Low-Fat, Veggie-Based Diet Lowers High Cholesterol

<[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Previous just eat less fat approach was only part of the question and
overly simplified, it depends considerably what foods were chosen to
replace high fat foods:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_24404.html

"The benefits were not universal, as the researchers found great variation
from person to person in each group. "

Sounds to me like "badly controlled study".

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_24404.html

"Sounds to me like "badly controlled study"."

How so, did you read the news article about it? If there is some flaw in
the study it is more likely to be found in the full research report.

You are correct that an "eat less fat" mantra really has no science
behind it, in that each fatty acid has unique effects on the body. One
thing Americans never hear is that there are plenty of very health
Asians with high cholesterol levels and diets very high in saturated
fatty acids (from coconut), and yet they are also very healthy - hardly
any heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc. I've read the studies, and
I've also read the WHO statistics, and it's quite clear that the very
broad claims of nutritionists probably do more harm than good, though
few people seem to listen to them anyway. However, lowering fat is a
good idea if your diet is very high in polyunsaturated fatty acids.
Because of lipid peroxidation (free radical damage) from these fat
sources, your body goes into a chronic inflammatory process, resulting
in weight gain and lowering cholesterol (due to liver dysregulation).
For example: "Most of the corn and soybeans used to fatten cows, pigs,
and chickens..." Newsday newspaper, May 4, 2005. It is well known in
agricultural circles that a highly saturated fat source, like coconut
oil, makes people and animals thin, whereas the highly polyunsaturated
fat makes people and animals fat. However, because these farmers want
to fatten up their animals and sell them to you as meat, there is no
incentive to change anything, and the nutritionists are clueless -
basically, I do the opposite of what the nutrition textbooks say
(because the mechanism is based on free radical biochemistry, and
nutritionists are lucky if they can pass biochemistry with a C, so
don't expect any good information from them). It's all changed
recently, as Dr. Richard Stein of the AHA recently said about
understanding that only oxidized choelsterol is dangerous, so worrying
about cholesterol levels is meaningless. If your cholesterol is
oxidized it probably doesn't matter what the level is, what the HDL to
LDL ratio is, or any other such data. If your cholesterol is not
oxidized, only a level way over 220 indicates that your body may be
having some sort of major problem (because cholesterol is an
anti-stress substance, and so a great deal of production means there is
some sort of stressor, and then other tests would likely reveal what
the problem is, though most, if not all, "chronic diseases" appears
from the evidence to begin as free radical damage to cells and cellular
constituents).

On 17 May 2005 17:01:09 -0700, montygram wrote on sci.med.nutrition :

Quoted message said:

You are correct that an "eat less fat" mantra really has no science
behind it,

Do you reckon there is an upper limit to *total fats* intake?
On the American Guide Lines 2005 I read: no more than 35% of calories.

Quoted message said:

in that each fatty acid has unique effects on the body. One

You write about saturated and polyunsatured FAs? What do you think of
monounsatured FAs? In other words, would you like some olive oil, Sir? 😉

Quoted message said:

thing Americans never hear is that there are plenty of very health
Asians with high cholesterol levels and diets very high in saturated
fatty acids (from coconut), and yet they are also very healthy - hardly
any heart disease, cancer, diabetes, etc.

I understand cholesterol is just *one* risk factor.

Quoted message said:

I've read the studies, and
I've also read the WHO statistics, and it's quite clear that the very
broad claims of nutritionists probably do more harm than good, though
few people seem to listen to them anyway. However, lowering fat is a
good idea if your diet is very high in polyunsaturated fatty acids.

Would you therefore agree on "no more than 15% of calories from
polyunsatured FAs"?

Quoted message said:

Because of lipid peroxidation (free radical damage) from these fat
sources, your body goes into a chronic inflammatory process, resulting
in weight gain and lowering cholesterol (due to liver dysregulation).
For example: "Most of the corn and soybeans used to fatten cows, pigs,
and chickens..." Newsday newspaper, May 4, 2005. It is well known in
agricultural circles that a highly saturated fat source, like coconut
oil, makes people and animals thin, whereas the highly polyunsaturated
fat makes people and animals fat.

Is it? Where can we read about that?

Quoted message said:

However, because these farmers want
to fatten up their animals and sell them to you as meat, there is no
incentive to change anything,

Lean meat sells at higher prices, though... isn't that an incentive?

Quoted message said:

and the nutritionists are clueless -
basically, I do the opposite of what the nutrition textbooks say
(because the mechanism is based on free radical biochemistry, and
nutritionists are lucky if they can pass biochemistry with a C, so

I understand nutritionists know about lipid peroxidation, but that that's
just *one* of the mechanisms to consider...

