly helpful. But if it worries you, and if you don't feel like there's any good reason to eat ALOT of saturated fat, then most authorities will tell you to go ahead and have a little, but don't make a lifestyle of it.

neanderthin

OK, just to be clear, you concern is with the possible effect of saturated fat intake on the liklihood of developing DIABETES, right? As opposed to high cholesterol and heart disease, which is what alot of people associate with saturated fat.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote the ADA official position that recommends moderate fat intake, and fairly low saturated fat intake. However, there seems to be xome evidence that it may not be the fat intake itself that increases the risk, but the high weight that often comes along with a high-fat diet: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620.full

Here's the most relevent quote from the above study: " [the study] finds that consumption of a high-fat diet and high intakes of saturated fat are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. However, this association disappears when they adjust for BMI."

Now, before people start jumping down my throat for implying that you MUST gain weight on a high-fat diet, I'm gonna point out that I am not implying that, and I don't think it could be concluded from this study either. However, if you eat a high-fat diet that is also high-carb and low fiber, you're likely to be over-eating.

Here's another study that concludes that both saturated fats and trans fats have a negative effect on insulin sensitivity, and mono-and-un-saturated fats do not: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654180/

So, basically, like with alot of these questions, the jury is out. I know that's not incredibly helpful. But if it worries you, and if you don't feel like there's any good reason to eat ALOT of saturated fat, then most authorities will tell you to go ahead and have a little, but don't make a lifestyle of it.

Good post. I find with these types of observational studies about reduction of SFA and health improvement to be quite limiting. these studies are all FFQ's and recall, but besides that I don't think that the reduction of saturated fat is coming from foods like salmon, eggs, avocado's et al. Most of the saturated fat is found in highly refined carbs and highly processed meats in the demographic that are generally used as a control. So it's hard to say really why health markers improve when something is removed unless we know what they replaced those calories with and asking someone to recall the last five years on a daily basis is really not reliable dat, but I know you know this, just though I would put it down here for people reading, again nice post.

Dragonwolf

I know I am not poster you asked this question to - but my thoughts are that heart disease is multi factored and above statistics reflect this.
There are risks like family history and age which we cant change - but cholesterol, weight, diabetes are also well known risks and are things we can control, to at least some extent.

Whilst the relative importance of cholesterol and saturated fats is debated, I don't think many mainstream medical sources think it is not important at all.

I think limiting one's intake of both saturated fats and sugar is wise - but I don't mean obsessively doing so or going to extremes or trying to cutting them out altogether.

Just being sensible and limiting them to moderate levels.

This thread confuses me. People that say they've changed their fat intake and pointing directly at that as to why their numbers are better, but disregard losing weight, changing what they eat (which includes eating different foods) likely exercising, etc. etc.

Check out the video I posted a little bit ago. It's long, but well worth it, in my opinion. The so-called "statistics" that the AHA point to say pretty much the opposite that the AHA claims.

The Framingham Heart Study did find that higher HDL was indicative of more protection from CVD, and that high blood pressure was linked to increased risk of stroke. What it also found, though, was that there was no link between amount or type of fat consumed and serum cholesterol (even between those with cholesterol levels over 300 and those under 170). They concluded that diet was not the reason for the cholesterol ranges presented by the Framingham group.

Ancel Keys' 7 Countries Study is the primary study that has been used by the AHA and the US government to say what it has said regarding fat. The major, major problem was that both the 7 Countries Study, and its predecessor, the 5 Countries Study, suffered heavily from selection bias. Keys deliberately ignored several countries who consumed a large amount of saturated fat and yet did not have high levels of CVD. This gave rise to the so-called "French Paradox" and "Inuit Paradox" (which really aren't paradoxes when you realize that fat intake actually doesn't make a difference).

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/28/1/20.abstract - the pertinent point:

The development of clinical coronary heart disease has shown an association with early age of death of father, history of "noncardiac" chest discomfort, history of chronic cough, history of shortness of breath, history of peptic ulcer, presence of increased skinfold thickness, elevated blood pressure, AV nicking in the fundi, elevated blood cholesterol, ST and T abnormalities in the electrocardiogram, and use of cigarettes and coffee.

No relation was encountered between body weight, mean blood sugar levels, lipoprotein lipase levels, or diet (other than coffee), and the development of coronary heart disease.

