Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Time for Statins (Lipitor)?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Thanks, JBean. Let’s take a look at one of your links.

    http://www.cochrane.org/CD011737/VAS...-heart-disease

    Review question

    We wanted to find out the effects on health of cutting down on saturated fat in our food (replacing animal fats with plant oils, unsaturated spreads and more starchy foods).

    Study characteristics

    We assessed the effect of cutting down the amount of saturated fat we eat on health outcomes including dying, heart disease, stroke and cancer for at least two years. We only looked at studies of adults (18 years or older). This included men and women with and without cardiovascular disease. We did not include studies of acutely ill people or pregnant or breastfeeding women.

    Key results

    The review found that cutting down on saturated fat led to a 17% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease (including heart disease and strokes), but no effects on the risk of dying. The review found no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods or protein.


    The first thing that strikes me about the author’s self-described “Key results” is that “cutting down on saturated fat” (whatever “cutting down” means) has “no effects on the risk of dying”. This study shows no effect of intervention (i.e., reducing sat fat) on all-cause mortality, cardiovascular mortality, myocardial infarctions (MI), non-fatal MI, stroke, coronary heart disease mortality, and coronary heart disease events. What’s the point of “cutting down” if it doesn’t change the risk of dying?

    The second thing that jumps out is the stated 17% reduction in the risk of CVD. Therefore, even though your risk of dying doesn’t change (as referenced above), at least you get some added protection against CVD, right? And that seems like a significant benefit until you realize the authors have chosen to highlight the relative risk versus the absolute risk. I’m not going to go into a deep discussion of statistical analysis, but I am confident that the actual number of people who reduced their risk of CVD by being part of the groups who reduced their saturated fat in the various studies was very, very small in relation to the actual number of people in the other groups in the studies (e.g., a control group) who reduced their risk of CVD.

    JBean, did you look at Table 6 in this Cochrane review?

    Of the 13 studies they choose to include, one of the studies is the Oslo Diet Heart Study. Apart from the fact that it’s from 1966 and doesn’t control for transfat, that study is acknowledged as multifactorial (i.e., the Oslo Diet wasn’t just about fat and the Oslo Diet study factored in things like exercise). In addition, the study was men only. Finally, and most importantly, there were 412 participants (all of whom had a previous heart attack), but the Oslo study only contains dietary information from 17 participants. How can you possibly draw conclusions about saturated fat reduction from that information?

    There are serious flaws with some of the other studies included in that Cochrane review, but I’m going to pass on further comments except to say that from what I can tell, none of the studies were about saturated fat in isolation. They were all comparative (e.g., sat fat versus PUFA) and provide little information as to sugar reduction along with fat reduction.

    In closing, I want to go back to one of the “Key results” that said: “The review found no clear health benefits of replacing saturated fats with starchy foods or protein.” This result is particularly on point for this discussion because the study said there was no benefit from replacing saturated fat with carbohydrates EVEN WHEN IT LOWERS CHOLESTEROL. If cholesterol is the issue, then that wouldn’t be true.

    MA
    Last edited by MusicAttorney; 05-19-2017, 01:26 AM.

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by srinath_69 View Post
      I don't quite understand this fascination with saturated fat. The only saturated fat I'd want to eat by itself is Ghee. Its unsaturated version is close close behind and with the effort needed to make ghee from butter, I'll definitely eat butter.
      Unless we're talking about the fat content in say potato chips, I don't see a problem here.

      Thanks.
      Srinath.
      The problem is/was the advent of "low fat" varieties of food items. These variations reduce saturated fat, but replace it with unsaturated fat and sugar to make them palatable. This leads to a variety of chronic health diseases that have become prevelant since the low fat agenda started.

      Others erroneously began replacing nutritious and filling items, like steak, with pastas or other low fat fair "cuz saturated fats bad....mmmkay". So despite all the science that Jbean has provided in his reviews stating that reducing saturated fat in the diet produced " no effects on the risk of dying"....here we still are discussing it because of the highly successful smear advertising campaign against it years ago.
      Last edited by Neckhammer; 05-19-2017, 05:18 AM.

