• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Great Cholesterol Lie?

big-E said:
Something occurs to me - why do we even believe that there *is* a 'perfect' diet that the human body has evolved for?
Click to expand...

There should, in principle, be an optimal diet. Of course, that optimal diet is unlikely to be the same for everyone, or even the same over the course of the same person's life. And the "curve" may not have a sharp peak either, it may be more like a plateau (ie, a broad range of diets may have close to the same health outcomes).
 
casebro said:
Moderation in all things, but not every day. (and never bonelessskinless chicken breast)
Click to expand...
With you on the first part. IMO it keeps getting back to what it always has: a "common sense," moderate, balanced diet and lifestyle.

Lost me on the chicken thing. I love chicken just about any way but I doubt chicken skins are good for you.


Giordano said:
Do you know that a majority of dead people die in the hospital? So hospitals are obviously risks, not benefits, to sick people! Most people in the USA who die of cancer have been treated with chemotherapy and/o radiation! So these probably do nothing!
Click to expand...
Hey somebody else gets it, thanks.

As for the OP, I rarely put much if any stock in claims by a single so-called "expert" or study. When numerous studies done by numerous credible people start agreeing, I'll listen (and even then obviously it's no guarantee).
 
big-E said:
Something occurs to me - why do we even believe that there *is* a 'perfect' diet that the human body has evolved for? There's only very weak selection pressures for keeping any organism alive well past its reproductive phase - at some stage the benefits of being around to help look after the grandkids will drop off as one becomes a net burden to the local genetically-related group. I don't think it's wrong to just admit that after a while one's system will wear out and break down no matter what we put into it as fuel - and enjoying what one eats while one is alive is, to me, worth more than fruitlessly chasing some 'optimum' but unappealing diet and taking daily pills to modify blood chemistry in the hope that the numbers that are changing are the right ones, in the right direction.
Click to expand...

In the absence of a "like" button, I'll just vote yes to this.

Moderate care about your diet might help, on average, but extreme care is unlikely to help much more.
 
So Much Fail

There is so much fail with that article that it hurts. Almost every sentence is a logical fallacy, starting with the title. Here are my observations.
1. It matters not how renowned or worldly the heart surgeon is, it matters only what the evidence is. The title alone is committing the argument from authority fallacy.
2. No one has ever insisted that elevated cholesterol is the ONLY cause of heart disease. It is but one of a huge variety of factors. That said, a boatload of evidence supports elevated cholesterol as being a major contributor to plaque build-up and inflammation.
3. He blames the inflammation on processed foods without offering any evidence that that is the culprit. Where is the evidence?
4. His analogy to syrup and keyboards is completely bizarre. Sugar does not "gum up the works." It is true that constantly elevated blood sugar can lead to arterial damage, that has been known for some time, but that doesn't make his analogy any more accurate.
5. I give up, the article is just one big POS. Not fit for publication and certainly not something that a skeptic should take seriously.
 
ThunderChunky said:
Statins seem to work.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440795
Click to expand...

Interesting mehta study. It shows only a 14% lowering of end results, not the 30% - 50% for studies sponsored by Big Pharma. But that mehta study may have included some of those too, which would mean that the rest of the studies were less than 14% beneficial. I guess if I wanted to be truly skeptical I'd have to find the list of studies that they mehta-ed, and look whether the biggest ones, with the most benefits, were sponsored by the drug companies.
 
My lipids have been up, and they've been down. But I've always eaten a high fat diet. What changed, and can be linked to the lipids, is carbs. Low carb diet = lowering of lipids.

Seems LDL is used to transport fats away from the liver. H (Happy) DL is used to transport fats back from storage and into cells and liver. So the ratio reflects whether the patient is fat-burning or fat storing. Ratio is more important than levels.

And oh, the cholesterol that is in them thar artery walls is not clumps directly out of the blood. It's actually left over from artery wall cells that died (from inflammation responses?) and got scavenged for recycling. Except the HDL didn't scrape up the leftovers. IIRC, vitamin K2 is conducive to that scavenging. Not directly, but acts as a pro-drug. Statins do that too, to a lesser extent.
 
