Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New study states that animal protein and animal fat puts low-carbers at risk

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

  • #16
    Originally posted by bcbcbc2 View Post
    Cross group data comparisons mean NOTHING. The study DOES NOT work that way.
    Forget the 'overall' goup and the 'vegetable' group
    You still have a complete study of the 'animal' group
    The 1st decile has 60% carb and the tenth 35%
    the carb is replaced by animal fat and protein
    Mortality increases significantly as carb goes down and animal goes up consistently across the deciles.
    The authors applied standard statistical corrections to all confounds present in the study.

    that leaves:
    1. the data is crap
    2. confounds not tracked by the study
    3. confound 'correction' is actually biased in the wrong direction.
    4. there would be a turnaround point in the trend when true low carb levels were reached
    5. I'm sure threre's more
    1 and 2 are definitely true.
    A steak a day keeps the doctor away

    Comment


    • #17
      I never thought of doing that. It is a good thought and may be telling of something. I am more of an experimental type of guy and that is the source of my nonchalant attitude towards this study and most epidemiology.

      I think I have to side with the "crap" notion. Chris Masterjohn argues it here http://blog.cholesterol-and-health.c...bout-your.html

      I have a hard time believing that any of this can be used to extrapolate results to the real world, I think that the data is inconsistent with other findings and generally understood mechanisms of disease.

      I can find studies that show the processed meats correlate with CHD but not plain red meat http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20479151 More processed meats below.

      I can find studies that don't demonstrate correlation between the only real notable difference between deciles, saturated fat (although I think that such a number is flawed. More below) http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2...m&ordinalpos=2

      Or protein, and I dare anyone to come up with a viable mechanism for that http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles...ox%20Final.pdf

      Am I to believe that PUFAs didn't increase at all when you tell people to gorge on animal fat and vegetable fat only decreases by 3%? Arachidonic acid absolutely increases the risk for heart disease, but there is no such evidence for saturated fat or monounsaturated fat. Saturated fat also increased a lot more than monounsaturated, but all animal fats are roughly equally monounsaturated and saturated, so what gives? I think that epidemiologists going off of surveys is what gives.

      http://omega-6-omega-3-balance.omega...rt-attack.aspx

      I only eat low arachiodonic acid meats and balance it out with fish high in omega 3 fatty acids. That also ties into the processed meats causing heart disease but beef not causing it. Conventional pork has massive arachidonic acid but it is miniscule in beef, and grassfed beef and game meats have some omega 3 was well. That is what I think is at the root of processed meats being linked to heart disease, whereas beef isn't. I'm the lunatic in the corner telling people that bacon every day isn't a good idea, and I'll eat pork once a week or so but I think that MDA forums get a little overboard with the "fat good, carbs bad". There are huge differences in fats. I also note that their omega 3/6 ratios are terrible. Maybe saturated fat and its cholesterol-raising properties increase risk of heart disease in the presence of obscene inflammation. That would be what a study like this is good for: a hypothesis.

      Good thinking, I appreciate the discussion, but I don't think that this is a good study. We may be better off going by experimental studies and tracking biological risk factors than this naive "holism" that so many people espouse. You can literally predict heart disease risk with A1C, fasting insulin, blood pressure, CRP, and triglycerides/HDL. Eating beef, fish and game meat improves that.
      Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

      Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

      Comment


      • #18
        The mens - animal -satfat numbers are dead wrong. The absolute values there are mathematically impossible.
        The total numbers have to add up to about the same as the other groupings because they are the same people.
        The relative increase across the deciles are probably about right. 24-40-57 is impossible. 10-24-40 might be what it should say.

        Comment


        • #19
          Its the only right way to look at it.
          This is really a pool of 3 different studies with commentary comparing the results of the 3.
          Took me days of obsessing to break thru that wall.

          It is really hard to look at the animal group and reverse engineer the data to actual foods. All those animal calories with on 1.3 servings of red OR processed meat. Could be no beef at all. I'm wondering if chicken breast with full-fat dairy might be the answer.
          Another possibility is that nobody ate the average diet. Two or more different patterns might converge to make up an artificial average.

          Comment


          • #20
            Oh true, that is an obvious place to look for a verification. I was just going by what I generally know about animal fats and how those kinds of numbers would be impossible to get from those dietary changes. Pork is the only conventional animal fat that is more saturated than monounsaturated, but not by much and those kinds of numbers are impossible. But yeah the total average should reflect both groups and it doesn't. That is another good thing to note, they weren't really eating more beef, so that must have been pork and chicken fat, which is pretty much death if that is your increase of animal fat without any more omega 3 fatty acids, which also didn't increase.

            Then I'm taking this as "eating a lot of "arachidonic acid without increasing your omega 3s causes heart disease". A scientific fact by now and verified by other studies. And low carb paleo people indeed shouldn't just dismiss that because it is important. It means heart attacks or not heart attacks, and much more.

