The Cholesterol Myth

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Any thoughts?

 

http://www.primalbody-primalmind.com/the-cholesterol-myth/

 

"Lipitor and other Statin drugs have become BIG BUSINESS to “Big Pharma” nowadays.  For roughly half a century now cholesterol-a naturally occurring substance in your body and in many animal-source foods humans have eaten consistently for roughly 2.6 million years-has become both “Public Enemy #1″ and the favorite whipping boy of the medical establishment.  “High serum cholesterol” has been consistently blamed unquestioningly for the skyrocketing levels of heart disease and stroke.  Everyone seemingly trembles with fearful anticipation of the sinister cholesterol levels revealed by the blood chemistry reports given by doctors during annual physicals.  “Give it to me straight, doc….What’s my cholesterol?”  Or… “How’s my “bad” cholesterol?”—and— “Is my “good” cholesterol OK?”

 

Before you go dutifully marching to your pharmacist with the prescription from your doctor marked “RUSH!” there are one or two things you should understand that might just save you the trip…and quite possibly save your life."

[cobra2411]

Many, if not all of the "cholesterol is bad" proponents are funded by big pharma and there is a vested interest in selling more drugs. Everyone on the cholesterol research board that makes the cholesterol recommendations are on the payroll of big pharma. Simply lowering the recommendation from 240 to 200 created well over 20 million new customers. 

 

Cholesterol is a symptom and big pharma loves treating and managing symptoms because you're a customer for life. If they actually addressed the underling cause they might actually cure people and there's no money in a cure. 

[J. D. Stembal]

My father had a heart attack at 47, and although it was a minor cardiac event, the after effects have plagued him to this day. I remember when I was 20, he had me take a hypercholesterolemia blood screening to see if I was at risk. I was not, but in the following twelve years I put on about fifty extra pounds, likely from heavy drinking and carbohydrate consumption. I would regularly eat about a pound of pasta per day, or about 250g of carbohydrate in one meal. My dad turned me on to low carbohydrate nutrition in 2012, after he used it to bring his blood lipid levels back to acceptable levels when his cardiologist was about to label him pre-diabetic. In the years following my father's heart attack, he was eating eggs without yolks as if every one was another nail in his coffin. He now eats scrambled eggs on a daily basis at 64. He still refuses to give up the beer, but I believe he demonstrated a significant improvement in his quality of life by ditching a lot of carbohydrates he was addicted to eating.

 

After ditching beer, soda, and starchy foods, I quickly lost forty of the fifty pounds I had gained since college. I haven't bothered to get a hydrostatic body fat test, but I estimate my body fat is less than eight percent.

 

Stefan put out a new video about Robin Williams with data on the big pharma industry just in case anyone missed it: 

[Pepin]

There is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Same with fats, with trans fat being terrible for health.

 

Black and white concepts tend not to apply to biology too much.The idea that any nutrient is good or bad depends on dosage and it's particular form. There are of cause some black and white matters in terms of health, like with trans fat and snake venom, but context is needed in most cases. Water is of course essential for health, but too much will cause death. Fat is of course essential to health, but too much can lead to negative health effects.

[AustinJames]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/22/debunking-the-science-behind-lowering-cholesterol-levels.aspx

[King David]

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/10/22/debunking-the-science-behind-lowering-cholesterol-levels.aspx

That was a superb video, cudos for the Link!  I have a real hard time listening to a doctor that looks like sheit.  First thing that strikes me about Mercola is that he has nice, even and full skin. If doctor cannot do that then he has little he can offer me.  

 

I like how he wraps it all together with sunlight, my belief (and personal evidence) is that cultural norms and hustle bustle has removed any chance for sunlight on all parts of the body, and this is harboring harmful multi-generational biodermes that lead inevitably to sickness.  Sickness of all kinds, and the worst sort.

 

Keep your head up out there all.

 

KD

[J. D. Stembal]

There is good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Same with fats, with trans fat being terrible for health.Black and white concepts tend not to apply to biology too much.The idea that any nutrient is good or bad depends on dosage and it's particular form. There are of cause some black and white matters in terms of health, like with trans fat and snake venom, but context is needed in most cases. Water is of course essential for health, but too much will cause death. Fat is of course essential to health, but too much can lead to negative health effects.

 

Please define bad cholesterol.

 

Also, how much fat is too much? I've read that 60 to 80% of your caloric intake should be dietary fat, which includes monounsaturated, saturated, and polyunsaturated varieties. I operate under the philosophy that you should eat what you are. Humans are mainly comprised of water, fats, cholesterols, and proteins so it follows that this is what we should be consuming the majority of the time since they represent the building blocks of our body.

 

Simply saying that too much fat can lead to negative health effects is a pretty vague statement. To which negative health side effect are you referring? Are the trans fats the only kind of bad fat? What is a trans fat exactly?

 

Chris Kresser demonstrates here that naturally occuring trans fats may, in fact, be healthy enough to prevent cancer: http://chriskresser.com/can-some-trans-fats-be-healthy

[Pepin]

 

Please define bad cholesterol.

 

Not at all a nutritionist, nor do I do that much research. Most of the information I get is from various experts and I parrot it. Anyway, good and bad cholesterol explained in the articles below.

 

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Cholesterol/AboutCholesterol/Good-vs-Bad-Cholesterol_UCM_305561_Article.jsp

http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/ldl-cholesterol-the-bad-cholesterol

 

 

Also, how much fat is too much? I've read that 60 to 80% of your caloric intake should be dietary fat, which includes monounsaturated, saturated, and polyunsaturated varieties.

 

Depends on what the person does and what they are eating. Issues of high fat diets may not be directly be caused by the fat, but indirectly through its affect on appetite. Fatty foods tend to be less satiating, and people who don't track their caloric intake will tend to overeat on high fat diets.

 

If I remember right, the minimum amount and maximum is a point of contention, but a 0% or 100% fat diet is out of the question. Anyway, I don't claim to know how much is needed, so this question is confusing.

 

 

I operate under the philosophy that you should eat what you are. Humans are mainly comprised of water, fats, cholesterols, and proteins so it follows that this is what we should be consuming the majority of the time since they represent the building blocks of our body.

 

I hope that isn't in question as I said nothing to indicate that this wasn't the case.

 

 

Simply saying that too much fat can lead to negative health effects is a pretty vague statement. To which negative health side effect are you referring? Are the trans fats the only kind of bad fat? What is a trans fat exactly?

 

It is vague because the argument I am making is in the form of an Aristotelian mean. There are black and whites in terms of extremes, but there is a large grey area with most any nutrient. I am avoiding being specific on amounts and effects because I don't know enough to give numbers, but I do know enough to know that there are extremes and substances to be avoided completely.

 

I would agree that it would probably be good to distinguish between artificial and natural trans fats.

 

I am completely happy to say that I do not need to know anything about trans fats and can confidently make an argument from authority to show that currently there is scientific consensus on the effects of trans fats. Unless I really get into nutrition, this is all I ever will be doing, as understanding it is a whole other thing.

[cobra2411]

Please define bad cholesterol.

 

 

Based on what I've learned so far there are two types of LDL or "bad" cholesterol. The LDL-a which is a large and fluffy, non-harmful type and the LDL-b which is a small, dense type that can get lodged in arterial walls more easily. The overall amount of cholesterol is not nearly as important as the ratios found within. Someone could have a cholesterol of 300, with a high ratio of LDL-a vs LDL-b and high HDL and be very healthy whereas a person with an overall cholesterol of 150 and a high ratio of LDL-b and low HDL would be unhealthy. 

 

 

Depends on what the person does and what they are eating. Issues of high fat diets may not be directly be caused by the fat, but indirectly through its affect on appetite. Fatty foods tend to be less satiating, and people who don't track their caloric intake will tend to overeat on high fat diets.

 

If I remember right, the minimum amount and maximum is a point of contention, but a 0% or 100% fat diet is out of the question. Anyway, I don't claim to know how much is needed, so this question is confusing.

 

 

From what I've seen in studies about fat and satiety, they do poorly in dealing with the many confounders. A person person eating a lower carb paleo type diet is going to have a much different satiety response than someone eating cookies and cake. Any study that lumps both of those into the same "high fat" category is going to show a weak or no correlation in fat intake and satiety. A study with more cookies and cake people will likely show that eating fat makes you hungry. But it's not the fat that does it. 

