Dude, you should have said so earlier. I don't have anything against bacon or butter myself, personally I eat a reasonable amount of it, but the general scientific consensus is that eating or drinking too much of anything isn't healthy. Hell, I'm sure you know about the high profile water poisoning cases out there.
And of course the main American diet isn't healthy at all, that's a large part of why so much of the US is obese. What was it, 40% obese now in some states? Even children? It's some ridiculous number like that.
But I think that the balanced diet advocated by medical associations around the world is the solution. Healthy people everywhere have eaten similar diets for millenia and not had a problem.
I thought that you were, like the OP, suggesting that everyone eat a diet consisting of only the most fat-heavy foods. I'm guessing now that you agree that someone who eats buttered bacon and a large amount of other extremely fatty foods every day, without the other variety of foods that a healthy diet includes, will have adverse long term health effects and most likely an early death as a result.
Yeah, as I said earlier, there's nothing wrong with fats or carbs or any of the basic food components, the whole "low-fat/low-sugar/low-carbs/low-calorie' diet thing is just a side effect of people wanting to blame anyone but themselves for their obesity and general lack of health. People always want a scapegoat. We both know that people drinking Diet Coke instead of Coke isn't going to make a difference, yet you get obese people drinking that, perhaps because it makes them feel like they are at least trying to become more healthy when of course it is no different.
Well, I'd say I eat about 60% of my calories as fat, mostly from animal sources - so a good mixture of monounsaturated and saturated fats (with some polyunsaturated fats, but I limit those as much as possible - save for fish oil). I get all my meat from local farmers, though, and I eat a lot of coconut (milk, oil), eggs, and organ meat. The rest is mostly protein, maybe 30% of my caloric intake. And I get my carbs from stuff like salads, berries, nuts, squash, yams, and other whole foods. No grains or legumes, though. And no sugar (except super dark chocolate I guess) or vegetable oils.
It works well for me, but my doctor thought I was mad for all the saturated fat I was eating. She couldn't argue with my results, though.
Well, I'd say I eat about 60% of my calories as fat, mostly from animal sources - so a good mixture of monounsaturated and saturated fats (with some polyunsaturated fats, but I limit those as much as possible - save for fish oil). I get all my meat from local farmers, though, and I eat a lot of coconut (milk, oil), eggs, and organ meat. The rest is mostly protein, maybe 30% of my caloric intake. And I get my carbs from stuff like salads, berries, nuts, squash, yams, and other whole foods. No grains or legumes, though. And no sugar (except super dark chocolate I guess) or vegetable oils.
It works well for me, but my doctor thought I was mad for all the saturated fat I was eating. She couldn't argue with my results, though.
Perfectly fair for you to make your diet whatever you wish it to be. Out of curiosity, what exactly do you mean about results? I've never actually talked about diet with my doctor, never had the need to.
However, you have to admit that you can't reasonably expect the various medical associations to completely revise their recommended diets because of something that has worked for you.
It would take an ungodly amount of evidence, and nothing short of scientific proof, that there is a superior and viable diet out there to get the medical associations to make a serious change like that. Advocating the wrong diet based on a few case studies could be disastrous, as you would know.
Reposted for new page - didn't want hockeypuck to miss it:
hockeypuck said:
A lot to cover in this one.
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't want to ever experience any type of acute coronary syndrome, regardless of whether it affects my mortality or not. Not sure why that part of the meta-analysis' conclusion did not strike you (or the final phrase, even). But hey, maybe having a heart attack is one person's idea of having a fun time. Whatever floats your boat.
Step back, and think about what you just typed. In an earlier post, you criticized "observational studies," "weak correlation" and whatnot. You do understand what a case study is, right? Right? That it's the weakest of all "observational studies." Let me put it this way: national health agencies do not make dietary guidelines that affect millions of people based on "case studies." You've just demonstrated that you do not understand how an epidemiological study works. Oh, and I couldn't care less that we're all homo sapiens. That's irrelevant to the criticisms of these tribal study designs.
I'm just waiting for an explanation as to why entire populations have survived, even thrived, on high-saturated fat and high-total fat diets? I'm not saying it's the only way to live; I'm just saying that high intakes of saturated fat - in the absence of refined carbohydrate, processed vegetable oil, and sugar - are completely healthy.
You're the one asserting SFA is dangerous; I'm just pointing out, "Hey, here are a couple examples of homogeneous populations eating very high-SFA diets without heart disease." It's up to you to disprove that.
And what about the study I linked in response to Asmodai in which a high saturated fat, low carb diet was shown to improve lipid numbers in cardiovascular patients? Doesn't that seem at least somewhat relevant to the discussion?
Wait, wait, wait. Here you're criticizing PUFAs when in this post you say that Omega-3s are "excellent for cardiovascular health" and the reason why French Polynesians have low chronic disease rates.
I should have clarified myself. I was referring to excess amounts of Omega-6 fatty acids, which were not widely available until we began mass producing them (margarine, crisco, grain-fed meats). Omega-3s are fine. Surely you don't think vegetable oils and margarine are actually palatable, healthy foods.
Again, with the non-clinical graduate student weblogs. And no, his references are NOT sufficient. Here's why:
1) They are all in vitro studies using animal models. Useless in a debate regarding dietary policy in humans. I already posted a study showing in vitro mechanisms showing why saturated fat is bad, and yet you guys blew it off. I can show all the animal studies in the world showing that VEGF-inhibiting drugs are truly the cure for cancer and that Judah Folkman should have won a Nobel Prize. Too bad clinical studies did not pan out. And the same goes for all this in vitro crap in your link.
2) The major reference regarding saturated fat and a clinical outcome in all that text is the Harvard/Brigham Young study, the very same study you later cite in another post. Too bad, as Asmodai pointed out, that the results only applied to women who had a low fat intake overall, i.e., not applicable to a LCHF diet.
But I'm going to save the kicker for later, because I'm getting off-track and I'll just quote your other post instead at some later time.
I sure am look at the fucking line. Too bad I'm missing the fucking caption and the fucking methodology as to how this line was fucking obtained. Please, since this is so far the closest thing to plausible evidence that you have, provide me with an abstract, a methods section, anything to tell me how this line was determined. If you can't, then this "fucking line" is as good as the "Pirates vs. Global Warning" Excel graph. If you're placing so much faith on this line, I'm not sure why you're ignoring all the other "fucking lines" showing saturated fat intake and heart disease in the opposite direction in, like, a 999:1 ratio. Wait, those aren't facts?
Again, you demonstrate a lack of understanding of how a randomized controlled trial operates. Consensus is built on RCTs. RCTs remove as much bias as possible by design. So sorry, your Ancel Keys' bullshit (because you're right, it's bullshit) doesn't fly in the face of RCTs.
I'd like to supply you with the paper, but I just don't have access. The data was put together by Dr. William Lands. Here are a few things I was able to pull up - it seems like you have much wider access than I.
More hypothetical stuff not substantiated by the clinical data. There is just as much hypothetical evolutionary scribblings saying the exact opposite. Irrelevant and not useful in the determination of health policy.
For a scientist, you sure are quick to discount evolution. That's absurd. Now, I'm going to warn you ahead of time. What you are about to read comes from a weblog. Yeah, a weblog. I do so only because I don't have access to the literature discussed therein, and because I (gasp) trust the references. You can take it or leave it. Doesn't really matter. I suspect you'll continue to condemn the messenger.
Long story short: in the 80s, a bunch of anthropologists got together to discuss hominid fossils and whatnot, hoping to better understand the various health markers of Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic man. You believe in fossils, yeah? Well, they concluded that hunter-gatherers (Paleolithic, high-fat, lots of animal products) were the healthiest of the bunch. They were taller, stronger, had better teeth, and lived longer than their Mesolithic and Neolithic descendants. The change over to agriculture (and grains, and legumes, etc) had terrible effects on our health.
