High protein LOW carb.. HELP

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 12:15am

metamorphosis wrote: »

Not at all compared to what's still been pushed in mainstream media. Been scientifically de-bunked numerous times and mainstream nutrition is very very very slowly catching on to this fact. When im at home il post up various papers.

It's trans fat that people need to be very wary of, heat treated fats and veg fats and oils, not saturated fat in and off itself. Coconut is very saturated in fat, so is butter - these are not bad things. Irish butter is a good source of selenium that we lack here and K2 which has great importance working with Vit D3 and magnesium. I don't need to get into the details on coconut oil these days, its seems to have gone mainstream in and off inself

I dont beleive people are being told not to eat butter, its about using a smaller amount and reducing saturated fat intake. Reduce not stop (if a person intake is high)
, hence why I mention the protein bar. No problem eating it just saturated fat is high so for example if a person ate 4 of them they would have reached the maximum daily allowance for unsaturated fat.

Just to clarify, do people here believe it is okay to exceed the maximum daily allowance for saturated fat

SteelyDanJalapeno · 18-12-2011 12:20am

Depends on the persons diet,

it's ridiculous to group a couple of billion people with the same RDA.

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 12:37am

TiltedBrain wrote: »

Depends on the persons diet,

it's ridiculous to group a couple of billion people with the same RDA.

So how does a person calculate how much extra saturated fats they can safely consume

How does a person calculate the safe level of cholesterol for them

They cant, hence why we must go with RDA. As individuals we do not know any underlying medical problems.Hence why we must look at family history to see what runs in family and we may also suffer with eg Angina. But we may have an underlying medical problem that has not been in the immediate family but possibly back a few generations and we are unaware of.

As an example, just cause you smoke does not mean you will get lung cancer. It increase your chances, you may not necesairly get lung cancer as a smoker

http://www.irishheart.ie/iopen24/cholesterol-t-87.html

Why is cholesterol important?
Having high cholesterol levels in your blood is one of the risk factors, which increases your chances of getting heart disease.
One of the best ways to prevent heart disease is to keep your cholesterol at a healthy level

How can I lower my cholesterol?

Get down to a healthy weight - being overweight means your heart has to work harder to pump blood around the body.
Eat oily fish twice a week.
Eat more fruit and vegetables.
Eat more wholegrain cereals and breads, plenty of jacket potatoes and rice and pasta.
Choose lean meats.
Trim fat off meat and skin off chicken.
Drain oil from cooked dishes containing minced meat.
Choose low-fat dairy products.
Choose low-fat spreads made from sunflower or olive oil.
Choose less foods from the top shelf of the Food Pyramid.
Use low-fat healthy ways of cooking, like grilling or oven-baking, instead of frying.

SteelyDanJalapeno · 18-12-2011 12:49am

Its never gonna be an exact calculation,

I get HDL and LDL Cholesterol tests every 6 - 8 months if I can, I've pretty much phased processed sugar out of my diet over the last 3 years, and increased my intake of saturated fat, my cholesterol levels are more than healthy, alot more than what they were 3 years ago,

I'd put my neck out here and say Sat fats with medium to high carb intake is very bad, Saturated fats with a low carb intake is much healthier than High carb, low fat

SteelyDanJalapeno · 18-12-2011 12:50am

double post

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 1:03am

howtomake wrote: »

Well you learned that we are not supposed to be fed after 6pm because we turn into gremlins.

Ok joking aside but I could resist, I can see why some would benefit not eating after 6, because it is when some of us slow down and are tempted with yummy, gooey & chewy crap and don't know when to stop. But some of us others who actually workout until 7:30pm and need some food afterwards in order to keep up some sort of strength..... but er back to your question.

I'm not really into low carb, but try to limit the processed ones, I try to go for cottage cheese, fish & eggs. I'm not really a big meat eater so that's all I can think of at the moment. Got kinda lost in the thread too.

If people can understand the body clock, then they can understand the reason for not eating late in the evening. As the body clock kicks in and the body slows down the digesting of the food consumed slows down. Bananas should be not eaten late in day due to lenght of time it takes to digest.

