SFAs are bad for you because of semantics.

Discussion in 'Food and nutrition' started by montygram, Aug 18, 2005.

  1. montygram

    montygram Guest

    I believed "saturated fat" was "bad" for over a decade of my adult
    life. I didn't realize that the science behind this claim was worse
    than flawed. In fact, they had someone turned the scientific reality
    on it's head. How did it happen?

    Ancel Keys found that diets higher in SFAs raised total blood
    cholesterol levels. This is not entirely true, but most SFAs do raise
    TC a bit, depending upong your existing level (the body regulates this,
    except in those with liver metabolism and other rare conditions).
    Keys' conclusion, in his major publication, the book "Seven Countries,"
    that the best cholesterol level for overall mortality was in the
    200-220 range. You never hear this in the mainstream media, though
    they mention him quite a bit, yet there it is, in rich black and white,
    waiting for you to read it (I think it's on page 179, if I remember
    correctly).

    Since then, many researchers assumed that "saturated fat is bad because
    it causes heart attacks." Now it is known that this connection is
    TOTALLY wrong. Oxidized cholesterol is the only problem, as AHA
    spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, recently announced. So as long as the
    cholesterol is not oxidized, you are better off having cholesterol
    levels around 210-220, and not under 200, as the "experts" now say.
    They should be telling you how to avoiid oxidized cholesterol, but they
    don't, which is why I've done so here.

    But there's more to it. Who decides what "saturated fat" is? There is
    no one agency or idividual who has the authority in this world to make
    such pronouncements. There is no nutritional Pope. Lard is classified
    by researchers as "saturated fat" even though it's less than 40%
    saturated. How can that be? Who decided that? How could this
    possibly be consistent with anything that could be called "science?" I
    have no idea. It doesn't make any sense, and so far, it's proven to be
    absolutely useless. Science that doesn't work is called
    pseudo-science, or just nonsense.

    And if "saturated fat" is so bad, why is it that the beef and pork
    eaters are indeed dropping dead of heart attacks, etc. at higher rates
    than most vegetarians, yet Asians who eat huge amounts of coconut oil,
    which is 92% saturated, have much lower rates of all "chronic
    diseases." You can go to the World Health Organization web site and
    see for yourself. As a trained, objective researcher, that's exactly
    what I did. Know what else I discovered? Many Mediterranean nations
    have higher rates of cancer than the USA, and heart disease rates that
    are similar. So much for the "Meditarranean diet."

    I contacted the authors of a study that claimed that animal fat is not
    associated with Alzheimer's diseases, but saturated fat is. Of course,
    "saturated fat" was never defined by these "scientists," but I wanted
    to know how they could come to such a strange-sounding conclusion,
    since the people in the study were not consuming coconut oil or palm
    kernel oil (which is about 85% saturated). I was told to submit my
    question and I would get an answer within about a week. I'm still
    waiting, more than a year later, even though I've contacted them and
    reminded them of my question. After more research, I figured out how
    they could make such claims. It works like this: they give the people
    a questionnaire, and from the responses, they try to determine how much
    "saturated fat" was eaten. They then feed that into a computer, and
    see that the more "saturated fat" that was eaten, the more likely the
    people would develop Alzheimer's disease. The problem is that they do
    not control for the other ingreients in the food eaten. It is now
    known that if you compare chicken to beef, for example, you will see
    that the beef (most common forms eaten in the USA) is higher in
    cholesterol, iron, arachidonic acid, and stearic acid. This is more
    than enough of an explanation as to why beef is less healthy than
    chicken, but there's also the social factor, meaning that those who are
    less likely to take care of themselves (such as getting enough sleep,
    drinking too much alcohol, etc., as well as just eating whatever they
    want, whenever they want it) are more likely to eat beef rather than
    chicken.

    And that's how it's done. That is the shell game that is going on that
    is designed to convince you that "saturated fat is bad." Until
    "saturated fat" is defined with any kind of precision, you can't say
    that it's bad or good, because right now it's just a phrase that means
    different things to different people, scientists as well as the
    "average person." And unless you then do an experiment that takes into
    account the other factors that could make "saturated fat" look like the
    culprit, you are not doing science. But this is the ediface upon which
    a mountain of lies has been created.

