Friday, September 28, 2012

Grass-Fed Animal Products Prevent Obesity and Cardiovascular Disease?

Not for Mongolians.

Mongols eat a diet largely composed of milk products, meat, and fat from free-ranging, organic, grass-fed animals.  They consume few plant foods because few edible plants grow in the cold continental climate of Mongolia.  The climate forced them into a natural experiment in low-carb nutrition based on grass-fed animal products.

In this 2010 episode of Bizarre Foods, Andrew Zimmern eats sheep head stew at a Mongolian cafe and goat carcass and intestine-wrapped liver on the steppes, samples "stomach butter" and fermented mare's milk, and has some pretty strong cheeses, among other full-fat bizarre foods as he calls them.   As Zimmern says, "its a faraway land of meat, meat, and more meat."  Of interest to the WAPF crowd, they use boiled milk, not raw milk, to make their cheese and some other processed dairy products.  Watch the markets for processed carbohydrates....



Most of them eat a WAPF low-carb primal paleo grass-fed animal fat dream diet (although the lean journalist admitted that she avoids fats).   According to Wikipedia, as of 2006, the United Nations reported that about sixty percent of Mongolians live in urban circumstances, so about forty percent live in rural areas.  Does their fleshy, fatty, milky diet keep them lean and healthy in either circumstance?

According to this World Health Organization document, in Mongolia in 2005,  fifty-six percent of men and seventy percent of women were overweight.  It is expected that by 2015, seventy-five percent of men and seventy-nine percent of women will be overweight.

Source:  World Health Organization


The WHO document also reports that chronic diseases cause sixty percent of deaths.  In 2002, thirty percent of Mongols died from cardiovascular disease, and twenty-one percent from cancer.

Source:  World Health Organization

No doubt, some will try to blame this on the introduction of plant foods into Mongolian diets.

In 2008, Bolomaa et al of the Nutrition Research Centre, National Public Health Institute of Mongolia reported that on average Mongolians consumed only 3.2 servings of fruit or vegetables daily.  They also found that one in every five people had three and more risk factors or was at high risk for developing non-communicable diseases, and "one in every two males aged 45 years and above was at high risk in developing NCDs. "

In 2008 Komatsu et al of Kagawa Nutrition University in Japan reported:

1.  Mongolians have a relatively short life expectancy.

2.  The residents of Murun, a north Mongolian city, eat large amounts of meat, milk, dairy products, and wheat flour products, but little vegetables, fruits, or fish.

3.  Compared to average values in Japanese, Murun residents have significantly higher levels of serum  serum triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and homocysteine, and lower levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), n-3 PUFA, folic acid and adiponectin.

4.   Mongolians also had significantly higher levels of oxidative stress markers, including oxidized LDL and serum reactive oxygen metabolites (ROM).

5.  The serum ROM in Mongolians correlated positively with their body fat ratio and inversely with their hand-grip strength.

6.  Mongolians aged 30 years or greater had a high incidence of obesity.

7.  Mongolians aged 40 years and older had markedly decreased handgrip strength.

Komatsu et al concluded that "These findings suggest that in the Mongolians the dietary habits associate with their lifestyle-related diseases and early aging, and the improvement of dietary habits is an effective strategy for health promotion of the inhabitants."



In 2009, Dugee et al (full text) reported that

"Mongolians have a distinctive lifestyle and dietary habits that are characterized by a preference for high protein and fatty foods of animal origin. Such a dietary preference is probably in keeping with the country’s extreme continental climate and nomadic lifestyle where meat and meat derivatives are the main sources of energy and nutrients during both winter and spring, while dairy products are commonly consumed during summer and autumn."  [Italics added-DM]
Dugee et al found three dietary patterns among Mongolians aged 25 years or more:

1.  A transitional pattern, high in grass-fed meats (beef, mutton, goat), pork, and sausages, but including some vegetables (cabbage, onion, carrot), potato, and bread.

2.  A traditional pattern consisting of foods Mongolians traditionally ate in summer: whole milk, yogurt, horse meat, wheat products, fats and oils, and confections (such as the milk-based item Zimmern tasted in the Mongolian market in the first video above).

3.  A modernized healthy pattern with greater intake of whole grains (rice, millet, barley, whole wheat), vegetables, and fruits.

As quoted above,  Dugee et al admitted that "meat and meat derivatives are the mains sources of energy and nutrients during winter and spring" in Mongolia.  Further, Dugee et al also say that they call the milk-based pattern "traditional" because "the food items reflect the diet of Mongolians during summer."  This suggests that what they called a "transitional" diet actually represents a pattern similar to the Mongolian winter/spring diet (meat products and hardy vegetables), while what they called a "traditional" diet is only traditional in Mongolia in summer and autumn.

 In other words, it suggests that they were actually comparing the "healthy" pattern to the two seasonal traditional patterns of Mongolian diet, and that labeling the one pattern "transitional" was misleading.  I think it would have been more appropriate to call the first pattern the meat-based traditional pattern, and the second the milk-based traditional pattern.

In studies of this type, researchers primarily compared the people who most closely adhered to one of these three patterns, simply because the less adherent any individual was to any one pattern, the more that individual's diet included elements of two or more patterns, making it very difficult to sort the different effects of the patterns.  For example, say someone in this particular study was trying to improve his health by eating more whole plant foods, but he was still eating meat and milk every day.  His diet would have a mix of all three patterns, and his weight would show the effect of that mix.  Therefore, when doing this type of study, the most clear information will come from comparing the individuals have the most distinct diets.

Dugee et al looked at the relationship between these patterns and obesity among the studied  Mongolians, and found:

1. For both sexes, those with the diet highest in whole plant foods carried the lowest risk of obesity, half the risk of other patterns.

2. For both sexes, those having the most "transitional" (i.e. animal flesh- and fat-based) diet pattern had doubled the risk of obesity relative to low intake of these meats and fats.

3. Greater adherence to a "traditional" (milk-based) diet pattern had the intermediate risk for both sexes.

4. Among women, adherence to a traditional diet pattern carried the highest risk of abdominal obesity, almost 5 times greater risk of abdominal obesity than those Mongolian women having diet pattern least like traditional.

Overall, these studies indicate that the Mongolians habitually eat a diet based on grass-fed animal animal products, those who eat in the most traditional pattern have an increased risk of obesity, cardiovascular disease, and early mortality, and those who eat more whole plant foods and less of traditional animal products have less obesity.

It really isn't news.  As noted by Healthy-Longevity in a comment left on a different post on this blog, the WAPF primal paleo grass-fed animal dream diet didn't keep the early 20th century Kirghiz plainsmen of paleo-Siberian origin lean or healthy either:

"These findings resemble the Kuczynski’s report in 1925, who observed that the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen who habitually consume a diet with large amounts of organic meat and milk from grass-fed livestock had a high incidence of obesity, premature extensive atherosclerosis, contracted kidney, apoplexy and arcus senilis, which was not exhibited by their urbanized counterparts who consumed a more varied diet."  Source: Coronary Heart Disease Epidemiology, Second Edition, Oxford University Press, 2005, page 22.
You can't blame the obesity and poor health of nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen of 1925 on late-20th century processed foods or urban sedentary lifestyle.  The only dietary factors in common between the Kirghiz and the Mongolians are the grass-fed animal products.

The WAPF, primal paleo grass-fed animal dream diet didn't keep the Kirghiz people lean and healthy 100 years ago, and adhering more closely to it it still doesn't seem to be keeping the Mongolians lean or free of cardiovascular disease or cancer. 




145 comments:

Peter said...

Great account Don,

here are some great news from Mongolia.

Vegetarians Rebel Against Mongolian Meat Culture
http://www.eurasianet.org/node/61212

Veganism rsing in Mongolia
http://vegwire.com/veganism-rising-in-mongolia/223165/

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.who.int/nmh/countries/mng_en.pdf

Mean total cholesterol DECLINED from 5.2 mmol/l in 1980 to appx 4.7 mmol/l in 2008

4.7 mmol/l = 84.6 mg/dl

I thought low cholesterol was good.

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

^LOL @ Charles. You are hopeless case.

4,7mmol= 182mg/dl

gunther gatherer said...

Yes Peter, it boggles the mind how peeps will desperately grasp at anything to keep their beloved meat and fat.

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

@Charles,

you can find any kind of crazy associations if you look enough. It's commonly known that the classic risk markers among elderly people gets "funny", this is known reverse epidimiology. Low-blood pressure, low-BMI, Low cholesterol are all associated with increased mortality if we measure these risk-factors at the end of the age span.

Getting old resembles a chronic sickness, one looses muscle mass, BMI goes down, cholesterol synthesis decreases which reflects in terminal decline in serum cholesterol levels. However, just like with serum cholesterol, only a retard will tell you that low BMI and low lood pressure are bad. So, get a life and take your head out from the mud.

@Gunther

yep, some people are very desperate.

Peter said...

And Charles,

pay attention that, despite the decreased cholesterol synthesis that occurs among old people, treating old people with statins is still beneficial(Aronow, 2006). This is a fact, even despite low-cholesterol is associated with higher mortality among old people.
The low-cholesterol and increased mortality link is just an association, whereas lowering cholesterol in order to prevent coronary events is causal.

Do you understand the difference of the association and causality?

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

I stand corrected - I did an incorrect conversion of mmol/l to mg/dl

So I will also correct a previous post I did on fruitarian blood test results

http://eatfruitfeelgood.com/2010/06/14/blood-test-results-in/

http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://eatfruitfeelgood.files.wordpress.com/2010/06/blood-test-jun-1-2010-p2.jpg#.UGhcqE1kyzO

mmol/l mg/dl
Cholesterol 3.70 142.8571429
LDL Cholesterol 1.66 64.09266409
HDL Cholesterol 1.39 53.66795367
Triglycerides 1.42 125.6637168


http://livingonfruit.blogspot.com/2011/02/my-personal-blood-test-results-released.html

http://www.gophoto.it/view.php?i=http://api.ning.com/files/ufHNUZrR0Zy-GPPLdLl*dO5rCFW3icfV-52xIUh9xPpmtkD9FZ5egzjtWf9NnK-rmf24eEJqmpzoelq4DYcg8RvKz2aNDRhK/BloodTestResultsPage4.jpg#.UGhFdE1kyzM


mmol/l mg/dl
Cholesterol 4.6 177.6061776
LDL Cholesterol 2.60 100.3861004
HDL Cholesterol 1.40 54.05405405
Triglycerides 0.90 79.6460177

LeonRover said...

Peter,

" lowering cholesterol in order to prevent coronary events is causal."

Causal it is NOT, it too is associative.

Rabid statinators, like those who post and lecture on LecturePad.org, and the PolyPill advocates who write in The Lancet, try to browbeat the unsuspecting public and other MDs to this point of view.

Ya gotta fix oxLDL, not Chol in general.

Peter said...

LeonRover:

pseudoscientific nonsense:

A data of million genotypes shows the people with inherited mutation in one of the 9 SNPs studied, which all have crucial role in cholesterol metabolism, are exposed to life-long reduction in LDL-levels and have 54% decreased risk in dying due to CHD per every 1mmol/l (39mg/dl) drop in the LDL-fraction. None of the studied individuals had any other inherited differences in any other biomarker. Each of the inherited mutations in the nine different polymorphism lowers LDL with a different mechanism, neverthelss the end result is identical. 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.


BTW one of the polymorphism studied was the HMG-CoA which is the one targeted by statins. Cholesterol skeptics maintain that the benefits of statins accrue due to pleitrophic effects instead of the lipid-lowering properties of statins. If so, one would have to explain why people with inherited mutation in HMG-CoA which causes life-long exposure to low LDL, show 54% reduced risk in dying to cardiovascular causes per every 1mmol/l decrease in LDL-fraction.

Evidence from over 100 randomized controlled trials, mendelian randomized control trials consisting of over one million individuals, and prospective studies consisting of several million individuals have firmly established a causal relationship between lowering LDL and non-HDL cholesterol and a decreased risk of coronary heart disease, cardiovascular disease and all-causes mortality (references below).


http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60312-2/abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645847/pdf/bmj.b92.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988224/
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/6/672.long
http://www.staessen.net/publications/2006-2010/07-44-P.pdf
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3284229/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1488755/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19349632

Peter said...

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

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.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. 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

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

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

LeonRover said...

Peter,

"That meets all the Heiss and Tyroler criteria of causality."

Here's the thing: it does not meet mine.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

http://www.ispor.org/publications/value/abstracts.asp

Prevention of Heart Disease: Is LDL Reduction the Outcome of Choice? ABSOLUTELY YES
Evan A. Stein MD, PhD

There is only one well-established relationship between blood cholesterol lipid fractions and coronary artery disease (CAD) that meets all the Heiss and Tyroler criteria of causality. While there are a number of blood lipid fractions, only LDL cholesterol satisfies these criteria. We review the effect of reducing low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol levels on CAD in the landmark lipid intervention trials performed since 1972. Lowering of LDL cholesterol consistently and systematically resulted in a reduction of cardiovascular events, irrespective of the therapy applied or the changes in high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol or triglyceride levels. Findings accumulated over many studies and many years provided sufficient evidence to satisfy all the criteria required to establish a causative relationship between LDL cholesterol and CAD. Consistent interventional benefit demonstrated that reduction of LDL cholesterol is currently the treatment of choice in prevention of heart disease.

Return to Value in Health Index

Prevention of Heart Disease: Is LDL Reduction the Outcome of Choice?: NO, THERE IS MORE
Jim Shepherd MD and J.S. Park, PhD

The West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (WOSCOPS), a placebo-controlled 5-year cohort study, demonstrated that the use of pravastatin decreased low density lipoprotein (LDL) levels and associated risk of myocardial infarction. The rate of occurrence of coronary events however, was similar across the four lowest quintiles of LDL reduction (23-41% reductions in mean LDL levels). The relationship between reduction of LDL and the reduction of risk was not linear. Further analysis indicated that even in overlap groups where patients exhibited equivalent mean LDL levels on treatment, pravastatin treatment was associated with less risk of occurrence of coronary events than placebo treatment. These results suggest that while LDL level does serve as a predictor of the risk of coronary events, other factors exist that should be considered and investigated further.

Charles Grashow said...

http://heartplus.co.za/downloads/heartplusscience1.pdf

Nutritional Supplement Program Halts Progression of Early Coronary Atherosclerosis Documented by Ultrafast Computed Tomography

The following daily dosages of nutritional supplements were taken for a period of one year:

Vitamins:

Vitamin C 2700 mg, Vitamin E(d-Alpha-Tocopherol) 600 IU, Vitamin A (as Beta-Carotene) 7,500 IU, Vitamin B-1 (Thiamine) 30 mg, Vitamin B-2 (Riboflavin) 30 mg, Vitamin B-3 (as Niacin and
Niacinamide) 195 mg, Vitamin B-5 (Pantothenate) 180 mg, Vitamin B-6 (Pyridoxine) 45 mg, Vitamin
B-12 (Cyanocobalamin) 90 mcg, Vitamin D (Cholecalciferol) 600 IU.