      Comment


      • #48
        I understand that, well I guess cooking with fat turns most of it to saturated, so while I say "there is not saturated fat I want to eat" - well, I put olive oil on stuff and cook it part of it atleast turns saturated in spite of my best efforts I guess, so I do have to say I'm eating oil that started out as unsaturated but end up 1/2 way saturated.

        Ghee and coconut oil I do like and are all saturated. That is not in dispute.

        Thanks.
        Srinath.

        Comment


        • #49
          Better safe than sorry instead of getting conned by others here that it's okay to have abnormally high cholesterol and justifying a potentially harmful diet.

          I don't want to end up with a heart attack like Bob Harper did and like our very own commenter on this thread: Breadsauce. Both ate paleo. Bob admitted his cholesterol was high. Breadsauce I don't recall ever revealing what his specific LDL was, but he had many threads that portrayed a diet high in red meat. It's not hard to connect the dots.
          *Starting Wt - 151 lbs (January 2015) * Current Wt - 113 lbs (November 2016)
          *95% Plant-Based (from June 2015) ~ *75%Carbs *10-15%Protein *10-15%Fat
          *Exercise ~7-10 hrs/week

          Comment


          • #50
            Originally posted by KimLean125byMar15 View Post
            Better safe than sorry instead of getting conned by others here that it's okay to have abnormally high cholesterol and justifying a potentially harmful diet.

            I don't want to end up with a heart attack like Bob Harper did and like our very own commenter on this thread: Breadsauce. Both ate paleo. Bob admitted his cholesterol was high. Breadsauce I don't recall ever revealing what his specific LDL was, but he had many threads that portrayed a diet high in red meat. It's not hard to connect the dots.
            They may say we all should eat paleo. But maybe they scarf down donuts when you're not looking.
            I am fighting with that addiction myself.
            I know for a fact tat some people say paleo paleo paleo atkin atkins atkins low carb low carb low carb, but eat twinkies, beer and other pleasure carbs

            Thanks.
            Srinath.

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by srinath_69 View Post

              They may say we all should eat paleo. But maybe they scarf down donuts when you're not looking.
              I am fighting with that addiction myself.
              I know for a fact tat some people say paleo paleo paleo atkin atkins atkins low carb low carb low carb, but eat twinkies, beer and other pleasure carbs.
              All the folks who've started numerous threads on this forum and elsewhere for years saying their LDL shot up after going paleo, can't ALL be lying!

              That's just another attempt to deflect from the root cause (too much meat and other sources of saturated fat) and blame it on the occasional donut. And many of these people had otherwise good results like weight loss, so they usually get flummoxed as to why LDL went up.

              Plus, if your logic was sound, then given that my current diet is so high in carbs (~300g/day or ~75%), including table sugar (~200 calories/day) and sweets like ice cream, chocolate, biscuits, candy (~2000 calories/ week), plus of course daily fruits, grains, potatoes, beans, lentils and other starchy carbs, then my cholesterol should have gone up if evil sugar/carbs were the problem. Instead, it went down 100 points down to normal range as I said previously.

              So no, it's not the carbs, it's the saturated fat, mostly from meats, eggs, butters, cheeses, and oils.
              Last edited by KimLean125byMar15; 05-19-2017, 01:25 PM.
              *Starting Wt - 151 lbs (January 2015) * Current Wt - 113 lbs (November 2016)
              *95% Plant-Based (from June 2015) ~ *75%Carbs *10-15%Protein *10-15%Fat
              *Exercise ~7-10 hrs/week

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by KimLean125byMar15 View Post
                Better safe than sorry instead of getting conned by others here that it's okay to have abnormally high cholesterol and justifying a potentially harmful diet.

                I don't want to end up with a heart attack like Bob Harper did and like our very own commenter on this thread: Breadsauce. Both ate paleo. Bob admitted his cholesterol was high. Breadsauce I don't recall ever revealing what his specific LDL was, but he had many threads that portrayed a diet high in red meat. It's not hard to connect the dots.
                Originally posted by KimLean125byMar15 View Post
                Better safe than sorry instead of getting conned by others here that it's okay to have abnormally high cholesterol and justifying a potentially harmful diet.

