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?
Options
Replies
-
stevencloser wrote: »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.0150148
Very interesting coming from someone who is quick to break apart studies... see no problems with this one?
1. very small
2. three months of intake based on dietary recall yet obese have the same intake as the lean controls?
3. also strange that the slight beneficial association is only found in the those with prediabetes (not healthy or diabetic people)-also in those people, less saturated fat seems beneficial but increased PUFA has no effect.
For someone who constantly points out that correlation doesn't equal causation... where exactly do you see causation here?4 -
Did I say causation? Don't think I did.
Also 73 people total is not exactly little.
And you know, it's not like they just let them fill out a questionaire and take it as is.
"Further validation was provided by analysing the C18:2 composition of red blood cells, as this PUFA is a commonly used and robust biomarker for PUFA intake [20]. In order to identify underreporting, Goldberg’s equations for calculating the upper and lower cut-offs for energy intake were used [21]."
"In total, 12/85 (14%) subjects underreported and their data were excluded from the analysis."1 -
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/89/5/1425.long
More PUFAs less SFAs reduce CVD risk
http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/07315724.2001.10719008
More PUFAs less SFAs reduce CVD risk
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199711203372102#t=abstract
More PUFAs less SFAs reduce CVD risk
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/early/2014/08/26/CIRCULATIONAHA.114.010236.abstract
You get the picture.
http://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/228996
You know what this says. This is also the one that went into the decision making process for the WHO recommendations, looking at both sides.
1 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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?
Throwing information automatically out because they are mainstream is kind of ridiculous. It's equivalent to throwing out information because of who funded it. Whether or not the data is actually outdated will be demonstrated with time, but just because there are one or two studies suggesting otherwise, doesn't make the mainstream wrong. Emerging science is only as good as the parameters it was testing and the methods used. Only when it can be consistently repeated does it actually provide some basis to modify the recommendations/guidelines. And there just aren't enough studies that prove sat fats are not poor for health.
The purpose of the plant based study was simple. More often or not, studies look at the effects of a high carb diet vs low carb to test a hypothesis. Frequently, or at least in the past 5 or 10 low carb studies I have seen, there was a lot of control over the type of fats (especially large quantities of PUFA and MUFA which well known to reduce affects of sat fats and improve cholesterol) but there wasn't a similar control over the types of carbs. Basically, it was eat as usual. My issue with this, is most "carb" foods are ultra process and actually have a good amount of fats as well; essentially, less nutritionally dense. To me, that is a bit dishonest as its a comparison of very healthy fats vs carbs. If researchers wanted to have a more fair comparison they would do very healthy fats vs very healthy carbs. Because when many of us think "good" carbs, its things like quinoa, oats, whole grain (I tend to eat very high fiber breads), whole grain rice, etc..
The main point I am trying to drive home is simple; when it comes to the battle of carbs vs fat.... the type of fat matters just as much as the type of carb. But even so, the type of food you eat has less impact on your health than other factors such as: body weight (more specifically body composition), activity level and genetics.
7 -
jessiethe3rd wrote: »All I have to say is Paleo.
Is the question.. which diet overly restricts very healthy and nutritional dense foods?12 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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?
Throwing information automatically out because they are mainstream is kind of ridiculous. It's equivalent to throwing out information because of who funded it. Whether or not the data is actually outdated will be demonstrated with time, but just because there are one or two studies suggesting otherwise, doesn't make the mainstream wrong. Emerging science is only as good as the parameters it was testing and the methods used. Only when it can be consistently repeated does it actually provide some basis to modify the recommendations/guidelines. And there just aren't enough studies that prove sat fats are not poor for health.
