80/10/10--I'm doing it!

Plant resources could not sustain the world's population if everyone were vegan. I've seen very convincing evidence of this. That's completely hypothetical, though, we don't live in that world and I don't think we ever will, and that's a good thing.

Factory farming and agri-buisness is a much larger and more urgent issue, and also our blatant disrespect for life and use of animals as commodities as a cultural thread. We need to fix those things before we could ever dream of creating a world where we can create living ecosystems (including meat consumption) that will sustain our population without causing further ecological damage.

And I don't think the way we do small farming now is going to cut it. I ate local small-farm "sustainably" raised meat for a long time, and it did nothing. It didn't do anything to help the animals, they're still bred and die the same way, and it certainly didn't do anything for combating our societal use of sentient creatures as mere commodities, and it's much too expensive to have any far reaching ecological impact.

Veganism is the best answer I have right now, and honestly it's not a very good one. Veganism sucks. The movement is full of entitled whiny middle-class kids who think their way is the only way. Nobody wants to talk about the real issues. Even non-vegans who are knowledgeable about the issues wont talk about them with me, they figure I'm vegan and so I'm going to be just like every other holier-than-thou cholesterol-will-kill-you idiot.

I think the poster is also forgetting that cholesterol is actually necessary.

Yes, I could have piled on further, but arguing nutrition and biochemistry with vegans is akin to debating consequentialism of the many-worlds hypothesis with a cinder block.

And I have a 20oz ribeye and huge plate of vegetables to attack.

See?

Cholesterol causes heart disease? Google Framington Heart Study. By not consuming cholesterol we force the body to generate even more cholesterol because it assumes there's a problem. So we should in fact eat cholesterol and ditch the sugar, processed carbs, and most grains. Not necessarily for fatloss but to keep insulin in check.

Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study?

They've never made those conclusions.

Cholesterol causes heart disease? Google Framington Heart Study. By not consuming cholesterol we force the body to generate even more cholesterol because it assumes there's a problem. So we should in fact eat cholesterol and ditch the sugar, processed carbs, and most grains. Not necessarily for fatloss but to keep insulin in check.

Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study?

They've never made those conclusions.

In fact, they came to the conclusion that dietary cholesterol DID NOT contribute to high serum cholesterol:

"In the early 1950's the Framingham study included dietary analyses. Almost one thousand individuals were questioned in detail about their eating habits. No connection was found between the composition of the food and the cholesterol level of the blood. Wrote Drs. William Kannel and Tavia Gordon, authors of the report: 'These findings suggest a cautionary note with respect to hypotheses relating diet to serum cholesterol levels. There is a considerable range of serum cholesterol levels within the Framingham Study Group. Something explains this inter-individual variation, but it is not diet.' For unknown reasons, their results were never published. The manuscript is still lying in a basement in Washington."

----From "The Cholesterol Myths"

Cholesterol causes heart disease? Google Framington Heart Study. By not consuming cholesterol we force the body to generate even more cholesterol because it assumes there's a problem. So we should in fact eat cholesterol and ditch the sugar, processed carbs, and most grains. Not necessarily for fatloss but to keep insulin in check.

Yes--in fact, the liver of a healthy individual manufactures approximately four times the amount of cholesterol consumed in the average diet.

The World Health Organization's standard for adults is as follows:

10-15% of energy intake from protein
15-30% of energy intake from fats (and no more than 10% of energy intake from saturated fats)
Carbohydrate to provide the remaining energy intake by difference, thus, 55-75% of energy intake

Remember, this is the standard, NOT the bare minimum. So a person could very well live healthily at slightly lower levels.

How silly does this sound to you now?

Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but first, we all know the W.H.O. recommendations are low compared to every country in the world, and second their recommendations are MINIMUMS, not 'the standard'.

The WHO guidelines differ from most developed countries because their interest is in feeding not just those in lands with abundance of food, but the poor and needy in lands where food is scarce.

Make no mistake, their guidelines ARE minimums for proper health. For example, with protein they state the minimum "safe level" (their term) as "... 0.83 g/kg per day protein would be expected to meet the requirements of most (97.5%) of the healthy adult population." That's the SAFE level, which is, according to their meta-analyses, the MINIMUM requirement.

And 97.5% of the worlds population are NOT actively strength training, therefore those bare-minimums will NOT meet their needs.