Late Afternoon is Best for Exercise
Research shows that the optimal time to exercise is when our body temperature is at its highest, which, for most people is 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. (body temperature is at its lowest just before waking).
Strength is Greater in the Afternoon
Dr. Hill reported that strength output is 5% higher at around mid-day; anaerobic performance, such as sprinting, improves by 5% in the late afternoon.Endurance is Greater in the Afternoon
Aerobic capacity (endurance) is approximately 4percent higher in the afternoon. Injuries Are Less Likely in the Afternoon
Afternoon exercise is the best if you want to avoid injuries for many reasons. We are most alert; our body temperature is the highest so our muscles are warm and flexible; and our muscle strength is at its greatest. These three factors make it less likely that we will get injured.Morning Exercisers Are More Consistent
Even though afternoon exercise might be optimal from a physiological standpoint, research also shows that morning exercisers are more likely to stick to it that late-day athletes. Evening Exercise and Sleep
Most research supports the idea that exercise can improve sleep quality. But does exercising too late in the evening keep you up? Studies have shown improvements in sleep from both morning and afternoon exercise, so it's not yet clear if evening exercise keeps you up. One study even showed that vigorous exercise half an hour before bedtime did not affect sleep. http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/WhenToExercise.htm

Transform · 18-12-2011 12:18pm

mbiking123 wrote: »

So how does a person calculate how much extra saturated fats they can safely consume

How does a person calculate the safe level of cholesterol for them

They cant, hence why we must go with RDA. As individuals we do not know any underlying medical problems.Hence why we must look at family history to see what runs in family and we may also suffer with eg Angina. But we may have an underlying medical problem that has not been in the immediate family but possibly back a few generations and we are unaware of.

As an example, just cause you smoke does not mean you will get lung cancer. It increase your chances, you may not necesairly get lung cancer as a smoker

http://www.irishheart.ie/iopen24/cholesterol-t-87.html

Why is cholesterol important?
Having high cholesterol levels in your blood is one of the risk factors, which increases your chances of getting heart disease.
One of the best ways to prevent heart disease is to keep your cholesterol at a healthy level

How can I lower my cholesterol?
Get down to a healthy weight - being overweight means your heart has to work harder to pump blood around the body.

Eat oily fish twice a week.

Eat more fruit and vegetables.

Eat more wholegrain cereals and breads, plenty of jacket potatoes and rice and pasta.

Choose lean meats.

Trim fat off meat and skin off chicken.

Drain oil from cooked dishes containing minced meat.

Choose low-fat dairy products.

Choose low-fat spreads made from sunflower or olive oil.

Choose less foods from the top shelf of the Food Pyramid.

Use low-fat healthy ways of cooking, like grilling or oven-baking, instead of frying.

did you even watch the video i posted dude!!

If you did you would better understand that the fat loss hypothesis is bogus

Transform · 18-12-2011 12:21pm

mbiking123 wrote: »

If people can understand the body clock, then they can understand the reason for not eating late in the evening. As the body clock kicks in and the body slows down the digesting of the food consumed slows down. Bananas should be not eaten late in day due to lenght of time it takes to digest.

Late Afternoon is Best for Exercise
Research shows that the optimal time to exercise is when our body temperature is at its highest, which, for most people is 4 p.m. to 5 p.m. (body temperature is at its lowest just before waking).
Strength is Greater in the Afternoon
Dr. Hill reported that strength output is 5% higher at around mid-day; anaerobic performance, such as sprinting, improves by 5% in the late afternoon.Endurance is Greater in the Afternoon
Aerobic capacity (endurance) is approximately 4percent higher in the afternoon. Injuries Are Less Likely in the Afternoon
Afternoon exercise is the best if you want to avoid injuries for many reasons. We are most alert; our body temperature is the highest so our muscles are warm and flexible; and our muscle strength is at its greatest. These three factors make it less likely that we will get injured.Morning Exercisers Are More Consistent
Even though afternoon exercise might be optimal from a physiological standpoint, research also shows that morning exercisers are more likely to stick to it that late-day athletes. Evening Exercise and Sleep
Most research supports the idea that exercise can improve sleep quality. But does exercising too late in the evening keep you up? Studies have shown improvements in sleep from both morning and afternoon exercise, so it's not yet clear if evening exercise keeps you up. One study even showed that vigorous exercise half an hour before bedtime did not affect sleep. http://sportsmedicine.about.com/od/anatomyandphysiology/a/WhenToExercise.htm

"if people can understand the body clock" - wow man if you could undertand basic physiology that might be a good starting point.

