Friday, August 31, 2012

Still Not Weaned?


361 comments:

1 – 200 of 361   Newer›   Newest»
Ben said...

Ha! That's funny.

The implication is, of course, that humans drinking cow's milk is obviously unnatural.

But man does all kinds of "unnatural" things because of his reasoning ability. He flies, he talks into little boxes to people thousands of miles away, and he uses fire to make food safer and more edible. Unnatural? Absolutely. Wrong? Immoral? Unhealthy? Not necessarily.

I've had people tell me that using cows for milk is animal cruelty because "you have to keep the cow pregnant all the time."

Ha! Tell me, what do you think the condition of that cow would be if it was in the wild? (Supposing domestic cows could actually live in the wild.) Answer: They'd be pregnant constantly.

Ever wonder why deer populations explode? Deer are distant cousins of bovine. They don't need mankind to get pregnant all the time!

The only difference would be, as the photo says, the lack of the middleman - the guys who do artificial insemination.

Don said...

Ben,

You might want to brush up on wildlife biology, particularly estrus cycles.

Most mammalian females are naturally sexually receptive (in heat) only once or twice per year. Also, most mammalian males are sexually interested only when the females are in heat.

The females have a pregnancy, then they feed their offspring by lactation, and are not sexually receptive for some time.

In modern dairy production, cows are raped (involuntarily inseminated) while still lactating. They become pregnant while still lactating. This would never happen in the wild because a lactating cow is never naturally in heat.

Added to this, the child is taken away from the mother, so that man can have the milk. Cows have definite emotional attachment to their children. It is their nature to protect and nurture their children; and it is the child's nature to cling to its mother.

The child is if male either sent to be fed and killed for veal, or castrated to be raised as a steer.

If female she will be bred asap to get her into dairy production.

Are you saying that involuntary artificial insemination is not different from a wild bull impregnating a wild cow?


Now imagine that some more powerful species from another planet comes to colonize earth, and decides to raise humans for meat and milk.

They round up human woman, including a woman from your family.

She is raped artificially to make her pregnant. Then when she gives birth, they takes her child away to be raised for meat, or to be raised as another source of human milk.

As soon as possible, they rape her again, all the while milking her breasts for the fluid they want.

After about five years, her milk production drops so they send her to the slaughterhouse and turn her into humanburger.

Since the proposed species is presumably more intelligent (in some sense) and definitely more powerful than humans, would you approve of this?

Charles Grashow said...

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/04/full-fat-dairy-for-cardiovascular.html

"There was no consistent and significant association between total dairy intake and total or cause-specific mortality. However, compared with those with the lowest intake of full-fat dairy, participants with the highest intake (median intake 339 g/day) had reduced death due to CVD (HR: 0.31; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.12–0.79; P for trend = 0.04) after adjustment for calcium intake and other confounders. Intakes of low-fat dairy, specific dairy foods, calcium and vitamin D showed no consistent associations.
People who ate the most full-fat dairy had a 69% lower risk of cardiovascular death than those who ate the least. Otherwise stated, people who mostly avoided dairy or consumed low-fat dairy had more than three times the risk of dying of coronary heart disease or stroke than people who ate the most full-fat diary.


http://www.nature.com/ejcn/journal/v64/n6/full/ejcn201045a.html

Conclusions:

"Overall intake of dairy products was not associated with mortality. A possible beneficial association between intake of full-fat dairy and cardiovascular mortality needs further assessment and confirmation."

Charles Grashow said...

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/05/19/ajcn.2009.29054.full.pdf+html

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/6/10/2626/htm

"Daily intake of fruit and vegetables was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease when combined with a high dairy fat consumption (odds ratio 0.39, 95% CI 0.21–0.73), but not when combined with a low dairy fat consumption (odds ratio 1.70, 95% CI 0.97–2.98). Choosing wholemeal bread or eating fish at least twice a week showed no association with the outcome."

"We identified a significant interaction between intake of fruit and vegetables and dairy fat consumption. Daily fruit and vegetables consumption was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease only when combined with a high intake of dairy fat. Low intake of dairy fat, choosing mostly wholemeal bread or eating fish at least twice a week was not associated with a reduced risk of coronary heart disease in this cohort of rural middle-aged men. The current nutritional recommendations were hence only partly supported."

http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/17925631/reload=0;jsessionid=kaVHE4NLC4KErcohKNEY.20

" In relation to risks of cardiovascular events, our results do not suggest any benefit from a limited total or saturated fat intake, nor from relatively high intake of unsaturated fat."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2695872/

"Despite the contribution of dairy products to the saturated fatty acid composition of the diet, and given the diversity of dairy foods of widely differing composition, there is no clear evidence that dairy food consumption is consistently associated with a higher risk of CVD. Thus, recommendations to reduce dairy food consumption irrespective of the nature of the dairy product should be made with caution."

"lthough further research is required to better understand the impact of dairy foods on non-lipid risk factors, there is accumulating evidence that a high intake of dairy products, particularly low-fat products, may in fact be beneficial from a heart health perspective. Further recommendations to reduce saturated fat in the diet below current guidelines should be made with caution and in context, because replacement with dietary carbohydrate can result in the increasingly common triad of lipid abnormalities—elevations in triglyceride, and reductions in HDL-C and small, dense LDL—which has been shown to confer increased CVD risk. Furthermore, continued recommendations to reduce milk fat intake may result in inadequate intakes of key nutrients in certain population groups. In summary, despite the contribution of dairy products to the saturated fatty acid intake of the diet, there is no clear evidence that dairy food consumption is consistently associated with a higher risk of CVD. Given the diversity of available dairy foods of widely differing composition and their contribution to nutrient intake within the population, recommendations to reduce dairy food consumption irrespective of the nature of the dairy product should be made with caution."


Jack LaBear said...

Charles, Charles, Charles. Don't you know what is going to happen here if you suggest that people eat cholesterol laden animal fat?

;-)

Charles Grashow said...

@Jack

Ah - they will get healthier??

Swede said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Swede said...

http://thefoodway.blogspot.com/2012/08/the-last-two-days-we-upped-our-fruit.html

Copy the above and paste in a new tab

Don, is there some sort of "middleman" in your hands? A plastic container that seems to hold the blended remains of spinach and bananas?

Is it natural?

Jack LaBear said...

@ Charles

Let us pray!! ;-)

Charles Grashow said...

@Jack

Looks like Don and the wife are going to a totally raw fruit & veggie diet

http://thefoodway.blogspot.com/2012/08/more-vibrant-colored-raw-salads.html

They will be heading to 30 bananas a day soon.

nothing91 said...

"Looks like Don and the wife are going to a totally raw fruit & veggie diet"

You could see this coming a mile away from the moment Don decided he didn't like "Paleo" anymore. He's the king of dietary extremes, so raw vegan was the inevitable progression. :-)

Charles Grashow said...

@nothing91

Don doesn't have a clue - he claims to have a Master's Degree in Oriental Medicine - form which college he doesn't say

Yet

http://www.birminghamchinesemedicine.co.uk/diet.html

http://www.birminghamchinesemedicine.co.uk/practitioners.html

General advice on diet in Chinese Medicine is guided by the importance of maintaining a strong Spleen and avoiding the development of Damp. A preventative diet would therefore emphasise:

relatively large amounts of grains, including rice, bread, pasta (rice is particularly good because it is easily digested and slightly encourages urination, which helps to reduce Dampness) or other complex carbohydrates eg potatoes.


relatively large amounts of lightly cooked vegetables.


moderate amounts of fruit (if there is a digestive weakness then stewed fruit might be better, and concentrated fruit juices are to be avoided).


moderate amounts of animal protein (beef, pork, lamb, chicken, fish, seafood) and eggs. (Most people would be OK with 2 oz meat 3-4 times a week)


very moderate amounts of dairy products (cheese, milk, cream, butter), oils and refined sugars. The more the person is affected by Dampness, the less of these should be consumed.


spices (eg pepper, ginger, cinnamon, nutmeg, mace, cardamom, cloves) have a warm and pungent quality, hence they assist digestion and help to reduce Dampness. Garlic is very good for the same reason.

SO - you can eat

relatively large amounts of lightly cooked vegetables

moderate amounts of fruit (if there is a digestive weakness then stewed fruit might be better, and concentrated fruit juices are to be avoided)

moderate amounts of animal protein (beef, pork, lamb, chicken, fish, seafood) and eggs. (Most people would be OK with 2 oz meat 3-4 times a week)

very moderate amounts of dairy products (cheese, milk, cream, butter), oils and refined sugars. The more the person is affected by Dampness, the less of these should be consumed

SO - how does Don reconcile this new raw food diet with traditional medicine - in which he claims to have a Masters degree????


Charles Grashow said...

Will Don disown this book as well??

http://www.thegardenofeatingdiet.com/TheBook.asp

First, move toward a produce-dominated diet, making vegetables and fruits form at least two-thirds of the weight/volume of food you consume.

Second, reduce or remove refined foods (sugar, refined grains, vegetable oils, soda), alcohol, and dairy products from your menus, substituting whole food or non-toxic alternatives (such as fresh fruits, whole grains, olive or coconut oil, or grape juice) where appropriate.

Third, switch to meat and eggs from wild or grass-fed animals, which contain much less total and saturated fat, and provides fewer calories and more essential micronutrients than supermarket meat.

Sincerely,

Rachel Albert & Don Matesz

"Life in all it's fullness is Mother Nature Obeyed."
--Weston A. Price, DDS, Nutrition and Physical Degeneration

BTW - I LOVE what Dr. Kurt Harris had to say

http://paleodietnews.com/3772/the-paleo-diet-main-event-harris-vs-matesz/

Dr. Harris finishes up his attack with a barrage that I would liken to the loud fiery crescendo that comes at the end of any worthwhile firework display. These closing statements definitely forced me to physically utter the word “ouch!”, and I’m sure it will illicit the same response from most of you:

So although you have supposedly said “farewell” to paleo, the ship left with you still clinging to her stern. No separation at all in fundamental assumptions, just a different a priori bias now because “your allergies got worse”……
You’ve gone from near-carnivory to MacDougall veganism with no real explanation for why you should be any more credible now than you were then.

Don, you’re like those alcoholics that quit the drink but turn hard to Jesus, and now chain- smoke while eating too many glazed doughnuts at AA meetings.
You’ve gone from one nutty extreme to another, and now have zero credibility left. And I’m not even counting the superstitious nonsense you tout about “traditional chinese” medicine, yin and yang, “shamanism” and the other pseudoscientific bullshit that peppers your blog.
I am asking you to please leave my name out of your dumb crusade against “paleo”, especially if you can’t quote me accurately or even bother to read my more recent writings.
Just quote yourself if you want to show how lame paleo is.
You’ve got plenty of posts that would fit much better than cherry- picking ones I put up more than 2 years ago.
PS: Are you sure you know what your favorite color is?”

Charles Grashow said...

There's also this - another blast from the recent past

http://www.context.org/iclib/ic31/mateszpl/

Choose whole – unground, uncracked, unprocessed – cereal grains as your staple food, forming 50-60% (by volume) of your diet. Whole grains are the most nutritionally balanced and easily digested single food, containing plenty of complex carbohydrates, and sufficient and high quality protein and fat. They provide the most useable calories per acre of land of any food: two adults can be fed for a year on 1/8 to 1/4 of an acre devoted to cereal grain production. Grains, though they require cooking, don’t require energy-intensive preservation technologies like refrigeration. Ideally, they need only be dried in the fields. Once dried, they succumb minimally to pests or spoilage, and store in relatively small spaces.

Keep nut, fruit, and fruit juice consumption – especially consumption of imported tropical nuts, fruits and juices – to a minimum. Fruits and nuts are very fragile crops and usually require artificial irrigation and pesticides when grown commercially. They spoil easily, so losses are large, even with the support of energy-intensive preservation methods.

When imported from the tropics, fruits and nuts are very expensive in terms of energy costs. And we do a serious disservice to peoples in the tropics when we encourage them to supply these foods (and coffee and other stimulants) for our extravagant dietary habits. The result is that they, too, must import expensive, less-than-fresh foods.

As for juices, they are a wasteful food: it takes 6-8 apples to make one 10-ounce glass of apple juice. Even if you compost the pulp, drinking large amounts of juice is, from an ecological standpoint, not that different from feeding cattle 5 to 10 times more calories in grain than is converted to edible flesh.

Charles Grashow said...


http://www.realfoodrealfit.com/2011/12/quick-rude-comment-regarding-don-matesz.html

"Okay, glad you're still with me. You've been warned. I've been reading a few blogs for a couple years now, and I happened to be reading Primal Wisdom when Don hit the epipha-tree (Simpsons reference) and turned his back on (and perhaps his nose up at) a typical Paleo diet.

I've seen it spiral further away for a while now, and with his latest post on B12, I think I figured it all out. I don't expect anyone to correct me, nor do I really care.

So here it is in all its rudeness: Don's wife wanted to be a vegetarian, and Don still wants to get laid. There, plain and simple, I said it.

I don't blame Don for that, although in time his lack of meat consumption will make it easier to go without sex.

Certainly I'm the only one thinking it, as the number of comments in which people ask if he's just having a fun game indicate that people are seriously wondering what the heck is going on."

Charles Grashow said...

Eating in Harmony with Daily Energetics By Don Matesz

http://www.qi-journal.com/herbs.asp?-token.D=Article&-MaxRecords=1&-SkipRecords=2&-Op=bw&Name=Eating%20in%20Harmony%20with%20Daily%20Energetics

Breakfast Example
Soft porridge, garnished with a small amount of sprouts, or fresh or dried parsley or chives. Steamed greens. Salt­pickled vegetables.

http://www.qi-journal.com/herbs.asp?-token.D=Article&-MaxRecords=1&-SkipRecords=3&-Op=bw&Name=Eating%20in%20Harmony%20with%20Daily%20Energetics

Lunch Example
Hot vegetable soup with hot­ pungent and/or salty seasoning and a garnish of scallions. Hot whole grain, pasta, or fresh Chinese­style flat or steamed bread. Stir­fried vegetable with fresh or pickled mustard or radish greens, or salt­marinated salad with pungent vegetables such as onions. Roasted and salted seeds and/or roasted seaweed condiments.

http://www.qi-journal.com/herbs.asp?-token.D=Article&-MaxRecords=1&-SkipRecords=4&-Op=bw&Name=Eating%20in%20Harmony%20with%20Daily%20Energetics

In general, Chinese medicine recommends against large or frequent consumption of chilled or raw foods, as these tend to injure the Spleen and Stomach, dampening their fire. Therefore, since salty, bitter, and some sour foods tend to have intrinsically cold energies, it is recommended that these usually be taken in cooked form. This way, one can reduce their impact on the system, yet derive the yin­enhancing benefits that they offer


Charles Grashow said...

http://www.natural-connection.com/resource/macro_today/overeating_myth.html


Raw vegetables, and even excessive quantities of cooked vegetables, affect the body's fire in the same way that fresh green, unseasoned wood affects a bonfire. Wet, raw, green wood smothers bonfires. Raw green vegetables smother the human digestive fire as surely as raw green wood smothers a bonfire. Those who pursue the raw vegetable approach to weight loss generally find that at some point they stop losing or even start gaining weight even though they are eating nothing but raw salads and fruits. Having depressed their fire, even small quantities of low calorie food begin to accumulate. To reverse this situation, one must get some really good, dry and clean burning fuel on the fire. Remember, it is the metabolic fire that burns off the excess so we want it burning very strong.


While raw vegetables and fruits are cold and damp and can smother the fire, cooked sweet vegetables, such as carrots, parsnips, sweet potatoes, and winter squash, are very beneficial. According to traditional Oriental medicine, these vegetables improve the functioning of the digestive system and augment the basic energy, or qi, of our body/mind. They are second only to grains as preferred fuel for the body/mind fire. However, it is important not to overconsume these sweet vegetables, since this can lead to bloating, burping, and indigestion

SO - Don - explain to me why a raw fruit/vegetable diet is good??

Charles Grashow said...

Can The Caveman Diet Give You A Lift?
by Rachel Albert-Matesz, B.A.

Did you know that for about two million years, prior to the advent of agriculture (a mere 10,000 years ago), all humans were hunter-gatherers who ate only meats, eggs, vegetables, fruits, nuts, and seeds--no grains, beans, dairy, refined sugar, or processed food? Today, some isolated hunter-gatherer groups still eat this way and enjoy exceptional health and
fitness. According to anthropologist S. Boyd Eaton, M.D., co-author of The Paleolithic Prescription, extensive research reveals that these people are
practically untouched by the degenerative diseases that disable so many
modern people---obesity, diabetes, heart disease, cancer, etc. The same research has shown that the typical hunter gatherer is as lean, strong and fit as the typical professional athlete even into old age. A growing body of evidence suggests that the hunter-gatherer (or paleo) diet supports optimal physical health and human performance because it supplies more of the body building nutrients than most high-carb, low-fat
diets based upon grain and cereal products. More body builders and power lifters are turning this way of earing to increase energy, gain lean mass, lose body fat, develop Neanderthal strength and fitness, and prevent degenerative diseases.

Bio: Rachel Albert-Matesz is a Healthy Cooking Coach, cooking instructor, freelance nutrition journalist, water filtration expert and paleo diet enthusiast who currently resides in Phoenix, AZ. Previously in Toledo, OH.
Her website: The Healthy Cooking Coach

Another 180 by the now raw food vegan

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.thehealthycookingcoach.com/2010/12/pasture-raised-poultry-good-for-you-and-mother-earth-too.html

Pasture-Raised Poultry: Good for You and Mother Earth too!

Organic, free-range, range-free, pasture-raised? Have you ever wondered what’s best when it comes to buying chicken, turkey, duck, and game hens? To answer this question, I’m going to excerpt some info from The Garden of Eating: A Produce-Dominated Diet & Cookbook, a book I co-wrote with paleo and primal-diet expert, Don Matesz who runs the Barefoot Acupunture Clinic in Phoenix, AZ, and the Primal Wisdom blog, and from articles we worked on for various publications.

If you’ve never tried pastured-poultry, I hope you will. I've found it more flavorful than conventional and even organic poultry. I also like knowing where it comes from, how it was raised, what it was fed, and that it’s more nutritious and ecological. I’d love to hear about your experiences eating pastured poultry.

Ben said...

Don,

You said: "Most mammalian females are naturally sexually receptive (in heat) only once or twice per year. Also, most mammalian males are sexually interested only when the females are in heat.

"The females have a pregnancy, then they feed their offspring by lactation, and are not sexually receptive for some time.

In modern dairy production, cows are raped (involuntarily inseminated) while still lactating. They become pregnant while still lactating. This would never happen in the wild because a lactating cow is never naturally in heat."

I think it is you who needs to brush up on the estrus cycles of cows. The gestation period for a cow is around 280 days. That's over nine months. So, OF COURSE they are only pregnant once (not twice - ever) per year. And they are pregnant more than 3/4 of the year - that's pretty constant.

Also, lactating DOES NOT mean that the cow does not come into heat.

http://cal.vet.upenn.edu/projects/fieldservice/dairy/repro/repcom.htm

"The best scenario is for most cows to get pregnant by 120 days after calving, or days in milk (DIM). Cows that get pregnant after 120 days in milk will end up spending more time in later lactation where they contribute less milk and less profit."

http://msucares.com/pubs/publications/p2616.pdf

"To maintain an annual calving interval, a beef female has approximately 82 days between calving and
rebreeding.

"The same hormones control the timing of behavioral
estrus (heat) and ovulation. This is important
because the bull (or artificial insemination technician) must know the best time to deposit semen for optimum fertility."

Cows will breed and will get pregnant (naturally) even when lactating. This is also true of many other mammals including cats and rabbits.

And, said dairy cows continue to lactate for up to about 10 months - some even up to 500 days - without additional breeding/pregnancy/calving.

So, your distaste (pun intended) for cow's milk seems mainly based on the worst possible scenario instead of promoting the best. The best is a local, small farm cow that is naturally bred and allowed to both feed her calf and provide milk. Such farms provide milk to humans while letting the cow live out its natural "childcare" life.

You seem intent on throwing out the baby (calf) and the bathwater (milk). There are alternatives to the worst-case scenario.

Ben said...

Don said, "Now imagine that some more powerful species from another planet comes to colonize earth, and decides to raise humans for meat and milk."

Okay, I'm imagining it. Sounds like the basis of a science-fiction story.

So this is your argument: We shouldn't drink cow's milk because we wouldn't like it if some alien species came to earth and raped our women and ate us for meat?

Apparently you've forgotten that the golden rule is a rule for men among men. It is not for men's dealing with rodents or for men dealing with aliens from another planet.

Attributing to animals the same rights you attribute to men necessarily gives animals GREATER (more complete/freer) rights than humans. Why? Because though you don't want to inflict suffering on the animals, they have no qualms about inflicting suffering on you, your wife, your family, any other person, or any other animal.

Animals do not share your desire for not having animals suffer.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/08/29/julia-stafford-seattle-co_n_1839111.html

http://abcnews.go.com/US/mountain-lion-attacks-man-63-california/story?id=16699470#.UEN8BcFlSV8

http://travel.usatoday.com/destinations/dispatches/post/2011/07/yellowstone-death-puts-bear-attacks-in-focus/175962/1

It's great that you want to live in harmony with all animals. Unfortunately, they don't think the same way. In fact, they don't think (reason) at all.

Ben said...

Don asked, "Are you saying that involuntary artificial insemination is not different from a wild bull impregnating a wild cow?"

Um. . . can you point to anywhere that I said anything like that?

The result is the same - impregnation. Otherwise, it's pretty obvious the two methods are different. But the timing may not be different at all since cows do come into heat and are at their peak of fertility around 80 days (or less) after calving.

If you do the tiniest research into how small farmers keep their dairy cattle, you will find that most do not use artificial insemination (rape, as you call it) and most leave bulls with their herd of cows all the time so that, often, the cows are pregnant as soon as they come into heat - sometimes as little as four weeks after calving.

Charles Grashow said...

http://blog.exuberantanimal.com/highly-opinionated-opinion-piece/

"The vegetarian-carnivore shouting match has become a polarizing and destructive noise machine. And all sides seem to miss the big picture. That is, food is an incredibly complex subject with many layers of meaning. It is physical, personal, cultural, emotional and spiritual. Food has genuine health effects to be sure, but humans do not live by biochemistry alone. We are omnivores by evolution and nature, but the body is incredibly resilient and can thrive with many different kinds of diets. This, in large measure, is why humans have been so successful.

Modern food presents us with a host of excruciating moral, health and environmental dilemmas, but these dilemmas will not be solved by vitriol, bile, dogma or ridicule. They can only be solved by well-informed individuals making good choices in their course of their daily lives. As trainers and coaches, our job is not to destroy the opposition. Rather, our job is to learn, educate and inspire.

If you’ve discovered a formula for eating that balances the competing demands of health, morality, sustainability and pleasure, then by all means, practice that formula. But don’t assume that your formula is right for everyone else. Important as it is, food is only one dimension of a healthy life."

Mark said...

Don,

Do you find that dairy consumption increased your congestion?

When I stopped dairy, I never breathed so freely in my life.

What causes this? Some sort of protein allergy?

Tracy said...

Charles, The study you posted is epidemiological... Am I confused, or don't you guys disregard this as 'not real' science? Or is that only if the observations don't support your views, as there are countless studies that counter your argument that consumption of high fat dairy supports heart health.

