The Cholesterol and Fat Scam

[Penumbra]

I am well aware. May I suggest you read some of my previous posts?

I already did.

When I make a long post like these ones, I generally make them as self-contained as possible, meaning that they can be readable to whoever happens to read it rather than just one or two people that read through the whole thread carefully. So if I describe the function of something as it relates to what I'm saying, it's not necessarily an indication that I don't think you know that particular fact, it's because I'm writing it for anyone that happens to read the post.

For a given thread, the number of views will be an order of magnitude greater than the number of posts.

Yes, LDL and HDL are both forms of cholesterol. The function of LDL is to bring cholesterol to various tissues. The function of HDL is to remove cholesterol from tissue to the liver for disposal.

The link between a high (healthy) level of HDL and lowered risk of heart-disease is well known.

Since the function of HDL is to remove cholesterol from tissue for disposal, then it appears that removing cholesterol reduces the risk of heart disease.

But keep in mind that most of the body's cholesterol is produced by the body, and it self-regulates.

-The high cholesterol and saturated fat Inuit diet doesn't seem to increase risk of heart disease. Same thing for the French. They also don't eat a lot of inflammation-causing foods.

-This meta-analysis of studies in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition concluded that "there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with a risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease."

-The link between dietary cholesterol levels and cardiovascular problems is quite weak. (I don't necessarily agree with every single conclusion in that article, but there are 64 references and for a given statement in that article, they list the reference, which is why I'm linking it.) Like this reference, that says, "Based on these studies, the association between dietary cholesterol and coronary heart disease risk is, if anything, minor in nature."

-Keep in mind that a lot of studies are based on people in developed countries where the diets are highly inflammatory to begin with, with lots of processed oils, processed carbs, and factory farm animals. They're studying the dude that eats McDonald's or meat-n-potatoes for dinner, rather than a statistically relevant sample of people that eat very intentionally with fish, grass-fed beef, very high amounts of fruits and vegetables, and so forth. Increasing or decreasing dietary cholesterol when one has a highly inflammatory diet (seeing as how cholesterol specifically gets sent by the body to the inflammation damage), is not necessarily the same as increasing or decreasing dietary cholesterol when one has a healthy, non-inflammatory diet. (Inuit and French diets tend to not consist of inflammatory foods.)

-When I switched from a purely vegetarian diet to one that includes a bit more saturated fat and cholesterol and a bit less carbs in their place (occasional salmon and chicken, along with the other saturated fat sources I already ate in moderation like dark chocolate, nuts, and coconut oil), my HDL (good) cholesterol went a bit up, my LDL (bad) cholesterol went a bit down, and my triglycerides (bad) went a bit down, according to a comprehensive blood test. The were already at good levels, but they improved. One factor was that my diet became less inflammatory due to the addition of some fish (with moderately high cholesterol and saturated fat, strongly anti-inflammatory) and the reduction of some carbs (a bit less rice, pasta, with no cholesterol or saturated fat but inflammatory), and the maintenance of similar levels of other foods like nuts, beans, fruits, and vegetables. Although it was already at a low level of inflammation compared to the standard American diet, it became lower, and blood test results of cholesterol and triglycerides improved.

This is because I am not arguing about that stuff.

From what I can make out, there are three claims being made:
1. Dietary cholesterol has no effect upon serum levels of cholestrol.
2. Amount of dietary cholesterol has no effect upon a person's risk for developing heart disease.
3. Cholesterol plays no role in the development of atherosclerosis.

I am not arguing 1 or 2. As mentioned in previous posts, I find it likely that these diets restricting cholesterol are over-blown and faddish. It also appears that there is respectable research indicating that the link between dietary consumption of cholesterol and heart disease is not perfectly correlated. I also have no doubt that statins are over-prescribed.

I am, however, arguing against Claim 3. The role of cholesterol (LDL) in the development of atherosclerosis is well-documented. Various studies indicate that cholesterol causes inflammation, which starts the plaque forming processes. And, regardless of whether cholesterol actually initiates the inflammation, LDL is a prime component in plaque formation, due to the fact that it becomes oxidized when it enters the arterial cell walls, which increases the inflammation, thereby attracting more stuff to come to that spot (including more LDL), creating the plaque.

I'm not saying that cholesterol itself doesn't build up on artery walls due to certain conditions.

The question is, what would make the body do that? Why would it keep making LDL to send cholesterol to the arteries, and produce less HDL cholesterol to take it back, resulting in a dangerous long-term build-up? The most consistent answer would seem to be the chronic inflammation itself. Focusing on the cholesterol, especially dietary cholesterol, is focusing on the body's response to the problem rather than the problem itself, as far as the data seems to suggest. So statins can help with heart disease because they're constantly trying to block the cholesterol, but an easier approach is to just not eat the types of food that make the body want to send all of that cholesterol to those places to begin with.

And a related question is- does dietary saturated fat and cholesterol have anything to do with the amount of cholesterol that actually ends up on artery walls, especially in a non-inflammatory diet?

And- if the body is responding to inflammation in such a way to send cholesterol to the artery walls, does eating less saturated fat and cholesterol improve that at all, do nothing, or even make it worse (such as perhaps by eating more inflammatory-producing carbohydrates in their place)?