Gummy Panda · 18-12-2011 1:58pm

The best time to exercise is when you can focus and give 100%. No point exercising in the evenings if you slack off half way during the workout.

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 1:59pm

Transform wrote: »

"if people can understand the body clock" - wow man if you could undertand basic physiology that might be a good starting point.

now now, answer properly and no smart comments

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 2:03pm

Transform wrote: »

did you even watch the video i posted dude!!

If you did you would better understand that the fat loss hypothesis is bogus

Yes, but can we take this view as fact, and disgard all the other medical advice like Irish Heart foundation.

danlen · 18-12-2011 3:22pm

mbiking123 wrote: »

now now, answer properly and no smart comments

Quite ironic considering all your 'answers' so far have been complete rubbish.

Seriously, and this is not meant to be condescending, you should really learn how to interpret some basic science before you start claiming everyone else is wrong.

I can't eat a banana after 6 p.m.? Really, come on mate.

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 3:28pm

danlen wrote: »

Quite ironic considering all your 'answers' so far have been complete rubbish.

Seriously, and this is not meant to be condescending, you should really learn how to interpret some basic science before you start claiming everyone else is wrong.

I can't eat a banana after 6 p.m.? Really, come on mate.

Of course you can, I never said you cant eat a banana after 6pm. I never said you cannot smoke (as an example) they are your choices for you to make

Where did I say that

I referred to loosing weight and not eating after 6pm, and a life style change to loosing weight. Making many small changes to a person lifestyle, including better diet, exercise etc. I never said people are wrong, people have made claims that go against what organisation such as Irish Heart foundation say.

It was said here that saturated fat intake is not an issue, the statement implied that a person could eat as much saturated fat as they wanted.

metamorphosis · 18-12-2011 3:38pm

I everyday exceed the daily saturated fat recommended intake. My cholesterol profile is great, so is my health. In fact it has improved even more since i lost all the extra weight i had been carrying years ago. When i first lost all the weight i ate little fat, but got into cocoa, coconut butter, butter, avocado, macadamia nuts, salmon, etc, as i ate more sources of fat (and increased my saturated fat) my health has improved. All i can go on is my online diarys from back then and when i track every now and again these days.

I am also an endurance athlete and if someone was to tell me my needs for sat fat should be the same as a sedentary person, i wouldn't believe them .But that's because i'm educated and qualified to know what i am on about and i re educate when i need to to stay up to date with current science.

Nutrition science is one that evolves always as we know so little about it, it's also why mainstream media don't stay in touch with it - its too much of a head****. But, recently, mainstream institutions know the the drill now and are slowly changing bit by bit. They are a few years late to the party

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 3:44pm

metamorphosis wrote: »

I everyday exceed the daily saturated fat recommended intake. My cholesterol profile is great, so is my health. In fact it has improved even more since i lost all the extra weight i had been carrying years ago. When i first lost all the weight i ate little fat, but got into cocoa, coconut butter, butter, avocado, macadamia nuts, salmon, etc, as i ate more sources of fat (and increased my saturated fat) my health has improved. All i can go on is my online diarys from back then and when i track every now and again these days.

I am also an endurance athlete and if someone was to tell me my needs for sat fat should be the same as a sedentary person, i wouldn't believe them .But that's because i'm educated and qualified to know what i am on about and i re educate when i need to to stay up to date with current science.

Nutrition science is one that evolves always as we know so little about it, it's also why mainstream media don't stay in touch with it - its too much of a head****. But, recently, mainstream institutions know the the drill now and are slowly changing bit by bit. They are a few years late to the party

is it possible because of weight loss and not change in diet that caused cholesterol

or was change in diet the reason you lost weight ?

Transform · 18-12-2011 7:35pm

mbiking123 wrote: »

Yes, but can we take this view as fact, and disgard all the other medical advice like Irish Heart foundation.

i couldnt give a flying feck what the irish heart foundation say as most of the stuff that comes out flies in the face of the best and top research out there or more importantly what i see working with my clients daily.

I can honestly say that if i recommended what they recommend to many of my clients I gurantee they would gain weight, feel terrible and perform poorly.

Thomas Magnum · 18-12-2011 9:43pm

Transform wrote: »

i couldnt give a flying feck what the irish heart foundation say as most of the stuff that comes out flies in the face of the best and top research out there

What is the best and top research out there? What makes it so?

mbiking123 · 18-12-2011 11:04pm

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

What is the best and top research out there? What makes it so?