Anyway, the age range observed was big. Perhaps the older individuals (towards their late 70's) realized their friends & family were dropping, and they believe eating lower fat diets would be helpful to prevent heart disease. Considering the majority of science supports this, they aren't off in their thinking.

Perhaps the higher percentage of deaths were among those who had higher known risk factors, and being older, naturally they had higher death rates then the younger individuals who may have been still feeling invincible (as all of the rabid commenters on this post seem to think they are) and thus still consumed higher fat dairy. The level of their health and lipid profile is unknown to me, nor any identification of other diseases they have... yet.

This is from the study you linked to: "Individuals with heredity or other known risk factors might have modified their eating habits or be more inclined to report “healthy” food choices. We believe that part of this potential confounding is dealt with by adjusting for cardiovascular risk factors, although some residual confounding might still be present. ~Tracy

Tracy said...

Also Charles, you really must have a lot of time on your hands to go and dig up the works of so many others, esp. of Don. It seems you mostly cut and paste, rather then always think or speak for yourself. Do you stand for something positive, or do you just like to denigrate others?

What is it with all of you guys? Ben, Nothinggoodtosay91, Jack, & Charles... do you all feel really good about yourselves? There have been these really fanciful stories passed around about Don, but none of you really know the real truth. None of you know all that Don DIDN'T post about the part of his history that involved another person.

You guys can all think all you want. But I can't help but wonder, why do you linger here and on my blog? Just to be royal asses? You are all well seasoned veterans in that department, from how you sound. I would like to give you the benefit of the doubt, that somewhere in there is a glimmer of light and that in your real lives you are decent people.

One of the main things you learn from yin/yang theory is that everything is relative to everything else, and that everything is always changing.

Are you all afraid of change? Do you fear trying new things? Have you always done the same things, eaten the same way your entire lives? I know Charles 'tried' being a vegetarian. Should I call you a flake for trying, and changing your mind, or would that only apply if you tried paleo/animal-centered diet first, and then switched to veg?

For the record, to all of you guys, it was because of early warning signs both Don & I had that are known risks for cancer that caused us to finally end our animal gorging habits. It was after that in which we both, together sat thru countless videos, read many books and realized finally and without a doubt that eating animals is not normal, natural, or necessary. But that notion goes against what the mind/ego wants to hear, so I am sure for you all, that falls on deaf ears.

It is because we quit eating these foods that our symptoms totally disappeared. And, I will say what Don won't. I had similar symptoms his ex had. He warned her to change her diet years ago, but she found her newly found 'tribe' to be too much to give up. She is invested in the book, her career, and her whole identity. The biggest reason Don stayed in this paleo movement was because it seemed he was having to choose between his wife, or the diet.

He no longer supports his book, "The Garden of Eating" nor receives any income from sales.

And guess what else? His ex ignored his warnings while they were married when she had similar symptoms as I ended up having while consuming high amounts of animal protein and fats. She has cancer, which you probably know since you also read her blog.

Tracy said...

And another thing for you 'men' who are concerned for Don's sex life. A diet that improves blood flow & reduces heart disease also improves sexual function. It is the women you all end up with that will be wishing you guys weren't eating all that meat and dairy. Ask any of the men who changed their diet on any of the sites of the plant-based doctors, and you will read the exuberance of this unexpected benefit.

Have you guys hooked up some notion that being vegan = being weak? You have your perceptions of him being extreme, or flaky, or changing all the time, or whatever. In my opinion it takes a lot more balls then you guys seem to have to be willing to give up practically everything when it seemed that it no longer was right, and perhaps realizing it never was... and to surrender and let go of many long standing beliefs in favor of being open to the possibility of having been wrong, and something else may be better?

Get your heads out of the dark ages, and off the sludge building fats that you are all pathetically addicted to. Do whatever you want. Keep doing it as long as it is working for you. Keep doing it if it isn't if you are too weak to admit it or make a change and let go of your bad habits. Why do you need to troll around and try to make others look bad. If Don or I aren't posting something of interest to you, get lost. ~Tracy

Tracy said...

Winston Churchill: 'You have enemies? Sometime, somewhere, you stood up for something."

healthy-longevity said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Grashow said...

"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but in the end, there it is."
- Sir Winston Churchill

healthy-longevity said...

Hi Tracy,

Thanks for your informative reply.

It is likely that this blog is targeted by the confusionists because they feel threatened as it one of top blogs that challenges the misinformation spread by the cholesterol skeptics viewed by those who follow their misleading blogs.

We have carefully responded to the misinformation within the cut-and-pastes that they spam and challenge their findings with relevant studies, yet they simply change the topic and spam some other irrelevant cut-and-paste in an apparent attempt to confuse other readers. If you check their blogger profiles you will notice that they are in a circle with each other.

Peter said...

I don't drink milk because it would make my cholesterol surge. Nobel winners Brown & Goldstein in 1988. I want to keep my LDL cholesterol levels equal to mammalian species that do not develope atherosclerosis.

A receptor mediated pathway for cholesterol homeostatis

"Several lines of evidence suggest that plasma levels of LDL-cholesterol in the range of 25-60 mg/dl (total plasma cholesterol of 110 to 150 mg/dl) might indeed be physiologic for human beings. First, in other mammalian species that do not develop atherosclerosis, the plasma LDL-cholesterol level is generally less than 80 mg/dl (Fig. 16 and ref. 120). In these animals the affinity of the LDL receptor for their own LDL is roughly the same as the affinity of the human LDL receptor for human LDL, implying that these species are designed by evolution to have similar plasma LDL levels (9,119). Second, the LDL level in newborn humans is approximately 30 mg/dl (121), well within the range that seems to be appropriate for receptor binding (Fig. 16). Third, when humans are raised on a low fat diet, the plasma LDL-cholesterol tends to stay in the range of 50 to 80 mg/dl. It only reaches levels above 100 mg/dl in individuals who consume a diet rich in saturated animal fats and cholesterol that is customarily ingested in Western societies (116,122)".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3513311

Ben said...

Tracy,

When you're right, you're right.

However, in this post all I have done is counter specific mistaken comments that Don has made about cows and their milk production and reproductive life.

I think it is fine to choose not to drink or eat some kind of food for (personal) health reasons. However, I don't find it acceptable to imply that all those who drink milk are in favor of "raping" cows.

I happen to drink raw milk from cows that live outside, eat grass all day long, and have both their babies and their bulls on the same ground.

Don and you may still think that's unnatural - that I harvest milk from a lactating cow - but it is no less natural than harvesting milk from a soybean, in my opinion. Both foods require human reason and action to accomplish. If that is unnatural, then there is nothing that humans can do that is natural.

Jimmy Gee said...

@H-L:
Now these statements are a real hoot:

"It is likely that this blog is targeted by the confusionists because they feel threatened as it one of top blogs that challenges the misinformation spread by the cholesterol skeptics viewed by those who follow their misleading blogs."

"... If you check their blogger profiles you will notice that they are in a circle with each other."

Another set of pot/black kettle statements.

nothing91 said...

Jimmy,

I particularly liked the "We have carefully responded" part myself. :-)

healthy-longevity said...

@Jimmy & Nothing,

Please take a look at the link I provided and feel free to respond with relevant findings regarding the data that I provided. You will notice that no one else has done this, leaving me assuming that they have found doing so too difficult.

If you actually checked the profiles of the spammers you will know who I was referring to as being in a circle.

Charles Grashow said...

Katarína Sebeková, Marica Krajcovicová-Kudlácková, Reinhard Schinzel, et al. Plasma levels of advanced glycation end products in healthy, long-term vegetarians and subjects on a western mixed diet. Eur J Nutr 2001; 40 : 275-281.

Summary

Background Evidence indicates that food-derived Maillard's reaction products are absorbed and yet can be detected in the circulation.

Aim of the study We postulated that consumption of the heat-treated food by omnivores could be reflected by higher plasma levels of advanced glycation end products (AGEs) in comparison with vegetarians,who in cooking (by keeping away from meat) use lower temperatures and less time for heating.

Methods Plasma fluorescent AGEs (350/450 nm) and Nå- (carboxymethyl)lysine (CML, competitive ELISA) levels were investigated in 3 groups of healthy vegetarians (9 vegans-V, 19 lactoovo-vegetarians — VLO and 14 semi-vegetarians — VS) and compared with those of age-matched omnivores (O, n=19). Mean duration of vegetarian diet was V: 7.2±1.0,VLO: 8.2±0.8 and VS: 7.9±1.1 years.

Results Both fluorescent AGE (O: 9.9±0.5;V: 10.8±0.7, LO: 13.1±0.8* and SV: 11.6±1.2 x103 AU), and CML levels (O: 427.1±15.0,V: 514.8±24.6*, LO: 525.7±29.5**, SV: 492.6±18.0* ng/ml) were significantly lower in omnivores than in vegetarians. Plasma glucose, parameters of renal function (plasma concentration of creatinine and cystatin C, calculated glomerular filtration rate — GFR) as well as C-reactive protein levels were within the normal range and did not differ significantly between the groups. Thus, neither decline of kidney function nor inflammatory processes contributed to the rise in plasma AGEs.

Conclusion Enhanced plasma AGE levels in vegetarians in comparison to omnivores are herein presented for the first time. Mechanisms of AGE elevation and potential pathophysiological relevance of this finding are to be elucidated in prospective studies.

Charles Grashow said...


http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/sugar-and-sweeteners/vegetarians-age-faster-2/

When researchers measured levels of carboxymethyllysine, an glycation product that represents

a general marker of oxidative stress and long-term damage of proteins in aging, atherosclerosis and diabetes

it was found to be significantly elevated in vegetarians as compared to omnivores. Fluorescent AGEs are basically a direct measurement of AGEs in the blood. As the authors point out fluorescent AGEs serve

as an index of advanced glycation [and] increase linearly for human serum albumin [a blood protein] incubated with glucose and exponentially when fructose [is] added to the incubation medium.

Fluorescent AGEs were also significantly higher in the vegetarians.

Another interesting aspect of this study is the finding of the authors that the vegetarians

do not use high temperature for culinary treatment. They prefer heat treatment at lower temperature for short period of time.

I find this intriguing because so many anti-meat zealots constantly harp about the dangers of overcooking meat (or cooking it on a grill) because of the AGEs that are produced in the process, which, they seem to believe end up in the bodies of those who eat grilled or overcooked meat. I don’t think it’s too much to assume that most of the omnivores eat meat, and some probably overcook it or grill it, yet they have less accumulation of AGES than the oh so fastidious vegetarians.

Jimmy Gee said...

@ H-L;

No need to look at your "link". Just like the egg "research" post and vegan comments, my beef with all of this nonsense is the "you omnivores / meat eaters are all gonna die of heart disease and we vegans will out live ya" crap supposedly supported by your "links".

For as many articles you say support your philosophy, there are an equal number refuting it.

I will reiterate - be a vegan if you want. Just admit that this is really because of your distaste of the current methods used to market animal products and stop hiding behind the "it's a healthier lifestyle" argument.

Hell, maybe you could put all your "research" energy into actually finding methods to improve harvesting the meat products that you claim hurt animal so much.

Of course I doubt you would pursue this because like most all vegans it's an all-or-nothing proposition - no middle ground. Let's not try to improve the whole picture, let's just be militant and force all to accept the vegan-way.

healthy-longevity said...

@Jimmy Gee

Here is a sample of the comments I have made on this blog that you can attempt to refute with relevant studies of at least equivalent methodological quality and sample size. Are you able to cite a meta-analysis of at least 108 lipid modifying interventions that found that lowering LDL cholesterol does not significantly lower the risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality?

A meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials of diet and various medical based lipid modifying interventions found that lowering LDL cholesterol significantly decreased the risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality, while modifying HDL or triglycerides provided no clear benefit after controlling for LDL cholesterol.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645847/

A Mendelian randomized control trial with over one million participants found that inheriting polymorphisms that are associated with life-long reduced LDL cholesterol, but not with other known risk factors, predicted a three-fold greater decrease in coronary heart disease per mmol/L lower LDL cholesterol than statins do in mid and late life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DQ2itumKu8

Why is that virtually none of the cholesterol skeptics ever cite or challenge the findings of Jeremiah Stamler’s paper, which has been cited by major health authorities explaining why the meta-analysis funded by the National Dairy Association is flawed? Perhaps it is because they find it too difficult to argue with the fact that saturated fat was associated with a 32% increased risk of coronary heart disease mortality despite the inclusion of over-adjustments for dietary and serum lipids [which would have attenuated this finding towards null].
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.long

Even small amounts of dietary cholesterol were shown to increase atherosclerosis [in non-human primates consuming the equivalent quantity of dietary cholesterol found in half a small egg in a human diet of 2000kcal] without evidence of a threshold beyond which a lower intake did not provide additional benefit.
http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/34/4/447.long

Numerous tightly controlled metabolic ward studies with human participants have confirmed that heme iron from meat significantly increases the production of cancerous N-nitroso compounds (NOC) in the digestive tract.
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177.long

2011 Meta-analysis of the association between both fresh and processed meat and the risk of colorectal cancer
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3108955/

Compared to less than 1 serving per week, 2 or more servings of meat increased the risk of colorectal cancer in a prospective study of over 2.24 million Korean adults.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22296386

Jimmy Gee said...

@H-L,


From your OCD-like citing of links, you apparently still miss the point - probably too busy looking up studies.

Forget the "my references are bigger than your references" mentality for a while. You don't like that animals are used for a food source - I get it! Just be an adult and state it that way instead of "eat a vegan diet and be pure".

Tell me, how do vegans accept predatory carnivores in the wild? And don't give me the "it's there instinct, they don't know any better and we should..." diatribe. Have you ever swatted a fly?

I know several vegans and they chose the life-style due to their inability to accept the way animal products are harvested. At least they acknowledge this as well as the dubious "scientific" rhetoric many other vegans espouse in the name of health. I consider these people adults.

gunther gatherer said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
gunther gatherer said...

Charles, Jimmy and Nothing,

Put your money where your mouths are and show us your abs please. I'd like a timeline of how much weight you lost, how long it took to get down to your goal weights (which you've all obviously reached, right?) and pics to go with it.

You'll need some illustration to go with your smartass comments from now on. Because waaay too many of you high fatters are fatties.

And while you're at it, show me a long-term fruitarian who is fat. Raw fooders can still get fat if they eat too many nuts, but those who ingest almost no fat? No way.

Can't say the same for you guys though. Heard of Jimmy Moore? Sally Fallon? Richard Nikolei? Dr. Atkins himself? Gimme a break. Your gurus are fat and you probably are too.

Jimmy Gee said...

@G-G,

The discussion is about the ridiculous level of vegan rhetoric on health claims of the vegan diet while ignoring information that refutes these claims (not some show of vanity - I'm assuming you like your mirror from your comments).

Be a vegan - I don't care. But, when others read this site and think "wow the vegan lifestyle is so superior for my health", I believe they deserve to hear the other side.

So have fun in front of your mirror and keep in mind that looks are deceiving.

gunther gatherer said...

"keep in mind that looks are deceiving"

Oh, in other words you are still fat on your perfect diet. Color me unsurprised...

Jimmy Gee said...

@ G-G,

Another typical vegan attempt to deflect (showing their true colors) and not respond to the issue at-hand.

gunther gatherer said...

Deflect? That's funny. I asked you a simple and direct question about how your weightloss went, since you obviously are so right and Don/Tracy are so stupid, but all the sudden it's me that's not responding?

You had so much to say before you were asked to show what's under the hood.

I guess we vegans have found the best way to shut you smarties up: just ask you to lift up your shirts.

Jimmy Gee said...

@ G-G,

Turn away from your mirror long enough to think straight.

I'm not calling anybody stupid - ignorant maybe.

My comment on deflecting I think is very accurately placed. I've mentioned several times that from my perspective, many vegans like to use the health argument as the crux of the issue when it really boils down to their feelings on how animals are treated.

I can respect not wanting to hurt animals as your reason, or even religious reasons for that matter, but trying to sell the vegan life as soooo healthy is a misrepresentation.

You can look back at your mirror now.

Jimmy Gee said...

You know "ignorant" isn't the right description. More like having a closed mind.

Given all the "science" Don used to report, back when he ate meat, as proof of that diet pattern's health benefits, it is amazing how that info means nothing now.

There are many vegans who appear healthy, however, this is true for many omnivores as well. So open your minds to the reality that science is still not at the level it needs to be in order to really elucidate the perfect human diet (whatever that is).

Jimmy Gee said...

Now you can look at your abs:)

healthy-longevity said...

@Jimmy Gee and the rest

Judging by the comments here and in previous posts, you and a number of others commenters are suggesting that there is a worldwide conspiracy involving the majority of leading nutrition researchers and health authorities who emphasize the importance of a maintaining a low LDL and consuming a predominantly plant based, but provide no relevant counterevidence.

The World Health Organization / Food and Agriculture Organization of the Unit Nation asserted in regards to diet that:
“Households should select predominantly plant-based diets rich in a variety of vegetables and fruits, pulses or legumes, and minimally processed starchy staple foods. The evidence that such diets will prevent or delay a significant proportion of non-communicable chronic diseases is consistent.”
http://www.fao.org/docrep/004/Y2809E/y2809e00.HTM

The World Cancer Research Fund produced the largest and most authoritative ever report on lifestyle and cancer, and recommended in order to prevent cancer to “Eat mostly foods of plant origin”. The justification for this being:
“An integrated approach to the evidence shows that most diets that are protective against cancer are mainly made up from foods of plant origin.”
http://www.dietandcancerreport.org/cancer_resource_center/downloads/chapters/prelims.pdf

Walter Willett, the Chair of the Department of Nutrition, Harvard stated in regards to the 2010 U.S. Dietary Guidelines that:
“The guidelines appropriately emphasize eating more vegetables, beans, fruits, whole grains, and nuts and highlight healthful plant-based eating patterns, including vegetarian and vegan diets.”
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMp1107075

Walter Willett and most of the other prominent scientists on these expert panels of these leading health organizations are not vegetarians, but you appear to be suggesting that they are therefore are childish and closed-minded for recommending a predominantly plant-based diet. The science regarding diet and LDL cholesterol and LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease is certainly not premature and has been well-documented for decades.

You claimed that “For as many articles you say support your philosophy, there are an equal number refuting it”, suggesting that there are relevant studies of at least equivalent methodological quality and sample size that refute the studies that we and leading health organizations have cited.

Why is it then that you and a number of others suggest the existence of a worldwide conspiracy, but seem to consider that it is sufficient to either make unreferenced claims or spam cut-out-pastes of irrelevant, typically low quality studies and blogs to support your opinions? I consider these people as confusionists.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21872435

Vegetarianism produces subclinical malnutrition, hyperhomocysteinemia and atherogenesis.

CONCLUSION:
The low dietary intake of protein and sulfur amino acids by a plant-eating population leads to subclinical protein malnutrition, explaining the origin of hyperhomocysteinemia and the increased vulnerability of these vegetarian subjects to cardiovascular diseases

http://naughtynutritionist.com/soy/heart-of-the-matter-plant-based-diets-lead-to-high-homocysteine-low-sulfur-and-marginal-b12-status/

Peter said...

I am in a opinion that Charles is borderline retard.

How many paleo-redneck blogs do we have to endure?

Why is it Charles, that no one in the paleo-carnivore fora, besides Loren Cordain, never recommend physiological cholesterol levels for people. What's the premise behind that the fact that we in our own eco-niche should comsume a diet that result in abnormal serum cholesterol in comparison to all other animals?

Optimal low-density lipoprotein is 50 to 70 mg/d Lower is better and physiologically normal

James H O'Keefe, Jr, MD; Loren Cordain, PhD; William H Harris, PhD; Richard M Moe, MD, PhD; Robert Vogel, MD

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1135650

Since no paleo-redneck/creationist paid attention to this, I reckon that this must have gone accidently unnoticed.

Brown & Goldstein

A receptor mediated pathway for cholesterol homeostatis

"Several lines of evidence suggest that plasma levels of LDL-cholesterol in the range of 25-60 mg/dl (total plasma cholesterol of 110 to 150 mg/dl) might indeed be physiologic for human beings. First, in other mammalian species that do not develop atherosclerosis, the plasma LDL-cholesterol level is generally less than 80 mg/dl (Fig. 16 and ref. 120). In these animals the affinity of the LDL receptor for their own LDL is roughly the same as the affinity of the human LDL receptor for human LDL, implying that these species are designed by evolution to have similar plasma LDL levels (9,119). Second, the LDL level in newborn humans is approximately 30 mg/dl (121), well within the range that seems to be appropriate for receptor binding (Fig. 16). Third, when humans are raised on a low fat diet, the plasma LDL-cholesterol tends to stay in the range of 50 to 80 mg/dl. It only reaches levels above 100 mg/dl in individuals who consume a diet rich in saturated animal fats and cholesterol that is customarily ingested in Western societies (116,122)".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3513311

nothing91 said...

"Put your money where your mouths are and show us your abs please."

"I am in a opinion that Charles is borderline retard."

LOL. There's nothing more adorable than angry vegans. Clearly the plethora of links from Charles contradicting your dopey black-and-white view of nutrition are a little too much for you guys. I guess that's just tough luck for you. :-)

I'm 6ft fall and 150 pounds. Been naturally thin all my life -- even back when I ate the SAD. So, unfortunately, my particular case provides no data either way for the "My Diet is Better than Your Diet" war that vegans so love to participate in.

I do love the idea of us all posting pictures of our abs to "prove" something, though. Another reminder of just how low the level of intellect can be when you engage with adorable vegans. :-)

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

The study you so proudly link to advocates the use of statins drugs

"If our genetically determined ideal LDL is indeed 50 to 70 mg/dl, perhaps lowering the currently average but elevated levels closer to the physiologically normal range may improve not just CHD but also many other diseases commonly attributed to the aging process.

For all of these reasons, and given the safety record of statins, some investigators have suggested that statins be considered for routine use in individuals over age 55 years."

If our genetically determined ideal LDL is indeed 50 to 70 mg/dl and it can only be achieved thru the use of drugs why is that a good thing to attempt?

Also - stating that I am a "borderline retard" is an insult that should get you banned from this blog. You should consider an apology.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

A study referenced in your link

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC162259/

A strategy to reduce cardiovascular disease by more than 80%

"The formulation which met our objectives was: a statin (for example, atorvastatin (daily dose 10 mg) or simvastatin (40 mg)); three blood pressure lowering drugs (for example, a thiazide, a β blocker, and an angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitor), each at half standard dose; folic acid (0.8 mg); and aspirin (75 mg).

"A low cost Polypill could use generic components that are not subject to patent protection (simvastatin (from mid-2003), hydrochlorothiazide, atenolol, enalapril, folic acid, and aspirin). This formulation does not have the lowest rate of adverse effects, but even if about 10% of people were intolerant of the formulation it would still have considerable public health merit. Those found to be intolerant could be prescribed alternatives to avoid the side effects."

Why don't you - Peter - take this combination of 4 drugs and 2 supplements?

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

You said - "The last my cholesterol was measured was five years ago when ate pretty much semi-prudent standard Western fare."

You want us non-vegans to show you our abs

How about you show us your blood work?

What is your CURRENT LDL?

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

Re your Cordain study

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/06/did-hunter-gatherers-have-low-serum-cholesterol/

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07/serum-cholesterol-among-the-eskimos-and-inuit/

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07/serum-cholesterol-among-african-hunter-gatherers/

http://perfecthealthdiet.com/2011/07/serum-cholesterol-among-hunter-gatherers-conclusion/

"Conclusion

Let’s look at the four parts of the syllogism I’ve attributed to Eaton and Cordain:

Diet determines TC. Wrong. It looks like burden of parasites is the major determinant of serum cholesterol in hunter-gatherers and human populations globally.

