Great Cholesterol Lie?

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Saw this story featured prominently on a Facebook friend's wall. A heart surgeon claims that it's not cholesterol from fatty diets that leads to heart disease, it's inflammation of arteries from a lifetime of low-fat, processed foods. In other words, medical science has been wrong on this issue for decades. Your thoughts?

I generally don't get health information from www.getholistichealth.com. Just sayin'.

 

[casebro]

But RBF, my link way above (where you been?) showed factory beef ratio of about 2:1. So I'm doubting your "grass fed has a better ratio" statements.

Hmm, but it seems according to the later posts in this thread, it isn't the beef that is killing us, it's the chicken? And lard is the highest source of mono-unsaturated, which are supposed to be the good kind, so it shouldn't be bad for us either.

I've never liked veggie oils. Poor mouth feel, and goes rancid fast. Then it turns into varnish. I was raised on a lard bowl in the ice box, and now use coconut oil bought in bulk from soap maker suppliers. $20 gallon, but I never throw any away. I leave it in the iron skillet, on the stove, adding more as needed. It takes a year for me to eat the whole five gallons. That adds up to less than two ounces per day of fat added to my diet. None of it poly-unsaturated.

Hey, I like the idea of the ol' family farm. I lived next to one in Connecticut for my first 7 years, riding milk cows. And playing Danial Boone in the wood lot that my father owned. But I don't think we can restrict our food manufacturing to that inefficiency level.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But RBF, my link way above (where you been?) showed factory beef ratio of about 2:1. So I'm doubting your "grass fed has a better ratio" statements.

Hmm, but it seems according to the later posts in this thread, it isn't the beef that is killing us, it's the chicken? And lard is the highest source of mono-unsaturated, which are supposed to be the good kind, so it shouldn't be bad for us either.

I've never liked veggie oils. Poor mouth feel, and goes rancid fast. Then it turns into varnish. I was raised on a lard bowl in the ice box, and now use coconut oil bought in bulk from soap maker suppliers. $20 gallon, but I never throw any away. I leave it in the iron skillet, on the stove, adding more as needed. It takes a year for me to eat the whole five gallons. That adds up to less than two ounces per day of fat added to my diet. None of it poly-unsaturated.

Hey, I like the idea of the ol' family farm. I lived next to one in Connecticut for my first 7 years, riding milk cows. And playing Danial Boone in the wood lot that my father owned. But I don't think we can restrict our food manufacturing to that inefficiency level.

Your link had absolutely no information about how the meat was produced. I didn't comment because there was nothing there to comment on. Yes beef can have a nutritional profile like that, no it doesn't always.

As far as your last statement about efficiencies of production. That is the real reason most people respond with blank stares. They think that in order to intensively produce meat there is no other way than CAFOs. So they put up with all the negative effects to the environment and human health, not to mention the animal cruelty issues, simply because they have been conned into believing there is no other way. It's a scam. You can raise MORE food on LESS land with LESS inputs and LESS waste and LESS pollution by raising that food in modern forms of intensive farming that use biomimicry instead of industrial models. In other words, there is no need to go back to a sleepy Mayberry style ol' timey model. In the case of beef that would mean using Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing to out produce the CAFOs and still have the higher quality product.

 

[casebro]

Your link had absolutely no information about how the meat was produced. I didn't comment because there was nothing there to comment on. Yes beef can have a nutritional profile like that, no it doesn't always.

Do you really think somebody would do their analysis on free range beef and not tell us?

As far as your last statement about efficiencies of production. That is the real reason most people respond with blank stares. They think that in order to intensively produce meat there is no other way than CAFOs. So they put up with all the negative effects to the environment and human health, not to mention the animal cruelty issues, simply because they have been conned into believing there is no other way. It's a scam. You can raise MORE food on LESS land with LESS inputs and LESS waste and LESS pollution by raising that food in modern forms of intensive farming that use biomimicry instead of industrial models. In other words, there is no need to go back to a sleepy Mayberry style ol' timey model. In the case of beef that would mean using Managed Intensive Rotational Grazing to out produce the CAFOs and still have the higher quality product.

Professional Farmers might be Democrats or Republicans, but one thing for sure is that they are Capitalists. They are in business to make money. Which thought gives me pause regarding all that you say about efficiencies. I wonder if your philosophy is neglecting something important. Like the lack of the ability to scale your farm- it only works on ideal land. suitable for growing the mix of crops needed? Instead of corn on the east side of the hill and grass on the flats? Or that your farm would depend on cattle, and have no diversification because it doesn't have any other cash crop- it only has silage? Beef price drops and the farmer goes bankrupt?

So what is the biggest test farm to test the theory you back?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

So what is the biggest test farm to test the theory you back?