The Recommended Daily Allowance, known as RDA, are recommendations for nutrients. They were developed by the Food and Nutrition Board of the National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council. The RDA state the amount of a nutrient that is needed for most people to stay healthy. They are different for children, adults, males, and females.
The Dietary Reference Intake, known as DRI, are an umbrella group that includes the following other nutrient measures: · RDA · Adequate Intakes, known as AI · Estimated Average Intakes, known as EAR · Tolerable Upper Intakes, known as UL
DRI is slowly becoming the more accepted form for nutrient recommendations. Experts expect that DRI will take the place of the RDA in time.

..............

DRI http://www.nal.usda.gov/fnic/DRI//DRI_Energy/422-541.pdf

Several hundred studies have been conducted to assess the effect of saturated fatty
acidson serum cholesterol concentration. In general, the higher the intake of saturated fatty acids, the higher the serum total (Figure 8-2) and low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol concentrations (Figure 8-3). Regression analyses of such studies have suggested that for each 1 percent increase in energy from saturated fatty acids, serum LDL cholesterol concentration increases by 0.033 mmol/L (Mensink and Katan, 1992), 0.036 mmol/L (Clarke et al., 1997), or 0.045 mmol/L (Hegsted et al., 1993). Although all fats will increase serum high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol concentration relative to carbohydrate, the increase attributable to saturated fats is greater than that observed for monounsaturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids. Serum HDL cholesterol concentration increases by 0.011 to 0.013 mmol/L for each 1 percent increase in saturated fat .................................................

A number of epidemiological studies have reported an association
between saturated fatty acid intake and risk of CHD. The majority of these
studies have reported a positive relationship between saturated fatty acid
intake and risk of CHD and CHD mortality

El_Dangeroso · 18-12-2011 11:55pm

mbiking123 wrote: »

A number of epidemiological studies have reported an association
between saturated fatty acid intake and risk of CHD. The majority of these
studies have reported a positive relationship between saturated fatty acid
intake and risk of CHD and CHD mortality

Incorrect, when you pool the high quality epidemiology studies into a meta analysis, the association disappears.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Sat fat increases big fluffy LDL, which so far has been shown to be benign. The research is very much in it's infancy but it's the small-dense or oxidised LDL that seems to create the type of unstable heart plaques that lead to a heart attack.

Just wait about ten years and you'll be saying you knew this all along. That's what people who promoted transfats in the 1960's as the 'heart healthy' alternative are saying now.

Thomas Magnum · 19-12-2011 3:57am

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Incorrect, when you pool the high quality epidemiology studies into a meta analysis, the association disappears.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

Is a study funded by the National Dairy Council really unbiased?

El_Dangeroso · 19-12-2011 7:30pm

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

Is a study funded by the National Dairy Council really unbiased?

All studies are funded by someone. Krauss is a highly respected researcher in this area so you'll need some proof that there was deliberate manipulation of data. Any ideas?

Remember this is not a review or 'opinion' paper that can pick and choose. It's a meta-analysis. It includes pretty much every high quality study done, you could do the same with a stats package yourself if you were so inclined.

Thomas Magnum · 19-12-2011 7:59pm

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

All studies are funded by someone. Krauss is a highly respected researcher in this area so you'll need some proof that there was deliberate manipulation of data. Any ideas?

I'm aware that studies need to be funded however how many studies supported by the NDC that had unfavourable outcomes for the National Dairy Council have been published?

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Remember this is not a review or 'opinion' paper that can pick and choose. It's a meta-analysis. It includes pretty much every high quality study done, you could do the same with a stats package yourself if you were so inclined.

So are you saying that a meta-analysis is not open to abuse?

mbiking123 · 19-12-2011 8:36pm

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

I'm aware that studies need to be funded however how many studies supported by the NDC that had unfavourable outcomes for the National Dairy Council have been published?

So are you saying that a meta-analysis is not open to abuse?

Medical studies are seriously biased by interested funders and by tolerance for sloppy methods. Here are four examples........
A recent PLoS Medicine looked at 111 studies of soft drinks, juice, and milk that cited funding sources.

22% had all industry funding, 47% had no industry funding, and 32% had mixed funding. … the proportion with unfavorable [to industry] conclusions was 0% for all industry funding versus 37% for no industry funding . ......................................................

