Saturated Fat Evil?

[LowCarbDiabetic]

Long post, so skip to the bottom for the TLDR/Cliff Notes:

Some experts will tell you Vegan is the way to go. Seems like they have 17 medical studies to back up that is lowers cholesterol. Reduces risk of heart disease. Also claims to be able to reverse heart disease. Backed up by some heavy hitters in the public eye like Bill Clinton. Would seem the opposite ends of the Atkins spectrum.

I have to jump into this. The vegan information is pure propaganda. These aren't "experts" they're ANIMAL ACTIVISTS. Both Ornish and Esselstyn are PETA members.

Yes, a low-fat vegan diet will reduce TOTAL cholesterol, but it universally WORSENS the cholesterol profile. There have been NO studies where it improved the cholesterol profile (ratio of HDL to LDL) and new research indicates the low-fat vegan diet, while reducing LDL, actually changes the LDL profile - increasing the dense (bad) LDL and reducing the buoyant (good) LDL.

As for reversing heart disease - the Esselstyn and Ornish diets are hardly conclusive that they reverse heart disease. Both were full interventions, not just diet. They each had patients stop smoking and start exercising. Esselstyn's diet had NO CONTROL GROUP and he put patients on statin drugs. Both eliminated refined/processed carbs and sugars from the diet. Ornish's intervention also included stress-therapy and other interventions. Then there's the tool they used for concluding the 'reversal' took place - coronary angiography. This is one of the most unreliable testing methods there is for determining anything about coronary arteries. If you don't believe me, look it up. Thousands of patients undergo unnecessary bypass surgery because of these unreliable tests, and there are many that also MISS coronary occlusions.

So what helped the patients? Eliminating animal products? Doubtful. Probably the combination of:

1. Stopping smoking
2. Exercising
3. Statin Drugs (evidence is pretty sketchy here though)
4. Stress-relief / Therapy
5. Eliminating refined/processed carbs/sugars

The fact here is there is NO proof a vegan diet reverses heart disease. Neither Ornish nor Esselstyn studied diet alone. Esselstyn had no control group. Not only that, they CANNOT reproduce their results, even though they've attempted to. This makes it BAD SCIENCE, period. See Dr. Goldacre's talk on Bad Science it's excellent. http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacr...d_science.html

And don't take my word for any of this - see what Science-Based-Medicine has to say about the low-fat vegan diets. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...clintons-diet/ ... there's many other reputable studies and sources showing the low-fat vegan diet is NOT reversing heart disease.

This is vegan propaganda, pure-and-simple. Anyone with a sound understand of the scientific method can see through this B.S.

Anti atkins:

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2012...n_1626579.html

First, this was an observational study, which cannot prove anything. They can only provide correlations, not show causation. Second, they relied on food journals, which are notoriously unreliable. Third, they "conclude" Atkins style diets are bad because of a 'correlation' showing a misleading 5% increase risk out of 3% actual events. This means the risk actually increases from 3.00% to 3.015%. That's an ACTUAL risk increase of 0.015% if the study was able to remotely show causation, which it's not.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/low-car...9#.UL4OaORTyxo

This is the same observational study you linked earlier, just a different article.

http://www.examiner.com/article/atki...-heart-disease is a link to an RCT trial - a Randomized Controlled Trial by researchers at John Hopkins University and funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. As mentioned, observational studies cannot prove causation, only correlation. Randomized Controlled Trials are what actually PROVE theories.

I can also link you to over a dozen randomized controlled trials showing low-carb/high-fat ketogenic diets are superior to ANY low-fat diet (vegan or otherwise) for weight-loss, glycemic control, improving insulin-sensitivity, improving cholesterol profile (both HDL to LDL and LDL-A to LDL-B) and reducing serum triglycerides. There are NO randomized, controlled trials showing low-fat vegan diets superior in any respect to low-carb/high-fat ketogenic diets for ANYTHING. Period.



TLDR/Cliff Notes:

1. Vegan diet info is all animal-activist propaganda
2. Atkins-style diets reduce inflammation, improve cholesterol/triglycerides
3. Atkins-style diets have NEVER been found unhealthy in randomized controlled trials
4. Low-Carb/High-Fat ketogenic diets superior in every respect to low-fat vegan diets.

All Science.

[LowCarbDiabetic]

For all you atkins advocates.

http://www.atkinsdietalert.org/advisory.html

Sorry to repeat this, but this is more vegan propaganda.

The PCRM (who run the site you linked) is a PETA-funded animal-activist organization. The American Medical Association has repeatedly censured them and clearly stated "They are neither physicians nor responsible."

Their bias is clear, and it's NOT based in science, but PETA/animal-activist ideology.

[LowCarbDiabetic]

When I had it done last, I was eating tons of sat fat, (whole milk...over 1lb red meat daily) and probably 3x the RDA of cholesterol. (Whey can be high in cholesterol)

I have a physical coming up....I'll be interested to see where it is.

You realize dietary cholesterol intake has no effect on serum cholesterol levels, right? Any clinical trials done to research this show extremely weak correlations at best...

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca...-increase.html
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.co...olesterol.html
http://chriskresser.com/5-reasons-no...sterol-numbers
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...tory/index.htm

[Korr]

As with all things these days money talks. WebMD takes money just like all sites. My team has paid WebMD to have drugs we market show up first with certain search words. Dont assume

Myth, I wish you all the best. I am not trying to confuse things I just dont want people to take the word of a source ecause it sounds legit. They are a bsiness just like the restof them

Point taken.

[flowxsss]

I can't post links yet, else I would. You'll need to google it.

2007 isn't new, fyi. In fact, as I mentioned medical schools are STILL teaching the lipid hypothesis even though it's unproven. Experts suggest it will take 10 to 20 years before this turns around. The low-fat recommendations were based on some pretty bad data and government committees and rushed through rather than having research done to prove what was or wasn't true.

