Fat in the blood...
I'm watching a recording i made that was on british tv some months ago before i was primal.
It's Horizon: The truth about exercise.
I'm a quarter into it and the presenter has just been made to eat a full english fry up for breakfast in aid of science.
The scientist, from the Uni of Glasgow, has taken a sample of blood before and 4 hours after the meal and spun it in a centrifuge to separate out the fat.
There is a noticeable amount of white cloudy 'fat' at the top of the '4 hr' sample compared to negligible amounts in the 'before' sample, He explains that the greater the concentration the more likely fatty deposits will form in the arteries.
I guess this is what we're all used to hearing but seeing the physical 'evidence' is a little shocking.
Is it that the deposits are unlikely to form on a high fat low grain/carb diet?
ok they've done the same the next day after he was asked to go for a decent walk the night before and this time he's got roughly 1/3 less fat in the blood at the 4hr mark
It seems to depend on a fairly primitive "you are what you eat" way of thinking.
But does that work?
And is glucose never converted to fat in the body? Hmmm ... but it can be, can't it?
People can get stuck in what seem like obvious ways of thinking[I] to them[/I] -- but do those ways of thinking really make sense?
To step out of what we're talking about at the moment, isn't that what this book is about?
[url=http://www.amazon.co.uk/The-Golden-Bough-Wordsworth-Reference/dp/1853263109/]The Golden Bough: A Study in Magic and Religion Wordsworth Reference: Amazon.co.uk: Sir James George Frazer: Books[/url]
Not that Frazer maybe doesn't miss a lot, but it's kind of interesting to see how people -- whole civilizations -- can get, as it were, hypnotized by fairly magical ways of thinking that have a kind of rationale but aren't really logical. "Sympathetic magic" or "imitative magic" and so on.
Maybe "eating fat = fat in the blood" is no less magical than "say a charm over the knife you cut yourself with because the knife did the cutting".
That is to say: OK, there is some kind of connection there, but is it the right one to make?
And doesn't his body handle the dietary fat differently depending on which fat it is? ... or how used to dealing with fat it is? ... or any one of a number of other variables? I'd think it must.
I learnt through twitter yesterday that Professor Tim Noakes had done an experiment where he fed identical twins, one a high-fat diet, one a high-carb diet. Guess which put on more adipose tissue? isn't that more interesting that what Horizon chose to do? It seems so to me at any rate.
I think what we usually see on public TV is of woefully poor quality and dependent on shallow thinking. But that's TV for you: they'd also show Madonna rather than the Berlin Philharmonic Orchestra, wouldn't they? Just how things work.
Thanks lewis, we are talking active, researching professors and scientists here and not just conversation in the pub but you must be right there is more to the story of fat.
On the whole the program is reasonably informed, they've covered HIT over chronic cardio and general movement/walking over chronic cardio.
[QUOTE=Greenbeast;1036269] He explains that the greater the concentration the more likely fatty deposits will form in the arteries.
I question this.
Once the lipoproteins are ferried through the CV system, isn't excess flushed out?
If by fatty deposits he is referring to arterial plaques, isn't the etiology something like this: 1) endothelial damage (viruses, oxidation, inflammatory foods, smoking), 2) LDL particles attach to damaged/inflamed tissue as a healing mechanism, 3) ongoing damage, oxidation, and inflammation creates plaques that are not removed by HDL and lead to heart attack or stroke.
If you are eating foods that are not highly inflammatory and have good antioxidant content, that's preventive. Primal does this. If your HDL and LDL levels are not out of whack, your HDL removes the LDL before it builds up too much. Nothing about dietary fat per se should be of concern WRT to "fatty deposits," assuming the fats one eats are not industrial oils, and preference is given to quality meat and fish (grass-fed/pastured and wild-caught, respectively).
Did the presentation happen to measure lipids excreted as well? Who cares how much is in transit in the bloodstream if it's ultimately excreted?
[QUOTE=Greenbeast;1036328]... we are talking active, researching professors and scientists here and not just conversation in the pub ...[/QUOTE]
But if they're wrong they're wrong. And that's true whoever they are.
And "conversation in the pub" probably only amounts to more or less well-understood versions of what "researching professors and scientists" said on the telly the night before. And if it's wrong it's wrong ... and being a professor doesn't preclude one's being mistaken about something. "Researching professors and scientists" really might not have all the answers just because of who they are.
Heck, Marxian economics was shouted through the academies in the 1970s by tenured professors ... until the Soviet Union collapsed under the weight of its misconceptions. (Not that whatever's currently touted as the alternative to [I]that[/I] is the be-all and end-all, but clearly the ... err ... well-qualified and -informed sources who thought that it would work were quite mistaken.)
Of course the nutrients from the food you eat are going to end up in the system that your body uses to distribute nutrients! The only way to avoid that is to make your digestive system stop working, with the end result being starvation.
I'd like to see what the blood looks like after one of their supposed "healthy" meals. I wonder if there is a way to form sugar crystals to show how much is there?
And as for the question of whether it's healthy, well, just remember, fat occurs naturally in animals, sugar comes from a completely different category of life forms. Do you think we should inject bacon fat into daisies?
thanks guys, i wasn't straying sides i promise!
I just wanted someone better versed to put my mind at ease.
Better versed, huh? I can do verses.
And lo was I
in horrid straits
when deciding whether
to have fat or wait.
[QUOTE=Greenbeast;1036387]thanks guys, i wasn't straying sides i promise!
I just wanted someone better versed to put my mind at ease.[/QUOTE]
Not trying to put you down at all. And if you're looking for someone better versed, it's certainly not me.
I just don't see that making someone eat a breakfast and then spinning something out with a centrifuge proves much -- although it might look visually impressive. As I was implying, can they show that wouldn't be so for another type of breakfast -- they certainly [I]didn't[/I] do so from your description, did they? And, again, was the presenter used to handling that type of meal or not ... or didn't they even bother to address that question?
I think there's a belief around that science subjects are hard fact. If you want an easy life at the university you do something like media studies instead, right? Up to a point ... but I do think the consensus in any particular area of the scientific world can be fairly mistaken.
FWIW, I do honestly believe that people working professionally in the science world are as subject to fashion as anyone else. I think Gary Taubes, whether he's right on wrong on many of his own opinions, has probably succeeded in showing that. An example:
As regards fat, there's just too much that points in a different direction. To take an obvious point, the Maasai Moran, whose traditional diet was very high fat, were rail-thin; Sumo wrestlers, who conventionally ate one of the highest percentage carbohydrate diets around were (and are) obese. "Conventional" opinion isn't addressing facts like that (and there are many of them).