Ongoing Study Discussion Thread - Nutrition, Training, Health etc.

[QUOTE=AdamWW;1591406751]I think originally coconut oil gained popularity because of it's MCT content, and those who touted it as 'healthy' tried to argue that the MCTs are 'used for fuel' rather than being stored as bodyfat... a ridiculous concept of course because [b]the calorie content is what will dictate fat deposition[/b], but everyone loves a headline ;o)[/QUOTE]

Uh oh. Now I'm too curious not to ask: do you believe that nutrients have no effect on the partitioning influences that determine whether they are oxidized or stored?

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1591443041]As for full fat dairy: from what I've read replacing SFA from dairy with unsaturated fats tends to improve lipids. The contradictory results come from studies that didn't replace SFA with unsaturated, afaik.[/QUOTE]
So potentially there’s a hierarchy in terms of least harmful impacts on blood lipids? I.e.
SFA (butter/meat) < coconut oil < dairy SFA <unsaturated fats

[QUOTE=Strawng;1591474721]So potentially there’s a hierarchy in terms of least harmful impacts on blood lipids? I.e.
SFA (butter/meat) < coconut oil < dairy SFA <unsaturated fats[/QUOTE]

I suspect some of this might be related to chain-length, etc... but I could be wrong.

broganoff, MCTs are actually absorbed more easily as they do not require emulsification with bile acids to be absorbed

Regarding SFAs, stearic acid (c18:0) seems to have no impact on blood lipids while lauric acid (c12:0) raises LDL & HDL and the LDL:HDL ratio doesn't really change IIRC. SFAs from dairy seem less harmful; this may be in part due to the different distribution of SFAs in dairy vs beef but also there is a likely contributing component of other aspects of dairy food. We still have a long way to go to understand the full impact of the various types of SFAs and trying to disentangle them from the food sources is hard. For example, just comparing dairy and beef:

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1591481591] SFAs from dairy seem less harmful; this may be in part due to the different distribution of SFAs in dairy vs beef but also there is a likely contributing component of other aspects of dairy food. We still have a long way to go to understand the full impact of the various types of SFAs and trying to disentangle them from the food sources is hard. For example, just comparing dairy and beef:[/QUOTE]
Interesting. Looking at that chart I can see that it's going to take quite awhile to suss out just what might differentiates different ratios of SFAs, let alone what other unforeseeable factors might also influence their effects given the specific type of food matrix. The difference could be entirely down to some harm-reducing benefit found in dairy products that has absolutely nothing to do with their fat ratios.

[QUOTE=rtpmarine;1591472081]Uh oh. Now I'm too curious not to ask: do you believe that nutrients have no effect on the partitioning influences that determine whether they are oxidized or stored?[/QUOTE]

I’d rather not engage with you. Thanks though.

[QUOTE=Strawng;1591474721]So potentially there’s a hierarchy in terms of least harmful impacts on blood lipids? I.e.
SFA (butter/meat) < coconut oil < dairy SFA <unsaturated fats[/QUOTE]

If you remove the coconut oil I'd think it's pretty accurate: SFA (butter/meat) < dairy SFA <unsaturated fats.

I'm not sure where extra virgin coconut oil falls because I've seen some conflicting results and I haven't checked all the new studies.

Full fat dairy has a fair amount of palmitic acid in it, which raises LDL afaik. I think there are some theories on milk fat globule membrane making a difference. From what I've seen there are very little (if any) studies that compare something like full fat yogurt or cheese vs. nuts in a diet, macros equated. I'd expect nuts to be a bit better for lipids in such a scenario.

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1591515761]If you remove the coconut oil I'd think it's pretty accurate: SFA (butter/meat) < dairy SFA <unsaturated fats.

I'm not sure where extra virgin coconut oil falls because I've seen some conflicting results and I haven't checked all the new studies.