Minerals:

Calcium 150 mg, Magnesium 180 mg, Potassium 90 mg, Phosphate 60 mg, Zinc 30 mg, Manganese 6 mg, Copper 1500 mcg, Selenium 90 mcg, Chromium 45 mcg, Molybdenum 18 mcg. Amino acids: L-Proline 450 mg, L-Lysine
450 mg, L-Carnitine 150 mg, L-Arginine 150 mg, L-Cysteine 150 mg. Coenzymes and other nutrients: Folic Acid 390 mcg, Biotin 300 mcg, Inositol 150 mg, Coenzyme Q-10 30 mg, Pycnogenol 30 mg, and Citrus Bioflavonoids 450 mg.

The most important finding of this study is that coronary artery disease can be effectively prevented and treated by natural means. This nutritional supplement program was able to decrease the
progression of coronary artery disease within the relatively short time of one year, irrespective of the stage of this disease. Most significantly, in patients with early coronary calcifications this nutritional supplement program was able to essentially stop its further progression. In individual cases with small calcified deposits, nutritional supplement intervention led to their complete disappearance.

In summary, the results of this study imply that coronary heart disease is a preventable and essentially reversible condition. This study documents that coronary artery disease could be halted in its early stages by following this nutritional supplement program. These results were achieved within one year, suggesting that additional therapeutic benefits in patients with advanced coronary artery disease can be obtained by an extended use of this program. The continuation of this study is currently under way to document these effects. This nutritional supplement program signifies an effective and safe approach for the prevention and adjunct therapy of cardiovascular disease.

Charles Grashow said...

@Healthy-Longevity

An Independent Critique of Low-carb Diets: The Diet Wars Continue

I am Travis (full identity withheld*) and my background is a concerned person who is passionate about the scientific literature. I have been in search for truth about diet, health, and longevity for the past five years. As with most people, I once believed that progressive physical dysfunction and illness were processes of natural aging, and that my genes would decide my fate. However, I have uncovered convincing evidence to the contrary: many long-lived populations remain fully functional and active until very late in life. Their diets are all similar: high in plant foods, and low in animal foods. I want to be one of these people.

During my journey to enlightenment on proper nutrition, I also identified a few individuals working hard to sabotage the truth. Their beliefs are recognized by names, such as, low-carb diet, Paleo, Primal, and Atkins. When these ideas win, people and the planet Earth suffer. One of the major efforts of believers in low-carb (high animal-food) diets has been to try to discredit respected scientists and their works. For example, Denise Minger, has spent the past several years trying to harm the reputation of T. Colin Campbell, PhD. Her writings distort the science, laying traps for death and disease for the general public that listens and follows. I have carefully read and analyzed the original science. My work has documented her inaccuracies and omissions, as well as untruths spread by many others in the low-carb camp.

Please consider my findings and conclusions in this first critique in a series to be published in the upcoming months in the McDougall Newsletter. If you judge my writings worthy, please share them with others. Also send questions directly to me at healthy.longevity@live.com. Your comments will also be published and questions answered in upcoming McDougall Newsletters.

*I have chosen to withhold my full identity for the time being because of my concern for my personal safety. Large amounts of money will be at jeopardy, as the truth becomes known.


Funniest thing I've read all day.

nothing91 said...

Don,

I'm surprised that a critical thinker such as yourself didn't dig a bit deeper into the history of Mongolia to look for greater insights, rather than taking a quick look at the present and simply seeing what you want to see. If I didn't know you any better, I'd almost think you had an agenda. :-)

Had you done a bit more digging, perhaps you would have discovered Przhevalsky's work from the 1800s, where you would have found something interesting:

"Tea and milk constitute the chief food of the Mongols all the year round, but they are equally fond of mutton. The highest praise they can bestow on any food is to say that it is ‘as good as mutton.' ... The favorite part is the tail, which is pure fat."

"In autumn, when the grass is of poorest description, the sheep fatten wonderfully, and the fatter the better for the Mongol taste."

So, the Mongolian diet has been milk-, meat- and fat-rich for a long long time. Surely, then, they've been fat all this time, right?

"The Risk Factors Survey (1993) reported that 11.0% adults aged 35-64 years were overweight and obese. The prevalence reached 26.5% according to the Second
National Nutrition Survey in 1999. The most recent nationwide survey in 2005 reported that 31.6% of Mongolians aged 15-64 years were overweight and 41.6% had central obesity."

Wow! A 3x increase just between 1993 and 2005. Wonder what could have caused that? Can't be meat, fat and milk, since they've been gorging on that stuff for ages. Maybe your very first link can help: "Today, the diet of the Mongolians has been expanded to include vegetables as well as pasta and rice". Interesting!

(Before you guys get all excited, I'm not claiming those foods cause obesity. This is just a little exercise in overcoming your biases, digging deeper, and seeing the whole picture.)

All of this also kind of makes you wonder what the obesity situation was even before 1993, doesn't it? My fairly quick search didn't uncover anything. Maybe you can dig something up? Wanna bet that it was even lower than in 1993? :-)

Charles Grashow said...

https://case.edu/affil/tibet/documents/HighPrevalence.pdf

High Prevalence of Excess Fat and Central Fat Patterning Among Mongolian Pastoral Nomads

Abstract
This paper presents information on body size, body composition, and fat patterning in a sample of 750 pastoral nomads aged 5 to 84 years, native residents of Moost district, Mongolia and evaluates the results from the perspective of morphological adaptation to a cold climate. Mongolian nomad men and children have average BMIs close to the U.S. 25th percentile while women have average BMIs close to the U.S. reference median. The prevalence of excess fatness assessed by the Arm Fat Index rises from 5 to 15% during childhood to 65% or more in each adult age–sex group except women 70+ years. The pattern of fat deposition is markedly central (abdominal) among women and children while it is normally so among men: women and children have a very high ratio of waist-to-hip circumference and children have a moderately high ratio of subscapular-to-triceps skinfold compared with other populations. A body composition favoring centrally deposited fat may be adaptive to a cold stressed population because it would aid in heat production (abdominal fat is thermogenic) and heat conservation (more spherical body size and better insulation) in the age–sex groups that are usually at a thermal disadvantage because of small body size and/or low basal metabolic rate relative to men.

http://apjcn.nhri.org.tw/server/APJCN/Volume18/vol18.3/Finished/16_1473_433-440.pdf

"Perhaps, having a body composition that shows a preference for centrally-deposited fat is a form of adaptation to living in very cold climatic condition, in that the abdominal fat is thermogenic and also provides padding against the cold)."

Peter said...

@Charles,

healthy critisism (not denialism) is the salt of science. However, Jim Sheppard lost, the LDL-lowering won.

After a fiercefull debate, high-risk patients are today put to statins irrespective of their LDL status. There's no benefit of having more than 15mg/dl in the LDL-fraction and no observed treshold for LDL-levels which would not provide additional benefits for sick people. In other word, "the lower, the better".

Please view the image. As we got more data, the results show a very linear fit between LDL-lowering per unit and decrease in arterial plaque and eventually decrease in coronary events.

http://www.puhdasruoka.fi/uploads/monthly_09_2012/post-1-0-07120900-1348651785.png

Peter said...

"Wow! A 3x increase just between 1993 and 2005. Wonder what could have caused that? Can't be meat, fat and milk, since they've been gorging on that stuff for ages. Maybe your very first link can help: "Today, the diet of the Mongolians has been expanded to include vegetables as well as pasta and rice". Interesting!"

Given the fact that a cohort of cold-adopted, metabolically challenged inuits showed an inverse association of carbohydrate (apart from soda's) to obesity, it would be very weird incase vegetables and pasta were behind the Mongolian obesity rates.

Regarding carbohydrates, a new study (2012) found that the percentage of energy from carbohydrate intake was inversely associated with at-risk BMI in amongst Canadian Inuit’s, although consumption of high-sugar drinks was positively associated. The authors pointed out that these findings “raises concerns regarding carbohydrate restricted diets.”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22989025

Moreover, In my opinion the Sarah-Palin creationist -crew do not pay enough attention to the observations made by Kuczinky. The urbanized ethnic-brethren of Kirgizian plainsmen were less sick because they were likely to eat more vegetables including high GI pasta made of out of bulgur.

Kuczynski’s observed in 1925 that the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen who habitually consume a diet with large amounts of organic meat and milk from grass-fed livestock had a high incidence of obesity, premature extensive atherosclerosis, contracted kidney, apoplexy and arcus senilis, which was not exhibited by their urbanized counterparts who consumed a more varied diet.

Charles Grashow said...

http://hp2010.nhlbihin.net/atpiii/calculator.asp

Risk Assessment Tool for Estimating Your 10-year Risk of Having a Heart Attack

The risk assessment tool uses information from the Framingham Heart Study to predict a person’s chance of having a heart attack in the next 10 years. This tool is designed for adults aged 20 and older who do not have heart disease or diabetes.

Notice that this risk assessment tool does not include LDL.

My 10 year risk assessment is 8%

Peter said...

Charles,

again complete nonsense. The Framingham risk index is not suitable for young- or even middle-aged people since its gives a sense of false security. There's more advanced score index which fits also to people under 60 in Britain. I cannot recall the name of the site, but you can look. This is not just my opinion but an opinion of cardiologist and specialist in cholesterol metabolism who revealed this to me.

The whole Framingham algorythm is a dinosaur and does not reflect science anymore. Here's the developer of the index, William Castelli in 2011.

"You know, we know that if I can get your total cholesterol down around let's say 100 to 130 or so, and I have maybe not quite a billion people on the earth like that, and those people cannot get atherosclerosis. You know in the China Study, for example, when Chou En-lai was dying of cancer he started a study in China just like the Framingham Study. The only difference was it was in 880,000,000 people so it was a little larger than the Framingham Study. But you know they found these villages in China where you couldn't get a heart attack or you couldn't get diabetes and the women couldn't get breast cancer and you know their total cholesterol were 127, but the chances we could ever get Americans down that low with diet and exercise are not good".

"KIRK HAMILTON: But what would the diet be if you didn't have drugs and you could get everybody to do exactly what you wanted diet-wise in the United States? How would you reverse the heart disease?"

"DR. WILLIAM CASTELLI: Well you'd have them on a pure vegetarian diet and not getting fat on the vegetarian diet."

Jack LaBear said...

Peter wrote:

"Given the fact that a cohort of cold-adopted, metabolically challenged inuits showed an inverse association of carbohydrate (apart from soda's) to obesity, it would be very weird incase vegetables and pasta were behind the Mongolian obesity rates.

Regarding carbohydrates, a new study (2012) found that the percentage of energy from carbohydrate intake was inversely associated with at-risk BMI in amongst Canadian Inuit’s, although consumption of high-sugar drinks was positively associated."

The fact of the matter is that most, if not all "native people" suffer from soaring diabesity when given the white man's food. We know what that consists of.
That carries more weight with me than some isolated Inuit study.

Yes, I agree that it is best to eat real food. Animals are real too.

Peter said...

@Jack,

I find black-man's food as a viable option for the inuits. Loads of maize, sorghum, cassava and beans, that is.

1) "As to the risk factors in predominantly rural African populations in southern Africa, the principal dietary sources of energy were in the past and still are to an extent cereals (maize and kaffir corn or sorghum) and their products, wild spinaches, and a variety of legumes (cowpeas, sugar beans, Jugo beans), along with relatively low intakes of most vegetables and fruits and infrequent consumption of small quantities of milk and meat".

"Serum cholesterol levels of rural Africans in the past ranged from about 3.0 to 3.5 mmol/l and remain low".

Nutrition and Heart Disease Causation and Prevention Edited by Ronald Ross Watson and Victor R . Preedy

2) The epidemiology of coronary heart disease in South Africa

"Numerous reviews, past and present, have emphasised the rarity of coronary heart disease (CHD) in Africa. In 1960 in Uganda, CHD was considered to be 'extremely rare'.I In 1977, black Africans were described as being 'virtually free of hypertension and CHD'.' In the same year, at Enugu, Nigeria, over a 4-year period, not one patient out of 348 with cardiac disorders had the disease.3 In 1983, in the UK, a leading article entitled 'British and African hearts' underlined the tremendous contrast between the experience of CHD in the two population groups: From 1988 to 1993 in Zimbabwe, at Parirenyatwa Hospital, the main referral centre for the country, there was an annual average of 6 black patients with acute myocardial infarction.' Even at present, as concluded in a comprehensive review compiled in Nigeria,6 'CHD is still rare ... despite its increased incidence in recent years.' This rarity applies particularly to rural dwellers, as recently noted in Tanzania.'"

".....Soweto (which now has a population of 3 - 4 million), according to records of the Department of Cardiology at Baragwanath Hospital (3 200 beds), 35 blacks were diagnosed with CHD in 1992,51 in 1993, and 62 in 1994. However, of the latter number only 36 were Sowetans; the rest lived elsewhere.I' Clearly CHD remains very uncommon in urban blacks in South Africa. To afford perspective, it could be asked how uncommon CHD is in urban blacks, compared with its occurrence in Western populations? Of the population of Soweto, almost all attend Baragwanath Hospital when serious illness occurs. If it is assumed that all the 36 patients with CHD mentioned ultimately died from the disease, CHD would be responsible for only about 0.2% of the roughly 20000 deaths occurring annually in Soweto, an extremely low proportion even allowing for uncertainties. In Europe, in the Seven Countries Study,16 for those in the Mediterranean countries and inland the age-standardised 25-year CHD mortality percentages were 4.7% and 7.7%, respectively. The proportions reported for countries in Northern Europe and for the USA were far higher, namely 16.0% and 20.3%, respectively. These comparisons with Western populations underline the very low occurrence of CHD in urban blacks".

3)Blood pressure and heart murmurs in a rural population in the United Republic of Tanzania

"...and the diet consisted of mainly of maize, rice and cassava with a few beans, vegetables and coconuts and occasional meat and fish"

Peter said...

Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains?

"Nor do modern tropical hunter-gatherers rely heavily on meat. Among modern tropical African tribes, "there is no case of [people] eating more meat than plant food," Wrangham points out. For example, anthropologists James O'Connell and Kristen Hawkes of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, found that although a hunter belonging to the Hadza tribe of Tanzania on average might catch one large animal per month, often weeks would go by with no kills. The Hadza hunt with bows and arrows, technology far more advanced than that of any early humans, yet even for these modern hunters, "this is no way to feed the kids," says Hawkes.

But if meat wasn't responsible for the increase in brain size 1.8 million years ago, what was? Cooked tubers, says Wrangham, arguing that these starchy roots would have been quite abundant on the plains of Africa 2 million years ago, even when drier climates made fruits, nuts, and perhaps animal prey scarce. Today, there are 40,000 kilograms of tubers per square kilometer in Tanzania's savanna woodlands, for example. Other tuber-eating animals, such as wild pigs, thrived in Africa during this time, and Wrangham notes that fossil mole rats, which subsist almost entirely on tubers, have been found among hominid remains from 2 million years ago".

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

Are you going to post photos as well??

http://thefoodway.blogspot.com/2012/10/taking-30-day-raw-challenge1.html

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2007/12/raw-foods/

What will I actually eat?

Lots and lots of fresh fruit – many pounds of it every day. My goal is for 80-90% of my daily calories to come from sweet fruit during this experiment (by “sweet” I just mean that it’s a fruit that tastes sweet; I’m not referring to sweet, acid, and sub-acid classifications). The rest of my calories will come from raw veggies, non-sweet fruits like tomatoes, and fatty raw foods like nuts, seeds, avocados, and coconut. I’ll also include raw vegetables with a focus on greens. I’ll probably eat a lot of romaine lettuce and celery too.