 

Our bodies have adapted over many years to run perfectly fine on a glucose based diet or a lipid based diet. When you deprive your body of glucose your insulin levels decline and your glucagon levels rise. The increase in glucagon triggers the body to use up stored glucose; which only lasts 1-3 days, then to use fat and protein to make glucose. The gluconeogenesis process results in a byproduct of ketones which can be used by many parts of the body as a substitute for glucose. After 1-3 weeks the vast majority of the body will run directly on fat. One of the primary ketones is linked to a satiety signal in the brain. 

 

Someone on a high carb diet, particularly one high on the glycemic load index, would have much higher insulin levels than the low carb paleo dieter. Insulin is a fat storage hormone and with high levels the body would resist using it's stored fat and instead issue a hunger signal when the energy from digestion ceases. The higher the average level of insulin, the more pronounced this would be as the insulin levels would have to decay enough for the body to start releasing glucose stores and release fat for energy. Insulin resistance makes this even worse and causes people who are IR to continually eat and to store fat. Fat intake to an insulin resistant person eating a high glycemic load of carbs would likely do zero for satiety. 

 

We do have the ability to ferment fibrous vegetables in our digestive tract which releases short chain fatty acids - aka saturated fats. While we don't have the ability to extract a large portion of our fat this way it can account for up to 15% of our fat intake. Any diet that includes fibrous vegetables would have a higher digested amount of fat than what would be indicated on the nutritional label. 

[Jetrpg22]

Here is a pretty large analysis of the topic of bad and good fats

http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638#tab10Div

I believe other links may have referenced this work but this is study itself.

[Ahren]

Statins have a lot of evidence that they reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke in terms of secondary prevention. Which means people who already have elevated risk factors for heart disease have a risk reduction with the addition of a statin.

 

It has not been proven that statins provide benefit for people without significant risk factors.

 

Statins reduce LDL levels but also play a role in inflammation reduction within the arteries. When inflammed they have an increased risks of forming plaques which contain cholesterol. The statins reduce these plaques by reducing cholesterol. Lowering cholesterol helps with these plaques.

 

It is true that cholesterol is needed in a healthy diet. What is not needed is eating fast food, fried foods in over abundance, combined with smoking which increases inflammation, sedentary life style which causes obesity and reduce cardiovascular fitness which puts strain on the heart, over eating carbohydrates which can lead to diabetes an independant risk for heart disease etc.

 

We have medications like Welchol that reduces LDL but have not be proven to reduce the risk of heart disease that the statins have proven to. Welchol blocks the cholesterol absorption at the intestines and has none of the anti-inflammatory benefits of a statin.

 

So if you are healthy and live a active life style a statin will most likely not benefit you. Unless that person has a hereitary hyperlipidemia and family history heart disease (like father and uncle having heart attack at a young age).

 

This is not a cut and dry topic like eat no cholesterol and be healthy. But the layperson reduces the complexity to this because they do not understand the pathophysiology of heart disease. Kind of like how people reduce Defooing to, if people do not agree with libertarianism get them out of your life. When in reality it much more complex than that.

[cobra2411]

I have not seen any evidence that statins do anything for stroke prevention and the only people who may benefit are those who have had a cardiac event. All other support is weak at best. The side effects usually outweigh the benefits for most people, especially women. Total cholesterol is unimportant, what's important is the amount of dense ldl as well as the ldl:hdl ratio.

 

As far as sedentary lifestyles are concerned, just because obese people are usually sedentary doesn't mean it causes obesity. I sat on my ass and lost 35lbs or so just by changing my diet. There are benefits to exercise, but lack of exercise doesn't cause obesity. 

[J. D. Stembal]

As far as sedentary lifestyles are concerned, just because obese people are usually sedentary doesn't mean it causes obesity. I sat on my ass and lost 35lbs or so just by changing my diet. There are benefits to exercise, but lack of exercise doesn't cause obesity. 

 

The fat people are sedentary argument usually comes from people who are still stuck using the calories in/calories out health hypothesis.

 

Jeff Volek, co-author of The Art and Lifestyle of Low Carbohydrate Living, says that the triglyceride/HDL ratio is the most significant predictor for future cardiovascular health and total cholesterol has not much to do with it. Therefore, dietary cholesterol is incidental and not relevant to health outcomes, but dietary carbohydrate is very relevant for your triglyceride and HDL numbers.

 

Here's a snippet and link to Jimmy Moore's blog, "Livin' La Vida Low Carb": http://livinlavidalowcarb.com/blog/low-carb-cholesterol-concerns-unnecessary/652

 

 

 

For far too long, doctors have exclaimed how important it is to keep your total cholesterol number below 200, right? Isn’t that what all the hoopla over statin drugs is about? “Aim lower,” one of the obnoxious ads for cholesterol-lowering medicine blares out to us on our television sets, but why? If your triglyceride/HDL ratio is incredible, then you don’t need to worry about how high your total cholesterol is. You just don’t.

 

My most recent blood work revealed that my triglycerides are 57 and my HDL is 71. That makes my triglyceride/HDL ratio a miniscule 0.83. My doctor has even said with a ratio that good (it was A LOT BETTER than his!), I don’t need to worry that my total cholesterol being 201.

 

And that’s the message of the study conducted by Dr. Volek, too. Just like on the issue of fat, Americans have been scared half to death about the supposed dangers of what they perceive as high cholesterol numbers. But they’ve been duped yet again! We need to learn from the work of people like Dr. Volek and realize there are much more important numbers to look at (trigylcerides and

HDL cholesterol) than the total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.

[Ahren]

I have not seen any evidence that statins do anything for stroke prevention and the only people who may benefit are those who have had a cardiac event. All other support is weak at best. The side effects usually outweigh the benefits for most people, especially women. Total cholesterol is unimportant, what's important is the amount of dense ldl as well as the ldl:hdl ratio.As far as sedentary lifestyles are concerned, just because obese people are usually sedentary doesn't mean it causes obesity. I sat on my ass and lost 35lbs or so just by changing my diet. There are benefits to exercise, but lack of exercise doesn't cause obesity.

The fact that you personally have seen no evidence means nothing unless you are an expert in the field. http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/23_suppl_1/III-44.fullHere is a study that shows 20% risk reduction for strokes. This is not weak. I personally have been prescribing these medication for years and side effects are rare. The benefits out weigh the risks. You are a layperson speaking as if you know and you do not. Sedentary usually leads to obesity it is a general trend. I believe Stef has gone over this with people that because you have an exception this does not invalidate the general trend. 65% of the American population is overweight and it not because they eat healthy but refuse to exercise.

[cobra2411]

The fact that you personally have seen no evidence means nothing unless you are an expert in the field.

 

 

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/109/23_suppl_1/III-44.full

 

Here is a study that shows 20% risk reduction for strokes. This is not weak.

Statistical math trickery. There is a difference of little more than 8 people per thousand or 0.9% as stated in the report. In other words you'd have to treat 125 people to make a difference in one. Given that overall cholesterol is not a predictor in CVD and given there are little if any benefit to those without a history of CVD I can't see taking it simply because your overall cholesterol number is high. Get your HDL/LDL ratio in line and triglycerides in line and you'll do more IMO for your health than taking a pill. The biggest change is getting sugar and refined carbohydrates out of your diet. 

 

the only people who may benefit are those who have had a cardiac event.

 

"The number of strokes prevented per 1000 patients treated for 5 years in patients with CHD is 9 for statins, compared with 17.3 for antiplatelet agents. Statins have not yet been shown to reduce stroke risk in the typical general population without known CHD"

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19159124

 

"Physician awareness of statin Adverse Effects (AEs) is reportedly low even for the AEs most widely reported by patients. "

 

Side effects include;

Cognitive loss

Neuropathy

Anemia

Acidosis

Frequent fevers

Cataracts

Sexual dysfunction

Increase cancer risk

Immune system suppression

Rhabdomyolsis

Pancreatic dysfunction

Liver dysfunction

 

Given that the benefit is 1 in 125 only for those with a history of CVD; given the possible side effects I can't see how they are prescribed for anyone without a history of CVD. 

 

As for sedentary behavior and obesity there is a great correlation, but correlation doesn't equal causation. I'm simply being critical of the statement that sedentary behavior causes obesity. People who exercise typically are health conscience; which lends itself to the correlation between active people and a lack of obesity. However, one can be sedentary without being obese or being at risk of being obese. 