Two populations from the same area, a thousand or so years apart. The hunter-gatherers ate mostly large ruminants (think massive stores of back fat), small mammals, turkey, fish. The agrarians ate corn, squash, beans, with some supplementary game. HGs had higher life expectancies, less tooth decay, lower birth mortality. Yeah, yeah, these are just hypothetical evolutionary ramblings, or something. No basis in actual fossil records.
But you do believe in evolution, right? And you do realize that the bulk of our evolving took place over the course of some 200k years, right? Animals do best on the diets they adapted to eat. I feed my dog raw meat, bones, and offal, because he's essentially a wolf. A carnivore. He doesn't do well on shit processed dog kibble, because he isn't suited to eat corn and whatever filler they put in it. He thrives on the diet. Gleaming white teeth, soft fur, no vet visits, boundless energy. Now, we aren't dogs, but we are animals just the same and there is a diet that we are most adapted to - and it's not a low-fat, high-grains heart healthy diet. Nothing hypothetical about it.
What kind of diet do you think we evolved eating? Leaves, shrubs, and roots? If you want to compare, we've got the digestive system of a carnivore. Of course, we also have amylase in order to digest starches, but we aren't equipped to live completely on low-fat vegetarian fare. If we were, we'd be able to digest grains and legumes without having to heavily process them (soaking, roasting, fermenting, etc).
Uh-oh. Methinks you only read the last line of the entire bloody abstract and forgot what the whole purpose of what this study was actually about. It was to test whether the side effects of intense statin therapy negated the benefits of a lower LDL. It was not looking for whether lowering LDL reduced coronary events. That part was already TAKEN FOR GRANTED in the introductory paragraph, which sadly it appears that you do not have access to because otherwise you would have not included this paper as "evidence." So I'll be a kind soul and post it right here:
And there it is, the true purpose of this study. Good job.
I'm happy you found something that works for you, but...
...then keep it to yourself then and don't generalize it to the public, because the evidence says otherwise.
Whatever statins purported benefits, they are unnecessary for the population at large, who could prevent heart disease simply by reducing omega-6 intake, taking fish oil, reducing sugar/fructose/refined carb intake, and exercising. Statins have some pretty nasty side effects: loss of libido (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1884568), memory issues (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/458867), muscle pain (muscle degradation can even persist after discontinuation of the drug in certain cases (http://news.health.com/2009/07/07/statins-may-cause-muscle-damage-some-patients/). And for what? A minor reduction in heart incidents for a certain subset of the population, men under 65 with a history of heart disease (statins have never been shown to help women, for example).
My wifes doctor prescribed her statins last year. Instead of taking them, I convinced her to adopt my high fat, low carb diet, along with fish oil, Vitamin D3, K2 supplementation. Lots of butter, bacon, and everything else. Her triglycerides dropped, LDL stayed about the same (particle size increased, though), and her HDL increased. The doc figured she was still on statins. Sure, its anecdotal, and I suspect youll dismiss it, but there it is.
And why the obsession with LDL? Why not focus on triglycerides, which are great predictors of heart disease, especially in the presence of low HDL. Tris can be easily reduced by removing fructose and excess carbohydrate from the diet. Fish oil supplementation also reduces tris and increases HDL Why dont they give prescriptions for fish oil? Or what about LDL particle size (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7858908) and its relation to CVD? Saturated fat increases particle size (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/5/828); carbohydrate and vegetable oils decrease it (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8299884). Statins might be able to help with that, but why not alter your diet first?
Oh, and men on a high-fat diet who already have large LDL particles probably shouldnt adopt a low-fat diet, like youre suggesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10075324. Heres what they said:
There is no apparent lipoprotein benefit of reduction in dietary fat from 20-24% to 10% in men with large LDL particles: LDL-cholesterol concentration was not reduced, and in a subset of subjects there was a shift to small LDL along with increased triacylglycerol and reduced HDL-cholesterol concentrations.
This is essentially a butchered and unhealthy version of legit Atkins. Your diet is similar to the mass marketed fad version of Atkins, like cheeseburgers without buns.
Real Atkins is high fat and high protein. It focuses on olive oil, nuts, fish oil instead of butter, trans fats, whipped cream. Atkins also permits and encourages certain fruits/veggies.
I agree that the OPs diet has flaws, but the calorie counting approach is just as bad because it ignores the dramatic difference that certain foods have on hunger. It's much easier to lose fat if you eat things that tell your body that it's full before you've actually consumed enough calories to break even. Typical American foods do just the opposite.
I'm just waiting for an explanation as to why entire populations have survived, even thrived, on high-saturated fat and high-total fat diets? I'm not saying it's the only way to live; I'm just saying that high intakes of saturated fat - in the absence of refined carbohydrate, processed vegetable oil, and sugar - are completely healthy.
You're the one asserting SFA is dangerous; I'm just pointing out, "Hey, here are a couple examples of homogeneous populations eating very high-SFA diets without heart disease." It's up to you to disprove that.
Time and time and time again I tell NeoGAF lurkers that you do not understand basic epidemiological concepts. These concepts must be known if you are going to interpret any type of clinical paper. I'm beginning to doubt whether you even know the definition of epidemiology.
I've already explained why these tribal case studies are weak. Yet you remain dumb. I'll show you another "case study" gone horribly wrong. It's an infamous study that is taught as a lesson in medical school classes all over.
I'll go through this slowly. Apparently that "Pirates vs. Global Warning" joke wasn't enough of a hint. I'll hold your hand through the process this time. Maybe then you'll take your head out of the sand.
In 1981 Harvard School of Public Health (Oh yeah, that's right!) published a study that claimed to link coffee drinking with pancreatic cancer. People who drank more coffee had a higher chance of the cancer that keeps NeoGAF up at night (Sound familiar? Like, 'Natives who ate a high saturated fat diet had a lower chance of heart disease'?)
Here's a New York Times link. You don't need higher-level specialty classes to understand it:
One largely discredited study which found that coffee intake was associated with an increased risk of pancreatic cancer, is often used as a model for how a flawed study design can lead to misleading research results. In that study, researchers analyzed a number of "exposures" among patients with pancreatic cancer, including coffee intake. Because of the number of factors examined, many scientific researchers call this sort of study a "fishing expedition." As reasonable as it may seem to examine many factors at once, the problem is that if you look at enough exposures, one or more will show an association just by chance. So there is a danger of generating misleading results if you cast too wide a net, and well-respected researchers avoid doing so, or they make statistical adjustments to account for analyzing many variables in a single study.
Your examples, pretty much all of them, are filled with confounders. They merely observe end result "A", find out about "marker B," and call it a day. This includes that graph with that "fucking line." There are no long-term prospective case-controlled and -matched studies that even suggest an association among these natives. Up to me to disprove it? No, no, no my ignorant friend. That burden is on you to show that saturated fat is healthy, since the mainstream consensus has long set sail. And so far, no decreased morbidity/mortality association has been established with increased saturated fat intake. Keep waiting.
"But wait, hockeypuck!" you say. "How come the studies you cite are considered better and thus used as evidence by the world's health agencies to formulate dietary guidelines? Can't any of the studies that I cite (and will continue to cite) be considered anything better than pieces of shit standing next to your studies?"
And I'll look down and whisper, "No."
Just kidding. I would actually reply with, "Why, my poor naive Price Dalton. Clearly you do not understand the principles of a randomized controlled trial. Only through understanding this will you achieve enlightenment. Only then will you realize, that, large RCTs take into account confounding through large sample sizes. That is why, young grasshopper, a meta-analysis with fucking >90,000 people in it is taken more seriously than a teeny-weeny one with twenty-three. Twenty-three.....