Full fat dairy has a fair amount of palmitic acid in it, which raises LDL afaik. I think there are some theories on milk fat globule membrane making a difference. From what I've seen there are very little (if any) studies that compare something like full fat yogurt or cheese vs. nuts in a diet, macros equated. I'd expect nuts to be a bit better for lipids in such a scenario.[/QUOTE]
Thanks for clearing that up. Forever OS.

More good news for fiber. New study shows that dietary fiber intake promotes dietary adherence outside of other variables (macros, calories, total weight lost, starting BMI, etc.): [url]https://academic.oup.com/jn/article-abstract/149/10/1742/5512578?redirectedFrom=fulltext[/url]

Haven't read this yet but per this genetics may explain why some people hate the taste of certain vegetables: [url]https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/genetics-may-be-the-reason-why-you-hate-vegetables-study-shows-133618638.html[/url]

New paper on high protein diets: "High-protein diet is bad for kidney health: unleashing the taboo"
[url]https://academic.oup.com/ndt/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ndt/gfz216/5614387?[/url]

Comment from Stu Phillips: "The studies by Jhee et al. [5] and Esmeijer et al. [3] should be qualified for their epidemiologic nature, given that the association does not equate to causality. The use of a food frequency questionnaire in both studies is another limitation, since these questionnaires tend to underestimate the average daily nutrient intake, although ranking subjects across their food intake such as in the form of quartiles of dietary protein is an effective remedy for the said shortcoming. Furthermore, glomerular hyperfiltration cannot be reliably detected by eGFR values. But we feel compelled to exercise our confirmation bias? I guess the safest thing would be to consume no protein?"

[QUOTE=Strawng;1591621581]Thanks for clearing that up. Forever OS.

More good news for fiber. New study shows that dietary fiber intake promotes dietary adherence outside of other variables (macros, calories, total weight lost, starting BMI, etc.): [url]https://academic.oup.com/jn/article-abstract/149/10/1742/5512578?redirectedFrom=fulltext[/url][/QUOTE]

Thanks. That's interesting "Dietary fiber intake, independently of macronutrient and caloric intake, promotes weight loss and dietary adherence in adults with overweight or obesity consuming a calorie-restricted diet. "

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1591631231]Haven't read this yet but per this genetics may explain why some people hate the taste of certain vegetables: [url]https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/genetics-may-be-the-reason-why-you-hate-vegetables-study-shows-133618638.html[/url][/QUOTE]

I would not be surprised if I have that gene. I've always disliked broccoli.

[QUOTE=SOJA;1591638931]I might have the name wrong, but where does Schuler stand?[/QUOTE]

I don't know what you mean.

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1591641411]New paper on high protein diets: "High-protein diet is bad for kidney health: unleashing the taboo"
[url]https://academic.oup.com/ndt/advance-article/doi/10.1093/ndt/gfz216/5614387?[/url]

Comment from Stu Phillips: "The studies by Jhee et al. [5] and Esmeijer et al. [3] should be qualified for their epidemiologic nature, given that the association does not equate to causality. The use of a food frequency questionnaire in both studies is another limitation, since these questionnaires tend to underestimate the average daily nutrient intake, although ranking subjects across their food intake such as in the form of quartiles of dietary protein is an effective remedy for the said shortcoming. Furthermore, glomerular hyperfiltration cannot be reliably detected by eGFR values. But we feel compelled to exercise our confirmation bias? I guess the safest thing would be to consume no protein?"


[/QUOTE]

Well I'm glad you posted Stu's comments cause sometimes these studies confuse me as they contradict each other

Well all studies have limitations. Stu just reposted what the authors included as limitations of those two studies and then threw in the comment about the confirmation bias. It would be better in my mind to discuss the underlying issues with those limitations and how that affects the interpretation of the results rather than to just point out limitations and leave it there. If simply pointing out limitations was a sufficient way to criticize studies we would never make any progress as it's rather difficult to design and carry out a perfect study, especially in nutritional research. I'm not even saying Stu is wrong but by being dismissive without providing a rationale for doing so it seems like he is exercising his own confirmation bias in favor of high protein.