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

Ah, some great evidence to support the fact that fat equals survival (the good, natural kind of course).  The "civilized" diet is a monsterous plague on mankind. A must watch!  

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ixsBn_lfXE

 

"Sally Fallon, the author of Nourishing Traditions Cookbook, gives a presentation that discusses the research work of dentist, Weston Price, in the early part of the last century, there are compelling before and after photoes in this presentation that demonstrate just how our modern diet affects people in first, and then second generation children. She presents an interesting case for how this diet affects our DNA expresses its fullest genetic potential (epigentics), and gives plenty of slow food for thought about how we may be able to turn this degeneration of our genetic expression around by learning from our elders, so to speak... the traditions of the indigenous people that Weston Price researched...I highly recommend a viewing of the presentation for anyone thinking of having children, or grandchildren."

 

Also, along the same lines.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z9A-30Twp1k&list=PLD2976BB328CC9617

[corbyco]

I was told by my doctor in the UK that they dont routinely check cholesterol levels unless you are a smoker.  They didnt see a risk unless there was something for the cholesterol to stick to?

 

I can only add that as a vegan since leaving the UK, I dont eat any cholesterol and my annual checkups (now obligatory for the USA insurance) show correct levels of so-called good and bad cholesterol.

 

The body seems quite capable of creating what it needs when it needs it.

 

 

[HordOfTheFlies]

As someone that has been eating a very high fat diet for over a year now, I just thought I'd weigh in with some of my personal experience on this topic.  I started eating a ketogenic diet last year in order to put my body into a state of nutritional ketosis which means that my body derives most of its energy (technically ATP production) from fat-based sources rather than carbohydrate (glucose) sources.  The typical arguments against this type of diet include increased risk of heart disease as well as the inability to properly control weight due to an increased caloric load.  I have experienced neither of these issues.

 

For perspective, I started this diet in July of 2014 with a goal of weight loss.  My target range for carbohydrate intake has been 100g per day or less and most weekdays I try to achieve 20g or less.  I haven't kept a meticulous journal, but I'd say that I've kept well within this range.  I've also focused on eating high-fat foods to keep my fat intake at 70%+ of caloric load.  I had a blood test performed prior to starting and here are the cholesterol figures:

 

  Total: 131mg/dL  HDL: 52 mg/dL  Triglycerides: 25mg/dL  Rest (LDL): 79mg/dL

 

From what I have read triglycerides are the primary factor to look at in men as an indicator of heart disease unless you have access to a lab that can test for inflammation markers.  When I asked my doctor for his interpretation of my triglycerides, his response was "non-existent".  For reference, normal is considered <150mg/dL and "optimal" is <100mg/dL.

 

From the start the rules have been simple:  eat what I want, when I want but only eat when I am hungry and only eat foods high in saturated fat.  Sugars were eliminated almost completely at the start and I've experimented with adding them back in for treats.  Never have I counted a single calorie.  The only statistic I monitor is the grams of carbohydrates in foods.  For anyone that has ever had to count calories meticulously I can't tell you how liberating it is to never have to worry about this.

 

So what have I see in that time?  From July through December I didn't see much progress.  The primary changes I noticed were in unexpected areas.  Prior to going on this high-fat adventure I had various digestive issues.  These went away immediately.  I've also noticed dramatic decreases in my cravings for sweet foods and my ability to taste sweetness has increased so much that I am nearly sickened when I eat things like candy.  As of now the only really sweet thing I can eat is a Cliff's Builders Bar and I start feeling a tad nauseous about three-quarters through one of them.  There have been several other physical effects but to really sum it up, I have an overall better general sense of well-being and health now.

 

What has happened since January of this year has been pure magic, however.  At the start of this year I was 265 pounds and was wearing size 44 pants.  As of today I am walking at 210 pounds and now fit comfortably in size 36s.  It has been a complete transformation.  I've blown well past my goal for the year so everything past this point is just gravy (which is hideously bad for you, btw).

 

The real question, of course, is what did this do to my cholesterol figures.  In July of this year I got more blood work done and here are the results:

 

  Total: 128mg/dL  HDL: 32 mg/dL  Triglycerides: 52mg/dL  Rest: 86mg/dL

 

While these numbers are still very low overall there were some interesting shifts.  My total stayed the same, but HDL was lowered and my triglycerides more than doubled.  This is certainly a move in the wrong direction, but I have a couple of ideas as to why.  One thing that wasn't illustrated above was that prior to going on a ketogenic diet I had been involved in a fairly intense weight training program with a friend for a period of about 5 months.  I sustained a minor injury to my back around July and started lessening my workouts considerably.  By January my exercise regime had become one activity: breathing.

 

The entire course of this year I have been absolutely physically inert.  And yet the weight is melting off of me.  This could help explain why my cholesterol figures are moving the way they are.  Exercise is linked to lowering triglycerides while increasing HDL.  My theory is that my numbers now reflect a more casual state of normal and would probably quickly lower again if I started hitting the gym.  I'm going to stick with the couch for a bit, though since it seems to be working

 

So I'm not sure what all you want to take out of this.  You could easily discard it as an n=1 anecdote.  My personal experience and knowledge in this area however leads me to believe that there's a whole lot more to the world of fat and cholesterol to explore.  I'm certainly going to continue experiment in my life to find what is optimal for me.  I encourage others to do the same.

[Anuojat]

It is the dose which kills. And it is the relationship with the material and our body which wounds and scars.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

 

From what I have read triglycerides are the primary factor to look at in men as an indicator of heart disease unless you have access to a lab that can test for inflammation markers.  When I asked my doctor for his interpretation of my triglycerides, his response was "non-existent".  For reference, normal is considered <150mg/dL and "optimal" is <100mg/dL.

 

  Total: 128mg/dL  HDL: 32 mg/dL  Triglycerides: 52mg/dL  Rest: 86mg/dL

 

 

 

Where did you read that tryglycerides are the primary predictor of CVD? It's always been LDL so far as I know.

"...LDL cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, it's the main focus of cholesterol-lowering treatment" Mayo Clinic

 

Your TC is at a desirably low level but TC is only a proxy, LDL is what counts. I wonder how long you can follow this diet though?

 

I achieved these results on a low fat, high carb fully raw vegan diet and maintained these sorts of figures for many years doing so and felt great, no colds no flu, no headaches or other ailments.

 

Total Cholesterol 93mg/dl  LDL 39mg/dl HDL 39mg/dl tryglycerides 53-80mg/dl

 

LDL below 70 is what to aim for, your move from 79 to 86 LDL is not an improvement.

"The normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol range is 50 to 70 mg/dl for native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and other wild mammals (all of whom do not develop atherosclerosis). Randomized trial data suggest atherosclerosis progression and coronary heart disease events are minimized when LDL is lowered to <70 mg/dl. No major safety concerns have surfaced in studies that lowered LDL to this range of 50 to 70 mg/dl. The current guidelines setting the target LDL at 100 to 115 mg/dl may lead to substantial undertreatment in high-risk individuals." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15172426

 

It's both possible and preferable to achieve healthy LDL levels without ketogenic diets using a varied low-fat diet.

[HordOfTheFlies]

Where did you read that tryglycerides are the primary predictor of CVD? It's always been LDL so far as I know.

"...LDL cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, it's the main focus of cholesterol-lowering treatment" Mayo Clinic

 

Your TC is at a desirably low level but TC is only a proxy, LDL is what counts. I wonder how long you can follow this diet though?

 

I achieved these results on a low fat, high carb fully raw vegan diet and maintained these sorts of figures for many years doing so and felt great, no colds no flu, no headaches or other ailments.

 

Total Cholesterol 93mg/dl  LDL 39mg/dl HDL 39mg/dl tryglycerides 53-80mg/dl

 

LDL below 70 is what to aim for, your move from 79 to 86 LDL is not an improvement.

"The normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol range is 50 to 70 mg/dl for native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and other wild mammals (all of whom do not develop atherosclerosis). Randomized trial data suggest atherosclerosis progression and coronary heart disease events are minimized when LDL is lowered to <70 mg/dl. No major safety concerns have surfaced in studies that lowered LDL to this range of 50 to 70 mg/dl. The current guidelines setting the target LDL at 100 to 115 mg/dl may lead to substantial undertreatment in high-risk individuals." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15172426

 

It's both possible and preferable to achieve healthy LDL levels without ketogenic diets using a varied low-fat diet.