Price Dalton said:
And what about the study I linked in response to Asmodai in which a high saturated fat, low carb diet was shown to improve lipid numbers in cardiovascular patients? Doesn't that seem at least somewhat relevant to the discussion?
Oh, this little (literally) study? The one with only 23 patients? The one with only a 6-week study period? The one where the majority from this small sample had polycystic ovary disease? Do you have polycystic ovaries? Does the majority of GAF lurkers have polycystic ovaries? Do you understand the words that are coming out of my mouth? Do you realize that you are making faulty generalizations?
Price Dalton said:
I should have clarified myself. I was referring to excess amounts of Omega-6 fatty acids, which were not widely available until we began mass producing them (margarine, crisco, grain-fed meats). Omega-3s are fine. Surely you don't think vegetable oils and margarine are actually palatable, healthy foods.
I'd like to supply you with the paper, but I just don't have access. The data was put together by Dr. William Lands. Here are a few things I was able to pull up - it seems like you have much wider access than I.
When did I ever argue against Omega3s? Your first link talks about using an experimental Omega3 blood test as a quantitative measurement. Okay, yeah, so? It doesn't talk about n6.
Your second link is a book chapter. Anyone can write a book, including ones about LCHF diets. Hell, Suzanne Somers wrote a book. But can anyone get accepted into respected peer-reviewed scientific journals? So no, it does not work. Regardless, n6 PUFA is getting off tangent and not the focus of this debate.
Price Dalton said:
I got the graph and the explanation from "that student," but please: show where he goes wrong. Don't just dismiss him. Address his data.
Pay attention. I've been addressing his data the entire time. That first link shows that same graph with that "fucking line." I read through his text. Does it explain how the line was determined? Nope. Did it address confounding? Nope. Does it continue to make observational correlations, just like the ones you hate? Yep. Why don't you read all of his text for a change. Then you would find out that he says "Group A has less heart disease. Group A also eats a lot of saturated fat. Obviously the two are tied together" over and over and over. I've already explained why this line of reasoning is "flawed," to use the description by a Harvard researcher.
Your second link refers to a paper by Lands, who happens to a biochemist. That graph came from a paper that was purely bench science, without clinical data.
Isn't that funny?
You keep referencing material from non-clinical scientists who themselves cite other non-clinical scientists to make clinical arguments against clinical studies performed by clinical scientists. And you are a parody of that, someone who has no epidemiological background trying (and failing) to make epidemiological arguments on an epidemiological subject against someone with a few lessons in epidemiology who brings up high-quality epidemiological studies that you fail to comprehend and thus continue this nonsense.
Price Dalton said:
For a scientist, you sure are quick to discount evolution. That's absurd. Now, I'm going to warn you ahead of time. What you are about to read comes from a weblog. Yeah, a weblog. I do so only because I don't have access to the literature discussed therein, and because I (gasp) trust the references. You can take it or leave it. Doesn't really matter. I suspect you'll continue to condemn the messenger.
Long story short: in the 80s, a bunch of anthropologists got together to discuss hominid fossils and whatnot, hoping to better understand the various health markers of Paleolithic, Mesolithic, and Neolithic man. You believe in fossils, yeah? Well, they concluded that hunter-gatherers (Paleolithic, high-fat, lots of animal products) were the healthiest of the bunch. They were taller, stronger, had better teeth, and lived longer than their Mesolithic and Neolithic descendants. The change over to agriculture (and grains, and legumes, etc) had terrible effects on our health.
Two populations from the same area, a thousand or so years apart. The hunter-gatherers ate mostly large ruminants (think massive stores of back fat), small mammals, turkey, fish. The agrarians ate corn, squash, beans, with some supplementary game. HGs had higher life expectancies, less tooth decay, lower birth mortality. Yeah, yeah, these are just hypothetical evolutionary ramblings, or something. No basis in actual fossil records.
But you do believe in evolution, right? And you do realize that the bulk of our evolving took place over the course of some 200k years, right? Animals do best on the diets they adapted to eat. I feed my dog raw meat, bones, and offal, because he's essentially a wolf. A carnivore. He doesn't do well on shit processed dog kibble, because he isn't suited to eat corn and whatever filler they put in it. He thrives on the diet. Gleaming white teeth, soft fur, no vet visits, boundless energy. Now, we aren't dogs, but we are animals just the same and there is a diet that we are most adapted to - and it's not a low-fat, high-grains heart healthy diet. Nothing hypothetical about it.
What kind of diet do you think we evolved eating? Leaves, shrubs, and roots? If you want to compare, we've got the digestive system of a carnivore. Of course, we also have amylase in order to digest starches, but we aren't equipped to live completely on low-fat vegetarian fare. If we were, we'd be able to digest grains and legumes without having to heavily process them (soaking, roasting, fermenting, etc).
Hey look everybody, I believe saturated fat is in general unhealthy. Therefore, using Price Dalton's flawless logic, I do not believe in evolution. Because a couple of non-clinical biologists thought up of something over a cup of coffee that appeared to make sense, I'm supposed to drop all that raw, REAL, REPRODUCIBLE data that shows the opposite effect. You don't even have a fossil record. Damn, what is a conundrum. Which EVIDENCE am I supposed to believe? Hey, at least your lonely graduate student put up some lines and dots and stuff on his weblog. I'm getting tired of looking at it, to tell you the truth. Find some decent papers, for chrissakes.
Price Dalton said:
Thanks for that.
Whatever statins purported benefits, they are unnecessary for the population at large, who could prevent heart disease simply by reducing omega-6 intake, taking fish oil, reducing sugar/fructose/refined carb intake, and exercising. Statins have some pretty nasty side effects: loss of libido (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1884568), memory issues (http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/458867), muscle pain (muscle degradation can even persist after discontinuation of the drug in certain cases (http://news.health.com/2009/07/07/statins-may-cause-muscle-damage-some-patients/). And for what? A minor reduction in heart incidents for a certain subset of the population, men under 65 with a history of heart disease (statins have never been shown to help women, for example).
Um, I think you forgot to mention, "and eating a lot of saturated fat, too!" You know, the whole point of this debate? Maybe part of your brain is rebelling against you.
Too bad for you that we have tests that can monitor blood markers when patients are on statins. The drugs are stopped before something serious happens. The percentage is small. If you're that afraid of statins, then never, ever, ever take Tylenol. It can kill your liver. And unlike a statin, a doctor isn't going to monitor your blood markers for an over-the-counter common drug like that. Be afraid. Be very afraid of Tylenol.
Price Dalton said:
My wifes doctor prescribed her statins last year. Instead of taking them, I convinced her to adopt my high fat, low carb diet, along with fish oil, Vitamin D3, K2 supplementation. Lots of butter, bacon, and everything else. Her triglycerides dropped, LDL stayed about the same (particle size increased, though), and her HDL increased. The doc figured she was still on statins. Sure, its anecdotal, and I suspect youll dismiss it, but there it is.
"Suspect?" Why the lack of confidence? Be strong, and say, "Sure, it's anecdotal, and I KNOW you'll laugh you ASS OFF when I continue to include PERSONAL STORIES into a debate revolving around POPULATION STUDIES, but there it is. Apparently I can't get the message."
I too know plenty of anecdotal stories. Especially in ancient Chinese medicine, which has been around longer than Western medicine. Plenty of anecdotes saying that eating a frog's penis will make you more virile (or something like that. You get the gist). I think you should start eating frog penises because I told you this anecdote.
Price Dalton said:
And why the obsession with LDL? Why not focus on triglycerides, which are great predictors of heart disease, especially in the presence of low HDL. Tris can be easily reduced by removing fructose and excess carbohydrate from the diet. Fish oil supplementation also reduces tris and increases HDL Why dont they give prescriptions for fish oil? Or what about LDL particle size (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7858908) and its relation to CVD? Saturated fat increases particle size (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/67/5/828); carbohydrate and vegetable oils decrease it (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8299884). Statins might be able to help with that, but why not alter your diet first?