The purpose of the plant based study was simple. More often or not, studies look at the effects of a high carb diet vs low carb to test a hypothesis. Frequently, or at least in the past 5 or 10 low carb studies I have seen, there was a lot of control over the type of fats (especially large quantities of PUFA and MUFA which well known to reduce affects of sat fats and improve cholesterol) but there wasn't a similar control over the types of carbs. Basically, it was eat as usual. My issue with this, is most "carb" foods are ultra process and actually have a good amount of fats as well; essentially, less nutritionally dense. To me, that is a bit dishonest as its a comparison of very healthy fats vs carbs. If researchers wanted to have a more fair comparison they would do very healthy fats vs very healthy carbs. Because when many of us think "good" carbs, its things like quinoa, oats, whole grain (I tend to eat very high fiber breads), whole grain rice, etc..
The main point I am trying to drive home is simple; when it comes to the battle of carbs vs fat.... the type of fat matters just as much as the type of carb. But even so, the type of food you eat has less impact on your health than other factors such as: body weight (more specifically body composition), activity level and genetics.
1. I didn't throw it out because it was mainstream... I just didn't respond because there was no evidence or data to discuss. There was nothing new added to the conversation.
2. The JAMA study I linked did not control for types of fats.
3. I agree with you. Natural fats from whole plants and animals are healthy (SF, MUFA, PUFAs from fish or nuts), and refined fats are toxic (for example, PUFAs from processed seed oils, soybean oil with excess omegas 6s and hidden trans fats and of course hydrogenated oils).
2 -
stevencloser wrote: »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.0150148
Conclusion - don't ingest 75g of glucose. I'll bear that in mind, no more 1500ml sugary sodas for me.2 -
People, please do not play games with your life.
The American Heart Association is studying this.
Wait for the results. Numbers.
I hope they take a whole foods vegetarian, take away his fruits and veggies and add 40 grams of sat fat a day to replace the calories.
If that person is healthier, then, you switch over.
Sat fat works, because for some people it is replacing garbage foods.
Like cupcakes, twinkies, chips, french fries, sugary cereals, and oreos.
They lose weight and just end up healthier.2 -
Here's some more Mozzafarian, 6y old but might have been revisited. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/
@psulemon will be pleased to see analysis of the effect by type of saturated fat, let alone fat :
So a ribeye steak with similar quantities of 16:0 and 18:0 would keep the CVD risk marker Total/HDL about the same if replacing carbohydrates at 5% of energy. Even if that ratio went up by 0.05 you have to consider the clincial significance of that change in risk, which is not great on this chart :-
The paper concludes "replacing SFA with PUFA (e.g., vegetables, vegetable oils) lowers CHD risk, whereas replacing SFA with CHO has no benefits. Replacing SFA with MUFA has uncertain effects, based on mixed evidence within and across different research paradigms. Of note, the effects of replacing SFA with PUFA or CHO, but not MUFA, on clinical CHD endpoints could be relatively predicted from the effects of these nutrient substitutions on the TC:HDL-C ratio. Thus, policies that prioritize the reduction of SFA consumption without specifically considering the replacement nutrient may have little or no effects on disease risk, especially as the most common replacement in populations is often CHO."0 -
Here's some more Mozzafarian, 6y old but might have been revisited. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/
@psulemon will be pleased to see analysis of the effect by type of saturated fat, let alone fat :
So a ribeye steak with similar quantities of 16:0 and 18:0 would keep the CVD risk marker Total/HDL about the same if replacing carbohydrates at 5% of energy. Even if that ratio went up by 0.05 you have to consider the clincial significance of that change in risk, which is not great on this chart :-
The paper concludes "replacing SFA with PUFA (e.g., vegetables, vegetable oils) lowers CHD risk, whereas replacing SFA with CHO has no benefits. Replacing SFA with MUFA has uncertain effects, based on mixed evidence within and across different research paradigms. Of note, the effects of replacing SFA with PUFA or CHO, but not MUFA, on clinical CHD endpoints could be relatively predicted from the effects of these nutrient substitutions on the TC:HDL-C ratio. Thus, policies that prioritize the reduction of SFA consumption without specifically considering the replacement nutrient may have little or no effects on disease risk, especially as the most common replacement in populations is often CHO."