 

To be honest I've read about a wide range of factors including total cholesterol, various ratios between the components and individual components themselves.  Everything I was reading at the time kept pointing towards triglycerides so that was what I focused on.  I've never been convinced by the LDL data.  I'm not an expert but my understanding is that LDL isn't measured directly and that can be seen in this case.  My reports don't indicate an LDL value specifically but just what was net of total.  So realistically I only have a good value for HDL and triglycerides.

 

Another thing is that there's apparently at least two types of LDL.  One is a larger type described as "fluffy" and the other is smaller and granular.  I don't see any way to differentiate these from the data I've been shown and I think that's significant.  HDL and LDL are both apparently fairly benign as they are cholesterol transporters but the smaller LDL is associated with adding to inflammation issues.  I don't doubt that a rise in LDL might indicate a problem but I can't know the magnitude if I can't measure the factors involved.  What I've been hearing lately is that inflammation markers are the best test so none of this may matter in a few years anyway.

 

The important thing for me is that I feel healthier than I have in my entire life and I haven't seen anything thing stray significantly from what I would call "normal".  I'm still monitoring and researching and I'll adjust accordingly if I see strong evidence to do so.  For now, though, I'm sticking with high fat.

[Nathan H. Hoffner]

There's never been any scientific research that has actually linked cholesterol to heart disease.  See Dr. Attia's presentation below regarding this fact. 

Dr. Peter Attia: The limits of scientific evidence and the ethics of dietary guidelines -- 60 years of ambiguity

 

 

Also, this....

 

World Renown Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes Heart Disease

 

http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml

 

 

 

 Fatty foods tend to be less satiating, and people who don't track their caloric intake will tend to overeat on high fat diets.

 

 

This is completely wrong.  It's carbs that people crave and binge on.  Fat controls leptin, which is the master hormone that controls hunger / metabolism.  All other hormones respond accordingly.  How much fat (energy) we are taking in will signal our bodies and determine hunger and metabolism. To lose weight, eat more fat, because you'll signal that you have plenty of new sources of energy coming in, so your body gets rid of stored energy, ie body fat.   If you do this plus restrict overall calories, the weight will fall off with ease. This used to be well known and recommended by doctors for weight loss before society was so corrupted by special interest groups.

 

7 Reasons to Eat More Saturated Fat (from healthy sources)

http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2009/09/22/7-reasons-to-eat-more-saturated-fat.aspx

Where did you read that tryglycerides are the primary predictor of CVD? It's always been LDL so far as I know.

"...LDL cholesterol is a major risk factor for heart disease, it's the main focus of cholesterol-lowering treatment" Mayo Clinic

 

Your TC is at a desirably low level but TC is only a proxy, LDL is what counts. I wonder how long you can follow this diet though?

I achieved these results on a low fat, high carb fully raw vegan diet and maintained these sorts of figures for many years doing so and felt great, no colds no flu, no headaches or other ailments.

 

Total Cholesterol 93mg/dl  LDL 39mg/dl HDL 39mg/dl tryglycerides 53-80mg/dl

LDL below 70 is what to aim for, your move from 79 to 86 LDL is not an improvement.

"The normal low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol range is 50 to 70 mg/dl for native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and other wild mammals (all of whom do not develop atherosclerosis). Randomized trial data suggest atherosclerosis progression and coronary heart disease events are minimized when LDL is lowered to <70 mg/dl. No major safety concerns have surfaced in studies that lowered LDL to this range of 50 to 70 mg/dl. The current guidelines setting the target LDL at 100 to 115 mg/dl may lead to substantial undertreatment in high-risk individuals." http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15172426

 

It's both possible and preferable to achieve healthy LDL levels without ketogenic diets using a varied low-fat diet.

World Renown Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes Heart Disease

 

http://preventdisease.com/news/12/030112_World-Renown-Heart-Surgeon-Speaks-Out-On-What-Really-Causes-Heart-Disease.shtml

 

This doctor admitted he was wrong after performing over 5,000 open-heart surgeries, why can't you?  And he's not the only one.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

There's never been any scientific research that has actually linked cholesterol to heart disease. 

 

There's a plethora of scientific evidence indicating that elevated cholesterol is the primary cause of CVD. Why do you keep denying this? The evidence comes from a wide range of scientific fields and I'll summarise it here as I have else where on these boards:

 

1) hundreds of cholesterol feeding experiments on animals - every species examined succumbs to atherosclerosis eventually when fed cholesterol

2) people with genetic defects that cause elevated cholesterol levels have higher incidence of atherosclerosis

3) people with genetic defects that limit cholesterol synthesis have lower rates of atherosclerosis

4) the majority of relevant population studies

5) numerous dietary intervention studies where patients reduce fat intake, lower cholesterol and REVERSE their atherosclerosis6) drugs designed to lower cholesterol levels reduce heart attacks

 

The above findings are why the lipid hypothesis is accepted in medical science. Have you seen any science that refutes the findings above and leads to a different conclusion?

 

 

See Dr. Attia's presentation below regarding this fact. 

Dr. Peter Attia: The limits of scientific evidence and the ethics of dietary guidelines -- 60 years of ambiguity

 

Here's Attias credibility getting shredded 

I won't bother addressing your Mercola article.

[yagami]

I"ll take a swing at this cholestoral thing here. Let me know if this makes sense to you.

 

 

Cholesterol is absolutly essential to the human body. It's so essential your body makes cholesterol on it's own. Think of cholesterol as a starting point for every hormone your body needs Testosterone progesterone and many many other hormones are all broken down versions of cholesterol. Your body takes cholesterol and breaks it down to make all your hormones. The reason cholesterol is given such a bad name is because it is found in the arteries clogging up things which causes people to die. These is a very simple reason for this which I'll explain below:

 

The science behind cholesterol:

Take a look at the image below

 

As you can see everything starts from cholestoral and is broken down from there. This is not a comprehensive picture by any means there are many more hormones in the body.

 

How does cholesterol clog your arteries?:

First of all you need to understand something called fluid dynamics. Basically it's the science behind the movement of fluids. As blood flows through your arteries it is going to twist and turn as it flows through you. Here is a picture of a river:

 

As you can imagine whenever the river hits a corner there is much more pressure hitting the walls of the river at the turn. When the river is going in a straight line there is little pressure on the walls of the river. Our bodies work the same way. Only difference is when you are dealing with a closed system like our arteries the pressure is greater. In a river the pressure can just overflow onto the ground. In a tube there is no overflow. So now that you get there is greater pressure at the bends then when going in a straight line the rest should makes sense (hopefully).

 

Free Radicals:

When we eat processed foods, burnt meat, fried foods, oxygenated oils (which includes all oils that aren't treated to prevent this) or meats with nitrates and nitrites in them we bring into our bodies these things called free radicals. Here is a picture of a free radical and an antioxidant:

 

 

Every atom has three parts a neutrons protons and electrons. A stable atom has an equal amount of protons and electrons. An unstable atom (free radical) has extra electron(s) and an antioxidant has a missing electron(s). Since free radicals have an extra electron the atom is free to react to react to other atoms and attempt to bond with them. When this happens there is a chemical reaction on a molecular level because an unstable atom came in contact with a stable atom. What an anti oxidant does is come in contact with the free radical and neutralizes the free radical because it requires more electrons and the free radical has extra electron(s). There is no reaction between these two because of the perfect pairing.

 

What does this have to do with cholesterol?:

 

When the free radicals explode they cause damage to your arteries (and everything else in the body). This is where inflammation comes from. Now imagine your arteries have tiny wholes in them throughout your circulatory system. If those wholes are not repaired in some way you are going to die very fast. What happens is because there is more pressure on the bends of the arteries the wholes grow in size there. So what your body does is use what is has in abundance which is cholesterol. Cholesterol is a temporary fix your body uses to keep you from dying immediately. Unfortunately our body has no clue how to think long term.

 

Good vs bad cholesterol:

 

This is simply a myth and there isn't much to say about this. The only reason bad cholesterol exist is because free radicals damage your HDL and convert them to LDL. The consumption of LDL type fats is not the problem at all.