More- why do some of the highest cholesterol diets in the world, statistically not have cardiovascular problems?

What are your thoughts on the various high cholesterol, high saturated fat foods that are anti-inflammatory, including grass-fed beef and especially sockeye salmon and other types of fatty fish? Sockeye salmon has high protein, a decent amount of saturated fat, high cholesterol, and is probably the single best thing you could eat for the purpose of reducing inflammation if that was one's particular goal.

 

[Penumbra]

The life expentancy of the Inuit people is 66.7 years.

And what they die from, is not heart problems. Their populations are becoming increasingly intertwined with the rest of the world, but the more traditional areas are still very physically active in harsh conditions and rather impoverished by the way we measure it (comforts, access to top level health care, etc).

I wouldn't recommend anyone go out and eat a pound of seal blubber and only small amounts of fruits and vegetables, but the point is that if the cultures that eat enormous amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol are not getting cardiovascular problems by the time we do at the same rates (and not getting rates WAY worse than us, as we'd probably otherwise guess- studies on their actual rates of various problems are somewhat inconclusive), then that's an argument (among the other arguments) against dietary cholesterol and saturated fats being the main cause. And don't forget France- one of the highest life expectancy countries in the world, and high levels of saturated fat and very low levels of heart disease compared to similar developed countries. People are always studying if it's the wine, the types of fat, the extra walking, etc.

Their rate of heart disease is less because they are already dead when most people have their first evidence of heart disease.

Actually the average age of the first heart attack in the U.S. is 66 years, meaning that first evidence of heart disease is way before that.

BTW the diet that you eat is considered low in saturated fat and heart healthy.

I've measured my levels of nutrient intake. Don't just go by the list of foods I mentioned, because I didn't list precise quantities of those foods.

The diet I eat is moderate in saturated fat, moderate in cholesterol, very low in processed foods and sugar, moderate in carbs, moderate in protein, moderate in fiber, and high in vitamins and minerals. Because eating a balanced set of whole (not processed) foods generally leads to that ratio. And as I describe in the previous post, when I specifically tweaked it to make it higher in saturated fat and cholesterol and lower in carbs (whereas before it was a bit high in carbs, a bit low in saturated fat, and very low in cholesterol), blood level tests of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides improved.

What I eat is proportionally something like a Mediterranean diet, but with added coconut oil and dark chocolate and other non-Mediterranean items like green tea, and a subtraction of dairy.

 

[Penumbra]

Here's the reason I think this is important, and this is my main point. I'll use an example.

I have a co-worker that is one year younger than me, about two inches taller, and weighs slightly more than twice as much as me. He has pre-diabetes and sleep apnea, in addition to being obese. He actually gets as much exercise as I do; he's surprisingly active.

I know him well, and his diet consists of lots of soda (high sugar), iced tea (high sugar), lots of white bread (fast burning carbs), lots of processed meat and cheese (fast food, plus things he bakes), and almost no fruits or vegetables. The diet consists of foods that burn up really quickly, leading to constant appetite and weight gain, and he gets very little in the way of vitamins and minerals, and the diet as a whole is extremely inflammatory.

Looking at the types and quantities of food he eats, his carb, fat, and protein ratio is probably similar to mine, with the overall calorie level being higher. The difference, though, is that his carbs consist of added sugar and white bread, and mine consist of naturally occurring fruit sugars, whole grain wheat, quinoa, buckwheat, nuts, beans, and rice. His vitamins and minerals are limited, while mine come from a lot of fruits and vegetables that I eat throughout the day, plus some from the grains, natural animals, and nuts/beans. His protein consists of McDonald's and other factory farm stuff, and mine consists of nuts, beans, wild-caught salmon, some organic local chicken, etc. His fat comes from processed cheeses, industrial oils, and factory animals, while mine comes from the wild salmon, a bit from chicken, nuts, olive oil, dark chocolate, and coconut oil.

So if he were to ask how to improve his diet to fix his weight issue and pre-diabetes, "low fat" isn't the answer I'd give, especially because on paper the ratios probably look rather similar. "Eat real food, including fruits and vegetables" is what I'd say. Little or no added sugar, little or no fast-burning refined carbs, no factory farm stuff, etc. More fruits and vegetables, more natural sources of meat if he wants meat, consider some fish, more nuts and beans, some oils like olive oil or coconut or avocado oil, etc.

There's another co-worker, who is about 6 years older than me and asked me to help him train at the gym to get stronger, that is "skinny-fat". He is about three inches taller than me, weighs about 1.6x as much as me, and doesn't appear overweight but has a high body fat ratio, because he had almost no muscle and a lot of disguised fat. Despite being much larger than myself and having the strength benefit of testosterone in his blood, since most of his weight was fat (despite looking thin), his lifts at the gym were lighter than mine. His diet is like the other guy: all processed foods, hardly any fruits and vegetables, and not quite as much sugary beverages as the other guy but still quite a bit. His metabolism just handles it a bit differently. He even claimed his diet is healthy because he doesn't eat a lot of fat. And statistically, he probably does eat a similar fat ratio that I do compared to carbs and protein.