I’ll include a reasonable variety of fruit, but there isn’t as much variety at this time of year as there is during the summer. It will probably take some trial and error for me to figure out how to buy the right quantities of various fruits. My schedule is flexible, so I can go shopping whenever it’s necessary, but ideally I’d prefer to go to the store no more than once or twice a week.

I’ll avoid vegetables that aren’t very edible raw, such as potatoes. I’ll also avoid or minimize cruciferous vegetables like broccoli and cauliflower. Many raw foodists eat cruciferous vegetables, but I’ve read it’s hard to extract the nutrients from them because they’re so fibrous. They don’t really hurt you, but they just pass through you. Some people use that as an argument for saying those veggies should be cooked, while others say it means they shouldn’t be eaten in the first place. They aren’t necessary, so I’ll probably just avoid them except maybe in small quantities.

Energy

The basic biological reason people feel so energetic on a raw foods diet is that sweet fruit is the easiest type of food for your body to digest. If you eat a meal of nothing but raw fruit on an empty stomach, it will normally pass through the stomach within a matter of minutes, since fruit is largely digested in the intestines. That assumes it’s all sweet fruit and not something fatty like avocado or coconut, which would greatly slow digestion.

The cells of your body run on sugar, so if you eat foods high in protein, fat, or complex carbs, those macronutrients have to be broken down into sugar (glucose). That process requires lots of energy and produces toxic substances as a side effect, which also have to be dealt with by the body. But the simple sugars in fruit can be assimilated and used by the body with minimal energy expenditure and minimal waste. Fruit is also naturally high in vitamins.

You can argue that humans evolved to be able to eat and digest other foods, including animal products. I completely agree — we can assimilate a variety of foods. However, physiologically speaking it’s pretty clear that fresh fruit is the most optimal class of foods in terms of digestion efficiency, residual waste, nutritional value, and especially energy. The biological efficiency of this diet is likely why people report feeling so extraordinary on this diet. All the energy that would have otherwise been devoted to digestion and toxic clean-up becomes available for the muscles, brain, and other organs.

At least this is the theory. To verify that this theory works for me personally, I’m committing to a personal test. Theories are great but I put my faith in real-world results. I’m especially curious to see what effect this diet has on my mental focus and concentration.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.stevepavlina.com/blog/2008/02/raw-food-diet/

Here are my daily nutrient averages for the 30-day trial:

2,298 calories
29g fat
532g carbs
40g protein
352mg sodium
86g fiber
305g sugar
10% of calories from fat
6% of calories from protein
84% of calories from carbs

Protein

This diet is abundant in protein. I averaged 40g of protein per day, which is more than enough to meet my needs, even with daily exercise and strength training sessions every week. I was aiming to average at least 25g of protein per day, which is very easy to achieve on this diet as long as I consume sufficient calories. Since all the protein was raw instead of denatured by cooking, its bioavailability should be much higher than with cooked foods. Incidentally, if you want to see what happens to protein when you cook it, pluck a hair off your head and put a flame under it. Cooked protein becomes a sticky mess that doesn’t digest well at all. Raw plant foods provide all the protein we need, in the right form for easy assimilation.

Body Temperature

My body temperature dropped only slightly during the course of the trial. My average body temperature during the first week of the trial was 98.5°. During the second week of the trial, it was 98.2°. The reason I decided to track my body temperature was that I’d read that long-term raw foodists can have significantly lower body temperatures, so I wanted to see if there’d be any change during the first 30 days. Although I did experience a slight drop in body temperature, it wasn’t particularly severe.

Blood Pressure

My average blood pressure reading for the first 5 days of the trial was 131/76. For the last 5 days of the trial, it was 117/73. So the net drop in blood pressure was 14/3. My lowest reading of the trial was 110/65, which occurred on day 30.

Blood Sugar

I monitored my blood sugar using a blood sugar testing device, the same kind diabetics may use. It showed no discernible spikes in blood sugar throughout the trial whatsoever — absolutely none. In fact, my blood sugar remained incredibly steady throughout the trial. My highest blood sugar reading of the trial was 94, which is still medium-low. All that sweet fruit in my diet simply did not have any adverse effect on my blood sugar.

Eating this way gave my blood sugar more consistency than ever. I couldn’t spike my blood sugar on this diet if I tried. Even eating 19 bananas in one day made no difference.

Tracy said...

Charles, what is this about? Did you get plucked by aliens, and have your personal memory bank sucked out, only to be replaced by that of others, and so you live vicariously in this fantasy cut and paste world?

Have you eaten so much fat lately that you forgot how to think for yourself, without the cut and paste MO that you operate from?

Do you just love us here, as it seems you spend more time reading our blogs, and posting on Don's than even we spend?

This comment seems antithetical to all that you seem hell bent on proving, or is it that you really didn't get enough love growing up, and have a horrible case of the seeking validation from others syndrome. I've been there, I know... the mind is a terrible thing to have control you. That ego can have us believe all manner of things to make us feel good about our selves. ~Tracy

Tracy said...

Peter, those Africans go to the bathroom a heck of a lot more too! Most Americans are constipated. Another symptom of diet. Especially since the trends in consumption among Americans has been on the rise for chicken, meat, dairy, and especially cheese. Globally this is a problem, and as nations like Thailand and China that once had low rates of diseases like diabetes, heart disease, etc, they are all watching the trend rise along with increased consumption of animal foods. And it costs a pretty penny too. Billions in our country alone. ~Tracy

Martin H Inderhaug said...

Hello!

Maybe this is interesting reading for you?

Great site you got, by the way!

http://www.smartinder.com/2012/10/02/it-should-be-healthy-but-should-it-also-be-slow/


Best,
Martin

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/10/02/the-french-paradox-is-not-a-paradox/

as percentages of saturated fat rise, rates of death from heart disease fall

Charles Grashow said...

@Don & Tracy - if this doesn't work out will you hav ethe guts to admit it??


http://thefoodway.blogspot.com/2012/10/taking-30-day-raw-challenge1.html

http://www.my-healthy-eating-secrets.com/healthy-eating.html

http://30bananasadaysucks.com/2012/04/request-for-data-in-support-of-the-claim-that-30bad-advice-is-not-working/

http://www.rawfoodinfo.com/hotline/Jan06_hotline.html

Don said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19786392

Association of major dietary patterns with obesity risk among Mongolian men and women.

Asia Pac J Clin Nutr. 2009;18(3):433-40.

"An exploratory factor analysis resulted in three dietary patterns: transitional high in processed meat and potato, traditional rich in whole milk, fats and oils and healthy with greater intake of whole grains, mixed vegetables and fruits. Individuals in the upper quintile of the transitional pattern had significantly greater risk of obesity (BMI > or =25 kg/m2: OR=2.47; 95% CI=1.04-5.86) while subjects in the highest quintile of the healthy dietary pattern were found to have significantly decreased risk of obesity (OR: 0.49; 95% CI=0.25-0.95). Men in the highest quintile of the transitional pattern had greater risk of abdominal obesity WC > or =90 cm: OR= 4.08; 95% CI=1.11-14.97) than those in the lowest quintile. Women in the top quintile of the traditional pattern had a greater odds of having abdominal obesity (WC > or =80 cm: OR=4.59; 95% CI=1.58-13.30) than those in the lowest quintile."

Among Mongolians,

1. For both sexes, those with the diet highest in whole plant foods carries the lowest risk of obesity, half the risk of other patterns.

2. For both sexes, diet high in processed meats (sausages, bacon, etc) made from grass-fed animal fats) doubled the risk of obesity relative to low intake of these meats and fats.

3. Traditional diet had the intermediate risk for both sexes.

4. Among women, adherence to a traditional diet pattern carried the highest risk of abdominal obesity, almost 5 times greater risk of abdominal obesity than those Mongolian women having diet pattern least like traditional.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19533858

Dietary and lifestyle risk factors for noncommunicable disease among the Mongolian population.

"The average fruit and vegetables intake has been reported as being 3.2% (+/- 0.004 CI) serving sizes per day in the surveyed population....In conclusion, 9 in every 10 people aged 15-64 years had at least one risk factor for developing NCDs. One in every five people had three and more risk factors or was at HIGH risk and in particular, one in every two males aged 45 years and above was at high risk in developing NCDs. "

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20021377

"Mongolians are known to have relatively short life expectancy....Murun inhibitants were found to have a characteristic dietary habit of taking large amounts of meat, milk, dairy products and wheat flour products, in contrast little vegetables, fruits and fishes. The daily calorie intake of the adults was estimated to be 2,525 kcal, and the fat/total calorie ratio was calculated 33.7%, about 1.3-fold higher than that of Japanese. The intake ratio of fatty acid from the Mongolian foods, saturated : mono-unsaturated : poly-unsaturated fatty acids (PUFA) ratio, was 10.3 : 7.8 : 3.0. Results of blood clinical tests showed significantly higher levels of serum triglycerides, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL) and homocysteine, and lower levels of high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), n-3 PUFA, folic acid and adiponectin, in comparison with those of Japanese. In addition, the Mongolians were also found to have significantly high levels of oxidative stress markers, such as serum malondialdehyde-modified LDL (MDA-LDL), urinary 8-hydroxy-2'-deoxyguanosine (8-OHdG) and serum reactive oxygen metabolites (ROM). The serum ROM level in the Mongolians seemed to associate with their body fat ratio (p<0.05), and was significantly inverse-correlated to handgrip strength (p<0.001). Obesity was observed at a high incidence in the subjects over 30-year old, and over 40-year old their handgrip ability was markedly decreased. These findings suggest that in the Mongolians the dietary habits associate with their lifestyle-related diseases and early aging, and the improvement of dietary habits is an effective strategy for health promotion of the inhabitants."

Jack LaBear said...

Don,

We already know that a diet relying too heavily on one food type is not optimum for health. The Inuit and Mongolians adapted to food available in their environment. A lack of certain nutraceutical plant foods results in increased oxidative stress. A lack of certain nutraceutical animal foods results in other kinds of stresses, potentially fatal without 21th century supplementation.

Regarding Mongolian hand grip strength, have you forgotten Ghengis Khan?

Charles Grashow said...

How much of Mongolia's health problems are caused by smoke - both tobacco and environmental?

http://www.imeche.org/knowledge/industries/energy-environment-and-sustainability/news/mongolia

"The photo above shows the result, choking clouds of particulates and extremely high concentrations of carbon monoxide, which mean that every adult, child and baby are effectively smoking 20 cigarettes a day. An environmental disaster of biblical proportions."


http://www.mad-mongolia.com/news/mongolia-news/campaign-against-alcohol-and-tobacco-in-mongolia-5566/

A survey last year found that 27.7% of the total Mongolian population are regular smokers. The percentage among men is 40.7 and among women 3.1. Young people in Ulaanbaatar smoke and drink much more than those in the countryside.

http://www.adra.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=10719&news_iv_ctrl=1141

In Mongolia, where more than half of the city-dwelling adult population smokes tobacco, an increase in its use is having a devastating effect on the individual health of its residents, reports the Adventist Development and Relief Agency (ADRA).

An estimated 65 percent of urban men and 21 percent of women are routine smokers, according to the World Health Organization (WHO). Among young people in Mongolia, smoking is a worsening problem. It is estimated that 19 percent of boys and eight percent of girls between the ages of 14 and 17 are smokers, increasing the rate of tobacco-related diseases, which are now the leading cause of death in that country.

http://www.nrronline.org/nrren/ch/nrr-2012-pdf/20k/1570-1577.pdf

Smoking and Alzheimer’s disease among Mongolian and Han Chinese aged 55 years and over living in the Inner Mongolia farming area of China

http://www.substanceabusepolicy.com/content/7/1/20

Prevalence of and factors associated with daily smoking among Inner Mongolia medical students in China: a cross-sectional questionnaire survey




Don said...

nothing91,

How does this: "Tea and milk constitute the chief food of the Mongols all the year round..."

Support this: "Can't be meat, fat and milk, since they've been gorging on that stuff for ages."

Living primarily on tea (0 calories, 0 fat) and milk (0.61 kcal per g) seems a long way from daily "gorging" on meat (2-5 kcal per gram), fat (9 kcal per gram) and milk. Has it occurred to you that in the past, they didn't have meat and fat as frequently as today?

Or that since in 1800 they had no modern appliances or locomotion, their energy expenditure would have been higher, which would have allowed them to be leaner than today, on the same diet?

The question your quote does not answer is whether Mongolians eating their animal-based diet in 1800 were on average heavier/fatter than Mongolians eating a more plant-based diet.

That's why I referred in my blog to "Kuczynski’s report in 1925, who observed that the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen who habitually consume a diet with large amounts of organic meat and milk from grass-fed livestock had a high incidence of obesity, premature extensive atherosclerosis, contracted kidney, apoplexy and arcus senilis, which was not exhibited by their urbanized counterparts who consumed a more varied diet.

You wrote or quoted:

"The Risk Factors Survey (1993) reported that 11.0% adults aged 35-64 years were overweight and obese. The prevalence reached 26.5% according to the Second
National Nutrition Survey in 1999. The most recent nationwide survey in 2005 reported that 31.6% of Mongolians aged 15-64 years were overweight and 41.6% had central obesity."

Unfortunately you provided no links to the sources for anything you quoted, which makes it hard to evaluate its quality.

However, I noticed that the Risk Factors survey reported the overwieght/obesity rate in the age group 35-64.

The statement about the Second National Nutrition Survey in 1999 doesn't mention the age range.

The last statement is about a nationwide survey covering age range 15-64.

The first and third data sets don't cover the same age range so comparison is hazardous.

You wrote: "Can't be meat, fat and milk, since they've been gorging on that stuff for ages. Maybe your very first link can help: "Today, the diet of the Mongolians has been expanded to include vegetables as well as pasta and rice". Interesting!"

LMAO. Combine high energy density meat, fat, and milk with central heating, automobiles, and sedentary lifestyle and those foods can promote obesity.


It only took me about 5 minutes on PubMed to find the data in my last comment. It shows that among modern Mongolians, the traditional diet pattern is linked to short lifespan, and increasing obesity and metabolic disorders, especially in women. In contrast, eating more vegetables, pasta, and rice is associated with lower risk of obesity and chronic disease in Mongolians.

I find it comical that anyone would suggest that vegetables (less than 1 kcal per gram), pasta (1 kcal per gram), or rice (1 kcal per gram) are more likely responsible for Mongolian obesity than fat (9 kcal per gram).

100 g of fat = 900 kcal

100 g of rice = 100 kcal

100 g vegetables = 50 or fewer kcal

Explain how replacing 100 g of fat with 100 g of rice or vegetables would lead to weight gain.


Don said...

Charles,

You are so funny.

I admitted that paleo diet didn't work for me, in spite of having written a book advocating a paleo diet, have lost a lot in the process, and have had to endure endless bullshit attacks from people like you because of it, and you wonder if I have the guts to admit when/if something doesn't work for me?

Especially when it is only an experiment to learn first hand how something that I have never done will affect me?

LMAO.

Don said...

Charles,

Smoking is inversely related to obesity. Furthermore, the Japanese smoke heavily also, yet have low risks of the diseases prevalent in Mongolia.

Jack,

You wrote:

"A lack of certain nutraceutical plant foods results in increased oxidative stress. A lack of certain nutraceutical animal foods results in other kinds of stresses, potentially fatal without 21th [sic] century supplementation."