 

Conclusion:

Cholesterol is not the enemy and never has been. As soon as doctors started telling people to stop eating cholesterol Alzheimer's (which never existed before) appeared. Your brain is made up largely of cholesterol. without cholesterol you cant make testosterone. Which means you cant get an erection. This cholesterol free dieting is a complete doctor created disaster. We evolved eating a very high fat diet full of cholesterol. The danger with cholesterol comes from free radicals. Free radicals are ubiquitous but the largest source of free radicals by far come from food. If you want to protect yourself you need to consume a product that has a high ORAC value. ORAC stands for Oxygen Radical Absorption Capacity. Since you cant avoid free radical entirely the more ORAC you get the healthier you will be. I hope that clears up the cholesterol myth for you guys.

[Snafui]

I've had triglycerides above 4000 (not a typo, 4k!) this was when I was about 10% body fat, exercised for hours on end, and followed a high carb diet. Now that I have a high fat, low carb diet my triglycerides are ~500 (they bounce between 300 and 700). I may have created my problem back when I was a body builder and tried to go as low fat as possible ( <10% fat per day--wow, was I grumpy!) Now, after all that, I have zero heart issues to this day. In fact, when I do aerobic activity I am about 5-10 beats above what I should be able to do for age, weight, and level of fitness.

 

Another reason I'm bringing up my experience is that the 200 number for cholesterol, so often cited, is random--I have known this since the late 80s, so I never took those drugs. Only recently more people are discovering that the link from cholesterol levels and heart disease are junk science. At best it was a post hoc fallacy where a whole lot of people took a typical medical correlation creating a scare without ever following it up. At worst, the pharmaceutical companies created a drug, saw what it did, and then defined a disease with an unhealthy maker below the average.

 

A perspective for the high carb vs. high fat dietary issue is this: Trying to run your body on a high carb diet is like trying to run your gas powered car from the battery. Even if you are lean and fit you have far more energy stored in fat than carbohydrate. If you were as low as 15 lbs of fat you would have over 60,000 calories at your disposal; but your body stores no more than 2,000 calories of carbohydrate. Your body runs on fat, in a normal state for most of the day, when reading, sitting, driving (well maybe not in a metro area); it is only when you are in a state of stress that you must burn carbs. Carbohydrate is more like an emergency back up system where the greater the emergency, the more you burn. 

 

A recent discovery for me is the following YouTube channel AncestryFoundation where they are discussing these issues.

[J. D. Stembal]

As someone that has been eating a very high fat diet for over a year now, I just thought I'd weigh in with some of my personal experience on this topic.  I started eating a ketogenic diet last year in order to put my body into a state of nutritional ketosis which means that my body derives most of its energy (technically ATP production) from fat-based sources rather than carbohydrate (glucose) sources.  The typical arguments against this type of diet include increased risk of heart disease as well as the inability to properly control weight due to an increased caloric load.  I have experienced neither of these issues.

 

For perspective, I started this diet in July of 2014 with a goal of weight loss.  My target range for carbohydrate intake has been 100g per day or less and most weekdays I try to achieve 20g or less.  I haven't kept a meticulous journal, but I'd say that I've kept well within this range.  I've also focused on eating high-fat foods to keep my fat intake at 70%+ of caloric load.  I had a blood test performed prior to starting and here are the cholesterol figures:

 

  Total: 131mg/dL  HDL: 52 mg/dL  Triglycerides: 25mg/dL  Rest (LDL): 79mg/dL

 

From what I have read triglycerides are the primary factor to look at in men as an indicator of heart disease unless you have access to a lab that can test for inflammation markers.  When I asked my doctor for his interpretation of my triglycerides, his response was "non-existent".  For reference, normal is considered <150mg/dL and "optimal" is <100mg/dL.

 

From the start the rules have been simple:  eat what I want, when I want but only eat when I am hungry and only eat foods high in saturated fat.  Sugars were eliminated almost completely at the start and I've experimented with adding them back in for treats.  Never have I counted a single calorie.  The only statistic I monitor is the grams of carbohydrates in foods.  For anyone that has ever had to count calories meticulously I can't tell you how liberating it is to never have to worry about this.

 

So what have I see in that time?  From July through December I didn't see much progress.  The primary changes I noticed were in unexpected areas.  Prior to going on this high-fat adventure I had various digestive issues.  These went away immediately.  I've also noticed dramatic decreases in my cravings for sweet foods and my ability to taste sweetness has increased so much that I am nearly sickened when I eat things like candy.  As of now the only really sweet thing I can eat is a Cliff's Builders Bar and I start feeling a tad nauseous about three-quarters through one of them.  There have been several other physical effects but to really sum it up, I have an overall better general sense of well-being and health now.

 

What has happened since January of this year has been pure magic, however.  At the start of this year I was 265 pounds and was wearing size 44 pants.  As of today I am walking at 210 pounds and now fit comfortably in size 36s.  It has been a complete transformation.  I've blown well past my goal for the year so everything past this point is just gravy (which is hideously bad for you, btw).

 

The real question, of course, is what did this do to my cholesterol figures.  In July of this year I got more blood work done and here are the results:

 

  Total: 128mg/dL  HDL: 32 mg/dL  Triglycerides: 52mg/dL  Rest: 86mg/dL

 

While these numbers are still very low overall there were some interesting shifts.  My total stayed the same, but HDL was lowered and my triglycerides more than doubled.  This is certainly a move in the wrong direction, but I have a couple of ideas as to why.  One thing that wasn't illustrated above was that prior to going on a ketogenic diet I had been involved in a fairly intense weight training program with a friend for a period of about 5 months.  I sustained a minor injury to my back around July and started lessening my workouts considerably.  By January my exercise regime had become one activity: breathing.

 

The entire course of this year I have been absolutely physically inert.  And yet the weight is melting off of me.  This could help explain why my cholesterol figures are moving the way they are.  Exercise is linked to lowering triglycerides while increasing HDL.  My theory is that my numbers now reflect a more casual state of normal and would probably quickly lower again if I started hitting the gym.  I'm going to stick with the couch for a bit, though since it seems to be working

 

So I'm not sure what all you want to take out of this.  You could easily discard it as an n=1 anecdote.  My personal experience and knowledge in this area however leads me to believe that there's a whole lot more to the world of fat and cholesterol to explore.  I'm certainly going to continue experiment in my life to find what is optimal for me.  I encourage others to do the same.

 

You were physically inert for one full year? That doesn't sound like a minor back injury! I've yanked my back a couple times picking heavy things up (last time was a deadlift). I don't bother weighing myself, getting blood work done, or determining my body fat percentage. Your numbers look fine to me. What does the doc say?

 

Welcome to the low carb club! I love not counting calories, either, but I will start tracking my diet week to week so I can publish it for others to peruse on my blog. I know you don't keep careful track of what you eat but can you give a small sample of the kinds of foods you do eat? I am curious. Ultimately, I'd like to put an animal face on nutrition for all the veg-heads here at FDR, so they can see clearly the other side of the debate and not continue to stick to the scientifically unfounded lipid hypothesis.

 

For example, my lunch today (I don't eat breakfast because I never wake up hungry) was a pound of pork sausage (with spices), a handful of coconut flakes, and two cups of tea.

 

 

 

 

A perspective for the high carb vs. high fat dietary issue is this: Trying to run your body on a high carb diet is like trying to run your gas powered car from the battery. Even if you are lean and fit you have far more energy stored in fat than carbohydrate. If you were as low as 15 lbs of fat you would have over 60,000 calories at your disposal; but your body stores no more than 2,000 calories of carbohydrate. Your body runs on fat, in a normal state for most of the day, when reading, sitting, driving (well maybe not in a metro area); it is only when you are in a state of stress that you must burn carbs. Carbohydrate is more like an emergency back up system where the greater the emergency, the more you burn. 

 

 

Stress does not require you to burn carbohydrate. Unless you have a candy bar handy at the precise moment you are stressed and you have time to eat it, this strategy will not work. Adrenaline releases fatty acids from your adipose tissues when you encounter stress. There is no need to eat carbohydrate to have it in reserve because by the time you need it, it will be out of your blood stream and likely already stored in adipose tissue assuming the glycogen stores in your liver and muscles are already full.

[Snafui]

Stress does not require you to burn carbohydrate. Unless you have a candy bar handy at the precise moment you are stressed and you have time to eat it, this strategy will not work. Adrenaline releases fatty acids from your adipose tissues when you encounter stress. There is no need to eat carbohydrate to have it in reserve because by the time you need it, it will be out of your blood stream and likely already stored in adipose tissue assuming the glycogen stores in your liver and muscles are already full.

