Calorie Counter

Message Boards Debate: Health and Fitness
You are currently viewing the message boards in:

afraid of animal fats and cholesterol?

11011121315

Replies

  • vingoglyvingogly Member, Premium Posts: 1,784 Member Member, Premium Posts: 1,784 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.

    One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?
    edited June 2016
  • snikkinssnikkins Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    To me, it's not so much the "do your own research" line as it is the absolute refusal to point in a direction. It seems to imply that the poster who employs this technique knows that people will likely find blogs, opinions, and anecdotes because the science isn't there but also doesn't want to admit it.

    There is so much fluff and noise on the internet that a direction would be helpful if there was a direction to be had.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.

    Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.

    At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    vingogly wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.

    One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?

    Did the professors tell you to look it up on the internet? They never gave lectures? Never took questions from students?
    edited June 2016
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Member Posts: 2,582 Member Member Posts: 2,582 Member
    I've been in an undergraduate online class that started off disastrous with regards to the professor/student interaction. We were given an online textbook which several students did not find very helpful. The professor basically admitted that he didn't have the time to really help, and told us to "get used to it".
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Member Posts: 13,589 Member Member Posts: 13,589 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.

    Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.

    At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.

    Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?

    Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.
  • stevencloserstevencloser Member Posts: 8,917 Member Member Posts: 8,917 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    Aliens built the pyramids. Just do your own research, you'll see.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Member Posts: 13,589 Member Member Posts: 13,589 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    Aliens built the pyramids. Just do your own research, you'll see.

    Well duh! I've seen Stargate.
  • stevencloserstevencloser Member Posts: 8,917 Member Member Posts: 8,917 Member
    I knew you'd come around to the better science, not that outdated science that the mainstream places tell you about.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.

    Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.

    At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.

    Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?

    Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.

    It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.

    Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.

    ETA: Do you own research is the best answer in some contexts and a cop out in others. Why even have a forum for sharing information and ideas if we should always only do our own research?
    edited June 2016
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.

    Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.

    At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.

    Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?

    Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.

    It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.

    Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.

    It's like writing a paper and instead of making proper citations you write "do your own research and look it up on google". If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up yourself.

    Yes! Thank you!
  • singingfluteladysingingflutelady Member Posts: 8,691 Member Member Posts: 8,691 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.

    Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.

    At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.

    Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?

    Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.

    It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.

    Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.

    It's like writing a paper and instead of making proper citations you write "do your own research and look it up on google". If you make a claim you need to be able to back it up yourself.

    Yes! Thank you!

    I don't know anyone in academia or the scientific world or even middle school level who would not fail a paper that is written like that.
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    I've been in an undergraduate online class that started off disastrous with regards to the professor/student interaction. We were given an online textbook which several students did not find very helpful. The professor basically admitted that he didn't have the time to really help, and told us to "get used to it".

    I hope you filed a complaint.
  • Need2Exerc1seNeed2Exerc1se Member Posts: 13,589 Member Member Posts: 13,589 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.

    Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.

    At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.

    Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?

    Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.

    It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.

    Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.

    ETA: Do you own research is the best answer in some contexts and a cop out in others. Why even have a forum for sharing information and ideas if we should always only do our own research?

    Fun?
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    WinoGelato wrote: »
    You stated above that your end goal is that people understand that processed foods are harmful and that we develop an effective fear of them. I asked you to explain what was harmful and why I should be afraid of them. You haven't provided any evidence or even hypotheses as to why this should be the case, instead suggesting I should do my own research if interested.

    This is a regular pattern I've noticed. I pay attention and it's obvious who is credible and who isn't.

    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Do your own research is good advice. Can you imagine going to a class to learn and having a bunch of random internet users as the teacher?

    It shouldn't be the only advice though, and the teacher should help students who don't know how to find reliable sources.

    Random strangers on the internet present themselves as teachers all the time. I'm not going to take seriously the ones who make a claim and then tell me to go research it myself, usually without even hinting at where to start.

    At least in a classroom you get a textbook as a starting place so you know where to look if you have a crappy teacher.

    Looking at anyone on this site as a 'teacher' without doing your own research seems a bit crazy to me. Expecting them to provide you with a textbook even more so. You do realize that any link or info you are provided is going to be extremely one-sided and meant to promote their personal agenda or belief only, right?

    Do your own research is the best advice you are likely to receive here.

