tropicalmonsoon122 Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 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. LDL and HDL are not actually cholesterol, they are proteins (LDL: High Density Lipoprotein). They transport the cholesterol to various parts of your body, but there is only one type of cholesterol. LDL takes it to various places in your body, then HDL takes it back home again.
Romulox Posted February 16, 2015 Posted February 16, 2015 Look who finally showed up to the party... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/ Though I wish I would have stopped at the headline. The article goes on to point out that, with regards to heart disease, the "greatest danger" is still "fatty meats, whole milk, and butter". So go ahead and drink all the soda pop you want! I was certainly pleased to see the original link to the primal body - primal mind website; I very highly recommend the book. About 3-4 years ago I had been beginning to shift my diet in the primal/paleo direction (having read the occasional Mercola/Mark Sisson article on Lewrockwell.com), and Primal Body Primal Mind was the first real book I read on the subject. It has a greater focus on the mental health benefits of the diet compared to your typical paleo book or website, which is why I think I was sold after reading it. It seems that a good number of common mental disorders can be effectively cured by eliminating sugar and grains, and replacing them with healthy fats (with an emphasis on omega-3s for optimal brain health). 1 1
J. D. Stembal Posted February 19, 2015 Posted February 19, 2015 Look who finally showed up to the party... http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/02/10/feds-poised-to-withdraw-longstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/ Though I wish I would have stopped at the headline. The article goes on to point out that, with regards to heart disease, the "greatest danger" is still "fatty meats, whole milk, and butter". So go ahead and drink all the soda pop you want! I was certainly pleased to see the original link to the primal body - primal mind website; I very highly recommend the book. About 3-4 years ago I had been beginning to shift my diet in the primal/paleo direction (having read the occasional Mercola/Mark Sisson article on Lewrockwell.com), and Primal Body Primal Mind was the first real book I read on the subject. It has a greater focus on the mental health benefits of the diet compared to your typical paleo book or website, which is why I think I was sold after reading it. It seems that a good number of common mental disorders can be effectively cured by eliminating sugar and grains, and replacing them with healthy fats (with an emphasis on omega-3s for optimal brain health). Alzheimer's is essentially Type 3 Diabetes, so there is a direct connection between diet and brain degeneration. I am currently reading Grain Brain. I will let you know how it is. 1 1
BD91 Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 I enjoyed Grain Brain, I would also recommend Dr. Mark Hyman's "The UltraMind Solution". Lots of really interesting looks into the relationships between the digestive system & brain function along with tons of other really good information regarding toxins. 1 1
OGMizen Posted February 21, 2015 Posted February 21, 2015 Alzheimer's is essentially Type 3 Diabetes, so there is a direct connection between diet and brain degeneration. I am currently reading Grain Brain. I will let you know how it is. Grain brain is a terrible book.. and grains are actually protective against Alzheimer's.. Grain brain is just like 'wheat belly' -Just another fad diet book sold to noobs who dont know any better. This video goes into more detail about grains and alzheimers: -(and just for shits n giggles) If you guys are interested in brain health first thing you need to do is avoid eating most (if not all) fish. According to scientific literature fish is the most contaminated food on the planet and the costs outweigh the benefits: 1 2
BD91 Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Correlation != Causation Simple Carbohydrates != Complex Carbohydrates 1 1
Romulox Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 These studies that use ridiculously broad food categories always crack me up (until I remember that people are taking them seriously). Let's group McDonalds chicken nuggets with grass fed steak and pastured free range eggs into some category called "animal products". Lets take traditionally prepared rice and beans, whose preparation methods have evolved over thousands of years to maximize vitamin content and minimize anti-nutrients, and group them with wheat flour doused in Roundup into another category called "grains". Replacing traditionally prepared rice and beans with chicken nuggets results in an increase in Alzheimer's. Therefore, wheat flour is healthier than pastured meat and eggs. You might as well classify Mountain Dew, Red Bull, and water into a group called "beverages". Drinking 2 liters of Mountain Dew a day is linked to an increased risk of diabetes, therefore consumption of water should be minimized for optimal health. 3 1