 

Stress from anxiety will begin the process of pushing carbohydrate into your bloodstream which is why anxious people tend to over eat. But extreme levels of exercise such as heavy lifting or as you approach the anaerobic threshold increases your body's consumption of the carbohydrate stores because, this too, is stress on the body.

 

Consumption of carbohydrate as a primary energy source is the myth I was stating, so, trying to eat them while exercising is counterproductive as you added. Agreed.

[HordOfTheFlies]

 

Cholesterol is absolutly essential to the human body. It's so essential your body makes cholesterol on it's own. Think of cholesterol as a starting point for every hormone your body needs Testosterone progesterone and many many other hormones are all broken down versions of cholesterol. Your body takes cholesterol and breaks it down to make all your hormones. The reason cholesterol is given such a bad name is because it is found in the arteries clogging up things which causes people to die. These is a very simple reason for this which I'll explain below:

 

 

That was some excellent information that you shared.  The link between cholesterol and hormones was huge for me when I found it a while back.  I felt betrayed by the media and the school system (no surprise) for never having mentioned that cholesterol was such a key component in those systems.  From my view it just looks like a lot of missing information never gets shared so it's good to get these facts.  We need them to balance out all the negative focus.  How can a chemical that comprises the lining of your nerve cells (the myelin sheath) be bad for you?

 

Also, to add to the inflammation issue you talked about.  Neither HDL nor LDL are cholesterol in and of themselves.  They are both lipoproteins (hence the 'L') and are used to transport cholesterol throughout the body.  HDL is used to transport cholesterol to an area and LDL is used to remove cholesterol from an area.  One theory that I've read suggests that when the smaller grain-like LDL particles bind to the cholesterol in an arterial tear, there's a chance they won't be able to get out and return to the liver.  If that happens, it starts a cycle of continued build-up and inflammation.  The larger "fluffy" LDL apparently doesn't have this issue which is why I've been focused more on inflammation markers than LDL.  At least until we can get a better quality test for the different types of LDL.

 

One last point that I'll think I'll make because it really just occurred to me what the heart of the matter is.  We know that cholesterol is so essential to the body that all animal cells can manufacture it.  So it's the regulatory systems and the sources of synthesis materials both that are key in determining an optimal strategy.  The HDL/LDL connection gives some insight into the regulatory aspects although I think there's a lot more to it.  The one thing I don't see a whole lot of in the conversation is how cholesterol is synthesized, what its precursors are and how those are regulated and distributed throughout the body.  Sounds like I have some reading to do.

[HordOfTheFlies]

You were physically inert for one full year? That doesn't sound like a minor back injury! I've yanked my back a couple times picking heavy things up (last time was a deadlift). I don't bother weighing myself, getting blood work done, or determining my body fat percentage. Your numbers look fine to me. What does the doc say?

 

 

My inertness is related to my laziness and not my back    My back was only in pain for about a month and half but during that time I dropped the gym routine and went to body-weight exercises and kettle bells.  By the end of last year I was just doing body-weight squats and eventually just got bored and gave it up.  I think the exercise helped strengthen my back a bit and that worked out the pain issue.  Since I wasn't seeing any weight loss with the added exercise I just didn't see any point in continuing it.  All of the weight loss I've experienced from moving to a ketogenic diet has happened during this period of lethargy which is why I'm not too anxious to get off the couch just yet.

 

I weigh myself multiple times per day and I would say I have an excellent sense of how my body reacts to what I consume.  I frequently guess my weight before jumping on the scale and am generally within half a pound.  I inhale beverages like a water pump so my weight can fluctuate +/- 5 lbs or more over the course of day.  I find this deferral to metrics to be reassuring since I'm so focused on this although I've had to learn how to not let the metrics drive my immediate decisions and just use them as guidelines within a much larger goal framework.

 

My doctor is awkwardly silent when I see him.  I think it kind of freaks him out that he doesn't have a single suggestion for me based on my lab results and in-office tests.

 

 

Welcome to the low carb club! I love not counting calories, either, but I will start tracking my diet week to week so I can publish it for others to peruse on my blog. I know you don't keep careful track of what you eat but can you give a small sample of the kinds of foods you do eat? I am curious. Ultimately, I'd like to put an animal face on nutrition for all the veg-heads here at FDR, so they can see clearly the other side of the debate and not continue to stick to the scientifically unfounded lipid hypothesis. For example, my lunch today (I don't eat breakfast because I never wake up hungry) was a pound of pork sausage (with spices), a handful of coconut flakes, and two cups of tea.

 

 

I say I don't count calories now but I am always aware of them. Prior to going ketogenic I had spent about 5 years experimenting with a whole host of other diets mainly focused on caloric intake so I have a very good sense for how many calories are in food.  Now it's simply not a decision point for me.  I have thought about recording what I eat as an example for others because I have been asked many times about it.  Kudos to you for actually doing it!

 

My diet right now is fairly simple.  I find it amazing that you don't eat breakfast.  A blackhole opens up in my stomach every night when I sleep and I generally wake up to intense hunger.  This is probably due to me eating an early dinner, though.  For breakfast I eat 6-8 eggs mixed with bacon and cheese and 20oz of black coffee.  This is pretty regular since it easy, quick and I never seem to really get tired of it.  Lunch can be hit or miss although I almost always get another 20oz of black coffee.

 

If I do eat a meal, it's something small like a package of lunch meat or two, a couple of sticks of cheese or a quart of milk.  Milk contains carbs, though so I limit that.  Dinner expands into a little larger variety with different kinds of sausages ranging from beef, pork and chicken along with blends and frequently stuffed with cheese and jalapenos.  I'll also eat fajita-style chicken thigh meat soaked in a quarter-stick of butter.  Sometimes I just eat whole pounds of meat at a time such as pulled pork, beef brisket and whole rotisserie chickens from a local market.  We have a lot of good BBQ places here so it's easy to get slabs of meat for a decent price.  Of course there's nothing like a rib-eye steak slathered in butter alongside a house salad drenched in ranch dressing for a night out every once in a while too.

 

The only other thing that I really eat on a regular basis is things like nuts (cashews, peanuts and almonds) and Cliff's Builders Bars for snacks.  The desire for these ebbs and flows and I might have a time where I'll eat two bars per day for a week or two, but then I'll get tired of that and go back to more ketogenic type snacks like beef jerky or pork rinds.  My most guilty pleasure of late is double-bacon cheeseburgers.  I can't say it's the highest quality meal, but if you don't get the fries the buns only get you to 60g of carbs and I just can't resist a good cheeseburger sometimes.

 

In addition to that, I'll add that late last year I did a little experimentation with high caloric load and got some interesting results.  I decided that for two weeks I was going to add a pint of heavy whipping cream to my daily routine.  That's like drinking an extra 1800 calories worth of butter every day.  At that time I was more physically active and was also much hungrier.  During that two week period I consumed multiple rib-eye steaks and pounds of sausage.  At the end of it I had gained 3 lbs.  If you do the math, that's just ridiculous.  Adding that many calories should have netted me more like 6 lbs or more.  The even more astonishing part was that I lost that 3 lbs within a week after ramping my diet back down to normal levels.

 

Anyway, as I've said before my own experimentation in this area just leads me to believe that there's more to learn.  What I've witnessed over the past year is a complete reversal of all of the dietary logic I was ever given.  That just makes me want to ask more questions.

[OGMizen]

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fully-consensual-heart-disease-treatment

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/barriers-to-heart-disease-prevention

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/trans-fat-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-tolerable-upper-intake-of-zero/

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/heart-disease-starts-in-childhood/

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/when-low-risk-means-high-riskScience says NO... 

Dietary Cholesterol is bad for you.. the evidence is incontrovertible. Dont believe everything you hear from overweight low carb 'health gurus'. The facts were in on this stuff YEARS AGO.. The only reason there is still a 'debate' on this stuff is because the egg boards keep funding deceptive studies and the pharmaceutical industries benefit from people getting sick through diet.. Doctors dont want to 'talk themselves out of a job' so to speak.  

Oh and anyone saying 'we need cholesterol because it is utilized in the creation of X cell'.. Is omitting the fact that our bodies manufacture cholesterol. Ive eaten barely any cholesterol at all for the past 2 years and Im still healthy. If it were true that we NEEDED dietary cholesterol I WOULD BE DEAD. (and so would pretty much everybody in asia and africa.)