                I don't want to end up with a heart attack like Bob Harper did and like our very own commenter on this thread: Breadsauce. Both ate paleo. Bob admitted his cholesterol was high. Breadsauce I don't recall ever revealing what his specific LDL was, but he had many threads that portrayed a diet high in red meat. It's not hard to connect the dots.
                I dislike being misquoted as you are doing. In fact, my total cholesterol when I had a heart attack was low - 5.1. LDL was low and HDL high. Also, not a diet high in red meat, but well balanced with fish, poultry red meat, pulses and loads of veg. And I don't eat "paleo" but primal.
                Last edited by breadsauce; 05-19-2017, 01:32 PM.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Originally posted by KimLean125byMar15 View Post
                  All the folks who've started numerous threads on this forum and elsewhere for years saying their LDL shot up after going paleo, can't ALL be lying!

                  That's just another attempt to deflect from the root cause (too much meat and other sources of saturated fat) and blame it on the occasional donut. And many of these people had otherwise good results like weight loss, so they usually get flummoxed as to why LDL went up.

                  Plus, if your logic was sound, then given that my current diet is so high in carbs (~300g/day or ~75%), including table sugar (~200 calories/day) and sweets like ice cream, chocolate, biscuits, candy (~2000 calories/ week), plus of course daily fruits, grains, potatoes, beans, lentils and other starchy carbs, then my cholesterol should have gone up if evil sugar/carbs were the problem. Instead, it went down 100 points down to normal range as I said previously.

                  So no, it's not the carbs, it's the saturated fat, mostly from meats, eggs and oils.

                  I dunno what to tell you, in 3 months I lost 80lb and drastically improved BP and a few other diabetes bio markers while my good cholesterol numbers went to great all on a fast like Gandhi and eat lots of meat when I did eat. It was 5000+ calories in 1 meal usually.

                  Then of course I went the donut way and gained back 20 of those 80. BTW its not the occasional donut. An occasional donut when its in a calorie restricted diet wont hurt much. A donut when you're 5000 calories in for the day will literally deposit that donut into the most destructive spot possible. I also calorie restricted myself a bit for a few weeks and lowered my metabolic rate too.

                  A high fat diet leaves very little room for carbs. But it will keep your metabolic rate high and improve a lot of your bio markers - the ones the medical community knows to check for and the ones they don't.
                  A calorie restricted diet does not improve the numbers that the medical army never checks for, or there is no test for. But it has only 1 criteria. Stay deficient and it will not lower your metabolic rate that much. But it does nothing to address insulin levels, insulin resistance or anything So any excess will be deposited whether its a donut or a piece of cabbage. Further a fructose heavy diet will fill the liver up and the calorie deficiency only barely flushes that day over day. Again no test to see liver fat is ever done on anyone by doctors. Doctors look at you and cosmetically decide if you're healthy. Or they check 2-3 bio markers and call you as great. There is 10 more that should be checked, and 100 that cant even be checked that we know of, and maybe 1000 that we don't even know of.

                  Anyway maybe you can stop @ 1 donut, some of the Low carb stalwarts (myself included) cant till the whole box is gone.

                  However I should say with improving insulin sensitivity the draw of sugar is waning. My sugar laden chai is no longer the item #3 on my favorite list, I have been drinking it yesterday and today and I am not that thrilled any more.

                  Thanks.
                  Srinath.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Also if my insulin resistance is improving it seems to be taking an odd twist.
                    My sugar addiction isn't going away the way you'd think.
                    I don't feel 25 gm is too much and I should use less. Its to the point where 25gm isn't that good any more, however I don't want to add more. Its not feeling like there's not enough sugar, its feeling like something else is missing.
                    Its like taking the pleasure away from the sugar leaving me dis-satisfied.
                    Maybe that's how insulin sensitive people feel.
                    Thanks.
                    Srinath.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by srinath_69 View Post
                      I dunno what to tell you, in 3 months I lost 80lb and drastically improved BP and a few other diabetes bio markers while my good cholesterol numbers went to great all on a fast like Gandhi and eat lots of meat when I did eat.
                      Yeah, weight loss works wonders. Even the nutrition professor Mark Haub proved a few years back that 1) You can lose weight on any diet where Calories-IN is less than Calories-OUT. He lost 27 lbs in 2 months eating an actual Twinkie/junk food diet! 2) His cholesterol and other health markers improved merely as a result of the weight loss.

                      Also, the issue of cholesterol rising on high saturated fat diets, this doesn't happen to everyone. From what I've read this affects 20-30%. Others seem to have perfectly fine levels of cholesterol despite a high fat diet. It's that 20-30% that's negatively affected that needs to look out for themselves and not follow blindly.

                      Originally posted by srinath_69 View Post
                      It was 5000+ calories in 1 meal usually.

                      Then of course I went the donut way and gained back 20 of those 80. BTW its not the occasional donut. An occasional donut when its in a calorie restricted diet wont hurt much. A donut when you're 5000 calories in for the day will literally deposit that donut into the most destructive spot possible.
                      5000 calories plus a donut... and it was the donut that did it? Not the extra (2000 plus a donut)? Come on Srinath! It's the total CALORIES in excess of energy requiments that causes weight gain.
                      Last edited by KimLean125byMar15; 05-19-2017, 04:38 PM.
                      *Starting Wt - 151 lbs (January 2015) * Current Wt - 113 lbs (November 2016)
                      *95% Plant-Based (from June 2015) ~ *75%Carbs *10-15%Protein *10-15%Fat
                      *Exercise ~7-10 hrs/week

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by breadsauce View Post
                        I dislike being misquoted as you are doing. In fact, my total cholesterol when I had a heart attack was low - 5.1. LDL was low and HDL high. Also, not a diet high in red meat, but well balanced with fish, poultry red meat, pulses and loads of veg. And I don't eat "paleo" but primal.
                        Apologies for causing offense. And you're right I shouldn't have said red meat. I meant saturated fat. And I got that from your heart attack post and from perusing your previous threads.

                        http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...on-sunday-22nd

                        "........And of course, dietary advice recommends "vegetable oils", avoid sat fats, eat heart healthy grains, avoid red meat - all the stuff I don't believe in.

                        I've been 'paleo" / "primal" for quite a lot of years now - initially VLC, then added white potatoes, occasional white rice and occasional (well soaked) legumes. I eat fish, organic grass fed beef, lamb and free range chicken, loads of organic veg, organic fruit, butter from grass fed cows, organic beef fat from grass fed cattle, olive oil, lots of herbs, spices, turmeric, organic cocoa powder and chocolate, loads of eggs, some cheese from grass fed cattle - all sat fat but not to excess......."

                        And other threads posted on your profile http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum...r=42737741&p=1


                        Also, from what I've read, those at high risk with first degree relatives who've had heart​​ attacks are given stricter LDL recommendations. So what's normal for most, may still be too high for those at higher risk. But that's just "conventional medicine".
                        Last edited by KimLean125byMar15; 05-19-2017, 05:28 PM.
                        *Starting Wt - 151 lbs (January 2015) * Current Wt - 113 lbs (November 2016)
                        *95% Plant-Based (from June 2015) ~ *75%Carbs *10-15%Protein *10-15%Fat
                        *Exercise ~7-10 hrs/week

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by KimLean125byMar15 View Post

                          Yeah, weight loss works wonders. Even the nutrition professor Mark Haub proved a few years back that 1) You can lose weight on any diet where Calories-IN is less than Calories-OUT. He lost 27 lbs in 2 months eating an actual Twinkie/junk food diet! 2) His cholesterol and other health markers improved merely as a result of the weight loss.