To use the WHO's guidelines for keeping a starving population at minimum nutrient levels as a ideology for a diet is downright dangerous to those who have what most of us have available.

Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study?

They've never made those conclusions.

Here's the conclusions from Framingham on cholesterol and CVD (cardio-vascular disease):

For all participants, overall. Regarding the cholesterol levels of those who developed CVD and those who didn’t, the actual data was inconclusive. Some of the participants with low cholesterol developed heart disease, and some with high cholesterol did not.

Quote from http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/high-cholesterol.html

More importantly, the Framingham researchers found NO correlation for high cholesterol and heart disease in those participants who were over 50. Since 95% of all CHD deaths occur in people over the age of 55, this was certainly significant.

But here’s the most important result: In 1987, the Framingham researchers published a 30 year follow up report on the “all cause mortality rates” of the Framingham residents.

They looked not only at coronary heart disease deaths, but deaths from stroke, cancer and other illnesses

The researchers reported a surprising outcome.

* For those participants who were over age 50, lower cholesterol rates were associated with a higher risk of death from CHD and all causes. In fact, for every 1 mg/dl drop in cholesterol levels, there was a 14% increase in heart related death, and an 11% increase in overall mortality.

* In other words, declining levels of cholesterol increased the risk of death from all causes, not just CHD.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RwBk2_RFuMo

Be sure to leave your comments on the video page so those people will know exactly (based on your theory) that their diet is silly, wrong, unhealthy and they are destined for a life of degeneration.

The 80/10/10 "guru" ... "Dr" Doug Graham ... Hm, an unlicensed (disciplined by the state dept. of health, license gone over 13yrs ago) chiropractor (NOT an MD, not a specialist in nutrition) who is no longer allowed to practice in the USA, so he holds retreats in Mexico where people DIE (yes, multiple people have DIED at his 'retreats') while on his program.

Yep, there's a guy to take dietary advice from.

He'll have no response to this. I applaud your effort though!

Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study?

They've never made those conclusions.

Here's the conclusions from Framingham on cholesterol and CVD (cardio-vascular disease):

For all participants, overall. Regarding the cholesterol levels of those who developed CVD and those who didn’t, the actual data was inconclusive. Some of the participants with low cholesterol developed heart disease, and some with high cholesterol did not.

Quote from http://www.healthy-eating-politics.com/high-cholesterol.html

More importantly, the Framingham researchers found NO correlation for high cholesterol and heart disease in those participants who were over 50. Since 95% of all CHD deaths occur in people over the age of 55, this was certainly significant.

But here’s the most important result: In 1987, the Framingham researchers published a 30 year follow up report on the “all cause mortality rates” of the Framingham residents.

They looked not only at coronary heart disease deaths, but deaths from stroke, cancer and other illnesses

The researchers reported a surprising outcome.

* For those participants who were over age 50, lower cholesterol rates were associated with a higher risk of death from CHD and all causes. In fact, for every 1 mg/dl drop in cholesterol levels, there was a 14% increase in heart related death, and an 11% increase in overall mortality.

* In other words, declining levels of cholesterol increased the risk of death from all causes, not just CHD.

That quote is from an "alternative" food and health source, another non-scientific institution that essentially promotes the paleo diet.

You'll notice that Farmingham Heart Study does not come to the same conclusions based on the results, because they're real scientists that understand that one study that produces contradictory results is cause for more research, but is not conclusive evidence.

In other words, Healthy Eating Politics (alternative health source), NOT the Framingham Heart Study (actual scientific source), says declining levels of cholesterol increased the risk of death.

That quote is from an "alternative" food and health source, another non-scientific institution that essentially promotes the paleo diet.

Regardless of the source of the quote, the content of the data is clear. You can deny it all you want and claim "bias" and "paleo conspiracy" but you're still wrong. This data stands on it's own, and it's from THE FRAMINGHAM RESEARCHERS THEMSELVES.

You'll notice that Farmingham Heart Study does not come to the same conclusions based on the results, because they're real scientists that understand that one study that produces contradictory results is cause for more research, but is not conclusive evidence.

You're wrong again.

As mentioned, what the original Framingham study reported on cholesterol and heart disease was that it was "inconclusive". Meaning no link exists. Are you blind to that?

However, the same researchers did a follow-up study published in 1987 and clearly stated that there was a 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels.