Low TC is healthy. Wrong. It is associated with high infectious burden, small stature, high mortality, and short lifespan.

Hunter-gatherers had low TC. Some did, some didn’t. So let’s look at a specific claim, this from the classic Cordain-Eaton paper from 2002, “The paradoxical nature of hunter-gatherer diets: meat-based, yet non-atherogenic” (thanks, Rob!):

Over the past 64 y, anthropological research has consistently demonstrated relatively low serum cholesterol and triaglycerol levels among indigenous populations that derive the majority of their diet from animal products. [30]

Wrong. Anthropological research has not consistently demonstrated low serum cholesterol and triglycerol levels from hunter-gatherers, regardless of whether the primary dietary source was animals (Eskimo/Inuit) or plants (Kitavans, Central Australian aborigines). Rather, those with high parasite burdens had low cholesterol, regardless of diet, and healthy populations without parasites had serum cholesterol over 200 mg/dl regardless of diet.

Therefore, hunter-gatherer diets are healthy. True! Except insofar as dietary practices, such as the Eskimo practice of eating raw intestines from recently killed animals, predisposed them to picking up parasitic infections.

Overall I think the data should dispose us to look toward infectious burden, rather than genetics or diet, as the primary determinant of serum cholesterol among hunter-gatherers. If genetic differences influence mean TC among hunter-gatherer populations, it is probably because of evolutionary adaptations to local pathogens, such as the heavy parasite burden in sub-Saharan Africa."

Jack LaBear said...

According to Harvard school of Public Health Research, people with the highest levels of trans palmitoleic acid found in dairy and meat fat had 60% lower rates of diabetes as well as healthier levels of blood cholesterol, inflammatory markers, insulin levels, and insulin sensitivity, after adjustment for other risk factors.
http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/2010-releases/dairy-foods-diabetes-risk.html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21173413
Does anyone believe that diabetes leads to obesity and CVD?

Like animal studies? In mice, "palmitoleic acid ameliorated the development of hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia, and improved insulin sensitivity...These results suggest that palmitoleic acid improves hyperglycemia and hypertriglyceridemia by increasing insulin sensitivity, in part owing to suppressing proinflammatory gene expressions and improving hepatic lipid metabolism in diabetic mice. ".
http://www.lipidworld.com/content/10/1/120

Then there is the python blood thing. Where does the post prandial myrystic, palmitic and palmitoleic acid in python blood come from? How about the fat of the animal it ate. It works so well that the researcher is developing a patented fat pill to treat human heart disease - much more profitable than telling people the truth about where the magical fatty acids are found in a normal diet.
www.edinformatics.com/news/fatty_acids_python_snake.htm
It looks from the above that Gu-Ga is calling for some Ad-Hominid posting. Let me oblige.
The vegan apologists criticize the interventional studies I cited as not being "focused" or long enough.
You know that definition of insanity - doing the same thing longer and harder and expecting a different result?
Apparently belonging to Mensa doesn't guarantee sanity. LC wasn't working for Don,so he did VLC. When that didn't work, he went to the opposite extreme. When the raw veganism fails, Don will be seen outside the clinic, cutting out the middleman and grazing on the lawn on all fours. All he needs to do is eat a little sour dough starter and yeast, maybe some BIO-CAT products "designed to treat septic tanks and cesspools". He'll make a hind-gut fermenter out of himself like a gorilla - turn himself into a Bovane-Hominid!

Something that probably will work better for him though is making money selling ancient Chinese wisdom and vegetarianism to gullible New Agers. That's a lot easier and more profitable than going against the grain.

Charles Grashow said...

The full study

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3383835/?tool=pubmed

Fatty Acids Identified in the Burmese Python Promote Beneficial Cardiac Growth

"we administered the fatty acid mixture to mice over a 7-day period and observed a significant increase in left ventricular mass (Figure 4B), increased cardiomyocyte cross-sectional area (Figure 4B), no activation of the pathological fetal gene program (Figure 4C), and no evidence of alterations in cardiac fibrosis or lipid deposition (Figure S14).

Intriguingly, the growth-inducing effects of the fatty acids appeared to be cardiac-specific, as there were no observed alterations in either liver or skeletal muscle mass (Figure S15A). As a control, we also administered a mixture of oleic (C18:1), linoleic (C18:2), and arachidonic (C20:4) acid in the molar ratio observed in the 1 DPF python and saw no evidence of cardiac hypertrophy (Figure S15B), indicating that the pro-hypertrophic effects are specific to the mixture of myristic, palmitic, and palmitoleic acid."

"Overall, our results indicate that postprandial cardiac growth in the python is characterized by cellular hypertrophy in the absence of hyperplasia and activation of PI3K/Akt/mTOR signaling pathways. Despite elevations in circulating triglycerides and increased fatty acid transport, the python heart appears to be protected from lipid deposition through increased oxidative capacity and induction of free radical scavenging activity. Finally, we demonstrate that a combination of fatty acids, identified in postprandial python plasma, promotes physiological hypertrophy in mammalian cardiomyocytes. Given that activation of adaptive, physiological hypertrophic processes can provide functional benefit in the context of a cardiac disease state, our data indicate that fatty acid supplementation may provide a new mechanism for modulating cardiac gene expression and function in mammals, and that such interventions could augment cardiac performance in the context of human disease."

healthy-longevity said...

@Charles

The study you cited regarding vegetarianism producing atherogenesis was a cross-sectional study of semi-vegetarians living in Chad who may have been semi-malnourished. There is scant evidence to support the researcher’s theory regarding the differences in homocysteine in this population being explained by differences in sulphur amino acid intake, and the differences maybe more accurately ascribed to differences in B12 intake, which is of little concern for those consuming plant-based diets in the developed world where there is sufficient access to B12 supplements. The title of this study is misleading as the study did not actually provide any evidence showing that vegetarianism produces atherogenesis.

The most recent and largest meta-analysis of prospective studies comparing typical (less than optimal) vegetarian to omnivorous diets found that vegetarian diets was associated with a significant decreased risk of both coronary heart disease and cancer mortality despite the lack of consideration of the length of adherence, which more than likely attenuated these findings towards null.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22677895
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/526S.long

You suggest that you are very well informed about studies on vegetarian diets, yet why do you suggest that vegetarianism produces atherogenesis without providing any relevant evidence, and why do you continue to ignore contrasting evidence from all meta-analyses showing that vegetarian diets is associated with a decreased risk of coronary heart disease?

You provided scant evidence showing that primitive carnivorous populations such as the Inuit were actually “healthy”, as well as for evidence regarding a causal association between low serum cholesterol and “high infectious burden, small stature, high mortality, and short lifespan.”

Individuals born with extremely rare conditions that cause life-long LDL levels of <15 mg/dl display normal growth and actually experience increased longevity. In addition a meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials of diet and various medical based lipid modifying interventions found that lowering LDL cholesterol significantly decreased the risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality, while modifying HDL or triglycerides provided no clear benefit after controlling for LDL cholesterol.
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/6/672.long
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645847/


@Jack

The association between diet and serum cholesterol has been firmly established from hundreds of controlled feeding trials. The lack of differences in serum lipids between the intervention and control group in a number of intervention studies suggests either the lack of sufficient dietary change in the intervention group, or that similar dietary changes were unintentionally made by the control group.
http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112.abstract
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.long

As in regards to the length of the intervention studies, you appear to suggesting that there is insufficient evidence to support the time-lag hypothesis. The time-lag hypothesis is often ignored by frauds such as Barry Groves, a member of the Weston A Price Foundation as a means to claim that smoking is not a cause of lung cancer (ie. by stating that lung cancer rates were not high until several decades after smoking rates were high in nations such as the US). It is interesting how you previously resorted to citing Barry Groves to back-up your claims about fat intake in herbivores.
http://www.second-opinions.co.uk/diesel_lung_cancer.html

Peter said...

Great post Healthy Longevity.

Nothing, Charles and Ben are such lucky bastards for having you providing a solid second opinion. These guys have by now lots of references to debunk the nonsense they see next time in their favourite "meat, cream and bacon are healthy, grains bad" -blogs.

@Charles,

basically everyone who do whole-food plant-based diets long-term end up having their cholesterol on physiological levels, TC cholesterol aroun 90-140. Some people may have problems with the liver after lifetime exposure to diet rich in SFA and cholesterol, but even these people usually manage to get somewhere around 155-160.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

So take a blood test and post the results

You say "basically everyone who do whole-food plant-based diets long-term end up having their cholesterol on physiological levels, TC cholesterol aroun 90-140."

but not having blood msnemin 56work done for 5 years you are ASSUMING it to be thus.

nothing91 said...

"The most recent and largest meta-analysis of prospective studies comparing typical (less than optimal) vegetarian to omnivorous diets found that vegetarian diets was associated with a significant decreased risk of both coronary heart disease and cancer mortality"

Wow! You mean to tell me that when health-conscious vegetarians are compared to the general population (who mostly eat typical, crappy Western-style diets), the vegetarians fare better? What a bombshell! I can't believe you didn't post this sooner!

More rock-solid epidemiology from the vegan crowd. With data like this, it's hard to believe that anyone could not concur with your absolutist views. I'm rethinking my position already. :-)

Peter said...

@Nothing,

these issues are actually controlloed, body-weight, excersise, social-status, etc.

The so far biggest US-based study on vegeterians & vegans found out that vegans showed the least amount of physical activity out of all the dietary groups.

Nevertheless, even when weight was controlled they (vegans) were least likely to have diabetes.

Type of Vegetarian Diet, Body Weight, and Prevalence of Type 2 Diabetes

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2671114/

healthy-longevity said...

@I read nothing

Did you even bother to read the meta-analysis that I cited before making that comment about vegetarians being "compared to the general population"? The authors stated:

“Five prospective cohort studies involving a large proportion of vegetarians and nonvegetarians with a shared interest in healthy living or a similar social/religious background have reported some evidence that infrequent meat consumption or vegetarianism was associated with a reduction in mortality from ischemic heart disease, but some of these individual results were not statistically significant or were not observed in both sexes [2] . However, an association of vegetarian diets with a lower risk of coronary heart disease has been well established across studies [3, 6, 7] .”

nothing91 said...

"Five prospective cohort studies involving a large proportion of vegetarians and nonvegetarians with a shared interest in healthy living or a similar social/religious background"

One of the things you learn to do when you actually look at evidence with an open mind (rather than a pre-determined absolutist stance) is to read carefully. The sentence above very cleverly sneaks in the word "or" in a way that I'm sure you missed. Re-read it (carefully) and you'll see that not all 5 studies focused on folks with an interest in healthy living; only some did.

How many did? Who knows. I checked two: one did and one didn't. The one that did says:

"Within the cohort, vegetarian compared with nonvegetarian diet had no effect on overall mortality."

The one that didn't says:

"Within the study, mortality from circulatory diseases and all causes is not significantly different between vegetarians and meat eaters"

Guess I must have picked the right two to look at. :-) But I like the first one better due to the supposedly health-conscious participants.

With so many non-vegetarians supposedly dying of heart disease, it kind of makes you wonder what vegetarians are dying from to keep the overall mortality numbers similar. Quite a conundrum!

Charles Grashow said...

@Nothing91

It's amazing how studies parse words

http://vegetarian.procon.org/sourcefiles/lifestyle_determinants_and_mortality_in_german_vegetarians.pdf

Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian healthconscious
persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low
prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The non significant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in
vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.


"non significant - could be"

give me a break - they can't admit the possibility that a vegetarian diet doesn't work

Charles Grashow said...

@Nothing91

It's amazing how studies parse words

http://vegetarian.procon.org/sourcefiles/lifestyle_determinants_and_mortality_in_german_vegetarians.pdf

Conclusions: Both vegetarians and nonvegetarian healthconscious
persons in this study have reduced mortality compared with the general population. Within the study, low
prevalence of smoking and moderate or high level of physical activity but not strictly vegetarian diet was associated with reduced overall mortality. The non significant reduction in mortality from ischemic heart diseases in
vegetarians compared with health-conscious persons could be explained in part by avoidance of meat intake.


"non significant - could be"

give me a break - they can't admit the possibility that a vegetarian diet doesn't work

healthy-longevity said...

This must be one of the first time that you lot have actually commented on the results of a study I have cited instead of changing the subject. Perhaps you found it too difficult to explain why a meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials found that lowering LDL cholesterol significantly decreased the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality.

It does not require a leap of faith to therefore suggest that the reason the vegetarians had a lower mortality rate of coronary heart disease can at least partly be explained by a lower LDL cholesterol. That “or” that they use are referring either “healthy living” or a “similar social/religious background” that promotes healthy living through eschewing commodities such as alcohol and cigarettes (ie. Seventh Day Adventists). You seem to be focusing on one study regarding coronary heart disease mortality and conveniently ignoring the combined findings from the meta-analyses.

Prospective cohort studies found that compared to omnivorous diets, long-term adherence to typical (less than optimal) vegetarian diets (>17 years) is associated with a significantly lower risk of all-cause mortality, whereas short-term adherence (<5 years) is associated with an increased risk of all-cause mortality. Joan Sabate and Pramil N. Singh, co-investigators of the Adventist Health Study asserted in regards to this phenomenon that:
“One possible explanation for this unexpected effect might be that subjects may have quit consumption of meats due to an illness that was ultimately fatal. This is similar to the “sick quitter effect,” shown among smokers in which those who quit smoking in response to illness were likely to have biased the protective effect of quitting the smoking habit towards null.”
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/78/3/526S.long
http://www.amazon.com/Vegetarian-Nutrition-Modern-Joan-Sabate/dp/0849385083

This suggests that mortality in the vegetarians were largely found within the earlier years of follow-up among individuals who changed to a vegetarian diet in response to an illness, and may explain why vegetarianism was associated only with a non-significant 9% lower risk of all-cause mortality. This is why I specifically stated in regards to the recent meta-analysis “despite the lack of consideration of the length of adherence, which more than likely attenuated these findings towards null”,

healthy-longevity said...

There were a number of other reasons the differences in mortality between vegetarians and nonvegetarians in prospective studies could have attenuated the results towards null. As stated by the researchers in the other review paper I cited:

“In Tables 1 and 2, it is noteworthy that some of the studies showing strong protective effects (ie, Adventist Studies) compared vegetarians who consumed no meat to nonvegetarians who were weekly meat eaters. These findings contrast with the null findings from some of the UK studies where “nonvegetarians” included occasional meat eaters (meat eaten less than once per week)—a feature that decreases the difference in dietary intake between vegetarians and nonvegetari-ans, thus biasing the mortality ratio toward unity.

Similarly, a “healthy volunteer” bias in which vegetarian or nonvegetarian subjects responding to questionnaires or health interviews tend to be more health conscious than the general population can also serve to decrease the difference in survival between vegetarians and non-vegetarians if the bias is differential across exposure. These factors are particularly noteworthy when considering the preliminary, 5-y findings from the European Prospective Investigation of Cancer (EPIC)–Oxford cohort (published in this supplement) indicating an apparently small difference in survival between vegetarians and nonvegetarians. That a sizable proportion of the nonvegetarians in the EPIC-Oxford cohort were 1) occasional meat users, 2) previous survey respondents who were affiliated with vegetarians, or 3) people affiliated with vegetarian societies could detract from the insight gained by comparing their survival with vegetarians’ survival.

Measurement error of usual dietary intake of meat is another limitation of the studies cited here. The validity studies conducted on food-frequency questionnaires used by some of these prospective studies did indicate, however, that these semiquantitative instruments were good estimators of meat intake as measured by 24-h recall or biochemical indicators of diet (1). Moreover, Willett has reported that measurement error in dietary assessment tends to bias the effect estimate toward the null (49), implying that 1) the protective associations with very low meat intake reported here may in fact be stronger, and 2) the null findings from crude, nonquantitative measures of meat intake may not be conclusive. In this context, it is note-worthy that the absence of a strong meat-mortality association in the Health Food Shoppers Study came from a design where meat intake was estimated from a nonquantitative item on whether a subject was vegetarian. A validity assessment of the survey used in this study indicated that self-reported vegetarian status on a questionnaire was a poor marker (ie, 34% of those indicating vegetarianism on a questionnaire did consume meats) of actual meat intake (17).”

You would first need to refute the other higher quality studies I cited, including the meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials that found that lowering LDL cholesterol significantly decreased the risk of cardiovascular disease and all-cause mortality before suggesting that there are no plausible mechanisms in which a plant-based diet could reduce all-cause mortality, and in particular cardiovascular mortality.

Peter said...

Another grand-slam Healthy longevity.

The very one time the creationists actually bother to read what you post only reveals that are completely hopeless in analyzing any material.

Often, unless the study is specifically designed to show difference in total mortality, such difference does not emerge. This is often just question of sheer volume, participant number. You need a very big sample to show difference in total mortality.

Past trial's and studies on women had shown pretty consistently that statins do not reduce all-cause mortality in women. Creationist actually fell into this, even though there was no biological plausibility to explain the allaged fact that "women are shammed by the cholesterol mafia" as one famous online denilist put it.

We never had studies on women that had the adequate statistical power to show a difference in total mortality, until this year (2012):

Statins reduce cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in women: Meta-analysis

"There have been a large number of clinical trials looking at the benefits of statin use, but the ability for us to prove that the benefits extend to both men and women has been limited, in part because of numbers," lead investigator Dr William Kostis (Massachusetts General Hospital, Boston) told heartwire. "There have been studies that have shown benefits in men, and where they have shown a trend toward benefit in women they were unable to show a statistically significant difference. Because of this, we undertook the meta-analysis, and what we found was what we had hoped to find, and that was that the benefits of reducing cardiovascular outcomes and all-cause mortality extend to both men and women"

http://www.theheart.org/article/1347045.do

nothing91 said...

"You seem to be focusing on one study regarding coronary heart disease mortality and conveniently ignoring the combined findings from the meta-analyses.

Huh? I looked at two of the studies, and both found no difference in overall mortality. This despite one group supposedly eating a vastly superior diet. The vegans of course can only squirm and come up with 50 different theories why this "might" be the case, while ignoring the obvious one (that perhaps vegetarianism doesn't improve longevity) because it's just so inconceivable.

Clearly all that you did was read the meta-analysis and -- since it jived with your absolutist views -- you didn't bother to dig deeper. (Good thing I was in the mood to do it for you.) You then presented it as if all the participants were health conscious, which clearly isn't the case. So the fact that the MA found an overall mortality difference is meaningless, because their data included studies which put vegetarians up against non-health conscious persons. Which was precisely my objection to it in the first place. :-)

healthy-longevity said...

@Nothing

I was referring to Charles limiting his citation to only one study regarding coronary heart disease morality, whereas you did not even specifically examine coronary heart disease.

I provided evidence regarding a number of limitations documented within these studies suggesting that the difference in mortality between the vegetarians and non-vegetarians was biased towards null, including that the non-vegetarian group included individuals who consume meat infrequently, and that a significant portion of the individuals in the vegetarian group actually consumed meat. I also referred to the issues of time-lag (related to adherence to diet) and the “sick quitter effect” as possibly biasing the mortality findings towards null, limitations which are well documented in observation studies on smoking, for which only frauds like Barry Groves attempt to ignore in order to downplay the disease promoting effects of cigarette smoke.

The authors of the recent meta-analysis also stated that “mortality from ischemic heart disease was 24% (95% CI: 0.06, 0.38) lower among vegetarians than among nonvegetarians in the collaborative reanalysis of 5 prospective studies”. They are mentioning here that their findings for ischemic heart disease mortality were actually similar to combined findings from 5 prospective studies that compared “vegetarians and nonvegetarians with a shared interest in healthy living or a similar social/religious background”, for which religious backgrounds enforced healthy living through eschewing consumption of tobacco and alcohol.

The authors of the collaborative analysis noted that “It has been predicted that a 0.6 mmol/L reduction in the total serum cholesterol concentration would cause a 27% difference in mortality from ischemic heart disease, which is close to our observations in the current analysis and suggests that the lower mortality from ischemic heart disease in the vegetarians could have been due largely to their lower total serum cholesterol concentrations.” This is again consistent with what I previously mentioned regarding plausible evidence for these findings.

The authors of the collaborative analysis also found in a sub-analysis that after adjusting for age, sex, smoking status, alcohol use, education level, exercise level, and BMI, vegetarians had a 34% lower risk of ischemic heart disease mortality compared to regular meat eaters.


These relatively small prospective studies are not the primary or highest quality evidence demonstrating the health benefits of replacing animal foods with whole-plant foods. I provided a small sample of mostly higher quality references, including studies reviewing over one hundred randomized controlled trials and prospective studies including millions of participants that can be found from the comment permalink below.
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2012/08/still-not-weaned.html?showComment=1346943130212#c772351394112133015

Below is another comment permlink with references to systematic reviews carried out by world leading health authorities, including the World Health Organization which have consistently come to the conclusion that diets should be predominantly plant-based. Your suggestion that those who promote the health benefits of a predominantly plant-based diet are all ignorant vegans with an absolutist view is therefore clearly wrong.
http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2012/08/still-not-weaned.html?showComment=1347061060962#c3925707976156937155

Jack LaBear said...

ffceyo someActually, I eat several handfuls of grass a day in the form of fresh squeezed wheat grass juice. It has a good tonic-medicinal effect.

I also eat berries, pomegranate juiceand tart cherry juice as well as apples, oranges, bananas and variousother fruit. I eat around a half pound of cooked vegetables a day. Probably more than half of my food by volume is vegetation of somekind. I eat ~60g/d combined of coconut, olive, macadamia nut and pomegranate seed oil.I also eat 100g/d of butterfat from cream and butter and around 1/2-3/4 pound/d of meat and/or fish, and 5 days a week 1/4lb of pork brains and an egg containing total 3700mg cholesterol in a rich bone broth.

Here are my lipids after 12h fast, when in the 12h before that I ate 130g animal fat and 4500mg cholesterol:
TC - 186, HDL - 51, LDL - 114, TG - 104

Frankly, I don't care about all these vegan-political studies. I'm interested in the results of my n=1experiment on myself, and I'm happy with the results. Compared with my 20s, 30s and early 40s, I feel better, have more energy, my brain works better, I'm stronger, leaner and happier.

I'm an engineer and 13 years ago took an interest in engineering my own self. I learned to lower my carbs to ~ 100g/day and necessarily increase my fat to ~55% of calories long before I ever heard of Atkins or Paleo. I did it to cure problems with hypoglycemia and serious intestinal upset due to declining ability to digest starch. I discovered many other benefits.

I first learned about plant based nutraceuticals and then learned about animal food nutraceuticals. I use what works for me, choosing from whatever is available in my environment.

I don't subscribe to ideological packages. Too many people suffer suboptimal health from that. There is the devout Christian diabetic who can't help his condition by restricting carbs against his doctor's, ADA, AHA etc. advice because he has been trained all his life to submit to dogma and authoritarianism. We have the Jewish woman who must eat kosher, which leads to her eating a lot of easy to find kosher things like cheerios, donuts and bagels. The only toroidal food I'm willing to eat is calamari rings ;-)

There are the vegan Hindus in India whohave higher rates of heart disease and diabetes than Americans on SAD, or their ghee eating neighbors to the north.