What? Now you are saying the Mongolians are lacking important plant foods?

If by "nutraceutical" animal foods you mean liver or brains, the Mongolian diet has it. Watch the videos. You are grasping at straws.

"Regarding Mongolian hand grip strength, have you forgotten Ghengis Khan?"

What? Get a grip. This study showed that Mongolians lose grip strength as they age, and you think the fact that Ghengis Khan was a vicious conquerer disproves the finding? I didn't forget anything, I cited research and you respond with a romantic allusion to a Mongol warrior. LMAO.

BTW that would be 21st century, not 21th century.

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

A deleted post of yours

"http://donmatesz.blogspot.com/2011/03/more-raw-truth-about-raw-vegan-diets.html

If you think man is by nature adapted to a raw vegan diet, how the hell do you explain his exodus from tropical paradise into ecosystems where meat was the only reliable food for at least half of the year?

How can an animal adapted to a diet consisting exclusively of tropical fruits and vegetables spread out from Africa all over the entire planet, even into ecosystems (e.g. the arctic) where meat is the only food available almost all year round?

A commenter on my last post in this series said eating 10 bananas every day is no problem. Since then I tried five in a day. It gave me the runs. Enjoy your bananas, but living on them is not, let's say, a-peel-ing to me.


Another post you deleted

Don said...
Grok,

No. We are biologically virtually identical to humans of 50K years ago. We may NOT be so similar to people of 1 million years ago, i.e. Homo erectus.

We are NOW Homo sapiens sapiens, a distinct species. The question is, "what is Homo sapiens sapiens adapted to?", NOT "what are the predecessors of Homo sapiens sapiens adapted to?".

The people of 50K years ago actually left us plenty of cave paintings showing us that they were hunters of large animals, not banana foragers.

We have plenty of evidence that we are not adapted to eating 'healthy whole grains,' written in our physiology.

If we are adapted to a low fat, banana based diet, I wonder why we even have a gall bladder?

Or how about the difference between human and Australopithecene teeth?

http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4122-meat-eating-is-an-old-human-habit.html

You think we need these sharp, shearing teeth to eat bananas or whole grains?

No, they weren't 'ripe' by your definition. So, are you saying that in order to have a healthy vegan banana based diet, I have to eat only bananas at a specific level of ripeness? That we are adapted to a banana-based diet, but only if the bananas are at a specific level of ripeness? So that here we have an animals that is adapted to eating a diet consisting of 'ripe' bananas, but not somewhat ripe bananas?

I wonder how an animals could become so specialized in banana eating, but not tolerate bananas at all stages of ripeness?"


So - Don - all of the above that you said is TOTALLY WRONG??

SO - Why should we believe that waht you say now is TOTALLY RIGHT??

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

@Charles,

The China-Oxford Project included a cohort from Guizhui county, 250 000 people and zero fatal stokes during the 3-year follow-up. TC cholesterol was on average 127mg/dl. All men smoked and energy intake was around 30% more than in US, even when weight and age was controlled. The diet was plant-based, quasi-vegan.

Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease: the Cornell China Study
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914998007188

So, no. The smoking may exacerbate the problems in Mongolia but it cannot explain them.

Peter said...

Anyways,

I have to admit I am bit worried about Don's raw-food experiment as well. I advocate high fruit consumption, but based on Campbells and Esselstyns stance, I am not so sure whether overconsumption of fruit-smoothies is a good idea.

Don said...

"A lack of certain nutraceutical animal foods results in other kinds of stresses, potentially fatal without 21th [sic] century supplementation."

Then we should find early mortality prevalent among Seventh Day Adventists, a majority of whom are vegetarians. Let's see:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7245145

"Data on mortality of Norwegian Seventh-Day Adventists are examined for the period 1960-1977. The authors note an increase in longevity of four years for males and two years for females over the Norwegian population as a whole. The reasons for these differentials are sought in variations in health and life-style."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6654568

"Standardized Mortality Ratios (SMR) for total mortality (SMR = 0,45), cancer (SMR = 0,50) and cardiovascular diseases (SMR = 0,41) as well as for various subgroups differed significantly from the total Dutch population."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/4012231

In Poland, "The greater benefit in life expectancy is gained in the SDA group in comparison with men in the general population."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12936945

"Our review of the 6 studies found the following trends: 1) a very low meat intake was associated with a significant decrease in risk of death in 4 studies, a nonsignificant decrease in risk of death in the fifth study, and virtually no association in the sixth study; 2) 2 of the studies in which a low meat intake significantly decreased mortality risk also indicated that a longer duration (>/= 2 decades) of adherence to this diet contributed to a significant decrease in mortality risk and a significant 3.6-y (95% CI: 1.4, 5.8 y) increase in life expectancy; and 3) the protective effect of a very low meat intake seems to attenuate after the ninth decade."

Peter said...

@Charles,

Don is operating in the plant-based spectrum, I don't see these little shifts as big leaps to something vastly different as you seem to suggest.

Fuhrman has been officially kicked out from the crew since he has committed to a scientific fraud and talked lot of BS about McDougall and Esselstyn. He is also anti-starch and comes from the pseudoscience oriented, raw-food, Shelton -style natural hygienetradition. Campbell operates under a scientific method.

Campbell has disclosed that a fruit-based smoothies are a bad idea. I had short fare with Graham -style 80/10/10, I felt immensily better with the starch-focused approach. I have bad genes and too much bacteria in my mouth, hence already from a dental perspective I have to take it easy with fruit-smoothies. IMO Graham is a vegan version of the paleo-esque, appeal-to-nature fallacy.

I no longer consume any smoothies. I love buckwheat, millet, whole-grain pasta, starchy tubers, mushrooms, cabbage, etc. I also eat lot of whole-food fruits.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

Can you provide more evidence re Fuhrman committing scientific fraud.

I have gluten intolerance so I limit starches to potatoes - I also have some berries blended into my protein smoothie - I also have a problem with nightshades - hence no mushrooms or tomatoes.

I will be have complete blood work done this Friday/Saturday and will post the results when I see the doctor in a few weeks.

IMHO - there is a vast difference between following a Caldwell Esselstyn, Jr., MD diet and venturing into 30bad land.

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

Notice that BOTH LDL INCREASED at the 12 year mark for for 11 of the 17 patients in the original study and Triglycerides INCREASED for 10 of the patients

Why would that happen on the Esselstyn diet?

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

@Charles,

I think your enquiry about triglycerides is banal. In regards to Esselstyn, howabout you actually read what HealthyLongevity wrote in his blogpost (backed with high quality references).

Forks Over Knives and Healthy Longevity: Perhaps the Science is Legit After All

"It is well established that carbohydrate foods stripped of their nutritional value elevate triglycerides, but also that nutrient dense carbohydrate foods do not produce such an elevation, especially when the carbohydrate is largely derived from dietary fiber and resistant starch.89 90 91 92 93 94 This evidence strongly suggests that the elevated levels of triglycerides in a number of Dr. Esselstyn’s participants was a marker of excessive intake of refined carbohydrates that Denise claimed that they had eliminated from their diet. Denise appears to have confused Dr. Esselstyn's recommendations in his recent book with those provided to his initial set of patients well over two decades ago. Dr. Esselstyn did not specify in his papers that his initial set of patients were asked to eliminate refined carbohydrate foods, which may have played a large role in their diets considering that carbohydrate intake was increased to approx. 80% of total energy. The success seen among Dr. Esselstyn's initial set of patients therefore can probably not be explained by a reduced intake of nutrient poor carbohydrate foods.95"

"Randomized controlled trials provide further evidence of a causal association. A meta-analysis of 395 controlled feeding trials established that dietary cholesterol and isocaloric replacement of complex carbohydrates and unsaturated fat by saturated fat raises LDL and total cholesterol.11 In addition a meta-analysis of 108 randomized controlled trials of various medical and dietary 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.12"

http://healthylongevity.blogspot.fi/2012/08/forks-over-knives-and-healthy-longevity_17.html

So, since you know what has happened to Esselstyns patients (hard clinical end-points), shouldn't this raise some important question about the relevance of triglycerides as a surrogate marker?

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

Can you provide more evidence re Fuhrman committing scientific fraud.

Peter said...

A poster by the name of Mark Simmon made a rebuttal of pretty much everything Fuhrman represents. Campbell's and Esselstyn's comments are included.


Dr. Fuhrman: Not a credible martyr
http://www.drmcdougall.com/forums/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=31586

Esselstyns own notice about Fuhrman
http://www.heartattackproof.com/clarification.htm

nothing91 said...

Don,

"Has it occurred to you that in the past, they didn't have meat and fat as frequently as today?"

Milk and meat are where the bulk of their calories were coming from in 1870 per Przhevalsky. I don't know how much clearer it could possibly be. Milk is fatty and meat is fatty. So it was clearly a high-fat diet then, just as it is now.

"Or that since in 1800 they had no modern appliances or locomotion, their energy expenditure would have been higher, which would have allowed them to be leaner than today, on the same diet?"

Well, this is exactly my point. It's clearly not the milk/meat-based diet which is responsible for their relatively poor health today. It must be other factors. An overall change in physical activity is certainly plausible.

"The question your quote does not answer is whether Mongolians eating their animal-based diet in 1800 were on average heavier/fatter than Mongolians eating a more plant-based diet."

The easier question is whether they were fat and unhealthy in 1870 like they are now. I think we both know the answer. :-)

(BTW, you and Peter both suffer from the same reading comprehension troubles. Right after jokingly quoting the line about increased vegetable consumption in Mongolia from your link, I specifically said I didn't think this was the reason for their health troubles. Yet both of you responded as if I was serious. I guess careful reading and veganism aren't associated with each other. :-)

Jimmy Gee said...

@Don,

Once again a narrow viewing of one group's diet - absent of the whole picture.

Now before you start the "oh yeah, well check this reference out" game, I am sure you can cite other examples - not interested. Nutritional epidemiology is fraught with this sort of nonsense.

Why do vegans try so hard to play the health-card. If eating animals or their "secretions" (as you say) violates your current view of animal rights, then by all means, be a vegan. This ongoing attempt to justify you dietary choices by poring over the "scientific" literature and post these articles as evidence for the superiority of vegan-ism really reduces your credibility.

Peter said...

I want to clarify myself.

Even while comparing Grahams 80/10/10 to paleo-esque appeal-to-nature fallacy, I must say Grahams approach is 100% more sympathic and ethically and ecologically sound as oppose to the sick meat-laden paleo-diet nightmare.

Nothing91 does an excellent job in trying to pretend that Kuczinsky's (1925) observations in regards Kirgizian plainsmen did not exist. Moreover, how could I and Don know that Nothing91 was joking when he was enunciating that pasta is behind Mongolian obesity epidemic. Such ridicolous balony is often heard by the paleo-diet advocates ("green veggie paradox")who are completely unaware that Italians are the leanest people in Europe with highest refined wheat consumption in Europe.

Don said...

Re. Graham, McDougall, and Campbell.

At 3:32 in his TED talk, Campbell states that the dietary solution to our health care crisis is an 80/10/10 CHO/Pro/Fat diet from whole plant foods with little or no added fat, sugar or salt.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1CN7PF10RKo

In this article http://www.nealhendrickson.com/mcdougall/040100puproteinoverload.htm
Dr. McDougall states that he recommends 35 to 75 g plant-derived PRO daily forming 7 to 15 percent or average of 11 percent of energy.

On this page http://www.drmcdougall.com/free_2e.html, he states that "On the McDougall diet, between 70 and 90 percent of your calories are derived from complex carbohydrates..."

That leaves only 5 to 10 percent for fats, which is what he has recommended for improving health since his first book, The McDougall plan.

As I recall, in his book , Graham says that if for some reason you feel you don't thrive on a fruit-based diet, go for a conservatively cooked starch-based 80/10/10 diet, so essentially, though he believes that the fruit-based diet is superior, he advocates the McDougall/Campbell approach as the next best alternative.


Substantially, these three men agree that the optimal diet comes from low fat whole plant foods, and supplies roughly 80 percent of energy from CHO with the balance from protein and fat. The major variance is in whether to make cooked starch or raw fruit the foundation of the diet.

When I analyze a fruit-based 80/10/10 diet, compared to a starch-based plan, the fruit-based does supply substantially greater amounts of many micronutrients and a much greater alkaline residue. Whether that makes it more beneficial or therapeutic for any purpose remains to be seen.

McDougall, Esselstyn, et al have provided plenty of evidence that the starch-based approach works very well, and it has the advantage of having a foundation of familiar foods -- rice, pasta, bread, potatoes, etc. -- that have been the foundation of civilizations and ethnic dietary traditions.

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

^Good points Don.

Both McDougall and Esselstyn have made some reservations over excess fruit consumption, atleast for people with cholesterol problem. Moreover, both have adviced against fruit-smoothies.

HappyHerbivore covered a blog post in which she revealed that Campbell had adviced her not to drink her smoothies (green) and instead eating her calories. Unfortunately she deleted the whole story as many people with expensive vitamix-blenders got very angry. Perhaps Campbell will himself elaborate this in his upcoming book. Jeff Novich revealed that he drinks smoothies these days only occasionally.

Durianrider (fantastic man who is doing a great job) had his TC cholesterol over 180, whereas almost all long-term McDougall eaters are under the 150 range, and the small minority who are not, are usually in the low 160 range. I doubt that Durianrider will to have wittness any problems because of this, but I would myself be uncomfortable having my TC cholesterol long-term over 180. It's not only the animal products that raises cholesterol, some people may get elevated serum cholesterol due to low-fiber dietary patterns as well. I am not sure what happens to the protective dietary fiber of fruit once it has been bladed thousands of times.

Don said...

Peter,

In this 2010 video, Durianrider shows a blood test with TC of 4.0 mmol/l, or ~155 mg/dL, taken after 9 years as a vegan.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_z-ikN_F1Z8

Jack LaBear said...

Don,

My TC was 148 three days after eating an average of 100g animal fat and 3000mg cholesterol/day,
and it was a healthy 185 12 hours after eating 150g animal fat and 4500mg cholesterol.

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

"McDougall, Esselstyn, et al have provided plenty of evidence that the starch-based approach works very well, and it has the advantage of having a foundation of familiar foods -- rice, pasta, bread, potatoes, etc. -- that have been the foundation of civilizations and ethnic dietary traditions."

So are you saying that pre-agriculture ALL HUMANS were eating a diet that was noy optimal??

@Peter

"I must say Grahams approach is 100% more sympathic and ethically and ecologically sound as oppose to the sick meat-laden paleo-diet nightmare."

So - how is the entire world population supposed to eat only tropical fruits??

From Graham's book

The Formula

So, what are we talking about in terms of foods? 80/10/10 works out easily and naturally if your calories break down approximately as follows:

• 90 to 97% from sweet and nonsweet fruits.
• 2 to 6% from tender, leafy greens and celery.

• 0 to 8% from everything else

other vegetables like cabbage and broccoli, plus fatty fruits, nuts, and seeds).

You can generally accomplish this with two or three large fruit meals during the day, plus a large salad in the evening. Fruit predominates heavily, yet you consume as many greens as you like.

Jack LaBear said...

Don wrote:

"Data on mortality of Norwegian Seventh-Day Adventists are examined for the period 1960-1977. The authors note an increase in longevity of four years for males and two years for females over the Norwegian population as a whole. The reasons for these differentials are sought in variations in health and life-style."