Quoted message said:

don't expect any good information from them). It's all changed
recently, as Dr. Richard Stein of the AHA recently said about
understanding that only oxidized choelsterol is dangerous, so worrying
about cholesterol levels is meaningless. If your cholesterol is
oxidized it probably doesn't matter what the level is, what the HDL to
LDL ratio is, or any other such data.

Don't you think HDL has a protective role, anyway?

Quoted message said:

If your cholesterol is not
oxidized,

How can one tell whether cholesterol is oxidized or not?

Quoted message said:

only a level way over 220 indicates that your body may be
having some sort of major problem

Don't you care if it is mostly LDL or not?

Quoted message said:

(because cholesterol is an
anti-stress substance, and so a great deal of production means there is
some sort of stressor,

Do you think of cholesterol as a marker of inflamation?

Quoted message said:

and then other tests would likely reveal what
the problem is, though most, if not all, "chronic diseases" appears
from the evidence to begin as free radical damage to cells and cellular
constituents).

BTW, do you use some vitamin supplements to stop radical damage?

--
Enrico C

<[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_24404.html

"Sounds to me like "badly controlled study"."

How so, did you read the news article about it? If there is some flaw in
the study it is more likely to be found in the full research report.

What caused the great variations?
When this question remains unanswered the study was not controlled well.
I suppose they would have mentioned it on medline in the article if they
knew what caused them (because then they could be compensated for).

"What caused the great variations?
When this question remains unanswered the study was not controlled well.
I suppose they would have mentioned it on medline in the article if they
knew what caused them (because then they could be compensated for)."

Looking at the full article shows it was a matter of what question was
being asked, causes of difference was not the question, consider:

"This differential effect on LDL cholesterol concentrations is probably
attributable^ to at least 1 and probably a combination of the components
that differed in the 2 diets, such as the higher content of soy, fiber,
garlic, and plant sterols in the Low-Fat Plus diet and^ possibly other
unmeasured differences. However, the study was not designed to determine
which of these components were responsible^ for the effect observed.
Rather, the study's purpose was to compare the impact of 2 dietary
patterns
on LDL cholesterol level and other plasma lipid concentrations. The
results
clearly demonstrate that the differences were not attributable to
saturated^ fat, cholesterol, energy intake, or body weight, because each
of
these variables was similar and constant in the 2 diet groups by design."

<[email hidden]> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"What caused the great variations?
When this question remains unanswered the study was not controlled well.
I suppose they would have mentioned it on medline in the article if they
knew what caused them (because then they could be compensated for)."

Looking at the full article shows it was a matter of what question was
being asked, causes of difference was not the question, consider:

Causes of difference could not have been the question since it was an
(unwanted) result or by-product.

Quoted message said:

"This differential effect on LDL cholesterol concentrations is probably
attributable^ to at least 1 and probably a combination of the components
that differed in the 2 diets, such as the higher content of soy, fiber,
garlic, and plant sterols in the Low-Fat Plus diet and^ possibly other
unmeasured differences. However, the study was not designed to determine
which of these components were responsible^ for the effect observed.
Rather, the study's purpose was to compare the impact of 2 dietary
patterns
on LDL cholesterol level and other plasma lipid concentrations. The
results
clearly demonstrate that the differences were not attributable to
saturated^ fat, cholesterol, energy intake, or body weight, because each
of
these variables was similar and constant in the 2 diet groups by design."

Of course.. the study does have an outcome, but the outcome would have been
more powerful if the unknowns that were mentioned in the quote above could
have been clearly identified.. this is part of the controling of a study.

"Of course.. the study does have an outcome, but the outcome would have
been
more powerful if the unknowns that were mentioned in the quote above could
have been clearly identified.. this is part of the controling of a study."

Most research doesn't try to be the answer to many questions, just one or
a few. Research design follows the question asked specifically so that
confounding elements can be excluded or held constant. In this case low
fat in each but obvious contrasting difference in the content of food
sources. As they said it was this pattern that was the question. It is
typical to address the parts of the larger subject by reviewing studies of
others which did ask the other question, in this case about differences in
nutrition that related to the results. In this way their results are
related to the subject as a whole and it's place in the larger picture
shown. Now they show that differences but not low fat alone is important,
they can now ask additional questions in other research to identify what
substances was in one but not the other to cause differences in lipid
results. They proposed such things as possible causes. This is an
important question, is it just any diet that is low fat or does including
those things thought to be involved cause different results, that's what
they did.