Cholestoff

[oilfreeandhappy]

All right you bikers, I know it's not supposed happen to us, but I tend to run high on the cholesterol. I've been commuting for twenty years, but it's a hereditary thing. My mom's is extremely high. A friend suggested I start using plant stanols (Benecol or other) in conjunction with ground flax seed. I did some research, and found I could purchase a lot more stanols, mg to mg, by buying Cholestoff.

Is anybody else using this? What are your experiences? I started about 2 months ago, but haven't returned to the doctor for a checkup yet.

[DannoXYZ]

What's the ratio of your cholesterol readings? Cholesterol in itself isn't bad, it's used as a precursor to making hormones and all your cell membranes. It coats fats to allow them to be transported in blood. The problem come down to the ratio of HDL vs LDL fats. LDLs require a lot more cholesterol to coat them and results in large clumpy bunches. The cholesterol readings are just a way of tracking total fats in your body, it's the fats that you want to manage and if you can reduce LDL readings while increasing HDL, you'll be better off, even at the same total cholesterol levels.

[AnthonyG]

I am of course a cholesterol skeptic. Just because some quack reckons you have a cholesterol level thats dangerously high it doesn't mean that you do. Truth be known you probably have a very healthy cholesterol level and you've been geneticaly favored is such a way.

See, http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/

and see http://www.westonaprice.org as a general reference with lots of excellent articles.

Regards, Anthony

[mx_599]

What's the ratio of your cholesterol readings? Cholesterol in itself isn't bad, it's used as a precursor to making hormones and all your cell membranes. It coats fats to allow them to be transported in blood. The problem come down to the ratio of HDL vs LDL fats. LDLs require a lot more cholesterol to coat them and results in large clumpy bunches. The cholesterol readings are just a way of tracking total fats in your body, it's the fats that you want to manage and if you can reduce LDL readings while increasing HDL, you'll be better off, even at the same total cholesterol levels.
you sure about that? maybe you should dig a bit deeper... it is more complicated than you just made it to be.
Cholesterol DOES matter as well

[oilfreeandhappy]

Wow! Some conflicting information in these posts. It just demonstrates the diverse opinions on diet. I quote the American Dietetic Association here. I figure they are "middle of the road". I personally think it is important to manage cholesterol, and most Nutritionists will agree with that statement. I'm even a 20-year vegetarian, and like I mentioned, "it's in my genes". Here's what the ADA has to say:

>Research Says. Eating too many foods high in saturated fat may increase blood levels of LDL and total cholesterol. High blood levels of LDL and total cholesterol are risk factors for heart disease.
Eating foods high in monounsaturated fatty acids may help lower LDL cholesterol levels and decrease risk of heart disease.
Eating polyunsaturated fats in place of saturated fats decreases LDL cholesterol levels.
Trans fatty acids act like saturated fats and raise LDL cholesterol levels. They may also lower HDL cholesterol in the blood.

[AnthonyG]

Ultimately this is going to come down to FAITH! There is NO science to support this "high cholesterol is bad" nonsence. My outright guess is that your cholesterol is between 220-250 which is perfectly good and healthy. Infact even the mainstream recognised those levels as being good not that long ago but there's been some bracket creep since then. Low cholesterol, under 200 is chorelated with a HIGHER all cause death rate than those who have higher cholesterol as low cholesterol is STRONGLY associated with conditions such as depression.

Anyway your going to have to make up your own mind, pay yer money and take yer choice.

Regards, Anthony

[jur]

I am of course a cholesterol skeptic. Just because some quack reckons you have a cholesterol level thats dangerously high it doesn't mean that you do. Truth be known you probably have a very healthy cholesterol level and you've been geneticaly favored is such a way.

See, http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/

and see http://www.westonaprice.org as a general reference with lots of excellent articles.

Regards, AnthonyI became a chol. sceptic just this past month, reading the Untold Story Of Milk, also on the Weston-Price site.

Seems While Chol tracks heart attacks, there is no solid evidence of it actually causing attacks.

[oilfreeandhappy]

Ultimately this is going to come down to FAITH! There is NO science to support this "high cholesterol is bad" nonsence. My outright guess is that your cholesterol is between 220-250 which is perfectly good and healthy. Infact even the mainstream recognised those levels as being good not that long ago but there's been some bracket creep since then. Low cholesterol, under 200 is chorelated with a HIGHER all cause death rate than those who have higher cholesterol as low cholesterol is STRONGLY associated with conditions such as depression.