At this point of the post, I'm just going to say that you sure seem to enjoy bringing up tangents. We started out talking saturated fat. I've continued to focus on saturated fat. You bring up Omega3, PUFA n6, ratios, oxidation, inflammation, fat women with ugly-looking ovaries, evolution, anecdotes, and now triglycerides. Maybe you're having difficulty finding a randomized controlled trial that unequivocally shows that increased saturated fat intake decreases morbidity or mortality. Maybe it's because such a study does not exist. Maybe that's why you continue to grasp at straws, finding anything that could explain away heart disease other than your precious saturated fat. Godspeed.
Oh, and men on a high-fat diet who already have large LDL particles probably shouldnt adopt a low-fat diet, like youre suggesting: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10075324.
This is starting to become a bore, where you quote abstracts on topics that you do not even understand, and then I look at the actual text and discover that they actually do not support your claims.
Beforehand, we hypothesized that LDL prone to oxidation might be associated with higher levels of circulating oxidized LDL, but in the present study the lag time of in vitro oxidation of LDL was not related to in vivo oxidized LDL.Besides the intrinsic resistance of LDL against oxidation, the rate of LDL oxidation in the intima depends on other factors like LDL concentration, endothelial barrier function and the local concentration of free radicals. Since LDL susceptibility to in vitro oxidation was not associated with levels of circulating in vivo oxidized LDL, it is suggested that measurement of in vitro oxidizability of LDL might not reflect in vivo oxidation of LDL.
Uh-oh, where does it say that PUFAs increase the rate of LDL oxidation? Where does it say that saturated fat (which isn't even mentioned in this paper at all) is protective against LDL oxidation, all claims you have made before? What was the point of all this?
Like I've said before, I don't care what you do to yourself. So there's no need to apologize. Just stop sounding like your the next Atkins with a magical answer.
My arguments will not change unless you can actually understand study design principles behind all those papers you quote. And since you appear incapable of doing so, expect the rest of my replies to become even more sarcastic and condescending. Frankly, this is almost just as fun.
Oh, and I didn't forget your post, so you didn't need to re-post it. I also remembered this delightful piece of yours:
Iv been eating what you could classify as a "low carb diet" for the last few months now.. not strictly enforced, just changing the way I eat. Iv stopped eating pasta, white bread ect. and Iv lost around 8kg since I started.
My average daily diet would be (this is an example, obviously i change it up a bit):
Breakfast: 1 egg fried/poached/boiled (no i dont fry it in butter)
Lunch: meat salad or some tuna/salmon.
Dinner: Piece of chicken, beef or kangaroo with broccoli or cauliflower.
And for snacks i usually have some nuts (sooo addicted to cashews atm =/ ) or fruit.
On the weekends when im going out for meals with mates Ill eat whatever their eating but overall im just trying to change what and how I eat, which is working so far.
Ketone bodies, from the breakdown of fatty acids to acetyl groups, are also produced during this state, and are burned throughout the body. Excess ketone bodies will slowly decarboxylate into acetone. That molecule is excreted in the breath and urine./QUOTE]
Is this the reason why people on atkins have breath that smells like a rotting whale?
This is essentially a butchered and unhealthy version of legit Atkins. Your diet is similar to the mass marketed fad version of Atkins, like cheeseburgers without buns.
Real Atkins is high fat and high protein. It focuses on olive oil, nuts, fish oil instead of butter, trans fats, whipped cream. Atkins also permits and encourages certain fruits/veggies.
The heart healthy diet of the last 50 years has been working out incredibly well, hasn't it? People listened, reduced their saturated fat intake, increased their vegetable oil intake, and ate more carbs.
Why isn't it working? Just tell me that, please. Why are people getting fatter, sicker, and taking more meds than ever?
Why wasn't heart disease an issue a hundred years ago (even though people ate far more animal fat)?
Why do paleolithic fossils show teeth and bodies free of degeneration, while kids go to the dentist twice a year and still get caries?
You can't just dismiss these questions. They matter.
You ask why I keep bringing up PUFA, O-3, Vitamin D, tooth decay, fossils, evolution, etc.... because it all ties in together. It all matters.
"Nothing in science makes sense except in the light of evolution." That might be a paraphrase, but you get the idea (I hope).
You gotta think bigger, man. Something isn't working.
edit: and c'mon, man. We aren't just talking about saturated fat, friend. We're talking about what causes CVD - are you suggesting it's only SFA? You never addressed the triglyceride issue, the impact fructose/carbs have on LDL size. And you're really suggesting that PUFAs are more stable than SFA? Try leaving out your precious corn oil without a cover. It'll go rancid before you know it. Think: half the PUFA you ingest is probably rancid and halfway oxidized already.
One more thing that I believe I brought up but was never addressed.
When we burn body fat, we are consuming fat - fat that has a fatty acid comp very similar to lard. Roughly equal amounts saturated fat and monounsaturated fat, with a bit of PUFA. Losing a pound of body weight is like eating a pound of lard.
Tell me, then, how eating lard is unhealthy while losing adipose tissue is not?
Also, why is excess glucose converted into saturated fat (palmitic acid)? Don't you think our body would have evolved a different response, if saturated fat were so deleterious? Hell, we even have the enzymes necessary to monounsaturate it, but we don't exercise it. Why is that?
Might be kinda off topic but what exactly is the problem with fructose? I heard at first that high sugar diets can cause type 2 diabetes but my biology teacher corrected me saying that it's actually the sugars you get from carbohydrates (which are a lot more than you get from raw sugar consumption). I can't find anything definitive on wiki about this.
The heart healthy diet of the last 50 years has been working out incredibly well, hasn't it? People listened, reduced their saturated fat intake, increased their vegetable oil intake, and ate more carbs.
Um, I don't want to intervene in the Epic Nutrition Debate of the Ages lol ) between you and hockeypuck dude, but this part here seems a little weird.
Since when did people listen and change their diets? The only thing that people have done to change is change the name of Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC and drink Diet Coke instead of Coke. People are generally lazy and never change unless it is absolutely necessary, and sometimes not even then.
Of course in the modern lifestyle with computers and perpetual internet access and all of our magical entertainment devices, we can stay sitting around all day all the time, something that our descendants weren't exactly able to do. It would be naive to assume that a sedentary lifestyle is unrelated to the current obesity epidemic.
Um, I don't want to intervene in the Epic Nutrition Debate of the Ages lol ) between you and hockeypuck dude, but this part here seems a little weird.
Since when did people listen and change their diets? The only thing that people have done to change is change the name of Kentucky Fried Chicken to KFC and drink Diet Coke instead of Coke. People are generally lazy and never change unless it is absolutely necessary, and sometimes not even then.
Of course in the modern lifestyle with computers and perpetual internet access and all of our magical entertainment devices, we can stay sitting around all day all the time, something that our descendants weren't exactly able to do. It would be naive to assume that a sedentary lifestyle is unrelated to the current obesity epidemic.
A sedentary lifestyle undoubtedly plays a role, but people have been reducing saturated fat intake while increasing their carb intake. I posted about this earlier, so I'll just quote what I wrote.
During 1971--2000, a statistically significant increase in average energy intake occurred (Table). For men, average energy intake increased from 2,450 kcals to 2,618 kcals (p<0.01), and for women, from 1,542 kcals to 1,877 kcals (p<0.01). For men, the percentage of kcals from carbohydrate increased between 1971--1974 and 1999--2000, from 42.4% to 49.0% (p<0.01), and for women, from 45.4% to 51.6% (p<0.01) (Table). The percentage of kcals from total fat decreased from 36.9% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for men and from 36.1% to 32.8% (p<0.01) for women. In addition, the percentage of kcals from saturated fat decreased from 13.5% to 10.9% (p<0.01) for men and from 13.0% to 11.0% (p<0.01) for women. A slight decrease was observed in the percentage of kcals from protein, from 16.5% to 15.5% (p<0.01) for men and from 16.9% to 15.1% (p<0.01) for women.