The biggest? I have heard of ranches in Australia in the 100's of thousands of acres or bigger. There are a few cattlemen that have put together a business model of buying up abandoned conventional ranches with venture capital then applying intensive grazing management and turning them profitable again.... simultaneously to improving the ecology, restoring the land, sequestering carbon and saving the lifestyle of the ranch culture in Australia.....all while providing a healthier product to the consumer. That's starting with some of the "worst" land you could imagine.

Me personally. My trials are REALLY small scale and involve crops...I won't start adding animals for a few years yet. I was offered a section (640 acres) to trial last year, but I am not ready for that size yet. Got a few more things to work out. I could have accepted his offer easily if he would have not required I start out first year full scale on the whole section. I am at the point in my trials where I need to test it on 10 acres...50 acres.....100 acres...and finally full scale in succession. If I did take the deal I would have just been using the proven MIRG technique on the rest until my trials grew into it. The guy didn't want that. Generous offer though. Very few people get a lease of a section for $1.00 in perpetuity.

Interesting thing about scale doing this.....whether you open a gate and three cows run through, or open a gate and 30,000 cows run through. Same labor for me opening the gate. The cattle do the work of moving themselves, not the humans working to move them or plant, grow, harvest, dry, process, store and move their feed to them, while they sit in one spot. So it most certainly is scaleable. Very scaleable. Capable of benefitting from the same types of economies of scale that CAFOs enjoy. Which means it doesn't necessarily need to result in higher consumer cost. And certainly you are right though. If it isn't scaleable, then you can't talk about it as part of a solution for public health.

 

[casebro]

Links to reports from the large scale operations? And how many acres per animal?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Links to reports from the large scale operations? And how many acres per animal?

I don't want to derail the thread. This thread is about human health and the lipid hypothesis. Sure, production methods affect that, but it is offtopic to stray too far down that road. I'll send you some links privately.

 

[casebro]

IIRC, every post you've made in this thread has been of topic.

Now all of a sudden you want to send me a U-tubes by PM? And a site named optomisticfuture does not sound like a peer reviewed journal either. '

We all know you are a worshipper of Permaculture, but where's the beef?

 

[casebro]

Hey RBF, I deleted your latest when I thought it was from earlier. Can you send it again, or just post the link here?

 

[casebro]

Looking at the whole subject, as per the OP, it seems the only harmful fat was transfats. And we have eliminated those. I wonder if, soon, we will see a drop in CVD rates? And, do you think if that happens Pharma will take the credit via Statins?

Unless it is also the n-3 excess. But that seems unlikely.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Looking at the whole subject, as per the OP, it seems the only harmful fat was transfats. And we have eliminated those.

Transfats are not eliminated. Another myth. It just must be labeled. Further when the serving size contains less than 1/2 a gram, it can be labeled no trans fats and still be chock full of them. Say for example margarine. Serving size is small. Usually around 5 grams. So margarine that is up to about 10% transfats can actually be labeled 0 transfats. [1]

 

[ThunderChunky]

Actually no. That particular statement is wrong for a couple reasons. And to understand why you need to look at causation. The reason for the problem is an enzyme that is used for both metabolising n-3s and n-6s It preferentially will be used for n-3s but even if preferential will still be overwhelmed at about 4:1. But it isn't just the meat, it's the ratio in the whole meal and diet. You actually can grow a chicken under that 4:1 ratio pretty easy, but fry it in corn oil for southern fried chicken and you just blew the whole thing. Fail to eat your fruits and vegetables and you just blew the whole thing as well. Omega 3's are not the only part of the lipid profile that matters either. Chicken fat can be very low in saturated fat too, even lower than beef fat. It also can be quite lean overall having less fat in total. There is a whole chain of events that make a heart attack and a whole range of dietary factors that can either raise or lower that risk and chicken can be quite healthy or not depending on a whole set of factors either in raising it, or in preparation.

But as a general rule yes. Beef is probably better for you than chicken, assuming it is raised correctly. We evolved eating red meat and it is healthy for us to eat. However, fish is probably better than both, if it wasn't for all the water pollution.

Assuming your 4:1 is correct, the ratio of a perfect chicken is pretty close to a grain fed cow which seems to be around 5:1 in most studies*. That said, the chicken has more n6 overall, thus consumption of chicken will lead to an overall greater excess of n6 in the total diet than consumption of beef will.
This directly refutes the hypothesis you have been throwing around about why beef is associated with health problems. If lipid balance issues from CAFO beef were the cause for its association with diseases, then chicken would also be associated with those diseases (especially grain fed chicken which would be worse than 4:1). Yet it is not. If saturated fat from beef is the problem, then explain why there no link between dietary saturated fat and CVD or CHD. The oil you fry stuff in is irrelevant to this point because then the association would be with the oil and not the meat itself.

* http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2846864/ See table 2 in the paper for several studies comparing grain fed vs grassfed beef.