    All the evidence I have reviewed supports, directly or indirectly,
    Denham Harman's "free radical theory of aging," only now (30 years
    later) we have the experimental data to support this claim. Saturated
    fatty acids resist free radical degradation, whereas the more
    unsaturated the fatty acid, in general, the more susceptible to free
    radical degradation it is. What that means is that electrons are
    "stolen" from important molecules that your body needs to function.
    When this occurs beyond a critical threshold, you get "sick."

    For a more techincal discussion, see my post (coming soon) titled "The
    Scientific Foundation of Chronic Disease Has Been Found."

    Any questions, feel free to ask. Unlike the "experts" I am willing to
    examine evidence that appears to be to the contrary and to explain my
    position. I also explain, step by step, exactly what is going on in
    the body. I don't just cite a study, many of which are badly flawed or
    not on point, and act like something is "proven." Proof is a
    mathematical and logical concept. In science, there is only
    interpretation of evidence. The strongest kind is when you have
    conducted an experiment (using the scientific method, meaning that it's
    properly controlled) that can be, and is repeated over and over again,
    with the same result.
     
    Tags:


  2. "montygram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]


    > Since then, many researchers assumed that "saturated fat is bad because
    > it causes heart attacks." Now it is known that this connection is
    > TOTALLY wrong. Oxidized cholesterol is the only problem, as AHA
    > spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, recently announced. So as long as the
    > cholesterol is not oxidized, you are better off having cholesterol
    > levels around 210-220, and not under 200, as the "experts" now say.
    > They should be telling you how to avoiid oxidized cholesterol, but they
    > don't, which is why I've done so here.


    ..

    OK , excellent , but how to avoid oxidised cholesterol ?

    Kam



    --
    Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
     
  3. montygram

    montygram Guest

    1. Determine if the food you are eating contains cholesterol.

    2. If it does, eat it raw (if possible) or boil it. Meat can be eaten
    raw if you keep it frozen for over 2 weeks, for example. I eat raw
    cheese that has been aged for at least 60 days.

    3. Do not use the highly unsaturated oils for any purpose. They
    oxidize the cholesterol in your body, even if you don't eat any
    cholesterol.

    4. Eating things like berries, dark chocolate, and lightly cooked
    broccoli florets (small amounts) will also help to some degree.

    NOTE: This is only about heart disease, but free radical damage
    appears to be the root cause of the other "chronic diseases" as well.
     
  4. montygram wrote:

    > Ancel Keys found that diets higher in SFAs raised total blood
    > cholesterol levels. This is not entirely true, but most SFAs do raise
    > TC a bit, depending upong your existing level (the body regulates this,
    > except in those with liver metabolism and other rare conditions).
    > Keys' conclusion, in his major publication, the book "Seven Countries,"
    > that the best cholesterol level for overall mortality was in the
    > 200-220 range. You never hear this in the mainstream media, though
    > they mention him quite a bit, yet there it is, in rich black and white,
    > waiting for you to read it (I think it's on page 179, if I remember
    > correctly).


    COMMENT:

    Here's where you have to use your brain, Monty. The lower cholesterols
    are in poor countries where overall mortality is hurt badly by poverty,
    infant deaths from totally preventable things like diarrhea and
    measles, and so forth. If you use your brain, you can mentally subtact
    those deaths as being preventable and having nothing to do with
    cholesterol, and consider what would happen if these countries had the
    infant motality that WE have in the West, but the heart disease rates
    that THEY have in those countries. The answer is that they'd do very
    well indeed. So unless you think low cholesterols cause all the same
    diseases we now blame on poverty and lack of medical care, I suggest
    you take Keyes' gross claim with a grain of salt, and pay attention to
    the coronary death rates in his study.