How about that "lifestyle confounder?
We're talking religious fanatics here.

As Charles pointed out, high tech supplementation and fortification can counter the atherosclerotic effects of even a sofa tuber on SAD.
Just as strict vegans require high tech support from information, transportation and "fortification", I apply that to my omnivorous diet too, with excellent results.

Just because the Kitavans survive on their high carb diet does not mean that is optimal for health. Kitavan life expectancy at birth is estimated at 45 years (includes infant mortality), and life expectancy at age 50 is an additional 25 years.
The countries with the longest life expectancies all include substantial animal food in the diet.

Jack LaBear said...

BTW, the Norwegian SDA study was from 1960-1977, before the current epidemic of "low fat" foods.

Charles Grashow said...

@Don


In Aug 2012 he posted a video which showed results from 4/5/09 and 5/17/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUfwi6-UuAM

4/5/09

Triglycerides = 0.6 mmol/l = 53.14438 mg/dl

TC = 3.5 mmol/l = 135.34416 mg/dl

HDL = 1.3 mmol/l = 50.27069 mg/dl

LDL (Calculated) = 1.9 mmol/l = 73.47254 mg/dl

5/17/2011

Triglycerides = 0.7 mmol/l = 62.00177 mg/dl

TC = 4.8 mmol/l = 185.61485 mg/dl

HDL = 1.5 mmol/l = 58.00464 mg/dl

LDL (Calculated)= 3 mmol/l = 116.00928 mg/dl



From 4/5/09 to 5/17/2011 his LDL INCREASED from 73 to 116 and his TC INCREASED from 135 to 185

SO - Don - tell me why this is a good thing

Charles Grashow said...

Slight correction - first blood test was done on 5/4/09 not 5/4/09

So Harley Johnstone aka Durianrider is getting unhealthy and is now at risk of a heart attack on his LFHC raw fruit diet!! OMG

Charles Grashow said...

@Jack LaBear

"The countries with the longest life expectancies all include substantial animal food in the diet."

not necessarily

http://fanaticcook.blogspot.com/2010/07/traditional-okinawan-diet-sweet.html

This was their diet in 1949

When 85% of your calories are coming from carbohydrates, it leaves very little for the other 2 macronutrients, fat and protein. Indeed, a diet that gets about 10% of its calories from fat, a la Dean Ornish, would have been considered lavish here. This diet racked up a mere 6% of calories from fat.

Fish, which I assumed would have constituted a fair portion of their diet, didn't. At 1% of total calories, it's about one 3-ounce serving of fish a week. And meat (including poultry) was considerably less, perhaps one small serving a month. One egg every 2 months.

Added oils, at 2% of total calories, works out to about 36 calories. That's less than a teaspoon a day.

The bulk of the diet came from those 849 grams of sweet potatoes, about 4.5 cups a day! Rice (the article mentioned that Japanese rice half a century ago was not polished and likely included bran and germ) was consumed at about 1 cup/day. That was considerably less than the rest of Japan at the time.

Theirs was a very low-fat, low-protein, just about vegan, diet with very few processed grains and oils.


http://okicent.org/docs/anyas_cr_diet_2007_1114_434s.pdf

Caloric Restriction, the Traditional Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging

The Diet of the World’s Longest-Lived Peopleand Its Potential Impact on Morbidity and Life Span


"The older cohort of Okinawans (aged 65-plus) is remarkable in many ways. Of particular interest is that they possess among the highest functional capacity and the longest survival in Japan, the country with world’s longest-lived population. Life expectancy at birth for the year 2000 was 86.0 years for Okinawan women and 77.6 years for Okinawan men, respectively. Life expectancy for
the septuagenarian cohort (life expectancy at age 65) is the highest in Japan, and possibly the world, at 24.1 years for females and 18.5 years for males, respectively.40 This compares to 22.5 years and 17.6 years for the same birth cohort in mainland Japan and 19.3 years and 16.2 years for the corresponding U.S. birth cohort of females and males, respectively.41

FIGURE 4 displays survival curves for Okinawan, Japanese, and
U.S. populations for the year 1995. These data show increases in both average and maximum life span in the Okinawan population compared to Japanese and American populations, consistent with CR. Average life span and maximum life span in the Okinawan, Japanese, and U.S. populations was 83.8 and 104.9 years, 82.3 and 101.1 years, and 78.9 and 101.3 years, respectively.
These data are based on a conservative survival model (LIFEREG Procedure) and differences are even greater in maximum life span between Okinawans and Japanese and/or Americans using a Weibull survival model (data not shown)."

So - it could be genetics, CR due to the war or something else.

Peter said...

@Jack

People in Western countries have access to well sanitized loo's and antiobiotics. A factor which explains the high life-span. The life expectancy of Westerners is high but it's usually filled with sickness and suffering during the last decades of the life-span.

as HL wrote:

"Iceland experienced a 66% decline in coronary heart disease mortality between 1981 and 2006, for which the decline in serum cholesterol largely explained by a decreased intake of saturated animal fat intake was attributed to 32% of this decline. This makes it extremely difficult to hypothesise that animal food intake promotes longevity".

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2980472/

Analysing the Large Decline in Coronary Heart Disease Mortality in the Icelandic Population Aged 25-74 between the Years 1981 and 2006


"the supply of margarines made from hydrogenated fats and used for cooking and baking, has plummeted by 73% (from 11.7 kg/person/year to 3.2 kg/person/year), the largest drop occurring in the 1990s, when the most significant drop in cholesterol was also seen."

"In contrast, statins played a relatively small role in lipid lowering at the population level for middle aged Icelanders up until 2006."

healthy-longevity said...

@Charles

In regards to the paper you cited about the Icelandic population, the authors also stated that “between 1980 and 2006 there was a 73% drop in whole milk and dairy consumption (from 238 kg/person/year to 64 kg/person/year)”. This 174kg decrease in dairy intake as well as a decrease in fatty meat intake would have contributed more to the drop in cholesterol over the total period than the 8.5kg decrease in partially hydrogenated margarine intake. Furthermore there was a large decline in the heart attack rate prior the 1990s, before the large decrease in partially hydrogenated margarine intake and the wide availability of statins.

In Finland which had the highest rate of coronary heart disease mortality in the world, industrial trans-fat was always low, with the majority of trans-fat being derived from ruminant sources. Finland experienced the most rapid decline of coronary mortality in the world, which was predominantly explained by a significant decline in serum cholesterol as the result of a large reduction in saturated animal fat, primarily from dairy.

It is interesting how you seem to find it difficult to downplay the 1925 paper we cited regarding the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen. Perhaps it would be even more difficult to downplay findings of disease in pre-contact Inuit/Eskimo.

In 1940, based on years of clinical practice and reviewing medical reports, Bertelsen who is considered the father of Greenland epidemiology stated in regards to the mortality patterns amongst the Greenland Inuit that:17
...arteriosclerosis and degeneration of the myocardium are quite common conditions among the Inuit, in particular considering the low mean age of the population.

In 1904, Bertelsen proved the existence of cancer in the native Inuit, diagnosing a case of breast cancer. During the following decades researchers documented that the existence of cancer was exceedingly common among the Inuit despite their relatively short life expectancy.18 Consistent with Bertelsen’s findings, an Inuit predating western contact who was mummified in approximately 1475, 450km north of the Arctic Circle was shown to have evidence of cancer, likely of the breast.19 It has also been documented that numerous preserved pre-contact Inuit who were mummified dating all the way back to 1,500 years ago had a severe degree of atherosclerosis, osteoporosis, and osteoarthritis, consistent with studies of Inuit living in the 20th century.20 21 22 23 Other evidence of poor health among the pre-contact Inuit includes iron deficiency anemia, trauma, infection, dental pathology, and children with downs syndrome and Perthes disease.24 25

Charles Grashow said...

@Healthy-Longevity


http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2012nl/sep/120900.pdf


An Independent Critique of Low-carb Diets: The Diet Wars Continue

I am Travis (full identity withheld*) and my background is a concerned person who is passionate about the scientific literature. I have been in search for truth about diet, health, and longevity for the past five years. As with most people, I once believed that progressive physical dysfunction and illness were processes of natural aging, and that my genes would decide my fate. However, I have uncovered convincing evidence to the contrary: many long-lived populations remain fully functional and active until very late in life. Their diets are all similar: high in plant foods, and low in animal foods. I want to be one of these people.

During my journey to enlightenment on proper nutrition, I also identified a few individuals working hard to sabotage the truth. Their beliefs are recognized by names, such as, low-carb diet, Paleo, Primal, and Atkins. When these ideas win, people and the planet Earth suffer. One of the major efforts of believers in low-carb (high animal-food) diets has been to try to discredit respected scientists and their works. For example, Denise Minger, has spent the past several years trying to harm the reputation of T. Colin Campbell, PhD. Her writings distort the science, laying traps for death and disease for the general public that listens and follows. I have carefully read and analyzed the original science. My work has documented her inaccuracies and omissions, as well as untruths spread by many others in the low-carb camp.

Please consider my findings and conclusions in this first critique in a series to be published in the upcoming months in the McDougall Newsletter. If you judge my writings worthy, please share them with others. Also send questions directly to me at healthy.longevity@live.com. Your comments will also be published and questions answered in upcoming McDougall Newsletters.

*I have chosen to withhold my full identity for the time being because of my concern for my personal safety. Large amounts of money will be at jeopardy, as the truth becomes known.


I never knew you were such a comedian

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

@Charles,

you are done. Move on. You are not being smart.

When you have nothing constructive to say about the issue at hand besides making idiotic nonsense remarks and copypasting stuff you have no clue about, it's the time to retire.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter Explain this about Harley Johnstone aka durianrider aka 30 bananas a day

In Aug 2012 he posted a video which showed blood test results from 5/4/09 and 5/17/11

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zUfwi6-UuAM

5/4/09

Triglycerides = 0.6 mmol/l = 53.14438 mg/dl

TC = 3.5 mmol/l = 135.34416 mg/dl

HDL = 1.3 mmol/l = 50.27069 mg/dl

LDL (Calculated) = 1.9 mmol/l = 73.47254 mg/dl

5/17/2011

Triglycerides = 0.7 mmol/l = 62.00177 mg/dl

TC = 4.8 mmol/l = 185.61485 mg/dl

HDL = 1.5 mmol/l = 58.00464 mg/dl

LDL (Calculated)= 3 mmol/l = 116.00928 mg/dl



From 4/5/09 to 5/17/2011 his LDL INCREASED from 73 to 116 and his TC INCREASED from 135 to 185

How is this possible on a high carb low fat raw diet ala Dr Douglas Graham's 80-10-10??

As to you snarky comment - how come you will not post your academic credentials??

Charles Grashow said...

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=416105#ira05004f4

Statins and All-Cause Mortality in High-Risk Primary Prevention

A Meta-analysis of 11 Randomized Controlled Trials Involving 65 229 Participants

"This literature-based meta-analysis (including previously unpublished tabular data) of 11 clinical trials involving 65 229 participants with approximately 244 000 person-years of follow-up and 2793 deaths provides more reliable evidence than previously available on the impact of statin therapy on all-cause mortality among high-risk individuals without prior CVD. These data indicate that over an average treatment period of 3.7 years, the use of statin therapy did not result in reduction in all-cause mortality with no strong evidence of statistical heterogeneity across studies that varied considerably with respect to participant characteristics and mean baseline LDL-C levels. Within this combined high-risk dataset with a mean placebo mortality rate of 11.4 per 1000 person-years, there were on average an estimated 7 fewer deaths for every 10 000 person-years of treatment."

"However, in contrast to the reported strong correlation between reductions in LDL-C levels and the reduction in fatal and nonfatal cardiovascular events combined in the aggregate primary and secondary prevention dataset of the CTT meta-analysis, we failed to observe any statistically significant correlation between on-treatment difference in LDL-C levels and the relative reduction in all-cause mortality."


"The findings of our meta-analysis on statins should also be considered in the light of similar data for fibrates, which principally lower triglyceride levels. In this regard, a previous meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials showed that despite a significant reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction, all-cause mortality was approximately 7% higher (hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.99-1.15) among individuals randomized to a fibrate"

"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. Current prevention guidelines endorse statin therapy for subjects at high global risk of incident CVD as a means to reduce fatal and nonfatal vascular events. Due consideration is needed in applying statin therapy in lower-risk primary prevention populations."

Charles Grashow said...

A blast from the past

http://www.thelivinlowcarbshow.com/shownotes/4381/491-ditch-low-carb-and-starches-with-durianrider-and-don-matesz/

Harley ‘DurianRider’ Johnstone From ’30 Bananas A Day’ And ‘Primal Wisdom’ Blogger Don Matesz

Then in the second interview, we’ll hear from former Paleo diet advocate Don Matesz from the “Primal Wisdom” blog who explains why he has decided to drift away from a meat-based, controlled carbohydrate diet towards one heavily featuring potatoes and rice. You’ve wanted to hear from him ever since he wrote that infamous “Farewell to ‘Paleo’” blog post a few months back and now we have him for you in this exclusive interview. This is certainly a fascinating episode that curious minds won’t want to miss!

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

"@Peter Explain this about Harley Johnstone aka durianrider aka 30 bananas a day"

Charles, are you a very young person, or are you diagnosed with having very low IQ, and thus being partially retarded? No problem if the latter is true, it would just explain a lot.

Why do keep asking stuff I have already explained in this thread? And, please answer me one this? You are wasting everybody's time by being a nuisance.

As already said, not only animal products causes elevated cholesterol. Cholesterol can be elevated in low-fiber context independent of animal products.

You can learn more about this in Greger's video

How Fiber Lowers Cholesterol
http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-fiber-lowers-cholesterol/

Now, Durianrider lives largely on smoothies, perhaps all the protective properties of fiber is lost due to this processing. Moreover, Esselstyn speculates that excessive fruit intake may cause hard times for livers cholesterol cleansing system (he has more elaborated explanation for this). I've read his book but I do not have it at the moment. I cannot recall did he refer to the literature on this one. Anyways, Durianriders 3000kals date smoothies sounds pretty excessive.

In regards to your statin post, didn't I already ask you not to post nonsense you have no clue about? It's hard to show difference in total mortality when your sample size is small. You need a very big sample to show difference in total mortality and thus the study must be designed to do so. The average age of statin-theraphy participant is already 63 years, people would gain much bigger benefits if the theraphy would be initiated at younger age. Moreover, initiating statin theraphy at the primary preventing phase has been a controversial topic, atleast prior to Oxford study published this may.

Give statins to all over-50s: Even the healthy should take heart drug, says British expert
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2194892/All-50s-statins-regardless-health-history-says-Oxford-professor.html

Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators. The effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy in people at low risk of vascular disease: meta-analysis of individual data from 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2012;380:581–90.

We got also a new statin meta-analysis on women this year (2012). So, Anthony Colpo and other denialist pretty much signed their own expiration date this year.

Statins reduce cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality in women: Meta-analysis
http://www.theheart.org/article/1347045.do

Since your next retarded question will be "will you start to take statins now", I am pre-emptive. No, I don't start to take statins now, or when I am over 50, why? Since the "all" has an important disclaimer.

Evaluating lipid-lowering trials in the twenty-first century.