Again I must ask if you're blind. Perhaps at this point 'brainwashed' is a better term.

Also of note, study director William Castelli, M.D., wrote in the Archives of Internal Medicine:

“In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol…we found that people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat and ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.”

In other words, Healthy Eating Politics (alternative health source), NOT the Framingham Heart Study (actual scientific source), says declining levels of cholesterol increased the risk of death.

No, the Framingham Heart Study says that. Both the original, and the follow-up in 1987. You can easily read on PubMed, it's titled "Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study." and was written by Framingham researchers, including the director, Dr. William Castelli. That Healthy Eating Politics reported it takes nothing away from it.

In regards to your beliefs on cholesterol, you're wrong. So wrong. Please learn to research before making your wild assumptions and accusations, throwing around your conspiracy theories.

Your continued support of cholesterol myths/bashing of all reports that people post in the face of evidence even from the Framingham researchers themselves, and your continued claim it's all "bias", "alternative", or other conspiracy theory is staggering.

If you were such a great researcher, you'd know the difference between results and conclusions. The FHS has published those results, but they have never made the same conclusions that the article you linked to did, and there's a reason for that.

The results of the original study were inconclusive. The results AND conclusions of the follow-up were that decreasing cholesterol had an increase in CVD mortality.

The directory of the study stated: "In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol"

What don't you get?

No legitimate medical research institution has published the conclusion that not eating cholesterol causes elevated blood cholesterol levels or increased rates of mortality.

Which is not what anybody here is saying. You're disagreeing with the people that say it's proven that cholesterol does not contribute to CVD. Now you're claiming we're saying something different than we are.

However, since you bring the point up, you realize we DO need cholesterol, right? Our liver can produce it, of course, in the absence of dietary intake, but we DO need it.

What many a "legitimate medical research institution" does say, however, is that increasing dietary fat and cholesterol reduces serum cholesterol.

Do you argue just for arguments sake, or are you confused about something?

And I'm the one with the wild accusations and conspiracy theories. Right.

Not to be rude, but if the tinfoil hat fits . . . If there was any basis in ANYTHING you were saying to disagree with me, you'd post links to reputable studies and sources to validate your claims.

You've NEVER, EVER done that, have you? So yes, you're making some wild accusations with no basis in reality, let-alone science. Not about everything, mind you, but you're arguing with people about cholesterol and the Framingham study when you have no evidence to back up your claim(s), your own arguments are shown as factually incorrect, and the weight of the evidence is against you.

I'm actually not arguing or disagreeing about anything.

I'm just pointing out what the actual authorities in the field say. Dietary cholesterol is not necessary.

Go ahead and put more words in my mouth, though. I bet it's very entertaining for everyone who's reading.

You're disagreeing with the people that say it's proven that cholesterol does not contribute to CVD.

No I'm not. Read my posts again, this time without inserting your own words into my posts.

Somebody stated cholesterol cause heart disease.

Somebody else refuted that, offering Framingham up as evidence (although he called it 'Framington')...

Your reply was:

"Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study? They've never made those conclusions. "

Which would lead EVERYBODY to believe that YOU believe Framingham supports the 'cholesterol causes heart disease' myth. And your comment was obviously arguing/disagreeing with him - which you now claim you weren't doing.

Perhaps if that's NOT your assertion, you should learn to communicate more clearly and not leave terse replies that claim something is incorrect with no sources to back you up.

Interestingly though, with regards to your claim that you're not arguing or disagreeing, when I challenged your implication that Framingham supports the cholesterol causes CVD myth, you immediately argued with me about source claiming bias, 'alternative' medicine, and paleo conspiracies ... all the while consistently saying Framingham didn't say what it DID say... Claiming my source was a biased site (when my source was the Framingham study itself) and then never admitting you were wrong.

Which just further shows you appear to be either confused, or argumentative simply for an argument's sake. Either way, I'd really like to be done talking to you in this thread.

If someone wants to do 80/10/10 what's the big deal if it works for them? Does it hurt your own health somehow? If someone wantsto eat nothing but bananas does it somehow threaten your fitness efforts? Ugh.

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac/
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/China-Study.html

If its for belief or religious reasons then veganism, vegetarianism is fine.
However it isnt as healthy as eating omnivorous lifestyle.
You would have to be very knowledgable in Amino Acid consumption as well as getting all micronutrients through supplementation.