            Anyway stabby doesn't do stats. His head hurts now.
            Last edited by Stabby; 09-15-2010, 10:08 PM.
            Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

            Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

            Comment


            • #21
              Not sure if they would count pork as red. I think so.
              Either a lot of fatty chicken or fatty pork should push pufa up a lot faster than the data show, shouldn't it?
              I think lean meat/chicken/fish combined with heavy butter use fits best but who eats like that?

              We'll have to have a discussion on aa some time. That's the one Sears harps on isn't it?
              I looked into it once years ago and it seemed like the only way to really cut it back would be to go veg*n.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by bcbcbc2 View Post
                Not sure if they would count pork as red. I think so.
                Either a lot of fatty chicken or fatty pork should push pufa up a lot faster than the data show, shouldn't it?
                I think lean meat/chicken/fish combined with heavy butter use fits best but who eats like that?

                We'll have to have a discussion on aa some time. That's the one Sears harps on isn't it?
                I looked into it once years ago and it seemed like the only way to really cut it back would be to go veg*n
                Yes conventional chicken and pork have massive omega 6 content. We have already established that the saturated fat numbers don't add up so I can't really expect the PUFAs to be accurate. Literally, if they are eating all of that animal fat but only 1.3, that is chicken chicken chicken and maybe they don't count pork as red meat, but then again it's a survey and "red meat" is kind of arbitray. And Kurt Harris eats like you mentioned but replaces chicken with bison.

                Arachidonic acid is bad in excess but it isn't like the amount that is found in a good paleo diet is of any concern. I wouldn't go vegan or even low fat, just low AA and sufficient omega 3 since cholesterol is actually very important and low fat vegans have low HDL and high trigs, which is not the least bit desirable.

                The biochem on tissue HUFA is pretty clear. Omega 6 and omega 3 replace each other in the tissues and so the ratio that we eat will determine our tissue HUFAs. More than 4% of dietary fats (approx) will get you to the point where you aren't producing any more inflammatory eicosanoids, but you are reducing your anti-inflammatory eicosanoids, and so people with low omega 3 and high omega 6 are basically on fire inside all the time and it causes nearly every disease to a degree. But if you maintain low omega 6 and equal omega 3 you aren't inflamed any more than anyone on a low fat diet. Here is Bill Lands explaining it. He will say linoleic acid but you can substitute arachidonic acid and it says the same thing. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgU3cNppzO0 It is all about the "omega index", the ratio of HUFAs in tissues, and some is perfectly fine, especially if eating high SFA.

                As for diet, beef, lamb, bison, fish for meats. Butter is good and so is coconut. I'm at 2.5% omega 6 including plant sources but I'm eating about 60% fat. Eating more omega 3 balances things out and you really don't see much difference. Stephan at wholehealthsource will tell you that omega 6 causes insulin resistance but SFA and MFA don't, but here insulin resistance can be completely reduced with fish oil. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3303333 as can any heart disease or cancer risk as Lands talks about in his video. It's all about balance and I think keeping omega 6 low, like Grok ate. Inflammation is a good thing to a degree, as well, it just needs to be turned off by the DHA-derived eicosanoids.

                That's all I really have to say about arachidonic acid. Bad in excess, but my paleo diet doesn't include much, and linoleic acid/low fat are by no means good solutions, despite what Sears has to say about linoleic acid. I will take Lands' research over his. Mike Eades wrote "linoleic acid converts to anti-inflammatory eicosanoids if insulin is low" once upon a time but he admitted that he is wrong. Linoelic acid becomes GLA but only in a very small quantity, and as Lands shows linoleic acid kills tissue HUFA balance, so obviously it isn't anti-inflammatory like Sears claimed.

                edit: oh and if you check the mens table, the numbers for vegetables fats in the veggie group don't add up either. I swear on my life, plant fats besides a few like coconut and olive oil in moderation are not healthy. Like maybe if you feed rats lard and then you feed another group canola oil that will look good for canola oil because of superior omega 3, but linoleic acid is a poison, especially in numbers like AHA advocates. I don't like to just come out swinging with slander with but this looks to be an attempt to make plant fats look really good and saturated fats really bad, as is the current AHA/government agenda. More on that at wholehealthsource. They have cherry-picked studies before. http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.co...n-at-door.html

                Prepare the tin-foil hats!
                Last edited by Stabby; 09-15-2010, 11:12 PM.
                Stabbing conventional wisdom in its face.

                Anyone who wants to talk nutrition should PM me!

                Comment


                • #23
                  Studies! Who needs them?

                  The data is manipulated to defend whatever interests the commentator.

                  An example----If you will allow that a given population is 50% male and 50% female, I will show you a 'study' and its result.

                  In a population of 1000 people, 500 women and 500 men, it was determined that there were 1000 testicles. From this result it should be clear that the average human being has one testicle.
                  Tayatha om bekandze

                  Bekandze maha bekandze

                  Randza samu gate soha

                  Comment

                  Working...
                  X