Over close to a year I trained him at the gym, we increased the number of pull-ups he can do from none to several, increased his squat weight to being more than I can do (based on his size, he better), increased his bench press to a bit higher than mine but about the same, and his dumbbell exercises and other things improved too but are still only at around what I can do. His dead lift hasn't caught up to mine yet. His weight hasn't changed much, because he probably gained some muscle and lost some fat, but he's still skinny-fat. Sometimes he asks me what he should do differently, and I say "eat real foods, not processed stuff", and he shrugs it off as not being a big factor, but literally everything he eats is processed. I don't think I've ever seen him eat a fruit or vegetable straight up, nor does he ever cook a meal at home. Meanwhile he continues to bench roughly what I bench, as a 110 pound girl, which is at least an improvement of where he was. I don't train him anymore because he already knows all of the lifts I know with proper form, and he's going to have a plateau unless he chooses to eat better, so there's only so much I can help with now. I previously trained someone at about his weight and an inch or two taller, that quickly grew more than twice as strong as me (as he should be), and the only real difference (other than probably some invisible genetic factors) was that the other man ate almost all healthy food once we started training; a major contrast. This processed stuff is just terrible even if the fat/carb/protein ratios look okay on paper.

A multi-decade marketing push about "low fat" has led a lot of people I know to believe that as long as they're not eating too much fat, they're doing okay. There hasn't been nearly as strong of a marketing push about the problems of excess sugar, the problems of refined carbs, not eating enough fruits and vegetables, and so forth. So the skinny-fat guy doesn't think his diet is all that bad, even though it's all fast food, white bread, sugar, industrial oils, etc. He sees a processed meat white bread sandwich as "protein, fat, carbs, plus maybe I'll take a multi-vitamin".

And when I go to the super market on rare occasion and look at products they're advertising as healthy, it looks very misleading to me. Low-fat yogurt with lots of sugar to replace the fat, or some low-fat and high-carb processed meal (which would be very inflammatory). If someone buys that stuff thinking they're doing better from what they were doing, they're probably not, unfortunately.

And when people try to restrict their diets to lose weight, but the food they do eat is fast-burning carbs that increase appetite, then it's going against a major headwind and it's not surprising that they feel hungry all the time and end up falling off the diet. Processed foods have very high calorie density, allowing people to eat a lot. Eating more whole foods means eating a lot more water (in the case of vegetables and fruit) and a lot more fiber (in the case of grains, legumes, etc), which means much lower calorie density, more food volume relative to the calories, and slower-burning fuel. Using myself as an example, I'm currently trying to gain weight, but I rarely feel hungry from having eaten a good breakfast, then a good lunch, etc. So it's hard to eat excess calories even when trying to.

That's why I think these marketing ideas of "eat less saturated fat" and "eat less cholesterol" and "low fat such and such" are at best misleading, and at worst harmful by creating a false sense of health. I think most of the messages should be "eat real food, eat more fruits and vegetables, eat more legumes and good oils, eat little or no added sugar and refined carbs".

 

[yokomodoful]

And what they die from, is not heart problems. Their populations are becoming increasingly intertwined with the rest of the world, but the more traditional areas are still very physically active in harsh conditions and rather impoverished by the way we measure it (comforts, access to top level health care, etc).

I wouldn't recommend anyone go out and eat a pound of seal blubber and only small amounts of fruits and vegetables, but the point is that if the cultures that eat enormous amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol are not getting cardiovascular problems by the time we do at the same rates (and not getting rates WAY worse than us, as we'd probably otherwise guess- studies on their actual rates of various problems are somewhat inconclusive), then that's an argument (among the other arguments) against dietary cholesterol and saturated fats being the main cause. And don't forget France- one of the highest life expectancy countries in the world, and high levels of saturated fat and very low levels of heart disease compared to similar developed countries. People are always studying if it's the wine, the types of fat, the extra walking, etc.

Actually the average age of the first heart attack in the U.S. is 66 years, meaning that first evidence of heart disease is way before that.

I've measured my levels of nutrient intake. Don't just go by the list of foods I mentioned, because I didn't list precise quantities of those foods.

The diet I eat is moderate in saturated fat, moderate in cholesterol, very low in processed foods and sugar, moderate in carbs, moderate in protein, moderate in fiber, and high in vitamins and minerals. Because eating a balanced set of whole (not processed) foods generally leads to that ratio. And as I describe in the previous post, when I specifically tweaked it to make it higher in saturated fat and cholesterol and lower in carbs (whereas before it was a bit high in carbs, a bit low in saturated fat, and very low in cholesterol), blood level tests of HDL, LDL, and triglycerides improved.

What I eat is proportionally something like a Mediterranean diet, but with added coconut oil and dark chocolate and other non-Mediterranean items like green tea, and a subtraction of dairy.

Actually the first sign of heart disease in 50% of cases is a heart attack and half of those result in death. My profession is primary and secondary prevention of heart disease and I could give you thousands of case studies, don't have the time for that right now. All the new research indicates is that what you replace your fat intake with is important. Replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates won't help you, but replacing with fruits, veggies, nuts, fish, etc. will. It has long been known that eating fatty cold water fish as eskimos do is cardioprotective. The French on average get more physical activity than Americans, they eat smaller portions and still there are many other countries with lower rates of heart disease.