J. D. Stembal Posted February 22, 2015 Posted February 22, 2015 Regarding the founder of Nutrition Facts: NUTRITIONFACTS.ORG is a strictly non-commercial, science-based public service provided by Michael Greger, M.D., launched with seed money and support by the Jesse & Julie Rasch Foundation. Now a 501c3 nonprofit charity, NutritionFacts.org provides free updates on the latest in nutrition research via bite-sized videos. There are now hundreds of videos on more than a thousand topics, with new videos and articles uploaded every day. Michael Greger M.D.Dr. Greger is a physician, author, and internationally recognized speaker on nutrition, food safety, and public health issues. A founding member of the American College of Lifestyle Medicine, Dr. Greger is licensed as a general practitioner specializing in clinical nutrition. Currently he serves as the public health director at the Humane Society of the United States. Dr. Greger is a graduate of the Cornell University School of Agriculture and the Tufts University School of Medicine. Here's more information about the Rasch Foundation. http://www.raschfoundation.org/about/ Decide for yourself about the bias contained within the linked videos above. 1 1
OGMizen Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Decide for yourself about the bias contained within the linked videos above. So Nutritionfacts.org is biased because it was founded on seed money from philanthropists who have environmentalist values? haha.. wow, thats weak. As opposed to orgs like the WAPF whose 'sponsors include grass-fed meat and wild fish producers, as well as health product companies.' and who receive most of their funding from meat/dairy farmers through membership subscriptions? Yeh.. okay. ...and if you are going to reject the evidence based on its funding, you might want to start looking into who is funding the bunk studies that show cholesterol/saturated fat/meat/dairy/egg in a positive light. Dr. Greger cites evidence.. Either refute the evidence or question the funding for the studies themselves.. Dont think that just because an environmentalist is putting money into promoting the science validating a diet which has positive environmental effects that somehow that means they are wrong. Thats a very weak reason for rejecting some very strong science. If Stef gave seed money to fund a channel that promoted the science behind peaceful parenting, would that make the evidence false? I think your bias needs to be questioned more than Dr Gregers. 1
FreedomPhilosophy Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 Decide for yourself about the bias contained within the linked videos above. Exactly what was the bias?
J. D. Stembal Posted February 23, 2015 Posted February 23, 2015 So Nutritionfacts.org is biased because it was founded on seed money from philanthropists who have environmentalist values? haha.. wow, thats weak. As opposed to orgs like the WAPF whose 'sponsors include grass-fed meat and wild fish producers, as well as health product companies.' and who receive most of their funding from meat/dairy farmers through membership subscriptions? Yeh.. okay. ...and if you are going to reject the evidence based on its funding, you might want to start looking into who is funding the bunk studies that show cholesterol/saturated fat/meat/dairy/egg in a positive light. Dr. Greger cites evidence.. Either refute the evidence or question the funding for the studies themselves.. Dont think that just because an environmentalist is putting money into promoting the science validating a diet which has positive environmental effects that somehow that means they are wrong. Thats a very weak reason for rejecting some very strong science. If Stef gave seed money to fund a channel that promoted the science behind peaceful parenting, would that make the evidence false? I think your bias needs to be questioned more than Dr Gregers. If a bystander is to make an informed conclusion, he should weigh all the evidence, including the source. Everyone, including the directors of the Weston A. Price Foundation, has an agenda. The question is whether the agenda is in line with free market rationality and not a feeding trough for government largesse.
GA_Freeman Posted February 24, 2015 Posted February 24, 2015 Thank you all for really great thread. First off I'd like to say that I find nutritionfacts.org not credible and simply asserting correlation based on general studies. I am very suspicious of the green brain versus meathead assertions. I think his science and conclusions are based on correlation and not on any kind of actual research. I'm not personally going to invest the time to debunk it because I don't actually care that much. My only statement on the presentation is that the same correlation would go for the implementation of a westernized medicine and the increasing use of statins which is a cholesterol limiting feature and this could result in Alzheimer's like diseases. From my personal experience, I have a father-in-law whom both me and my wife tried for years to get change his diet from a high grain, high oxidative damage, high carb, alcohol, smoking based diet until he had a heart attack. Then, he recovered and he lowered his fat, went on a high grain diet, and statins and now he's been diagnosed with diabetes, lost weight and is exhibiting signs of dementia. Dementia is not full on but his personality is different. I am not making any assertions but I will point out that his doctor is very adamant that his nutrition be low-fat, high carb with injections of insulin. Conversely, I am a traveler that travels in a plane every week. Two years ago I committed myself to a high-fat diet and getting the proper amounts of vitamins and minerals and since then I have had less injuries, less gas, less pain and lost 15 pounds without any type of aerobic exercise and no more than 30 min. of light Pilates style exercise a day. I have not been sick in over two years, my skin feels great, my hair and nails grow ridiculously and while I never get enough sleep, I also always have great energy. I can only speak from an n=1 perspective, and I have intermittently gone off the high-fat diet and this is the only time that I have felt bad. So in my definition, I define health now as; a body with the least amount of inflammation possible and the greatest ability to absorb vitamins and nutrients efficiently. With this definition mind, I know that grains are not good for health. There is significant evidence to show that for a large majority they do to increase inflammation and we know for a fact that phytate's block mineral absorption. I personally eat 70% fat and generally 20% protein and 10% carbs and a total abstinence from gluten. I avoid all oils except coconut oil and I stick simply with animal fats, butter and a little bit of coconut oil. I.e. primarily gently cooked red meat in small amounts generally 5 to 8 ounces a day and as much egg yolk and plant-based fats as I can get. I also eat salmon a couple times a week and has much vegetables as I can. Even when I decide to eat carbs, I avoid gluten. If I want sugar, then so be it, I eat sugar like ice cream or a piece of chocolate but I avoid gluten. I have found that after two years of not eating gluten, any time that I eat gluten or I get something with MSG in it, I get a very specific pain in an area my colon and I feel a lot of brain fog. So, health is obviously very personal but I can guarantee to you that no one has a statin deficiency. Also our brain is consists of about 50% cholesterol by weight and with all the extra structure surrounding it about 70% in total. Also, all sex hormones are based on cholesterol. Cholesterol is the building block of our cell walls, hormones, myelin sheath for our nerves, and our brains. Cholesterol is simply a vital element required for life. https://www.bulletproofexec.com/ http://thebigfatsurprise.com/blog/ http://drglidden.com/ 1 1
OGMizen Posted February 25, 2015 Posted February 25, 2015 If a bystander is to make an informed conclusion, he should weigh all the evidence, including the source. Everyone, including the directors of the Weston A. Price Foundation, has an agenda. The question is whether the agenda is in line with free market rationality and not a feeding trough for government largesse. No, its really not. That is a complete non-sequitur. The question is whether the arguments stand up to scrutiny, whether they are true or false on their own merits. Even if it were the case that the question is whether or not the 'agenda is in line with free market rationality and not a feeding trough for government largesse' the answer still lands in favour of those arguing that cholesterol consumption is unhealthy. The WAPF/Mark Sisson/Loren Cordain/Peter Attia/Dave Asprey etc. are simply apologists for the meat industry, the gov. subsidizes the meat industry massively, and the meat industry lobbies very heavily against gov. guidelines that recommend reducing meat/egg/dairy consumption. Their agenda is to market products that they KNOW are unsafe (documented in detail on Nfacts.org). Whereas Nutritionfacts.org got its seed funding from a foundation created by a free market entrepeneur.. and its agenda is to put out the best science and let people make up their own minds. So even if we are generous and say that you are right here, the argument still fails. Im probably not going to continue with this btw, debating low carbers has never been a productive use of my time in the past, and I doubt its going to change any time soon. 1 1
J. D. Stembal Posted February 26, 2015 Posted February 26, 2015 Thank you all for really great thread. ... I personally eat 70% fat and generally 20% protein and 10% carbs and a total abstinence from gluten. I avoid all oils except coconut oil and ice sticks simply with animal fats, butter and a little bit of coconut oil. I.e. primarily gently cooked red meat in small amounts generally 5 to 8 ounces a day and as much egg yolk and plant-based fats as I can get. I also eat salmon a couple times a week and has much faster balls as I can. Even when I decide to eat carbs, I avoid gluten. If I want sugar, then so be it, I eat sugar like ice cream or a piece of chocolate but I avoid gluten. I have found that after two years of not eating gluten, any time that I eat gluten or I get something with MSG in it, I get a very specific pain in an area my colon and I feel a lot of brain fog. Welcome to the VLC club. I'm happy to hear about your great results as they are no surprise to me. What's an ice stick? Frozen lard popsicles? I've moved over to walnut oil for my veggies. It's got monounsaturated fats, saturated fats, and tons of Omega-3 PUFAs. I have to slather vegetables in oil to eat them. They aren't nutritious or palatable enough on their own! (The only vegetable that tastes good raw is the carrot.) Dark chocolate is amazing melted with nut butter, vanilla, and coconut oil over pork rinds, my favorite low carbohydrate snack. Yogurt with fruit used to be my dessert but it makes me gassy as all get out, so I don't eat it as much.
shirgall Posted February 28, 2015 Posted February 28, 2015 It is not enough to say that funded research is bad because it is corporation-y. You need to get some real data, like what Ben Goldacre pulled together for his book Bad Pharma: In 2010, three researchers from Harvard and Toronto found all the trials looking at five major classes of drug--antidepressants, ulcer drugs, and so on--and measured two key features: were they positive, and were they funded by industry? They found over five hundred trials in total: 85 percent of the industry-funded studies were positive, but only 50 percent of the government-funded trials were. That's a very significant difference. ----- Bourgeois FT, Murthy S, Mandl KD. Outcome Reporting Among Drug Trials Registered in ClinicalTrials.gov. Annals of Internal Medicine 2010:153(3):156-66. If you want some good information on trials and how they have been somewhat broken when it comes to drug studies, this book is a good read. Has someone pulled together a systematic survey of cholesterol data yet?
FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Has someone pulled together a systematic survey of cholesterol data yet? That's over a century of scientific findings, it would be an epic piece of research to include all the data. There some meta analysis around like this one linking reduced fat intakes with lowered cholesterol outcomes http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25173397?sid=21106139215843&uid=2&uid=3739136&uid=4 There's plenty of clinical data and animal studies, most that data points the same way, and when it does not there's usually a reason.
williamsjar Posted March 17, 2015 Posted March 17, 2015 Great topic. To add some more resources to the conversation: http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/ This is from Stephan Guyenet, an obesity research in the state of Washington. It's one of the finest websites I've seen that reviews healthy diet, weight, exercise, etc... without oversimplifying things or relying too much on one perspective. I recommend checking it out. There have also been a few recent, very informative interviews with Peter Attia over on Tim Ferriss's podcast: http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/12/18/peter-attia/ The second podcast, where he answers questions that have been 'voted up' by listeners is particularly illuminating.
FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 There have also been a few recent, very informative interviews with Peter Attia over on Tim Ferriss's podcast: http://fourhourworkweek.com/2014/12/18/peter-attia/ The second podcast, where he answers questions that have been 'voted up' by listeners is particularly illuminating. Attia offered $50k athletic challenge, has he accepted?
J. D. Stembal Posted March 19, 2015 Posted March 19, 2015 Attia offered $50k athletic challenge, has he accepted? Would you consider DurianRider exemplary of veganism? Does he appear to be healthful? Why do you care who wins a cycle race up a mountain? Is this, fundamentally, the definition of health? Did you know that the human brain is 70 fat and 20 cholesterol by weight? Where does the vegan obtain those nutrients by eating thirty bananas per day, and no animal products?
williamsjar Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 This guy doesn't seem very credible to me. EndTheUsurpation has a great point: being able to cycle up a mountain (or run ultra-marathons, swim ultra long distances, etc... as Attia has done) doesn't really have anything to do with health and longevity. Attia himself has admitted as much. I'd just tend to listen more to a John's Hopkins trained surgeon than a 30 Bananas a Day guy that has a video with picture-in-picture featuring his abs. I've thought quite a bit about this stuff. It seems clear that most experts agree on the basics of nutrition. As a doctor, however, the question now is: What's the best way to break bad habits and pick up new ones?
J. D. Stembal Posted March 22, 2015 Posted March 22, 2015 That's over a century of scientific findings, it would be an epic piece of research to include all the data. There some meta analysis around like this one linking reduced fat intakes with lowered cholesterol outcomes http://www.jstor.org/discover/10.2307/25173397?sid=21106139215843&uid=2&uid=3739136&uid=4 There's plenty of clinical data and animal studies, most that data points the same way, and when it does not there's usually a reason. This meta study indicates that lower fat consumption correlates with lower total cholesterol, especially LDL, but completely ignores triglycerides. Why do you think that is?
williamsjar Posted March 23, 2015 Posted March 23, 2015 This meta study indicates that lower fat consumption correlates with lower total cholesterol, especially LDL, but completely ignores triglycerides. Why do you think that is? I'm not able to log in to read the full article, but I think studies like this really don't add alot to treating real patients or providing dietary advice. First, meta-analysis studies have their problems and, second, nutrition studies are among the most challenging and expensive to run properly. If nothing about triglycerides was mentioned, it's probably because the authors are sticking with the paradigm that LDL is the root of all evil. As commenters here have noted, inflammatory numbers and LDL particle size are better predictors. Here is another site I consult often to provide very clear thinking about these issues. This link is about statins for primary prevention of CAD but you can backtrack and I think the rest of the site will be informative for everyone here as well: http://www.thennt.com/nnt/statins-for-heart-disease-prevention-without-prior-heart-disease/
FreedomPhilosophy Posted March 25, 2015 Posted March 25, 2015 Would you consider DurianRider exemplary of veganism? Does he appear to be healthful? Why do you care who wins a cycle race up a mountain? Is this, fundamentally, the definition of health? Did you know that the human brain is 70 fat and 20 cholesterol by weight? Where does the vegan obtain those nutrients by eating thirty bananas per day, and no animal products? Fitness does not equal health, however I do want some kind of measurable benefits (i.e. tangible evidence) to judge which diet produces better outcomes, and fitness is a pretty good outcome to start with. The human brain is not exceptional in its composition, actually mostly (75%) water and some long lived lipid compounds. Cows have brains, so do gorillas, and all plant matter contains fats and proteins. Cholesterol is not a nutrient, mammals are able to synthesize as much as they need. Are you aware that there are life vegans, and vegans in their 90s with excellent brains? Are you aware that there are fruitarians running triathlons? In science the evidence always trumps theory. 1 1
shirgall Posted July 9, 2015 Posted July 9, 2015 http://americandigest.org/mt-archives/american_studies/the_8_stages_of_scam.php The 8 Stages of Scam Summed up in RIP: The great cholesterol scam (1955 - 2015) by Barrel Strength What I have to say here reflects upon the course of this great fallacy. The cholesterol scam bears a strong relationship to the anthropogenic global warming scam. 1) it is propagated by scientists on a non-scientific mission. 2) it is believed because it plausibly explains an observation (increasing global temperature [for a time], increasing heart attacks from smoking in the 1950s and 60s). It taps into large anxieties about too much wealth, too much happiness, in western societies. There must be sin somewhere, and the public is ready to flog itself in the cause of a secularized idea of God, uh, I mean Good. 3) the causal relationship is weaker than first supposed; the research is found to be sloppy, the facts have been fudged, subsequent studies do not fully support the original claims, nevertheless the orthodoxy is promulgated all the more harshly for being doubted. 4) by now, powerful economic and ideological interests have taken hold. They supply an ongoing source of funds and opinion to ensure the perpetuation of the alarm: in the case of cholesterol, the margarine industry, the pharmaceutical industry, and the medical establishment, and in the case of AGW, the tribe of bureaucrats and leftists who seek to control markets, whose god of Marxism had failed, and who needed a new god (Gaia) to justify their rule. 5) The skeptics who have patiently argued on the basis of facts that the science of each phenomenon was weak, are ostracized by the opinion establishments of medicine and global warming. Cranks, but the cranks are right and the orthodox priests and Levites are wrong. 6) Eventually, after fifty or sixty years, the subject of discussion just changes. In the case of cholesterol, the evidence gets weaker and weaker, and the problems caused by too much sugar consumption (obesity, diabetes), caused in part by people not eating enough fats and meats, reaches a stage where it can no longer be ignored. 7) the retreat of the orthodoxy is covered by a smokescreen of fresh concerns for some other catastrophe. No admissions of error or apologies for wrecked careers and following bad science are ever issued. Time flows on, bringing neither knowledge nor greater understanding of the role of folly in human affairs. 8) stages 6 and 7 have been reached in the cholesterol cycle; they are beginning in the anthropogenic global warming scam. Fifty years from now, there will still be clanking windmills in the North Sea, but whether they will be still linked to a power grid is less likely, and whether anyone will pay attention is doubtful. The lobbies that keep them there, however, will still exist. Posted by gerardvanderleun at June 27, 2015 1:26 AM 1
NGardner Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Basically LDL is necessary for eventual plaque formation. Without it arterioles/venules would continue to rip causing more damage. LDL isn't actually bad it is a response to vessel damage, which is largely caused by chonic high blood sugar. You stop the whole cascade of problem by achieving a balanced blood sugar level in the blood. If someone fully plaques over an endothelial tear in a vessel causing narrowing of the vessel that is a response to massive damage. How anyone could take these biological facts and come up with restrict cholesterol, i dont know?
J. D. Stembal Posted July 13, 2015 Posted July 13, 2015 Basically LDL is necessary for eventual plaque formation. Without it arterioles/venules would continue to rip causing more damage. LDL isn't actually bad it is a response to vessel damage, which is largely caused by chonic high blood sugar. You stop the whole cascade of problem by achieving a balanced blood sugar level in the blood. If someone fully plaques over an endothelial tear in a vessel causing narrowing of the vessel that is a response to massive damage. How anyone could take these biological facts and come up with restrict cholesterol, i dont know? You have the Nixon administration to thank, and George McGovern. People are still spouting off nutritional falsehoods that were proposed and refuted in the 1960s.
NGardner Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 You have the Nixon administration to thank, and George McGovern. People are still spouting off nutritional falsehoods that were proposed and refuted in the 1960s. The government was just flat out wrong about basic human nutrition. Don't worry I'm sure they are handling war, poverty, climate change, healthcare, immigration, environment and fiscal policy correctly.
Crallask Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 To be honest, if you just lower your refined/added sugar intake below 10g per day then you're gonna be doing better than the extreme vast majority of people.
NGardner Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 To be honest, if you just lower your refined/added sugar intake below 10g per day then you're gonna be doing better than the extreme vast majority of people. The extreme vast magority of people are either sick or pre sick. Just waiting for the next thing to fail or some infection to take over.
thebeardslastcall Posted July 15, 2015 Posted July 15, 2015 Did you know that the human brain is 70 fat and 20 cholesterol by weight? Where does the vegan obtain those nutrients by eating thirty bananas per day, and no animal products? How long do you think it takes to have or notice serious brain degradation from not eating animal products (as an adult for simplicity) ? Are there not lots of vegan animals with brains with similar composition percentages that do just fine? Why do you think humans need to consume cholesterol to have enough cholesterol? Why do you think consumed animal cholesterol is better than the cholesterol produced by the body?
J. D. Stembal Posted September 27, 2015 Posted September 27, 2015 How long do you think it takes to have or notice serious brain degradation from not eating animal products (as an adult for simplicity) ? Are there not lots of vegan animals with brains with similar composition percentages that do just fine? Why do you think humans need to consume cholesterol to have enough cholesterol? Why do you think consumed animal cholesterol is better than the cholesterol produced by the body? The body cannot produce enough for its needs. It's a biological stopgap measure to fill in nutritional deficits. Here's a great video by David Diamond that popped up in my YT feed on the importance of saturated fats, something which I consume quite a lot of lately, although I'm fasting this week because I'm a nutritional mad scientist. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX1vBA9bLNk Skip to 19:00 to find the weenie. Saturated fat consumption correlates quite strongly with lower rates of heart disease (inverse correlation with CVD), the exact opposite of what Ancel Keys faked with his data in the Seven Countries Study. 1 1
AccuTron Posted September 28, 2015 Posted September 28, 2015 For what it's worth... Back in the 1960's I subbed for two weeks for a pathology lab tech on vacation. I drove a new VW beetle, great car when new, to metro hospitals and collected blood samples in a cooler, which I drove back to the lab. I'd put the tubes into a centrifuge to spin it down into red and clear sections, and pipette off the clear serum part into small test vials for lab equipment. I forget how many I collected in a day, maybe a hundred, maybe less. I noticed with dismay that 1-3 of them would have such high total cholesterol...I suppose that's what it was, I'd never heard of HDL/LDL, it just looked like fat to me...that their sampled blood looked like someone squirted yellow Elmer's glue into the blood. It was in STRANDS!! Yuck! A few more samples wouldn't show the strands, but were obviously not clear like most samples, were somewhat cloudy, like rinse water. I don't know anything at all about those patients' results, but it made an impact on me. My blood samples seem fine, not that I've had many or really study them on the way out, but I sort of glance. Anyone ever actually look at their blood samples when simply held up to the light? We hear about little particles that wedge into arterial linings, but I never see that icky physical/mechanical strand-yuck mentioned.
J. D. Stembal Posted September 29, 2015 Posted September 29, 2015 For what it's worth... Back in the 1960's I subbed for two weeks for a pathology lab tech on vacation. I drove a new VW beetle, great car when new, to metro hospitals and collected blood samples in a cooler, which I drove back to the lab. I'd put the tubes into a centrifuge to spin it down into red and clear sections, and pipette off the clear serum part into small test vials for lab equipment. I forget how many I collected in a day, maybe a hundred, maybe less. I noticed with dismay that 1-3 of them would have such high total cholesterol...I suppose that's what it was, I'd never heard of HDL/LDL, it just looked like fat to me...that their sampled blood looked like someone squirted yellow Elmer's glue into the blood. It was in STRANDS!! Yuck! A few more samples wouldn't show the strands, but were obviously not clear like most samples, were somewhat cloudy, like rinse water. I don't know anything at all about those patients' results, but it made an impact on me. My blood samples seem fine, not that I've had many or really study them on the way out, but I sort of glance. Anyone ever actually look at their blood samples when simply held up to the light? We hear about little particles that wedge into arterial linings, but I never see that icky physical/mechanical strand-yuck mentioned. Triglycerides are the blood work metric that matters the most, and the lower, the better. HDL, the higher, the better. High total cholesterol actually correlates with better health outcomes if you watch the video I linked. It's inflammation that people need to avoid like the plague, not dietary cholesterol. The damning of animal based food products needs to stop. Humans are omnivores, and we always have been since the dawn of our species. 1
Anuojat Posted January 31, 2017 Posted January 31, 2017 https://www.youtube.com/user/lowcarbdownunder/videos?flow=grid&view=0&sort=p For whats its worth. Lots of scientists and nutricitionists (spelling?) here talking about the latest science along with the history of the reseach and cholestrol/fat/carbs
Recommended Posts