If he posted other things and I'm not seeing it as I'm not looking at the original source then my apologies.

I need to read the two original studies (as this was just a commentary) prior to commenting further. On that note I think it's time to compile the literature regarding high protein intake and kidney health into a thread discussing all of it, and I should have done that a long time ago, so I will work on this over this weekend.

For clarity: that was just a quick comment from Stu on ********. I expect he would probably have better criticism if he took the time.

Someone then asked him "what values would be more accurate than eGFR? 24h urinalysis?"
Stu replied: "cystatin c"

I know very little of the topic I just had a quick look at the paper but this made me raise an eyebrow: "This contemporary creed has gone so far that we feel continuously pressured to eat more protein and less carbohydrates, including even less fruits and vegetables. We feel compelled to eat only the meat patty of the sandwich and leave behind the bun when eating in front of others, otherwise we may lose credibility among friends and peers. "

Odd claims, in my opinion this doesn't speak to the quality of the paper.

Agreed, though the commentary mentions that cystatin c was used in at least one of the two studies. Definitely seems like the people who wrote this commentary have their own biases. I'm gonna make a thread sometime next week about this topic after I comb through the literature this weekend.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1591647521]I'm gonna make a thread sometime next week about this topic after I comb through the literature this weekend.[/QUOTE]

Interesting.

New study: One avocado a day in a heart-healthy diet decreased oxLDL in adults with overweight and obesity, and the effect was associated with the reduction in sdLDL.

[url]https://academic.oup.com/jn/advance-article/doi/10.1093/jn/nxz231/5588100[/url]

Lay press article: [url]https://www.endocrinologyadvisor.com/home/topics/obesity/consuming-one-avocado-per-day-reduces-circulating-oxidized-ldl/[/url]

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1591647521]Agreed, though the commentary mentions that cystatin c was used in at least one of the two studies. Definitely seems like the people who wrote this commentary have their own biases. I'm gonna make a thread sometime next week about this topic after I comb through the literature this weekend.[/QUOTE]

Probably something to include: [url]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0274-7[/url]

"A word of caution against excessive protein intake"

(if anyone wants the full text send me pm please)

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1591821111]Probably something to include: [url]https://www.nature.com/articles/s41574-019-0274-7[/url]

"A word of caution against excessive protein intake"

(if anyone wants the full text send me pm please)[/QUOTE]

Thank you. I got another couple dozen things to read on this topic but still plan to make a thread this week.

I remember Heisman posted a link a while back which concluded high protein diet does not have adverse effects on kidney function.

Wouldn't all IFBB pros and serious gym folk be dropping like flies if high protein was bad for kidneys?

5-6+ years of 200g protein/day concluded no adverse effects to my kidney function.

[QUOTE=Nedo;1591957741]
Wouldn't all IFBB pros and serious gym folk be dropping like flies if high protein was bad for kidneys?
[/QUOTE]
Not necessarily. Suppose a life time of high protein doubles the risk of kidney disease. That would be a serious adverse effect but that still wouldn't mean they would be dropping like flies. It's more nuanced obviously.

For clarity: I'm not claiming high protein diets cause problems.

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1591958881]

For clarity: I'm not claiming high protein diets cause problems.[/QUOTE]

Maybe one of the nutrition brains like Jorn etc will study this further?

Anything in the works that you know of?

I can't remember the amount of protein used in the recent study where it was claimed protein didn't affect kidney function.

I'll be making a thread covering what is and isn't know later this week regarding protein intake and kidney function.

[QUOTE=boo99;1591966301]Maybe one of the nutrition brains like Jorn etc will study this further?

Anything in the works that you know of?

I can't remember the amount of protein used in the recent study where it was claimed protein didn't affect kidney function.[/QUOTE]

I don't think this is high on the priority list of Jorn. Stu might be a different story.

The 1 year study by Antonio was interesting but it only measured a few risk markers. And I don't think 1 year is enough to real start seeing things. Which is the problem, it's hard and expensive to do the necessary studies. The existing literature has a lot of flaws.