 

[ThunderChunky]

Transfats are not eliminated. Another myth. It just must be labeled. Further when the serving size contains less than 1/2 a gram, it can be labeled no trans fats and still be chock full of them. Say for example margarine. Serving size is small. Usually around 5 grams. So margarine that is up to about 10% transfats can actually be labeled 0 transfats. [1]

To be fair, they also improved the hydrogenation process to remove a large amount of the trans fats. So the foods that still have trans fats do have less of them.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

This directly refutes the hypothesis you have been throwing around

You might be right if that was the only change in the lipid balance or nutritional profile. It isn't. The n-3:n-6 balance only effects a couple of the links of the chain of events that leads to CVD.

ETA You might want to go back and read post #86

 

[stevea]

I've never liked veggie oils. Poor mouth feel, and goes rancid fast. Then it turns into varnish. I was raised on a lard bowl in the ice box, and now use coconut oil bought in bulk from soap maker suppliers. $20 gallon, but I never throw any away. I leave it in the iron skillet, on the stove, adding more as needed. It takes a year for me to eat the whole five gallons. That adds up to less than two ounces per day of fat added to my diet. None of it poly-unsaturated.

Tho' I appreciate your dislike for most veggie oils .....
Coconut oil is ~2% polyunsaturated.
Some soap-makers coconut oil has been hydrogenated and contains harmful trans-fats.
Soap makers oils are not necessarily food grade and may contain some potentially harmful things.

Very poor idea eating anything not food-grade.

 

[casebro]

Tho' I appreciate your dislike for most veggie oils .....
Coconut oil is ~2% polyunsaturated.
Some soap-makers coconut oil has been hydrogenated and contains harmful trans-fats.
Soap makers oils are not necessarily food grade and may contain some potentially harmful things.

Very poor idea eating anything not food-grade.

I never said it isn't food grade. It is.

And, it is 76°, which is non-hydrogenated. The hydrogenated is ummm 94°, +/-.

Biggest improvement is that it has much medium chain fats, so easier to break down to single fat molecules, for those of us with mitochondrial problems.

 

[big-E]

Sorry for the delayed response.

First, I should clarify that my dietary change was based on a convergence of factors: Health, animal welfare, and climate change. Each is important to me, so I decided a shift to a less animal-based diet and more plant-based diet was worthwhile. So I'm not just chasing metrics.

Secondly, it honestly hasn't been very difficult. It's not like I never eat meat. In fact, the biggest change in my diet is lunch. If I went to Subway, for example, I used to get the oven roasted chicken breast sub with cheese. Now I get the veggie patty without cheese. And frankly, I like the veggie patty more. If I don't go out, I now eat salad. I typically have a bunch of salad stuff in the fridge, and I can throw together a damned good salad in like 5 minutes. Fast. Easy. Tastes good. And typically cheaper too.

How do I feel from diet alone? Better, for sure. Part of that is because I now eat fewer indigestion-causing foods. I used to get indigestion quite a bit, and it made me feel like ****. So that's a huge improvement. I also generally feel less weighted down and more energetic after eating-- probably because I eat less by weight, so there's less work for my gut? I don't notice this so much anymore, as I've cut back on meat and dairy for so long now, but I definitely noticed when I first switched. And if I'm doing a good job avoiding meat and dairy and eating lots of good fresh veggies, pooping is like it was back in high school: Dependable, satisfying, and easy. Between 9 and 10 AM every morning. No fuss. Wiping is basically just insurance, rather than the necessarily pre-shower, sticky, tedious mess it had become. So that's actually one of the best perks.

The convergence of factors in my general lifestyle change, however, has an even more definite impact on how I feel. Not only do I eat better and exercise more now, but I also have a standing desk at work and home-- mostly due to back issues-- and I try to not short change myself on sleep as much as I used to. When I'm eating well, exercising daily, not sitting for long periods of time, and getting enough sleep, I just feel much, much better in every aspect of life. I have more energy, confidence, and concentration ability. If I slip in aspect, I feel the impacts.

Seems we're in a completely different thread from most of the other contributors, but thanks for replying Sounds like you have a good situation going on.

I still eat quite a lot of meat, and dairy, and other things I perhaps shouldn't... but I don't get any noticeable of the indigestion/bloating/lack of energy problems. Then again I do get quite a bit of salad and veg in my diet along with the rest and am reasonably active too. Having said that I did get a full set of tests when I had a brief episode of stomach pain which indicated a fatty liver, even though my cholesterol levels were (by any measure) right in the middle of the optimal range! So who knows...

 

[casebro]

Personally, I stopped clogging arteries when I went first low carb, then instead, Gluten Free. And here we are disgussing how high carbs raise the triglyceride level, which seems to be the bigger culprit in CVD.

So, is Gluten Sensitivity the culprit in CVD?