Bottom line from Harvard is that fats are healthy, but they recommend AGAINST trans-fats and they still recommend not just reducing saturated fat, but replacing it with what they deem healthy sources of fat...

They at least point out replacing saturated fats with refined/processed carbs is NOT going to promote health of any kind.

One thing I wish they'd point out though is not ALL saturated fats should be lumped together. For example, coconut oil is a saturated fat, but as a medium-chain triglyceride it and other MCT's are incredibly healthy. All science bears that up to be true.

Amazingly, I get about 65% of my dietary calories from fats, and I've reduced my triglycerides, vastly improved my cholesterol ratio (both to really healthy levels) and really turned my health around (lost 100lbs!). Prior to consuming a low-carb/high-fat diet I was a 320lb high-cholesterol/high-blood-pressure/diabetic time-bomb.

[ Ever heard of...
Ever heard of the Anabolic Diet?!? T-Dawg 2.0 diet??

Hell yes, thats what i'm using... Carbs make you feel slow, bloated, they cause you to drag ass...


Some of the GREATEST BB'ers of all time used the same type of diet, via Vince Gironda's training/diet protocol.


Carbs are NOT needed except to refill glycogen every few days.


Hell, i'm using the Anabolic Diet as we speak.. 60% Fat, 30% Protein, and 10% Carbs... I'm shedding fat incredibly easy, and putting on some good size.


The AB diet is versatile too... Use it for Maintenance, Cutting, OR Mass...

I make my best gains with UNDER 20g of carbs a day].


i copied this post from a thread about "low carb high fat diet" what do you think? and whats the difference between Atkins diet and low carb high fat diet?

[LowCarbDiabetic]

i copied this post from a thread about "low carb high fat diet" what do you think? and whats the difference between Atkins diet and low carb high fat diet?

Well, first I think the person who posted it is exaggerating ... There's no way you lift well at 20g or under of carbohydrate a day. I *HAVE* to have a minimum of 100g of carbohydrate on my lifting and/or HIIT days, else I can't do it. While fatty acids are a great fuel for aerobic activity, they simply cannot be used for anaerobic activity - that's a physiological/biochemical fact. For anaerobic activity the body can ONLY use glucose. If you have little-to-no glycogen stores (and most people who exercise while ketogenic have very little or none) you have no glucose for anaerobic activity.

True you can get glucose from non-carbohydrate sources via gluconeogenesis - but that metabolic pathway takes longer to produce glucose than anaerobic exercise requires. When doing anaerobic activity (unless it's a very short workout), you MUST have some dietary carbohydrate.

As for the difference between Atkins and a Low-Carb/High-Fat diet? Low-Carb/High-Fat is a category of diet that Atkins fits into. Atkins IS a low-carb/high-fat diet, especially the more-recent version.

Many people think Atkins is a high-protein diet, and it's not. It's high-fat/moderate-protein/low-carb. Current recommendations from LCHF (low-carb/high-fat) experts is a caloric/macro breakdown of 65-70% fat, 25-30% protein and 5-10% carbohydrate for those engaging in physical exercise. Slightly higher percentage of fat vs. protein for those more-sedentary.

When low-carbing for treating obesity, diabetes or metabolic syndrome, moderate-protein (macros varied according to their exercise/needs) is best for the vast-majority of people, to keep blood glucose from being elevated by gluconeogenesis of excess dietary protein.

[rand18m]

You realize dietary cholesterol intake has no effect on serum cholesterol levels, right? Any clinical trials done to research this show extremely weak correlations at best...

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca...-increase.html
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.co...olesterol.html
http://chriskresser.com/5-reasons-no...sterol-numbers
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritio...tory/index.htm

Thanks for all your posts and I completely agree with your analysis overall. I will agree with you on dietary cholesterol but there is a caveat for some. The concept of an individual being
"egg sensitive" which is the term for those that are sensitive to dietary cholesterol is a real phenomenon. It typically happens within the obese crowd and typically disappears with weight loss, however it doesn't have to happen strictly with the obese crowd. I caution anyone reading this because it's not often this is the case, for the VAST majority dietary cholesterol has little to no effect on serum cholesterol, but like so many things related to the human body, that's not 100%. It's easy to determine if there is a problem, and unless one is obese, not worth checking.

Thanks again for all your posts!

[rand18m]

Sorry to repeat this, but this is more vegan propaganda.

The PCRM (who run the site you linked) is a PETA-funded animal-activist organization. The American Medical Association has repeatedly censured them and clearly stated "They are neither physicians nor responsible."

Their bias is clear, and it's NOT based in science, but PETA/animal-activist ideology.

The only thing I found out about this posters vegan discussion is later in a reply to me he stated that he's not vegan, and that of the "experts" he talked with personally he was told he would gain not benefit from being vegan! Which is an odd statement because like you, based on his prior posts he sure seemed vegan to me.

Anyway despite the vegan posts later he seemed to be a reasonable guy who has a serious problem and is simply looking for whatever answers he can find, considering his situation I can understand that. I hope he gives more thought to a discussion on veganism next time.

[themyth2009]

Much of the problems with bare stents is the ensuing inflammation that causes occlusions post surgery, hence the drug eluting stents. The same can occur in bypass as well. It's an inflammation in the arterial wall, i.e. scar tissue.

This is my thought as well. Also that a vein is not meant to work as an artery and cant handle the work load so to speak.