Hmmm, EVOO has about twice the SF as it does PUFA... and the rest is MUFA. Based on this concept of replacing SF with PUFA, it would not be a heart healthy choice! For those wanting to limit SF and replace it with PUFA, you'd do much better picking canola oil--it has about half the SF and 3 x the PUFA as EVOO.
So would you pick an oil simply cold pressed from whole olives?
Or an oil chemically extracted with high heat and toxic solvents (hexane) from a rapeseed (which is toxic and inedible to humans in its natural state) and then deodorized to cover the often rancid smell of oxidized PUFAs? (Oh, and in which independent studies have found hidden trans fats... but the bottle can report 0 if it's less than 1 g per serving)?
Fat is so much more than just its ratio of SF/MUFA/PUFA.
On a side note, if you were at all concerned about excess omega 6s, which are also very pro-inflammatory, the choice for EVOO over canola oil would be an easy one.0 -
JanetYellen wrote: »People, please do not play games with your life.
The American Heart Association is studying this.
Wait for the results. Numbers.
I hope they take a whole foods vegetarian, take away his fruits and veggies and add 40 grams of sat fat a day to replace the calories.
If that person is healthier, then, you switch over.
Sat fat works, because for some people it is replacing garbage foods.
Like cupcakes, twinkies, chips, french fries, sugary cereals, and oreos.
They lose weight and just end up healthier.
I have to say, I see gaping irony in the juxtaposition of "don't play games with your life" and "wait on the American Heart Association."
Your reason for why "sat fat works" is pure conjecture, unless you have reasonable data to share.
From my personal experience, I was able to slim down very quickly (and lose my last couple of pounds) when I cut back on whole milk and bananas--not your typical garbage, junk food (but I always have them around because I have children). I believe they were probably the highest carb foods in my diet... and I replaced them with more sardines, eggs, meat, cheese, butter, leafy greens, low carb vegetables, berries, homemade salad dressing with EVOO, etc. I put no limits whatsoever on saturated fat coming from natural foods. My weight is less than when I was in high school, stable for the last 3 years, and my lipid panel is perfect. My teeth barely get plaque between dental check ups, my vision is better than perfect at 20/15, I could go on and on. Eschewing outdated science and embracing fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol was a big starting point for me on my journey to wellness. I'm so incredibly thankful for the educated, open-minded people in my life who pointed me in the right direction (previously avoiding cholesterol and eating what I thought was healthy based on no personal research but only mainstream advice... and I should mention, starving all the time. I couldn't go 3 hrs without a snack. Probably prediabetic. Now I can fast 16-36 easily.)... but by all means, play it safe, and wait on the AHA.2 -
jessiethe3rd wrote: »All I have to say is Paleo.
Is the question.. which diet overly restricts very healthy and nutritional dense foods?
Look to organic, grassfed animal fats is the better way to go versus inflamation Omega-3 dense grainfed animal fats. The issue is one related to what the animal eats.
As far as food restrictions, the concept is simple. Give me an example of nutritional dense food paleo restricts?
Processed grains?
Legumes?
Both those items are hard on the digestive system.
For some the carbo load of both these items is extremely high.
I am curious maybe I am missing something else?
0 -
Whole grains, legumes and dairy to start. Up until recently, rice and potatoes as well...jessiethe3rd wrote: »jessiethe3rd wrote: »All I have to say is Paleo.
Is the question.. which diet overly restricts very healthy and nutritional dense foods?
Look to organic, grassfed animal fats is the better way to go versus inflamation Omega-3 dense grainfed animal fats. The issue is one related to what the animal eats.
As far as food restrictions, the concept is simple. Give me an example of nutritional dense food paleo restricts?
Processed grains?
Legumes?
Both those items are hard on the digestive system.
For some the carbo load of both these items is extremely high.