Much room for confounding? Less beef = less bread for sandwiches and buns? Low fat = less doughnuts and snacks? less breading on chicken fried steak- it's the breading, not the beef?

Though I think CVD cause is probaly multi-factorial. For me, gluten. For you, rutabagas?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Personally, I stopped clogging arteries when I went first low carb, then instead, Gluten Free. And here we are disgussing how high carbs raise the triglyceride level, which seems to be the bigger culprit in CVD.

I still maintain it is the way we raise animals that is the biggest problem. Carbs, or more specifically empty carbs probably is also a contributing factor. But that's easy enough to avoid. What is harder is finding beef pork and poultry that was raised in a healthy way. So back again to the best option, avoid any CAFO raised animals. Either by going vegetarian, or by finding a farmer who has rejected the industrial farm model. It's not healthy. It never was healthy. It wasn't adopted to provide healthy food. It was adopted for qualities that promote industrial processing. Just for some context. We haven't discussed pork yet.

In America, acorn-fed hogs bring lower prices in the wholesale
market because they have soft flesh. Is this a permanent
handicap? I doubt it, if the problem is studied in a scientific
way. In the first place, acorn-fed pork has fine (perhaps finer)
flavor. For local consumption the meat (acorn-fed hogs) is satisfactory.
If the lard is liquid instead of solid, what is the difference?
One kind may go into a can while the other goes into
a carton. Its meat drips; if so, the drip is good lard. Perhaps
it needs to be subjected to some process such as 120° F for
a stated period to force and finish the dripping. This reduction
of the fat might make bacon better. It is certainly no handicap
to animals on a maintenance ration. "It might be stated his
hogs would not eat corn in quantity until the acorns were gone."
(J. C. Holmes, The Country Gentleman) December 13, 1913,
p. 1822.

Now back in 1913 they had no clue that the saturated fats that are solid at room temp would also be implicated in such an increase in CVD. PUFA's that drip were seen as bad. Same thing with hydrogenated vegetable oils. They were hydrogenated to make them solid. Both are due to industries' needs, not consumer health. They simply assumed it wouldn't matter. Science has shown it DOES matter.

Now the interesting thing is this. Animal feeding studies where domestic animals are given grains as their primary feed universally develop unhealthy fat profiles, both herbivores and omnivores. Why would humans be any different? So choose your poison? High carbs diets from breads and pasta etc.. and your own lipid profile will change. OR Eat meat with a bad lipid profile already..same thing.

OR eat healthy food instead (High in fruits and veggies and either wild meats/fish or pasture/forage raised), and lower your risk factors across the board. (Even if you did decide to go vegetarian or semi vegetarian, avoid the breads and pastas and focus on the fruits and veggies) It really is that simple.

 

[casebro]

Found a confounding link?

What if those who eat the most saturated fats, do so because they crave a different ingredient? So they eat those fatty foods. Then the closer examination of saturated fats would show no linkage to artery disease.

Ready?

Choline.

It's an essential nutrient that is low in 90% of Americans. It's biggest sources are Liver, egg yolks, milk products, yeast, beef, and lesser sources are those green leafy things that are supposed to be so good for us. Choline is used by the body to control fat metabolism, make membranes, and in almost every facet of our bodies. Deficiency syndromes include fatty liver, Type II diabetes, kidney disease, myopathy, hypertension (I have them all). More exercise and larger muscle mass means you need extra. (I am 6'3", 270#, and work as hard as my myopathy allows)

For me, and what made me look into it, is that my muscles feel so much better after snacking on braunsweiger before walking the dog. Plus, staying away from gluten, but cheating occassionally, and feeling better for the cheat. (yeast in the pizza dough and the microbrew) Plus eating beef has been a neccessity. Myopathy has been a problem since childhood, but would occassionally subside (diet?). And there are aslo a couple different genetic anomalies that make you require extra Choline. And all of my probs seem to run in the family.


Max dose, three grams/day. I' taking that in pills plus eating eggs and snacking on Braunsweiger. Instead of legs knotting up, they get more flexible, rubbery even, when walking the dog. Cardio-vascular is now the weak point, I think I'm going into aerobic mode and need more oxygen than before. I'm walking right past the bench I used to rest on, and the cardio seems to be getting better each day too. And I used to drink a half gallon of milk per day, now it just doesn't appeal to me except with some meals.

Big Pharma/Medical industry CT: Cutting down on those high fat, high Choline food items insures MORE diabetes, kidney disease, fatty liver, hypertension.... ensuring more sales of medicine. Fantastic coincidence they take advantage of eh? Hey, green leafy stuff is good, but you would need to eat a pound of Kale, Cauliflower, or Broccoli every day to get the RDA.

I'll let you find your own links, rather then tell me I'm posting from woo sites.
You can all start with Wiki, then go from there.