I completely understand where you are coming from with respect to your posts. It is all the rage now days to insist the established paradigms are nothing more than conspiracies by big pharma to line their own pockets, trot out youtube vids by contrarian gurus who insist everything we believe is hogwash, and cut/paste an endless supply of pubmed abstracts...all in an effort to validate our current dietary practices for adding muscle mass. I even do this myself at times .... but honestly, if i found out tomorrow that my arteries were f'cked, I'd be doing exactly what you are doing. Hell, I'd probably be doing the Esselstyn diet. I wouldn't be taking any chances at all ... and I certainly would not bet my life on the idea that the establishment is wrong and Atkins-esque diets are the way to go.

Not saying everyone should do this .... Just stating what I would do if I had serious artery problems. It is one thing to talk about this stuff when it is theoretical and abstract, and another thing when it actually hits home like a ton of bricks. You've got my respect Myth, for being open about your ordeal .... Maybe that can save someone else from going through the same thing.

Karl I tend to think most of the people I meet in the medical community are not out for the money and try their best to help people. I have not yet had one tell me to up my sat fat intake. I have not had one endorse atkins. I have not had any endorse vegan either. But they dont think vegan will hurt you either but you might have a hard time meeting all your bodies needs with it.

Long post, so skip to the bottom for the TLDR/Cliff Notes:


I have to jump into this. The vegan information is pure propaganda. These aren't "experts" they're ANIMAL ACTIVISTS. Both Ornish and Esselstyn are PETA members.

Yes, a low-fat vegan diet will reduce TOTAL cholesterol, but it universally WORSENS the cholesterol profile. There have been NO studies where it improved the cholesterol profile (ratio of HDL to LDL) and new research indicates the low-fat vegan diet, while reducing LDL, actually changes the LDL profile - increasing the dense (bad) LDL and reducing the buoyant (good) LDL.

As for reversing heart disease - the Esselstyn and Ornish diets are hardly conclusive that they reverse heart disease. Both were full interventions, not just diet. They each had patients stop smoking and start exercising. Esselstyn's diet had NO CONTROL GROUP and he put patients on statin drugs. Both eliminated refined/processed carbs and sugars from the diet. Ornish's intervention also included stress-therapy and other interventions. Then there's the tool they used for concluding the 'reversal' took place - coronary angiography. This is one of the most unreliable testing methods there is for determining anything about coronary arteries. If you don't believe me, look it up. Thousands of patients undergo unnecessary bypass surgery because of these unreliable tests, and there are many that also MISS coronary occlusions.

So what helped the patients? Eliminating animal products? Doubtful. Probably the combination of:

1. Stopping smoking
2. Exercising
3. Statin Drugs (evidence is pretty sketchy here though)
4. Stress-relief / Therapy
5. Eliminating refined/processed carbs/sugars

The fact here is there is NO proof a vegan diet reverses heart disease. Neither Ornish nor Esselstyn studied diet alone. Esselstyn had no control group. Not only that, they CANNOT reproduce their results, even though they've attempted to. This makes it BAD SCIENCE, period. See Dr. Goldacre's talk on Bad Science it's excellent. http://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacr...d_science.html

And don't take my word for any of this - see what Science-Based-Medicine has to say about the low-fat vegan diets. http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/...clintons-diet/ ... there's many other reputable studies and sources showing the low-fat vegan diet is NOT reversing heart disease.

This is vegan propaganda, pure-and-simple. Anyone with a sound understand of the scientific method can see through this B.S.



First, this was an observational study, which cannot prove anything. They can only provide correlations, not show causation. Second, they relied on food journals, which are notoriously unreliable. Third, they "conclude" Atkins style diets are bad because of a 'correlation' showing a misleading 5% increase risk out of 3% actual events. This means the risk actually increases from 3.00% to 3.015%. That's an ACTUAL risk increase of 0.015% if the study was able to remotely show causation, which it's not.


This is the same observational study you linked earlier, just a different article.

http://www.examiner.com/article/atki...-heart-disease is a link to an RCT trial - a Randomized Controlled Trial by researchers at John Hopkins University and funded by the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute. As mentioned, observational studies cannot prove causation, only correlation. Randomized Controlled Trials are what actually PROVE theories.

I can also link you to over a dozen randomized controlled trials showing low-carb/high-fat ketogenic diets are superior to ANY low-fat diet (vegan or otherwise) for weight-loss, glycemic control, improving insulin-sensitivity, improving cholesterol profile (both HDL to LDL and LDL-A to LDL-B) and reducing serum triglycerides. There are NO randomized, controlled trials showing low-fat vegan diets superior in any respect to low-carb/high-fat ketogenic diets for ANYTHING. Period.



TLDR/Cliff Notes:

1. Vegan diet info is all animal-activist propaganda
2. Atkins-style diets reduce inflammation, improve cholesterol/triglycerides
3. Atkins-style diets have NEVER been found unhealthy in randomized controlled trials
4. Low-Carb/High-Fat ketogenic diets superior in every respect to low-fat vegan diets.

All Science.

If you look at my posts in more detail I was using vegan as just an example of what people claim work and state they have the proper science and experts backing it. I am fairly confident that the President of the most powerful nation on the world had at least as good as resources at his disposal as anyone else and guess what route I am sure he was advised to follow? He also promotes it now.

Straight from american medical association. I guess these guys are biased to and dont know anything about science?

Did you even read the study you linked.

Cliffs

(1) It was a very short term study. 6 months dont mean a thing to me. Long term. Where is the long term studies on Atkins for say 10 years plus? How about 5?
(2) Straight from the study. At his presentation at the AHA meeting, lead investigator Kerry Stewart, Ed.D. said that the findings indicated that people can reduce systemic inflammation, and possibly lower their risk of heart disease, no matter which diet they choose—either low-carb or low-fat. Dr. Stewart is a professor of medicine at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine and director of clinical and research exercise physiology. His study indicated that the important factor is how much weight you lose—especially belly fat. Those in the study that followed the Atkins low-carb diet lost more abdominal fat overall.
(3) Low carb was proven to be superior in weight loss only. I have openly posted for years that nothing beats low carb for fat loss. I am sure most bodybuilders on the site are well aware and would agree.
(4) Did you not one big variation in the diet. Guess what the Atkins study have people double the protein intake. I have yet to meet anyone that tells me to eat high carbs and low protein.

