Great Cholesterol Lie?

[The Man]

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.

For what? My psoriasis didn’t develop until my appendix was removed in my late 20’s. Additionally I’ve tried the omega 3, fish oil and vitamin E-route. Even the abstract you cite says…

…but the precise mechanisms by which these fatty acids exert their clinical effects are not well understood.

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.

I have neither diabetes nor any allergy that I’m aware of, particularly not skin allergies.

And many more I could show you.

While I do appreciate the concern the only approaches that have made any improvement for me have been a TNFi and methotrexate
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TNF_inhibitor
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methotrexate

I’m off the TNFi for now and we’re seeing how the methotrexate alone handles it.

Then read about 10 or 20 of these:

Is their some point you're trying to make?

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 what's going on in terms we can understand:

Meet Real Free-Range Eggs



Get it? The great lie isn't precisely the cholesterol per say. The lie is the whole lipid balance (in fact the whole nutritional profile) and the effect CAFOs have on human health.

Well, there you go, finally and not unexpected. You could have just posted those links as additional information to the assertion you already made.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

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?

Just a hypothesis.... but assuming it has something to do with EPA and DHA since they are so crucial to the brain and nervous system. Just reducing lipids isn't the answer. It's the whole lipid balance that is the key in my honest (but somewhat unscientific) opinion.

 

[bigred]

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.

And yet you don't give us a single one. hmmmmmm

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.

I "only" waded through about 5 or 6 of these, and found precious little of what you claim above...certainly nothing as extreme or over-simplified as "everything good is increased, and everything harmful reduced."

 

[Red Baron Farms]

I "only" waded through about 5 or 6 of these, and found precious little of what you claim above...certainly nothing as extreme or over-simplified as "everything good is increased, and everything harmful reduced."

Wade through some more then. Most studies only attack individual limited effects. You can't see the larger picture without reading and studying the larger picture. You don't want to be the blind man feeling the elephant's trunk and assuming an elephant is similar to a snake.

 

[meg]

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.

Just want to add a +1 to this. We did a similar thing. Cook/eat only vegan at home. A couple of times a week when we go out I eat whatever I want. After a year and a half, I'm down 30 pounds (effortlessly) and cholesterol levels all down by more than 10%.

 

[casebro]

Just want to add a +1 to this. We did a similar thing. Cook/eat only vegan at home. A couple of times a week when we go out I eat whatever I want. After a year and a half, I'm down 30 pounds (effortlessly) and cholesterol levels all down by more than 10%.

But are the improvements from Veganism, or weight loss?

As I've mentioned up thread, my own lipids got drastically better with low carbs and weight loss, NOT low saturated fats. I cook with coconut oil, which is totally saturated. And I suspect vegans also cut their grains- I believe most veagans are also low carb.

Oh, best sense of ideal weight is height / waist ration. .5 is supposedly best. Throw out BMI and Metropolitan tables. Basically, abdominal fat is critical, not weight. Muscle mass is not harmful either.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

But are the improvements from Veganism, or weight loss?

Or simply that you stopped eating unhealthy CAFO products?

 

[meg]

But are the improvements from Veganism, or weight loss?

I don't know the answer to that. Both, maybe?

As I've mentioned up thread, my own lipids got drastically better with low carbs and weight loss, NOT low saturated fats. I cook with coconut oil, which is totally saturated. And I suspect vegans also cut their grains- I believe most veagans are also low carb.

Oh, best sense of ideal weight is height / waist ration. .5 is supposedly best. Throw out BMI and Metropolitan tables. Basically, abdominal fat is critical, not weight. Muscle mass is not harmful either.

I don't believe most vegans are low carb. Most of the vegans I know love their pasta, potatoes and breads as much as anybody else. I know I do, and I eat them a lot. I do tend to eat fewer processed carbs, though, choosing whole grain over white flour, etc. I don't use a lot of oil when cooking. When I do, I use olive oil or coconut oil. I eat nuts and avocado regularly.

 

[OMGturt1es]

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?