“…Only pure vegetarians for practical purposes do not need statins, most of the rest of us do”

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19406281

The above can be slightly misleading and should be in the form "Only pure whole-food vegans do not need statins". Incase your diet is based on 1000-2000kals date/banana smoothies you may be in the need of statins in later life. Smoothies are not fiber-rich whole-foods and may cause a burden for the liver.

Peter said...

@Charles,

My lipidpanel, from today.

TC Cholesterol 3,2mmol/l (123mg/dl)

LDL: 1,8mmol/l (69,6md/dl)
HDL: 1,07mmol/ (41,37mg/dl)
Trig: 0,7mmol/l (27mg/dl)

Blood-sugar: 5,2mmol/l.

D-vitamin status really good without supplementation, I consider this excellent since I live in really Northern latitude, and summer has been very poor for us this year.

Context, whole-food based, high starch vegan diet.

Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

Charles, are you a very young person, or are you diagnosed with having very low IQ, and thus being partially retarded? No problem if the latter is true, it would just explain a lot.

Why do you feel the need to insult people who disagree with you?

BTW - how old are you?

gunther gatherer said...

Peter,

Charles may or may not be any of the things you say, but he certainly is in trolling territory now. He's not reading any of the responses here from either you or Don and he's only pasting huge articles he himself doesn't even seem to read.

He doesn't seem interested in discussion, just in confusing and derailing any other discussions we could be having on this blog. That goes for Jimmy and Jack and anyone else with lots of time on their hands to hate on other bloggers with no pretext.

Peter said...

@Charles,

Sorry Chuck, I had bad temper for having to had wake up at 5am.

but consider that I may have had a point, as Gunther indicated.

Charles Grashow said...

@gunther gatherer

So let me get this straight. If I post studies which go against the prevailing wisdom on this blog - that LDL-C below 70 mg/dL is cardio protective and that the use of statin drugs should be given to everyone over the age of 50 in a study that Peter linked to - then that makes me a troll?

What about people like you and peter and healthy longevity who DISMISS ANY STUDY that goes against their position? Does that make you trolls?

healthy-longevity said...

@Charles

When I suggest that your interpretation of certain studies is misleading and not in line with the preponderance of evidence, I try to provide high quality references which demonstrate such.

For example, in regards to the last study you cited, “Statins and All-Cause Mortality in High-Risk Primary Prevention”, the author’s interpretation of the data set was heavily criticised due to lack of acknowledgement of the short length of follow-up which nevertheless produced a near significant association for all-cause mortality for the intervention arm (0.83-1.01). Here is a sample from some of the responses to this study:

“In summarizing the Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) study, the authors calculated a risk ratio of 0.98, while the original publication reported a risk ratio of 0.87. This change alone may have biased against finding a statistically significant benefit for statin use. Moreover, their meta-analysis included 3 studies with major limitations: a significant decrement in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels over the study period in the placebo arm…”

“A matter that Ray et al insufficiently address is the effect of statins on nonfatal cardiovascular events in primary prevention. We, as well as others, have shown that these are considerable. Rates of myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularizations are all typically reduced by at least 30%. It is hard to imagine that the reduction in such critical clinical events would have no influence on the final outcome with longer follow-up.”

“As an exercise, we extracted data on cardiovascular mortality in patients randomized from the single studies included in this meta-analysis. Afterwards, following the same methodology use by Ray et al, we pooled the results using the random effect model and we calculated the risk ratio of cardiovascular mortality in patients randomized to either statin therapy or control arm. There were 660 cardiovascular death in patients randomized to statins and 744 cardiovascular deaths in patients randomized to the control arm, and the use of statins was associated with a significant reduction in cardiovascular mortality (risk ratio, 0.89; 95% confidence interval, 0.80-0.99; P=.03), without heterogeneity among the studies”

http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1106190
http://archinte.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1106192

Perhaps you would be taken more seriously if you refrained from your irrelevant cut and paste posts, and resorting to pathetic tactics such as insisting that vegetarians are evil simply because individuals like Hitler consumed less meat than the average population. You especially appear to resort to these sorts of tactics when you find it difficult to downplay a study, which appears to have been the case in your reply to my last post.

Jack LaBear said...

Peter wrote:

"Moreover, In my opinion the Sarah-Palin creationist -crew do not pay enough attention...."

Peter is up to ad-hominem again.
Do you really want to get me started again, Peter?
You are revealing yourself not only as an intelectual midget, but also as a vagin (vegan-feminist) mangina.

Why Women Bash Sarah Palin

"Women bash Sarah Palin because she has shattered the farce of the glass ceiling, and now there’s no place for them to hide. Sarah Palin is living proof that women derive their power through guts, brains, raw talent, and achievement — as true equals to men — not through victimhood. Moreover, Sarah Palin has achieved success while expressing love and admiration for her husband, anathema to the misandrist underpinning of fascistic feminism.

Sarah Palin has exposed the truth about feminism, which has for decades kept women dysfunctionally addicted to victimhood and viciously cast men as their enemies.

"Ever since Alaska governor Sarah Palin stepped onto the world stage as John McCain’s vice-presidential running mate, she’s been the object of merciless, vicious attacks — mostly by women. This intragender war marks the official unmasking of fascist feminism.... Women have amassed such unequal power since getting the right to vote in 1920 that they will destroy anyone attempting to remove said power or expose its fraud. Sarah Palin is guilty of the latter: she rose from hockey mom to state governor without affirmative action, whining about Alaska’s 10:1 male-to-female ratio, or complaining about glass ceilings. In other words, Palin proved publicly that women can succeed without being victims. That was her error: she violated the NOW playbook, has undermined NOW’s fascist power, and is experiencing the consequences....
Instead of disempoweringly “pursuing” equality through whining and lobbying, women, who already enjoy more rights and privileges than men, can emulate Sarah Palin to demonstrate it. Will they?"

http://thenononsenseman.com/article/2008/09/08/why-women-bash-sarah-palin-by-marc-h-rudov/

Jack LaBear said...

Don said...
"
"A lack of certain nutraceutical animal foods results in other kinds of stresses, potentially fatal without 21th [sic] century supplementation."

Then we should find early mortality prevalent among Seventh Day Adventists, a majority of whom are vegetarians. Let's see:..."

Me:
Don, "a majority of whom are vegetarians", in other words, they ate animal food.

Don wrote:
"Jack,
You wrote:

"A lack of certain nutraceutical plant foods results in increased oxidative stress. A lack of certain nutraceutical animal foods results in other kinds of stresses, potentially fatal without 21th [sic] century supplementation."

What? Now you are saying the Mongolians are lacking important plant foods?"

Me:
Yes, I have repeatedly said that while certain plant foods have nutraceutical properties, that is not a reason to eschew nutraceutical animal foods.

Don: "If by "nutraceutical" animal foods you mean liver or brains, the Mongolian diet has it. Watch the videos. You are grasping at straws.

"Regarding Mongolian hand grip strength, have you forgotten Ghengis Khan?"

What? Get a grip. This study showed that Mongolians lose grip strength as they age, and you think the fact that Ghengis Khan was a vicious conquerer disproves the finding? I didn't forget anything, I cited research and you respond with a romantic allusion to a Mongol warrior. LMAO."

Me:
The Mongolians may eat liver and brains, I don't know. I have repeatedly pointed out that health optimization involves consumption of all available nutraceutical rich foods, both plant and animal.

Yes all people lose strength as they age, so what?
I was pointing out that there were plenty of strong Mongolians eating their traditional diet 800 years ago.

Don:
"BTW that would be 21st century, not 21th century."

Me:
Now you're grasping at staws, Don.

Peter said...

@Charles,

sorry I calculated my Trigs wrong, we use another standards here.

My trigs are 62mg/dl
LDL 69.6mg/dl
HDL: 41.37mg/dl
TC cholesterol 123.74 mg/dl

Jack LaBear said...

New Dutch Studies Shows Death Inversly Associated With Dairy Consumption


"...full-fat fermented dairy products -- including yogurt, sour cream and a type of fresh cheese called quark -- were linked to a small decrease in death risk for both men and women.

For each 100 milliliter increase per day (a little more than three ounces), the risk dipped by about eight percent."


Results: Multivariate survival analyses following a case-cohort approach showed only a few statistically significant, but mostly weak, associations. A slightly increased risk of all-cause and IHD mortality was found for both butter and dairy fat intake (per 10 g/d; rate ratiomortality: 1.04; 95% CI: 1.01, 1.06) only in women. Fermented full-fat milk was inversely associated with all-cause and nonsignificantly with stroke mortality in both sexes."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/93/3/615.abstract
"...full-fat fermented dairy products -- including yogurt, sour cream and a type of fresh cheese called quark -- were linked to a small decrease in death risk for both men and women.

For each 100 milliliter increase per day (a little more than three ounces), the risk dipped by about eight percent.

Jack LaBear said...

Total Cholesterol Inversely Related to All Cause Mortality

Finland has been cited recently as showing high cholesterol to be bad.
Not.

"Results. In an age- and sex-adjusted analysis, participants with S-TC > or = 6mmol/l had the lowest risk of death (hazard ratio, HR = 0.48, 95% CI 0.33-0.70) compared with those with S-TC < 5 mmol/l. HR of death for a 1 mmol increase in S-TC was 0.78. In multivariate analyses, the HR of death for a 1 mmol increase in S-TC was 0.82 and using S-TC < 5 mmol/l as a reference, the HR of death for S-TC > or = 6 mmol/l was 0.59 (95% CI 0.39-0.89) and for S-TC 5.0-5.9 mmol/l, the HR was 0.62 (95% CI 0.42-0.93). In a PS-adjusted model using S-TC < 5 mmol/l as a reference, the HR of death for S-TC > or = 6 mmol/l was 0.42 (95% CI 0.28-0.62) and for S-TC 5.0-5.9 mmol/l, the HR was 0.57 (95% CI 0.38-0.84). Conclusions. Participants with low serum total cholesterol seem to have a lower survival rate than participants with an elevated cholesterol level, irrespective of concomitant diseases or health status."

Full text:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3442317/

Jack LaBear said...

Lack of association between cholesterol and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity and all-cause mortality in persons older than 70 years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7772105

"RESULTS:

Elevated total serum cholesterol level, low HDL-C, and high total serum cholesterol to HDL-C ratio were not associated with a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors."

Jack LaBear said...

Guess at what age range the vast majority of people who die of CVD do so?

The CVD mortality vs LDL studies cited by the vegan apologists is of limited value because the data is on people who are unlikely to die of CVD anyway.

From the Framingham study:

"Total serum cholesterol levels and mortality risk as a function of age. A report based on the Framingham data."

"RESULTS:
The relationship between total cholesterol level and all-cause mortality was positive (ie, higher cholesterol level associated with higher mortality) at age 40 years, negative at age 80 years, and negligible at ages 50 to 70 years."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8481074

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.neurology.org/content/64/10/1689.short

High total cholesterol levels in late life associated with a reduced risk of dementia

Conclusions: High cholesterol in late life was associated with decreased dementia risk, which is in contrast to previous studies suggesting high cholesterol in mid-life is a risk factor for later dementia. The conflicting results may be explained by the timing of the cholesterol measurements in relationship to age and the clinical onset of dementia.

http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/97/18/1837.long

Prediction of Coronary Heart Disease Using Risk Factor Categories

A study that considered CHD prediction using TC, LDL-C, TC/HDL-C ratio, and LDL-C/HDL-C ratio concluded that “total cholesterol/HDL is a superior measure of risk for CHD compared with either total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol, and that current practice guidelines could be more efficient if risk stratification was based on this ratio rather than primarily on the LDL cholesterol level.”


http://ukpmc.ac.uk/abstract/MED/7944071

Cholesterol and coronary heart disease: predicting risks by levels and ratios. (PMID:7944071)

CONCLUSIONS: The total cholesterol/HDL ratio is a superior measure of risk for coronary heart disease compared with either total cholesterol or LDL cholesterol levels. Current practice guidelines could be more efficient if risk stratification was based on this ratio rather than primarily on the LDL cholesterol level.

Jack LaBear said...

The Oxidative Stress of Hyperhomocysteinemia Results from Reduced
Bioavailability of Sulfur-Containing Reductants

Yves Ingenbleek*
Laboratory of Nutrition, Faculty of Pharmacy, University Louis Pasteur Strasbourg, France

Abstract: Vegetarian subjects consuming subnormal amounts of methionine (Met) are characterized by subclinical pro-
tein malnutrition causing reduction in size of their lean body mass (LBM) best identified by the serial measurement of
plasma transthyretin (TTR). As a result, the transsulfuration pathway is depressed at cystathionine- -synthase (C S) level
triggering the upstream sequestration of homocysteine (Hcy) in biological fluids and promoting its conversion to Met.
Maintenance of beneficial Met homeostasis is counterpoised by the drop of cysteine (Cys) and glutathione (GSH) values
downstream to C S causing in turn declining generation of hydrogen sulfide (H2S) from enzymatic sources. The biogene-
sis of H2S via non-enzymatic reduction is further inhibited in areas where earth’s crust is depleted in elemental sulfur (S8)
and sulfate oxyanions. Combination of subclinical malnutrition and S8-deficiency thus maximizes the defective produc-
tion of Cys, GSH and H2S reductants, explaining persistence of unabated oxidative burden. The clinical entity increases
the risk of developing cardiovascular diseases (CVD) and stroke in underprivileged plant-eating populations regardless of
Framingham criteria and vitamin-B status. Although unrecognized up to now, the nutritional disorder is one of the com-
monest worldwide, reaching top prevalence in populated regions of Southeastern Asia. Increased risk of hyperhomocys-
teinemia and oxidative stress may also affect individuals suffering from intestinal malabsorption or westernized communi-
ties having adopted vegan dietary lifestyles."

Full text:
http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocchemj/articles/V004/34TOCCHEMJ.pdf

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

O'Keefe & Cordain 2004

"Thus, although an LDL level of 50 to 70 mg/dl seems excessively low by modern American standards, it is precisely the normal range for individuals living the lifestyle and eating the diet for which we are genetically adapted".

I am so happy I have physiological LDL. it didn't come free. I worked for it :) Healthy apes in nature have their LDL around 40 to 80 mg/dl, mine is 69.5mg/dl.

"Evidence from hunter-gatherer populations while they were still following their indigenous lifestyles showed no evidence for atherosclerosis, even in individuals living into the seventh and eighth decades of life (15- 16). These populations had total cholesterol levels of 100 to 150 mg/dl with estimated LDL cholesterol levels of about 50 to 75 mg/dl. The LDL levels of healthy neonates are even today in the 30 to 70 mg/dl range. Healthy, wild, adult primates show LDL levels of approximately 40 to 80 mg/dl (17). In fact, modern humans are the only adult mammals, excluding some domesticated animals, with a mean LDL level over 80 mg/dl and a total cholesterol over 160 mg/dl (15- 16) (Figure 1)".

Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease: the Cornell China Study
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0002914998007188

Peter said...

From the O'Keefe paper.

"Although individuals with serious chronic illnesses, such as cancer, often develop depressed LDL levels as a result of malnutrition, epidemiologic studies show that people with naturally low LDL levels are associated with improved longevity (27). The cumulative experience with statin therapy shows impressive cardiovascular benefits that are directly proportional to LDL lowering with no increase in adverse events such as malignancy or non-cardiovascular mortality"

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

Charles,

get a physiologic LDL levels and you don't have to worry too much about other risk factors.

Peter said...