Its a shame that this post was brought back from the dead.

OP who was adamant on trying this lifestyle probably hasnt lost any weight and is probably just as unhealthy as before.

No the cow that i'll be consuming tonight was a strict vegan.
He ate only grass that his 4 stomachs and complex digestive tract was able to pull all the nutrients needed to give me a tasty 1/4 burger.
Yum!

Sorry, but your statement is totally untrue re vegetarianism not being as healthy as a omnivorous lifestyle. Name me a single micronutient that you cannot get very easily with a vegetarian lifestyle?

Re EAAs, milk has a higher bioavailability than meat and fish.

As a non vegetarian I agree with Sara on this point, veganism not so much.

I'm actually not arguing or disagreeing about anything.

I'm just pointing out what the actual authorities in the field say. Dietary cholesterol is not necessary.

Go ahead and put more words in my mouth, though. I bet it's very entertaining for everyone who's reading.

You're disagreeing with the people that say it's proven that cholesterol does not contribute to CVD.

No I'm not. Read my posts again, this time without inserting your own words into my posts.

Somebody stated cholesterol cause heart disease.

Somebody else refuted that, offering Framingham up as evidence (although he called it 'Framington')...

Your reply was:

"Do you mean the Framingham Heart Study? They've never made those conclusions. "

Which would lead EVERYBODY to believe that YOU believe Framingham supports the 'cholesterol causes heart disease' myth. And your comment was obviously arguing/disagreeing with him - which you now claim you weren't doing.

Perhaps if that's NOT your assertion, you should learn to communicate more clearly and not leave terse replies that claim something is incorrect with no sources to back you up.

Interestingly though, with regards to your claim that you're not arguing or disagreeing, when I challenged your implication that Framingham supports the cholesterol causes CVD myth, you immediately argued with me about source claiming bias, 'alternative' medicine, and paleo conspiracies ... all the while consistently saying Framingham didn't say what it DID say... Claiming my source was a biased site (when my source was the Framingham study itself) and then never admitting you were wrong.

Which just further shows you appear to be either confused, or argumentative simply for an argument's sake. Either way, I'd really like to be done talking to you in this thread.

Well...I still say it's Framington dangit!!! lol

Sorry holothuroidea but I have to agree with albertabeefy. Your posts have been confusing. Your response to me was strange, I wasn't sure if you were agreeing with the cholesterol-CVD myth or not. Framingham has made it clear that elevated cholesterol is not responsible for CVD. Since it's the longest longitudinal study of its kind it is clear that using cholesterol as a predictor of heart disease is nonsense. The idiot who started it all, Dr. Ancel Keyes, lied and he should have been brought up on ethics charges and research denounced but instead he was made Time magazine's Man of the Year. Quite a number of physicians testified before Congress to denounce this ridiculous idea and to stop the nation from going down the "low fat" rabbit hole but to no avail. Decades later people are still dying from CVD, and even those who watch their cholesterol, and yet very few want to question that their hypothesis is wrong. There's too much invested and yet those who eat buckets of cholesterol sans glucose have higher cholesterol but less incidence of CVD.

As for the vegetarians...I love them. The tastiest meat are vegetarians. I love cow! Then again omnivores are also tasty; chicken and pig... yum! I'm hungry!

Here's my stance on cholesterol, for all who are confused:

A) Dietary cholesterol has not been proven to cause health problems.

Dietary cholesterol has not been proven to be a necessary nutrient.

C) While it is uncommon, some individuals are sensitive to dietary cholesterol and should restrict it. People with family histories of this condition should watch their cholesterol levels closely even when at a healthy weight.

D) While it is uncommon, some individuals have difficulty synthesizing cholesterol in the liver and they should consume an adequate amount of dietary cholesterol for health. People with a family history of this condition should be very cautious about pursuing a vegan diet and should watch their levels closely.

With the caveat that I've only heard about points C and D through anecdotal experience and they may very well be wrong.

There you go.

How is dietary cholesterol not a necessary nutrient if it's found in every cell membrane in the body? Are you aware that the body's synthesis of cholesterol is a very ineffective process because we have evolved or were created to eat cholesterol? Cholesterol and saturated fat are our friends not to be shunned or avoided.