 

[Shadow Wolf]

Why do you think there are so many fat people walking or trying to walk around these days, just take a look at their diet, eating all that takeaway crap which is usually full of saturated fats.

With weight many times it's the artificial chemicals, loads of added sugars, and far too many carbs that are to blame. But the body does need carbs and small amounts of sugar, just not too many.
Small amounts of cholesterol is needed and naturally produced by the body. But too much of good or bad does lead to atherosclerosis and plaque build up, even Di Vinci saw this when he exhumed dissected human bodies. The same goes for saturated fats. Small amounts are good, but you can over due it. Unsaturated fats are much healthier, but again you can over due it. Really the only fats that should be entirely avoided are trans fats.
And you also must consider level of physical activity. With increased physical activity the body needs more to sustain itself as it metabolized what you put into it faster, and there is less time for all the fats and cholesterol to sit around collecting on artery walls. The less active you are, the less your body will use and all the fats and cholesterol will be able to stick to artery walls more.

 

[Penumbra]

Actually the first sign of heart disease in 50% of cases is a heart attack and half of those result in death. My profession is primary and secondary prevention of heart disease and I could give you thousands of case studies, don't have the time for that right now.

The first visible sign, perhaps. How were the blood tests of those people? And how was their stamina when exercising? Probably both pretty bad- it's not like someone has perfect blood tests and gets regular exercise and out of nowhere has a heart attack (unless someone has a problem unrelated to diet/exercise)- stuff builds up for a while.

All the new research indicates is that what you replace your fat intake with is important. Replacing saturated fat with refined carbohydrates won't help you, but replacing with fruits, veggies, nuts (which have quite a bit of saturated and unsaturated fat), fish (which have quite a bit of saturated and unsaturated fat), etc. will. It has long been known that eating fatty cold water fish (which have quite a bit of saturated and unsaturated fat) as eskimos do is cardioprotective.

(Red parts added.)

So basically this translates into "replace saturated fat with fruits, veggies, plus more fat, including saturated fat", which are the types of food I've already advocated.

Plus I'm not sure what you mean by all that new research. As I previously linked to, a meta-analysis of 21 studies as recent as around 2010 concluded, "there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with a risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease." As I mentioned in an earlier post, people can find individual sources for anything. So I can link to things that say saturated fat and cholesterol are okay, and people can link to studies that say otherwise, because any given study is generally not isolating every variable. What I think is important is to be able to put it all together- to have evidence-based knowledge combined with personal tests combined with a comprehensive model that takes into account various foods (like why is fatty fish with saturated fat and cholesterol so incredibly anti-inflammatory and cardioprotective, if saturated fat and/or cholesterol cause inflammation or cardiovascular disease?, and why if you point out a bunch of foods like I did in an earlier post, is the correlation between inflammation and cholesterol so inconsistent, if cholesterol supposedly is a significant cause of inflammation?, and why do Inuits who eat enormous amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat not dying in their forties, fifties, and sixties from cardiovascular problems?, and why do the French who eat fairly significant amounts of saturated fat have literally the best cardiovascular statistics in Europe?) A model has to be able to answer those questions, and as far as I've seen, the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for cardiovascular health in and of themselves, does not answer those questions and is in part contradicted by those questions.

The French on average get more physical activity than Americans, they eat smaller portions and still there are many other countries with lower rates of heart disease.

I'd recommend looking at this source. It shows age-adjusted heart disease and and stroke mortality rates for all of the European countries. France is the #1 lowest ranked for both of them (meaning the lowest rates of both). If France is compared to almost any highly developed country, France comes out on top in terms of cardiovascular statistics, with possible exceptions of Japan or South Korea; I'm not sure about those.

-Getting moderate amounts of exercise lowers blood pressure, inflammation, and other things, and is healthy. Look at European exercise statistics, though. France is about right in the middle for exercise.

-France actually has the ninth highest level of average calories consumed by country, including the eighth highest in Europe (above average), and only 220 kilocalories per day behind the U.S. which is at #1 (3770 vs 3550). The link goes to wikipedia but the data they show are from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

 

[yokomodoful]

The first visible sign, perhaps. How were the blood tests of those people? And how was their stamina when exercising? Probably both pretty bad- it's not like someone has perfect blood tests and gets regular exercise and out of nowhere has a heart attack (unless someone has a problem unrelated to diet/exercise)- stuff builds up for a while.

(Red parts added.)

So basically this translates into "replace saturated fat with fruits, veggies, plus more fat, including saturated fat", which are the types of food I've already advocated.