And here we find the Marxist vegans who think they are going to save the world by forcing everyone to forgo animal food by any means possible, from outrageous lies and manipulation to lawyers and lobbyists.

http://humanewatch.org/index.php/site/post/wont_you_help_these_lawyers/

It's already showing up in the ridiculously small rations of “protein” in the Federal school lunch guidelines.

My results speak for themselves. The cat is out of the bag. Once I found out the truth about the HSUS, PCRM/PETA, The China Study and Forks Over Knives, I realized what the game is. It's about politics, not science, health or medicine. Jeremia Stamler don't cut no ice with me. Your studies slide off me like water off a duck's back. You vegan apologists have no credibility with me because you yourselves destroyed it.

I can see that this is going to have to be a political fight to counter your totalitarian yearnings and preserve my American rights to eat as I and my children please. That is what the real future of the paleo movement is. You're on, my friends.

Charles Grashow said...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bigu_%28avoiding_grains%29

Bigu (avoiding grains)

One can advance positive explanations for this belief, and the practice that derives from it, if one thinks, for example, of the relative abundance of feces produced by cereals as compared to that produced by a diet of meat. The conclusion of recent studies on the harmful effect of excessive amounts of carbohydrates in the form of sugar and bread, have led some to see the Taoist abstinence from cereals as the result of an ancient empiricism in matters of diet. (Schipper 1993:167)

nothing91 said...

HL,

"I provided a small sample of mostly higher quality references, including studies reviewing over one hundred randomized controlled trials"

Okay, so let's look at one of the "higher quality" ones instead of the, uh, non-higher quality one we've been talking about. I checked out the first study in the post you linked to: the "meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials of diet and various medical based lipid modifying interventions", as you called it.

But right off the bat, you misrepresent the study. You say "diet" first ("diet and various medical based") as if the majority of the study involved dietary changes rather than drugs. But, in fact, the vast majority of the 108 studies were drug interventions -- dietary interventions are a very small part of the 108.

So, not interesting at all. If you want to base your diet off of drug intervention studies, be my guest. But this is the reason I don't generally play the "My study vs. your study" game with people -- it's almost always a waste of time.

"Your suggestion that those who promote the health benefits of a predominantly plant-based diet are all ignorant vegans with an absolutist view is therefore clearly wrong."

Well I've made no such suggestion, so your premise is invalid. :-) There's a big difference in my view between a "predominantly plant-based" diet (which plenty of perfectly healthy HG cultures have thrived on) and an absolutist vegan diet (which, AFAIK, no primitive culture has ever been documented as consuming). It's night and day, really. The latter requires so much goofy logic and confirmation bias (as, of course, most extreme views do) that I just can't help but find it comical.

Bog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

@Ben

you have a clearly atherogenic LDL, which is very much above our physiological levels.

Diagnostic Criteria for Dyslipidemia

"Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is identified in the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP ATP III) report as the most abundant and clearly causal atherogenic lipoprotein on the basis of many observational and experimental studies over several decades.1 Guidelines from the American Association of Clinical Endocrinologists (AACE) are in agreement with NCEP ATP III that LDL-C is central in the diagnosis of dyslipidemia. Any LDL-C level above 100 mg/dL appears to promote atherogenesis"

http://www.lipidu.com/Pillars.aspx?PillarID=2&ChildID=2

There is no such thing as "vegan" Hindu. High-fat dairy products such as Gii are customarily ingested among India's vegeterian population, just like Western vegeterians often consume huge amounts of SFA and dietary cholesterol in the form of eggs, cream, icecream, etc. American Heart Association discloses that vegeterian diets with too much saturated fat are not healthy.

The studies HL posted do not emphasize the potental of whole-foods but rather highlight the benefits of skipping meat (which is just a one step towards healthy longevity).

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2747394/

Lipoprotein ratios: Physiological significance and clinical usefulness in cardiovascular prevention

"Total/high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol and LDL/HDL cholesterol ratios are risk indicators with greater predictive value than isolated parameters used independently, particularly LDL. Future recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of dyslipidemia, including instruments for calculating cardiovascular risk or action guidelines, should include the lipoprotein ratios with greater predictive power which, in view of the evidence-based results, are none other than those which include HDL cholesterol."

"The predictive capacity of these ratios is supported by data suggesting that an increase in HDL cholesterol is more prevalently associated with plaque regression, while a decrease in LDL cholesterol would slow down progression."

"owever, when there is no reliable determination of LDL cholesterol, as in cases of wedenou 26hypertriglyceridemia, it is preferable to use the total/HDL cholesterol ratio."

Charles Grashow said...

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/112/4/498.full

This study shows that a high level of HDL cholesterol reduces plaque growth in subjects with preexisting carotid atherosclerosis. Transformation of the plaque mass into higher echogenicity is associated with reduced growth. Our findings may indicate that HDL cholesterol stabilizes plaques and counteracts their growth by reducing their lipid content and inflammation.

Peter said...

@Charles,

HDL is good risk estimator on people who have uniformly atherogenic LDL. It has very little significance for people who have physiological cholesterol levels. Your HDL should be also very low, all HG-tribes have very low HDL. You don't need carbage trucks when you don't have carbage in your arteries.

Anyways, your constant spamming gives support for my conclusion of you being a borderline retard person. You simply have no clue. Scientist are there for give a proper weight for the evidence. Science is not a democracy.

1) The Cause of Atherosclerosis (William Clifford Roberts, American Journal of Cardiology, editor-in-chief)

"Thus, although not clearly established at this time, to prevent atherosclerotic plaques, the serum LDL cholesterol must be <70 mg/dL, the serum total cholesterol certainly <150 mg/dL, and the high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol >20 mg/dL. The latter—surely a surprise to most readers—is in patients with a serum total cholesterol level about 130 mg/dL and a LDL cholesterol level of about 60 mg/dL. Exactly what HDL cholesterol level is required to prevent plaques is unclear at this time, but clearly if the LDL cholesterol is very low (eg, 50 mg/dL), then a low HDL cholesterol—as long as it is >20 mg/dL—appears not to be dangerous. Ideal may be equal serum HDL and LDL cholesterol levels or an HDL cholesterol > LDL cholesterol. In summary, the recommended guideline numbers—particularly those for primary prevention—are intended for decreasing the risk of atherosclerosis events, not for preventing formation of atherosclerotic plaques".

"In contrast to feeding cholesterol and/or saturated fat, it is not possible to produce atherosclerotic plaques in herbivores by raising the blood pressure chronically, by blowing cigarette smoke in their faces for their entire lifetimes, or by somehow raising the blood glucose levels without simultaneously feeding them an atherogenenic diet. Presently, it is commonly stated that “atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disease.” Inflammatory cells, however, are infrequent in plaques of coronary arteries studied at necropsy or in endarterectomy specimens. When present, the few mononuclear cells—even giant cells—appear to be present due to a reaction to the deposits of lipid (pultaceous debris) present in the plaque.“ Inflammation” appears to be a surrogate for elevation of serum C-reactive protein or various cytokines (interleukins 1 and 6, tumor necrosis factor, etc), not for inflammatory cells in plaques. Thus, it is a definition situation, and the morphologic definition of inflammation is not applicable"

"In summary, the connection between cholesterol elevation and atherosclerotic plaques is clear and well established. Atherosclerosis is a cholesterol problem! If one has elevated cholesterol, has an elevated blood pressure, smokes cigarettes, or has an elevated blood sugar, these additional factors serve to amplify the cholesterol damage but they by themselves do not produce atherosclerotic plaques! Societies with a high frequency of systemic hypertension or a high frequency of cigarette smoking but low cholesterol levels rarely get atherosclerosis".

"Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivores, humans also must be herbivores"

2) Cardiovascular Benefits of Aggressive Cholesterol-Lowering Therapy

"In a recent editorial, William Roberts, MD, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, succinctly summarized this complex issue into a simple phrase: “It's the cholesterol, stupid!”

http://ncp.sagepub.com/content/23/5/464.full

Jimmy Gee said...


"Because humans get atherosclerosis, and atherosclerosis is a disease only of herbivores, humans also must be herbivores"

I almost choked on my liverwurst when I laughed at this one. Too funny - inane even.

Bog said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

Roberts refers to well-established fact that, as general rule, only herbivorous creatures are affected by atherosclerosis (if fed non-herbivorous food, the closest ancestors of humans, non-human primates get hardened arteries very easily if fed dietary cholesterol, you've heard all about Darwinian homology, righ?) Have you ever heard of omnivores such as bears or pigs getting atherosclerosis?

Raab observes in regards to CAD (1932):

"…the relative rarity of atherosclerosis and hypertension among the chiefly vegetable-consuming inhabitants of China, Africa, Dutch East India, and the enormous frequency of arteriosclerosis and hypertension among the peoples of Europe and North America who consume large quantities of eggs, butter..."

"In 1925, Kuczynski reported on the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen who habitually consume a diet with large amounts of meat and milk, and observed a high incidence of obesity, premature extensive atherosclerosis, contracted kidney, apoplexy and arcus senilis. Their urbanized counterparts who consumed a more varied diet however did not exhibit such severe vascular disease"

Coronary Heart Disease Epidemiology. Michael Marmot, Paul Elliott

"In 1940, I confirmed De Langen’s results . . . by the observation that in North China, coronary disease, cholesterol stones and thrombosis were practically nonexistent among the poorer classes. They lived on a cereal-vegetable diet consisting of bread baked from yellow corn, millet, soybean flour and vegetables sautéed in peanut and sesame oil. Since cholesterol is present only in animal food, their serum cholesterol content was often in the range of 100 mg. per cent. These findings paralleled the observation of De Langen that coronary artery disease was frequent among Chinese who had emigrated to the Dutch East Indies and followed the high fat diet of the European colonists (Snapper 1963, 284)"

Gob said...

How many times is Peter going to accidentally post under his other name (Bog) before he figures it out??

healthy-longevity said...

The large majority of the decline in serum cholesterol in the pre and early statin period in developed nations in the second half of the 20th century is explained by diet, and resulted in some of the largest declines in cardiovascular disease mortality in the world.

A recent meta-analysis of mendelian randomized controlled trials including over one million individuals found that inheriting one of the nine studied genetic variants associated with life-long reduced LDL, but do not alter other known risk factors equally predicted a three-fold greater decreased risk of coronary heart disease per unit lower of LDL than statins do when started later in life. This study also found that individuals who inherit a variant of the statin drug targeted HMGCR gene that is associated with life-long reduced LDL, have an equal degree lower risk of coronary heart disease as individuals who inherited any of the other 8 studied gene variants. This provides further evidence that the primary mechanism in which statins lower coronary heart disease can be explained by its ability to lower LDL cholesterol.

These findings demonstrates that the benefit of lowering LDL depends on both the timing and the magnitude of the LDL reduction, and that the benefits associated with lower LDL are largely independent of the mechanism in which LDL is lowered. This in-turn provides strong evidence indicating that dietary changes to reduce serum cholesterol will result in similar results as other medical based lipid modifying interventions (ie. the meta-analysis of 108 lipid modifying interventions), as has been observed in a number of nations that experienced some of the largest declines in cardiovascular disease mortality in the world.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199603/pdf/1471-2458-11-641.pdf

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/10/1187.full.pdf

http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d8136

http://www.unilever-pro-nutrition-sante.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Importance-of-reducing-SAFA-to-limit-CHD-BJN-2011-Pedersen-et-al.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DQ2itumKu8&feature=player_embedded

Peter said...

IS there anything more powerfull in highlighting the importance of low LDL than the nonsense mutation PCSK9?

Cardiovascular Benefits of Aggressive Cholesterol-Lowering Therapy

“In a recent editorial, William Roberts, MD, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, succinctly summarized this complex issue into a simple phrase: “It’s the cholesterol, stupid!”

“..in individuals with lifetime LDL-C levels reduced by approximately 28% (about 40 mg/dL) due to a nonsense mutation of PCSK9 gene, a reduction of up to 88% in the rate of coronary heart disease events has been reported.10 This 88% reduction is quite different from the 30% reduction predicted by a similar decrease in LDL-C levels noted in a meta-analysis of statin trials.11 Individuals with the PCSK9 mutations have lower LDL-C levels throughout their entire lives, which may actually triple their risk reduction compared with those whose LDL-C levels are lowered similarly but are measured for only a 5-year span”.

http://www.jaoa.org/content/111/4_suppl_3/i.full


Keeping cholesterol on physiological levels is no-brainer. The mechanism which lowers LDL, genes, parasites, surgical bypass operation of the lleal (POSCH-trial), statin, excersise, dietary pattern, is irrelevant as long as the LDL is kept low.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter et al

SO -I'm 58 year old, 6'1" tall and weigh 160 lbs. I exercise appx 4-5 times/week (weights + HIIT every 4th day)

Per my last blood test (NMR on 5/10) - according to you - I should be either dead or be having major heart problems by now

TC - 254
HDL - 59
Trig - 36
LDL-C 140 (per the Iranian calculation)

LPL-P 1500
Small LDL-P 127
LDL size 21.1

Question - How many years before I die or have really bad heart disease??

BTW - what is your current LDL-C reading and are you taking or will be taking statin drug(s)?

Jack LaBear said...

"Parasites" and cholesterol.

Could high cholesterol just be a symptom of intestinal disbiosis?
My intestines got a lot healthier when I stopped feeding them a lot of starch. A reduced carb diet, despite containing >100g/d animal fat, made my cholesterol drop from 185 to 110.

Cholesterol Lowering Probiotics as Potential Biotherapeutics for Metabolic Diseases

Full Text: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3352670/pdf/EDR2012-902917.pdf

Jack LaBear said...

Peter,

The only thing powerful about the nonsense you post is the negative effect it has on your credibility.

Any study trumpeting the benefits of lowering cholesterol is suspect for financial reasons - statins are the biggest selling class of prescription drugs. 29 billion reasons to lie about cholesterol:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NPjHku9ayLk

The smoking egg study is a case in point. It showed a large vascular disease benefit as well as "improved risk factors" for CVD in those who ate the most eggs. Yet the authors' press release concluded that eating eggs is bad and cholesterol lowering is good.
“Dr Spence and Dr Davignon have received honoraria and speaker’s fees from several pharmaceutical companies manufacturing lipid-lowering drugs, and Dr Davignon has received support from Pfizer Canada for an annual atherosclerosis symposium; his research has been funded in part by Pfizer Canada, AstraZeneca Canada Inc and Merck Frosst Canada Ltd.“

How can you expect me and Charles to be swayed by what you post when every time we look in the mirror, we have in our faces evidence to the contrary? My father is from Germany; all his life he ate very little fruits and vegetables, put thick slices of butter on his bread, ate lots of steaks, cheese, sausages, cold cuts (the dreaded processed meats ;-), cream etc. He is 81 yo and has no sign of heart disease. And there are countless others in the paleo community with the same experience. Why do you think that you and your ilk are met with such derision? Because what you are saying is simply at variance with the directly observable facts.

Let's talk about following the money.
Vegan advocacy is a highly profitable business. HSUS took in $130M last year, gave $1.5M to animal shelters, $2.6M to their retirement fund and they have $32M in their hedge fund. Suppose the TV advertising cost $25M. What is done with the remaining $100M besides lawyers and lobbyists? That can pay for a lot of biased “research” and disinformation campaigns. I wondered if the “OCD-like” posting of the vegan apologists might be driven by HSUS funding. An even bigger PR coup would be to get a former paleo blogger to see the error of his ways and convert. Profit, power, and pussy at play here. It’s the same old same old.

The worst thing about the HSUS’ grossly deceptive abused pets TV advertising campaign is not that they don’t actually run any animal shelters. It is their support of PETA’s policy to kill 97% of the animals they take in. Peta has killed 25,000 pets in the last ten years.
http://www.nathanwinograd.com/?p=8651
The heinous, appalling, atrocious lies in these people’s advertising is just one more nail in the coffin for the credibility of ideological veganism.

Jack LaBear said...

Framingham heart Study:

"The diet-heart hypothesis [that suggests that high intake of saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease] has been repeatedly shown to be wrong, and yet, for complicated reasons of pride, profit and prejudice, the hypothesis continues to be exploited by scientists, fund-raising enterprises, food companies and even governmental agencies. The public is being deceived by the greatest health scam of the century." (Dr. George V. Mann, participating researcher in the Framingham study and author of CORONARY HEART DISEASE: THE DIETARY SENSE AND NONSENSE, Janus Publishing 1993.)

"In Framingham, Massachusetts, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol...we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories weighed the least and were the most physically active.
(Dr. William Castilli, Director of the Framingham Study. Archives of Internal Medicine, 1992.)

Charles Grashow said...

http://canceranddiet.nl/cardiovascular_disease/saturated-fat.html

http://www.sott.net/articles/show/223659-Saturated-Fat-and-Heart-Disease

Although there are more than a dozen types of saturated fat, humans predominantly consume three; stearic acid, palmitic acid, and lauric acid. These three fats make up 95% of the saturated fat in a piece of prime rib, a slice of bacon, a piece of chicken skin, and nearly 70% of that in butter and whole milk.

It is well established that stearic acid has no affect on cholesterol levels. In fact stearic acid is converted in the liver to oleic acid which is monounsaturated like olive oil and said to be healthy. Most scientists now consider stearic acid to be benign or potentially beneficial. Palmitic and lauric acid do raise LDL cholesterol levels, but they also raise HDL cholesterol levels, and therefore may be beneficial.


http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/cardiovascular-disease/framingham-follies/

What about fat intake?

Paralleling the findings for total calories there is a slight negative association between daily intake of total fat (and also of animal fat) with serum cholesterol level, in men but not in women. This parallel is not surprising given the high correlation between fat intake and total caloric intake. No association between percent of calories from fat and serum cholesterol level was shown; nor between ratio of plant fat to animal fat intake and serum cholesterol level.

How about protein?

There was a trivial negative correlation between daily protein intake (in grams) and serum cholesterol level.

Dietary cholesterol?

There is no indication of a relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol level. If the intake on animal fat is held constant there is still no relation of cholesterol intake to serum cholesterol level. If (further) a multiple regression is calculated [using animal fat and dietary cholesterol] there is also little suggestion of an association between this pair of variables and serum cholesterol level.

When it comes to diet and coronary heart disease, nothing changes.

In undertaking the diet study at Framingham the primary interest was, of course, in the relation of diet to the development of coronary heart disease (CHD). It was felt, however, that any such relationship would be an indirect one, diet influencing serum cholesterol level and serum cholesterol level influencing the risk of CHD. However, no relationship could be discerned within the study cohort between food intake and serum cholesterol level.

In the period between the taking of the diet interviews and the end of the 16-year follow-up, 47 cases of de novo CHD developed in the Diet Study group. The means for all the diet variables measured were practically the same for these cases as for the original cohort at risk. There is, in short, no suggestion of any relation between diet and the subsequent development of CHD in the study group…

Charles Grashow said...

http://healthimpactnews.com/2011/does-dietary-saturated-fat-increase-blood-cholesterol-an-informal-review-of-observational-studies/

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/07/animal-models-of-atherosclerosis-ldl.html

The bottom line is that experimental models of atherosclerosis rely on overloading herbivorous species with dietary cholesterol that they are not equipped to clear from their bodies. SFA does exacerbate the increase in LDL caused by cholesterol overload. But in the absence of excess cholesterol, it does not generally raise LDL even in species ill-equipped to digest these types of fats. Dietary cholesterol has little or no influence on LDL in humans. So there is no cholesterol overload for saturated fat to exacerbate. Consistent with this, saturated fat does not influence LDL in humans in the long term. This is contrary to the mainstream consensus, but is an inevitable conclusion if you carefully consider the evidence from controlled trials and observational studies.

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2009/07/diet-heart-hypothesis-stuck-at-starting.html

The Masai traditionally get almost 2/3 of their calories from milk fat, half of which is saturated. In 1964, Dr. George V. Mann published a paper showing that traditional Masai warriors eating nothing but very fatty milk, blood and meat had an average cholesterol of 115 mg/dL in the 20-24 year age group. For comparison, he published values for American men in the same age range: 198 mg/dL (J. Atherosclerosis Res. 4:289. 1964)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1799077/pdf/brmedj02659-0008.pdf

Since you love meta studies

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/

Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

http://www.survivediabetes.com/Essay/Cholesterol%20Does%20Not%20Cause%20Heart%20Disease.htm

http://nutritionbynature.com.au/2012/03/20/a-cardiac-surgeons-perspective-on-the-saturated-fat-heart-disease-myth/

“In 1987, in the Journal of the American Medical Association Framingham Study investigators reported these two important findings: 1) Over age 50 there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels, and 2) In people with a falling cholesterol level (over the first 14 years of the study), for each 1% mg/dl drop in cholesterol there was an 11% increase in all-cause mortality over the next 18 years. (JAMA 1987;257:2176-2180)"

http://drnevillewilson.com/2011/07/

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter et al

Go thru this site

http://canceranddiet.nl/

And this site - in dutch but you can use google translate

http://voedingengezondheid.com/


Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1663605/pdf/bmj00192-0015.pdf

Primary prevention trials have shown that reducing serum cholesterol concentrations with diets or drugs, or both, reduces the incidence of major coronary events (fatal and non-fatal events combined) in men; these interventions have not, however, been shown to alter mortality from all causes and, with one exception, the individual studies provide no evidence of improved mortality that can be attributed specifically to lowered rates of coronary heart disease.

Whatever the explanation for the increased mortality not related to illness, these observations suggest that interventions to lower cholesterol concentrations do not have a robust favourable effect on overall survival, at least for men typical of these subject groups.

healthy-longevity said...

@Jack

In regards to your quote from Dr. Castelli, who’s name you spelt incorrectly:

Dr. Castelli was asked to directly respond to these claims. This is what he said: "That quote is correct but its' interpretation by Atkins and Sugar Busters and others is wrong. The data are diet history data. Very weak science!!!... Better science, where I lock you up in a metabolic ward has taught us that lowering the saturated fat, the cholesterol in the diet lowers cholesterol. Even better, over a dozen diet trials in the history of medicine which took people off the high fat diet lowered their cholesterols and 4-5 years out they lowered their heart attack rate. Has Atkins or Sugar-busters shown that they lower the heart attack rate?"[1135]

Dr. Castelli feels Americans have been "brainwashed to eat meat," but that the meat is killing us. "If Americans adopted a vegetarian diet," Castelli says of the heart disease epidemic, "the whole thing would disappear,"[1136] "When you see the golden arches," he once said, "you're probably on the road to the pearly gates."[1137]

http://www.atkinsexposed.org/atkins/196/Atkins_Corporation_Mislabels_and_Misleads.htm

@Charles

You and others continue to ignore critical examinations of the meta-analysis regarding SFA and CVD. I already mentioned several times that:
“Why is that virtually none of the cholesterol skeptics ever cite or challenge the findings of Jeremiah Stamler’s paper, which has been cited by major health authorities explaining why the meta-analysis funded by the National Dairy Association is flawed? Perhaps it is because they find it too difficult to argue with the fact that saturated fat was associated with a 32% increased risk of coronary heart disease mortality despite the inclusion of over-adjustments for dietary and serum lipids [which would have attenuated this finding towards null].”

Also this meta-analysis compared saturated fat to non-specific macronutrients. Two of authors from this meta-analysis stated in another paper that they co-authored that “however, in this meta-analysis saturated fat was compared with other calorie sources, primarily refined carbohydrates, and high intake of refined carbohydrates has been associated with a high risk of CHD.”

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/9/876.full

When looking at it this way it certainly suggests that saturated is not safe to consume in large amounts, and would make it even more difficult for you lot to explain why saturated fat was associated with a 32% increased risk of coronary heart disease mortality.

healthy-longevity said...