I am on the Charles -mode now.

O'Keefe (2004)

"People with heterozygous hypobetalipoproteinemia have total cholesterol levels as low as 80 mg/dl and LDL cholesterol levels as low as 30 mg/dl (30). This condition is associated with longevity (31), presumably due to the absence of atherosclerosis, but the lack of other adverse effects that might have accompanied a low LDL level suggests that such low levels of LDL are safe".

"Inflammation and endothelial dysfunction, both important markers of abnormal vascular biology, have been shown to be improved as LDL is lowered to <80 mg/dl (12,24). Statin therapy has been associated with reductions in the incidence of symptomatic peripheral vascular disease (32), stroke (33), dementia (34), macular degeneration (35), aortic stenosis (36), and osteoporosis-related hip and vertebral fractures (37). Although the mechanisms responsible for these benefits are not known, it is possible that an elevated LDL cholesterol level may be a common denominator predisposing to a wide variety of chronic degenerative diseases seen in modern civilization. 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"

Don said...

For whatever this is worth, I have not been eating smoothies as a main food in this experiment with a fruit-based diet. On most days I am eating whole fruits and vegetables and don't use a blender. Yesterday's diet analysis found I consumed 99 g of fiber from whole fruits, vegetables, and nuts. It is actually more fiber than I consumed on most days on a grain-based vegan diet. But this is just an experiment, just to see what happens to me when I eat very close to 100 percent raw whole plant foods.

Its my experiment in eating like other primates, a very primal (i.e. basic) diet.

And before you go on about how chimpanzees eat meat, you might want to read The Chimpanzees of Gombe by Jane Goodall, wherein you will learn that not all chimps eat meat, that those that do don't even do it every month, that they often spit the meat out after long chewing, that you can find undigested meat in the stools of chimps after their meat binges, showing that they have difficulty digesting it, and that their insect collection is sporadic (again, not even every month does it occur) and incredibly inefficient from a nutritional perspective, sometimes spending an hour or more fishing for termites even when getting "only a few termites every ten minutes."p. 258. For the record, a soldier termite (preferred by chimps) weighs 20 to 25 milligrams . (A whole hour of collecting at the rate Goodall observed would yield perhaps 18 kcal worth of termites, a pittance.)

Goodall writes (p. 298): "During the year when chimpanzee feces were regularly examined, we could tell immediately when chimpanzees had been eating meat, as the sample were full of hair, bones, even lumps of flesh. One sample yielded a monkey finger, another an ear, and a third an incredible five inches of tail, bone, and all! One morning, after Mike had been eating bushbuck meat, he picked pieces of flesh out of his own dung and ate them.” They have so much difficulty digesting raw flesh that you can find it undigested in their stools. That gives you an idea how much nutritional value chimps get from their raw meat-eating binges.

The fact that those chimps who do "hunt" often "hunt" monkeys, who happen to be competitors for the chimps main foods (fruits), and that this behavior has increased as their range has shrunk from encroachment, also indicates that their "hunting" is probably more about protecting resources from competitors than obtaining meat.

Anyway, my experiment aside, like McDougall, Campbell, et al, I think most people will prefer and thrive on a starch-based diet consisting primarily of whole plant foods with a mix of cooked and raw vegetables and fruits, as commonly consumed throughout rural Asia, where obesity and chronic disease rates are very, very low.

Jack LaBear said...

Hi Peter,

You seem to have answered the question about your age.

Between the ages of 25-34, your chances of dying of CVD are 0.01% per year.


You are in grave danger Peter.
Better make some radical changes to your diet. Take a statin while you are at it!

Myself, I'm over 50.

From the Framingham study:

"The relationship between total cholesterol level and all-cause mortality was ... negative at age 80 years, and negligible at ages 50 to 70 years."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8481074

Jack LaBear said...

Reference for age vs CVD mortality data above:

http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/hus/hus11.pdf#030

Charles Grashow said...

@Don

"For whatever this is worth, I have not been eating smoothies as a main food in this experiment with a fruit-based diet. On most days I am eating whole fruits and vegetables and don't use a blender."

So - you are no longer doing this

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

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-SPhxZlNFbBA/UD7vDs2k3zI/AAAAAAAABbs/ysVbBR49fh0/s1600/IMGP1137.JPG

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-izK9KPJ5SBI/UD7vKunOZRI/AAAAAAAABb0/AmKIX_dujRE/s1600/IMGP1138.JPG

Jack LaBear said...


Whey proteins have been reported to have … effects on bone, muscle, blood, brain, pancreas, immune, cancer, infection, metabolism, wound healing, learning, and aging (Fig. 2).

A whey protein diet inhibited the development of dimethylhydrazine-induced malignancy in mice [5], enhanced liver and heart glutathione concentrations in aging mice and increased longevity [6], …

Whey proteins have insulinotropic effects and reduce the postprandial glycemia in healthy subjects, and Type 2 diabetic patients [13].

A whey protein concentrate reduced the severity of rotavirus-induced diarrhea in a mice model [14]. …

Milk whey protein, including its basic protein fraction (milk basic protein [MBP]), promotes bone formation and suppresses bone resorption in healthy adult woman and men [8]. …

whey proteins bind specific minerals including calcium, magnesium, zinc, iron, sodium and potassium, and are viewed as a new generation of super foods [15].

Full text:
http://www.jacn.org/content/26/6/713S.full

Peter said...

Sounds good Don.

Keep us updated on your blood-work/lipid-panel after the experiment.

@Jack,

hasn't this been pointed millions of times. Correlation does not equal causation. Cholesterol is terminally lowered in elderly people due to decreased absoprtion and decreased cholesterol synthesis, which starts to take place while overall health starts to detoriate. These people often have a huge atherosclerotic burden due to lifetime of high LDL, but it's does not show if LDL is measured at the end of the life-span, in other words it's completely reasonable that many die with "low cholesterol". You could rant about this same nonsense and show that low-blood pressure and low-BMI is both associated with increased all-cause mortality. This is does not mean that you would not benefit from LDL-lowering theraphy even though you are over 50. What the hell is so difficult to understand this?

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

The medical community is starting to push physiological LDL -levels for the mainstream population.

LDL cholesterol: the lower the better (2012)

"High cholesterol is often a prerequisite for atherosclerotic plaque. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) is the focus of the National Cholesterol Education Program Adult Treatment Panel guidelines. LDL-C ranges from 50 to 70 mg/dL in native hunter-gatherers, healthy human neonates, free-living primates, and other wild mammals, who are notably free of atherosclerotic vascular disease. Multiple statin trials and meta-analyses support a treatment target of LDL-C levels less than 70 mg/dL, as this is associated with improved clinical outcomes and atherosclerosis regression. In fact, no threshold has yet been identified below which patients do not benefit from lowering of LDL-C".

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22391248

Jack LaBear said...

Don wrote:

"One morning, after Mike had been eating bushbuck meat, he picked pieces of flesh out of his own dung and ate them.”

That gives you an idea how much chimps value the nutrition they get from their raw meat-eating binges.

Eating termites:

People have eaten termites in many cultures. Africa in particular seems to be the centre of termite eating. The alates have been so important a component in the diet of native African populations that most relevant authors remarked on the fact. Different tribes had different methods of collecting or even cultivating the insects, but most of them favoured the alates, though some also collected the soldiers of some species. Queens are harder come by, but are widely regarded as a delicacy when available.

Bodenheimer, F.S. Insects as Human Food. Pub: W. Junk 1951

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KnOovZTmT_Y

Insectivory of savanna chimpanzees (Pan troglodytes verus) at Fongoli, Senegal.

"Little is known about the behavior of chimpanzees living in savanna-woodlands, although they are of particular interest to anthropologists for the insight they can provide regarding the ecological pressures affecting early hominins living in similar habitats. ... Previously, indirect evidence suggested these chimpanzees consumed termites throughout the year, an unusual occurrence for western and eastern chimpanzees. Although meat eating by chimpanzees continues to receive much attention, their use of invertebrate prey has received less emphasis in scenarios of hominin evolution.
We suggest that savanna chimpanzees at Fongoli differ significantly from chimpanzees elsewhere as a result of the selective pressures characterizing their harsh environment, and this contrast provides an example of a viable referential model for better understanding human evolution. Specifically, our results support the hypotheses that invertebrate prey may have figured more prominently into the diet of early hominins in similar habitats, especially given that invertebrates are an important source of protein and other essential nutrients in a highly seasonal environment."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21484757

Jack LaBear said...

Peter said...

"@Jack,

hasn't this been pointed millions of times. Correlation does not equal causation. Cholesterol is terminally lowered in elderly people due to decreased absoprtion and decreased cholesterol synthesis, which starts to take place while overall health starts to detoriate. These people often have a huge atherosclerotic burden due to lifetime of high LDL, but it's does not show if LDL is measured at the end of the life-span, in other words it's completely reasonable that many die with "low cholesterol". You could rant about this same nonsense and show that low-blood pressure and low-BMI is both associated with increased all-cause mortality. This is does not mean that you would not benefit from LDL-lowering theraphy even though you are over 50. What the hell is so difficult to understand this?"

There is nothing difficult to understand about this at all.

Unfortunately, you are making a non-human primate of yourself.

What you are arguing is a possible reason why there might be a correlation between low cholesterol and mortality in the elderly.

That is not the point I have been making. I have been pointing out there is a lack of association between HIGH cholesterol and CV and all cause mortality in the elderly.

Apparently that is hard for you to understand.

Jack LaBear said...

Peter wrote:
"High cholesterol is often a prerequisite for atherosclerotic plaque."

How often, Peter?
Maybe <0.01% for people your age?

Those of us who have the intelligence, knowledge and experience to be able to process the data, unlike you, can see that the evidence is that HIGH cholesterol does not correlate with CVD or all cause mortality in people our age.


From the Framingham study:

"The relationship between total cholesterol level and all-cause mortality was ... negative at age 80 years, and negligible at ages 50 to 70 years."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8481074

Lack of association between cholesterol and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity and all-cause mortality in persons older than 70 years.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7772105

"RESULTS:

Elevated total serum cholesterol level, low HDL-C, and high total serum cholesterol to HDL-C ratio were not associated with a significantly higher rate of all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina after adjustment for cardiovascular risk factors."

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11502313

Lancet. 2001 Aug 4;358(9279):351-5.
Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study. Schatz IJ, Masaki K, Yano K, Chen R, Rodriguez BL, Curb JD.
Clinical Epidemiology and Geriatrics Division, Department of Medicine, John A Bums School of Medicine, University of Hawaii at Manoa, 1356 Lusitana Street, 7th Floor, Honolulu, HI 96813-2427, USA. schatzi@hawaii.edu

BACKGROUND: A generally held belief is that cholesterol concentrations should be kept low to lessen the risk of cardiovascular disease. However, studies of the relation between serum cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people have shown contrasting results. To investigate these discrepancies, we did a longitudinal assessment of changes in both lipid and serum cholesterol concentrations over 20 years, and compared them with mortality. METHODS: Lipid and serum cholesterol concentrations were measured in 3572 Japanese/American men (aged 71-93 years) as part of the Honolulu Heart Program. We compared changes in these concentrations over 20 years with all-cause mortality using three different Cox proportional hazards models. FINDINGS: Mean cholesterol fell significantly with increasing age. Age-adjusted mortality rates were 68.3, 48.9, 41.1, and 43.3 for the first to fourth quartiles of cholesterol concentrations, respectively. Relative risks for mortality were 0.72 (95% CI 0.60-0.87), 0.60 (0.49-0.74), and 0.65 (0.53-0.80), in the second, third, and fourth quartiles, respectively, with quartile 1 as reference. A Cox proportional hazard model assessed changes in cholesterol concentrations between examinations three and four. Only the group with low cholesterol concentration at both examinations had a significant association with mortality (risk ratio 1.64, 95% CI 1.13-2.36). INTERPRETATION: We have been unable to explain our results. These data cast doubt on the scientific justification for lowering cholesterol to very low concentrations (<4.65 mmol/L) in elderly people.

http://docnovak.com/novak%20articles/Article_27-10.%20Cholesterol%20and%20all%20cause%20Mortality%20in%20Elderly%20People.schatzC32.pdf


RESULTS
Higher cholesterol concentrations were associated with:

1) Higher body mass index [they were less frail]

2) Higher HDL [good] cholesterol

3) Higher hemoglobin

4) Better hand-grip strength

“Kaplan-Meier survival curves showed lowest survival rates for those with thelowest serum cholesterol concentrations.”

DISCUSSION
“Our data accord with previous findings of increased mortality in elderly people with low serum cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of low cholesterol concentration actually increases risk of death.”

“Thus, the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death.” “Our results lend support to previous findings that low serum cholesterol imparts a poor outlook when compared with higher concentrations of cholesterol in elderly people, our data also suggest that those individuals with a low serum cholesterol maintained over a 20-year period will have the worst outlook for all cause mortality.”

“Is this low/low effect unique to individuals of Japanese ethnic extraction? There is no evidence to support such a contention. Risk factors for atherosclerosis
in Japanese are much the same as those for whites.”

These authors believe that there is no scientific justification to lower cholesterol to concentrations below 4·65 mmol/L (180 mg/dL) in elderly people.

Jack LaBear said...

From the Memorial Sloan-Kettering cancer Institute:

Clinical Summary

Conjugated Linoleic Acid (CLA) is commonly found in diary products and beef. It has purported benefits for cancer prevention, weight control, and high cholesterol. Animal studies suggest that CLA may play a role in reducing tumor proliferation in certain cancer cell lines (2) (3) (4) and ameliorate inflammatory bowel disease (20).
Human studies of CLA for weight reduction are mixed: CLA showed a reduction in body fat mass in obese men (6) and body mass index (1). However, it had little effect on body composition in non-obese women (7) and healthy adults (8). In other studies, CLA supplementation derived from safflower oil resulted in insulin resistance (9), and reduction in glycemia and plasma leptin (1). CLA may affect total cholesterol levels (6) (9) (10) but does not significantly reduce proteolysis in muscles (10).
CLA improved airway hyper-reactivity in overweight individuals with mild asthma (21).

http://www.mskcc.org/cancer-care/herb/conjugated-linoleic-acid

Jack LaBear said...

Praise for the middleman from Cornell University, home of T. Colin Campbell:

Early research with the cis-9, trans-11 CLA isomer suggested that this compound was anticarcinogenic. Because cis-9, trans-11 CLA is the major CLA isomer found in ruminant fat, our group wanted to determine if the CLA in milk fat was active as an anticarcinogen. Using natural feed ingredients, we designed a diet that would enhance the cis-9, trans-11 CLA content of milk fat and collected the milk from cows at Cornell's Teaching an Research Farm. We then collaborated Dr. David Barbano and workers at Cornell's Food Science Department to produce butter. The result was a butter that had a CLA content eightfold greater than control butter. Bauman et al. detail specifics pertaining to the manufacture of this butter.

In collaboration with Dr. Clement Ip and researchers at the Roswell Park Cancer Institute (Buffalo, NY), the butter was used in a study of chemically-induced mammary carcinogenesis in rats. The CLA-enhanced butter was compared to a control butter and to a diet supplemented with chemically synthesized CLA. Both the CLA-enhanced butter and the chemically synthesized CLA were effective at reducing tumor formation. This study was among the first to show that a naturally occurring anticarcinogen, fed as a component of a naturally produced food was effective at reducing the development of mammary tumors in a biomedical cancer model.