Plus I'm not sure what you mean by all that new research. As I previously linked to, a meta-analysis of 21 studies as recent as around 2010 concluded, "there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with a risk of coronary heart disease, stroke, or cardiovascular disease." As I mentioned in an earlier post, people can find individual sources for anything. So I can link to things that say saturated fat and cholesterol are okay, and people can link to studies that say otherwise, because any given study is generally not isolating every variable. What I think is important is to be able to put it all together- to have evidence-based knowledge combined with personal tests combined with a comprehensive model that takes into account various foods (like why is fatty fish with saturated fat and cholesterol so incredibly anti-inflammatory and cardioprotective, if saturated fat and/or cholesterol cause inflammation or cardiovascular disease?, and why if you point out a bunch of foods like I did in an earlier post, is the correlation between inflammation and cholesterol so inconsistent, if cholesterol supposedly is a significant cause of inflammation?, and why do Inuits who eat enormous amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat not dying in their forties, fifties, and sixties from cardiovascular problems?, and why do the French who eat fairly significant amounts of saturated fat have literally the best cardiovascular statistics in Europe?) A model has to be able to answer those questions, and as far as I've seen, the idea that saturated fat and cholesterol are bad for cardiovascular health in and of themselves, does not answer those questions and is in part contradicted by those questions.

I'd recommend looking at this source. It shows age-adjusted heart disease and and stroke mortality rates for all of the European countries. France is the #1 lowest ranked for both of them (meaning the lowest rates of both). If France is compared to almost any highly developed country, France comes out on top in terms of cardiovascular statistics, with possible exceptions of Japan or South Korea; I'm not sure about those.

-Getting moderate amounts of exercise lowers blood pressure, inflammation, and other things, and is healthy. Look at European exercise statistics, though. France is about right in the middle for exercise.

-France actually has the ninth highest level of average calories consumed by country, including the eighth highest in Europe (above average), and only 220 kilocalories per day behind the U.S. which is at #1 (3770 vs 3550). The link goes to wikipedia but the data they show are from the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations.

First of all, you simply cannot prove coronary artery disease with any non-invasive test like labwork or even a stress test and yes cad may start when you are a teenager which I already mentioned in a previous post.

I recommend looking up some nutrrition information because the foods you mentioned have a much high percentage of mono and poly unsaturated fats and omega 3 fatty acids.

The French often classify the cause of death differently than other countries which could underestimate cardiovascular related death by as much as 20%. Also look at the big picture, one exception does not make a trend. For the most part countries that consume the most saturated fat have higher rates of heart disease.

Did you ever do a nutritional analysis on your diet? I bet your diet does not exceed the current recommendations for saturated fat intake (whether you know it or not)

The reason your meta-ananlysis does not prove the correlation between CAD and saturated fat intake is because it does not consider the replacement nutrient to saturated fat. Look at the other meta-analysis I posted. If you ask 100 dieticians 99 of them will agree with me.

Do not be fooled by this recent Catalyst TV show. One sided journalism and agenda for ratings is evident.

 

[apophenia]

Do not be fooled by this recent Catalyst TV show. One sided journalism and agenda for ratings is evident.

(For those who missed it, the second part was about statins.)

Do you know how statins work ?

Who do you think should be prescribed statins ?

 

[yokomodoful]

(For those who missed it, the second part was about statins.)

Do you know how statins work ?

Who do you think should be prescribed statins ?

Simply put they decrease cholesterol production in the liver. It is one of the only medications that have been proven to slow or eveen stop the progression of atherosclerosis. They also have anti inflamatory properties which are beneficial. Yes they interfere with other body processes as well such as CoQ-10, but only a small percentage experience side effects. CoQ-10 can be taken as a suplement and may help. They generally do not cause fatigue or interfere with exercise capacity. People who have known coronary artery disease who have LDL cholesterol above 70 should be taking statins if tolerated well. People without known CAD and have LDL chol over 130 with other risk factors should discuss with their doctor. The statins do not replace healthy lifestyle including regular exercise, low saturated fat diet rich in fruits and vegetables, beans, fish whole grains etc.

 

[Penumbra]

First of all, you simply cannot prove coronary artery disease with any non-invasive test like labwork or even a stress test and yes cad may start when you are a teenager which I already mentioned in a previous post.

I recommend looking up some nutrrition information because the foods you mentioned have a much high percentage of mono and poly unsaturated fats and omega 3 fatty acids.

I've looked up nutrition information on every food item I eat and most items I've mentioned in this thread. They do have unsaturated fats and omega 3 fatty acids, plus saturated fat.

Examples (RDA = Recommended Daily Allowance)

3 table spoons of olive oil: 27% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
20g of 80% dark chocolate: 30% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
1 table spoon of coconut oil: 54% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
1/2 sockeye salmon fillet: 15% RDA sat fat, 45% RDA cholesterol
1 egg: 10% RDA sat fat, 70% RDA cholesterol
2 wedges of camembert cheese: 58% RDA sat fat, 18% RDA cholesterol
1/3 cup macadamia nuts: 27% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
2 grass fed beef strip steaks (500 cal): 22% RDA sat fat, 78% RDA cholesterol
Roasted chicken breast and thigh (350 cal): 25% RDA sat fat, 46% RDA cholesterol

Mix and match a few of those items throughout the day along with whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, and it's not hard to hit 100%/100% RDA of sat fat and cholesterol in that day.

The French often classify the cause of death differently than other countries which could underestimate cardiovascular related death by as much as 20%.

20% doesn't cover the difference.

Also look at the big picture, one exception does not make a trend. For the most part countries that consume the most saturated fat have higher rates of heart disease.

I suggest that your posts are not covering the big picture.

A big picture needs a model that makes sense, doesn't have clear contradictions, and is evidenced.