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/...association.ht

[themyth2009]

Thanks for all your posts and I completely agree with your analysis overall. I will agree with you on dietary cholesterol but there is a caveat for some. The concept of an individual being
"egg sensitive" which is the term for those that are sensitive to dietary cholesterol is a real phenomenon. It typically happens within the obese crowd and typically disappears with weight loss, however it doesn't have to happen strictly with the obese crowd. I caution anyone reading this because it's not often this is the case, for the VAST majority dietary cholesterol has little to no effect on serum cholesterol, but like so many things related to the human body, that's not 100%. It's easy to determine if there is a problem, and unless one is obese, not worth checking.

Thanks again for all your posts!

Why I keep repeating get yourself tested before you make assumptions if your wrong you could pay for it dearly.

If you have a lipid problem I dont believe you can correct it with diet. I could eat grass all day long and it would not change my levels by much.

The only thing I found out about this posters vegan discussion is later in a reply to me he stated that he's not vegan, and that of the "experts" he talked with personally he was told he would gain not benefit from being vegan! Which is an odd statement because like you, based on his prior posts he sure seemed vegan to me.

Anyway despite the vegan posts later he seemed to be a reasonable guy who has a serious problem and is simply looking for whatever answers he can find, considering his situation I can understand that. I hope he gives more thought to a discussion on veganism next time.

It was used as example to detail that other experts would disagree. You need to do your own research on the topic and make sure you get yourself checked out.

I ate the low carb diet and for years and it didnt work out for me. I am not upset or bitter about it as it was a choice I made myself. I am going to try other things including experimental drugs. I have agreed to volunteer my time to the AHA for speaking engagements. I am get a crash education course by some very smart people along the way that are trying best to help people. I feel lucky that my SIL has the position she does in a cardiac unit of a hospital. She has helped me get to the right people.

[themyth2009]

Info from Harvard.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/health...right-proteins

[bustasinclair]

Info from Harvard.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/health...right-proteins

Just want to say that you're my hero, John.

Seriously, what you're doing is a huge service to everyone on this forum. Now more than ever, your presence on bodybuilding.com is priceless.

Keep fighting the good fight brother!

Sorry, I have nothing to add to the discussion--I'm just learning.

[themyth2009]

Just want to say that you're my hero, John.

Seriously, what you're doing is a huge service to everyone on this forum. Now more than ever, your presence on bodybuilding.com is priceless.

Keep fighting the good fight brother!

Sorry, I have nothing to add to the discussion--I'm just learning.

Thanks Matt just learning myself. Far from an expert. There is so much conflicting info out there. I have a lot a stake here. Not so much for myself but my kids. So far had my 13 and 15 year olds lipids tested. My son 13 - total chl was 242 and ldl 188. My 15 year old daughter total cholesterol 300 ldl 242. Felt like I was punched in the gut when I got the results.

Odds are 50/50 my kids will get it. So far its 2 for 2.

[bustasinclair]

Thanks Matt just learning myself. Far from an expert. There is so much conflicting info out there. I have a lot a stake here. Not so much for myself but my kids. So far had my 13 and 15 year olds lipids tested. My son 13 - total chl was 242 and ldl 188. My 15 year old daughter total cholesterol 300 ldl 242. Felt like I was punched in the gut when I got the results.

Odds are 50/50 my kids will get it. So far its 2 for 2.

That's horrible man. Is there any advantage to finding out so early? Surely having this info at such a young age will provide a possibility for a better outcome for them?

[themyth2009]

That's horrible man. Is there any advantage to finding out so early? Surely having this info at such a young age will provide a possibility for a better outcome for them?

If you believe that drugs and diet can make an impact on clogging of arteries yes. The sooner the better. It is why had them tested. My daughter has done really well she been out running and changed her eating habits. My son says who cares he rather die than eat healthy and exercise.

I am placing a lot of hope on drugs in the pipeline. Been told they work. Should find out soon.

500/400/600 sounds great. Hope you get there and beyond.

[bustasinclair]

If you believe that drugs and diet can make an impact on clogging of arteries yes. The sooner the better. It is why had them tested. My daughter has done really well she been out running and changed her eating habits. My son says who cares he rather die than eat healthy and exercise.

I am placing a lot of hope on drugs in the pipeline. Been told they work. Should find out soon.

500/400/600 sounds great. Hope you get there and beyond.

Awesome for your daughter; shame on your son. I hope he changes his 'tude. FWIW, I'm pulling for you and your family; I know that may be trite, but it's from the heart. (no pun intended)

Meh, it's a goal. Finding myself less and less excited about BB'ing and PL'ing goals as of late. I've really been thinking more about health lately--mainly sparked by what happened to you. If you were me, would you make any changes in lifestyle? I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

FYI, my Dad died at 49 from a massive stroke. He smoked like a freight train and drank like a fish his whole life--not sure about any genetic markers.

[drudixon]

My wife used to be overweight and had cholesterol combined about 180. She developed some weird nausea thing and ended up basically only eating cheerios for about 1.5 years. She lost 50 lbs. Her last checkup her combined cholesterol is now less than 90. The doc kinda freaked out and told her to start eating shrimp (one of the highest cholesterol things out there apparently). My own cholesterol is around 150 combined. Blood pressure has always been very low. It's odd, I eat like crap, yet the figures are always pretty good (except now triglycerides are creeping up). I'm guessing I'm in the genetically lucky boat.

Re: smoking, my grandmother made it to 94 and smoked 2 packs a day, or more since she was 12. She also drank a good bit too.