    > Since then, many researchers assumed that "saturated fat is bad because
    > it causes heart attacks." Now it is known that this connection is
    > TOTALLY wrong. Oxidized cholesterol is the only problem, as AHA
    > spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, recently announced.


    Cite, please?



    > So as long as the
    > cholesterol is not oxidized, you are better off having cholesterol
    > levels around 210-220, and not under 200, as the "experts" now say.



    Cite, please?


    > But there's more to it. Who decides what "saturated fat" is? There is
    > no one agency or idividual who has the authority in this world to make
    > such pronouncements. There is no nutritional Pope. Lard is classified
    > by researchers as "saturated fat" even though it's less than 40%
    > saturated. How can that be? Who decided that?



    When they calculate saturated fat intake, they correct for the fact
    that no natural fat is completely saturated.


    > And if "saturated fat" is so bad, why is it that the beef and pork
    > eaters are indeed dropping dead of heart attacks, etc. at higher rates
    > than most vegetarians, yet Asians who eat huge amounts of coconut oil,
    > which is 92% saturated, have much lower rates of all "chronic
    > diseases."


    Well, the obvious answer is that it's different saturated fats
    involved. Tropical oils with short-chain saturated fats have indeed
    gotten a bum rap. If that was your only point, you'd be doing well.
    Unfortunately, you seem to have overgeneralized from it.


    > You can go to the World Health Organization web site and
    > see for yourself. As a trained, objective researcher, that's exactly
    > what I did. Know what else I discovered? Many Mediterranean nations
    > have higher rates of cancer than the USA, and heart disease rates that
    > are similar.


    COMMENT:

    Not if you correct for smoking, they don't. Name one.


    >So much for the "Meditarranean diet."


    No, you're not justified in dismissing it that easily. Europeans smoke
    like fiends, and if they have similar heart disease rates to the USA,
    instead of the far higher ones they OUGHT to have, that's pretty
    remarkable. And needs an explanation. Thus, the French paradox.

    SBH
     
  5. Montygram never responds to criticisms. And, in spite of all the
    garbage written by Montygram there are in fact a very large number of
    research studies that have documented the health benefits of consuming
    olive oil.

    My web page on olive oil
    http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/oliveoil.html
    has hyperlinks to all of these studies at the bottom of the page.
    Factsheets 1 through 6 lists the evidence and links to scientific
    research on olive oil. You wont find a more professional presentation
    of the vast amount of scientific evidence standing behind olive oil
    than what is presented on these 6 factsheets. I am now linking to the
    web archives so these links will never change.

    Furthermore, olive oil is very practical as you can buy a health grade
    bottle of olive oil at most ordinary grocery stores.
    --
    john gohde
    http://food.naturalhealthperspective.com/oliveoil.html
     
  6. montygram

    montygram Guest

    Yes, high-quality olive oil is okay, if you don't damage the fatty
    acids in cooking, but unless you have your own lab, you will not know
    if you really do have the high-qaulity stuff, no matter what the label
    on the bottle says.

    I've cited everything in previous posts. Just search this group for
    montygram and whatever other keyword, like "richard stein" and you will
    have your citation.

    There was a study done of Asians who lived "primitively" on an atoll
    and ate huge amounts of coconut as well as animals fed coconut. They
    had "high cholesterol" but no heart attacks.

    As for SFAs other than those found in large amounts in coconut oil,
    where is the controlled study that demonstrated that these are
    unhealthy? There are no such studies. It is very complicated and
    perhaps practically impossible to control for each kind of molecule in
    all the foods people eat, even if foods eaten rarely are discounted or
    ignored.

    Some things are known, like the fact that stearic acid (an SFA)
    enhances iron absorption, which is good if you need the iron, but bad
    if you are eating a lot of unsaturated fatty acids, due to the in vivo
    lipid peroxidation that will be enhanced.

    We do know that now, a few decades after "saturated fat" has been
    derided as the most dangerous thing you can eat, leading to the mass
    consumption of things like canola oil (MacDonald's replaced the beef
    tallow they used to use with an oil higher in unsaturated fatty acids a
    few years ago, if I remember correctly), and all we hear about are
    rising rates of all kinds of "chronic disease," to the point where
    "experts" are using the word epidemic just about every time they open
    their mouths.