In this thread, the model that suggests that dietary cholesterol and/or saturated fat cause cardiovascular problems, has not been well articulated on how that supposedly works, and several examples show contradictions to that model:

-Studies have been posted showing lack of correlation between saturated fat, cholesterol, and cardiovascular problems. Like I said in my first post, everyone in this thread can find studies that provide evidence for their point. The tricky part is putting it together.
-The Inuits eat large amounts of saturated fat and yet do not show early signs of cardiovascular disease. A very large component of their food comes from animals.
-The French eat above average amounts of saturated fat, eat above average amounts of total calories, get a moderate amount of exercise compared to the European average, and have among the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease.
-The body self-regulates cholesterol levels, and most of it is made by the body.
-People are free to do tests. For myself, when adding total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol to my diet in place of about the same amount of whole grains (and keeping all other variables similar), cholesterol blood test results improved from an already good level. The added foods in sum were anti-inflammatory and the subtracted foods in sum were inflammatory, meaning that the diet was made less inflammatory by the adjustment.

In this thread, the similar model that suggests that cholesterol causes inflammation, doesn't explain why grass fed beef with high cholesterol is anti-inflammatory, why fatty fish with high cholesterol is among the most anti-inflammatory foods around, and why there are so many foods that lack cholesterol that are inflammatory. The correlation map is all over the place, as I showed in an earlier post.

Instead, the model that suggests that inflammation and other damage is the problem and that cholesterol in the blood is the body's response, is not contradicted by those findings. That model suggests that blood cholesterol levels should be fine and cardiovascular health should be good if a diet is healthy with whole foods, vitamins, minerals and not inflammatory, even if saturated fat and/or cholesterol levels are on the high end. (Plus regular moderate exercise, with is a common benefit across all diets and not disputed by anyone here.)

Therefore, I would not suggest to anyone to eat less saturated fat, less cholesterol, or less total fat if they want better health, because it's not a well articulated and evidenced model. I think that's misleading, because people end up missing more damaging things like all of the refined carbs and high omega 6 oils in their diet, or end up even replacing saturated fat with sugar and other junk. Rather, I'd recommend people to eat whole slow-burning foods, avoid or strictly reduce processed foods, have a diet that in sum is not inflammatory, and that contains enough vitamins and minerals, because that's a model that is better articulated about why it should work, is evidenced, and is not really contradicted by observed groups or any points that thread participants have brought up.

Did you ever do a nutritional analysis on your diet?

I assume you mean my current diet, because I've experimented with multiple diets.

Yes, I've done nutritional analysis on all of my diets. In detail.

I bet your diet does not exceed the current recommendations for saturated fat intake (whether you know it or not)

My current diet is a bit over the recommended saturated fat intake, on purpose, and I've measured it. Coconut oil adds quite a bit, plus dark chocolate, and then the nuts, olive oil, salmon, occasional chicken, and other amounts add up.

The reason your meta-ananlysis does not prove the correlation between CAD and saturated fat intake is because it does not consider the replacement nutrient to saturated fat. Look at the other meta-analysis I posted. If you ask 100 dieticians 99 of them will agree with me.

Not an argument.

Do not be fooled by this recent Catalyst TV show. One sided journalism and agenda for ratings is evident.

I didn't watch or mention that television show. Are you confusing me with the OP?

 

[yokomodoful]

I've looked up nutrition information on every food item I eat and most items I've mentioned in this thread. They do have unsaturated fats and omega 3 fatty acids, plus saturated fat.

Examples (RDA = Recommended Daily Allowance)

3 table spoons of olive oil: 27% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
20g of 80% dark chocolate: 30% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
1 table spoon of coconut oil: 54% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
1/2 sockeye salmon fillet: 15% RDA sat fat, 45% RDA cholesterol
1 egg: 10% RDA sat fat, 70% RDA cholesterol
2 wedges of camembert cheese: 58% RDA sat fat, 18% RDA cholesterol
1/3 cup macadamia nuts: 27% RDA sat fat, 0% RDA cholesterol
2 grass fed beef strip steaks (500 cal): 22% RDA sat fat, 78% RDA cholesterol
Roasted chicken breast and thigh (350 cal): 25% RDA sat fat, 46% RDA cholesterol

Mix and match a few of those items throughout the day along with whole grains, fruits, and vegetables, and it's not hard to hit 100%/100% RDA of sat fat and cholesterol in that day.

20% doesn't cover the difference.

I suggest that your posts are not covering the big picture.

A big picture needs a model that makes sense, doesn't have clear contradictions, and is evidenced.

In this thread, the model that suggests that dietary cholesterol and/or saturated fat cause cardiovascular problems, has not been well articulated on how that supposedly works, and several examples show contradictions to that model:

-Studies have been posted showing lack of correlation between saturated fat, cholesterol, and cardiovascular problems. Like I said in my first post, everyone in this thread can find studies that provide evidence for their point. The tricky part is putting it together.
-The Inuits eat large amounts of saturated fat and yet do not show early signs of cardiovascular disease. A very large component of their food comes from animals.
-The French eat above average amounts of saturated fat, eat above average amounts of total calories, get a moderate amount of exercise compared to the European average, and have among the lowest rates of cardiovascular disease.
-The body self-regulates cholesterol levels, and most of it is made by the body.
-People are free to do tests. For myself, when adding total fat, saturated fat and cholesterol to my diet in place of about the same amount of whole grains (and keeping all other variables similar), cholesterol blood test results improved from an already good level. The added foods in sum were anti-inflammatory and the subtracted foods in sum were inflammatory, meaning that the diet was made less inflammatory by the adjustment.