    It was just an analogy. That's not what I was saying at all and you're taking it too literally.Of course I'm not looking for people on the internet to teach me but people post here as if they have something to teach. If they can convince me they have learned something of importance I look for more information.

    Telling me they know something that I don't and then following up by saying to go find it myself is a red flag that I don't need to waste my time on what they're saying. I'm not looking for a textbook but a citation or link or book recommendation is not so hard to provide and providing such is standard procedure when making a claim and at least I can judge for myself the value of their source of information.

    ETA: Do you own research is the best answer in some contexts and a cop out in others. Why even have a forum for sharing information and ideas if we should always only do our own research?

    Fun?

    That's part of it too, but this isn't the Fun and Games forum. :smiley: I've learned some things here and have been shown some interesting sources from posters just like yourself. If I were only looking for fun I wouldn't be hanging around here! ;)
  • ForecasterJasonForecasterJason Member Posts: 2,582 Member Member Posts: 2,582 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    I've been in an undergraduate online class that started off disastrous with regards to the professor/student interaction. We were given an online textbook which several students did not find very helpful. The professor basically admitted that he didn't have the time to really help, and told us to "get used to it".

    I hope you filed a complaint.
    Another classmate got contact with the department director who then talked to the professor. By the end of that class, the professor was certainly more engaged.

  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Member Posts: 532 Member Member Posts: 532 Member
    J72FIT wrote: »
    J72FIT wrote: »
    @aqsylvester what is your endgame? That we all follow the diet you think best for all? Clearly we are all doing fine as we are.

    @J72FIT Thanks for the question. I really appreciate these forum conversations for how they push me to ask new questions, explore more research, and really understand the breadth and depth of ignorance/misinformation (and its sources). My eyes have really been opened up in so many ways.

    In considering your question, I could probably write a book. Working as a nurse, I feel as if I'm on the front lines, witnessing the--I guess you could call it--"endgame" of human suffering related to diseases of lifestyle (diabetes, obesity, heart disease, stroke, cancer, dementia, the list goes on...). I care about my patients, and I want to help people prevent disease. So empathy is a major driving force. When you say, "we are all doing fine as we are," I'm not sure who all you include in the word "we." I believe that "we" are not doing fine, not at all. :'( If I can help point one person in the right direction by sharing evidence-based nutrition, I have done enough. It certainly changed my life.

    If I could have it my way, mainstream nutrition, health, and pharmaceutical organizations would not be influenced by profit, but would instead put people, our future, and our planet first--I guess just a basic understanding that we are all connected, whether we realize it or not. In light of that, they would practice with ethics and empathy, and they would promote the truth. They would, for example, publish all research done, whether it showed a benefit to the profit of a company or not. They would promote healthy eating and treatment advice based on evidence, and not whether or not they can make money off us.

    I guess, in my "endgame," if I could give you a big picture summary (as there are certainly lots and lots of details), people would 1. not be afraid to eat real food, even foods high in fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol--as they have been so unjustly demonized (and to our detriment); 2. they would understand the real dangers of processed foods and have an effective fear of them--as they have become so ubiquitous in our culture without much prudence or investigation (this connects us back to the real major causes of heart disease)

    I started this thread to share real evidence about fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol, and that is just one small piece of the puzzle. Most people nowadays back off on the meaningfulness of restricting fat, the mainstream organizations have stopped pushing restricting cholesterol, and lastly, we are debating over saturated fat. I shared a plethora of meaningful, compelling data.. and I hope it reaches one person out there looking for truth :) because I used to be that person.

    Well one area I certainly agree with you on is not being afraid of saturated fat. That said, I have no desire to make it the bulk of my calories. 30% is enough IMO.

    Humans are multi variant creatures living in a multi variant environment. To that point, I think we have the capacity to thrive on many diets, some high carb and some high fat. Which is best? I guess we really won't know until the end.

    I do appreciate your passion on this topic (albeit a little one sided) as I am passionate on the topic as well. My take: eat mostly whole real nutrient dense food, get adequate protein, fat and fiber and fill in the rest with carbs. Get plenty of exercise and sleep. Try to live in the moment and keep stress at bay. I think stressing about eating a perfect diet is probably worse then eating a not so perfect diet and not stressing about it.