It never was consumed cholesterol, we knew that decades ago. When you eat saturated fats, your body produces cholesterol to transport it in the blood stream.

And apparently partially saturated fats (turns oils to solid fats) called trans fats turned out worse than naturally saturated fats. You're still better off with oils (except soy and corn oil that unless it's organic can have herbicide residues that are associated with breast cancer).

As for the processed foods, I don't recall any research that's a risk for cardiac disease. It's a risk for colon cancer if you don't eat enough roughage.

As for inflammation, C reactive protein is a known risk for heart disease. Can't remember what makes it better or worse but I do recall some infections, especially gingivitis, are suspected as playing a role in the risk of heart disease.
 
Statins are worth taking most of the time. You should take them if you've already had an MI. But prior to known cardiac disease there are still a few unknowns. It's a case by case basis. I went off them when I developed an autoimmune disease and my cardiac panel didn't change much so I didn't go back on them.
 
casebro said:
Interesting mehta study. It shows only a 14% lowering of end results, not the 30% - 50% for studies sponsored by Big Pharma. But that mehta study may have included some of those too, which would mean that the rest of the studies were less than 14% beneficial. I guess if I wanted to be truly skeptical I'd have to find the list of studies that they mehta-ed, and look whether the biggest ones, with the most benefits, were sponsored by the drug companies.
Click to expand...

The studies with larger numbers were probably not looking at primary prevention, but with people that already had a history of CVD.

This study basically picked bits of data from other studies and used them in a way that the original studies did not. It wasn't just averaging the total data set from all the studies.
 
I'm not going to post links because I don't have time and anyone can Google as well as I, but my understanding and experience is that diet can have a profound impact on both total cholesterol and ratio. Some years ago, my lipid panel indicated borderline high total cholesterol. And my ratio wasn't great.

After reading the most basic cholesterol information-- e.g., what you'll find at the Mayo Clinic's website-- my basic understanding is that cholesterol can be ingested directly and created by the liver as it breaks down saturated fats. After doing some very quick googling on what foods contain cholesterol and saturated fat, it became apparent that a simple approach would be to simply cut out most meat and dairy.

And so I did. Vegan lite. Most days I'm more or less vegan. Usually eat meat three meals a week or so. Sometimes less. Lots of salad. Protein from hummus and such.

My total cholesterol and ratio were drastically better in my last test. The change was dramatic. My very brief googling indicates my cholesterol and ratio are in line with typical vegan values, which multiple studies indicate are much lower than average.

As to whether cholesterol actually causes heart disease, I'm not a cardiologist. So I running with the general consensus-- e.g., what you'dyou'd read on Mayo Clinic website-- which is that it does. If better evidence indicates otherwise later, oh well. I dig salad.
 
My guess is you changed a little bit more than just cutting out meat and dairy.
 
Last edited:
ThunderChunky said:
My guess is you changed a little bit more than just cutting out meat and dairy.
Click to expand...

"Just" cutting out meat and dairy? Just? It was a pretty radical change for me. I used to typically eat meat and dairy 1 to 2 times a day. My diet then was actually not bad-- my meat was mostky lean chicken, and rarely large portions-- but when I cut out the meat and cheese, most of the stuff I used to eat was no longer an option. It forced my vegetable intake to increase drastically, because, well, I have to eat something. So yeah, following that simple rule forced a dramatic change in my diet, and I imagine it would for most folks. Even most vegetarians I know rely heavily on cheese and eggs, which are loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol. I meam, cutting out meat and dairy is dammed close to just going vegan. At least from my perspective, while the rule is simple, the impact on diet is huge.

And again, from the abstracts I've read, my lipid results are in line with typical vegan lipid results, which show consistently much lower total cholesterol and better ratio than average.
 
Bottom line is you all are (except shrike) dancing around the issue of how the meat dairy and eggs are produced has everything to do with the question of how it tastes and how healthy it is. And the bottom line difference there is if it is pasture raised organic meat, eggs, dairy, eat away. If it is CAFO raised crap, best go Vegan or severely limit your intake.