Total caloric intake increased, while fat intake (especially saturated fat - gee, they must have been listening to the experts) as a percentage of total caloric intake decreased over the years. Even protein went down a bit. Total fat intake in grams went up a bit for women, and dropped a bit for men.
And yet, according to the study's authors..
During 1971--2000, the prevalence of obesity in the United States increased from 14.5% to 30.9% (1).
The conclusion of that article is pretty straight forward:
Articlething said:
A focus on total energy intake and energy balance (i.e., the balance of energy intake with energy expenditure) is fundamental to preventing and reducing obesity in the United States. Continuing efforts to decrease saturated fat intake are important to reduce the risk for cardiovascular disease and should include assessment of fat intake in grams in addition to fat intake as a percentage of kcals.
Still emphasizes decreasing saturated fat intake, and emphasizes balancing energy expenditure with intake: things that most Americans don't do, judging by the sedentary lifestyle.
Again, I don't want to get into the whole uber nutritionist debate thing, but what I'm talking about is more a general societal trend than a nutrition element.
Might be kinda off topic but what exactly is the problem with fructose? I heard at first that high sugar diets can cause type 2 diabetes but my biology teacher corrected me saying that it's actually the sugars you get from carbohydrates (which are a lot more than you get from raw sugar consumption). I can't find anything definitive on wiki about this.
To summarize, in obese patients, consuming fructose as opposed to glucose led to:
1) Four-fold greater intra-abdominal fat accumulation--3% increased intra-abdominal fat with glucose; 14.4% with fructose. (Intraabdominal fat is the variety that blocks insulin responses and causes diabetes and inflammation.)
2) 13.9% increase in LDL cholesterol but doubled Apoprotein B (an index of the number of LDL particles, similar to NMR LDL particle number).
3) 44.9% increase in small LDL, compared to 13.3% with glucose. (small LDL is implicated in heart disease/arterial plaque)
4) While glucose (curiously) reduced the net postprandial (after-eating) triglyceride response (area under the curve, AUC), fructose increased postprandial triglycerides 99.2%.
Regular table sugar is 50% fructose. Certain fruits are relatively high in fructose. High fructose corn syrup is 55% fructose, so regular sugar is about as bad.
Fructose in excess is bad, bad stuff. Most Americans probably consume way too much of it - think sodas, candy, cake. Even purportedly healthier sugar alternatives like honey or agave syrup are really high in fructose. I'd even avoid fruit juice and just eat the actual fruit; way too many empty sugar calories.
The conclusion of that article is pretty straight forward:
Still emphasizes decreasing saturated fat intake, and emphasizes balancing energy expenditure with intake: things that most Americans don't do, judging by the sedentary lifestyle.
Again, I don't want to get into the whole uber nutritionist debate thing, but what I'm talking about is more a general societal trend than a nutrition element.
Believe me, I'm huge on exercise. I workout nearly every day, and most people don't get enough.
Heh, we obviously aren't gonna agree on saturated fat, but the fact that Americans have actually been decreasing their intake with no beneficial effect tells me that there are other forces at play (exercise, as you said, but also sugar/fructose intake, among others). The study authors think we just need to reduce SFA intake even more, but something tells me it's not gonna hep much.
I was on a low fat/carb diet for a couple months earlier this year, as well as exercise(February-May). I lost 35 pounds. Then I broke my ankle. While I lost a lot of muscle(mainly in my leg), I did put about 5-6 pounds back on. Starting on Monday I plan on restarting my diet, and keeping an online journal of my food via food tracking sites.
I think I might try this for a few months and see how it feels. Not going all out like the OP, but doing something sensible with lots of meat and stuff, with some veggies/fruit (total carb count for the day would be net carbs right, like subtracting the fiber and whatnot?). Wouldn't mind being able to lose a few pounds, and the whole primal diet thing does make a lot of sense. If it was good enough for our ancestors, why not us eh?
I was on a low fat/carb diet for a couple months earlier this year, as well as exercise(February-May). I lost 35 pounds. Then I broke my ankle. While I lost a lot of muscle(mainly in my leg), I did put about 5-6 pounds back on. Starting on Monday I plan on restarting my diet, and keeping an online journal of my food via food tracking sites.
Go ahead... I belive that you also can lose weight if you only eat carbs and no fat.
The problem for me atleast, was that I got hungry after just a couple of hours... and starting shaking and had problem focusing.
The heart healthy diet of the last 50 years has been working out incredibly well, hasn't it? People listened, reduced their saturated fat intake, increased their vegetable oil intake, and ate more carbs.
Why isn't it working? Just tell me that, please. Why are people getting fatter, sicker, and taking more meds than ever?
Why wasn't heart disease an issue a hundred years ago (even though people ate far more animal fat)?
Why do paleolithic fossils show teeth and bodies free of degeneration, while kids go to the dentist twice a year and still get caries?
You can't just dismiss these questions. They matter.
You ask why I keep bringing up PUFA, O-3, Vitamin D, tooth decay, fossils, evolution, etc.... because it all ties in together. It all matters.
"Nothing in science makes sense except in the light of evolution." That might be a paraphrase, but you get the idea (I hope).
You gotta think bigger, man. Something isn't working.
edit: and c'mon, man. We aren't just talking about saturated fat, friend. We're talking about what causes CVD - are you suggesting it's only SFA? You never addressed the triglyceride issue, the impact fructose/carbs have on LDL size. And you're really suggesting that PUFAs are more stable than SFA? Try leaving out your precious corn oil without a cover. It'll go rancid before you know it. Think: half the PUFA you ingest is probably rancid and halfway oxidized already.
These questions don't matter precisely because they're too general and don't take into account the trillion environmental factors that have changed extremely rapidly over the past 50 years. This is one of my major beefs with the 'ancestral living' argument, aside from the facts that our ancestors were not, as far as I know, the beefy neanderthals that everyone envisions and they couldn't live past 30 and their ENTIRE LIFESTYLE was TOTALLY DIFFERENT from ours and the entire environment was COMPLETELY different and... Well, why even go down this path? Regardless, think about the last 50 years in particular - The explosively increased usage of cars, air travel, TV and computers. Would it not be just as easy to completely discount diet and say "our reduced activity rates are the source of all of our problems! Look at the Tokelau and the Masai who are far more active and AMAZINGLY don't have the same problems we do!"
These questions are full of, as Hockeypuck notes, confounding factors so any conclusion drawn from a single element is likely to be rubbish. Additionally, our personal experiences are typically useless because yeah, my blood work improved eating a moderated carb diet but I was also losing weight, doing a lot(a lot!) more physical activity, and generally feeling better about myself(meaning lower stress in general). All of these factors play into the conclusion so just saying 'my fat intake went up so my blood lipid profiles improved' is not true.
I'm not saying that sat fat is good or bad here, I'm just saying that it's going to be difficult to argue that they are definitively one or the other in all cases. Sadly, more research has been done for the "bad" argument so being on the "good" side is more difficult. I think that it's fairly safe to say that excessive sat fat in average individuals is a bad idea. In active individuals who are eating fairly 'clean' diets and getting plenty of fruits and vegetables? Could certainly be a different story.
Regarding Whole Health Foods in particular, the problem with quoting the site is articles like this. Look at his conclusions. He completely disregards his own statement that the Masai will become much less active between the ages of 30 and 35 and, thus, that activity is one HELL of a confounding factor in any conclusions drawn solely on diet between age 30 and 40. This is prevalent in A LOT of the modern 'proof' that carbs are bad or that fat is good and this is exactly why it's easy for Hockeypuck and the public at large to dismiss the evidence(word used in the loosest sense).