    As I tell all my friends and clients, "train hard, eat well, get plenty of rest and go live your life..."

    I believe the rest will take care of itself.

    What's funny is, it sounds like we are basically in agreement.

    I also think humans do well eating mostly whole real nutrient dense food. I never once said, nor do I think everyone needs to eat a ketogenic diet. I do, however, believe it is a highly effective treatment for IR and obesity, among other things--and also excellent for disease prevention.

    The state of ketosis is very beneficial to the human body, but even just going in and out of it can still provide substantial benefits. I imagine our ancestors went in and out of it depending on the time of day or the season of the year (whether or not starchy foods were available). In fact, most normal, healthy people go into a mild ketosis during the prolonged fast of sleeping (after 14 hrs or so). I'm sure I often go out of ketosis after meals, but quickly get back into it. Eating nutrient dense, whole foods probably does just as much for me as regular ketosis does when it comes to the newfound ease (did not have at all on a low fat plant-focused diet--no butter, no eggs, only lean meats and fish) I have with skipping meals or fasting.

    I agree with much of what you're saying but I think it's important to point out that everyone does not respond favorably to forced nutritional ketosis. Or saturated fat. Regardless of the recent reviews and favorable low carb studies I think a little less certainty is in order.

    Here's some thoughts from Peter Attia:

    March 2015

    Peter Attia clarifies his position on saturated fat on his blog Eating Academy. He cautions that high saturated fat intake -- 25% of calories and up high -- may not be benign for everyone. This coincides with the recent articles regarding bullet proof coffee.

    "And contrary to what some (perhaps many) of you might think, I don’t believe this is a settled debate across the board. What do I mean by that (i.e., “across the board”)? Certainly in this presentation I try to make the case that the continually falling recommendations for SFA—from 12% to 10% to 8% to 5% of total calories—are not supported by convincing science. In fact, such recommendations likely do harm, courtesy of the “substitution effect,” i.e., people end up eating more of other things—namely, sugars and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats (n-6 PUFA)—that likely cause greater metabolic derangement.

    However, some readers may interpret the data I present to mean it’s perfectly safe to consume, say, 25% (or more) of total calories from SFA. I realize I may have to turn in my keto-club card, but I am convinced that a subset of the population—I don’t know how large or small, because my “N” is too small—are not better served by mainlining SFA, even in the complete absence of carbohydrates (i.e., nutritional ketosis). Let me repeat this point: I have seen enough patients whose biomarkers go to hell in a hand basket when they ingest very high amounts of SFA. The leads me to believe some people are genetically equipped to thrive in prolonged nutritional ketosis."

    Short excerpt above; the full post is worth a read for those of us who eat a LCHF diet:

    Evidence for (and against) the dietary guidelines restricting saturated fat
    http://eatingacademy.com/cholesterol-2/random-finding-plus-pi

    May 2016

    23:30: Ketogenic diets do not work for everyone. The efficacy of the ketogenic diets may have a genetic basis and it does not seem appropriate for everyone.

    It's frustrating to a lot of patients because they just want this so badly to work and it doesn't. And there's no denying that. When you see their LDL-P skyrocket to 3500nmol/L, when you see their CRP skyrocket, when you see all of these changes that go in the wrong direction from a lipoprotein standpoint, inflammatory standpoint, from a hormonal standpoint. You can tweak it all you want you can say maybe there's too much omega 6 or maybe you gotta go more monounsaturated versus saturated fat but, you know, you've only got a handful of levers to pull there and in the end you sometimes just acknowledge that this diet is not optimal for this person. And yet, interestingly, I'll take that patient and I'll put them on a relatively carbohydrate restricted non-ketogenic diet and can have amazing results.

    Episode 1: Peter Attia on how to live longer and better
    http://www.ihmc.us/stemtalk/episode001/

    Thanks, @alabasterverve

    Yes, I have read this article once already. This is a reality that LCHF docs encounter, and why they are conducting research on it atm. You may have heard this talk from Dr. Sarah Hallberg:


    The phenomenon seems to be common in the most insulin resistant patients--those with the greatest metabolic damage. This may be related to damaged ApoB receptors on the cells (meaning they can't uptake the LDL particles) or the effects of rapidly lowering serum insulin concentrations in insulin resistant patients, since insulin does play a role in down-regulating production of VLDL.