In regards to yours claims about low serum cholesterol and an excess risk of cancer and mortality, an editorial authored by the American Cancer Society attributed this association to reverse causation, refuting suggests of a causal relationship:
Many epidemiologic studies published in the 1980s documented an association between low circulating cholesterol and higher overall cancer incidence and mortality. This association has been attributed to reverse causation, that is, undiagnosed cancer causing a reduction in cholesterol levels. Reverse causation is strongly supported by observations that cholesterol levels decline before cancer diagnosis and that associations between low cholesterol and cancer incidence and mortality weaken when the first few years of study follow-up are excluded. In addition, a meta-analysis of randomized trials of cholesterol-lowering statins found no effect on risk of cancer, although only short-term effects could be addressed due to the short duration of most trials.

http://cebp.aacrjournals.org/content/18/11/2805.full

These findings are consistent with that of the Prospective Studies Collaboration that analysed 61 prospective cohort studies. The authors stated in regards to the evidence of a negative association between cholesterol and non-vascular causes of death that “However, this negative association might be largely or wholly non-causal (eg, a consequence of confounding or of specific non-vascular diseases lowering total cholesterol), since it is weakened when the first 5 years of follow-up are excluded” Therefore what is perhaps the largest collaboration of prospective studies found causal evidence of an association between serum cholesterol and an excess risk of all-cause mortality.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18061058

The Humane Hominid said...

OK, wait a sec. I'm trying to keep my eye on the ball here.

@Charles, Jack, nothing, et al. -- Are you saying there's no connection between dietary cholesterol/SF and atherogenesis; or are you claiming that SF and cholesterol aren't actually bad for you?

These are actually separate claims, though related. Which of these are you advocating?

Charles Grashow said...

@HealthyLongevity

"In 1980, a 61-item food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ) was included to assess intake of specific foods. In 1984, the FFQ was expanded to include 116 food items. Similar questionnaires were used to update dietary intake in 1986, 1990, 1994, 1998, and 2002. As in our previous analyses, we excluded those who left >10 items blank on the 1980 FFQ, those with implausibly low or high scores for total food or energy intake (ie, <2094 kJ [500 kcal] or >14 650 kJ [3500 kcal] per day), and those with previously diagnosed cancer, diabetes mellitus, angina, myocardial infarction, stroke, or other cardiovascular disease (including a history of coronary artery bypass grafting).1–3,6 The final 1980 baseline population consisted of 84 136 women.

To calculate intakes of specific protein sources, a commonly used unit or portion size for each food was specified on the FFQ (eg, 1 slice of processed meat or 1 hamburger patty), and the nurse was asked how often on average during the previous year she had consumed that amount."

I'm sure you can remember with GREAT specificity how often you ate certain foods within the PAST YEAR!!

"The major protein sources on the FFQs include the following: chicken with and without skin, chicken sandwich, regular and lean hamburger, beef /pork hot dog, chicken/turkey hot dog, processed meat sandwich, bacon, beef/pork/lamb mixed dish, beef/pork/lamb main dish, beef liver, chicken liver, skim or low-fat milk, whole milk, yogurt, ice cream, cottage cheese, and hard cheese. The reproducibility and validity of the FFQs in measuring food intake have been described previously in detail."

No distinction between organic and non-organic i.e., grass fed vs grain fed - I also note that eggs were left out.

"High red meat consumption was associated with higher rates of smoking, angina, hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, and diabetes mellitus, lower physical activity, increased intake of trans fat, and decreased intake of vitamin E and multivitamins."

So - what happens if you eat meat BUT do not smoke AND workout 4-5 times/week and do not consume artificial trans fat??

"Egg intake was not associated with risk in either age-adjusted or multivariable models."

BUT - they did not measure egg consumption so how can they make this statement??

When we continued updating diet throughout follow-up, we no longer observed significant associations between poultry, fish, or high-fat dairy and CHD risk. This suggests that other diseases and events do in fact lead nurses to change their diets"

SO - this is how they explain it - they must have changed their diets?? If it doesn't show up on the food questionnaire HOW DO THEY KNOW??

"We cannot exclude the possibility of residual and unmeasured confounding due to the observational nature of this study."

REALLY - come on now

"we found that greater consumption of red meat was associated with a higher risk of CHD. Compared with the same number of servings of red meat, consumption of fish, poultry, dairy products, and especially nuts was associated with lower risk."

BUT, BUT, they were not VEGANS!! They ate animal protein - fish, poultry, dairy!!! OMG

This study PROVES NOTHING!!

Charles Grashow said...

@The Humane Hominid

"Are you saying there's no connection between dietary cholesterol/SF and atherogenesis; or are you claiming that SF and cholesterol aren't actually bad for you?"

Both actually - dietary saturated fat and cholesterol are necessary for proper health and I do not believe that the connection between SF and atherogenesis has been proven to a certainity.

For example - for all of the people claiming that the physiological level of LDL is between 30-70 - if that level CANNOT be reached without the use of drugs then why is that a good thing to aim for?

Peter said...

@Ben,

whether someone benefit financially from a theory x does not have relevance whether that theory is valid or nor. Cholesterol theory is valid and that's why every health institution in the world promote it.

Charles,

you have horrible lipid panel. LDL is the causal factor influencing CAD, although causality does not mean everyone with high/low x will get disease y. It just means that you are likey to get artery disease. Just like this paleo blogger who died due to sudden cardiadic death at the age of 55.

“Only the Good Die Young”
http://crohnsdad.com/2012/07/09/only-the-good-die-young/

Masai, please! George Mann was already debunked during his age and today his arguments seems even more bizarre.

The Masai make a great example in favour of lipid-theory as well. In contrast to the popular online idea that Masai eat lot of fat, they don’t eat lot of fat, they eat very little anything and due to their genetic peculiarity and their chronic low-calory context their serum cholesterol are very low which follows that atleast Masai women are quite well-off in terms of cardiovascular disease protection. An average Masai women does not consume even a single egg worth of dietary cholesterol per day. Diseases like rheaumatoid arthrisis and cancers are ofcourse pretty popular among Masai, unlike among their Central-African tribes that comsume low-fat, plant-based, quasi-vegan diets.

1) The Masai of East Africa: some unique biological characteristics
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4103135

2) “In contrast to white-americans who have a limited maximal absorption capacity of 300mg of cholesterol, the Masai could absord more than 650mg cholesterol. Compared with the 25% suppression of synthesis found in white Americans, the Masai could suppress 50% of their endogenous cholesterol synthesis”.

Cardiovascular disease in the tropics. IV. Coronary heart disease

3) Lipid intakes of Maasai women and children

“Cholesterol intakes were below 220 mg/day. Energy intakes were inadequate and were between 65% and 80% of the recommended daily intakes based on body weight, or 50% and 60% of the RDI based on age/physiological status. It is suggested that this is the reason why serum lipid levels are not high”.

http://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/03670244.1993.9991299


Peter said...

@Charles,

Brown and Goldstein established the physiological needs for LDL cholesterol in the 1980's, this involded some detailed laboratory work. I won't go there, it's just that for LDL to do its cellular function extremely little is required, only about 15mg/dl. In the history of medicine, even in the period of aggressive statin trials, there's has not been a single case reported where low cholesterol would have jeopardized the cellular function of the patient.

We don't have IOM's dietary requirement for dietary cholesterol.

And, Charles, I don't go in your nonsense sites. With the information you've been constantly provided here, you must be already by now capable for independently refuting the online nonsense you hear and read in regards to dietary choices and cholesterol.

Dietary cholesterol causes elevation of serum cholesterol on every single healthy people with healthy starting point. Dietary cholesterol has linear, dose-dependent relationship to serum cholesterol until a certain treshold is achieved, this treshold shows individual variety. As general rule, when dietary cholesterol ceases to impact your serum cholesterol ona dose-dependent fashion, things are not going on your favour anymore.

"The lack of relationship between dietary cholesterol and plasma cholesterol concentration in Americans with these relatively high intakes....Under conditions of similar high dietary intake the wide range of plasma cholesterol levels in Iowa children indicates the impact of genetic-metabolic factors in setting homeostatic level of the plasma cholesterol level and not the cholesterol in the diet as it is. When populations consuming low-cholesterol, low-fat diet are looked at the same perspective, a completely different pattern emerges".

"Apparently the level dietary cholesterol intake in the Tarahumaras is below the so-called treshold level above which differences in intake do not affect plasma-cholesterol concentrations. We suggest from various metabolic-studies that this treshold may well be in between 100-300mg/day of dietary cholesterol"

"Since in the experimental dietary cholesterol is sine qua non for the development for the experimental atherosclerosis, especially among the sub-human primates, the finding of linear association of dietary cholesterol intake and plasma cholesterol concentrations in man further undergirds the evidence relating dietary factors to hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerotic coronary heart disease"

http://www.ajcn.org/content/31/7/1131.long

Peter said...

Ouh...and BTW Charles,

thanks for pushing me about my serum cholesterol. Unlike you lucky US-dwellers, I'm in a culture where send-your-blood sample-and-we-call-you-back -services are not available, yet. Taking blood sample cost and it requires doctors referral. Well, it turned out the dole agreed to pay my blood work for me being a low-budget student. I told them that my my mother has been recently diagnosed with severe hypercholesterolemia, which was a little white-lie. Sometimes it pays off to be in socialist Europe :)

You should start to your LDL-theraphy quite soon:

Evidence Mandating Earlier and More Aggressive Treatment of Hypercholesterolemia (Steinberg, 2008)

"Armstrong et al and Armstrong and Megan showed that in cholesterol-fed nonhuman primates, virtually total regression could ultimately be achieved, but it took 40 months after return to a cholesterol-free diet to undo the damage done during 17 months of prior cholesterol feeding. The remarkable thing about these studies is that not only was almost all of the lipid gone from the arteries but also virtually all signs of the inflammatory process were gone. The remains of the lesions were basically scar tissue with no signs of cellular infiltrates. In other words, it appeared that in the absence of continuing hypercholesterolemia, the inflammatory process was not self-sustaining. Simply arresting the hypercholesterolemia by reverting to a normal monkey chow diet caused virtually complete lesion regression without the need for intervention directed specifically at the inflammatory process, results recently confirmed in an elegant series of studies in rabbits.59–61"

"Taken together, all of these findings suggest that the inflammation associated with atherogenesis is not sufficient in itself to cause further lesion progression or even to maintain lesions at a steady state once the hypercholesterolemia has been fully corrected. In other words, many (or even most) of the inflammatory processes in the advancing lesion are downstream responses ultimately traceable to hyperlipidemia and its consequences. Consequently, early and aggressive correction of hypercholesterolemia may be sufficient. On the other hand, if hypolipidemic therapy is initiated at, say, 40 or 50 years of age, optimal intervention will no doubt also require attention to inflammation, thrombosis, and hemodynamic factors".

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/6/672.full

nothing91 said...

HL,

"When looking at it this way it certainly suggests that saturated is not safe to consume in large amounts, and would make it even more difficult for you lot to explain why saturated fat was associated with a 32% increased risk of coronary heart disease mortality."

No more difficult than it would be for you to explain the many studies which show no such link, including a recent one from Stephan: http://www.springerlink.com/content/1665l525j917h055/?MUD=MP

HH,

"Are you saying there's no connection between dietary cholesterol/SF and atherogenesis; or are you claiming that SF and cholesterol aren't actually bad for you?"

I'll go with "both" as well. My basic point is that the data is very murky. In order to subscribe to either end of the extreme (Veganism or Super-High-Fat) you have to cherry pick the evidence. You have to ignore studies that say otherwise and/or go to great lengths to find excuses for why you think they're invalid. You have to (probably unconsciously) subtly misinterpret and misrepresent what you read (like HL did with the two studies he/she and I have discussed). A truly unbiased, careful look at the evidence doesn't support either extreme view.

There are aspects of the vegan view which have some legitimacy. I do agree that LDL is associated with CVD risk (though I find LDL-P much more convincing than LDL-C based on Peter Attia's work). But it's far from as clear-cut as vegans seem to believe. And the idea that Paleo/LC necessarily increases LDL is wrong (studies like Shai et. al show otherwise), and the notion that dietary cholesterol has a significant effect on serum cholesterol is -- to put it mildly -- extremely debatable.

Jack,

(To Peter) "The only thing powerful about the nonsense you post is the negative effect it has on your credibility."

You gotta love him accidentally outing himself as Bog, who got banned from Stephan's blog because he couldn't have a civil conversation. I guess Bog is the account Peter uses when he's in the mood for some flat-out trolling. :-)

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

If your LDL is ABOVE 100 will you start an aggressive statin therapy?

Peter said...

@Nothing.

Everything would go much more smoother had you watched PrimitiveNutrition -serie.

Shai et al fed her intervention group a diet of 1250kals/per day, 30% of the group was on lipid-lowering- and/or bloodpressure medication. Despite the randomization, the thickest arteries to begin with were in the intervention group (high-fat), intervention group was told to avoid SFA and prefer MUFA. Plain blood-lowering medication -trials have shown a reduction in carotid thickness.

I certainly haven't heard HL, Don or HH advocate vegan diet as the best and optimal diet. These guys address the power of plant-based diets for optimal health, just like the WHO, a dietary paradigm that surrounds around whole plant-foods, not necessarily strict vegan.

I personally advocate 100% low-fat, whole-food vegan diets. Unless you have very efficient cholesterol clearance mechanism you need to get close 100% in order to have physiological serum cholestero levels in our sterile, parasite free eco-niche.

Stephen Guynet is denialist crank who thiks that SFA nor dietary cholesterol affect your blood lipids on long-term, his own TC cholesterol is around 250mg/dl, isn't that ironic? The chap is a retard with a big R. He has his faith with HDL. Good luck with that.

Peter Attia is another crank who thinks you are a charlatan if you think dietary cholesterol affects your blood lipids.

Here, email these assesments/studies to him, these are best kept secrets of his. The guy had his expiration date already many years ago.

All LDL-particle sizes almost equally atherogenic, big particles even more so.

1) LDL particle subclasses, LDL particle size, and carotid atherosclerosis in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis (MESA)

"After accounting for particle correlations, we demonstrated that the magnitude of association between small LDL and carotid atherosclerosis became equal to large LDL (on a per 1-S.D. basis) or less than large LDL (on a per particle basis). Failure to account for the strong negative correlation between small and large LDL and their different associations with other lipoproteins may underlie the belief that small LDL particles are a more potent atherogenic subclass than large LDL".

"Thus, smallLDL was a strong confounder of the association of largeLDL with subclinical atherosclerosis, which may explain the widely-held view that larger LDL size is less atherogenic".

"There are several mechanisms that may underlie the atherosclerotic effect of both large and smallLDL[5]. At both extremes of LDL size, there is decreased receptor-binding affinity for LDL receptors [27]. Small LDL may be oxidized more rapidly and have been associated with endothelial dysfunction and metabolic dyslipidemia [28]. In comparison, large LDL predominate in patients with familial hypercholesterolemia [29] and those consuming high saturated fat diets. Large LDL have higher core cholesterol ester content, potentially delivering more cholesterol per particle to arterial walls [30], a speculation supported by our finding a greater IMT difference for large compared to small LDL on a per particle basis".

http://www.nypcvs.org/images/MESA.pdf

2) An expert panel of lipid specialist concluded that LDL particle-size is so irrelevant that measuring it is not recommended to any of the patient groups measured against in terms of risk exposure.

Clinical utility of inflammatory markers and advanced lipoprotein testing: Advice from an expert panel of lipid specialists (2011)

“All lipoprotein particles in the LDL fraction are atherogenic, independent of size”

http://www.lipid.org/uploads/300/Expert%20Panel%20Paper.pdf

Yes, you right. Bog is my militant troll account. An account I find usefull when I metamorphically need to hit the skull of a denialist with a thick iron bar with a focused and concentrated display of strenght.

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

Anyways, in regards to Guynets paper, I find it funny that a bunch of US-based scholars must supply their work into some obscure European journal that no one has never even heard about. This alone ought to give some context.

"European journal of Nutrition". LOL. Why not Nutrition & Metabolism.

healthy-longevity said...

@Nothing

The matter of the fact is that in this meta-analysis saturated fat associated with a 32% increased risk of coronary heart disease mortality, despite the inclusion over-adjustments serum and dietary lipids and the fact that saturated fat was compared primarily to refined carbohydrates. It seems that you and a number of others have continued to consciously ignore these results and have provided scant evidence to refute this.

If you read the recent meta-analysis on dairy and body weight and fat carried out by Harvard you will notice that the review carried out by Stephan and the other cholesterol skeptics maybe compromised by a very serious omission related to hypocaloric diets:

“In subgroup analysis, consumption of dairy products reduced body weight in the context of energy restriction or short-term intervention (<1 y) trials but had the opposite effect in ad libitum dietary interventions or long-term trials (≥1 y). “

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22932282

@Nothing and Charles

In regards to Stephen’s misleading post about observational studies on saturated fat and serum lipids, the nonsense that he mentions in his post was already refuted several decades ago. Firstly the observational studies he referred to were cross-sectional studies and therefore cannot be used as Stephen did to claim the long term effect of diet on serum lipids.

It was estimated over four decades ago that in order to estimate within 20% of the actual dietary intake, there is a requirement of at least 22 days of 24-hour dietary recalls for saturated fat. Inaccurately measuring intraindividual variation has been shown to lead to a miss-classification of subjects into ranges of usual dietary intakes, and biasing correlation coefficients towards null. The majority of the observational studies Stephen cited used single 24-hour dietary recalls and therefore a null association between saturated fat and serum cholesterol is to be expected. Furthermore, he failed to cite numerous observational studies that used higher quality dietary measurement methods with a larger participant size that found a positive association between saturated fat and serum cholesterol.

Most of the cohort studies in the meta-analysis regarding saturated fat and coronary heart disease used low quality dietary measurement methods that would have expected to bias the findings towards null. As Stamler asserted:
Of the 16 CHD studies, 4 relied on one 24-h dietary recall; the SFA-CHD RR was >1.00 for only one of these studies. Seven used a food-frequency questionnaire (FFQ); the RR was >1.00 in 3 of these studies. Five used dietary history or multiday food record; the RR was >1.00 in all 5 studies, even though 3 were adjusted for serum or dietary lipids.

Another issue with the observational studies that Stephan cited is that many only used single measurements of serum cholesterol. Several measurements of serum cholesterol are required to measure mean cholesterol due to the substantial intraindividual variation in concentrations, and therefore would have likely biased the association between saturated fat and serum cholesterol towards null.

One more major issue with observational studies, as was noted in the Chicago Western Electric Company study is that the cross-sectional association between saturated fat and serum cholesterol can be biased towards the opposite direction due to participants lowering intake of saturated fat in response to elevated serum cholesterol, which is similar to the “sick quitter effect” I mentioned previously. As Stamler pointed out, this would have likely biased the association between saturated fat and coronary heart disease towards null in meta-analyses of prospective studies.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/24/3/304.full.pdf
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/37/6/986.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7041632
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/5/1597S.full.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17982164

healthy-longevity said...

@Charles

Stephen attempted to mislead his readers into believing that a hand-full of poor quality cross-sectional studies are more informative to address the association between saturated fat and serum cholesterol than that of hundreds of controlled feeding trials which have produced an irrefutable strong positive association.

In regards to the diet of Masai, the study you cited has been criticized by other researchers who study the diet of Masai as the data was not systematically documented. All of the systematically documented dietary data on the Masai demonstrate that they do not consume large amounts of blood, meat and cholesterol.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3179448/

I pointed out that numerous tightly controlled metabolic ward studies with human participants have confirmed that heme iron from meat significantly increases the production of cancerous N-nitroso compounds (NOC) in the digestive tract. The association between red meat and colorectal cancer is therefore likely partly explained by dietary heme intake which has little to do with “grass fed vs grain fed”. I cited the paper from the Nurses’ Health Study as it provided additional information regarding the meta-analysis of the association between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease that was ignored in the original paper.

http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/3/515
http://cancerpreventionresearch.aacrjournals.org/content/4/2/177.full.pdf

The limited accuracy of measuring diet via multiple FFQ’s is more likely to have underestimated the association between red meat and coronary heart disease in the Nurses’ Health Study. For example in the Nurses’ Health Study (NHS) and the Health Professional Follow-up (HPFS) study the association between red meat and an increased risk of all-cause mortality was actually significantly strengthened in a sensitivity analysis using data from multiple FFQ against the multiple-day food records of at least 14 days in order to account for measurement error.

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1134845

Please explain to me why it is that you and your peers seem to think that single 24 hour dietary recalls provide convincing evidence regarding the association between diet and disease, yet studies that use multiple FFQs updated regularly and validated against multiple-day food records of at least 14 days in a year such as the NHS and HPFS are usually dismissed as uninformative ‘junk science’?

Peter said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

@HL

Could you make another blog-post this time about Guynet? Debunking his nonsense along with the Masai myth. I would be glad to support it by spreading it as much as I can.

The low-carb fora thinks Stephen "My TC cholesterol of 250 is healthy" Guynet is to be taken seriously. Ironically, the area where he expertise, obesity research, is the onlý area where he do not harbour pseudoscientific nonsense idea's.

What's your email?

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

"Stephen "My TC cholesterol of 250 is healthy" Guynet"

show a link where his TC of 250 is listed.

Peter said...

^Nothing can wire us the link. I'm busy. And despite my belligerent language, I want to emphasize that, as said, I was speaking on a metaphorical level. I am against violence. Even paleo folk deserve to be met with humanity :)

Charles Grashow said...

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1175.full

Design: Quantitative coronary angiography was performed at baseline and after a mean follow-up of 3.1 y in 2243 coronary segments in 235 postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease. Usual dietary intake was assessed at baseline.

Conclusions: In postmenopausal women with relatively low total fat intake, a greater saturated fat intake is associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis, whereas carbohydrate intake is associated with a greater progression.

DISCUSSION

Among postmenopausal women with established CHD, greater saturated fat intake was associated with less progression of coronary atherosclerosis over an average follow-up of 3 y, whereas polyunsaturated fat and carbohydrate intakes were associated with greater progression. To our knowledge, this is the first study that evaluated the associations between dietary macronutrients and atherosclerotic progression in women. Although the findings do not establish causality, the associations were independent of a variety of other risk factors, including age, diabetes, smoking, body mass index, physical activity, prior MI or PTCA, and other dietary habits. Thus, known clinical risk factors do not appear to account for the observed relations.

Our findings are not consistent with the hypothesis—based largely on observations in men—that saturated fat intake increases atherosclerotic progression in postmenopausal women but instead suggest that saturated fat intake may reduce such progression, especially when monounsaturated fat intake is low or carbohydrate intake is high. Our findings also suggest that carbohydrate intake may increase atherosclerotic progression, especially when refined carbohydrates replace saturated or monounsaturated fats.

nothing91 said...

Peter,

I know everyone who has different views than you is a crank, a retard, or a charlatan. That's old news. Stephan has always been polite to you when you've engaged him. I guess you just don't like having your arguments shot down. Your maturity is truly impressive. :-)

The 27 links about LDL particle size are nice, but that's not what I was referring to. LDL-P means LDP particle number. Attia found that particle size is meaningless once LDL-P is controlled for. You're welcome to read his series on cholesterol and provide commentary (under either Peter or Bog, depending on which mood you're in).