The problem with the AHA and the US government is that at this point, they don't really want to admit that they were wrong (never mind the fact that the McGovern Report pretty clearly states basically "yeah, we don't always have time to find out whether we're actually right before we pass a legislation." :noway: ). They consider what they've done a "no-harm" decision. Dr. Attia likens it to seat belts - a true test of whether seat belts work is to do a double-blind study where some seat belts function as intended and some are just dummies. That, of course, is never going to happen. However, the evidence has shown that seat belts do less harm than good. So, back to diet - they haven't yet concluded whether a diet low in saturated fat is harmful (well...you don't drop dead in a month from it...), so they refuse to change their stance, even though what they're actually saying (saturated fat = CVD) is blatantly false. At this point, though, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, if for no other reason than PR.

tennisdude2004

I don't disagree with your post - I subscribe.

I just can't help but picture you there at your keyboard with fast, angry fingers.

Type on dude????

neanderthin

I know I am not poster you asked this question to - but my thoughts are that heart disease is multi factored and above statistics reflect this.
There are risks like family history and age which we cant change - but cholesterol, weight, diabetes are also well known risks and are things we can control, to at least some extent.

Whilst the relative importance of cholesterol and saturated fats is debated, I don't think many mainstream medical sources think it is not important at all.

I think limiting one's intake of both saturated fats and sugar is wise - but I don't mean obsessively doing so or going to extremes or trying to cutting them out altogether.

Just being sensible and limiting them to moderate levels.

This thread confuses me. People that say they've changed their fat intake and pointing directly at that as to why their numbers are better, but disregard losing weight, changing what they eat (which includes eating different foods) likely exercising, etc. etc.

Check out the video I posted a little bit ago. It's long, but well worth it, in my opinion. The so-called "statistics" that the AHA point to say pretty much the opposite that the AHA claims.

The Framingham Heart Study did find that higher HDL was indicative of more protection from CVD, and that high blood pressure was linked to increased risk of stroke. What it also found, though, was that there was no link between amount or type of fat consumed and serum cholesterol (even between those with cholesterol levels over 300 and those under 170). They concluded that diet was not the reason for the cholesterol ranges presented by the Framingham group.

Ancel Keys' 7 Countries Study is the primary study that has been used by the AHA and the US government to say what it has said regarding fat. The major, major problem was that both the 7 Countries Study, and its predecessor, the 5 Countries Study, suffered heavily from selection bias. Keys deliberately ignored several countries who consumed a large amount of saturated fat and yet did not have high levels of CVD. This gave rise to the so-called "French Paradox" and "Inuit Paradox" (which really aren't paradoxes when you realize that fat intake actually doesn't make a difference).

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/28/1/20.abstract - the pertinent point:

The development of clinical coronary heart disease has shown an association with early age of death of father, history of "noncardiac" chest discomfort, history of chronic cough, history of shortness of breath, history of peptic ulcer, presence of increased skinfold thickness, elevated blood pressure, AV nicking in the fundi, elevated blood cholesterol, ST and T abnormalities in the electrocardiogram, and use of cigarettes and coffee.

No relation was encountered between body weight, mean blood sugar levels, lipoprotein lipase levels, or diet (other than coffee), and the development of coronary heart disease.

The problem with the AHA and the US government is that at this point, they don't really want to admit that they were wrong (never mind the fact that the McGovern Report pretty clearly states basically "yeah, we don't always have time to find out whether we're actually right before we pass a legislation." :noway: ). They consider what they've done a "no-harm" decision. Dr. Attia likens it to seat belts - a true test of whether seat belts work is to do a double-blind study where some seat belts function as intended and some are just dummies. That, of course, is never going to happen. However, the evidence has shown that seat belts do less harm than good. So, back to diet - they haven't yet concluded whether a diet low in saturated fat is harmful (well...you don't drop dead in a month from it...), so they refuse to change their stance, even though what they're actually saying (saturated fat = CVD) is blatantly false. At this point, though, they have a vested interest in maintaining the status quo, if for no other reason than PR.

Good to see some passion. Politics on the other hand, I try to steer clear of that aspect for the most part.

Dragonwolf

OK, just to be clear, you concern is with the possible effect of saturated fat intake on the liklihood of developing DIABETES, right? As opposed to high cholesterol and heart disease, which is what alot of people associate with saturated fat.

I'm gonna go ahead and quote the ADA official position that recommends moderate fat intake, and fairly low saturated fat intake. However, there seems to be xome evidence that it may not be the fat intake itself that increases the risk, but the high weight that often comes along with a high-fat diet: http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/25/3/620.full

Here's the most relevent quote from the above study: " [the study] finds that consumption of a high-fat diet and high intakes of saturated fat are associated with an increased risk of type 2 diabetes. However, this association disappears when they adjust for BMI."