    Harris misses the point about how the SFAs are calculated. I am not
    suggesting that those who don't eat a slightly higher amount of SFAs
    have higher rates of this or that "disease," but it's not because of
    the SFAs. The other factors, which are incredibly dangerous (such as
    the arachidonic acid) are not even considered. This is not science,
    period. It just happens that a hamburger has higher levels of
    arachidonic acid, iron, stearic acid, and cholesterol (much of it
    oxidized when the burger is fried) than something like roassted chicken
    breast. And that's what these "epidemiological" studies, which begin
    with the assumption that "saturated fat is bad," come to the
    conclusions that they do.

    For those who think any SFA is dangerous, with the exception of stearic
    acid's effect mentioned above or very rare genetic disorders, cite at
    least the abstract and I will respond. Otherwise, this is not a
    scientific debate and your responses should be to a forum other than
    sci.med.nutrition.
     
  7. montygram wrote:

    > Ancel Keys found that diets ...


    Ancel Keys was somebody, unlike you.

    Ancel Keys had a name, unlike you.

    Ancel Keys was famous, unlike you

    Ancel Keys was right, unlike you.

    Ancel Keys made it to the age of 100, unlike you.

    Just thought that you might want to know.
     
  8. Mirek Fidler

    Mirek Fidler Guest

    Kamalakar Pasupuleti wrote:
    > "montygram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    > news:[email protected]
    >
    >
    >
    >>Since then, many researchers assumed that "saturated fat is bad because
    >>it causes heart attacks." Now it is known that this connection is
    >>TOTALLY wrong. Oxidized cholesterol is the only problem, as AHA
    >>spokesman, Dr. Richard Stein, recently announced. So as long as the
    >>cholesterol is not oxidized, you are better off having cholesterol
    >>levels around 210-220, and not under 200, as the "experts" now say.
    >>They should be telling you how to avoiid oxidized cholesterol, but they
    >>don't, which is why I've done so here.

    >
    >
    > .
    >
    > OK , excellent , but how to avoid oxidised cholesterol ?
    >


    AFAIK there is quite well proved connection between TG, HDL and oxLDL
    levels. Lower TG results in higher HDL and lower oxLDL.

    Actually, if you think about it, facts seem to match. Since the start of
    "cholesterol link", it was known that high HDL is protective. In fact,
    you risk is not determined by TC or LDL value, but if you go deeper in
    data, best predictor seems to be TC/HDL ratio. Which in other words is
    exactly what is known to affect LDL oxidation levels.

    Now to reduce TG and increase HDL, one proved way is to reduce glycemic
    load. To be fair, it is NOT known whether this will improve your real
    health, but it IS known that it will reduce your TG and increase HDL.

    Mirek
     
  9. TC

    TC Guest

    Mr-Natural-Health wrote:
    > montygram wrote:
    >
    > > Ancel Keys found that diets ...

    >
    > Ancel Keys was somebody, unlike you.
    >
    > Ancel Keys had a name, unlike you.
    >
    > Ancel Keys was famous, unlike you
    >
    > Ancel Keys was right, unlike you.
    >
    > Ancel Keys made it to the age of 100, unlike you.
    >
    > Just thought that you might want to know.


    Ancel Keys was looking for glory and reward, not the truth.

    TC
     
  10. "Ancel Keys was looking for glory and reward, not the truth."

    Using atkins with the same criteria, what is the verdict?
     
  11. Pickle-Head

    Pickle-Head Guest

    Unfortunately, truth is something that you, TC, seem to know little
    about. You are a quack of the first order. The falsehoods, biased
    crap and ignorant blather you spew are the last things anyone should
    consider when reading through these groups.

    TC = Quack
     
  12. "montygram" <[email protected]> wrote in message
    news:[email protected]


    > 4. Eating things like berries, dark chocolate, and lightly cooked
    > broccoli florets (small amounts) will also help to some degree.