Anyway your going to have to make up your own mind, pay yer money and take yer choice.

Regards, Anthony

Yes, last check it was around 220. I'll have to do some more studying. Are you in the Medical field?

[AnthonyG]

Yes, last check it was around 220. I'll have to do some more studying. Are you in the Medical field?


No I'm not in the medical feild but read the references. 220 is a perfectly normal, healthy and desirable cholesterol level. The idea that its high is just a fraud. Now I'm not realy into conspiracy theories but there's one out there about the drug companies pushing to have the reccomended cholesterol level lowered so that they can generate more customers. Now that's not realy a conspiracy, its just a day's work for the drug makers lobyists but the question is why did the powers that be agree with them because there's NO scientific evidence to back such a move?

I don't know the answer to the question but its a disturbing one. Anyway see my references I posted above. As a matter of interest the last cholesterol test I had done while not accurate because it wasn't a fasting test and I would have had a high fat meal 2 hours earlier was the equivalent of 290. I'm not in the least worried, honestly. Maybe if I was over 350 I would have cause for concern but honestly to think that 220 is high is lunacy.

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

But you also filter your shower water and chew on raw beef fat as your food of choice for long rides.

So cholesterol levels most likely have different values to yourself than to the general populace.

[AnthonyG]

But you also filter your shower water and chew on raw beef fat as your food of choice for long rides.

So cholesterol levels most likely have different values to yourself than to the general populace.

Yeah thats true but what's it got to do with anything?

I got it! Its to do with faith. Doctors have a certain status in our society and there word is gospel. I'm a loony so I'm obviously wrong. ;) Sure I achnowledge all of this and this is a major reason why I like to post references. This doesn't address in anyway my claim that a cholesterol level of 220 is perfectly healthy and truely only a few years ago this was a mainstream view. Do you have the scientific evidence that shows why it was changed.

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

Calm down sparky. I never called you a loon, nor did i say your way was wrong.

Im mearly pointing out to someone that your giving nutrition/heath advice to, that you dont follow mainstream theories. And they may want to get 'other' advice.

[Jarery]

http://www.news-medical.net/?id=16868

"Long term reduction in LDL cholesterol dramatically reduces risk of heart disease"

Not definitive proof that high cholesteral will kill you, but something to keep in mind.

[AnthonyG]

LDL cholesterol and total cholesterol are two different issues. The only mechanisim by which statins have been shown to be bennificial is through a slight anti-oxidant effect, not through cholesterol lowering as such. There's better and cheaper anti-oxidants out there.

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

The only mechanisim by which statins have been shown to be bennificial is through a slight anti-oxidant effect, not through cholesterol lowering as such.


You musta missed recent headlines.

http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/NEWS/60314004

[531Aussie]

I'm only gunna post this once, and not get into another bun-fight. :)

There are studies and then there are studies, and people seem to think they can dismiss whatever study on whatever whim they like, but what's impossible to dismiss is the epidemiology:


"The Masai tribe of East Africa ate ~300g a day of mostly saturated fat, but were free of CHD.

"The Samburu tribe, also of East Africa, virtually live on milk, consuming ~400g of sat fat a day through the wet season, but are free of CHD.

"The people of the Pukapuka and Tokeluau Pacific atolls ate a bunch of coconuts, obtaining up to 53% of their daily calories from saturated fats, but were free of CHD.

"You may also be thinking that a high level of physical activity was responsible for the low rate of CHD amongst the aforementioned populations. The Masai, for example, walk up to 30 miles a day. That no doubt helped, but not because it was countering any purported harmful effects of saturated fat. After all, heavy physical activity did not help the population of North Karelia, Finland in the 1960's. Despite a high proportion of lumberjacks and farmers, residents of this isolated community suffered one of the highest CHD rates in the world. The population of St. Helena, where motorized transport was rare and the residents were forced to transverse the hilly landscape by foot, was also observed to suffer from a high rate of CHD. Fat consumption was relatively low in St. Helena, but sugar consumption was high (17).