                          Also, the issue of cholesterol rising on high saturated fat diets, this doesn't happen to everyone. From what I've read this affects 20-30%. Others seem to have perfectly fine levels of cholesterol despite a high fat diet. It's that 20-30% that's negatively affected that needs to look out for themselves and not follow blindly.



                          5000 calories plus a donut... and it was the donut that did it? Not the extra (2000 plus a donut)? Come on Srinath! It's the total CALORIES in excess of energy requiments that causes weight gain.

                          The calories in < Calories out works in a short time frame if you have low insulin.
                          A high carb diet will not help your insulin get lower at all. However that is more applicable to junk carbs. High quality carbs are complex carbs accompanied by lots of fiber. That works to lower insulin resistance.
                          A high fat diet will cause you to get more insulin sensitive - though that process is so ponderously slow I am beginning to hate it, and it will get you weight loss even when CI>CO. Cos there is the wonderful calorie pee and calorie poo.

                          The 5000 calorie diet is in this instance I was talking about - the 1lb of fat and 1lb of protein diet - and guess why I blame the donut ???? cos its not in the plan. So yes, in a flock of white swans, the black swan is easy to spot. 5000 calories as fat and protein will cause your bathroom to gain 2500 calories worth of fat. AKA excreting ketones. You add a donut, you'd only dump 2200 (maybe). Polish off a whole box of donuts and guess what - you're wearing all the donuts and the 2500 that you didn't burn. Unless your 5000 calorie diet was all donuts, I blame the donut cos its off the plan.

                          The Twinkie diet had a few things different form the normal person. His exercise level went up and he didn't eat any other junk food than twinkies, and more importantly he ate very low calorie and only green veggies and lean protein if I recall. He may have started out very insulin sensitive and in some ways the extra working out etc also adds to that. At the end of it, who knows where his metabolism was.
                          You stay 10% deficient, your body will catch up and plateau out. That means for your life you're locked in that calorie number. In a high fat diet you don't get locked in anywhere. Just as long as you don't have much carbs (usually under 100 for maintenance) you will hold onto all your weight loss. However if you start exceeding your calorie requirement day over day, you have to be lower and lower carbs. If you need 2500 and you eat 5000, you very well need to be under 10 gm possibly. AKA a 50gm donut will be deposited.

                          There is a way to get weight loss in both methods. CICO means you can ignore individual macros but you may be needing to constantly be ducking under a lowering bar for calories. So cut 10% and in 3-4 weeks you stall cos your body has found your number. Cut another 10% and 3-4 weeks later repeat. Law of diminishing returns seems to hold here.

                          The low carb method means you have to count carbs, get under the limit for ketosis and you dump dietary fat, cut that back and you use your own fat and dump some of that too. Here the law of diminishing returns seems to be working in reverse. I had to be under 10 gm to get into ketosis when I started. But by November over a 100gm carb wont knock me out of ketosis if eaten at the end of a fat and protein meal. I don't think it gets past 100 though. But 100 carbs is a lot I only managed it 2-3 times out of about 15 times. So law of diminishing returns in reverse till a certain point from where it turns back into law of diminishing returns.

                          Sorry CICO is only 1 theory and yes it does work as long as you can find CO properly and well, CI is also hard for food you make @ home with ingredients you done get from a packet and weigh. Lets see this variable. I threw together a salad today. It had broccoli I opened and steamed. Then it has several plants I harvested - wild fennel, wild garlic, curly doc, lemony sorrel and narrow leaf plantain. Even better, 1/2 the veggies on the menu tomorrow don't even have English names for me to find a nutrition rating. It leaves me with no option but to go with carb counting.
                          It works like this. Pineapples are about 10% carb. Most veggies are not as sweet as that, so I call it 10% for any veggie in the uncooked state unless I know its rating. Stay under 1000 gm and you're OK.

                          Anyway LCHF and fasting worked like a charm for me, but it also didn't teach me anything. Fasting is a test of will power. LCHF is a license to stuff yourself full of the worst crap you can possibly find. So it gives you a bad habit and needs a lot of will power. Great. And its results are amazing. Its like being rewarded for being a brat.