As far as Stephan's TC goes, there's a whole lot of epidemiology out there which says he's very low risk because of his high HDL. I thought you liked epidemiology? Oh, that's right -- only when it supports your viewpoint. :-)

HL,

"The matter of the fact is that in this meta-analysis saturated fat associated with a 32% increased risk of coronary heart disease"

I'm not sure what else to say -- you're turning into a broken record. Many studies have found that there is no such association. A person can either ignore all those other studies and only focus on the ones which agree with his/her views, or take them all into account and conclude that, overall, there is not consistent evidence for an SFA->CVD association.

I do the latter. You do a version of the former where you come up with every conceivable excuse why every study which contradicts your views is invalid. (Though, not to be outdone, Peter is now criticizing the journal that a given study is published in rather than the actual study -- LOL.)

In a way, it's a marvel to watch -- you guys clearly put a lot of time into it. One can only imagine what you could come up with if you subjected the supporting studies to the same scrutiny.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.altmedrev.com/publications/12/3/228.pdf

Peter said...

@Nothing,


I admire your coolness on this issue. I personally find funny when a person, young guy, with TC cholesterol of 250 makes a point about not shunning on foods like butter while claiming SFA and dietary cholesterol does not have an impact on serum lipids.

Can I get a a link to the peer-reviewed article in which Peter Attia has presented his novel ideas? I want to have a closer look. This man who embraces his ketosis on his super-fat diet must be a quite of a special when you make such a fuss about him.

LDL-P does not provide any value for low-risk patients. The only folk who show disconcordence with LDL-C and LDL-P are one with diabetes. What's the clinical benefit of LDL-p? It helps clinicians to better address the degree of the aggresivity on which the LDL theraphy is started.

http://www.lipid.org/uploads/300/Expert%20Panel%20Paper.pdf

Jimmy Gee said...

It's amazing - one picture of a cow and a person utterly enjoying a drink has resulted in > 100 comments. What a circus!

Jimmy Gee said...

Oh and Peter,

If you want to question Attia, why don't you simply ask him? Better yet, I hear that NuSI is hiring - perhaps they could use someone like you to help them get it right.

Jack LaBear said...

H. Jay Dinshah was the founder and president of the American Vegan Society. Although a vegetarian from birth, then a vegan for 43 years, he died from a heart attack at just 66 years of age.

T.C. Fry, taught the infallibility of a raw vegan diet for 26 years, yet he died at the ridiculously young age of 70!! However, even more disturbing is the fact that he suffered from numerous health problems long before his death. According to Dr Bernarr Zovluck, a close friend for 30 years, Fry died from coronary embolism. He also had multiple atherosclerotic thrombi of his lower legs, edema, a lesion on his left lung, anemia, high acid blood pH, breathing problems, constipation, osteoporosis, teeth and gum problems, etc.
Yes indeed, his vegan/fruitarian diet certainly worked miracles for his health!

MAHATMA GANDHI AND 22 COMPANIONS FAIL AS VEGANS
by Arnold DeVries

CONCLUSION:
• Gandhi was unable to live on a vegan diet
• he finally declared vegan claims fraudulent
• those who insisted that veganism was possible he defined to be "enemies of India"


"The late Mahatma Gandhi devoted much of his life to the advocacy of strict vegetarian diet, and for years he experimented on his own body to find a suitable selection of plant foods on which to sustain health.

But all attempts were failures. In 1929, Gandhi and 22 companions went on a diet consisting of a limited selection of uncooked plant foods. Whereas the diet worked out well for a time and led to marked improvement in consumptive cases, it failed to prove adequate on a long-range sustenance basis. One by one Gandhi's companions were forced to depart from the diet, and Gandhi himself had to add goat milk to his fare in order to regain health.

"For my companions I have been a blind guide leading the blind," declared Gandhi after the experiment was over. Gandhi still felt, however, that "the hidden possibilities of the innumerable seeds, leaves and fruits" of the earth could be explored and found to provide mankind with adequate nourishment. He never stopped trying to experiment along these lines, but he always had to turn back to goat milk to regain his strength.

In the end he had to acknowledge the necessity for animal food. In 1946 he declared: "The crores of India today get neither milk nor ghee nor butter, nor even buttermilk. No wonder that mortality figures are on the increase and there is a lack of energy in the people. It would appear as if man is really unable to sustain life without either meat or milk and milk products. Anyone who deceives people in this regard or countenances the fraud is an enemy of India."

These are strong words from a man who devoted most of his life to the search for a satisfactory vegetarian diet. But Gandhi's experience is not unique in the field of nutrition. Many others have also gone through the experience of believing that man could thrive exclusively upon a limited selection of uncooked plant foods, only to find in the end that animal products were necessary for sustenance. ...."

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ayujournal.org/article.asp?issn=0974-8520;year=2010;volume=31;issue=2;spage=134;epage=140;aulast=Sharma

For thousands of years Ayurveda has considered ghee to be the healthiest source of edible fat. In the last several decades, ghee has been implicated in the increasing prevalence of CAD in Asian Indians. Our previous research and data available in the literature do not support a conclusion of harmful effects of the moderate consumption of ghee in the general population.


A study on a rural population in India showed a significantly lower prevalence of coronary heart disease in men who consumed higher amounts of ghee. [40] High doses of medicated ghee decreased serum cholesterol, triglycerides, phospholipids, and cholesterol esters in psoriasis patients. There were significant improvements in the patients' psoriasis symptoms as well. [27] MAK-4, a herbal mixture containing ghee, increased the resistance of LDL to oxidation in hyperlipidemic patients and had no effect on levels of serum total cholesterol, HDL, LDL, or triglycerides in these patients. [35],[36] Other mixtures containing ghee have shown hepatoprotective effects, [41] anticonvulsant activity, [42] effects on enhancement of memory, and enhancement of wound healing. [43]

These positive research findings support the beneficial effects of ghee outlined in the ancient Ayurvedic texts and the therapeutic use of ghee for thousands of years in the Ayurvedic system of medicine.


Charles Grashow said...

http://www.fao.org/docrep/013/i1953e/i1953e00.pdf

The Humane Hominid said...

Jack wrote: "Any study trumpeting the benefits of lowering cholesterol is suspect for financial reasons - statins are the biggest selling class of prescription drugs. 29 billion reasons to lie about cholesterol:"

This is just a rationalization that absolves you of the necessity to weigh contrary evidence. It's faith-based, not evidence-based. No amount of evidence can convince you, by this standard. That's one reason it's appropriate to call you a creationist.

Nothing wrote: My basic point is that the data is very murky. In order to subscribe to either end of the extreme (Veganism or Super-High-Fat) you have to cherry pick the evidence.

This would only be true if all evidence was equally valid, or of equal quality. It's not, and never is. In science, we have to go with the preponderance of evidence gathered through the highest quality methods. Choosing lower-quality evidence over higher-quality, to defend a foregone conclusion, is also a faith-based rather than an evidence-based tactic.

Also, It's a straw-man for you to assume that because someone is a vegan, they are therefore arguing that veganism is H. sapiens' "natural" diet, or that their defense of the scientific consensus is ideology-driven. As HL, Peter and a couple of others have pointed out, most atherosclerosis researchers are not vegans, and most don't recommend veganism. To see such research as being carried out in service of a vegan agenda is to willfully wear blinders like the ones Jack has on.

My veganism is an ethical stance, and I don't argue that nature or physiology demands veganism of us. I think this lets me evaluate the evidence more objectively than creationists from either the health vegan or paleo camps, because my beliefs and identity aren't riding on the results. The preponderance of the evidence supports both the lipid hypothesis as a whole, and its sub-component of the diet-heart connection. This is largely what HL's point is, and our mutual points about the weight of animal studies and controlled feeding experiments on humans. These are not mere statistical associations we're talking about, and Brown & Goldstein didn't win a Nobel Prize for epidemiology. These facts would be true regardless of our personal diets or ideologies, and criticizing our ideologies is a red herring.

Charles Grashow said...

@ Humane Hominid

You said "My veganism is an ethical stance, and I don't argue that nature or physiology demands veganism of us."

So - from a purely scientific standpoint what does nature or physiology demand of us diet wise??

Charles Grashow said...

http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/cholesterol-longevity.shtml

After the age of fifty, low cholesterol is clearly associated with an increased risk of dying from a variety of causes. A study of old women indicated that a cholesterol level of 270 mg. per 100 ml. was associated with the best longevity (Forette, et al., 1989). "Mortality was lowest at serum cholesterol 7.0 mmol/l [=270.6 mg%], 5.2 times higher than the minimum at serum cholesterol 4.0 mmol/l, and only 1.8 times higher when cholesterol concentration was 8.8 mmol/l. This relation held true irrespective of age, even when blood pressure, body weight, history of myocardial infarction, creatinine clearance, and plasma proteins were taken into account."

Jack LaBear said...

@Hu-Ho

You wrote:
"This is just a rationalization that absolves you of the necessity to weigh contrary evidence. It's faith-based, not evidence-based. No amount of evidence can convince you, by this standard. That's one reason it's appropriate to call you a creationist."

I have the incontrovertible contrary evidence of my own experience. When I lowered my cabs to 100g/day and increased animal fat to >100g/day, my total cholesterol plummeted to 110. I don’t consider that “physiological”, I consider it pathological. That is why I go out of my way to eat 3000mg/day of cholesterol to get it back up to 185. I enjoyed some improvements to my health after I learned to do that like: my strength increased by 20%, a persistent nasty arthritis in my shoulder went away in a week, I stopped getting colds, my mood, memory and ability to reason went up.

You can discredit yourself by publishing studies till you’re blue in the face, but that doesn’t change the reality of my experience. I’m not a creationist, I’m an experimentalist who is unhampered by a fiction based ideology like yourself. My goal is to optimize my health and well being and I know by direct experience that your health messages are a crock of shit. Veganism is not healthy or ethical and it is not going to save mankind nor the Earth. The real problem is overpopulation. Perhaps if every one went vegan that might change due to a massive die-off of people. There is a reason why no anthropologist has ever found a vegan culture. Try reading Lierre Keith “Vegetarian Myths” She was a 20 year vegan and is a radical feminist lesbian in case that might make her more palatable to you.

Jack LaBear said...

Quotes from Colin T. Campbell:

In a paper from 1990, Campbell conceded that “neither plasma total cholesterol nor LDL cholesterol was associated with cardiovascular disease” in the China Study data, and that “geographical differences in cardiovascular disease mortality within China are caused primarily by factors other than dietary or plasma cholesterol”—revealing that not even the dreaded cholesterol bogeyman could live up to its heart-disease-causing accusations.

Another of Campbell’s own papers, published a mere two years before The China Study hit the shelves, states point-blank that—despite Campbell’s claims about the superior health of the near-vegan rural Chinese—“it is the largely vegetarian, inland communities who have the greatest all risk mortalities and morbidities and who have the lowest LDL cholesterols.”

Gates J.R., et al. “Association of dietary factors and selected plasma variables with sex hormone-binding globulin in rural Chinese women.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1996 Jan;63(1):22-31.

Fan W.X., et al. “Erythrocyte fatty acids, plasma lipids, and cardiovascular disease in rural China.” Am J Clin Nutr. 1990 Dec;52(6):1027-36.

Wang Y., et al. “Fish consumption, blood docosahexaenoic acid and chronic diseases in Chinese rural populations.” Comp Biochem Physiol A Mol Integr Physiol. 2003 Sep;136(1):127- 40.

Jack LaBear said...

Hu-Ho wrote:

"My veganism is an ethical stance..."

But Hu-Ho, you don't make ethical arguments. You make medical arguments ad nauseum.

healthy-longevity said...

@nothing

Stamler’s data was a meta-analysis regarding the association between saturated fat and coronary heart disease mortality for all the studies in the Siri-Tarino meta-analysis that included data for fatal CHD.

In reply to my comment you said “Many studies have found that there is no such association”, suggesting that there are many other prospective studies that found no association with fatal CHD that Stamler did not include in his meta-analysis. Since you are insisting that I am being ignorant for apparently ignoring all these other studies, I suggest you cite these prospective studies that were available at the time of the meta-analysis as at this point I am assuming that you are the one who is being ignorant.

Many of the limitations I pointed out are very well documented and very few researchers would suggest otherwise regarding the quality of single 24 hour dietary recalls. If you believe otherwise than I suggest you start providing data to back-up your claims.

As Katan et. al asserted in regards to this meta-analysis:
“First, the notion that there exists such a thing as “the effect of saturated fat” is flawed. A lower intake of saturated fat implies an increased intake of some other source of calories to maintain caloric balance. Different substitutions for saturated fat have different effects on risk of coronary heart disease (CHD) and need to be discussed separately.”
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/459.2.long

You and many others here make the same mistake suggesting the existence of such a thing as “the effect of saturated fat”, and appear to refuse to compare saturated fat with other appropriate macronutrients/foods. Even the authors of the Siri-Tarino meta-analysis have suggested that the conclusions of this paper are misleading, ie. “however, in this meta-analysis saturated fat was compared with other calorie sources, primarily refined carbohydrates, and high intake of refined carbohydrates has been associated with a high risk of CHD.”

@Charles

Why do you keep spamming some cut-and-paste regarding low cholesterol and mortality, and continue to ignore the data I provided regarding reverse causation? Why is it that you also constantly cite only single small studies and ignore meta-analyses with a much larger participant size such as the findings from the Prospective Studies Collaboration that analysed 61 prospective cohort studies? Is it because you prefer to confuse the topic rather than contribute any relevant information?

Jack LaBear said...

Jimmy Gee wrote:

It's amazing - one picture of a cow and a person utterly enjoying a drink has resulted in > 100 comments. What a circus!

Jimmy, see the 6th and 8th comments above. The truth of the matter is that Charles and I enjoy watching the vegetables perform tricks! ;-)

Charles Grashow said...

http://xa.yimg.com/kq/groups/32806341/768273249/name/CHOLESTEROL%26%2343%3BOBITUARY.pdf

The Cholesterol hypothesis: Time for the obituary?

Amazingly, very little attention was taken when the 30 years follow-up of the Framingham project was published (4). It turned out that high cholesterol was not a risk factor for men older than 47 years and not for women at all. Further, it was found that more men had died of a heart attack among those whose cholesterol had decreased over the years. The authors wrote : “ For every milligram percent cholesterol had decreased, cardiovascular mortality and total mortality increased by fourteen and eleven percent ” .

Other studies have strongly supported this conclusion.
Sachdeva and coworkers (5) found that the cholesterol level in patients with acute myocardial infarction was substantially lower than in normal controls at the
same age. Al-Mallah and coworkers (6) found lower LDL values in patients with acute myocardial infarction and also that the mortality rate was twice as high
among patients with the lowest LDL values.

These studies showed clearly that there is no causal relationship between the cholesterol level in blood and the risk of dying from a myocardial infarction but the
so-called cholesterol hypothesis is still alive.


http://www.cobblescorner.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/Get-With-The-Guidelines_AHJ-Jan.2009.pdf

Conclusions

In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with CAD, almost half have admission LDL levels <100 mg/dL. More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL ≥60 mg/dL.

Charles Grashow said...

@Healthy-Longevity

Why do you keep spamming some cut-and-paste regarding low cholesterol and mortality, and continue to ignore the data I provided regarding reverse causation?

My question to you - why do you constantly ignore the studies I post?? Because they don't agree with your view?

The scientific method states that if ONE study disproves the hypothesis then that hypothesis is wrong.

SO - if you ignore studies which disprove your theory then you are just showing your ignorance of what constitutes true science and you ar the true creationist here.

Jack LaBear said...

@ Charles

I want you to know that I consider you a skilled and knowledgeable researcher and I have learned a lot from your posts.

healthy-longevity said...

@Charles

The studies you cited regarding serum lipids and mortality are observational studies, and do not prove causation without taking in to consideration the totality of evidence. Many of the studies you cited failed to test for reverse causation, and when they found evidence of reverse causation you failed to mention this.

What the Framingham researchers actually said:
“Under age 50 years, cholesterol levels are directly related with 30-year overall and CVD mortality; overall death increases 5% and CVD death 9% for each 10 mg/dL. After age 50 years there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels. There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels). Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity. After age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling--perhaps due to diseases predisposing to death.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3560398

The authors noted that the increase in mortality among the elderly with falling cholesterol was likely a result of a cholesterol lowering disease and supports what I mentioned about reverse causality. As I already mentioned before regarding LDL and all-cause mortality:
In addition a meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials of diet and various medical based lipid modifying interventions found that lowering LDL cholesterol significantly decreased the risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality, while modifying HDL or triglycerides provided no clear benefit after controlling for LDL cholesterol.

Below is a link to a 15-year prospective study that found no association between tobacco smoking and mortality from chronic lung disease. According to your ideology this study disproves the hypothesis the smoking tobacco is a cause of diseases of the lung. Perhaps you can spam this study all over the internet as well.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3384550

@nothing

I can understand why Peter is frustrated with Stephan. Just because Stephen “acts” polite, this provides insufficient evidence to suggest that he has does not have an agenda that will potentially result in harming others. Stephan was well aware that within-population studies that use single 24 hour dietary recalls would bias the association between diet and serum cholesterol toward null but nevertheless chose to attempt to mislead his readers into believing that these studies are more informative than hundreds of controlled feeding trials.

Don said...

Jack wrote: "Perhaps if every one went vegan that might change due to a massive die-off of people. There is a reason why no anthropologist has ever found a vegan culture."

LOL. Are you serious? You think that vegetarian diets make people infertile? Do you think China and India got their large populations on meat-based diets? Do you believe that 11% of America women (6.7 million of them) are infertile (http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/fertile.htm) because they all are vegans?

There is zero evidence that humans need to eat non-human flesh, menstruum (eggs), or milk to maintain fertility. In fact, prior to the introduction of artificial contraception, national fertility rates were inversely related to animal protein consumption. Many people in China, India, and Africa have large families eating diets with nutritionally insignificant intakes of animal products. Bantu women rarely consuming animal protein typically had ~10 children and breast fed all of them.

Your mention of 'culture' is very important. Anthropology studies culture, not biology. Cultures include many practices that are not biologically sound.

The fact that "no anthropologist has ever found a vegan culture" (if it is indeed a fact) does not prove that humans need to eat flesh for any biological purpose, because culture is not biology. I would argue that flesh-eating is a widespread cultural pathology similar to the widespread pathology of ranking men as superior to and 'owners' of women, or to the pathology of war. Arguing that we must need to eat meat because all (or most) cultures do it is like arguing that we must subjugate women because most cultures have done that; or we must believe in some god, because most cultures have had some belief in a god or gods.

In contrast to human culture, human anatomy and physiology arise without interference of the human mind. I would like someone to point to some human anatomical or physiological feature clearly indicating biological adaptation to flesh-eating. It would help if someone could demonstrate that humans have the natural drive and ability to capture and slaughter animals with their bare biological equipment, i.e. hands and teeth, not cultural equipment i.e. tools, as is done by all other natural carnivores. It would also help to demonstrate that human children spontaneously manifest stalking and hunting behaviors whenever presented with potential prey (e.g. rabbits), as done by all young of animals naturally adapted to flesh-eating. So far as I have seen, children prefer to pet and cuddle, not stalk, such animals, which suggests that humans do not naturally act as predators, but only as a result of culture. Yet my cat, which has been fed by humans its entire life, still stalks birds whenever it sees them, despite being well-fed.

RE Lierre Keith's book, it has so many factual and logical mistakes in it, the pro-meat crowd should be embarrassed to refer to it. Of course I have no space here to flesh this out, but this gets the project started:

http://skepticalvegan.com/2010/03/19/myths-of-the-vegetarian-myth/

The Humane Hominid said...

Jack wrote: I have the incontrovertible contrary evidence of my own experience.

Your personal experience is irrelevant. That you don't see why demonstrates further your misunderstanding of how science works.

I've read Lierre Keith, BTW. What a joke. On the subject of evolution and prehistoric humans, she is completely bonkers and gets almost everything wrong. I therefore have no reason to take her seriously, and neither do you. And she was never actually a vegan, by her own admission.

...you don't make ethical arguments. You make medical arguments ad nauseum..

Nope. I've actually been making evolutionary observations. Humans share a biological inheritance with all other animals, and in particular, with the other hominoids. If LDL, etc., are atherosclerotic in other hominoids, then it is so in us, as well. The burden of proof lies with those who deny this fact. And it will have to be disproven mechanistically, because that it how it was proven in the first place.

On health questions, I defer to the body of researchers with relevant expertise (and yes, it matters). The preponderance of the relevant scientific community support the lipid hypothesis on the basis of evidence, not ideology.

That you think otherwise is, again, further proof that you don't understand how science works.

The Humane Hominid said...

Charles asked: So - from a purely scientific standpoint what does nature or physiology demand of us diet wise??

Very little. For the most part, nature doesn't give a damn what you eat, as long as you live long enough to make babies. Anyone who does that is already healthy enough for evolution's purposes.

Everything else is a trade-off. 22 million years' worth of hominoid ancestry imposes constraints and grants advantages on macro- and micro-nutrient requirements, but your body won't care where they come from.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter, Healthy-Longevity et al

If you became a vegetarian/vegan for moral/ethical reasons than what you would do is try to find studies that prove that your diet is also healthier as well. Studies that cast doubt on that will be rejected for any reason you can think of such as " observational studies, and do not prove causation without taking in to consideration the totality of evidence, etc., etc."

So - my posting any study that disagrees with your dietary choice is a pointless exercise because you will NEVER even accept the fact that they MIGHT be right.

In the course of my life I have tried vegetarianism - read Frances Moore Lappé's Diet For A Small Planet and other books like that. I lived on several communes in my hippie days and all of them were vegetarian/vegan.

But - like Jack has said I know what works for my own body - BUT since "My personal experience is irrelevant" it's of no consequence. I follow a primal/ancestral diet - I eat grass fed/grass finished locally purchased meat - I eat ground beef raw because I love the taste - I eat it with mashed sweet potatoes and mustard - I have a pre workout and post workout protein shake each made with a can of full fat coconut milk, a banana, frozen strawberries and frozen blueberries. I also have a 4 egg om
omelette fried in butter with mashed potatoes. I feel so much better on this diet then when I was a vegetarian - stronger, more endurance, etc. I have not been sick in so long I can't remember the last time I was.

BTW - I've decided to keep on posting - it's fun

BTW - Don - your post on fertility - fertility is related to infant mortality rates - the more children that die early the more children the woman has to produce

Charles Grashow said...

Also - the shakes each contain 1-2 scoops of a good quality whey protein powder as well - So my current diet is appx 20% protein, appx 20% carbohydrate and appx 60% fat - these ratios change depending on how much I eat - some days I'm hungrier than others

I also practice IF - eat dinner no later than 7-8PM and do not eat until 9-10AM the next day - usually a 14 hour fast

The Humane Hominid said...

Charles said: The scientific method states that if ONE study disproves the hypothesis then that hypothesis is wrong.

No, it doesn't.

The scientific method is about parsimony. If there are thousands of studies showing consistent results, and ONE study produces contradictory results, science looks for the most parsimonious explanation. Usually, this turns out to be that the ONE study was confounded or in some other way a statistical outlier.

Disconfirmatory evidence from ONE study is subject to skepticism every bit as rigorous as that from the thousands of confirmatory ones. Inquiry doesn't just stop with ONE disconfirming study. No long-standing, well-supported hypothesis is ever overturned by ONE study.

...you will NEVER even accept the fact that they MIGHT be right.
Nope. It could be completely true, and it wouldn't change my ethics, because it's well-established that vegans can be healthy regardless. Personally, I don't care if the lipid hypothesis is true or not; but I do accept the preponderance of the evidence at face value.