I was on a low fat/carb diet for a couple months earlier this year, as well as exercise(February-May). I lost 35 pounds. Then I broke my ankle. While I lost a lot of muscle(mainly in my leg), I did put about 5-6 pounds back on. Starting on Monday I plan on restarting my diet, and keeping an online journal of my food via food tracking sites.
Go ahead... I belive that you also can lose weight if you only eat carbs and no fat.
The problem for me atleast, was that I got hungry after just a couple of hours... and starting shaking and had problem focusing.
Sure, part of the problem is willpower. But do you think that Americans are REALLY that much lazier than the rest of the world?
We live in a country of fat=evil. So, we lower our daily fat intake. But we're still hungry. So we consume a ton of carbs (50% or so of our daily caloric intake). You think that's a good thing? You really think there aren't people out there who have low fat intakes and are still gaining weight?
People don't WANT to be fat. It's the conventional advice that they listen to, that gets them nowhere.
I just spent a week in America and by looking at the type of food that people ate for breakfast, I'd say that an extremely low percentage cared at all that fat=evil. People were eating all kinds of fatty fried shit sprinkled with sugar and drinking cokes. Many even finished their meals with icecream or a donut. I've eaten at a lot of hotels in Europe and never seen such unhealthy eating
I just spent a week in America and by looking at the type of food that people ate for breakfast, I'd say that an extremely low percentage cared at all that fat=evil. People were eating all kinds of fatty fried shit sprinkled with sugar and drinking cokes. Many even finished their meals with icecream or a donut. I've eaten at a lot of hotels in Europe and never seen such unhealthy eating.
I don't understand why people need to go on these fad type diets. Just eat healthy, watch the amount of sugar, sodium, calories and fat you intake, and you will drop weight like crazy. Spread what you eat out over the course of a day, and don't eat to much dairy or bread.
An example.
Break Fast
----------
-Whole Grain, Ancient grain Wrap
-Cut up Turkey breast(NOT sandwhich Deli meat, it's high in sodium, if you do use it, make sure it's a type with NO added fat or sodium. Presidents Choice sells this, Otherwise use fresh.)
-Pickled Jalapeno (type that go on pizza/Subs)
-Dijon mustard
-Leaf Lettuce
-100G of Lowfat, no sugar added Yogurt.
-10 grapes
-Water Bottle
Snack
----------
-Apple
-Water bottle
Lunch
-----------
-BBQ skinless chicken breast, with low sodium spices (I like Club House, La Grille, "no Sodium" vegetable).
-Whatever Vegetables you want.
-A few strawberry's
-Water Bottle
Snack
----------
-Carrot Sticks
-Water Bottle
Dinner
------------
-Salmon Fillet with Fresh Lemon/Lime wedges.
-Lots of Mushrooms with mixed vegetables.
-Water Bottle
That is just an example of what I mean. With a natural multi-vitamin you get most of what the human body needs during a day, including essential fatty acids. You are not eating much refined Sugar, or salt. That meal plan above is about 1200 calories, and it actually tastes good. If you buy a low fat low calorie yogurt with added vitamins, and a Whole Grain wrap with essential fatty acids it's even better. Remember that is just an example. You can have things like Tuna, Shrimp, BBQ'd Zucini, peppers I can't begin to name everything.
Eating Healthy is not hard. My mom was clinically obese, to the point where she couldn't even walk. She was going to die, and the doctor finally had enough and had to put his foot down. They were about to give her Lap Band surgery before she tried a diet like the one I suggested above. She lost over 100 pounds a year without exercising (you need to start when you get to the point you platau). And in total lost about 250 pounds and is currently 150, which is a lot for a woman who is almost 60 years old and 5 foot tall on her best day.
You are never going to get absolutely everything the doctor orders you to have during the day. Unless you are obsessed, it's unrealistic. However, it does not mean you can't have a majority of it with great tasting food.
Essentially, people need to throw the stupid fad diet books in the garbage, and use their fucking brains.
Ketone bodies, from the breakdown of fatty acids to acetyl groups, are also produced during this state, and are burned throughout the body. Excess ketone bodies will slowly decarboxylate into acetone. That molecule is excreted in the breath and urine./QUOTE]
Is this the reason why people on atkins have breath that smells like a rotting whale?
It's not healthy for you. Do you lose weight? Of course. Carbs are what the human body burns for energy. If you have to little carbs your body goes into a state of Ketosis and beings to burn body fat (and muscle).
The human body needs a certain amount of carbs to function properly. The diet works to lose weight, but it's not healthy to stay on a diet like this long term. The moment you stop sticking to the diet, you will begin to gain the weight back unless you have become very active.
It becomes bad for your health when you start to intake to much fat, because you think it's perfectly fine and healthy, when it's not. I suggest everyone take a trip to some of these Low-carb message boards. They share recipes for Fried chicken, deep-fried...well anything, and a bunch of other disgusting recipes for food people trying to lose weight should not put into their body.
For some reason, it all stems from the American way of thinking. Most Americans don't care about their health, they just care about the way they look, and if they are skinny or not. This is a stupid way of thinking. Many Americans also look for the quick fix, which actually ends up wasting more time in the long run.
Also, why is excess glucose converted into saturated fat (palmitic acid)? Don't you think our body would have evolved a different response, if saturated fat were so deleterious? Hell, we even have the enzymes necessary to monounsaturate it, but we don't exercise it. Why is that?
If it does not effect reproductive fitness it does not effect evolution. The deleterious effects are not felt until we're long out of our prime. Plus the storage of glucose would have evolved in an animal a long long time ago. I'm sure that animal had a life span where heart disease never even came into play.
It's not healthy for you. Do you lose weight? Of course. Carbs are what the human body burns for energy. If you have to little carbs your body goes into a state of Ketosis and beings to burn body fat (and muscle).
The human body needs a certain amount of carbs to function properly. The diet works to lose weight, but it's not healthy to stay on a diet like this long term. The moment you stop sticking to the diet, you will begin to gain the weight back unless you have become very active.
It becomes bad for your health when you start to intake to much fat, because you think it's perfectly fine and healthy, when it's not. I suggest everyone take a trip to some of these Low-carb message boards. They share recipes for Fried chicken, deep-fried...well anything, and a bunch of other disgusting recipes for food people trying to lose weight should not put into their body.
For some reason, it all stems from the American way of thinking. Most Americans don't care about their health, they just care about the way they look, and if they are skinny or not. This is a stupid way of thinking. Many Americans also look for the quick fix, which actually ends up wasting more time in the long run.
Ketosis is not an unhealthy state. It's natural. And no, your body does not need a certain amount of carbs specifically to function properly. It needs energy, and it can get that from fat, protein or carbs. The ketones that are released during ketosis in your breath or urine are a byproduct of converting the stored fat to glucose, which is what the body REALLY uses for energy. It's completely natural, and completely harmless. Some people confuse ketosis with ketoacidosis, which is a very dangerous condition related to diabetes. The two are unrelated.
Carbs aren't bad in and of themselves, but excessive carbs, particularly excessive refined carbs, are bad. If you want to lose weight, you should aim to limit your average daily carb intake to between 50 and 100 grams. For weight maintenance, you should try to stay below 150 grams average. The bulk of your caloric intake should come from (saturated & mono-unsaturated) fat and protein. The average American daily intake of carbs as recommended by the US government is 300 grams.
The excessive carbs turn off your fat-burning metabolism for hours, but at the same time you burn through the carb energy quickly and are hungry quickly, so you eat again. Since your body isn't using any stored fat for energy, all of the excess energy you consumed at your last meal has conveniently been stored as fat for later use. But that later use never comes because you're eating again. This is especially bad if you don't exercise enough. Eating meals higher in fat & protein and lower in carbs keeps you satiated for a much longer period of time, and the energy from your meals is readily available.