Now, my liver enzymes... no bueno.

[induced_drag]

My wife used to be overweight and had cholesterol combined about 180. She developed some weird nausea thing and ended up basically only eating cheerios for about 1.5 years. She lost 50 lbs. Her last checkup her combined cholesterol is now less than 90. The doc kinda freaked out and told her to start eating shrimp (one of the highest cholesterol things out there apparently). My own cholesterol is around 150 combined. Blood pressure has always been very low. It's odd, I eat like crap, yet the figures are always pretty good (except now triglycerides are creeping up). I'm guessing I'm in the genetically lucky boat.

Re: smoking, my grandmother made it to 94 and smoked 2 packs a day, or more since she was 12. She also drank a good bit too.

Now, my liver enzymes... no bueno.

Some studies suggesting a high correlation between depression and low cholesterol. While I am not depressed, it still is a concern and I have been following this. Do a search for low cholesterol and depression for info.

[Marius_Ursus]

Some studies suggesting a high correlation between depression and low cholesterol. While I am not depressed, it still is a concern and I have been following this. Do a search for low cholesterol and depression for info.

Interesting. I immediately made the leap to the cholesterol/Testosterone connection because of the mood effects of Testosterone...

[ParsleyTea]

Slowly it seems the word is getting out that saturated fat isn't the villain it has been made out to be over the years. Saw on the John Stossel show he hosted a segment recently where it was mentioned that some fats can even be healthy.

"Taubes & Attia Debunks Food Myths on The Stossel Show"

http://www.dietdoctor.com/taubes-att...e-stossel-show

[themyth2009]

Awesome for your daughter; shame on your son. I hope he changes his 'tude. FWIW, I'm pulling for you and your family; I know that may be trite, but it's from the heart. (no pun intended)

Meh, it's a goal. Finding myself less and less excited about BB'ing and PL'ing goals as of late. I've really been thinking more about health lately--mainly sparked by what happened to you. If you were me, would you make any changes in lifestyle? I'm interested in hearing your opinion.

FYI, my Dad died at 49 from a massive stroke. He smoked like a freight train and drank like a fish his whole life--not sure about any genetic markers.

Had to do over again I would have taken statins and other drugs earlier. Changed my diet somewhat follow what I do now and done more cardio. As long as your blood work is good I dont see any reason to stop what doing. Mine was bad. I just didnt take it serious. You know Cholesterol is a myth information out there isnt helping some people with real problems.

Interesting. I immediately made the leap to the cholesterol/Testosterone connection because of the mood effects of Testosterone...

Lots of people with high cholesterol have low T and heart disease have low T. I will get mine tested but I am sure its horrible. My brothers is. The real question is to use anything and I mean even the gel or 50-100mg a week if you have heart diseases. I think the data points to that testosterone is good for you heart in low dosages and if you stay in the normal range. That it is unhealthy to have low T for your heart.

[Marius_Ursus]

I meant dietary cholesterol, not serum.

[bustasinclair]

That it is unhealthy to have low T for your heart.

Hell, there aren't many functions in the human body that aren't affected by low T. Hormone science is still in it's infancy....and I believe on purpose. Hormone science holds the key to slowing the aging process. IMO, in order to keep the mortality charts in line, there is a concerted effort to keep the research at a minimum. We don't want people outliving social security or heaven forbid collecting on their annuities to the point where insurance companies are losing money..... [/rant]

[themyth2009]

Hell, there aren't many functions in the human body that aren't affected by low T. Hormone science is still in it's infancy....and I believe on purpose. Hormone science holds the key to slowing the aging process. IMO, in order to keep the mortality charts in line, there is a concerted effort to keep the research at a minimum. We don't want people outliving social security or heaven forbid collecting on their annuities to the point where insurance companies are losing money..... [/rant]

I wish was more info and studies for sure. If you have low T and a heart condition which tons of heart patients do it would be nice to know impact. I mean would you risk taking T thinking it may kill you? Or do you say ahh that b.s. and take T anyway? It is really a shame to think that it may help you mentally, physically and even your heart but dont use it cause there is no info out there.

Its not popular and I dont think the money potential is there that are in other drugs so incentive isnt there either.

[LowCarbDiabetic]

I am fairly confident that the President of the most powerful nation on the world had at least as good as resources at his disposal as anyone else and guess what route I am sure he was advised to follow? He also promotes it now.

Clinton followed Ornish's diet SOMEWHAT but not entirely. He adds fish and other fats. It's not a true low-fat nor vegan diet. He also exercised, gave up refined carbs and got healthier. Again, it's not conclusively the reduction in saturated fat. His health changes could easily be attributed to both weight-loss and elimination of refined carbs.

Straight from american medical association. I guess these guys are biased to and dont know anything about science?

I'm not sure which thing you're referring to here so cannot comment. However, if you mean this AMA opinion piece you linked later...

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/...association.ht

...You realize that was from 1974, right? Before they had any evidence Atkins was actually correct? This link you offered is an opinion article published in the journal, NOT the opinion of the journal, and it's from nearly 4 decades ago, before the evidence showed that low-carb/high-fat diets were NOT dangerous.

Did you even read the study you linked.

Yes, I read them all and have a sound understanding of the science therein. I spent several years in medical school fully intending to work as either a Pediatric Cardiologist or Research Cardiologist. Although I left that field for another I've read literally hundreds of studies on the subject of low-carb ketogenic diets, saturated fat intake, dietary cholesterol intake, and more.

As for your issues with the study: FYI most of the RCT (randomized controlled trials) are short-term simply due to the cost involved in the studies. They are typically 6 to 12 months in design. However in that short term hey are far-more accurate and their results much-more reliable than observational/epidemiological studies and CAN prove causation, not just correlation. This is why RCT's are the gold-standard of science, and why you should put much more weight behind them than epidemiological studies.