In this thread, the similar model that suggests that cholesterol causes inflammation, doesn't explain why grass fed beef with high cholesterol is anti-inflammatory, why fatty fish with high cholesterol is among the most anti-inflammatory foods around, and why there are so many foods that lack cholesterol that are inflammatory. The correlation map is all over the place, as I showed in an earlier post.

Instead, the model that suggests that inflammation and other damage is the problem and that cholesterol in the blood is the body's response, is not contradicted by those findings. That model suggests that blood cholesterol levels should be fine and cardiovascular health should be good if a diet is healthy with whole foods, vitamins, minerals and not inflammatory, even if saturated fat and/or cholesterol levels are on the high end. (Plus regular moderate exercise, with is a common benefit across all diets and not disputed by anyone here.)

Therefore, I would not suggest to anyone to eat less saturated fat, less cholesterol, or less total fat if they want better health, because it's not a well articulated and evidenced model. I think that's misleading, because people end up missing more damaging things like all of the refined carbs and high omega 6 oils in their diet, or end up even replacing saturated fat with sugar and other junk. Rather, I'd recommend people to eat whole slow-burning foods, avoid or strictly reduce processed foods, have a diet that in sum is not inflammatory, and that contains enough vitamins and minerals, because that's a model that is better articulated about why it should work, is evidenced, and is not really contradicted by observed groups or any points that thread participants have brought up.

I assume you mean my current diet, because I've experimented with multiple diets.

Yes, I've done nutritional analysis on all of my diets. In detail.

My current diet is a bit over the recommended saturated fat intake, on purpose, and I've measured it. Coconut oil adds quite a bit, plus dark chocolate, and then the nuts, olive oil, salmon, occasional chicken, and other amounts add up.

Not an argument.

I didn't watch or mention that television show. Are you confusing me with the OP?

What is not proven is that diet has any impact on systemic inflammation. I posted many studies and meta-analysis which shows that when saturated fat is replaced with mono and unsaturated fats, it reduces cholesterol levels. There is no debate on whether saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol. The research is overwhelming. Cardiovascular disease is multifactorial and it is difficult to isolate one thing on the impact of cardiovascular disease.

Do you know the only two studies that have proven regression of atherosclerosis?
The first is from Dr. Dean Ornish which had participants eat <10% kcals from fat and <3% from saturated fat. The other was with a statin medication.

The nutrition content that you listed above was showing only the foods with saturated fat and I am sure you do not eat all of those every day. Do you eat chicken, meat and salmon all in one day? If you include all the other foods - many of your fat sources are from unsaturated fats and is rich in fruits and vegetables.

I have personally worked in secondary prevention with approximately 7000 individuals with cardiovascular disease for over 15 years - Currently the oldest is 95 and he had his heart attack 13 years ago. We measure participant and program outcomes. Our team is multi-disciplinary including nurses, exercise physiologists, cardiologists, nutritionists. We regularly review the research and have a relationship with the institutions that conduct the research.

You bring up some good points regarding inflammation playing a big role in CAD, exercise being of great importance and eating whole unprocessed foods. However diet has not proven to impact systemic inflammation, but it has been proven that eating less than one third of your fats from saturated fats can lower LDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol is an established risk factor for coronary artery disease. Do not overly simplify the process of atherosclerosis. It is not inflammation only - the building material for this plaque is cholesterol in your blood. It not cholesterol only - damage to the inner lining of the artery - possibly due to genetics, high blood pressure, stress, diabetes, smoking, inactivity. Hence the established risk factors are all of the above - not one of the above.

 

[apophenia]

Are you confusing me with the OP?

Heaven forfend !

You do a better job than me. I'm just a troll after all

Anyway, here are some things to consider...

There are now 40 million people (worldwide) taking cholesterol lowering meds. That is a BIG market.

This market is worth about 20 BILLION dollars per year.

Lipitor, the statin prescribed to lower cholesterol, the biggest selling drug in history, has grossed 140 BILLION DOLLARS since 1996.

Reports of negative side effects are 100 times higher than those reported in the drug-company funded study.

The volunteers for the drug company's studies are screened to exclude demographics which may cause the data to reflect the REAL WORLD.

There is a routine procedure (called 'washout'), which means excluding from the research anyone who shows negative side effects early.

Since Ronald Reagan's presidency, 85% of all drug trials in the US are run by drug companies themselves. When drugs are tested by the company investing in them, they are 24% more likely to be reported as effective, and 87% less likely to report side effects.

When the recommended safe levels of serum cholesterol were lowered in 2004 ( for no reason), 8 out of 9 of those involved in 'peer review' had direct financial links to the companies producing statins.

Peer review is a sick joke when those reviewing the data are employees and stock holders.