I follow a primal/ancestral diet...

I highly doubt that.

Jack LaBear said...

Don wrote;

“Arguing that we must need to eat meat because all (or most) cultures do it ….”

You have it backwards, maybe to get feminist support and obfuscate the issue. Did Tracy have you read some Carol J Adams?
http://www.amazon.com/The-Sexual-Politics-Meat-Feminist-Vegetarian/dp/0826411843

Culture doesn't arise from a vacuum, it is a reflection of human nature.
I'm arguing that all (or most) cultures do it because we need to eat some animal food, probably a minimum of 5% - 8% of diet like chimpanzees do. There is reason to believe that more is better.

You can't separate mind and physiology as neatly as you do. The fact of the matter is that our minds let us make tools such that humans can hunt and eat animals as big as mammoths and whales. And evolutionists posit that in turn, the ability to acquire very high nutrient density foods allowed the development of the exceptionally large human brain and small gut according to the expensive tissue hypothesis. Before you start with tuber cooking routine, let me remind you that the brain contains a lot of cholesterol and that it is much more metabolically efficient to eat it rather than having to synthesize it. And the brain must have been pretty well advanced for humans to have harnessed fire to cook food.That is why no other primates use tools to make fire.

We don't need teeth like other carnivores because we don't kill or butcher our prey with our teeth. We use our hands and tools that arise from the mind. Chimpanzees literally use their hands to tear up their prey because they are so strong. Nevertheless, they too use tools to catch animal food – sticks to fish for termites and “spears” that they sharpen with their teeth to get sugar babies out of their nests.

Now are you going to tell me that chimps do that “only as a result of culture”, or because they have been “brainwashed by society to believe they need to eat meat”, or because their “patriarchy” tells them it is macho along the same lines as dominating the females and objectifying them into cuts of meat like so many pieces of tits and ass?

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2007/02/070222-chimps-spears.html

Jack LaBear said...

Evolutionists take note:

Tarsiers are a primate said to be exclusively carnivorous. Before you say that they are way down the evolutionary tree, consider this:

“Harding [1981], noting the widespread reports of predatory behavior and meat consumption by non-human primates, makes the interesting comment (p. 191; my explanatory comments are in brackets [ ] below):
It is now clear that several primate populations make regular and substantial use of precisely the type of food [animal flesh] which the early theories described as instrumental in the emergence of the hominids.
If the diets of these particular nonhuman primates are more broadly based than we had thought, then how accurate is it to characterize contemporary primate diets in general as "vegetarian"?... As Teleki points out (1975: 127ff.), such terms are first used as shorthand references to a particular dietary specialization but then gradually become inclusive descriptions of an animal's entire diet. Essential elements of the diet are ignored, and the result is a generally misleading impression of what a group or population actually eats. As this article shows, diversity rather than specialization is typical of primate diets.”
" In fact, most species of primate are omnivorous (see Harding [1981]) and omnivory should be considered an evolutionarily conservative and generalized trait among primates. Primates evolved from insectivores....

Thus, omnivorous primates are mainly frugivorous and, depending upon body size, obtain most of their protein from insects and leaves. In all large, omnivorous, nonhuman primates, animal protein is a very small but presumably necessary component of the diet."

Regarding consumption of animal foods by primates, Hamilton and Busse [1978, p. 761] note:

Many primate species once considered herbivorous are now known to expand the animal-matter portion of their diet to high levels when it is possible to do so...

Insect food is the predominant animal matter resource for primates. Insects are eaten by all extant apes, i.e., chimpanzees (e.g., Lawick-Goodall 1968), orang-utans (Gladikas-Brindamour1), gorillas (Fossey2), gibbons (Chivers 1972, R.L. Tilson3), and the siamang (Chivers 1972). The amount of insect matter in most primate diets is small, but may expand to more than 90% of the diet when insects are abundant and easily captured...

Preference for animal matter seems confirmed."

Hu-Ho wrote:
“Your personal experience is irrelevant. “

It is entirely relevant, not only to me, but to the discussion in general. You make universal and prescriptive statements about human diet. Your claims are demonstrably false for many people. Your ignoring the many black swans says it is you who doesn't understand the workings of reason and logic. I'm not a study and I'm not confounded, but I'm definitely an outlier :-) Your assertions don't apply to me and therefore you saying that they apply to (all) humans is simply incorrect.

Peter said...

Charles,

The plant-bsed rural cultures in China were the poorest regions, and showed the highest mortality because of this. No access to sanitized loo nor antibiotics available. The researchers weren't really interested in these easily prevented infectious disease caused by poverty, instead they were interested on the prelevance of chronic disease.

Fish provided support for more high-risk population in China as it does for the high risk people in the West. More fish, less more harmfull foods such as beef. However, there's no indication of fish helping low-risk cultures/people.

You cause an awfull mess which you always leave for other's to sort out. This is not mature behavior. Quit that nonsense spamming. You'r wasting everyones time. At this point you should know what
s the drill.

Shekelle et al. [382] reported a significant inverse correlation between fish consumption and 25 year CHD mortality in Chicago. This also appeared to be independent of other risk factors (The 30-year follow up of this cohort, with the same overall result was reported in detail in 1997) [383]. Eleven cohort studies had reported by the end of the century. They were critically reviewed by Marckmann and Gronbaek [384], who concluded: “Of 4 studies judged to be of high quality, the 2 largest were performed in populations at low risk of CHD. They found no protective effect of fish consumption. The other two high-quality studies were relatively small and included individuals at higher risk. They found an inverse relationship between fish consumption and CHD death, suggesting that 40–60 g fish/day is optimal and associated with a risk reduction of 40–60%. Results of 4 studies of intermediate quality support that fish consumption is inversely associated with CHD mortality in high-risk populations only”

Stewart Truswell., Cholesterol & Beyond (textbook)

@HL

I am hoping to see continuation with your blogging career. You have some very interesting material which should be aired.

The Humane Hominid said...

Jack,

I don't see anyone here arguing that primates are strict herbivores. What we ARE arguing is that because serum SFAs and dietary cholesterol are atherogenic in other primates, it's only to be expected that they are atherogenic in us, too.

Please make an effort to keep these ideas separate. They are not the same idea.

Jack LaBear said...

Hu-Ho,

I see that you have switched back to health claims again. I don't care that much about atherogenicity. Autopsy studies have shown that long lived Japanese have as much atherosclerosis as Americans, it's just that it doesn't cause them heart attacks. I'm more interested in all cause mortality and especially quality of life and "squaring the curve". Having said that, I would rather die of a heart attack than of cancer. The list of famous vegetarians and vegans who died of cancer is longer than that for heart attacks. I'm going to counter Tracy's cheap shot about Rachel's cancer by reminding y'all about Linda McCartney.

Since you earlier claimed that you make evolutionary arguments, I will address carnivory in human evolution while at the same time speak to Don.

Don, I didn't say anything about fertility, but since you mention it, my wife from China made a point of eating eggs and other rich animal foods when she was pregnant. Apparently, this goes way back before ancient Chinese wisdom:

"The critical link between time to weaning and dietary profile adds to the general notion that the evolution of the hominids - and that of Homo in particular - was associated with a change towards higher-quality diet. Specifically, it has been proposed that with a given metabolic rate a large brain could have evolved only if another metabolically expensive tissue, such as the gut, would be reduced in size. But to maintain an energy intake sustaining that metabolic rate despite a reduced gut size, food quality must have been improved [41], for example by increased meat consumption. Our model suggests that the contribution of carnivory in this evolutionary context was to shorten the duration of lactation and suckling despite the overall prolongation of development associated with increased adult brain mass [14]. The resulting decreased interbirth intervals and increased rates of reproduction must have affected population dynamics profoundly. Our findings highlight therefore the emergence of carnivory as a process fundamentally determining human life history and evolution."

Full text:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pone.0032452

Jack LaBear said...

Hu-Ho,

Do chimpanzees in the wild get atherosclerosis?

Jack LaBear said...

Chimpanzees have a colon 4 times as long as humans and like gorillas, ferment fiber such that they get at ~50% of calories from short chain SFAs, while thepercentage is higher for gorillas.
Hu-Ho does not deny that chimps eat 5%-8% animal foods, and termites and other insects contain as much cholesterol as any other animal food.
A search on Gogle Scholar for author:Crissey "Serum concentrations of lipids, vitamins A and E, vitamin D metabolites, and carotenoids in nine primate species at four zoos."
yields a paper giving chimp TC=175, HDL=46, LDL=108 TG=140. That is quite close to my lipids with my diet that I previously described, and chimps don't get atherosclerosis.
Gorrila lipids are TC=244, HDL=83, LDL=143, TG=112 and gorillas don't get atherosclerosis either. So far so good. But, from http://cmm.ucsd.edu/varki/varkilab/Publications/A173.pdf
“However, closer examination of
the clinical and pathological findings indicates that the
mechanisms causing heart disease in humans and chim-
panzees are quite different.
” (chimps get cardiomyopathy, not coronary infarction)
“Overall, we conclude that rather than rep-
resenting a similarity, heart disease is an instance where
there are unexplained human-specific differences from
the other Hominids.

It seems to me that these facts contradict assertions made here about hominid lipids, diets and evolutionary considerations supporting the vegan apolgists' position on human diet and heart disease.

nothing91 said...

Peter,

"Can I get a a link to the peer-reviewed article in which Peter Attia has presented his novel ideas?"

Sure, I soon as I get a link to one of yours. And make sure it's in a top American journal, since apparently that matters now. :-)

"The only folk who show disconcordence with LDL-C and LDL-P are one with diabetes."

Nope. Even your own link says "In the general population, 50% of subjects demonstrate discordance between LDL-C and LDL-P defined as a differential in population percentile of 12% or more."

I know a low-carb guy like Attia couldn't possibly be right about something, though, so you better stick with LDL-C.

HH,

"This would only be true if all evidence was equally valid, or of equal quality."

That's just it. The evidence which doesn't agree with the extremist's views is automatically deemed less valid. I picked two of HL's top studies to look at, and he misrepresented both of them. That's not a coincidence. I know it's always hardest for a person to see tendencies like this in themselves, which is why you guys don't get it. I don't post to try and change your minds, of course -- it's just fascinating to watch these kinds of mental tricks in action.

HL,

"....hundreds of controlled feeding trials..."

Are you referring to short-term trials? Are you just assuming those results remain the same over the long-term?

Jimmy Gee said...

Charles, Jack and Nothing;

You've done a great job balancing the comparison of journal citations from each side. Unfortunately, I don't think Peter/Bog and H-L will ever approach the issue in a balanced manner. (probably a cholesterol depleted brain?)

Charles Grashow said...

As The Humane Hominid said

"It could be completely true, and it wouldn't change my ethics, because it's well-established that vegans can be healthy regardless. I don't care if the lipid hypothesis is true or not."

So - he will NEVER change his mind EVEN if he is proven wrong AND he will never be proven wrong because EVERY study that does will be rejected!

Charles Grashow said...

@Humane Hominoid

"The scientific method is about parsimony. If there are thousands of studies showing consistent results, and ONE study produces contradictory results, science looks for the most parsimonious explanation. Usually, this turns out to be that the ONE study was confounded or in some other way a statistical outlier.

Disconfirmatory evidence from ONE study is subject to skepticism every bit as rigorous as that from the thousands of confirmatory ones. Inquiry doesn't just stop with ONE disconfirming study. No long-standing, well-supported hypothesis is ever overturned by ONE study."

Since you don't care whether the lipid hypothesis is true or not my question is this

How many studies that prove it wrong do we need to show? Is there a numerical cut-off that will get you to admit that MAYBE it's wrong - that it's POSSIBLE?

Charles Grashow said...

http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=202339

Objective

To test the hypothesis that a dietary intervention, intended to be low in fat and high in vegetables, fruits, and grains to reduce cancer, would reduce CVD risk.

Design, Setting, and Participants

Randomized controlled trial of 48 835 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years, of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, who participated in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial. Women were randomly assigned to an intervention (19 541 [40%]) or comparison group (29 294 [60%]) in a free-living setting. Study enrollment occurred between 1993 and 1998 in 40 US clinical centers; mean follow-up in this analysis was 8.1 years.

Intervention

Intensive behavior modification in group and individual sessions designed to reduce total fat intake to 20% of calories and increase intakes of vegetables/fruits to 5 servings/d and grains to at least 6 servings/d. The comparison group received diet-related education materials.

Conclusions

Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.

The WHI Dietary Modification Trial is the largest long-term randomized trial of a dietary intervention ever conducted to our knowledge, and it achieved an 8.2% reduction at year 6 in total fat intake and a mean daily increase of 1.1 servings of vegetables and fruits and 0.5 serving of grains. No significant effects on incidence of CHD or stroke were observed during 8.1 years of follow-up.

Peter said...

@Nothing

and the other 50% who do not show disconcordence with LDL-C and LDL-P are everyone below the age of 45,the low-risk category. So, I'll have my LDL-C. Do you think LDL-P somehow would change the fact that LDL-C everything over 100mg/dl is atherogenic? What's the clinical benefit of founding out LDL-P?

"Use of LDL-P measurement is reasonable for many patients at intermediate risk treated to LDL-C and non-HDL-C goal, among patients with CHD or CHD risk equivalents on lipid-lowering therapy, and in those with recurrent CHD events, to adjudicate the adequacy of LDL lowering therapy. When LDL-P is discordantly elevated, consideration should be given to intensifying LDL lowering therapy"

"Because of high CV risk, patients with known CHD or a CHD risk equivalent are candidates for aggressive lipid-altering therapy, and it is unclear whether additional LDL-P information would alter initial therapeutic decisions, but measurement might be considered for selected patients"

http://www.lipid.org/uploads/300/Expert%20Panel%20Paper.pdf

And ofcourse the validity of the study is further enhanced if its published in a reknown journal. There are tons of carbage journals out there. As said, science is not democracy. Even Anthony Colpo managed to get his views published on peer-reviewed journal. He was appearing on the issue where homosexuality was considered to be a marxist construction along with speculations on whether Canadian people have been enslaved by the public health-care. Does its sound like Colpo was getting published in quality journal? No, out of the carbage Colpo managed to find a crank journal who published his nonsense.

healthy-longevity said...

@nothing

Although the average length of the controlled feeding trials measuring the association between diet and serum lipids was short term, a number of trials were actually long term. In addition, long term randomized controlled trials on free living people have also shown that restricting saturated fat significantly reduces serum cholesterol. As I already mentioned, the large majority of the decline in serum cholesterol in the pre and early statin period in developed nations in the second half of the 20th century is explained by diet, in particular a reduction in saturated fat intake.

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/65/6/1747.full.pdf+html
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17943768
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3199603/pdf/1471-2458-11-641.pdf
http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/32/10/1187.full.pdf
http://www.unilever-pro-nutrition-sante.fr/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/Importance-of-reducing-SAFA-to-limit-CHD-BJN-2011-Pedersen-et-al.pdf
http://www.bmj.com/content/344/bmj.d8136


@Jack

You appear to be referring to the serum lipids of captive primates which are usually fed processed food. You also failed to mention that captive gorillas have significantly higher total and LDL cholesterol than their free-ranging counterparts, consistent with findings from other non-human primates. Atherosclerosis has actually been confirmed in free-ranging non-human primates and is associated with higher serum cholesterol. This suggests that foods found in nature that are consumed by non-humane primates do not necessarily promote optimal health if it elevates serum cholesterol.

http://www.bioone.org/doi/abs/10.1638/05-040.1
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1969.tb56354.x/abstract


@Charles

You have already spammed the data from the Women Health Initiative several times without addressing the limitations that we referenced. As the researchers of the study stated:
“Trends toward greater reductions in CHD risk were observed in those with lower intakes of saturated fat or trans fat or higher intakes of vegetables/fruits.”

Refer to the below permalink for more details.

http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2012/08/egg-yolk-consumption-almost-as-bad-as.html?showComment=1346554041017#c2030024524484815244

Charles Grashow said...

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100305-first-proof-gorillas-eat-monkeys-mammals-feces-dna/

Like the vegetarian who can't resist the occasional burger, the otherwise herbivorous gorilla might succumb to cravings for its evolutionary cousins, a new study hints.

While some zoo specimens are known to eat meat, wild gorillas eat only plants and fruit, along with the odd insect—as far as scientists know (see video of wild gorillas feasting on figs).

But a recent study found DNA from monkeys and small forest antelopes called duikers in the feces of wild African western lowland gorillas in Loango National Park in Gabon.

The discovery raises the possibility that gorillas might have a secret meat habit—scavenging or hunting discretely.

http://www.plosone.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pone.0009419;jsessionid=4223AC5B1F82B47555699DFA2F2E814F

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2008/10/081013-bonobos-attack-missions.html


The Humane Hominid said...

In addition, Jack, the primate papers you linked were not lab experiments that manipulated the diets of their subjects. In both, the primates were fed a standard, low-fat zoo diet.

Numerous researchers have induced atherosclerosis in chimpanzees by feeding them high saturated fat and high cholesterol diets. See, for instance, "Lipid changes in the plasma lipoproteins of baboons given an atherogenic diet: Part 3. A comparison between lipid changes in the plasma of the baboon and chimpanzee given atherogenic diets and those in human plasma lipoproteins of type ii hype rlipoproteinaemia" (Howard, et al., 1972); ""Comparative studies of spontaneous and experimental atherosclerosis in primates. II. Lesions in chimpanzees including myocardial infarction and cerebral aneurysms" (Andrus, et al., 1968); "Dietary induced hyperbetalipoproteinemia in chimpanzees: Comparison to the human hyperlipoproteinemia" (Blaton, et al., 1974); and "The nonhuman primates as models for studying human atherosclerosis: studies on the chimpanzee, the baboon and the rhesus macacus." (Blaton, et al., 1977); for just a small sampling. The literature on other, less-expensive primates is even more extensive.

There's a reason nonhuman primates are used in medical research, you know.

And this is not a "health" argument, but a mechanistic one. Researchers can turn atherosclerosis in non-human primates on or off by diet alone. We therefore expect the same to be true in humans, on the basis of common ancestry.

The Humane Hominid said...

@Charles,

I already admit that it might be true. This is the case with any hypothesis. However, also as with any hypothesis, the weight and quality of evidence in favor of a particular hypothesis builds up momentum that cannot be pronounced overturned on the basis of a few contradictory studies. As with evolution, or heliocentrism, it was preponderance of the evidence, not a single study, that established the veracity of the hypothesis... and only a preponderance of the evidence can therefore overturn it.

This means that the number of high-quality studies disconfirming the lipid hypothesis will have out-number those confirming it, and they'll have to do so worldwide, in thousands of different contexts. They'll also have to convince the worldwide community of relevant experts. Given that scientists are trained skeptics, this would be difficult to do... though not impossible, if it really is true.

Whether the lipid hypothesis is true or not doesn't change the fact that it's possible to be healthy as a vegan, which is why my ethics won't change: my ethical stance is not founded on the lipid hypothesis, so overturning it would do little to affect my ethics. I don't have a belief system riding on whether the hypothesis is true or not.

Jack LaBear said...

Peter wrote:
"You cause an awfull mess which you always leave for other's to sort out. This is not mature behavior. Quit that nonsense spamming. You'r wasting everyones time. At this point you should know what
s the drill."

I've noticed what the drill is with you Peter. Whenever you're confronted with facts you can't dispute, you create a distraction with ad-hominid (sic) attacks.

Jack LaBear said...

Hu-Ho,

What part of

"“Overall, we conclude that rather than rep-
resenting a similarity, heart disease is an instance where
there are unexplained human-specific differences from
the other Hominids."

don't you understand? The human part, or the hominid part?

Could you please provide links to full text versions of the primate SFA and cholesterol feeding studies you reference?

Thanks.

Peter said...

Give Charles a couple more weeks and he'll be extolling the virtues of whole-food plant-based diets.

We need to have Charles away from the sudden-cardiadic-death in making diets. The sooner, the better.

Peter said...

@Nothing

ups....The best kept secret of Peter Attia. His mentor & guru dicloses his stance.

Thomas Dayspring (updated 2011)

"statin intolerant: consider ezetimibe (Zetia) plus colesevelam (Welchol) plus a plantstanol (Benecol) plus aggressive low saturated fat diet. Recent data showed ezetimibe/fenofibrate was also efficacious in patients without the metabolic syndrome".

http://www.lipidcenter.com/pdf/Lipid_Treatment_Algorithm.pdf

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

"Give Charles a couple more weeks and he'll be extolling the virtues of whole-food plant-based diets."

Don't hold your breath.

http://www.heartattackproof.com/reversal01.htm

If you do not include patient 8 and patient 4 who passed away - of the remaining 17 patients, 13 had increased triglyceride levels, 5 had decreases and 1 remained the same (from years 5 to years 12). Why would this happen on a plant based very low fat diet?

Also - I've read that a level of over 100 the pattern size is small and dense which is supposed to be more atherogenic? Why would this happen on a plant based very low fat diet?

Peter said...

Why the hell you care about surrogate markers (triglycerides) when you are given the end points, doesn't make any sense. But, hey, I guess that's you. If only you spent less time on spamming and more time educating yourself....triglycerides are close to meaningless when you have a physiological LDL-level.

Esselstyn dealth with people who were all diagnosed with CAD. The two of who died all showed stoppage of the disease progression.

"Here are the facts. When I was accepting patients for my original study, I received a call from a cardiologist who was eager for me to accept one of his patients. The patient was a 67 year old male pediatrician who had recently sustained a massive heart attack during an angioplasty for diffuse coronary artery disease.

He had lost so much heart muscle he was in congestive heart failure, his left ventricular ejection fraction was less than 20% and his life expectancy was less than 6 - 12 months.

I momentarily hesitated. I was reluctant to accept anyone with such an extremely poor prognosis into what I hoped would be a long term study of coronary disease patents. As he could be offered nothing else, I gladly accepted him. He turned out to be a wonderful man and a magnificent patient.

He did not die at 6 or 12 months. He far outlived his original prognosis and after 5 years on our program had a repeat angiogram which confirmed disease reversal. Nevertheless, 6 months following his follow up angiogram he succumbed to a cardiac arrhythmia which had been predicted as his ultimate fate at the time he joined the program. At his autopsy there was no evidence of a new heart attacck"

Esselstyns own colleage showed 100%reversal of his coronary heart disease. The patient stody was reported in the journal preventative cardiology.

http://www.heartattackproof.com/resolving_cade.htm

Esselstyn is soon up with a new study.

Peter said...

Again,

atherosclerosis can induced to non-human-primites and regressed in 40-months. Esselstyns collegue was healed completely in 32-months, the angiogram shots are in the above link, and were reported in the preventative cardiology -journal.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/

High Ratio of Triglycerides to HDL-Cholesterol Predicts Extensive Coronary Disease

CONCLUSION
Nearly all routinely assessed lipid variables were associated with the extent of coronary disease, but only the ratio of triglycerides to HDL-cholesterol or to HDL-c were robustly associated with disease extent. Elevation in the ratio of TG to HDL-c was the single most powerful predictor of extensive coronary heart disease among all the lipid variables examined.

Charles Grashow said...

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/97/11/1029.long

The present study provides some major new findings strongly suggestive of a role of fasting serum TG as a risk factor of IHD. This study appears to be the first to show in men that a clear gradient of risk of IHD can be found with increasing TG levels within each level of HDL-C, also after controlling for the other major risk factors of IHD, including total cholesterol or LDL-C.

Charles Grashow said...