......Wow! Zero percent negative conclusions about soft drinks when the studies were funded by industry! Who would have guessed?

http://www.overcomingbias.com/2007/02/medical_study_b.html

El_Dangeroso · 19-12-2011 9:29pm

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

I'm aware that studies need to be funded however how many studies supported by the NDC that had unfavourable outcomes for the National Dairy Council have been published?

So are you saying that a meta-analysis is not open to abuse?

It would have of course been published because the funder (especially a minor one as this one was largely academically funded) has zero control over these types of studies once the check has been cashed. I work in research and we have gotten funding from a drug company to compare one drug to another, it did worse. We still published it. Also, the ironing is delicious considering the authors of the study noted possible publication bias against studies that found no association.

Our results suggested publication bias, such that studies with
signiﬁcant associations tended to be received more favorably for
publication. If unpublished studies with null associations were
included in the current analysis, the pooled RR estimate for CVD
could be even closer to null.

Calling the funding is what people do when they can't actually think of any decent criticism but are biased themselves against a study, it's a total cop out to be honest.

mbiking123 · 19-12-2011 11:13pm

The fact that studies with positive or favourable results are more likely to be published than those with negative or unfavourable results was already addressed in the 1950s , and has since been widely confirmed . Studies with positive or favourable results have been associated with various other factors such as faster publication , publication in higher impact factor journals , a greater number of publications (including covert duplicate publications ), more frequent citation , and more likely publication in English .

http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/37

Transform · 19-12-2011 11:30pm

conversation getting mad boring now so lets keep it simple -

1. stop kidding yourself with your diet as many people know exactly what they are doing wrong

2. if the only change you ever made to your diet was to cut out (good eating 90% of the time) junk foods, sugar, veg oil and wheat you would look and feel a billion times better.

El_Dangeroso · 19-12-2011 11:46pm

mbiking123 wrote: »

The fact that studies with positive or favourable results are more likely to be published than those with negative or unfavourable results was already addressed in the 1950s , and has since been widely confirmed . Studies with positive or favourable results have been associated with various other factors such as faster publication , publication in higher impact factor journals , a greater number of publications (including covert duplicate publications ), more frequent citation , and more likely publication in English .

http://www.trialsjournal.com/content/11/1/37

Would you believe that's my exact point you're making for me? Studies that find no association with saturated fat and CHD are less likely to be published, so the fact that there is no association in the one's that have been published is damning indeed.

But I agree with Transform, this is mad boring now.

I'm for some reason reminded of the horror of my co-workers as I put cream in my de-caf coffee as they eat massive white flour scones covered in what used to be classified as industrial lubricant 100 years ago.

mbiking123 · 20-12-2011 12:39am

Banana Diet is very popular, bananas have sugar and carbs and people eat them and loose weight

http://morningbanana.com/

Thomas Magnum · 20-12-2011 12:52am

El_Dangeroso wrote: »

Incorrect, when you pool the high quality epidemiology studies into a meta analysis, the association disappears.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

This study says that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD as if there was no other evidence worth considering from the last 100 years beyond these 21 studies. This is just accepted by the pro-saturated-fat crowd as if the medical world would just accept its conclusions without skepticism. As you might expect these researchers had funding sources that might strain their capacity for objectivity. Dr Ronald Krauss does not shy away from his relationship with the Dairy Council. Krauss has recieved funding from the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemens Beef Association and of course the Atkins Foundation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904039/

Jeremiah Stamler, the famous cardiologist, was disturbed by this study and found it had numerous technical flaws.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/497.full

One concern is that the authors did not decern between carbohydrates of different quality. That's a common sleight of hand that was caught this time by these letter writers.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/06/09/ajcn.2010.29692.full.pdf

If you replace saturated fats with junky refined carbs heart disease will be a bigger problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20375186

There is no contradiction in this. Researchers are able to see junky carbs and saturated fat as unhealthy at the same time. When you dig a little deeper through these pro-saturated-fat studies they don't hold up.

metamorphosis · 20-12-2011 10:43am

mbiking123 wrote: »

is it possible because of weight loss and not change in diet that caused cholesterol

or was change in diet the reason you lost weight ?