If you review the literally dozens of studies available on low-carb ketogenic diets compared to other diets, ESPECIALLY the studies dealing with obese people, you'll see that it's not just weight-loss they're superior in. As mentioned, glycemic control, cholesterol profile and triglyceride levels universally improve with ketogenic diets.

It sounds to me like you're believing the low-fat hype due to your own hypercholesterolemia and CVD issues without realizing that the truth for the majority of people is somewhere in-between what you need due to your genetics, and what works for those that can eat high-fat with impunity.

Low-fat "myths" as many of us call them, are now called myths (even by Harvard, who you seem to like to reference) due to the lack of evidence supporting the push for low-fat diets.

You've presented considerable information, but I'm sorry to say it's not convincing and much of it is biased and agenda-driven. Sorry, but you've provided NOTHING but animal-activist quotes (the atkinsexposed site information) and observational studies to support your ideas.

I know you mean well, but you are one of the few genetically predisposed to hypercholesterolemia/CVD ... and what works for you in this case isn't necessary for everyone. Not only that, it's not necessarily healthy.

Using myself as anectodal evidence - I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from you - If I followed a low-fat diet I'd have sky-high blood glucose levels, high triglycerides and a horrible cholesterol profile. I know because that's what I did when I was first diagnosed with diabetes. FYI medical doctors in the US and Canada have received, on-average, less than 25 hours total training on nutrition - including your "Atkins Exposed" PETA-member experts. And they're STILL being taught the lipid hypothesis in school, even though it's never been proven, and there is more evidence to disprove, than prove, the theory.

My feeling is people certainly shouldn't ignore the epidemiological evidence, but should take it with a grain of salt. Everyone is different from genetic, physiological and biochemical perspectives, and everybody needs a slightly individualized diet to be their healthiest. I truly believe that we should look more into what Randomized Controlled Trials show, and what biochemical research shows about saturated fats, as well as what research cardiologists say. For example:

From this link: http://phys.org/news205146842.html

Results from a research review conducted by Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard University School of Public Health, found that the effects of saturated fat intake on CVD risk depend upon simultaneous changes in other nutrients. For example, replacing saturated fat with mono-unsaturated fat yielded uncertain effects on CVD risk, while replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates was found to be ineffective and even harmful especially when refined carbohydrates such as starches or sugars were used in place of fat . Replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat gave a small reduction in CVD risk, but even with optimal replacement the magnitude of the benefit was very small. According to Mozaffarian it would be far better to focus on dietary factors giving much larger benefits for CVD health, such as increasing intake of seafood/omega-3 fatty acids, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and decreasing intake of trans fats and sodium.

Mozaffarian, btw, is a cardiologist and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard. He has more to say on the subject of Saturated fat here: http://www.more.com/health/healthy-e...rated-fat-good

There's also excellent information on dietary cholesterol at this site, from Chris Masterjohn, PhD in Nutrition: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/. His best write-up is here: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.co...ease-Myth.html

The fact remains, while SOME people may be predisposed to CVD from intake of saturated fat and cholesterol, they are the small minority.

[themyth2009]

Clinton followed Ornish's diet SOMEWHAT but not entirely. He adds fish and other fats. It's not a true low-fat nor vegan diet. He also exercised, gave up refined carbs and got healthier. Again, it's not conclusively the reduction in saturated fat. His health changes could easily be attributed to both weight-loss and elimination of refined carbs.


I'm not sure which thing you're referring to here so cannot comment. However, if you mean this AMA opinion piece you linked later...


...You realize that was from 1974, right? Before they had any evidence Atkins was actually correct? This link you offered is an opinion article published in the journal, NOT the opinion of the journal, and it's from nearly 4 decades ago, before the evidence showed that low-carb/high-fat diets were NOT dangerous.


Yes, I read them all and have a sound understanding of the science therein. I spent several years in medical school fully intending to work as either a Pediatric Cardiologist or Research Cardiologist. Although I left that field for another I've read literally hundreds of studies on the subject of low-carb ketogenic diets, saturated fat intake, dietary cholesterol intake, and more.

As for your issues with the study: FYI most of the RCT (randomized controlled trials) are short-term simply due to the cost involved in the studies. They are typically 6 to 12 months in design. However in that short term hey are far-more accurate and their results much-more reliable than observational/epidemiological studies and CAN prove causation, not just correlation. This is why RCT's are the gold-standard of science, and why you should put much more weight behind them than epidemiological studies.

If you review the literally dozens of studies available on low-carb ketogenic diets compared to other diets, ESPECIALLY the studies dealing with obese people, you'll see that it's not just weight-loss they're superior in. As mentioned, glycemic control, cholesterol profile and triglyceride levels universally improve with ketogenic diets.

It sounds to me like you're believing the low-fat hype due to your own hypercholesterolemia and CVD issues without realizing that the truth for the majority of people is somewhere in-between what you need due to your genetics, and what works for those that can eat high-fat with impunity.

Low-fat "myths" as many of us call them, are now called myths (even by Harvard, who you seem to like to reference) due to the lack of evidence supporting the push for low-fat diets.

You've presented considerable information, but I'm sorry to say it's not convincing and much of it is biased and agenda-driven. Sorry, but you've provided NOTHING but animal-activist quotes (the atkinsexposed site information) and observational studies to support your ideas.

I know you mean well, but you are one of the few genetically predisposed to hypercholesterolemia/CVD ... and what works for you in this case isn't necessary for everyone. Not only that, it's not necessarily healthy.