    However, elevated LDL is not the main issue in heart disease, since LDL in itself is normal and not dangerous--it's oxidized LDL that is atherogenic (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25318456)--mechanisms include: endothelial damage; alteration in vascular tone; monocyte/macrophage recruitment; increased uptake of LDL by macrophages, with foam cell formation; induction of growth factors; increased platelet aggregation; and formation of autoantibodies to oxidized LDL. Elevated plasma concentrations of oxidized LDL are associated with CHD (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=16000355). That's why the greatest risk factors are more tied to inflammation--like insulin resistance. The problem is, it's very difficult to measure oxidized LDL in the blood (http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/103/15/1930.full).

    This is ultimately why--I think--that Cochrane Review showed no effect on hard end points (what really matters, i.e. death) with reducing SFA intake. We can increase PUFAs (in place of SFA... because replacing SFA with carbohydrates doesn't show benefit) in the diet in order to lower our LDL, but at what risk? What is causing the lowering LDL? While we need PUFAs (they are also present in meat and dairy, more so in grassfed, of course), they are also unstable and easily oxidized, especially from heating (for example, in the harsh production of vegetable and seed oils). If we are going to consume them, we need antioxidants to prevent oxidation. PUFAs interact with reactive oxygen species in the bloodstream to create these PUFA oxidation products, and since these products are not measurable with a standard lipid panel, it looks like LDL is going down, when in fact this is not a safe situation (another reason why a NMR lipid panel can be more helpful in determining what is going on).
  • vingoglyvingogly Member, Premium Posts: 1,784 Member Member, Premium Posts: 1,784 Member
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    vingogly wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.

    One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?

    Did the professors tell you to look it up on the internet? They never gave lectures? Never took questions from students?

    Give me a break. That's not at all what I was saying.

    Case in point: a professor writes down an equation and says something like, "it follows then that ..." or "it's intuitively obvious that ..." followed by another equation; then studying with friends you spend two hours figuring out what he was getting at. This happened to me many times in grad school.

    The education comes from learning how to find the information for yourself (research, and using a kiddie tool like Google was verboten), and figuring out the problem for yourself. Kiddies in high school and bottom end students in undergraduate school look things up on the internet -- and there are automated ways of detecting plagiarism that professors regularly use in college and grad school these days. You get booted out of school if you try and you get caught. And the further along you get in your education, the heavier the scrutiny and the higher the probability you'll be found out. I've seen this happen to grad students in the past -- along with a clinical psych student being booted out of an internship because she had major unresolved psychological issues.
    edited June 2016
  • JaneSnoweJaneSnowe Member Posts: 1,282 Member Member Posts: 1,282 Member
    vingogly wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    vingogly wrote: »
    JaneSnowe wrote: »
    When someone says to do your own research it's a red flag to me. Can you imagine going to a class to learn, but all the teacher says is to do your own research?

    Having been in graduate school in multiple disciplines, yes, that's precisely what the teachers would tell us.

    One has to wonder ... Ten pages of back and forth, everyone spouting the same positions they've put forward in other similar threads ... what exactly are we supposed to take away from this kind of thread, other than boredom?

    Did the professors tell you to look it up on the internet? They never gave lectures? Never took questions from students?

    Give me a break. That's not at all what I was saying.

    Case in point: a professor writes down an equation and says something like, "it follows then that ..." or "it's intuitively obvious that ..." followed by another equation; then studying with friends you spend two hours figuring out what he was getting at. This happened to me many times in grad school.

    The education comes from learning how to find the information for yourself (research, and using a kiddie tool like Google was verboten), and figuring out the problem for yourself. Kiddies in high school and bottom end students in undergraduate school look things up on the internet -- and there are automated ways of detecting plagiarism that professors regularly use in college and grad school these days. You get booted out of school if you try and you get caught. And the further along you get in your education, the heavier the scrutiny and the higher the probability you'll be found out. I've seen this happen to grad students in the past -- along with a clinical psych student being booted out of an internship because she had major unresolved psychological issues.

    I knew what you were saying, but my point apparently was missed by some. I was making a simple analogy that seems to have been taken too literally. For a much better analogy, see singingflutelady's post. She makes my same point in a much more concise way.

    If you are at all interested in what I actually meant, which I doubt, see my reply to need2exerc1se.
Sign In or Register to comment.