Just seeing this now,

The weight was lost through cal restriction, and more activity, but diet was fat from good when i lost the weight and for the 2 year period after i had lost it

I lost the weight and after close to the first 2 years of having all the weight off, my health had remained the same over those 2 years, I get a good in depth check up at least once a year, sometimes twice (family histories)

After two years of having the weight off (2008/9) and working on breaking the whole emotional connection to food and after changing my education path and reading, I slowly added in more fat and sat fats while cutting down on packaged food and foods i didn't need to eat. The big thing was increasing fat but eating whole foods that are ingredients rather then foods that are ingredients but my fat intake has changed from some 20% of total cals back then to over double that.Now im not any follower of any lifestyle (primal, low carb, low fat etc - i eat the foods i want to now and if i want to eat some crap, I will but i dont feel the need or desire to now) Fats would on most days my biggest macro nutrient intake, followed by carbs closely an protein generally between 15-20%.

It wasn't until 2 years after losing the weight and then changing diet that increasing total fat and sat fat that my overall health begun to improve.

That's just me though, and its not concrete at best, il give you that.

El_Dangeroso · 20-12-2011 2:35pm

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

This study says that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD as if there was no other evidence worth considering from the last 100 years beyond these 21 studies. This is just accepted by the pro-saturated-fat crowd as if the medical world would just accept its conclusions without skepticism. As you might expect these researchers had funding sources that might strain their capacity for objectivity. Dr Ronald Krauss does not shy away from his relationship with the Dairy Council. Krauss has recieved funding from the National Dairy Council, the National Cattlemens Beef Association and of course the Atkins Foundation.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2904039/

Jeremiah Stamler, the famous cardiologist, was disturbed by this study and found it had numerous technical flaws.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/91/3/497.full

That critique is incredibly weak for a number of reasons. And the flaws he trys to put forward aren't 'technical' at all.

Firstly he proposes that univariate correlations somehow tell you something. Yes there are weaknesses to multivariate analyses, but to say that somehow univariate analysis can solve this is frankly laughable. If that's the case then growing a beard increases your risk of heart disease.

Actually, even if you do a univariate analysis of SFA intake and CHD for all countries in Europe, you get an inverse association. Oops!:)

He questions the validity of the food recall questionnaires and he is right to do this, they aren't the most reliable things in the world, but all the evidence used to indict saturated fat is based on food recall questionnaires, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

He hits on the fact that most of the low CHD habits are multifactorial, ie no smoking, transfats, high intake of vegetables yet he doesn't acknowledge that this makes the case against sat fat even weaker, considering high SFA intake correlates with other bad habits.

He then goes on to say that they ignore cholesterol. Well last time I checked, whether or not you have a heart attack is a bit more indicative of heart disease than cholesterol! 75% of first time heart attack victims have perfect LDL. I know I'd rather have high cholesterol than a heart attack, believe it or not one does not automatically mean the other.

He mentions Anitschkow's rabbits as some kind of proof that cholesterol causes heart disease, except that rabbits aren't humans and have no ability to metabolise dietary cholesterol. The more interesting thing that Anitschkow showed is that injecting the cholesterol straight into the veins of rabbits did not result in heart disease, kinda puts a massive hole in the conventional lipid hypothesis.

Finally he mentions 'Asian-style' eating patterns as desirable in terms of reducing risk of CHD, I'd agree on the terms that they eat very little processed food, lots of vegetables and little polyunsaturated fat. But what happens when an Asian style dietary pattern gets more saturated fat:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlus

That's a huge study of over 50,000 people and lo and behold MORE SFA is associated with a reduced incidence of stroke.

Thomas Magnum wrote: »

One concern is that the authors did not decern between carbohydrates of different quality. That's a common sleight of hand that was caught this time by these letter writers.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/06/09/ajcn.2010.29692.full.pdf

If you replace saturated fats with junky refined carbs heart disease will be a bigger problem.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20375186

There is no contradiction in this. Researchers are able to see junky carbs and saturated fat as unhealthy at the same time. When you dig a little deeper through these pro-saturated-fat studies they don't hold up.

I totally agree wholefood carbs are a non-issue for CHD. I eat lots of healthy starches and healthy saturated fat myself.

--Kaiser-- · 21-12-2011 9:26am

You lost me at univariate correlations

El_Dangeroso · 21-12-2011 11:33pm

Here are some examples of univariate correlations:

High protein LOW carb.. HELP

Comments