Using myself as anectodal evidence - I'm on the opposite end of the spectrum from you - If I followed a low-fat diet I'd have sky-high blood glucose levels, high triglycerides and a horrible cholesterol profile. I know because that's what I did when I was first diagnosed with diabetes. FYI medical doctors in the US and Canada have received, on-average, less than 25 hours total training on nutrition - including your "Atkins Exposed" PETA-member experts. And they're STILL being taught the lipid hypothesis in school, even though it's never been proven, and there is more evidence to disprove, than prove, the theory.

My feeling is people certainly shouldn't ignore the epidemiological evidence, but should take it with a grain of salt. Everyone is different from genetic, physiological and biochemical perspectives, and everybody needs a slightly individualized diet to be their healthiest. I truly believe that we should look more into what Randomized Controlled Trials show, and what biochemical research shows about saturated fats, as well as what research cardiologists say. For example:

From this link: http://phys.org/news205146842.html

Results from a research review conducted by Dariush Mozaffarian, MD, MPH, Department of Epidemiology and Nutrition at Harvard University School of Public Health, found that the effects of saturated fat intake on CVD risk depend upon simultaneous changes in other nutrients. For example, replacing saturated fat with mono-unsaturated fat yielded uncertain effects on CVD risk, while replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates was found to be ineffective and even harmful especially when refined carbohydrates such as starches or sugars were used in place of fat . Replacing saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat gave a small reduction in CVD risk, but even with optimal replacement the magnitude of the benefit was very small. According to Mozaffarian it would be far better to focus on dietary factors giving much larger benefits for CVD health, such as increasing intake of seafood/omega-3 fatty acids, whole grains, fruits and vegetables, and decreasing intake of trans fats and sodium.

Mozaffarian, btw, is a cardiologist and Associate Professor of Medicine at Harvard. He has more to say on the subject of Saturated fat here: http://www.more.com/health/healthy-e...rated-fat-good

There's also excellent information on dietary cholesterol at this site, from Chris Masterjohn, PhD in Nutrition: http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/

The fact remains, while SOME people may be predisposed to CVD from intake of saturated fat and cholesterol, they are the small minority.

I think we are arguing the same point in the end you need to tailor your diet to your genetic make up. I have only said it like 20 times in this thread. But thanks for pointing out genetic variations I have already accounted for. I even stated my odds are 1 in 20,000.

The truth is know one knows right now. Not you or anyone you quote. I am following the best advice I can get right now and making my own decision. Backed up by blood work.

The funny thing is you assume that I am going low fat and high carb? Also that I would eat garbage carbs. I eat salmon several times a week and nuts as my sources of fat. I use vegan protein powder to up my protein. My carbs are whole grains, fruits and veggies. I am not going low fat/high carb. I monitor everything I put in my body. It is whole food close to nature as I can get.

I dont even put a value in a study that takes fat slobs who eat like hell and have them follow a structured diet for 6 months. The drop in calories alone and more balance would account for improvements probably no matter what diet they followed.

I am wondering what diets you tried and stuck to before high fat? Give me some examples of time frames and what diet was like?

[pharmamarketer]

I wish was more info and studies for sure. If you have low T and a heart condition which tons of heart patients do it would be nice to know impact. I mean would you risk taking T thinking it may kill you? Or do you say ahh that b.s. and take T anyway? It is really a shame to think that it may help you mentally, physically and even your heart but dont use it cause there is no info out there.

Its not popular and I dont think the money potential is there that are in other drugs so incentive isnt there either.

Bingo my friend. Unfortunately you are dead on. There are diseases that kill 5000 people a year. No one does much for them. But hypertension, T2D, heart disease, depression, ADHD...more me too drugs than we know what to do with. There are currently close to 100 drUgs to treat hypertension. 100. What Healthcare Reform will do for this country is put quality metrics in place. Instead of getting paid for ordering tests physicians will get paid for % of patients they get to certain goals, for patient satisfaction, quality of care. It is a complete shift but one that is a reality come 2014 and one that pharma will have to adapt to. I am hoping that this will mean more opportunity for a healthier patients. The reason I got into my biz in the first place. the one danger is the incentive for pharma to invest in new drugs. I do not have a clear understanding of that piece yet. From what I have been consulted on it will be more critical to develop outcomes data and a value proposition from the get go. Why should "we" healthcare company have you "new drug" as an option. Show us the value. Could be more costly but it may be the new norm.

[LowCarbDiabetic]

I think we are arguing the same point in the end you need to tailor your diet to your genetic make up. I have only said it like 20 times in this thread. But thanks for pointing out genetic variations I have already accounted for. I even stated my odds are 1 in 20,000.

Sorry about that, there's so much posted in this thread it is sometimes difficult to keep track everything said by everyone.

The truth is know one knows right now. Not you or anyone you quote. I am following the best advice I can get right now and making my own decision. Backed up by blood work.

And I do likewise, yet I eat an extremely high amount of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol - enough that low-fat advocates (and conventional wisdom) tell me I should be dying. Yet my cardiac health and all normally measured bio-markers for it are better than they've ever been.

The funny thing is you assume that I am going low fat and high carb? Also that I would eat garbage carbs. I eat salmon several times a week and nuts as my sources of fat. I use vegan protein powder to up my protein. My carbs are whole grains, fruits and veggies. I am not going low fat/high carb. I monitor everything I put in my body. It is whole food close to nature as I can get.

It's extremely easy to assume that from your posts, and I'm not the only one making that assumption, as you can tell from what others have said. Very sorry if I've misinterpreted and it offended you.

It's also easy to assume I'm anti-vegan, which I'm not. I'm anti-propaganda and pro-truth. People need to have information from researchers on both sides of an issue/argument, as well as unbiased information in order to make an informed decision.

I dont even put a value in a study that takes fat slobs who eat like hell and have them follow a structured diet for 6 months. The drop in calories alone and more balance would account for improvements probably no matter what diet they followed.