[yagami]

From what I have read the calories question is pretty simple. If you take in more calories then you burn then you will gain weight. The question is why does the human body have a disire to consume more calories than it needs. Clearly a person who is inactive doesn't require a lot of calories but yet our bodies will still send a signal to our brains to eat. This happens for two reasons.

 

1.  The signal is sent because we need calories for energy:

 

This is the more obvious out of the two. Calories are the energy source we use for everything in out body. If you dont have calories you cant blink.

 

With that being said a couch potatoe is clearly not someone that needs a lot of energy so they shouldn't need a lot of calories.

 

2. The signal is sent due to malnutrition:

 

This is the one that most people are unaware of. When we think of malnutrition we think of( or at least i do) starving children in Africa that look horribly skinny. Everyone in america would look like that if we were not so rich a country. When you dont have enough nutrition in your body your body will send a signal to your brain that says go get nutrition. Our bodies are not smart enough to know exactly what foods exist int he world. Our body doesn't even know what an apple is. It can only tell what the nutrients are once the nutrients have entered into the body. Interesting fact about eating is that from your perspective when you eat food that food is not considered inside the body until it has entered into your blood stream through the intestines. So what all this means is if you dont need anymore calories then the only reason you could be hungry is because you are lacking in nutrition. You body sends a signal to your brain to eat. You go out to eat and the signal stops temporarily. As soon as the food leaves your stomach the signal is sent again because it takes time for the food you just ate to get to the intestine and into the bloodstream.

 

Myth about healthy eating:

 

It's actually not possible to eat "healthy". What you can do is avoid all the bad foods that I mentioned above but avoiding bad foods isn't the same as have a healthy diet. The problem with trying to eat healthy is that all food (outside of meats) is grown from the ground. These foods absorb minerals from the soil and we eat the minerals from the plant. These minerals have been converted from a nearly unusable form to a very absorbable form by the plant (remember this point for later). We eat the plant and we get the minerals that way. Keep in mind I said minerals and I didn't say vitamins amino acids or essential fatty acids. This is because plants can actually manufacture these nutrients by themselves. Nothing can manufacture minerals because minerals are just rocks. These rocks were put here when the planet was formed and there are a limited  amount of these on the planet (kinda scary when you think of it). The mineral conversion process is greatly assisted by bacteria that are in the soil but this process doesn't happen like it use to because of the way western farming work. All the pesticides sprayed on our plants kill the bacteria and really hurt this process. But even if that were not the case it wouldn't matter because the minerals that are in the soil are not spread out evenly across the surface of the earth. Take a look at this image below: 

 

As you can see minerals are all over the place in their distribution. Because of this when a farmer grows his plants if he doesn't account for this in some way his plants wont grow. So western farmers use something called NPK (nitrogen, potassium and phosphorous). This is a combination of minerals that will give the farmer the biggest bang for his buck regardless of what the soil is like on his land.

 

Tieing it all together:

 

So what this means is the carrots and the squash and all the other "healthy" foods out there actually dont give you much. The nutritional needs of a plant and the nutritional needs of a human are not only vastly different in amount but are very different in variety as well. Plants have a peculiar ability to absorb nutrients that they dont need but we do. The reason why certain plants are seen as good for certain things is because different species of plants are better at absorbing certain nutrients than others. So if plant A is better at absorbing nutrient 1 then plant B is at absorbing nutrient 1 then you are going to get a statistically significant result that shows that plant A is statistically better at improving lets say your vision. It doesn't mean that you will get better vision from eating that plant it only means that you have a better chance of improving your vision when eating that plant.

 

How to get around this:

 

Well the answer is pretty simple. You HAVE TO SUPPLEMENT. It's really not an option. Since the distribution of minerals is going to be so widely variable you have to supplement. Supplementing with vitamins is not the big issue here. Remember plants make vitamins. You need to supplement with all minerals and trace minerals. When selecting a nutrtional supplement you need to be careful of which kind you pick. Many because minerals need to be absorbed through the plant to be effective you need to know the difference between chelated and collodial minerals. Chelated minerals are minerals that have not gone through the conversion process. Collodial minerals are minerals that have and are much smaller to partical size which is the property that gives the mineral its absorbability. Many products out there well the chelated version of a mineral because it is much cheaper. Calcium carbonate is a popular one that is nothing but a huge scam. You need to take a very large bottle of calcium carbonate in order to get the real daily volume of calcium you need.

 

Once you are properly nutrified you will feel a big difference in how hungry you are throughout the day. For me it was a very strange feeling. I can feel my stomach is empty but im not hungry at the same time. It takes some getting use to (at least for me). I recommend a company called youngevity. Try not to be scared away by the fact that they are one of these multi level marketing companies. I've been using them for years and I love their products. Never really been interested in selling their stuff though. If you do a google search for the healthy start pak you'll find a bunch of website with people selling their stuff. Healthy start pak is where I recommend starting if you are interested since you seem to like to do experiments lol.

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/fully-consensual-heart-disease-treatment

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/barriers-to-heart-disease-prevention

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/trans-fat-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-tolerable-upper-intake-of-zero/

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/heart-disease-starts-in-childhood/

 

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/when-low-risk-means-high-risk

Science says NO...
 

Dietary Cholesterol is bad for you.. the evidence is incontrovertible. Dont believe everything you hear from overweight low carb 'health gurus'. The facts were in on this stuff YEARS AGO.. The only reason there is still a 'debate' on this stuff is because the egg boards keep funding deceptive studies and the pharmaceutical industries benefit from people getting sick through diet.. Doctors dont want to 'talk themselves out of a job' so to speak.  

Oh and anyone saying 'we need cholesterol because it is utilized in the creation of X cell'.. Is omitting the fact that our bodies manufacture cholesterol. Ive eaten barely any cholesterol at all for the past 2 years and Im still healthy. If it were true that we NEEDED dietary cholesterol I WOULD BE DEAD. (and so would pretty much everybody in asia and africa.)

If you read my post about cholesterol it should be pretty evident that we do need cholesterol. I only mentioned two of the reasons we need cholesterol as well. There are lot of reasons we need cholesterol. Our bodies do indeed create cholesterol on its own through the liver and you can life without cholesterol just like you can live without calcium or iron or any other nutrient. The question is how long will you live. The argument that you have lived without cholesterol for two years therefore you are some kind of proof that you dont need cholesterol is like making the I know a tall Chinese guy argument. The way I see it if you want to make an argument about something you really should understand the argument at some level instead of just stating that you know for sure you dont need cholesterol. I'm not a doctor but I have been reading about this stuff for a while now which is why I can articulate my position as well as I can. All you did was make a statement and post a video and links. From my perspective it doesn't seem like you understand your position at all.

[OGMizen]

If you read my post about cholesterol it should be pretty evident that we do need cholesterol. I only mentioned two of the reasons we need cholesterol as well. There are lot of reasons we need cholesterol. Our bodies do indeed create cholesterol on its own through the liver and you can life without cholesterol just like you can live without calcium or iron or any other nutrient. The question is how long will you live. The argument that you have lived without cholesterol for two years therefore you are some kind of proof that you dont need cholesterol is like making the I know a tall Chinese guy argument. The way I see it if you want to make an argument about something you really should understand the argument at some level instead of just stating that you know for sure you dont need cholesterol. I'm not a doctor but I have been reading about this stuff for a while now which is why I can articulate my position as well as I can. All you did was make a statement and post a video and links. From my perspective it doesn't seem like you understand your position at all.

 

 

LOL! I understand my position pretty well thanks. Dietary Cholesterol is NOT an essential nutrient. If it were, I would be dead.. last time I checked, I wasnt dead. The liver produces cholesterol, if it didnt, as soon as you stopped eating cholesterol, the cholesterol levels in your blood would drop down to zero and you would die. If you really do know what you are talking about, you will know that doesnt happen. There are athletes who exercise everyday who live on 5-10% total fat calories and almost none of that is cholesterol. So the claim that we need dietary cholesterol is empirically dis-proven. (I only say ALMOST none of that is dietary cholesterol because there are very small amounts in foods like avocado.)

 

'The way I see it if you want to make an argument about something you really should understand the argument at some level ' haha This is golden! So you are trying to imply that I dont understand my argument at any level when I clearly do. Okay! lol Would love to see the evidence for that! 