Actually, no weight loss. I was already relatively thin at the time of my first border line high lipid panel. But nonetheless I started exercising in hopes of improving cholesrerol. A year later I was 20 to 30 pounds lighter with a low BMI of about 18 or 19, but my lipid results were almost the same. So then I changed diet. My weight is actually a bit higher now, as I haven't had time to exercise as much as I did before. But my lipid is dramatically improved.

I would think it could just be a fluke, but these results seem to be in line with typical vegan results. And there's a causative factor to explain these results that matches what appears to be a very basic consensus: cholesterol is consumed from foods and created by the liver as it breaks down saturated fat; consume dramatically less cholesterol and saturated fat and you should see a reduction in cholesrerol, assuming the liver doesn't generate more cholesterol to adjust to lower saturated fat intake.

 

[OMGturt1es]

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.

As I mentioned in my initial post, I can't speak to an overall relationship between heart disease and cholesterol. I'm assuming the standard consensus is more or less correct-- if simplified and incomplete. The abstracts I've read certainly indicate the consensus about how cholesterol is generated is correct, and certainly so does my little personal anecdote, so I thought I'd share, given this thread directly asks whether diet can influence cholesterol.

 

[casebro]

Link to a page comparing different diets, in overweight premenopausal women- http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-vs-vegan-vegetarian/
But the author mentions 'toxins' down the page.

That link is based on the A-Z weight loss study- <http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=205916> which compared low carb, vegetarian, Zone, and LEARN diets.

Seems no 'diet' is particularly bad for health or cholesterol, they are all better than the usual. But low carb is better. Though it may be confounded by the mere weight loss at which it excelled, maybe through better compliance? The vegetarians (Ornish diet) had double the drop out rate.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

The vegetarians (Ornish diet) had double the drop out rate.

There are lots of reasons for that, but the biggest reason for that is human beings are omnivores, not herbivores.

Yes we can get some benefit from switching to a vegetarian diet. But it is a correlation not a causation.

The causation is that the CAFO produced food products are so unhealthy (mainly the lipid profiles) that eliminating them from your diet will show health benefits.


You can eliminate them by becoming vegan, or you can eliminate them by purchasing pasture fed instead. Or you can go with still eating CAFO produced, but as lean a cut as possible to minimise the harmful lipid profile effects. Or you can limit it to no more than once or twice a week or less. But however which way you do it, getting rid of that crap in your diet shows health benefits.

 

[ThunderChunky]

As I mentioned in my initial post, I can't speak to an overall relationship between heart disease and cholesterol. I'm assuming the standard consensus is more or less correct-- if simplified and incomplete. The abstracts I've read certainly indicate the consensus about how cholesterol is generated is correct, and certainly so does my little personal anecdote, so I thought I'd share, given this thread directly asks whether diet can influence cholesterol.

Sometimes you miss the real story when you oversimplify things too much.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35058896/ns/health-heart_health/t/bad-cholesterol-its-not-what-you-think/

the tl;dr: There are two types of LDL, small and big. The small kind is the bad kind. High saturated fat increases LDL levels but not the small kind. The small kind is increased by carbohydrates. There's only a weak link between dietary cholesterol and blood cholesterol levels.

 

[OMGturt1es]

Sometimes you miss the real story when you oversimplify things too much.

http://www.nbcnews.com/id/35058896/ns/health-heart_health/t/bad-cholesterol-its-not-what-you-think/

I'm not going to say that's wrong. How could I? I don't have years of academic and professional training, journal review, conference attendance, etc. So how do I determine if this is any different than cranks who don't believe that humans are causing climate change? All I can do is watch the general consensus. I certainly don't have the time to build the expertise required to review and interpret the actual evidence.

 

[big-E]

OMGturt1es' experience is what I'm talking about with chasing metrics - a lot of work to alter measurable variables, but extremely limited information on whether that actually means an objectively improved outcome...

Of course, subjectively 'feeling better' is still a legitimate improvement in terms of quality of life, even if one's lifespan hasn't actually been significantly altered, whether that is a specific improvement in fitness, weight loss, or anything that results from a better diet. So, do you feel better for having done it, OMGturt1es? (genuine question!)