I am curious maybe I am missing something else?0 -
jessiethe3rd wrote: »jessiethe3rd wrote: »All I have to say is Paleo.
Is the question.. which diet overly restricts very healthy and nutritional dense foods?
Look to organic, grassfed animal fats is the better way to go versus inflamation Omega-3 dense grainfed animal fats. The issue is one related to what the animal eats.
As far as food restrictions, the concept is simple. Give me an example of nutritional dense food paleo restricts?
Processed grains?
Legumes?
Both those items are hard on the digestive system.
For some the carbo load of both these items is extremely high.
I am curious maybe I am missing something else?
Really? How so?4 -
aqsylvester wrote: »Fat is so much more than just its ratio of SF/MUFA/PUFA.
On a side note, if you were at all concerned about excess omega 6s, which are also very pro-inflammatory, the choice for EVOO over canola oil would be an easy one.
Careful there's a lot of n -3 in canola / rapeseed and in the UK we're getting foodie cold pressed versions of that too.
Sunflower oil is high PUFA, sorry ex-USSR.
The benefits of olive oil might be something other than the type of fats so I agree it's better to go for a food based approach rather than reaching for the chemistry set0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »In fact, insulin resistance is actually the greatest risk factor for heart disease--so I would focus my intervention on preventing that risk factor first ...NorthCascades wrote: »So people should exercise more, as exercise improves the body's sensitivity to insulin.
I guess nobody wants to talk about things that actually work, so, yeah, eat 10 pounds of bacon to prevent heart disease.
3 -
aqsylvester wrote: »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.
But they could start selling the logo to a whole bunch of other companies.0 -
aqsylvester wrote: »...., and my lipid panel is perfect.
You said previously that a simple lipid panel is meaningless. Out of curiosity, what are your numbers? Total, LDL, HDL and Triglycerides. As a bonus, toss in your fasting glucose and a1c as well.
0 -
jessiethe3rd wrote: »jessiethe3rd wrote: »All I have to say is Paleo.
Is the question.. which diet overly restricts very healthy and nutritional dense foods?
Look to organic, grassfed animal fats is the better way to go versus inflamation Omega-3 dense grainfed animal fats. The issue is one related to what the animal eats.
As far as food restrictions, the concept is simple. Give me an example of nutritional dense food paleo restricts?
Processed grains?
Legumes?
Both those items are hard on the digestive system.
For some the carbo load of both these items is extremely high.
I am curious maybe I am missing something else?
Really? How so?
galaco-ligosaccharides0 -
jessiethe3rd wrote: »jessiethe3rd wrote: »jessiethe3rd wrote: »All I have to say is Paleo.
Is the question.. which diet overly restricts very healthy and nutritional dense foods?
Look to organic, grassfed animal fats is the better way to go versus inflamation Omega-3 dense grainfed animal fats. The issue is one related to what the animal eats.
As far as food restrictions, the concept is simple. Give me an example of nutritional dense food paleo restricts?
Processed grains?
Legumes?
Both those items are hard on the digestive system.
For some the carbo load of both these items is extremely high.
I am curious maybe I am missing something else?
Really? How so?
galaco-ligosaccharides
I think you mean galacto-oligosaccharides...
Galacto-oligosaccharides (GOS), also known as oligogalactosyllactose, oligogalactose, oligolactose or transgalactooligosaccharides (TOS), belong to the group of prebiotics. Prebiotics are defined as non-digestible food ingredients that beneficially affect the host by stimulating the growth and/or activity of beneficial bacteria in the colon.
How are they bad again?5
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 391.3K Introduce Yourself
- 43.4K Getting Started
- 259.6K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.6K Food and Nutrition
- 47.3K Recipes
- 232.3K Fitness and Exercise
- 387 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.4K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 152.7K Motivation and Support
- 7.8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.2K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.2K MyFitnessPal Information
- 22 News and Announcements
- 914 Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.3K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions