Saturated fat associated with higher homocysteine

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju said:

Homocysteine is a moderate and independent risk factor of heart disease.

No, it isn't.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju wrote:

No link has ever stood up to further scrutiny. Lowering homocysteine
resulted in increased mortality.

Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.

Susan

Susan said:

Juhana Harju wrote:

Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.

Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by supplements.
The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in saturated fats and
higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is a completely different
thing.

Quoted message said:

Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.

I did not say anything about causality.

--
Juhana

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju said:

Susan said:

Juhana Harju wrote:

Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.

Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by
supplements. The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in
saturated fats and higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is a
completely different thing.

Quoted message said:

Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.

I did not say anything about causality.

Such studies are useless wrt saturated fats unless they control for
grass fed vs. feedlot animal products.

Susan

Susan said:

Juhana Harju said:

Susan said:

Juhana Harju wrote:

Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.

Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by
supplements. The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in
saturated fats and higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is
a completely different thing.

Quoted message said:

Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.

I did not say anything about causality.

Such studies are useless wrt saturated fats unless they control for
grass fed vs. feedlot animal products.

That is just a way to evade the topic.

--
Juhana

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju said:

That is just a way to evade the topic.

It IS the topic.

There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from saturated
fats.

Further, the fat profiles from grass fed meat and dairy is extremely
heart healthy, much more so than that from feedlot beef.

All we have so far is research on feedlot animal fat which is much less
healthy, and still, it's what you eat with the fat, not the fat that has
been proven to cause the risks.

Susan

It's not the SFAs, except in terms of "associations," "links," or
"correlations." If SFAs were so bad, where is all the "associated"
disease amongst those who consume SFA-rich, but PUFA-poor diets? They
are studying SFAs in the context of typical Western diets, where
people don't eat much coconut, but do eat plenty of meat. There is no
biochemical connection between homocysteine and SFAs. The reason they
don't understand is because they are not isolating the various
molecules and determining which are dangerous. More insightful
researchers have demonstrated that a PUFA-rich diet and the HCAs
generated in cooked meat are a very dangerous combination. To see
these kinds of studies, go to my free site and read the essay about
saturated fatty acids being the solution, not the problem:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju said:

That is just a way to evade the topic.

Quoted message said:

There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from saturated
fats.

There's plenty of evidence.

Quoted message said:

Further, the fat profiles from grass fed meat and dairy is extremely
heart healthy, much more so than that from feedlot beef.

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html
shows that it's better, but not extremely better. The reason its
better is because of increased omega 3 fatty acid content.

Quoted message said:

All we have so far is research on feedlot animal fat which is much less
healthy, and still, it's what you eat with the fat, not the fat that has
been proven to cause the risks.

What nutrition component do you think can lead to CVD?

--
Ron

x-no-archive: yes

Ron Peterson said:

http://www.csuchico.edu/agr/grassfedbeef/health-benefits/index.html
shows that it's better, but not extremely better. The reason its
better is because of increased omega 3 fatty acid content.

That's not the only reason. It's also has higher CLA and lower
arachidonic acid.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

All we have so far is research on feedlot animal fat which is much less
healthy, and still, it's what you eat with the fat, not the fat that has
been proven to cause the risks.

What nutrition component do you think can lead to CVD?

High glycemic load; starch and sugar and the resultant oxidative stress.

Susan

Susan said:

Juhana Harju said:

That is just a way to evade the topic.

It IS the topic.

There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from
saturated fats.

I just provided some further evidence by posting two studies but you are
evading the subject because you are denying that which is evident. However,
I completely understand the reasons you are so evasive. Because of your
health reasons you are a low-carber who is favouring animal fats, saturated
fats among them. So you have hard time when you see any contrary evidence.
You should notice that I am not denying the obvious health benefits of
low-carbing in achieving better glycemic control. But the subject is
different now.

--
Juhana

In 2000 I had my blood lipids checked. For a several of days prior
I had been eating raw coconut. My HDL was 70 and the Doc
said even though my total cholesterol was ~ 230 my blood lipids
were excellent. The next time I was tested the HDL was down
to 38 and I had been eating somewhat more conventionally.
Granted at the time I was very stressed so there were other
factors.

I also have suspect heated polyunsaturated fats are worse
than the same fats if unheated. For example a raw sesame
or sunflower seed versus sesame oil or sunflower oil.

Butter is thought of as saturated but it tends to go
rancid rather rapidly. Certainly frying with butter, would
be a way to up one's toxic oxysterol exposure.