 

[ThunderChunky]

I'm not going to say that's wrong. How could I? I don't have years of academic and professional training, journal review, conference attendance, etc. So how do I determine if this is any different than cranks who don't believe that humans are causing climate change? All I can do is watch the general consensus. I certainly don't have the time to build the expertise required to review and interpret the actual evidence.

Considering that this guy is a scientist of stature, an expert in the field, and well respected among his peers should give you some idea that he's not a crank.

http://profiles.ucsf.edu/ronald.krauss

 

[casebro]

OMGturt1es' experience is what I'm talking about with chasing metrics - a lot of work to alter measurable variables, but extremely limited information on whether that actually means an objectively improved outcome...

Yeah, like the drug Gemfibrozil. It lowers cholesterol, but not cardiovascular disease incidence.

And then there is aspirin, which is 80% as effective as statins, without lowering cholesterol. Then take both together, and the total improvement is only 20% better than statins alone. That tells me that aspirin and statins do much of the same thing. If they worked completely differently, wouldn't the two together add up to the sum, 180% as good as statins alone? So therefor, statins do much of their work via some other mechanism than lowering lipids.

 

[bigred]

Or simply that you stopped eating unhealthy CAFO products?

 

[Red Baron Farms]

Explain something to me Bigred, since you are expressing sarcasm. (BTW Bigred is one of my nick names too)

Why is it that most people have no problem believing eating red meat is unhealthy? Seeing as how humans and their ancestors evolved for millions of years or more eating red meat, something extremely implausible.
Earliest Archaeological Evidence of Persistent Hominin Carnivory

Study urges moderation in red meat intake

Red meat consumption linked to increased risk of total, cardiovascular, and cancer mortality

Dietary risk factors for the development of inflammatory polyarthritis: evidence for a role of high level of red meat consumption.
and on and on and on..we all know how many studies there are.

But they have huge problems with accepting that eating animals that were raised in CAFOs, living in their own feces and eating diets that they clearly didn't evolve to eat has any effect on human health? Even though there are significant quantifiable differences in the product depending how it is raised.
A review of fatty acid profiles and antioxidant
content in grass-fed and grain-fed beef

And those differences specifically attributed to health
Health Attribute Literature

So please....be a skeptic. Tell me the flaw in my logic. Show me the evidence. But don't just hand wave it away.

 

[meg]

Why is it that most people have no problem believing eating red meat is unhealthy? Seeing as how humans and their ancestors evolved for millions of years or more eating red meat, something extremely implausible.

Well I think we need to acknowledge that evolution really does not give a whip about whether you get clogged arteries or have a heart attack in your fifties or sixties. Natural selection favors those species that breed the most successfully. It does not favor those that live the longest.

From here: Ancient people had clogged arteries, too, mummy CT scans show
https://news.usc.edu/47807/ancient-people-had-clogged-arteries-too-mummy-ct-scans-show/

“We found that heart disease is a serial killer that has been stalking mankind for thousands of years,” Thompson said. “In the last century, atherosclerotic vascular disease has replaced infectious disease as the leading cause of death across the developed world. A common assumption is that the rise in levels of atherosclerosis is predominantly lifestyle-related, and that if modern humans could emulate preindustrial or even preagricultural lifestyles, that atherosclerosis, or at least its clinical manifestations, would be avoided.
“Our findings seem to cast doubt on that assumption, and at the very least, we think they suggest that our understanding of the causes of atherosclerosis is incomplete and that it might be somehow inherent to the process of human aging,” he added.​

But they have huge problems with accepting that eating animals that were raised in CAFOs, living in their own feces and eating diets that they clearly didn't evolve to eat has any effect on human health? Even though there are significant quantifiable differences in the product depending how it is raised.


So please....be a skeptic. Tell me the flaw in my logic. Show me the evidence. But don't just hand wave it away.

I can offer my own anecdote. My own borderline high cholesterol happened after over 10 years of eating only grass fed beef, pastured pigs and free range chicken (and their eggs) that we raised ourselves. This borderline high cholesterol lowered by over 10% after a year of mostly plant based eating.

I think the flaw in your logic here is that you ask whether we can accept the idea that eating animals from CAFOs might have some effect on human health. I can accept that. However I don't believe you have shown that it has the specific effect you want to claim.