Moderate exercise (2 hours per week) will result in a life expectancy increase of 2 years. Statins result in 0 years life expectancy increase.

Try and wrap your head around this. The story that saturated fats will kill you are BS. The story that cholesterol will kill you is BS. The 'peer review' is BS. The drug testing and reporting is BS.

The profits of 20 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR are not BS.

 

[yokomodoful]

Heaven forfend !

You do a better job than me. I'm just a troll after all

Anyway, here are some things to consider...

There are now 40 million people (worldwide) taking cholesterol lowering meds. That is a BIG market.

This market is worth about 20 BILLION dollars per year.

Lipitor, the statin prescribed to lower cholesterol, the biggest selling drug in history, has grossed 140 BILLION DOLLARS since 1996.

Reports of negative side effects are 100 times higher than those reported in the drug-company funded study.

The volunteers for the drug company's studies are screened to exclude demographics which may cause the data to reflect the REAL WORLD.

There is a routine procedure (called 'washout'), which means excluding from the research anyone who shows negative side effects early.

Since Ronald Reagan's presidency, 85% of all drug trials in the US are run by drug companies themselves. When drugs are tested by the company investing in them, they are 24% more likely to be reported as effective, and 87% less likely to report side effects.

When the recommended safe levels of serum cholesterol were lowered in 2004 ( for no reason), 8 out of 9 of those involved in 'peer review' had direct financial links to the companies producing statins.

Peer review is a sick joke when those reviewing the data are employees and stock holders.

Moderate exercise (2 hours per week) will result in a life expectancy increase of 2 years. Statins result in 0 years life expectancy increase.

Try and wrap your head around this. The story that saturated fats will kill you are BS. The story that cholesterol will kill you is BS. The 'peer review' is BS. The drug testing and reporting is BS.

The profits of 20 BILLION DOLLARS PER YEAR are not BS.

Many true statements, but the conclusion is BS. Sorry, but if you take away all the statin research the fact remains that when you decrease saturated fat intake, replace the same total fat with healthier plant derived fats such as nuts, avacado then LDL is decreased and so is cardiovascular disease - if you have the time do the research, if not you should take my word for it - prevention of CAD is my profession and my passion. Statins can be useful to combat cardioscular disease in the right patients. The media and the legal system has an agenda just like Big Pharma. The truth usually lies somewhere in the middle.

 

[yokomodoful]

Again I agree with many of your points, but don't completely disregard the role of saturated fat intake and cholesteol just because it may have been overemphasized in the past or Big Pharma got greedy.

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

Are you one of those people who have been fooled into believing that you must limit cholesterol intake ?

Do you believe that cholesterol causes heart problems ?

Do you take statins, or avoid eggs ?

Do you think that saturated fats increase the likelihood of heart disease ?

You have been lied to.

The data was faked in the first place.

Eat eggs, butter and cream. They are good for you.

Nearly every cell in your body produces cholesterol, and the amount in your diet has no significant influence on the amount in your blood.

I watched a documentary on this the other day and it was very insightful.

Statins (such as Lipitor) not only stop your body from producing cholesterol, but also a lot of other good things your body needs like co-enzyme Q10.

If you take statins, you also must take other supplements because they do more damage than good in the long run and can cause diabetes, breast cancer and other things.

One can also see the greed of the pharmaceutical companies and how they rope doctors into prescribing these pills when they are not needed, just for profit.

Case in point...the 'safe levels' for cholesterol in the blood has been lowered from 6 to 4, just to put more people into the category where they 'need' statins to regulate this (my cholesterol was 4.5 and my doctor wanted to prescribe Lipitor to me and I simply said 'no way').

People think that their doctors are giving them the correct advice, when they have been told to give this advice!

As for eggs, dairy, meat etc...everything in moderation!

Try and choose leaner cuts of meat or eat plenty of skinless chicken, seafood or vegetarian alternatives.

Eat plenty of fresh vegetables, salads and fruit. make sure to include a lot of lemon juice...I pour this over everything.

Lemons (any citrus foods) drastically cuts down cholesterol as well as bitter gourd and fenugreek.

Also, regular exercise, drinking plenty of water to flush all the toxins out of your system and maintaining a healthy weight has a lot to do with it.

After doing all of this, if you still can't manage to get your cholesterol lower than say 5.5 - 6, then yeah, see your doctor about getting a statin.

I mean, in parts of Europe, they are even thinking about putting this in the water supply! :areyoucra

Source:

Heart Foundation &#039;shocked&#039; at ABC decision to run Catalyst program on cholesterol drugs statins - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

Catalyst: Heart of the Matter Part 2 - Cholesterol Drug War - ABC TV Science

 

[NobodyYouKnow]

You are in Australia. Watch last weeks episode of Catalyst on
the ABC, it's on iView. It continues this week.
We have all been conned bigtime.

Yup, that's where I saw it too and I have provided the link incase people want to watch it.

I also agree that sugar is more harmful than fat.

 

[psychoslice]

Good stuff NobodyYouKnow.

 

[DallasApple]

I was fooled into thinking there was only one bad fat (or all fat is bad) .

Fat has to be balanced. IOW you can get too much omega 3 .

The good one.