    Where to find pure ( sugarless ) dark chocolate ?
    I am a diabetic and wish to avoid sugar / sugar substitutes .

    Kam




    --
    Posted via Mailgate.ORG Server - http://www.Mailgate.ORG
     
  13. montygram

    montygram Guest

    You can buy cocoa powder and do whatever you want with it, in terms of
    sweeteners. Terra Nostra makes an organic, 73% dark chocolate bar
    ("intense dark"). They used to be available through Trader Joes. I
    did a guick google search and found an internet seller at:
    http://www.veganessentials.com/catalog/terra-nostra-organic-chocolate-bars.htm

    If you think that his data, showing that 200-220 cholesterol levels
    meant the lowest overall mortality, then go ahead and cite the evidence
    for this claim. I would argue that total cholesterol is generally not
    a good "marker," but if your TC is lower than 170 or so, or well over
    240 or so, then your body is having a problem, and you should look into
    deficiencies, too much oxidative stress, etc. What's interesting is
    that the same levels were found in "primitive," yet very healthy Aisans
    who ate mostly coconut, or animals that were fed coconut. I got my
    cholesterol up from 131 to 207 (if I remember correctly - the numbers
    might be off by a few points) on a diet high in saturated fatty acids,
    and I can't say enough good things about it.

    Remember, if you want to make a scientific claim, you need to present
    the evidence and the experiment needs to be repeatable. If someone one
    wants to give me the funding, I'll be glad to do very specific
    experiments and focus on overall mortality, not one condition.

    Until then, those claims that are made (that are supposedly scientfic)
    should be examined carefully. That is also part of the scientific
    process and that is what I do. The evidence does not appear to support
    much of the existing dogma, but it will change - slowly - as the
    statement by AHA spokesman Stein demonstrates. In the meantime, you
    can not worry about oxidized cholesterol and see what happens to you,
    but I'm going to go where the evidence suggests.

    Much of the problems today are the result of the dominance of
    epidemiology in a field (nutrition) in which it is out of place.
    Instead, the use of demographic data makes more sense, as I've noted
    about Asians using cococnut oil. In epidemiology, if you start out
    with assumptions that are incorrect or flawed ("saturated fat is bad")
    your results are useless and may in fact mislead people into doing the
    opposite of what they should be doing. The problem is that
    epidemiologists just don't understand the basic science. Fatty acid
    expert Mary Enig wrote to Willett (author of "Nutritional
    Epidemiology") about coconut oil, but from what I understand, he
    totally blew her off. She's got the expertise, but he acts like he
    knows more than her in her area of specialization. That is
    academically irresponsible. And that is what is going on today. Read
    books like "The Cholesterol Myth" or "The Cholesterol Conspiracy" for
    more of the specfics of who the players are and the kind of shell games
    they've been playing for years (with your health!).
     
  14. [email protected] wrote:
    > "Ancel Keys was looking for glory and reward, not the truth."
    >
    > Using atkins with the same criteria, what is the verdict?


    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Atkins was in it for the money, pure and simple.

    Now he is dead and his company is bankrupt!
     
  15. RBR

    RBR Guest

    On 19 Aug 2005 10:11:39 -0700, "Pickle-Head" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >Unfortunately, truth is something that you, TC, seem to know little
    >about. You are a quack of the first order. The falsehoods, biased
    >crap and ignorant blather you spew are the last things anyone should
    >consider when reading through these groups.
    >
    >TC = Quack


    Hold on! TC is right about Ancel Keys. His Seven Countries Study was
    flawed. He hand-picked seven countries that would produce the results
    he needed to prove his theory. They were:

    Italy
    Greece
    (Former) Yugoslavia
    Netherlands
    Finland
    U.S.
    Japan

    Those countries show a strong correlation between saturated fat intake
    and CHD. Now, if he selected the following countries he would have
    seen much different results:

    Finland
    Israel
    Netherlands
    Germany
    Switzerland
    France
    Sweden

    The results, if Keys had used these countries, would have shown that
    the more cholesterol and saturated fat consumed, the less CHD. If Keys
    had used almost any other combination of countries other than the ones
    he used for his study, the results would have been different. Where's
    the integrity in that? I agree with TC on this issue.