 

-all of this 'dietary cholesterol isnt bad for you' nonsense rests on the belief that Ancel Keys fluffed the data (which he didnt) on the connection between cholesterol/sat fat and decreased longevity. It comes from liars like Mark Sisson who's only 'contribution' to nutritional science is laughable graphs like 'the carbohydrate curve'. (google it its hilarious! - and by his reckoning I should have been dead years ago lol)

 

 

This stuff has all been thoroughly debunked already. See the links below. (I seriously doubt you will)

 

 

 

 

 

In fact, go and watch the entire 'Primitive Nutrition' Series if you are so confident that you know your stuff.

 

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCHZOzR0lYzbECKm8dhiDSMA

 

 

 The argument that you have lived without cholesterol for two years therefore you are some kind of proof that you dont need cholesterol is like making the I know a tall Chinese guy argument. 

 

-haha! No..! its really not! There are tall chinese men, yes, but the idea that I am some kind of freak of nature with completely different nutritional needs to everyone else is a baseless claim. Its also highly improbable. You will need to provide some pretty strong evidence to make that argument hold. Have you ever heard of a 90-5-5 or 80-10-10 vegan? There are plenty of them out there, and none of them have dropped dead from a cholesterol deficiency yet. (Despite the fact they generally dont consume dietary cholesterol)

[shirgall]

http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/health/dietary-fat-advice-should-never-have-been-issued-finds-study.118077597

[J. D. Stembal]

George McGovern died over two years ago, so conveniently, it's too late to tar and feather him.

[FreedomPhilosophy]

In Cholesterol Lowering, Moderation Kills

Esselstyn CB Jr.: The Am J of Cardiology 1998 November 26; 82(10B): 1T-4T

 

Even if all Americans kept their total cholesterol below 200 mg/dL, as recommended by the American Heart Association, millions would develop coronary artery disease.

 

Strong evidence from a wide variety of sources shows that total serum cholesterol levels must be kept below 150 mg/dL to stem America’s epidemic of coronary artery disease. My own experience with heart disease patients shows that cholesterol levels can be kept below this threshold with a diet low in lipids and cholesterol-lowering medications as needed. This low-lipid therapy stops coronary disease from progressing and even reverses it.

 

Unfortunately, our national health and medical organizations continue to recommend a cholesterol threshold of 200 mg/dL and a diet containing up to 30% fat, despite clear evidence that this threshold is too high to prevent or cure heart disease. It is true that these recommendations have the potential to reduce the incidence of heart disease, but only by a moderate amount. Unfortunately, when it comes to lowering cholesterol, moderation kills. With lower lipid levels, coronary artery disease need never exist. When it does exist, it need never progress.

 

A Plant-based Diet for Advanced Disease

 

In 1985, I embarked on a program to help a group of patients with severe coronary artery disease. Most were debilitated by angina and other symptoms, and their angiograms showed severe stenoses. In some cases, disease was so advanced that standard interventional techniques such as bypass grafts or angioplasty could no longer be offered.

 

These patients (1 woman and 23 men) agreed to adopt a plant-based diet with fats making up less than 10% of calories. They ate no oils, fish, meat or dairy products (except skim milk and non-fat cheese and yogurt). The patients also took cholesterol-lowering medication as necessary to maintain their total serum cholesterol below 150 mg/dL.

 

Social and personal support was crucial for this group to learn about and follow the program, which was called arrest-and-reversal therapy. At enrollment, we discussed the treatment objectives in depth with both the patient and his or her spouse. For the first 5 years, the patients came to the clinic twice each month; visits were once a month during the second 5 years, and quarterly after that. On the evening of each clinic visit during the first year, the patient was telephoned to discuss his or her lipid results, diet, and medications.

 

The patients also met several times a year as a group to discuss the program, share recipes, and socialize. I committed myself to the same diet, and patients reported that this was an additional source of support.

 

No relaxation or structured exercise regimens were included in the program. In my opinion, people have a limited number of lifestyle modification “credits”; if they spend all their credits by trying to change too many aspects of their lifestyle simultaneously, they may “go broke” and fail to change any of them.

 

At 5 Years, Heart Disease was Halted

 

Eighteen patients adhered to the diet and medications, bringing their mean cholesterol level from 237 mg/dL at baseline to 137 mg/dL at 5 years. None experienced any coronary events; in contrast, these 18 had had 29 events in the 8 years before the study. None underwent any interventions. All 11 of those who underwent angiography at 5 years had no additional stenosis, and 8 had regression.

 

One patient died of ventricular arrhythmia just after his 5-year angiogram, but the angiogram showed that the disease had regressed and autopsy found no evidence of myocardial infarction.

 

Six nonadherent patients were released from the study within the first 18 months to return to standard care. Although their baseline levels of disease were similar to those of the adherent patients, these 6 patients suffered 13 new cardiac events after leaving the study. 1.

 

At 12 Years, the Benefits Continue

 

Today, the remaining 17 patients continue to follow the prescribed diet and medication schedules. At 12 years, their mean cholesterol level was 145 mg/dL. They experienced no disease progress or interventions. One left the study briefly but suffered a recurrence of severe angina and returned to the diet and medication after undergoing an elective bypass operation. The rest experienced no coronary events. 2. These results are important because they show that sharply reducing cholesterol levels is safe and that it stops coronary atherosclerosis rather than merely slowing it.

 

Support from Other Research

 

When our arrest-and-reversal study began, strong observational evidence already supported the benefits of low cholesterol levels. For example, 35% of the cases of ischemic heart disease found among the Framingham Heart Study cohort occurred among those with total serum cholesterol levels between 150 and 200 mg/dL. In contrast, few of those with levels below 150 mg/dL developed the disease, and none died of it. 3. Atherosclerosis was already known to develop silently over many years of high-fat diets; autopsy studies of young, healthy men killed in the Korean and Vietnam conflicts found that many already had advanced atherosclerotic lesions. 4,5

 

More supporting data continued to pour in. For example, coronary artery disease is virtually unknown in populations that subsist primarily on grains, legumes, vegetables, and fruits, such as those in rural China. 6,7 Normal adult cholesterol levels in these populations range from 90 to 150 mg/dL.

 

More than 10 years ago, Blankenhorn and colleagues showed that coronary artery disease can be halted or reversed by lowering lipid levels with medication. 8 More recently, Dean Ornish and other investigators confirmed the benefits of a low-cholesterol diet. Their results showed that patients derived the most benefit if lipids are lowered by diet combined with medical therapy, rather than by diet alone or by modest diet changes combined with medication. 9-11

 

The AVERT study provides similar supporting evidence. The study showed that aggressive lipid-lowering medication is at least as effective as angioplasty plus standard care. However, the AVERT patients continued to eat a fairly standard diet, and 13% of them continued to experience cardiac events. This suggests that medication alone cannot confer the full benefit of lipid lowering. 12 A recent review of cholesterol-lowering studies showed that the degree of benefit is related directly to how much cholesterol is reduced. 13

 

Low Cholesterol Addresses the Cause of the Disease

 

figurebCoronary artery bypass grafting, angioplasty, and other coronary interventions are directed at severe coronary stenoses. However, 85% of heart attacks are now known to be cause by rupture of smaller, unstable plaques, many of which are not even visible on angiography. Thus, costly “heroic” interventions do not reduce the risks of new heart attacks, slow disease progression, or even prolong survival for most patients. 14In contrast, lowering levels of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein (LDL) prevents coronary disease from starting or progressing. Lowering lipid levels also lowers concentrations of harmful foam cells within plaques and reduces the quantity of proteolytic enzymes. As a result, plaques may shrink, their caps stabilize, and they become much less likely to rupture.

 

America Resists Lowering Fat

 

Despite the strong evidence in favor of reducing both dietary fat and serum cholesterol, Americans continue to increase their consumption of fat. Television and print advertisements aggressively push delicious, colorful, habituating, high-fat food. At our most memorable and emotional events – birthdays, weddings, funerals, and banquets – the food is even richer and more harmful than our everyday fare. Fad diets even promise weight loss and better healthy by increasing our consumption of fats and protein. It is clear that we live in a toxic food environment. Unfortunately, the American Heart Association has failed to show strong leadership on this issue. If the coronary artery disease epidemic is seen as a raging fire, and cholesterol and fats are the fuels, the AHA has merely recommended cutting the flow of fuel. The only tenable solution is to cut off the fuel supply altogether – by reducing cholesterol levels to those proven to prevent and reverse coronary disease.