I agree with you there to a certain extent. But the fat slob studies of ketogenic dieters vs. other diets (control group) do favor the keto diets for much more than just fat-loss. The idea it's only weight-loss is not only misleading, but simply incorrect. That's the only point I wanted to make there.

[LowCarbDiabetic]

Note: this is long. There is no TL;DR/Cliff Notes version. It's to answer the following question and anyone that doesn't like long posts should probably just ignore it.

I am wondering what diets you tried and stuck to before high fat? Give me some examples of time frames and what diet was like?

In my early 30's I first started trying to get back into shape (after eating far too much crap for years), which was difficult with my back pain. I ate a typical 40/30/30 carb/protein/fat diet that was pretty bland but supplied by a trainer. Typical bland bodybuilder fare: Protein sources were chicken breast and other lean meats, powders, egg whites, etc. Carbohydrates were brown rice, sweet potato/yam, salads, etc. Whole grains, no white flours or sugars, etc. Little oils, sauces and sugars in all. I'd have one cheat day per week with two cheat meals in total that day. I kept that diet up for a year while doing lots of walking, running and cycling. I exercised 6 days a week, could ride a century in 5.5 hours and I averaged 51 minutes for my 10K runs, which was OK for a clydesdale. During that year my triglycerides dropped, but remained on the high-end of normal, my total cholesterol dropped but my ratio (HDL:LDL) did NOT improve, and my blood glucose was always slightly above normal - though not diabetic levels. Overall I did NOT respond as well to the diet/exercise regime as would be expected.

Then my back started really giving me grief, I got a promotion, moved to another city, underwent tons of stress, suffered from depression and ate like an idiot again. 10 years later I had extremely high cholesterol, high blood pressure, high triglycerides and diabetes - I had literally more than TWICE the fasting glucose and HbA1c readings that they currently diagnose diabetes at.

I initially followed my dieticians advice - Basically the same diet the American and Canadian diabetes associations recommend. Lots of whole grains and other "healthy" carbs, low-fat, moderate protein. This is a DISASTER for most diabetics. In three months both my glucose readings and my triglycerides were WORSE than at diagnosis.

I then tried Dr. Neal Barnard's low-fat vegan approach to diabetes - but this was at the same time I started pouring myself into research, and needless to say I didn't stay on it long. Enough to see my triglycerides drop a little and my blood sugar improve a bit, but this was more likely as a result of eliminating refined carbohydrate/sugar rather than eliminating animal fat/protein...

I spent roughly 8 hours a day researching at this point... no joke. I was on medical disability at the time so I poured myself into it. My employer has access to all the full texts of studies most people can only see the abstracts of, so I could more-easily make an informed decision. It didn't take me long to adopt low-carb/high-fat. I stayed on the low-fat vegan diet just under a month.

On LCHF I started at 20-30g maximum carbohydrate a day, with about 20-25% protein maximum and the rest from fats. The ONLY fats I avoided were refined oils - I preferred things that occur in nature such as olive, almond, peanut, coconut, palm oils, etc. Things that when pressed, give you oil. (pressing/squeezing corn or soybeans does NOT give you oil. That stuff is scary.)

Within 2 weeks my blood sugar levels had dropped dramatically. At diagnosis my fasting glucose was 14.7mmol/L or 267mg/dl on the US scale. Post-prandial numbers were generally between 16.5-22 mmol/L or 300 - 400 mg/dl. These got slightly worse on the 'diabetic' diet from my nutritionist, and during the time I was on the low-fat vegan diet post-prandials were usually between 10.0 and 14.0 mmol/L or 180-250mg/dl. However after only two weeks on the LCHF diet my post-prandial numbers were consistently under 9.0mmol/L or 160mg/dl.

Then against all evidence I'd never be able to (I'm supposed to be in a wheelchair now), I started exercising - riding a spin bike. 2 minutes a day at first, slowly adding to it and adopting a HIIT regime once I could - regardless of the pain or difficulty I experienced.

Within 3 months of starting LCHF and riding that spin bike 2 minutes a day (to start), my HbA1c was 7.0%, my triglycerides were LOW-Normal, my cholesterol profile improved tremendously, and I'd lost 70lbs. 3 more months later HbA1c was down to 6.0% and I'd lost even more weight and improved my cholesterol even further.

Currently I've been eating LCHF for 2 years. I cook with saturated fats - butter, bacon grease, coconut oil ... and not a little bit either. My own doctor is amazed but I've provided her enough research and evidence to change the way she treats diabetic patients as well. There's also about a thousand diabetics on diabetesforum dot com that will attest to the fact that LCHF, including INCREASING saturated fat intake, is helping not-only their glycemic control, but their cholesterol profiles and triglycerides.

As for saturated fat I should mention that some of the most compelling evidence I found was in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, by researchers from the Harvard School of Public Health. Their study showed that in postmenopausal women with heart disease, a higher saturated fat intake was associated with less narrowing of the coronary artery and a reduced progression of disease. Even with similar levels of LDL cholesterol, women with lower saturated fat intake had much higher rates of disease progression. Higher saturated fat intake was also associated with higher HDL-C and lower triglycerides.

This was a study with over 250 patients, imaging over 2,000 coronary segments and spanning over 3 years. Compare that to Esselstyn's study of 24 initial patients that was reduced to 11, doing ONE image per patient, and you'll see why I don't believe Esselstyn's or Ornish's diets reverse heart disease.

[rand18m]

Great discussion guys!!

I'll leave this debate/discussion with one observation.

Recently I listened to a leading cardiologists/pathologists discuss different current studies and one caught my ear in particular.
The study followed patients who had very similar heart issues (damage) and similar treatments (surgeries) for two years after treatment. One group used statins and typical other interventions, (Plavix etc), the others used daily transcendental meditation. Well guess what, the meditation group did much better, (significantly) maybe that result tells us more than all the other data combined!

(maybe not)