As far as fat goes, not all fat is created equal. Saturated fats, such as butter, animal fats, avocados etc., are good. Mono-unsaturated fats such as extra-virgin olive oil are good. Polyunsaturated fats like corn oil, peanut oil, and canola oil are harmful particularly if used to deep-fry foods. Hydrogenated & partially hydrogenated or trans-fats are harmful. Deep frying is also bad because typically whatever you're deep frying is also covered in high-carb batter, or is a high-carb potato. And if you mix high carbs with fat intake, that's a recipe for weight gain, not to mention the deleterious effects of the polyunsaturated oils.
These questions don't matter precisely because they're too general and don't take into account the trillion environmental factors that have changed extremely rapidly over the past 50 years. This is one of my major beefs with the 'ancestral living' argument, aside from the facts that our ancestors were not, as far as I know, the beefy neanderthals that everyone envisions and they couldn't live past 30 and their ENTIRE LIFESTYLE was TOTALLY DIFFERENT from ours and the entire environment was COMPLETELY different and... Well, why even go down this path? Regardless, think about the last 50 years in particular - The explosively increased usage of cars, air travel, TV and computers. Would it not be just as easy to completely discount diet and say "our reduced activity rates are the source of all of our problems! Look at the Tokelau and the Masai who are far more active and AMAZINGLY don't have the same problems we do!"
These questions are full of, as Hockeypuck notes, confounding factors so any conclusion drawn from a single element is likely to be rubbish. Additionally, our personal experiences are typically useless because yeah, my blood work improved eating a moderated carb diet but I was also losing weight, doing a lot(a lot!) more physical activity, and generally feeling better about myself(meaning lower stress in general). All of these factors play into the conclusion so just saying 'my fat intake went up so my blood lipid profiles improved' is not true.
I'm not saying that sat fat is good or bad here, I'm just saying that it's going to be difficult to argue that they are definitively one or the other in all cases. Sadly, more research has been done for the "bad" argument so being on the "good" side is more difficult. I think that it's fairly safe to say that excessive sat fat in average individuals is a bad idea. In active individuals who are eating fairly 'clean' diets and getting plenty of fruits and vegetables? Could certainly be a different story.
Regarding Whole Health Foods in particular, the problem with quoting the site is articles like this. Look at his conclusions. He completely disregards his own statement that the Masai will become much less active between the ages of 30 and 35 and, thus, that activity is one HELL of a confounding factor in any conclusions drawn solely on diet between age 30 and 40. This is prevalent in A LOT of the modern 'proof' that carbs are bad or that fat is good and this is exactly why it's easy for Hockeypuck and the public at large to dismiss the evidence(word used in the loosest sense).
I completely agree with all (most - I think looking at fossil records absolutely does matter, especially as it concerns dental health) of this. I'm not advocating just a diet rich in saturated fat with no other alterations to our habits. It HAS to be a total lifestyle switch. That means reducing stress, going for walks, lifting weights, getting enough sleep, sourcing clean, organic meats, as well as eating healthy fats and plenty of animal protein. I'm not arguing otherwise.
The only reason I focus so strongly on saturated fat is because it's so widely maligned. I don't recall ever saying "saturated fat is protective;" I merely said that it appears to be neutral and that people have been eating it forever without problems. Now, if sitting on your ass and stuffing your face with chips make the saturated fat in the burger at lunch a little problematic, that wouldn't surprise me. Is it the SFA or the chips/sedentary lifestyle? Or is it the SFA when combined with refined carbs and sedentarism?
As for the lifespan argument, it's flawed. They died from infections, childbirth, broken limbs. They weren't dying from heart disease.
A fundamental conclusion we draw from this analysis is that extensive lon-
gevity appears to be a novel feature of Homo sapiens. Our results contradict
Valloiss (1961: 222) claim that among early humans, few individuals passed
forty years, and it is only quite exceptionally that any passed fifty, and the
more traditional Hobbesian view of a nasty, brutish, and short human life (see
also King and Jukes 1969; Weiss 1981). The data show that modal adult life
span is 6878 years, and that it was not uncommon for individuals to reach
these ages, suggesting that inferences based on paleodemographic reconstruc-
tion are unreliable.
After 20-30 minutes of aerobic exercise your body should have exhausted the supply of available carbs in your system and it starts to burn fat. And if you exercise first thing in the morning when there's few available carbs in your system for fuel it burns fat more quickly and efficiently.
Either way you do it though, the best method in the world to lose weight and to maintain your body is weight training.
gumshoe said:
why do people go on diets and deprive themselves of delicious food? Why can't they just workout?
Godamn right. I lost 40-60 pounds in 2005 eating the exact same stuff every day but cycling to-and-from work. Right now I've lost over 10 pounds since I've been in Korea and I eat a massive buffet at lunch, and in the past few days I've been eating nothing but fried chicken, doner kebabs, samgyeopsal and drinking beer. Just join a gym, cycle, work out, do whatever as long as you're active.
People are stupid and lazy. It's not hard to eat properly and work out. You don't even need to really go to a gym, do some strength building Yoga.
It's easy to lose weight if you eat right and are active. It's not easy when you are stupid, lazy, and want a quick fix. Sadly, that is most of America.
go to Europe or even parts of Canada and see if people have the same mentality as Americans do about food. They don't and live healthier, happier, longer lives.
After 20-30 minutes of aerobic exercise your body should have exhausted the supply of available carbs in your system and it starts to burn fat. And if you exercise first thing in the morning when there's few available carbs in your system for fuel it burns fat more quickly and efficiently.
Either way you do it though, the best method in the world to lose weight and to maintain your body is weight training.
Godamn right. I lost 40-60 pounds in 2005 eating the exact same stuff every day but cycling to-and-from work. Right now I've lost over 10 pounds since I've been in Korea and I eat a massive buffet at lunch, and in the past few days I've been eating nothing but fried chicken, doner kebabs, samgyeopsal and drinking beer. Just join a gym, cycle, work out, do whatever as long as you're active.
The problem is, eating all that shit will catch up to you one day. Like it catch's up to every single athlete that continues to eat like that.
Not to mention, if you ate healthier foods, and were as active as you are now, you would feel 10 times better, get better sleep, have more energy, etc.. etc..
The problem is, eating all that shit will catch up to you one day. Like it catch's up to every single athlete that continues to eat like that.
Not to mention, if you ate healthier foods, and were as active as you are now, you would feel 10 times better, get better sleep, have more energy, etc.. etc..
I normally eat balanced meals (Korean food is good for that) but I'm on holiday for two weeks so it's one of those "vacation from yourself" kind of deals.
The trick is just to avoid junk. Burgers, soda, microwavable meals, etc.
I completely agree with all (most - I think looking at fossil records absolutely does matter, especially as it concerns dental health) of this. I'm not advocating just a diet rich in saturated fat with no other alterations to our habits. It HAS to be a total lifestyle switch. That means reducing stress, going for walks, lifting weights, getting enough sleep, sourcing clean, organic meats, as well as eating healthy fats and plenty of animal protein. I'm not arguing otherwise.
The only reason I focus so strongly on saturated fat is because it's so widely maligned. I don't recall ever saying "saturated fat is protective;" I merely said that it appears to be neutral and that people have been eating it forever without problems. Now, if sitting on your ass and stuffing your face with chips make the saturated fat in the burger at lunch a little problematic, that wouldn't surprise me. Is it the SFA or the chips/sedentary lifestyle? Or is it the SFA when combined with refined carbs and sedentarism?
You've just demonstrated confounding with your post and you don't even realize it.
It's funny how you can spin the words "protective" and "healthy" as if they were two mutually exclusive concepts when in my mind and those in doctors' offices all over these are often one and the same. Saturated fat is neutral? Neutral? Like Switzerland? Even though it "reduced LDL oxidation," "reduced the size of coronary atheromas," "improved values in lipid blood markers," etc, all claims that you have made? Now it's "neutral?" Can someone say, "goal posts?"