New Research Concludes Pasture Cheeses are "Quantifiably Different"

And there are literally hundreds if not thousands of scientific studies to prove this beyond all doubt. But I prefer the taste issue myself. You can tell a person a gazillion times the meat or dairy they are eating is unhealthy and it won't phase them a bit, because there is this subconscious linking of healthy=no flavor. They certainly won't pay one red cent more for it, ignoring that all it takes is one hospital trip to wipe out any savings they might have had eating CAFO crap.

But once they taste say for instance a gourmet pasture raised cheese or butter? They have no problem generally paying for the higher quality food. Not because it is healthy (it is), but because it tastes better.
 
OMGturt1es said:
"Just" cutting out meat and dairy? Just? It was a pretty radical change for me. I used to typically eat meat and dairy 1 to 2 times a day. My diet then was actually not bad-- my meat was mostky lean chicken, and rarely large portions-- but when I cut out the meat and cheese, most of the stuff I used to eat was no longer an option. It forced my vegetable intake to increase drastically, because, well, I have to eat something. So yeah, following that simple rule forced a dramatic change in my diet, and I imagine it would for most folks. Even most vegetarians I know rely heavily on cheese and eggs, which are loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol. I meam, cutting out meat and dairy is dammed close to just going vegan. At least from my perspective, while the rule is simple, the impact on diet is huge.

And again, from the abstracts I've read, my lipid results are in line with typical vegan lipid results, which show consistently much lower total cholesterol and better ratio than average.
Click to expand...

I suspect some confounding too. Weight loss too? Probable drastic lowering of carbs also? Cut out the meat, AND the potatoes? No sandwiches, so no bread? Okra for breakfast instead of mush?
 
OMGturt1es said:
"Just" cutting out meat and dairy? Just? It was a pretty radical change for me. I used to typically eat meat and dairy 1 to 2 times a day. My diet then was actually not bad-- my meat was mostky lean chicken, and rarely large portions-- but when I cut out the meat and cheese, most of the stuff I used to eat was no longer an option. It forced my vegetable intake to increase drastically, because, well, I have to eat something. So yeah, following that simple rule forced a dramatic change in my diet, and I imagine it would for most folks. Even most vegetarians I know rely heavily on cheese and eggs, which are loaded with saturated fat and cholesterol. I meam, cutting out meat and dairy is dammed close to just going vegan. At least from my perspective, while the rule is simple, the impact on diet is huge.

And again, from the abstracts I've read, my lipid results are in line with typical vegan lipid results, which show consistently much lower total cholesterol and better ratio than average.
Click to expand...

Vegan diets are generally different from the typical american diet in more ways than meat and cheese like including more vegetables and less processed foods. Vegans are also more health conscious in general. Pretty much any alternative to the standard american diet and lifestyle will result in improvements in health markers.

I linked some recent studies up thread, but there is no evidence of a link between dietary saturated fat and heart disease. I don't have the egg studies on hand but I think most of them looked at consumption of up to 1 egg per day and did not observe an increased of risk of heart disease.
 
bit_pattern said:
The inflammation thing might have some merit as far as I can tell (and I say that as a rank layman)

The issue that has captured my attention most recently - and probably most because it confirms my pre-existing biases, but with that fully acknowledged I'm prepared to run with this hypothesis - is the link between the microbiome and inflammation.

There seems to be a lot of credible information surfacing recently that suggests that there is a credible link between inflammation and a host of modern disease and that inflammation is largely a result of depleted microbial health. In the modern age our dependence on antibiotics and diets that promote unbalanced microbial ecosystems means that we are systematically causing mass extinctions of bacteria that would otherwise have a positive impact on health. The hypothesis suggests that certain bacteria irritate the digestive system and trigger immune responses that condition the body to respond. When the microbiome is wiped out with antibiotics, or is unbalanced by diets that promote the wrong sort of microbiota, the body doesn't gain the immune responses that prevent inflammation within the system and causes a cascading effect that leaves us vulnerable to a host of disease. The stuff I've been reading/watching suggests that one of the biggest benefits you can have for your health is to consume a great deal more fibre in the form of fruit, vegetables, grains and pulses. When you stick to such diets there is a pronounced difference in the types of bacteria you find in your stools. Some research s even finding very positive effects with certain conditions (e.g. irritable bowel syndrome) by conducting poo transplants, wehreby a sick person has the poo of a healthy person transplanted into their lower bowel through a colonoscopy-type procedure whereby the healthy bacteria colonise the lower bowel and inflammation is reduced.