                          Anyway I got no idea where to go from here, and I have to find it. Till then I am going to be sounding confused.

                          Thanks.
                          Srinath.



                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Also there is a nutrition professor in my family, as well as a molecular biologist, my closest friend is a chiropractor and I see a different set of chiropractors on a weekly basis. Literally all of them know the LC diets very very well. They all in unison agree it is very very effective. You count calories when you're fat, and don't bother when you're normal and as per Dr Fung you need to be high fat if you're skinny. That these guys are still scratching their head about. So don't worry if you don't get that aspect either.
                            I didn't believe it either till I saw Dr Bikman's presentation complete with the sketch of a guy peeing ketones and he says tha's Beta hydroxyl butyrate. A good fuel for your body to burn and when you're dumping stuff you can burn for energy guess what - you're dumping calories, and its coming out of you in breath, sweat, pee and poo.
                            Then a light bulb went off in my head about those times when I hit the toilet and see a massive film of oil.

                            CICO theory has a few missing CO's. CI=CO+CB+CS+CP+CT - how's that. Lets see how a carb heavy diet beats that.

                            And also you tell 100 people they have to live without meat, 99% of them will burst into tears. You tell them they have to live without sugars and flour, only 25% will burst into tears, and if you tell them they only have to do that for 6 months only 1 would be left crying. That would have been me in June 2016. The tell him 6 months from now when you have sugar it wont be as much fun - I guess I'd have cried even louder. Who knows.

                            Thanks.
                            Srinath.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Originally posted by KimLean125byMar15 View Post

                              Yeah, weight loss works wonders. Even the nutrition professor Mark Haub proved a few years back that 1) You can lose weight on any diet where Calories-IN is less than Calories-OUT. He lost 27 lbs in 2 months eating an actual Twinkie/junk food diet! 2) His cholesterol and other health markers improved merely as a result of the weight loss.
                              Looking at the twinkie weight loss plan -

                              1. 10 weeks is perfect for the plateau before a bounce back, cos I lost 10% by just stopping rice and bread in ~7 weeks - 19lb and I didn't even work out.
                              2. I was also eating sweet tea and apple pie filling (courtesy cici's) and rasgolla's a plenty. But it was lower carb than I was used to, cos I used to eat 1-1.5 lb cooked rice a day. Maybe he was eating pasta and bread 3 X a day and the twinkie diet did give him lower carb. LOL.

                              Your example is a classic case of someone doing lower carb than their original intake and losing weight.

                              Thanks.
                              Srinath.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Oh it gets better and better.

                                Pulled this from the diabetes daily website.

                                If this is the normal person's diet -

                                OK so here's the deal I used a meal tracker to calculate the calories and macronutrient content of what many might consider to be an average (three day a week) that you might encounter starting off with
                                French toast and maple syrup
                                BLT for lunch with french fries and
                                going out to dinner to have spaghetti at Olive Garden,
                                ice cream for dessert three sodas throughout the day,
                                A specialty coffee and a banana for a snack.
                                The carb load for the day was over 500g!!!
                                The other days understandably might vary quite a bit, depending on how often one dines out and how much non-diet soda/sports/energy drinks one drinks. But this is not uncommon among people I know.
                                I loaded this guy's sample day and verified my math. So if he was typically eating 350-500g of carbs a day, 10 weeks at 225g should have this result, If he has a healthy pancreas and is not hyperinsulinemIc.

                                The Twinkie diet is low carb, he's dropped to 1/2 the original intake of carbs.
                                In this case the Twinkie is credited with making him lose weight.
                                Awesome. On a related note, I hear crack is really good for mental clarity.

                                It goes something like this. There was this guy who was in a brain fog from being a heroin user and he was lying In a ditch 90% out of his skull.
                                To that guy, I walked up and had him smoke crack, and he was barely able to even hold the crack pipe.
                                But lo and behold he woke up and uttered a few in coherent words. Great improvement, he wasn't even talking and was face down in the ditch.

                                Thanks.
                                Srinath.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X