"Perhaps you are thinking that the Masai, Samburu and Pacific islanders are blessed with some sort of genetic protection against the allegedly harmful effects of saturated fat. Hardly. Studies show that when the Masai migrate to Nairobi where they are exposed to a more "refined" diet and sedentary lifestyle, their cholesterol levels rise, discounting the proffered notion that their low cholesterol levels were a manifestation of some sort of advantageous genetic aberration (12). When Pukapuka and Tokeluau residents moved to New Zealand, where they were similarly exposed to processed foods and a more sedentary lifestyle, they experienced a marked increase of gout, diabetes and other degenerative disorders (13-16)"
http://www.theomnivore.com/sat-fat-chol-CHD.html
http://homodiet.netfirms.com/otherssay/carbdiet_myth.htm



"The incidence of acute myocardial infarction is seven times higher in southern India than in northern India; however, in southern India, dietary fat provides only 3.5 percent of total calories, 45 percent of which is polyunsaturated. In northern India, dietary fat provides 23 percent of total calories, only 2 percent of which is polyunsaturated.(3)
Ischemic heart disease is not a problem in populations whose diet derives over 45 percent of its total calories from coconut-derived fat.(4) The fat contained in the coconut is 95 percent saturated fat. This percentage of fat is even higher than butter and much higher than the common vegetable oils we currently use.
Before Western dietary habits were introduced into the Eskimo population, Eskimos lived almost exclusively on animal meat and animal fat.(5)"

http://www.arltma.com/CholMystDoc.htm


then, of course, there's the so-called "French paradox": can someone please tell me why -- if saturated fat and cholesterol is THE MAIN CAUSE of heart disease -- the French have the lowest rate of CHD in the western world, despite comsuming more saturated fat and cholesterol than any other westernized country?

[Jarery]

Theres studies to support almost every point of view possible. In the whole realm of health science, nutrition, diet there is also very rarely conclusive evidence prooving anything.

Its your choice to believe a study that supports your point of view based on the diet of a lost tribe in east africa.

I'll prefer to believe studies based on people who live and eat like myself in north america. Everyones able to make their own decisions for themselves. The original poster was asking about high cholesteral, im mearly forwarding recent findings on it.

Personally I dont give a crap, my doctors have never mentioned cholesteral to me, so ive never bothered monitoring or trying to adjust, monitor, or restrict it specifically.

[531Aussie]

ah well, as long as we all do the other stuff, like eat the fruit & veg, maybe pop some omega 3, don't smoke, exercise, keep the weight down, reduce stress (almost impossible) etc, we might be ok.

I heard something yesterday that I couldn't believe: a doctor on radio said that only 10% of Australians eat the recommended daily servings of fruit and veg!!

[Jarery]

Yep :)

As much as we can choose differing nutritional habits and beliefs, I bet 10 bucks were all at the healthy end of the spectrum by actually exercising, not eating crap, and paying attention to what we do eat.

[531Aussie]

I bet 10 bucks were all at the healthy end of the spectrum by actually exercising, not eating crap, and paying attention to what we do eat.exactly. The fact that we're even discussing probably puts us in the top 20% of the population

[AnthonyG]

You musta missed recent headlines.

http://www.theolympian.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060314/NEWS/60314004

Here's a quote from this article,


Exactly how statins reduce the risk of heart disease is unknown, but the drugs perform several complex operations.

Lowering LDL means there is less circulating in the blood to become affected in arterial linings.

One role of HDL is to extract cholesterol out of plaques, a job that may become more efficient with higher HDL levels. Statins also reduce vascular inflammation, which has been linked to heart disease.

It achnowledges that cause and effect is unknown. The best evidence is that it has anti-oxidant or according to this article anti-inflamitory properties. There are better anti-oxidants/anti-inflamitories out there. IE, real fresh food.

EDIT: One more thing, you guys are realy going to have to start reading the references you post first. Some of you keep on posting articles that are supposed to support a certain point of view but when you take the time to read them carefully they do no such thing.

Regards, Anthony

[mx_599]

I'm only gunna post this once, and not get into another bun-fight. :)

There are studies and then there are studies, and people seem to think they can dismiss whatever study on whatever whim they like, but what's impossible to dismiss is the epidemiology:


"The Masai tribe of East Africa ate ~300g a day of mostly saturated fat, but were free of CHD.

"The Samburu tribe, also of East Africa, virtually live on milk, consuming ~400g of sat fat a day through the wet season, but are free of CHD.