I've tried coconut oil for cooking and wasn't overly impressed.
It seems to disappear into the food more than other fats.
I keep aiming to cook a pie and try it in the crust, it would have
to be better than hydrogenated lard.

Quoted message said:

It's not the SFAs, except in terms of "associations," "links," or
"correlations." If SFAs were so bad, where is all the "associated"
disease amongst those who consume SFA-rich, but PUFA-poor diets? They
are studying SFAs in the context of typical Western diets, where
people don't eat much coconut, but do eat plenty of meat. There is no
biochemical connection between homocysteine and SFAs. The reason they
don't understand is because they are not isolating the various
molecules and determining which are dangerous. More insightful
researchers have demonstrated that a PUFA-rich diet and the HCAs
generated in cooked meat are a very dangerous combination. To see
these kinds of studies, go to my free site and read the essay about
saturated fatty acids being the solution, not the problem:

http://groups.msn.com/TheScientificDebateForum-

Yes, it is.

Now that is my equally rich response :-)

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju said:

Homocysteine is a moderate and independent risk factor of heart disease.

No, it isn't.

Susan

I see that as an unwarrented conclusion for the bulk of the
population.
Most people will be eating feed lot animals and their fat whatever it
is
seems less than optimal.

Susan said:

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju said:

Susan wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Juhana Harju wrote:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Lowering homocysteine resulted in increased mortality.

Quoted message said:

Not always, and now the question was not about lowering it by
supplements. The orginal posting was about having a diet lower in
saturated fats and higher in long-chain omega-3 fatty acids. That is a
completely different thing.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Clearly, whatever it's a marker for, it isn't causal itself.

Quoted message said:

I did not say anything about causality.

Such studies are useless wrt saturated fats unless they control for
grass fed vs. feedlot animal products.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

I see that as an unwarrented conclusion for the bulk of the
population.
Most people will be eating feed lot animals and their fat whatever it
is
seems less than optimal.

So what? That doesn't suggest that saturated fat is bad. only that
feedlot animal foods are bad.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Do you have the reference on lowering homocysteine increasing
mortality?

Try googling this group and Jim Chinnis; he's a scientist who's
reviewed the research due to his own former homocysteine concerns and
presented conclusions about it here, including, IIRC, mentions of
increased mortality, and he and David Rind have discussed publications
about it on this group.

Susan

x-no-archive: yes

Quoted message said:

Yes, it is.

Now that is my equally rich response :-)

We've had the discssion here ad nauseum; that's what it's come down to.

:-)

Susan

x-no-archvie: yes

Juhana Harju said:

Susan said:

Juhana Harju said:

That is just a way to evade the topic.

It IS the topic.

There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from
saturated fats.

I just provided some further evidence by posting two studies but you are
evading the subject because you are denying that which is evident.
However, I completely understand the reasons you are so evasive. Because
of your health reasons you are a low-carber who is favouring animal
fats, saturated fats among them. So you have hard time when you see any
contrary evidence. You should notice that I am not denying the obvious
health benefits of low-carbing in achieving better glycemic control. But
the subject is different now.

[censored]. I've provide citations ad nauseum to rebut you, but you don't
read them, you just provide more unsupported opinion pieces that are not
supported by data or methodology or well controlled.

I've got a low tolerance for small mindedness.

Susan

Susan said:

x-no-archvie: yes

Juhana Harju said:

Susan said:

Juhana Harju wrote:

> That is just a way to evade the topic.

It IS the topic.

There is no good evidence for any increased health risks from
saturated fats.

I just provided some further evidence by posting two studies but you
are evading the subject because you are denying that which is
evident. However, I completely understand the reasons you are so
evasive. Because of your health reasons you are a low-carber who is
favouring animal fats, saturated fats among them. So you have hard
time when you see any contrary evidence. You should notice that I am
not denying the obvious health benefits of low-carbing in achieving
better glycemic control. But the subject is different now.

[censored]. I've provide citations ad nauseum to rebut you, but you
don't read them, you just provide more unsupported opinion pieces
that are not supported by data or methodology or well controlled.

I've got a low tolerance for small mindedness.

In that case I encourage you to use killfile and not to respond to my
postings anymore. I would not loose anything.

--
Juhana

x-no-archive: yes

Juhana Harju said:

In that case I encourage you to use killfile and not to respond to my
postings anymore. I would not loose anything.

Actually, I've had you KF'ed for a long time, but sometimes the feature
on Thunderbird slips up. Then I see your disinformation and feel
compelled to respond.

Susan