[QUOTE=Mrpb;1591970831]I don't think this is high on the priority list of Jorn. Stu might be a different story.

The 1 year study by Antonio was interesting but it only measured a few risk markers. And I don't think 1 year is enough to real start seeing things. Which is the problem, it's hard and expensive to do the necessary studies. The existing literature has a lot of flaws.[/QUOTE]

Yea one year doesn't quite long enough for sure and also expensive

Have you downloaded Jorns' full thesis?

He had it as a few download on his site, that guy is quite brilliant

[QUOTE=boo99;1591975211]Yea one year doesn't quite long enough for sure and also expensive

Have you downloaded Jorns' full thesis?

He had it as a few download on his site, that guy is quite brilliant[/QUOTE]

I haven't seen it yet. Anything that surprised you in there? I figured we already know everything he has to say on the topic. I could be wrong.

[quote]Long-Term Cholesterol Risk Points to Need for Earlier Testing

New data from almost 400,000 individuals who were followed for up to 43 years have shown that the link between raised non-HDL cholesterol and future risk of cardiovascular disease is strongest in younger people.

The researchers also simulated what effect a 50% reduction in cholesterol levels would have over a lifetime, and found that although this was effective at reducing cardiovascular risk at all ages, the largest relative risk reductions were in younger individuals — probably because they would have lowered their cholesterol exposure for a longer period of their lives.

The data raise questions about testing for increased cholesterol earlier in a person's life than currently recommended.

"At present, most people don't think about getting a cholesterol test until they are in their 50s or 60s. By this time, they could have been living with high cholesterol levels for 40-plus years and a lot of the damage has already been done," senior author Stefan Blankenberg, MD, of the University Heart & Vascular Center Hamburg in Germany, told Medscape Medical News.

"Our data suggest that we shouldn't wait until middle age to think about this," he said. "The younger you are when you find out that you have high cholesterol, the more can be done to minimize the damage."

[...]

For the study, the researchers identified 398,846 individuals (median age 51 years) without cardiovascular disease at baseline from 38 different cohort studies. They had been followed for a median of 13.5 years (maximum 43 years) for cardiovascular events.

Results showed that 30-year cardiovascular disease event rates were progressively higher for increasing non-HDL cholesterol categories, and were approximately three-to-four times higher in the highest non-HDL cholesterol category (≥ 5.7 mmol/L/220 mg/dL) than those in the lowest category (< 2.6 mmol/L/100 mg/dL) at 33.7% vs 7.7% in women, and 43.6% vs 12.8% in men.

"We found a very strong relationship between non-HDL cholesterol levels and future cardiovascular risk — not only for 10 years, but for up to 30 years," Blankenberg said. "And the link becomes stronger as the follow-up time increases. Cholesterol level at age 40 was very strongly related to cardiovascular risk at age 70."

[/quote]

[url]https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/922136[/url]

[url]https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(19)32519-X/fulltext[/url]

Thanks for that link. In the US it is actually recommended to test cholesterol in all children at age 9-11 and then again at age 17-21. This provides more support for doing that as we do it to rule out genetic causes of significant dyslipidemias but with data like this we can use it prognostically as well.

[QUOTE=Heisman2;1592992481]Thanks for that link. In the US it is actually recommended to test cholesterol in all children at age 9-11 and then again at age 17-21. [/QUOTE]
Interesting. I did not know that.

Interesting 2 day old, brand new research, from Brad and others on what most of us do in the gym, which is constantly varying our exercises



[url]https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0226989[/url]

[QUOTE=boo99;1594476411]Interesting 2 day old, brand new research, from Brad and others on what most of us do in the gym, which is constantly varying our exercises
[/QUOTE]
I saw it on ********. Do you constantly vary your exercises?

I usually stick to the same in the same order.

Menno wrote an article about that study [url]https://mennohenselmans.com/effects-exercise-variation-muscle-thickness-maximal-strength/[/url]