"The people of the Pukapuka and Tokeluau Pacific atolls ate a bunch of coconuts, obtaining up to 53% of their daily calories from saturated fats, but were free of CHD.



isolated groups of people are a poor argument. look at the Pima indians

[Jarery]

Some of you keep on posting articles that are supposed to support a certain point of view but when you take the time to read them carefully they do no such thing.[/B]



Who said everyting posted had to support certain side of an argument ?
Am i only allowed post references to a 'side' that you determine me to be on?

The poster was concerned with his high cholesteral.
I post a link showing people with abnormaly low cholesteral had an 88% reduction in chd.

You can spin it, ignore it , do what ever you want to it. The link wasnt posted for your benefit. Your views are set, and wont change until your wap site tell you to change them.

[AnthonyG]

Who said everyting posted had to support certain side of an argument ?
Am i only allowed post references to a 'side' that you determine me to be on?

The poster was concerned with his high cholesteral.
I post a link showing people with abnormaly low cholesteral had an 88% reduction in chd.

You can spin it, ignore it , do what ever you want to it. The link wasnt posted for your benefit. Your views are set, and wont change until your wap site tell you to change them.

Well if you make a statement and then post a link that you claim supports the statement then It SHOULD support that statement.

The linked article was only talking about LDL cholesterol, not total cholesterol and our latest dissagrement was started by me making a claim that the mechanism by which statins are supposed to be benificial is unknown and the best evidence suggests thats its bennifits are because of its anti-oxidant properties. The article you posted plainly states this and adds that statins also work by being anti-inflamitories. There are better, cheaper, safer anti-inflamitories/anti-oxidants on the market incluiding fresh vegetables and fruit.

You have to learn to read through spin yourself Jarey. My views are based on the best evidence available and in this case my view was supported by YOUR link and it didn't support your case at all.

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

Your tin foil hat is too tight, you seem to be confused.

"The only mechanisim by which statins have been shown to be bennificial is through a slight anti-oxidant effect"

You mentioned a slight effect.
So i sent you a link. Heres the main jist of the link " has for the first time reversed heart disease by a significant degree"

Now, maybe you think that an actual reversal of heart disease for the first time ever is a 'slight' effect. Id wager most would find it a tad higher on a scale of impact.

Heres another statement by you "There is NO science to support this "high cholesterol is bad" nonsence."

So i post a link to a study that states a reduction in LDL shows significant reduction in heart disease. It even has this to say ""It's clear," Hobbs said, "that a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet can lead to a gradual increase in LDL over one's lifetime"

You somehow take that as support that your right, that high cholesteral is not a bad thing. Thats fine. If you take exception to the studies, contact the doctor who did the study and posted his findings.

[AnthonyG]

Jarey,

This statement " has for the first time reversed heart disease by a significant degree" is just plain hyperbole on many levels and you probably know that yourself so I don't know what the disagreement is about.

This statement, "It's clear," Hobbs said, "that a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet can lead to a gradual increase in LDL over one's lifetime" is NOT supported by any evidence in this trial. Its just the current state of the dogma on the subject. If you have any scientific trial data that supports this please post it but read it first to make sure OK.

This quote, You somehow take that as support that your right, that high cholesteral is not a bad thing. Thats fine. If you take exception to the studies, contact the doctor who did the study and posted his findings. Well it did clearly state that the way in which statins work is unknown. I didn't make that up and thats my main point and its a critical point. If you don't understand cause and effect then you can't claim to have a scientific understanding of the subject.

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

Jarey,

This statement " has for the first time reversed heart disease by a significant degree" is just plain hyperbole on many levels and you probably know that yourself so I don't know what the disagreement is about.


“The important thing here is that it’s actually showing for the first time regression of atherosclerosis.”
"Dr. Roger S. Blumenthal, director of the Johns Hopkins Preventive Cardiology Center, said, “This is the first study that shows with a single agent that we actually have the potential to modestly reduce atherosclerosis.”

So thats all hyperbole ? Hes lying? He didnt really observe a reversal?

Or have you just been preaching your dogma for so long your now blind to new evidence? Are you now the one locked into a stale position and unable to change as new discoveries are made? Are you now the exact 'locked in pride' person you continually call all doctors currently not sharing your view?

Tell ya what, dont even bother responding. I'm not interested in your view of someone elses report. You cant even get my name right.

[AnthonyG]

Jarery,

Sorry I got your name wrong.

Youre not concerned that there admitting that previously they had NO scientific evidence that statins provide any benifit?