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1140303

We observed that among apparently healthy men and women in a cohort representative of a contemporary Western population, non–HDL-C, TG, and the TC to HDL-C ratio were more strongly associated with risk of future CHD than was LDL-C. We also found that at any LDL-C level, individuals with elevated non–HDL-C levels, elevated TG levels, or with an increased TC to HDL-C ratio were still at an increased risk of developing CHD.

Charles Grashow said...

http://50kzone.blogspot.com/2012/09/damn-your-low-fat-diet-how-reformed.html

Charles Grashow said...

http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/4/759.full

Results: We observed inverse associations of SFA intake with mortality from total stroke [n = 976; multivariable hazard ratio (95% CI) for highest compared with lowest quintiles: 0.69 (0.53, 0.89); P for trend = 0.004], intraparenchymal hemorrhage [n = 224; 0.48 (0.27, 0.85); P for trend = 0.03], and ischemic stroke [n = 321; 0.58 (0.37, 0.90); P for trend = 0.01]. No multivariable-adjusted associations were observed between SFA and mortality from subarachnoid hemorrhage [n = 153; 0.91 (0.46, 1.80); P for trend = 0.47] and heart disease [n = 836; 0.89 (0.68, 1.15); P for trend = 0.59].

Charles Grashow said...

The Humans Hominoid said

"the number of high-quality studies disconfirming the lipid hypothesis will have out-number those confirming it, and they'll have to do so worldwide, in thousands of different contexts."

So - it's purely a numbers game - quantity counts

nothing91 said...

Peter,

"Do you think LDL-P somehow would change the fact that LDL-C everything over 100mg/dl is atherogenic?"

That's a fact, is it? Fascinating. :-)

My point was the LDL-P is a better overall predictor than LDL-C. You argued with me at first because you thought I was talking about particle size. Had you understood me correctly the first time, I'm not sure we'd even still be talking about this. (Maybe I shouldn't have mentioned Attia -- then we definitely wouldn't still be talking about it.)

HL,

"In addition, long term randomized controlled trials on free living people have also shown that restricting saturated fat significantly reduces serum cholesterol."

All of them have shown that? Or just some? SFA reduction was the only thing that changed in the participants' diets? Not total calorie intake, stuff like that?

Charles Grashow said...

http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/28/9/1582.full

s LDL-C Passed Its Prime?
The Emerging Role of Non-HDL, LDL-P, and ApoB in CHD Risk Assessment

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2720529/

LDL Particle Number and Risk of Future Cardiovascular Disease in the Framingham Offspring Study – Implications for LDL Management

"Conclusions

In a large community-based sample, LDL-P was a more sensitive indicator of low CVD risk than either LDL-C or non-HDL-C, suggesting a potential clinical role for LDL-P as a goal of LDL management."

http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1188679

Jack LaBear said...

Hi Peter and Hu-Ho,

Could you please post links to preferably full texts of the primate studies you refer to?

Thanks.

Charles Grashow said...

The first 2 links may be the ones they're talking about


http://pmj.bmj.com/content/52/609/456.full.pdf

Evidence of regression of atherosclerosis in primates and man


http://circres.ahajournals.org/content/27/1/59.full.pdf

Evidence of regression of atherosclerosis in primates and man


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3429058/

Macrophages, dendritic cells, and regression of atherosclerosis


http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v5/n2/full/ncpcardio1086.html#B9

Rapid regression of atherosclerosis: insights from the clinical and experimental literature


Charles Grashow said...

Second link s/b titled

Regression of Coronary Atheromatosis in Rhesus Monkeys

I pasted the wrong title in - Sorry

Jack LaBear said...

Thanks Charles.
Do you draw any conclusions from these?

Charles Grashow said...

They look to be worthless

From the second study

"The mechanisms and most of the local conditions that underlie the potential reversibility of atherosclerosis in any of its stages from the fatty streak to the increasingly advanced plaque are still to be elucidated."

Peter said...

Charles,

triglycerides, HDL, etc are all excellent risk predictors on a society where non-physiological LDL is the norm. The higher the LDL the less these risk markers matter, again the lower the LDL the less these other biomarkers matter. They work for societies with normal, non-healthy atherogenic LDL around 200mg/dl.

However, pay attention that these other biomarkers are pretty much just by-standers who at best exacerbate the damage caused by high LDL, and at worst represent just meaningless by-standers.

LDL is the independent causal driver of CAD. None of the other biomarkers are causal factors.

1) Prevention of heart disease: LDL reduction is the outcome of choice? Absolutely yes.

"There is only one well-established relationship between blood cholesterol lipid fraction and coronary artery disease (CAD) That meets all the Heiss and Tyroler criteria of causality. While there are a number of blood lipid fraction, only LDL cholesterol satisfies These criteria"

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16674358

2) What Can Human Genetics Teach Us About the Causes of Cardiovascular Disease?

"If one still did not believe that LDL-C is a causal factor influencing CHD, a report in this issue of the Journal could help convince the persistent skeptic"

Journal of the American College of Cardiology Vol. 55, No. 25, 2010
© 2010

3) Benn M, Nordestgaard BG, Grande P, Schnohr P, Tybjærg-Hansen
A. PCSK9 R46L, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels, and risk of ischemic heart disease: 3 independent studies and meta-analyses. J Am Coll Cardiol 2010;55:2833–

4) "....Thi­s result clearly refutes the suggestion that there might be a treshold level of LDL-C below which the lowering of this lipoprotein does not reduce ASCVD risk. This finding strongly implicates LDL as a causal factor for atherosclerosis"

Atherosclerosis Risk Factors. James J. Maciejko

5) The HDL hypothesis: does high-density lipoprotein protect from atherosclerosis? (2010)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2903818/

Raising HDL with a diet for CAD protection may be worthless.

6) Doubt Cast on the ‘Good’ in ‘Good Cholesterol’

"Now it seems that instead of directly reducing heart disease risk, high HDL levels may be a sign that something else is going on that makes heart disease less likely"

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/health/research/hdl-good-cholesterol-fo­und-not-to-cut-heart-risk.html

It's basically the same with LDL-C and LDL-P. LDL-C is in diconcordence with LDL-P only in people wo have clearly atherogenic LDL and are already at high risk for CAD. LDL-P has no relevance for people who are at the low-risk measured by the standard LDL-C.

Keep physiological LDL levels and none of the other bio-markers matter.

Peter said...

I often browse through the blogs and twitter account of famous online cranks and denialists.

I am interested in crankhood as socialogic phenomenom.

Anyways, I was very positevely surprised about Stephen Guynet. Me, HL and Hu-Ho can never persuade that creationists but maybe someone can eventually, maybe the ex-cranks have more credibility, since this is no more about the science anymore. Scientific community tells us unanimously, LDL = Causal Factor for CAD, lifestyle that result in low-LDL = Good.

Anyways, here's some of Guynets latest twitter accounts:

1) Daniel fast": high-carb vegan diet w no processed food, sweeteners or wh flour improves metabolic and cardio health
http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/9/1/82/abstract

2)Basically, increasing HDL cholesterol = probably useless; increasing HDL function = probably protective against atherosclerosis.

3)What's the real deal with HDL? UW researcher Jay Heinecke discusses the HDL "controversy" in Nature Med.

http://www.nature.com/nm/journal/v18/n9/full/nm.2930.html

4)Absence of diabetes in a rural W African population w/ a high carbohydrate/cassava diet" Also no obesity; via Maelan http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2882181

5)Ronald Krauss's latest paper on diet and lipoproteins http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22948944

Frankly I believe the days of Stephens Diet-Heart denialism are are somewhat done, whether Stephen has the gut to address this in a more blunt fashion like Don did is impossible to tell at this point. Whether he realize that associating with people like Chris Masterjohn will do no good for his scientific credibility is also an interesting question. Would Guynet today make a blog post about a school-girl Minger allegedly refuting a peer-reviewed science without even being capable of doing a multivariate analysis? I don't think so. Anyway, we'll see. Stephen is no doubt an interesting figure. I'll have my eye on him.

Jimmy Gee said...

@ Peter,

You really think you are the "all-mighty" don't you. How pathetic.

You have no problem disparaging people like Denise Minger and love the "appeal to authority" argument. So what exactly is your background that makes your analyses so trustworthy?

Charles Grashow said...

@ Jimmy Gee

I've asked Peter to post his academic credentials but he has yet to respond

Stephen Guyenet has a B.S. in biochemistry from the University of Virginia (2002) and a Ph.D. in neurobiology from the University of Washington (2009)

Chris Masterjohn is currently pursuing a PhD in Nutritional Sciences with a concentration in Biochemical and Molecular Nutrition at the University of Connecticut and has published two peer-reviewed papers.

So - Peter - what are your credentials - what is your Curriculum vitae - your academic and professional history and achievements?

We are curious

Charles Grashow said...

Correction - Chris Masterjohn HAS received his PhD so he and Stephen Guyenet can both be properly addressed as Dr.

http://www.makeitfunanditwillgetdone.com/need-to-lose-weight/the-mouth-trap-videos/low-carb-experts-chris-masterjohn-phd/

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.update-software.com/BCP/WileyPDF/EN/CD004816.pdf

Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease
(Review)


"Widespread use of statins in people at low risk of cardiovascular events - below a
1%annual all-causemortality risk or an annual CVDevent rate of below 2% observed in the control groups in the trials considered here - is not supported by the existing evidence."

"Caution also needs to be taken regarding the fact that all but one of the trials had some form of pharmaceutical industry sponsorship. It is nowestablished that published pharmaceutical industry-sponsored trials are more likely than non-industry-sponsored trials to report results and conclusions that favour drug over placebo due to biased reporting and/or interpretation of trial results (Als-Nielsen 2003). In primary prevention where world-wide the numbers of patients eligible for treatment are massive, there might be motivations to use composite outcomes and early stopping to get results that clearly support intervention."

"This current systematic review highlights the shortcomings in the
published trials of statins for primary prevention. Selective reporting and inclusion of people with cardiovascular disease in many
of the trials included in previous reviews of their role in primary
prevention make the evidence impossible to disentangle without
individual patient data. In people at high risk of cardiovascular
events due to their risk factor profile (i.e. 20+% 10-year risk), it is likely that the benefits of statins are greater than potential short term harms although long-term effects (over decades) remain unknown. Caution should be taken in prescribing statins for primary
prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk."

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1885451/

Factors Associated with Findings of Published Trials of Drug–Drug Comparisons: Why Some Statins Appear More Efficacious than Others


http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info%3Adoi%2F10.1371%2Fjournal.pmed.0020138

Medical Journals Are an Extension of the Marketing Arm of Pharmaceutical Companies

Examples of Methods for Pharmaceutical Companies to Get the Results They Want from Clinical Trials

Conduct a trial of your drug against a treatment known to be inferior.

Trial your drugs against too low a dose of a competitor drug.

Conduct a trial of your drug against too high a dose of a competitor drug (making your drug seem less toxic).

Conduct trials that are too small to show differences from competitor drugs.

Use multiple endpoints in the trial and select for publication those that give favourable results.

Do multicentre trials and select for publication results from centres that are favourable.
Conduct subgroup analyses and select for publication those that are favourable.

Present results that are most likely to impress—for example, reduction in relative rather than absolute risk.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.courses.ahc.umn.edu/pharmacy/5822/Ray_Statins%20and%20all-cause%20mortality%20in%20high-risk%20primary%20prevention_Arch%20Int%20Med%202010.pdf

"In conclusion, based on aggregate
data on 65 229 men and women from 11 studies, yielding approximately 244 000 person-years of follow- up and 2793 deaths, we observed that statin therapy for an average period of 3.7 years had no benefit on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention population."

Peter said...

Chuck,

Fred Seiz: the former president of national academy of sciences was a staunch denial of the tobacco-cancer link. He was a top-snotch rocket-scientist and author of several textbooks on solids. None of these matter, whether a crank has Phd or nor. Usually top cranks are very educated, although often not in the field they are engaging with their crank beliefs.

What matters is the scientific consensus, which is shaped by when a group of scientists evaluate and weight the consistency of evidence. This is how we deal with all major questions from lipid-theory, climate change, evolution, tobacco-cancer -link, etc. The modern history has shown that cranks are usually, if not always, wrong.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

What are YOUR credentials??

http://care.diabetesjournals.org/content/early/2012/08/05/dc12-0464.short#

Progression of Vascular Calcification Is Increased With Statin Use in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)

"After adjustment for baseline CAC and other confounders, progression of CAC was significantly higher in more frequent statin users than in less frequent users (mean ± SE, 8.2 ± 0.5 mm3 vs. 4.2 ± 1.1 mm3; P < 0.01). AAC progression was in general not significantly increased with more frequent statin use; in a subgroup of participants initially not receiving statins, however, progression of both CAC and AAC was significantly increased in frequent statin users."


http://www.sott.net/articles/show/249472-Statin-Drugs-Found-To-Accelerate-Arterial-Calcification


http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm293330.htm

Peter said...

Here,

register to heart.org for free and watch this presentation by top-snotch molecular researcher and atherosclerosis expert Peter Toth on HDL. This is the level you need to be incase you want to have something meaningfull to say about lipid-theory.

http://theheart.medscape.org/viewarticle/767864

An expert in a given branch is an expert if other experts in the respective branch perceives him/her as an expert. Do you think you are able to find a single atherosclerosis/lipidologist who would perceive Masterjohn as an expert? Ofcourse not. This whole cholesterol denialism is just an online thing.

Every single atherosclerosis/lipid expert in the face of this planet is on board cutting back SFA and lowering LDL, even Thomas Dayspring. A visit heart.org would probably be too scary for you Sarah-Palin -crew, it would totally wreck your artificial bubble world.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.courses.ahc.umn.edu/pharmacy/5822/deLorgeril_Cholesterol%20lowering,%20cardiovasc%20diseases,%20and%20the%20rosuvastatin-JUPITER%20controversy_Arch%20Int%20Med%202010.pdf

Cholesterol Lowering, Cardiovascular Diseases, and the Rosuvastatin-JUPITER Controversy

Abstract

BACKGROUND:
Among the recently reported cholesterol-lowering drug trials, the JUPITER (Justification for the Use of Statins in Primary Prevention) trial is unique: it reports a substantial decrease in the risk of cardiovascular diseases among patients without coronary heart disease and with normal or low cholesterol levels.

METHODS:
Careful review of both results and methods used in the trial and comparison with expected data.

RESULTS:
The trial was flawed. It was discontinued (according to prespecified rules) after fewer than 2 years of follow-up, with no differences between the 2 groups on the most objective criteria. Clinical data showed a major discrepancy between significant reduction of nonfatal stroke and myocardial infarction but no effect on mortality from stroke and myocardial infarction. Cardiovascular mortality was surprisingly low compared with total mortality-between 5% and 18%-whereas the expected rate would have been close to 40%. Finally, there was a very low case-fatality rate of myocardial infarction, far from the expected number of close to 50%. The possibility that bias entered the trial is particularly concerning because of the strong commercial interest in the study.

CONCLUSION:
The results of the trial do not support the use of statin treatment for primary prevention of cardiovascular diseases and raise troubling questions concerning the role of commercial sponsors.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

what are your credentials - what is your Curriculum vitae - your academic and professional history and achievements?

what are your credentials - what is your Curriculum vitae - your academic and professional history and achievements?

what are your credentials - what is your Curriculum vitae - your academic and professional history and achievements?

what are your credentials - what is your Curriculum vitae - your academic and professional history and achievements?

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.lipidcenter.com/pdf/Understanding_the_Entire_Lipid_Profile.pdf

Understanding the Entire Lipid profile
Thomas Dayspring MD, FACP

SUMMARY: To read a lipid profile properly and effectively:
1) Look at the TG: If > 500 treatment is needed and the TG takes precedence over all other
lipid concentrations. If TG are less than 500, go to step (2)
2) Look at the LDL-C, because if it is above 190 mg/dL, drug therapy is indicated no matter
what else you find. At lesser levels it depends on the risk of the patient whether drug treatment is
indicated.
3) Look at the HDL-C: concern if < 40 male or 50 woman
4) Calculate the TC/HDL-C ratio: Concern if > 4.0
Some advocate LDL-C/HDL-C ratio, but I do not since LDL-C is a calculated value
5) Calculate the non HDL-C (TC minus HDL-C). NCEP says to do this only if TG are > 200, but
in reality this calculation is always equal to or better than LDL-C (less valuable if TG >500)
6) Calculate the TG/HDL-C ratio
7) If apoB/apoA-I ratio is so predictive (and it is): you can estimate it by looking at
TC/HDL-C or Non HDL-C/HDL-C

In a primary prevention setting where NCEP calls for an
LDL-C of 130, the non HDL-C goal is 160. I agree with the AHA Women's Guidelines: all adults
should have a non HDL-C < 130 mg/dL.

According to the NCEP Risk Assessment Tool for Estimating 10-year Risk of Developing Hard CHD (Myocardial Infarction and Coronary Death)

The risk assessment tool below uses recent data from the Framingham Heart Study to estimate 10-year risk for “hard” coronary heart disease outcomes (myocardial infarction and coronary death). This tool is designed to estimate risk in adults aged 20 and older who do not have heart disease or diabetes. Use the calculator below to estimate 10-year risk.

http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/atpiii/calculator.asp?usertype=prof

My 10 year risk is 8%

If I reduce my TC to 150 and my HDL decreases to 40 my 10 year risk declines to 6% - WOW - what an improvement

BTW - below 130 for LDL does not mean below 70!

BTW - what are youre credentials?

Charles Grashow said...

BTW - Dr Dayspring looks really fat! Look at that chin - wow

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LUlJE2Rqs0w

Charles Grashow said...

T Dayspring has received speaking and/or consulting fees from Abbott
Laboratories, Daiichi-Sankyo, Genentech, Genzyme, GlaxoSmithKline, Health Diagnostic Lab, Kowa, LipoScience and Merck.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2010/11/drug_companies_paid_new_jersey.html

Thomas Dayspring of Wayne, a lipidologist who helps patients prevent cardiovascular disease by reducing fats like cholesterol in their blood, said the FDA "highly regulates" physician education materials.

"In addition to the indications and benefits of their medications, all adverse side effects must also be disclosed," Dayspring said. "The programs are fair and balanced."

GlaxoSmithKline paid Dayspring $203,200 from January 2009 to June 2010, making him the second-highest earner in New Jersey, according to the database. He said he frequently lectures on Lovaza, which is "the only FDA-approved, prescription-strength fish oil available."

Jack LaBear said...

Peter said...
Chuck,

Fred Seiz: the former president of national academy of sciences was a staunch denial of the tobacco-cancer link. He was a top-snotch rocket-scientist and author of several textbooks on solids. None of these matter, whether a crank has Phd or nor. Usually top cranks are very educated, although often not in the field they are engaging with their crank beliefs.

Again, when Peter is faced with facts that he cannot logically dispute, he resorts to ad-hominid (sic) attacks instead of addressing the issue under discussion.

Peter said "
I am interested in crankhood as socialogic phenomenom."
Look in the mirror Peter. (Check your abs while you're at it ;-) How about the guilty white urban liberal eating disorder known as veganism as a sociologic phenomenom?

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

Dr Dayspring said - " Calculate the TC/HDL-C ratio: Concern if > 4.0
Some advocate LDL-C/HDL-C ratio, but I do not since LDL-C is a calculated value."

LDL-C IS A CALCULATED VALUE!!

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2847568/

Evaluation of different formulas for LDL-C calculation

Discussion
Strategies for treatment of lipid abnormalities are primarily based on LDL-C concentration. Therefore, LDL-C must be accurately determined to establish a personal CHD risk profile in order to initiate dietary adjustments, drug therapy and to monitor their effects."

So - we do not know how to accurately determine LDL-C values YET we are basing treatment on calculated values that are more than likely wrong!


http://www.cap.org/apps/docs/committees/chemistry/2006LDLCDiscussion.pdf

Now assume that the cholesterol, triglycerides and HDL-C components are all graded acceptable as
reported below:

TC = 229 mg/dL (196-240)
HDL = 37 mg/dL (26-50)
TG = 261 mg/dL (202-337)

In this example the laboratory would report a LDL-C calculated value of 139.8 [229-37-(261/5)] and would fail the challenge for calculated LDL-C when compared to the acceptable range of 85-135. In fact in this example if the extreme, but acceptable, values for the lipid components were reported the following failed calculated LDL-C results would be reported:

Situation (Highest reported LDL-C)
240-26-202/5 = 174 FAILED for LDL-C
Situation (Lowest reported LDL-C)
196-50-337/5 = 79 FAILED for LDL-C

Thus even though the lipid components used in the Friedewald equation are acceptable the resulting calculated LDL-C is not. This occurs because the criteria limits for two of the components are greater than the acceptable limits for calculated LDL-C and permit too much variability in the LDL-C estimation. In addition the peer group for calculated LDL-C is comprised of a variety of different instrument systems and reagent combinations and thus is not a true peer group. It is not possible to construct appropriate peer groups based on all the possible instrument/reagent combinations for the three lipid components that are used in the Friedewald equation. For these reasons, the decision was made to discontinue grading of LDL-C calculated results.

http://mat.or.th/journal/files/Vol87_No6_589-93.pdf


Jack LaBear said...

Speaking of Lovaza, it is not in fact fish oil, it is ethyl esters of DHA and EPA rather than the natural triglycerides or phospholipids (krill oil, brain) of those fatty acids. Not only are the ethyl esters poorly absorbed, but there is reason to beleive that they are toxic. There is a hypothesis that the cardiomyopathy and pancreatitis of excess alchohol is caused by ethyl esterification of fatty acids in the body.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1129232/pdf/jcinvest00768-0315.pdf
http://www.gastrojournal.org/article/S0016-5085(97)70106-9/abstract?referrer=http://scholar.google.com/scholar_url?hl=en

Another example of big pharma run amok. The MD lipophobes are prescribing molecules that cause cardiomyopathy to people at risk for heart disease. But hey, it might reduce athersclerosis.

Note that most molecularly distilled "fish oils" are like that too. That is one reason why I switched to brain derived DHA.

Jack LaBear said...

I noticed that the vegan apologists didn't offer references to these primate cholesterol feeding and atherosclerosis reversal studies they keep touting.
After reading the ones that Charles kindly provided I know why.

They fed monkeys a synthetic purified diet containing 30X LCSFAs and 100X the cholesterol found in their natural diet. Unsurprisingly, they developed fatty deposits in their arteries in short order. And not unreasonably, it tended to regress when they stopped that dietary abuse of the animals. "If it hurts when you do that, don't do that then!"
Does it have any relevance to human health, heart disease and diet? Probably not. It is along the same lines as Colin T. Campbell giving massive doses of aflatoxins to rats on a synthetic purified diet with variable amounts of casein and claiming relevance to human diet and cancer. Actually, there is one useful lesson there: don't eat the sources of aflatoxins in the human diet - grains and legumes.

I noticed that the studies were published in 1970 and 1976. I wondered why that line of research hasn't been continued, besides the fact that human heart disease has fundamental differences from non-human primate heart disease. The animal rights activists probably discourage it. Ironically, it doesn’t seem to bother “Humane Hominid” that these monkeys were killed and dissected to see what was going on in their arteries., as long as the studies support his agenda. It is consistent with the horribly misnamed PETA’s policy of killing tens of thousands of pets as long as doing so furthers their agenda.

How about that manifestation of psychopathic “crankhood” as a sociological phenomenon, Peter?

«Oldest ‹Older   1 – 200 of 361   Newer› Newest»