    RBR
     
  16. RBR wrote:

    > The results, if Keys had used these countries, would have shown that
    > the more cholesterol and saturated fat consumed, the less CHD. If Keys
    > had used almost any other combination of countries other than the ones
    > he used for his study, the results would have been different. Where's
    > the integrity in that? I agree with TC on this issue.


    Hello Arse!

    Nobody is stopping you from publishing such a study.

    When may we all expect to see your B/S in print?

    Oh, what is that you say? You are too stupid, Mr. Science Nobody, to
    get any study published?

    Ha, ... Hah, Ha!

    Why am I not surprised?

    You have my condolences.
     
  17. montygram

    montygram Guest

    And yes, the idea that one can just arbitrarily choose to study the
    people of the 7 countries that one wishes to go to on vacation should
    not be deemed "scientific." I think we can all agree on that point.
    But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unless you feel that
    the data was fraudulent, there is no reason not to think about it, and
    what it can mean in a larger framework. At the time, they didn't know
    about oxidized cholesterol, after all, and I didn't see anything that
    would indicate that fraud took place in this study (though there are
    plenty of instances of it in olther studies, depending upon one's
    personal thoughts about what "fraud" means).
     
  18. RBR

    RBR Guest

    On 19 Aug 2005 19:00:25 -0700, "Mr-Natural-Health"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >RBR wrote:
    >
    >> The results, if Keys had used these countries, would have shown that
    >> the more cholesterol and saturated fat consumed, the less CHD. If Keys
    >> had used almost any other combination of countries other than the ones
    >> he used for his study, the results would have been different. Where's
    >> the integrity in that? I agree with TC on this issue.

    >
    >Hello Arse!
    >
    >Nobody is stopping you from publishing such a study.
    >
    >When may we all expect to see your B/S in print?
    >
    >Oh, what is that you say? You are too stupid, Mr. Science Nobody, to
    >get any study published?
    >
    >Ha, ... Hah, Ha!
    >
    >Why am I not surprised?
    >
    >You have my condolences.
     
  19. RBR

    RBR Guest

    On 19 Aug 2005 19:00:25 -0700, "Mr-Natural-Health"
    <[email protected]> wrote:

    >RBR wrote:
    >
    >> The results, if Keys had used these countries, would have shown that
    >> the more cholesterol and saturated fat consumed, the less CHD. If Keys
    >> had used almost any other combination of countries other than the ones
    >> he used for his study, the results would have been different. Where's
    >> the integrity in that? I agree with TC on this issue.

    >

    <dumb-assed comments snipped>

    Well I guess that pretty much takes care of you entire "post".

    Poor Johnny, you can't spot a flawed study if it jumped up and bit you
    in the ass. Isn't this the study you hyper ventilate about at your
    "health site"?

    >
    >You have my condolences.


    Your parents have *my* condolences.

    RBR
     
  20. RBR

    RBR Guest

    On 20 Aug 2005 13:04:45 -0700, "montygram" <[email protected]>
    wrote:

    >And yes, the idea that one can just arbitrarily choose to study the
    >people of the 7 countries that one wishes to go to on vacation should
    >not be deemed "scientific." I think we can all agree on that point.
    >But don't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Unless you feel that
    >the data was fraudulent, there is no reason not to think about it, and
    >what it can mean in a larger framework. At the time, they didn't know
    >about oxidized cholesterol, after all, and I didn't see anything that
    >would indicate that fraud took place in this study (though there are
    >plenty of instances of it in olther studies, depending upon one's
    >personal thoughts about what "fraud" means).


    I said "flawed", not "fraud" but I'm not discounting "fraud" either.

    The Seven Countries Study proves a link between saturated fat and CHD
    using those particular countries. This study should not be considered
    the definitive answer on this issue.

    RBR
     
Loading...