How long have they been prescribing these things without any evidence of there usefullness. Still its important that without knowing what cause and effect is the likely evidence is that statins simply have a mild anti-oxidant effect and so a diet higher in fresh fruit and vegetables would provide the same benifit or better without the expense or colateral damage of statins.

Why are you so proud of statins?

Whats the problem with achnowledging that consuming Mother Nature's/God's food is a stronger medicine than what Man has invented in the last 100 years or maybe I've answered my own question.

Regards, Anthony

[Jarery]

Why are you so proud of statins?


Are you even capable of following a coherent thought without changing it around, spinning it around, and deflecting it? Are you a politician? Maybe a laywer...

Ok, heres a quick recap.

You retell your retoric again saying theres is nothing wrong with cholesteral, doctors are wrong
I post a link showing that low cholesteral has an effect on chd.
You spout off that statins are no good.

The report was not about statins, it was about a link between cholesteral levels and chd. Statins were mentioned in 1 or 2 lines that they hope statins are able to achieve similar results with their ability to lower cholesteral. But since you started on statins, i posted a link showing a new study on them, with quite a significant finding.

Somehow that is now me being "so proud" of them? No. It means I keep up with current headlines and was able to point one out to you. I dont advocate, use, or give a crap about statins. I just get a perverse enjoyment of so easily finding studies showing exactly what you say dont exist.

According to you, eating good food has an equal or more pronounced effect than any drug. So if drugs can now reverse clogged arteries thru their 'slight anti oxidant effect', then your group who eats your diet, should have zero chd since its reversal effect should be far superior. In fact anyone who has a diet high in fruit or veg should have zero clogging. Somehow i doubt it

Anthony. I am not trying to convince you of anything. I dont even like you, or like talking to you. Your stuck in a train of thought, unwilling to discuss or even comprehend new studies or information as it comes out. If it doesnt follow your websites theories, its wrong, the doctors who did it are wrong. Or you spin it and say they prove you right. You ask for evidence then refuse it when it arrives.

Unlike you im not pushing an agenda, i dont follow any prescribed and written out set of rules like yourself. I actually evaluate a multitude of information from various sources and formulate my own conclusions based on ALL the information available to me. Your follow a single site like its a cult. Im not trying to push statins, nor convince anyone statins are a wonder drug. I mearly presented 2 recent studies relevant to what the original poster asked.

My only mistake was actually replying to anything you posted. I'll guess now i'll just do like everyone else on this board seems to do and just totally ignore you. You ever wonder why no one responds to your troll like posts? talk about a broken record...

[AnthonyG]

Jarery,

Look its simple realy. There is no evidence that cholesterol from 220-250 is harmful or that statins help peoples health in anyway.

You posted a link to a study that you claim provided such evidence and in fact it doesn't. You trapped yourself on this issue by NOT reading the whole article first. I simply read the article and noted the disclosure at the bottom of the article that they didn't understand the cause and effect.

The promise of science is that it would be self critical and call a spade a spade. The propaganda thats been done in the name of science is a travesty of scientific principles and the problem we face in returning to true scientific values is that people are TOO proud to admit their mistakes even in the face of clear evidence.

All you seem to be able to say is that I'm following an agenda. This is a standard tactic to muddy the water but it just doesn't pass muster.

Regards, Anthony

[Enthalpic]

It's true that there is no clear link between heart disease and cholesterol. However, high cholesterol and heart disease are correlated; so high cholesterol can be taken a warning sigh that you may be at increased risk of CHD. According to science, as Anthony is trying to explain, the correlation is meaningless. Correlation does not imply causation, a greatly overlooked fact. For example variable y may be strongly correlated to variable z; but in fact variable x is changing both y and z. In the end you may find that y and z have no effect on each other, despite the correlation. Drugs that control cholesterol may actually be effecting x with the reduced cholesterol levels only being an indicator of some other, yet unknown, factor.

Diabetes is a common real world example: diabetes leads to kidney and blood vessel damage, which in turn leads to high BP, which finally incites a stroke or heart attack. Was it the high BP, kidney damage or the diabetes that caused the heart disease?