As i said, I'm a rank layman and am sceptical of the latest dietary fads, but it seems to me that this field of inquiry could be quite revolutionary in the sense that it treats the symbiotic human/bacteria relationship as being of great importance.
Click to expand...

As inflammation is an innate as opposed to adaptive immune response it doesn’t seem likely. That’s not to say that micro-biological health and diversity isn’t or can’t be a contributing or even causative factor. Just that I don't think it can work the way you have described. Some microbes might keep others (more irritating) from overproducing or may even have a suppressive effect on immune response in general. So as opposed to being a conditioned response (an adaptive immune response) or reduction in the irritating microbes it is more likely, in that aspect, a reduction in some complementary microbe that was keeping the irritating microbe, or immune system in general, in check. Similarly, with an innate immune response (the immune systems first line of defense) already hyperactive susceptibility to other pathogens would be reduced. However, in cases where the microbial balance has swung the other way, over colonization of microbes that might tend to suppress immune response, then susceptibility to opportunistic pathogens would become more of a concern. So microbial balance is probably a justifiable concern but, to my understanding at least, the reasoning was slightly reversed and split from what you suggested.

I’m just a layman myself but have psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis both condition resulting from inflammation gone amuck. As a result I have to generally suppress my immune response. As such I have to be mindful of my exposure to opportunistic pathogens.
 
Last edited:
The Man said:
As inflammation.......snip........

I’m just a layman myself but have psoriasis and psoriatic arthritis both condition resulting from inflammation gone amuck. As a result I have to generally suppress my immune response. As such I have to be mindful of my exposure to opportunistic pathogens.
Click to expand...

You might consider this:
Fatty acids, the immune response, and autoimmunity: a question of n-6 essentiality and the balance between n-6 and n-3.

and this:
Some researchers have suggested that some people (such as those with diabetes or skin allergies) do not make enough GLA from linoleic acid and may therefore benefit from taking GLA supplements.

And many more I could show you.

Then read about 10 or 20 of these:
All things Grass fed

GLA, omega 3 fatty acids, the n-6:n-3 ratio and just about everything about the lipid balance is radically changed depending on animal husbandry. and pretty much anything CAFO is bad......higher cholesterol (particularly bad cholesterol), lower GLA, improper n-6:n-3 ratio, the whole lipid balance, reduced vitamins like vitamin E folic acid beta carotene etc..... and causes chronic inflammation, if that inflammation is in the arteries...... or the skin....... or the digestive tract......

Pastured on the other hand is the opposite. Everything good is increased, and everything harmful reduced. It is actually stunning how closely the science follows this general rule.

Now for a link that is not quite such hard reading, but shows us dumb hic farmers:rolleyes: what's going on in terms we can understand;):

Meet Real Free-Range Eggs

Our testing has found that, compared to official U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) nutrient data for commercial eggs, eggs from hens raised on pasture may contain:

• 1/3 less cholesterol
• 1/4 less saturated fat
• 2/3 more vitamin A
• 2 times more omega-3 fatty acids
• 3 times more vitamin E
• 7 times more beta carotene
Click to expand...

Get it? The great lie isn't precisely the cholesterol per se. The lie is the whole lipid balance (in fact the whole nutritional profile) and the effect CAFOs have on human health.
 
Last edited:
ThunderChunky said:
Cholesterol is fairly complex with HDL, LDL, and then multiple subtypes of LDL. The pattern of blood cholesterol associated with a risk for heart disease is caused by a high carbohydrate diet, not by too much fat.

Recent studies (the most comprehensive to date) have failed to link dietary saturated fat with cardiovascular disease risk, much to the chagrin of those scientists who have staked their careers on the current guidelines.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24723079
Click to expand...

One thing comes to mind looking at those studies. CVD rates go down, but other causes of death go up. Which causes go up? Suicides and accidents I believe. What about lower lipids cause that?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom