no evidence saturated fat leads to heart disease

[roster]

CONCLUSIONS: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2007 ... dinalpos=2

See also http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6 ... alth+News)

[SnoresLikeWalrus]

From the Reuter's article you provided:

"The findings, published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, may sound like good news for steak lovers, but a past AHA president cautioned against "over interpreting" the results.

"No one is saying that some saturated fat is going to harm you...people should enjoy their food," said Dr. Robert H. Eckel, a professor of medicine at the University of Colorado School of Medicine in Denver.

But, he pointed out, many studies have shown that dietary saturated fat can raise people's cholesterol, and the new analysis is not going to change recommendations to keep saturated fat intake in check.

Perhaps more importantly, though, Eckel said that the thinking on diet and heart health is moving away from a focus on single nutrients and toward "dietary patterns."

A number of studies have linked the so-called Western diet to greater heart disease risks; that diet pattern is defined as one high in red and processed meats and saturated fats -- but also high in sweets and other refined carbohydrates like white bread.

On the other hand, diets described as Mediterranean or "prudent" -- generally high in fruits and vegetables, whole grains, fish, unsaturated fats from vegetable oil -- may help lower the risk of heart disease and stroke.

It's that type of eating pattern that people should strive for, Eckel said.

For the current study, researchers led by Dr. Ronald M. Krauss, of the Children's Hospital Oakland Research Center in California, pooled data from 21 studies that included a total of nearly 348,000 adults."

[SnoresLikeWalrus]

Here's another one for you:

Low-Carb Diet Could Raise Bad Cholesterol Levels

Thursday , February 25, 2010

Cutting down on carbs may help people lose weight, but it may not be so good for lowering cholesterol, new research shows.

People who ate a diet low in carbohydrates but relatively high in fat lost the same amount of weight over six weeks as those who consumed a high-carb diet.

But levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) or "bad" cholesterol increased significantly in the low-carb group, while they fell in the high-carb group. High LDL levels are a risk factor for heart disease because they are linked to clogged arteries.

Low-carb diets have become increasingly popular in recent years, and proponents claim they may be more effective for reducing diabetes risk and cholesterol levels, Dr. Teri L. Hernandez of the University of Colorado at Denver in Aurora and her colleagues write in their report in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

But little is actually known about how these diets compare with higher-carb weight loss plans in terms of these effects, they add.

To investigate the effects of diet on these measures during active weight loss, Hernandez and her team randomly assigned 32 obese adults to follow a low-carbohydrate diet, including 20 grams of carbohydrate or less daily, or a high-carb diet with 55 percent of calories coming from carbohydrates for six weeks.

Both groups lost around 6 kilograms (13 pounds). But the individuals on the low-carb diet actually had an average increase of 12 milligrams per deciliter increase in their LDL levels, up from 109 milligrams per deciliter (less than 100 is considered optimal); the high-carb diet group showed a 7 milligram per deciliter decrease, down from 102.

The low-carb group also showed greater increases in their levels of free fatty acids, which are released into the blood when the body breaks down stored fat. High levels of free fatty acids make it more difficult for the liver to store glucose, which in turn ups sugar levels in the blood. Consistently high sugar levels define diabetes.

"These data suggest that a high-fat diet may have adverse metabolic effects during active weight loss," Hernandez and her team conclude.

[roster]

And your point is?

[SnoresLikeWalrus]

What's your point? That eating large amounts of saturated fat and lard are good for you?

Have at it!

The photo is disgusting!

[TSSleepy]

The point is that clinical researchers still can't agree on what is the "right" way to eat! It's almost as if different people need different diets...or maybe different researchers have different biases.

For instance, Hernandez' study "Low-Carb Diet Could Raise Bad Cholesterol Levels" quoted above put people on a low carb diet for 6 weeks and saw worse lipid profiles. However, I just recently did that experiment on myself and after six weeks my LDL went down 12%, my total serum cholesterol dropped 16%, and my triglycerides dropped 33%. In addition, labs don't measure actual LDL composition, but I would bet money that the composition of my LDL went from small dense to large fluffy.

So you can imagine my opinion of Dr. Hernandez' study...

[SnoresLikeWalrus]

"People" is kind of a general term.

I really don't think many "people" think eating a lot of saturated fat is good for anyone. Most "people " don't think eating too much in the way of refined grains and sugar is good for anyone.

But we each "own" our bodies and have to make the best choice we can.

If it is true that the "best" way is not known, it would seem rational to err on the side of moderation--and not overdo the eating of any food group or type that is in question.

[fidelfs]

The problem with all this is "people" follow what modern medicine is dictating. If you notice modern medicine has not cure illnesses recently, it has created new fake ones. Every time I see in TV, newspaper or wherever something like xxxxx disease you must take this pill.
I know if big pharma making money.

Fat food does not raise cholesterol, you have a problem in your system that cannot metabolized fat. They give you a pill to lower High cholesterol but the problem persists. Medicine has not fix your problem, they give you something to take forever until you die but your problem still there. They treat the symptoms not the illness.

I am fat, overweight, etc. I don't have cholesterol problem nor triglycerides problem, my blood pressure is low, no cardiac problems that means my body is able to digest all the fat and use it as it should be. In the other hand if I eat carbs, then my problem start so my body has a problem digesting or processing carbs not like others.

I saw a program in HDN TV (direct tv) about a pig worm used to fix food allergies, it is waiting for FDA approval, but it looks promising. Finally something that will cure a problem from the root cause not treating the symptoms. I am pretty sure that won't happen because big pharma cannot patent the worm and they will lose money people not taking their "medicine"

[Catnap]

If it is true that the "best" way is not known, it would seem rational to err on the side of moderation--and not overdo the eating of any food group or type that is in question.

Unfortunately, it seems that most food groups and types are in question, from one perspective or another.
High fat = May be okay if not saturated fat.
Saturated fat = May be okay if not animal-based.
Plant fats = May be okay if not trans.
Fat in general = May be okay if not combined with high carbohydrate intake
Vegetarian = Health problems with soy intake
Vegan = Almost impossible to reach nutritional requirements
Fish = Mercury.
Grains = May be okay if whole.
Whole grains = Not okay if celiac or digestive issues
Low carb = May raise LDL
Low fat = May raise weight (despite nutritionists clinging to it so doggedly in the face of current evidence)
Dairy = Lactose, PCBs, other carcinogen contamination.
Chicken = Salmonella.
Vegetables = E. coli, etc., contamination in the field.
Fruits = Pesticide residues, raise blood glucose unacceptably in many
Beef = Antibiotics, various bacterial contamination

Ad infinitum.

[ozij]

If it is true that the "best" way is not known, it would seem rational to err on the side of moderation--and not overdo the eating of any food group or type that is in question.

Unfortunately, it seems that most food groups and types are in question, from one perspective or another.
High fat = May be okay if not saturated fat.
Saturated fat = May be okay if not animal-based.
Plant fats = May be okay if not trans.
Fat in general = May be okay if not combined with high carbohydrate intake
Vegetarian = Health problems with soy intake
Vegan = Almost impossible to reach nutritional requirements
Fish = Mercury.
Grains = May be okay if whole.
Whole grains = Not okay if celiac or digestive issues
Low carb = May raise LDL
Low fat = May raise weight (despite nutritionists clinging to it so doggedly in the face of current evidence)
Dairy = Lactose, PCBs, other carcinogen contamination.
Chicken = Salmonella.
Vegetables = E. coli, etc., contamination in the field.
Fruits = Pesticide residues, raise blood glucose unacceptably in many
Beef = Antibiotics, various bacterial contamination

Ad infinitum.

, But one, important correction:
For people with Celiac, grain is a total, abolute no no no, in any form.

[Catnap]

, But one, important correction:
For people with Celiac, grain is a total, abolute no no no, in any form.

Not necessarily. Many with celiac disease find they can tolerate rice, corn, and oats.

[ozij]

, But one, important correction:
For people with Celiac, grain is a total, abolute no no no, in any form.

Not necessarily. Many with celiac disease find they can tolerate rice, corn, and oats.

Very true about the rice and corn -- I didn't think of them as grain. I think oats contain gluten though.

[roster]

I saw a program in HDN TV (direct tv) about a pig worm used to fix food allergies, it is waiting for FDA approval, but it looks promising. Finally something that will cure a problem from the root cause not treating the symptoms. I am pretty sure that won't happen because big pharma cannot patent the worm and they will lose money people not taking their "medicine"

Interesting. It seems since we improved hygiene and quit eating so much dirt and the worms and feces in it, some diseases have become more common. Wikipedia has citations to several studies:

The Hygiene hypothesis suggests that various immunological disorders that have only been observed in humans, such as Crohn's Disease, within the last 100 years, or that have become more common during that time period as hygienic practices have become more widespread, may result from a lack of exposure to helminths. The use of Trichuris Suis Ova (TSO, or pig whipworm eggs) by Weinstock, et al., as a safe and effective therapy for treating Crohn's Disease[6][7][8] and to a lesser extent Ulcerative Colitis are just two of many examples of this. There is also anecdotal evidence that those using TSO to treat IBD experience a decrease in asthma,[9] allergy[10] and other symptoms of inflammatory disorders. There is some scientific evidence to suggest that the course of Multiple Sclerosis may be very favorably altered by helminth infection,[11] and Trichuris Suis Ova is currently being studied as a treatment for Multiple Sclerosis[12]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whipworm

[SnoresLikeWalrus]

According to some, most of what we eat these days is corn in some form. Almost all of the animals we eat were raised on corn. Most of the "sugar" we eat is actually corn syrup. If you are interested in following up on this, try reading Michael Pollan. One of his essays can be found here. http://www.ecoliteracy.org/essays/we-are-what-we-eat. I find his reasoning persuasive. We are walking ears of corn. With hoses (in our case).

I can only tell you what worked for me, which is a vegan diet with very few processed foods and avoiding refined carbs. AND I exercise. I also watched my brother get thin on atkins and he had good numbers but had a heart attack (after 10 years of atkins). No one else in the family on either side has manifested heart issues at such a "young" age (60ish). I think the focus now is on not just lipid levels but on inflammation, and scientists are working on better markers (in the blood) for that--which should be helpful.

I find the language tricky in even talking about his, because everything that is not animal is a carb and most "carbs" contain protein. For example, there is a healthy helping of protein in broccoli, which is also a carbohydrate.

[Goofproof]

Rooster's post is just self serving, (pun intended), He just wants to (Lay) off of eating Baked Chicken! Jim