[mx_599]

Was it the high BP, kidney damage or the diabetes that caused the heart disease?
*ding ding*

diabetes

:D

[ozbiker]

Believe what you want!! Remember this - if you use faith you are indulging in a clinical trial that has just one subject, YOU, no controls, and a HARD end point - death or survival.
I prefer to study all of the available literature - peer reviewed scientific papers - and the biochemistry and pharmacology of cardiovascular disease. This information is all available, has been well understood since 1953, and it works for me.
The is no room for opinion, only right and wrong. If you are wrong you die. If you are right you live.
Doctors do not know the answers - they are NOT biochemists OR pharmacists - they are just the license holders for the adminstration of drugs and proceduress. CAD is a biochemical process and it's solution lies in biochemistry.

[mx_599]

Doctors do not know the answers - they are NOT biochemists OR pharmacists - they are just the license holders for the adminstration of drugs and proceduress. CAD is a biochemical process and it's solution lies in biochemistry.
probably why physicians learn biochemistry too:rolleyes:

[Jarery]

I prefer to study all of the available literature - peer reviewed scientific papers - and the biochemistry and pharmacology of cardiovascular disease. This information is all available, has been well understood since 1953, and it works for me.
The is no room for opinion, only right and wrong. If you are wrong you die. If you are right you live..

So....whats the right answer?

[ozbiker]

probably why physicians learn biochemistry too:rolleyes:
Engineers learn chemistry too - that doesn't make them chemists!!

[ozbiker]

So....whats the right answer?
I can tell you where to start looking for answers, but I will not tell you the answer. You must seek the knowledge yourself, evaluate it completely objectively, then reach your own conclusions.
The subject has too much money at stake and too many personal and political agendas for me to commit myself publicly - to do so on this forum would likely start a flame war which would never have any chance of a resolution - it would be like a forum to discuss whether God exists - the debate would continue for a million years.

[Jarery]

Im an engineer. People pay me to gather information from all available sources, formulate an opinion based on my training and experiance, and give them an accurate evaluation so they can then decide on a course of action. That opinion is based on science, physics, laws of the universe. There is a right and wrong answer.

Its unfortunate that health science, doesnt follow a similar plan. I dont really plan on spending another 8 or so years in medical and biochemestry school in order to become knowledgable enough to form an accurate evaluation. Id expect to leave that to people who do it for a living.

Its too bad you cant look up the right or wrong answer on health.

[ozbiker]

Its unfortunate that health science, doesnt follow a similar plan. I dont really plan on spending another 8 or so years in medical and biochemestry school in order to become knowledgable enough to form an accurate evaluation.

I agree completely. I too am an engineer. To me the skill of an engineer lies in approaching a completely new problem, one he has never seen before, and finding a solution to it by whatever means is required. I do not need to major in biochemistry to understand enough about atheroma growth to intelligently review the published literature on the subject. Much of the science overlaps - my skills in statistical analysis equal those of any biochemist, and this eases some of the effort required in critical review.
What I am getting at is that anyone sufficiently motivated, energetic and objective enough can review the available literature themselves and find the correct answers. You do not need a graduate degree, and in fact this can often be a hindrance when only one particular perspective is taught in class (for whatever reasons).
The first step is to understand that medicine is a business. At the micro-medicine level a doctor may be passionate about helping people, but the business of macro-medicine is completely different. The objective is to make money, not healthy people. Somewhere in this morass of money and politics is the science and you have to search for it. It is there.
This is not "fringe medicine". Everything you need to know is in peer reviewed papers published in mainstream scientific journals.

[mx_599]

Engineers learn chemistry too - that doesn't make them chemists!!
yeah...basic chem

[McSpin]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but wanted to say I appreciate the links AnthonG gave. I'd always heard of societies that ate very high saturated fat diets and that had no CHD. It's nice to see the detailed explanation.

I must say, it's compelling reading for me. I've always believed strongly in evolutionary adapatation. Obviously man ate large amounts of animal protein/fat over the eons. For us to be anything but tolerant of it, makes no sense. How long has all the refined sugars, grains, etc. been around? I imagine not long enough for evolution to have run it's magic. In a million years we may have evolved into beings with a high tolerance for sugar, but at this point I would have to agree with the "animal fat is good for humans" theory.

[AnthonyG]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but wanted to say I appreciate the links AnthonG gave. I'd always heard of societies that ate very high saturated fat diets and that had no CHD. It's nice to see the detailed explanation.


I'm glad that you found the links useful. I used to buy all the low fat garbage myself but it did nothing for my health. The fact that traditional societies consumed lots of saturated fats and didn't have CHD is quite a compeling argument with scientific significance. Its called "Control".