Now, before people start jumping down my throat for implying that you MUST gain weight on a high-fat diet, I'm gonna point out that I am not implying that, and I don't think it could be concluded from this study either. However, if you eat a high-fat diet that is also high-carb and low fiber, you're likely to be over-eating.

Here's another study that concludes that both saturated fats and trans fats have a negative effect on insulin sensitivity, and mono-and-un-saturated fats do not: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2654180/

So, basically, like with alot of these questions, the jury is out. I know that's not incredibly helpful. But if it worries you, and if you don't feel like there's any good reason to eat ALOT of saturated fat, then most authorities will tell you to go ahead and have a little, but don't make a lifestyle of it.

Good post. I find with these types of observational studies about reduction of SFA and health improvement to be quite limiting. these studies are all FFQ's and recall, but besides that I don't think that the reduction of saturated fat is coming from foods like salmon, eggs, avocado's et al. Most of the saturated fat is found in highly refined carbs and highly processed meats in the demographic that are generally used as a control. So it's hard to say really why health markers improve when something is removed unless we know what they replaced those calories with and asking someone to recall the last five years on a daily basis is really not reliable dat, but I know you know this, just though I would put it down here for people reading, again nice post.

I you, neaderthin.

I don't think there's much debate that anything other than the SAD is better for your health. Even extremes like fruitarian diets will show health improvements for a time. So even though the people consuming the so-called "high fat" (read SAD) dets are consuming high levels of CVD, obesity, diabetes, it does not mean that all diets high in saturated fats are like this. In fact, the research actually points to exactly the opposite - that a low carb, high fat (yes, including saturated fats) diet can help improve insulin sensitivity in adults with insulin resistance. One of the key differences, I think, is that said LC/HF diets are not SAD, but whole foods based diets. I think eating real food matters more for health in general, and the specifics are secondary and dependent on the person.

rocknlotsofrolls

I totally agree with Keliandra. My doctor put me on an Atkins type diet last August. High protein, low carb, don't bother counting fat, lots of veggies, and 1 fruit a day, diet. no sugar, no sugar subs except truvia/stevia. full fat cheese, full fat greek yogurt, he wanted me to drink whole milk, but I don't like it so I do skim. I can have bacon, lunch meat IF I want. My cholesterol went from 212 to 168; my HDL went from so-so to optimal; LDL from high to optimal and triglycerides the same. I've done really well on my journey. I'm pleased with this diet and find it easy to stick to. For the first time, I feel I've found a diet that I truly think I can make it to my goal. It actually seems kind of like a mediterranean/atkins diet. but trans-fats are a real no-no. things like margarine, and vegetable oils are very bad for your arteries.

sounds like what I originally posted. Cut out sugar and trans fats while staying at your calorie range, and you will be on your way to preventing all types of health issues. I'm 41 now, so I don't just want to lose weight to look better, I want to be healthier.
Diabetes runs in my family also, so there's one strick against me.

rocknlotsofrolls

I don't disagree with your post - I subscribe.

I just can't help but picture you there at your keyboard with fast, angry fingers.

Type on dude????

LOL!

paperpudding

OK, just to be clear, you concern is with the possible effect of saturated fat intake on the liklihood of developing DIABETES, right? As opposed to high cholesterol and heart disease, which is what alot of people associate with saturated fat.

Not sure if this was directed at me?

But no, I am not saying that saturated fat intake will directly increase your likelihood of developing diabetes (although if it correlates with increased fat intake/ calorie intake in general and therefore obesity, then yes)

I am saying that diabetics are generally considered higher risk of CVD already so their other factors are often treated more aggressively than in non diabetics - the cholesterol level and blood pressure level will be targeted to a lower range than non diabetics.
Same for people with strong family history.

By the way I am not in USA so my thoughts are not tempered by USA govt 'not wanting to admit they are wrong'

FIT_Goat

This thread confuses me. People that say they've changed their fat intake and pointing directly at that as to why their numbers are better, but disregard losing weight, changing what they eat (which includes eating different foods) likely exercising, etc. etc.

I assume I am one of the people you're referring to with this comment. My data does not seem to support your hypothesis.

My current cholesterol, as I said, is 168. I weighed 81.4kg the day I had my blood drawn. My current level of exercise in the amount of walking that I do at work and a mile or two walk with the dogs. This amounts to about 12,000 steps a day at a slow to moderate pace. I do a few minutes (10-15) of light body-weight strength building exercises a couple times a week. Certainly, nothing that would make anyone think of me as a gym rat. Oh, and sometimes I run. Not for long and not often. Sometimes when I'm walking the dogs and they show that they want to run, we'll run down the street together. Nothing intense or extended. Just some fun.

My previous cholesterol was 205. My weight on that day was 84.2kg. My level of exercise at the time was much more extreme. I was biking 2-3 days a week on a 16 mile route with a 14-16mph rate. On alternating days I was in the middle of the c25k program, in training for a race I had signed up for. I was working on a more intense body-weight strength regimen at the time, mostly focused on upper-body in order to improve performance on obstacles for the race I was preparing for.

So, the change? My weight has decreased by 2.8kg (about 6 pounds) and my amount of exercise has decreased. The only thing I do agree on is that the types of food I am eating has changed.

At the time when my cholesterol was 205, I was eating a low-fat "healthy" diet in order to improve. It was a lot of rice, chicken, olive oil, salads, and everything that's supposed to be healthy. I was eating a lot of food, mostly because I was constantly hungry all the time from the amount of exercise that I was doing. I was also gaining weight, slowly, (0.21kg/week with a daily excess of about 230 calories) during that time--which could account for some increase in cholesterol, I suppose.

Right now, I am eating a diet of mostly meat (the fatty cuts, fish, or chicken with skin on), oils (mostly animal based, or coconut/olive oils), green vegetables, and nuts. I aim to keep my fat around 72% of my calories. It's basically the opposite of what you'd expect to have improved lipid levels. I am losing weight right now, 0.47kg/week with a daily deficit of 520 calories. It is possible the fact that my weight is decreasing is what could account for the decrease.

The major change, though, is the type of foods I am consuming. And, yes, it does include a massive increase in the amount of saturated fat I am consuming.

Keliandra

This thread confuses me. People that say they've changed their fat intake and pointing directly at that as to why their numbers are better, but disregard losing weight, changing what they eat (which includes eating different foods) likely exercising, etc. etc.

I'm assuming that I am one of the others to whom you refer. :happy: I literally did not change my diet for 4 months, except for one thing: Instead of putting 6 tbs of creme brulee coffee creamer in 20 oz of coffee, I instead use 3 tbs creme brulee, 2 tbs of heavy cream and 10 oz of coffee.

I lost some weight, yes, actually exercised LESS as I worked remote more often. I still ate fast food a couple times a week, had doughnuts, cupcakes, pancakes, bacon, steak, whatever I felt like eating.

As for the 11 pounds that I have lost in the last 6 weeks. I have changed my fat intake, upping it about 20% by adding eggs and cheese every day, but I have cut out deep fried anything. I did change what I ate. I eat coconut oil every day. The only baked good I have kept in my diet is that cocktail rye bread, the tiny ones. Every other type is gone. I haven't had a potato, rice of any type or pasta of any type in 6 weeks. No soda of any type, sugared or not. I drink sparkling flavored water or diet sparkling cranberry juice. I don't eat candy, except for a piece of chocolate a day.

I don't exercise at all. It's winter, deep snow, here. I don't go outside at all. I actually work from home 3-4 days a week right now, which means I don't get in that walk at work, 1/3 mile from my car to my desk. I don't lift anything heavier than my mini poodle . If I had cut the carbs and NOT upped my fats, I would be eating around 1200 calories a day, way too low for me. My calorie goal is 1800 a day. Last 2 days I ate 1900 a day .

The weight I have lost, en total, is not enough to change my numbers the amount they were changed. Maybe you are correct; maybe the increased fat isn't what is accomplishing this, but rather, the decreased carbs are doing it. I don't know. I just know what's working for me.

Today's numbers: 1902 calories, 64g carbs, 120g fat (47 saturated) and 100g protein.

toddis

I assumed/implied exercise as many people making lifestyle changes incorporate that.

I also assumed that increased fat would require decreased other things in order to maintain a deficit. This
change generally requires an adjustment in types of food eaten. This introduces lots of variables. As with
studies of Low Carb/High fat diets...is it the low carb that made the difference or maybe the normalization
of fat intake or the increase in protein intake, etc.

I can't recall the studies, but basically they show a decrease of as little as 10% of your body weight can
improve health markers.

I wasn't trying to call anyone out, just stating there are a lot of factors to consider.