I blame saturated fat for contributing to heart disease. You basically conclude with, "Nuh-uh! As long as I reduce stress, go for walks, lift weights, get enough sleep, eat organic stuff, then eating saturated fat is neutral. Neu-ter-al. It's pronounced neu-ter-al."
I blame saturated fat for contributing to heart disease. You basically conclude with, "Nuh-uh! As long as I reduce stress, go for walks, lift weights, get enough sleep, eat organic stuff, then eating carbs is neutral. Neu-ter-al. It's pronounced neu-ter-al."
Hm. I need a better copy editor.
Price Dalton's and hockeypuck's debate in a nutshell said:
hockeypuck: saturated fat contributes to a lot of bad diseases.
Price Dalton: no way! what about the evolutionary peoples?!
hockeypuck: (Reasons #1, #2, and #3 on why those are flawed). Here are some better-designed studies that were able to isolate saturated fat as a contributor to heart disease.
Price Dalton: no way! what about the evolutionary peoples?! What about me?!11
hockeypuck: (Reasons #4, #5, #6 and reiteration of #1 on why those are flawed) Epidemiology, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Price Dalton: no way! what about the evolutionary peoples?! What about my wife?!111
hockeypuck: I am now just mocking you and interjecting silly pop culture phrases into my posts.
Price Dalton: no way! what about the evolutionary peoples?! C'mon man, it's multifactorial!
You've just demonstrated confounding with your post and you don't even realize it.
It's funny how you can spin the words "protective" and "healthy" as if they were two mutually exclusive concepts when in my mind and those in doctors' offices all over these are often one and the same. Saturated fat is neutral? Neutral? Like Switzerland? Even though it "reduced LDL oxidation," "reduced the size of coronary atheromas," "improved values in lipid blood markers," etc, all claims that you have made? Now it's "neutral?" Can someone say, "goal posts?"
I blame saturated fat for contributing to heart disease. You basically conclude with, "Nuh-uh! As long as I reduce stress, go for walks, lift weights, get enough sleep, eat organic stuff, then eating saturated fat is neutral. Neu-ter-al. It's pronounced neu-ter-al."
I'll end this debate with a great Calvin and Hobbes strip:
I imagine Wraith will just nod his head, while Price Dalton's knee-jerk response is to cry out, "See!? Carbs ARE bad for you!"
Wraith, if you ever want to debate the merits of saturated fat, I'll be happy to listen to your thoughts.
I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You've conveniently ignored the O-6/O-3 argument, the fructose argument, the "what's changed in the last 100 years to cause so much illness" argument. I'm still waiting for your theories on that one. Your sole focus is on saturated fat, and I think that's missing the point. Do you think saturated fat is the single biggest threat to human health?
I'm not even sure what you're arguing anymore. You've conveniently ignored the O-6/O-3 argument, the fructose argument, the "what's changed in the last 100 years to cause so much illness" argument. I'm still waiting for your theories on that one. Your sole focus is on saturated fat, and I think that's missing the point. Do you think saturated fat is the single biggest threat to human health?
Is the Epic Nutrition Battle of the Ages finally over? The smiley icons lead me to believe it is so. I assume it ended the same way every other "debate" ends on an internet forum, with both parties claiming victory, right?
So glad I didn't get involved in that one.:lol
Trax416 said:
People are stupid and lazy. It's not hard to eat properly and work out. You don't even need to really go to a gym, do some strength building Yoga.
It's easy to lose weight if you eat right and are active. It's not easy when you are stupid, lazy, and want a quick fix. Sadly, that is most of America.
go to Europe or even parts of Canada and see if people have the same mentality as Americans do about food. They don't and live healthier, happier, longer lives.
Yeah, I was saying this earlier in the thread. It's true.
I live in Canada, and as a university student, I almost never see someone my age who is fat. I can't name a single person who is visibly overweight, I literally don't know anyone like that.
But when I've been to California and Arizona in the US, the amount of morbidly obese people is just ridiculous.
Is the Epic Nutrition Battle of the Ages finally over? The smiley icons lead me to believe it is so. I assume it ended the same way every other "debate" ends on an internet forum, with both parties claiming victory, right?
I really wouldn't call it "epic" since I was trying to argue from a detached point of view while for Price Dalton this assault to his diet choice was personal. I'll happily say "Price Dalton can claim victory" since my posts stand for themselves. For me, personally, it was less about any absolute negatives about saturated fat and more about proper interpretation of clinical data.
By the end of our exchanges I was just being condescending since I realized that Price Dalton just doesn't "get it." And it has nothing to do with his beliefs on saturated fat, either. Was it unprofessional for me to just point-blank call out on Price Dalton's gross ignorance? Probably. But by the end of it I felt like a cat toying with a small mouse between its paws. I got tired, and let go of the mouse. If that's a victory for Price Dalton, good for him. I'll continue to laugh.
Wraith, on the other hand, "gets it." And it's not because of his beliefs. He has at the very least has some knowledge behind study design and thus can bring up papers that are of higher quality should he have a viewpoint to debate. Because he "gets it," that would be a discussion I would take more seriously and may end up expanding my opinion on certain nutrients.
I think this will be my last post for a while here, as I've been procrastinating on my training as a resident physician and clinical scientist. Unlike the amateur across the table, how I interpret the data can affect patients' health. And Price Dalton is one example of how data improperly interpreted can be a disservice to lay opinion.
I really wouldn't call it "epic" since I was trying to argue from a detached point of view while for Price Dalton this assault to his diet choice was personal. I'll happily say "Price Dalton can claim victory" since my posts stand for themselves. For me, personally, it was less about any absolute negatives about saturated fat and more about proper interpretation of clinical data.
By the end of our exchanges I was just being condescending since I realized that Price Dalton just doesn't "get it." And it has nothing to do with his beliefs on saturated fat, either. Was it unprofessional for me to just point-blank call out on Price Dalton's gross ignorance? Probably. But by the end of it I felt like a cat toying with a small mouse between its paws. I got tired, and let go of the mouse. If that's a victory for Price Dalton, good for him. I'll continue to laugh.
Wraith, on the other hand, "gets it." And it's not because of his beliefs. He has at the very least has some knowledge behind study design and thus can bring up papers that are of higher quality should he have a viewpoint to debate. Because he "gets it," that would be a discussion I would take more seriously and may end up expanding my opinion on certain nutrients.
I think this will be my last post for a while here, as I've been procrastinating on my training as a resident physician and clinical scientist. Unlike the amateur across the table, how I interpret the data can affect patients' health. And Price Dalton is one example of how data improperly interpreted can be a disservice to lay opinion.
I'll bow out as well. I only wish you had deigned to address some of my other points regarding fructose, particle size, triglycerides, and O-6/O-3 ratios.
The medical community, as I see it, is failing us. I'm not sure I even blame them. It's certainly not malicious. You're a perfect example of a well-meaning, well-trained, intelligent dude who either hasn't been exposed to alternative views or simply won't consider them. I only hope you don't prescribe statins without considering less invasive, more natural alternatives first.
May I direct you to another "weblog"? I'm not trying to win an argument; I just think you'd find it interesting. The guy is very honest about his qualifications - he's a vet with a physiology degree. He too eats a very high-saturated fat diet, and he has some pretty compelling stuff in favor of it. Check it out and let me know what you think.
Here's a cardiologist who places far more emphasis on reducing simple carb/wheat/sugar/fructose intake than he does saturated fat. You'll notice that he has a bit of trepidation regarding SFA, but he actually recommends his patients increases their SFA intake from the ascetic levels commonly prescribed.
lol ) between you and hockeypuck dude, but this part here seems a little weird.