I also contend that the reason why we got ourselves into this situation isn't so much about commerce, although its an important consideration, its actualy more to do with the religious sensibilities of the Puritan middle class which is where most of our scientists come from. The consumption of animal fats is considered to be "Glutony" which is a sin which will be punished by God with CHD. When you look at it this way its easier to see why we can't seem to drag ourselves away from the saturated fat/CHD theory even though there's a total lack of evidence to support it because realy it had nothing to do with science in the first place. Since scientific evidence wasn't the driving force behind the theory in the first place you can now see why the lack of scientific evidence hasn't seemed to dent it.

Regards, Anthony

[Redrom]

You know, every time I see a post from AnthonyG, it's angry and agressive. He has some sort of agenda he's pushing, like a desparate plea that the high fat diet he likes will be healthy for him.

I know a bunch of people who have gone the low carb, max meat route, and they all have all had horrible results. They continue to be mired in their disease ridden existences, their weight lowers a little at first, and then goes higher than before.

OTOH, I know a bunch of people who have gone the high nutrient, max fruits and veggies route, and they all have lost weight, pulled themselves out of depression, disease and negative physical conditions.

We all learn by example. I'm well aware that I don't want to become AnthonyG.

[mx_599]

I don't have a dog in this fight, but wanted to say I appreciate the links AnthonG gave. I'd always heard of societies that ate very high saturated fat diets and that had no CHD. It's nice to see the detailed explanation.
again...isolated societies are a poor argument

[mx_599]

to do with the religious sensibilities of the Puritan middle class which is where most of our scientists come from. The consumption of animal fats is considered to be "Glutony" which is a sin which will be punished by God with CHD.
dude...are you for real?

[mx_599]

You know, every time I see a post from AnthonyG, it's angry and agressive. He has some sort of agenda he's pushing, like a desparate plea that the high fat diet he likes will be healthy for him.

We all learn by example. I'm well aware that I don't want to become AnthonyG.


http://www.observedtrials.net/vb/images/smilie/momaru.gif

[AnthonyG]

You know, every time I see a post from AnthonyG, it's angry and agressive. He has some sort of agenda he's pushing, like a desparate plea that the high fat diet he likes will be healthy for him.

I know a bunch of people who have gone the low carb, max meat route, and they all have all had horrible results. They continue to be mired in their disease ridden existences, their weight lowers a little at first, and then goes higher than before.

OTOH, I know a bunch of people who have gone the high nutrient, max fruits and veggies route, and they all have lost weight, pulled themselves out of depression, disease and negative physical conditions.

We all learn by example. I'm well aware that I don't want to become AnthonyG.

OK so what's your agenda?

Sure I'm a passionate supporter of tradition when it comes to food and I apreciate that others have differing points of view but I DO support the idea that science should be able to steer us through our differing views. Science DOES support the traditionalist point of view and there is NO scientific evidence to support the idea that animal fats/saturated fats are harmful. Thats the honest scientific truth but most of you don't believe me.

Now this is opening a HUGE can of worms but the real problem here, and its quite embarrasing is that western populations are ignorant of scientific principles! Seriously. Most of us studied "Science" at school but they didn't teach us what scientific principles are there.

Now I'm sure that you will thing I'm a crank but that's the honest truth.

You don't believe me?

OK, tell me, what is the scientific method and who did the scientific trial that proves that the scientific method works?

Rant over. Anthony

[AnthonyG]

dude...are you for real?


Absolutely for real. It's the best explaination by far as to why we're in the predicament that we are.

Think about it.

EDIT: The study of isolated societies is very important to this debate. Its called "control".

Regards, Anthony

[McSpin]

again...isolated societies are a poor argument

Why?

Until very recently, all societies were relatively isolated. It's probably been less than 20,000 years since mankind becames very mobile. I would say that if Eskimos can eat extremely high animal fat diets and African tribes can do the same with equal results, then isolation wouldn't appear to be a key. I would venture a guess that most people were in a similar situation not too long ago and their evolution moved along similar lines - eat animals whenever possible.

I've spent my fair share of time in the back-woods and believe me, there is no way I'm eating a bowl of salad if there's a hunk of meat available - it's simply a matter of satifiying hunger and survival.

[mx_599]

there is NO scientific evidence to support the idea that animal fats/saturated fats are harmful. Thats the honest scientific truth but most of you don't believe me.
Rant over. Anthony

http://www.observedtrials.net/vb/images/smilie/umno.gif