FIT_Goat

I agree with you, oddly enough. There are way too many factors to consider. While I do have my weight and exercise logs, I was not reliably logging food back when my cholesterol was over 200. I do know, roughly, what I was eating because of my lifestyle goal back then. Even if I did have complete food logs, there are just too many other things to consider. There's way too many variables to definitively say that increasing my saturated fat intake is the one thing that improved my cholesterol.

The reason that I shared my experience was more to allay the concerns that come with eating saturated fat. Eating some, even more than "they" say you should, isn't automatically a ticket to cardiac arrest. If saturated fat were the sole cause of increased cholesterol and heart attacks, I would probably be dead right now.

neanderthin

I assumed/implied exercise as many people making lifestyle changes incorporate that.

I also assumed that increased fat would require decreased other things in order to maintain a deficit. This
change generally requires an adjustment in types of food eaten. This introduces lots of variables. As with
studies of Low Carb/High fat diets...is it the low carb that made the difference or maybe the normalization
of fat intake or the increase in protein intake, etc.

I can't recall the studies, but basically they show a decrease of as little as 10% of your body weight can
improve health markers.

I wasn't trying to call anyone out, just stating there are a lot of factors to consider.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15941879

This study, which is pretty represenative of most, shows that a higher protein diet compared with a high carb diet had a more positive effect on certain health markers......but weight loss improves most health markers and possibly a diet higher in protein could be a diet that may be suitable for some or most people. Higher protein generally means more fat intake which would include saturated fat, generally.

toddis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15941879

This study, which is pretty representative of most, shows that a higher protein diet compared with a high carb diet had a more positive effect on certain health markers......but weight loss improves most health markers and possibly a diet higher in protein could be a diet that may be suitable for some or most people. Higher protein generally means more fat intake which would include saturated fat, generally.

The full study, I think. (too early in the morning)

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/6/1298.full.pdf

Appears fat levels were kept relatively similar. In the summary the mention lean meat/low-fat dairy as improving markers. It also appears their definition of high protein is 30% of calories, seems about right. (edit:formatting)

neanderthin

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15941879

This study, which is pretty representative of most, shows that a higher protein diet compared with a high carb diet had a more positive effect on certain health markers......but weight loss improves most health markers and possibly a diet higher in protein could be a diet that may be suitable for some or most people. Higher protein generally means more fat intake which would include saturated fat, generally.

The full study, I think. (too early in the morning)

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/81/6/1298.full.pdf

Appears fat levels were kept relatively similar. In the summary the mention lean meat/low-fat dairy as improving markers. It also appears their definition of high protein is 30% of calories, seems about right. (edit:formatting)

No, not the same study. One's from CSIRO Health Sciences Australia, your link, A&M University Texas. Similar abstract though. Higher protein vs high Carb is studied a lot, and outcomes are fairly predictable. Yes 30% protein is considered a high protein diet for study purposes and is probably a good number to use.

toddis

I think the formula for sat fat is 7% of caloric intake....so if you eat 1000 calories a day 70 of those should be saturated fats.......

1000 x .07 = 70 grams I think

it was either 7 or 4 percent I read....just avaoid sat and trans fats if possible!

You missed the caloric conversion, fat has 9 cals per gram = ~8g

Negative_X

Depends on you, some people do better on higher fats and even saturated fats (I'm one of them) and some don't.

As for health related issues, it's bunk. New research shows saturated fats do not contribute to heart disease and can actually prevent them.

Ultimately, there's no such thing as one size fits all on any diet. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise has no clue what they are talking about. (personal trainers are notoriously bad at this)

Find what works best for you and run with it.

rocknlotsofrolls

Depends on you, some people do better on higher fats and even saturated fats (I'm one of them) and some don't.

As for health related issues, it's bunk. New research shows saturated fats do not contribute to heart disease and can actually prevent them.

Ultimately, there's no such thing as one size fits all on any diet. Anyone who tries to tell you otherwise has no clue what they are talking about. (personal trainers are notoriously bad at this)

Find what works best for you and run with it.

Thank-you. I believe next time someone gives me advice on weight loss, I'm gong to ask them where did they read/hear that. Maybe the old sayin holds true. "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and 10, oh, nevermind, I can't remember the old saying!LOL

toddis

Thank-you. I believe next time someone gives me advice on weight loss, I'm gong to ask them where did they read/hear that. Maybe the old sayin holds true. "Don't believe 90% of what you read, and 10, oh, nevermind, I can't remember the old saying!LOL

Not sure there is a saying for it...(besides confirmation bias). Just remember to be skeptical of things that matter(not enough time in the world to be skeptical of everything). If you believe something to be true you should be just as wary as something you don't.