Data from these and other studies have lead the National Academy of Sciences to state that "...CLA is the only fatty acid shown unequivocally to inhibit carcinogenesis in experimental animals."

http://web.archive.org/web/20060907102559/http://www.ansci.cornell.edu/bauman/human_health/index.htm

Peter said...

Low cholesterol, mortality, and quality of life in old age during a 39-year follow-up

"More dispute has arisen regarding the association of low cholesterol and mortality in elderly persons. For example, in the Honolulu Heart Program (5) low cholesterol was associated with greater mortality risk. Obvious explanations for the association are intervening factors that both increase mortality risk and decrease the cholesterol level. In the nine-year follow-up of the Helsinki Aging Study, mortality risk was associated with both lowered cholesterol synthesis and lowered cholesterol absorption (20), which reflect terminal decline and lead to lower serum cholesterol levels. These associations are not identified, and the relationship between cholesterol and mortality becomes distorted unless the follow-up is long enough"

http://content.onlinejacc.org/cgi/reprintframed/44/5/1002

Brian J. MacLean said...

Geez, this is confusing! The Vegan Warriors (Don and Peter) and the Grok Sweethearts (Charles and Jack) have me coming and going on what to munch on next. Just as I am thinking that Don and Peter have Charles and Jack in unbreakable sleeper locks, I start to break open a can of adzuki beans for a tasty vegan dinner (well, maybe not that tasty), the Grok Sweethearts somehow break free and deliver what looks like lethal body slams to the Vegan Warriors, as my jaw drops and I flush the adzukis down the toilet and grab a grass-fed bison filet mignon from the fridge. And then just as I am about to bite into my blood dripping prize from the hunt (the fridge hunt that is), the Vegan Warriors somehow recover and deliver a carefully orchestrated dual attack to the vitals of the Grok Sweethearts, and yes the Sweethearts are on the ropes, as I feel a sense of shame and revulsion at the pieces of charred carcass between my teeth (carnivorous or herbivore teeth, yet to be decided after the last round), and quickly spit out this poison and dispatch the rest down the garborator. But just as my crime against my apparent frugivore prehistory disappeared into the bowels of the waste water system, and I was beginning to eye a meatless vegan 'pork roast', the Grok Sweethearts somehow recovered and delivered perfectly timed drop-kicks to the Vegan Warriors, leaving them breathless, as I groped for yet one more prize of bison from my well stocked organic pastured fridge. But alas, before I could pluck my choice bison treat from the meat drawer, the Vegan Warriors unleashed multiple blows to the areas of sensibility to the Grok Sweethearts. Happily, the next fridge shelf held a bowl of tofu, sautéed in tamari and hearts of celery juice, and I was thus able to deftly close the meat drawer and march onward to my vegetarian blueprint true destiny, before suffering further carnistic humiliation. At that point it dawned on me that if I wanted to have nutritional sustenance on that day, that I must close the Primal Wisdom site, and even shutdown the computer and leave that part of the house, at least till I recovered normal plasma glucose levels. However, it also occurred to me that regularly visiting the Primal Wisdom site and the dynamic it entails, could be a useful aid in transitioning to a Calorie Restriction regimen.

On a more serious note, could it be, just maybe, that since there are many studies one can present to support each side of this argument, that the jury is not yet in? Could it be that that the multivariate complexities of the subject matter lends impenetrability at our present state of knowledge, with regard to a definitive answer?

Brian J. MacLean said...

On a historical personal note, I have had an interest in conscious eating for over half a century. I have tried many different nutritional patterns and have found some value in many of them. As I was involved in this long-term experimentation, my father looked on with some amusement. He felt that my commitment to the organic movement and careful eating patterns were somewhat missing the mark. He believed that the two important factors for health and longevity were consistent high levels of bodily movement and eating only small food portions, and only when hungry. He mostly ate a SAD, tried not to eat too much fat, and regularly took vitamins (low quality ones) in his later years. His childhood years were spent in poverty and malnutrition. Beginning in his early 50’s, he began exercising one to two hours per day, and up to his mid 80’s was playing four to six hours of tennis in the hot southern Florida sun with men usually in their 20’s. At the age of 96 he decided, with clear eyes and a lucid mind, to end his life by refusing water, food and all medications, as he felt that his quality of life had diminished, and that he had lived long enough. In the last few months of his life he had fallen several time and broken a hip, thus limiting his love of exercise. These falls were due to loss of balance resulting from very damaged knees from becoming an elite marathon runner in his mid 50’s, subsequent to a knee operation, following which his orthopedic surgeon told him that he would have to spend the remainder of his life walking with a cane. From his health profile at the end of his life, it appeared that my father could have lived many more years had he so chosen, as all his organs systems were functioning like that of healthy man decades his junior. This example, although only an N=1, suggests that choosing foods from the animal or plant kingdoms may not be the most important issue regarding health. Also, if there is a final answer to what is the most sensible diet for our species, it seems that it will most likely not be decided on blogs such as this.

gunther gatherer said...

"Those of us who have the intelligence, knowledge and experience to be able to process the data, unlike you..."

And what knowledge and experience is that, Jack? You've already lived one entire life as a vegan and you're back to tell us about how wrong it was?

If you already have all the answers, why do you waste your time stooping down to this blog to show us poor vegans all your "knowledge and experience"?

Those who actually read this blog regularly could be having other discussions, you know, instead of constantly having to defend our eating choices against you and Charles and all your amazing knowledge and experience. Or has your intention been all along just to make sure we don't discuss anything at all?

I call "Troll".

healthy-longevity said...

@Confusionists (ie. Jack, Charles)

You confusionists keep copying and pasting the same lines from a paper from the Framingham study suggesting that lowering serum cholesterol in the elderly increases the risk of mortality, but always conveniently fail to mention the last line in the abstract suggesting that this finding is explained by reverse causation.

“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.”

At this point of time it does not requires a leap of faith to assume that you lot are intentionally ignoring these critical details as we have already reminded you about this on numerous occasions..

A meta-analysis of 26 randomized controlled trials from the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists (CTT) Collaboration found that among 170,000 participants with an average age of 63, all-cause mortality was reduced by 10% per 1•0 mmol/L. The P value for this finding was <0.0001.

Furthermore, a mendelian randomized controlled trial demonstrated that lowering LDL early in life predicted a three-fold greater decreased risk of coronary heart disease per unit lower of LDL than statins do when started later in life (average age of 63). The P value for this finding was 0.000000000000000000843.

This is quite impressive considering the fact that Jack claimed that I have never cited any studies that produced a P value of <0.005. This data strongly justifies Peter’s concern for maintaining a low LDL throughout life as well as the evidence he provides demonstrating that decreasing LDL later in life still provides significant benefit.

In regards to prospective cohort studies, a meta-analysis of 61 such studies from the Prospective Studies Collaboration found that among participants aged 80-89, lower serum cholesterol was associated with a significant decreased risk of coronary heart disease mortality in both men and women.

In this study the positive association between serum cholesterol and hemorrhagic and total stroke mortality was confound to those participants who had above optimal blood pressure and inversely associated for participants with a more optimal blood pressure (SBP <125 mm Hg). The researchers also tested for reverse causation and found that the positive association between lower serum cholesterol and non-vascular diseases was largely or wholly explained by reverse causation, consistent with the findings from randomized controlled trials which found that lowering LDL does not have an adverse effect on the risk of non-vascular diseases.

The participant sizes in the studies you confusionists cite are far smaller than these studies without being of higher methodological quality. Therefore there is little justification for spamming these largely irrelevant studies, in what appears to be an attempt to intentionally confuse other readers such as Brian.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2988224/
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2zVxA6yipv4&feature=player_embedded
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673607617784/abstract

LeonRover said...

"all-cause mortality was reduced by 10% per 1•0 mmol/L"

So are the drugs companies willing to take on the Reverse Bet ?

If I reduce my LDL from 3 to 1 mmol/l, and I only live to 65, they will pay out to my estate ?

Until Pharma or Cochran collaborators are prepared to "put their money where their mouth is", I am severely sceptical.

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1477-5751-10-6.pdf

No connection between the level of exposition to statins in the population and the incidence/
mortality of acute myocardial infarction: An ecological study based on Sweden’s municipalities.

Results:

The utilisation rate of statins increased almost three times for both men and women between 1998 and
2002. During 1998-2000 the incidence of AMI decreased clearly for men but only slightly for women. Mortality decreased from 1998 to 2002. The change in statin utilisation from 1998 to 2000 showed no correlation to the
change in AMI mortality from 2000 to 2002. Statin utilisation and AMI- incidence or mortality showed no correlations when adjusting for socio-economic deprivation, antidiabetic drugs and geographic coordinates.

Conclusions:

Despite a widespread and increasing utilisation of statins, no correlation to the incidence or mortality of AMI could be detected. Other factors than increased statin treatment should be analysed especially when discussing the allocation of public resources


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

Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: An analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With The Guidelines

Of 231,986 hospitalizations from 541 hospitals, admission lipid levels were documented in 136,905 (59.0%).

Low-density lipoprotein
cholesterol <70 mg/dL was observed in 17.6%

Even when only patients without prior history of CHD, other
atherosclerotic vascular disease, or diabetes were studied, 41.5%
had LDL <100 mg/dL.

HOW LOW DO YOU WANT TO GO


http://s313002503.onlinehome.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/04/scand-cardiovasc-j-cholesterol-obituary.pdf

The Cholesterol hypothesis: Time for the obituary?

The most momentous arguments for keeping the idea alive are the reported benefi cial effects of
cholesterol-lowering drugs – the statins. But how valid are the arguments? To answer that question,
one must consider the pivotal role powerful drug companies have increasingly played in relevant
research and publications. It has become a “ modus operandi ” for statin manufactures to plan, carry out, analyze the results of clinical trials and then use professionals to write the articles under the name of well-known academics, so called Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs). As pointed out in the newly published
books, White Coat, Black Hat (Carl Elliot) and Medical Research for Hire (Jill Fisher) many of these trials are accomplished by Contract Research Organizations (CROs). Ghostwriting and Ghost management
have been important instruments for marketing drugs. In an excellent and unmasking article Michel de
Lorgeril and Patricia Salen (7) reviewed and discussed the cholesterol-lowering drug trials published before and after the Vioxx affair was disclosed in 2005 (which resulted in new clinical research regulations). Before the Vioxx scandal the dominating
part of the published statin trials were highly positive, especially in the secondary prevention trials.
After 2005 most studies have been either negative or obviously biased.

healthy-longevity said...

Brian,

Although regular exercise and watching that you do not hurt yourself is of critical importance for health, a well-planned whole-foods plant based diet has that potential to largely eliminate the risk of a number of serious diseases, including coronary heart disease. In regards to the “jury“ you refer to, it was established that LDL is a cause of coronary heart disease even before the statin industry became powerful enough to influence scientists on such a large scale. In 1984 the expert panel of The National Institute of Health concluded that:

“It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that lowering definitely elevated blood cholesterol levels (specifically, blood levels of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol) will reduce the risk of heart attacks caused by coronary heart disease”

This seriously undermines the cholesterol skeptics claims that there is a worldwide conspiracy involving the majority of health authorities who have been paid off by the statin industry to inform the public that elevated LDL cholesterol is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease. The question now is no longer as to whether LDL is a causal risk factor for cardiovascular disease, but as to how low LDL should be lowered and how early in life LDL lowering intervention needs to begin in order to achieve maximum benefit. The preponderance of evidence currently points to as low as possible and as early in life as possible.

Note how the confusionists like Charles and Jack usually refer to single observational studies when they attempt to downplay the association between LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease / all-cause mortality and fail to downplay the studies we provide (large meta-analysis of both randomized controlled trials and prospective studies) with studies using similar methodological quality.

As gunther gatherer correctly pointed out, they are Trolls

References:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EqKNfyUPzoU&feature=player_embedded
http://www.jlr.org/content/47/1/1.long
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/118/6/672.long
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-DQ2itumKu8&feature=player_embedded

Charles Grashow said...

@healthy-longevity, Peter, Humane Hominid et al

I found this which is causing me to possible rethink my arguments

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

Twenty questions on atherosclerosis
William C. Roberts, MD

Now Dr Roberts is not an idiot so I'm doing more research
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_C._Roberts

But in the arrticle he says

Is atherosclerosis a disease affecting all animals or only certain animals?

Atherosclerosis affects only herbivores. Dogs, cats, tigers, and lions can be saturated with fat and cholesterol, and atherosclerotic plaques do not develop (1, 2). The only way to produce atherosclerosis in a carnivore is to take out the thyroid gland; then, for some reason, saturated fat and cholesterol have the same effect as in herbivores.

Are human beings herbivores, carnivores, or omnivores?

Although most of us conduct our lives as omnivores, in that we eat flesh as well as vegetables and fruits, human beings have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores (2). The appendages of carnivores are claws; those of herbivores are hands or hooves. The teeth of carnivores are sharp; those of herbivores are mainly flat (for grinding). The intestinal tract of carnivores is short (3 times body length); that of herbivores, long (12 times body length). Body cooling of carnivores is done by panting; herbivores, by sweating. Carnivores drink fluids by lapping; herbivores, by sipping. Carnivores produce their own vitamin C, whereas herbivores obtain it from their diet. Thus, humans have characteristics of herbivores, not carnivores.

He also says that the ideal diet is for one to become a pure vegetarian-fruit eater.

http://eurheartj.oxfordjournals.org/content/26/24/2605.full#ref-4
Staffan Lindeberg

Is the average elderly Norwegian at high risk of cardiovascular disease after 60 years of age? Will most of these men and women need health care or even drug treatment in order to lower serum lipids and/or blood pressure? Well, according to the present guidelines of the European Heart Association, this actually seems to be the case.1 Hartz et al.2 show that in Tromsø, Norway, the vast majority of men >60 years, and females >70, have a 10-year risk of fatal cardiovascular disease exceeding 5%, the suggested limit for intervention. We can argue about the exact figures, including the (unpublished) confidence interval of the 5% limit, but the main message is clear: it is normal to be at ‘high’ risk. And what is true for Norway would be true for most other European countries.

However - he also states "The lowest levels of blood pressure (typically 110/70±15/10 mmHg) and serum cholesterol (typically 3±1 mmol/L) have been noted in hunter-gatherers with very high intakes of meat."

So - now I'm getting confused

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.angina.com/pdf/chemistry_behind_vegetarianism.pdf

Chemistry behind Vegetarianism

This review summarizes the effect of a habitual vegetarian diet on clinical complications in relation
to chemistry and biochemistry. Omnivores have a significantly higher cluster of cardiovascular risk factors compared with vegetarians, including increased body mass index, waist to hip ratio, blood pressure, plasma total cholesterol (TC), triacylglycerol and LDL-C levels, serum lipoprotein(a) concentration,
plasma factor VII activity, ratios of TC/HDL-C, LDL-C/HDL-C and TAG/HDL-C, and serum ferritin levels. Compared with omnivores, vegetarians, especially vegans, have lower serum vitamin B12
concentration and n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) levels in the tissue membrane phospholipids, which are associated with increased collagen and ADP stimulated ex vivo whole blood platelet aggregation,
plasma 11-dehydrothromboxane B2, and homocysteine levels and decreased plasma HDL-C. This
may be associated with an increased thrombotic and atherosclerotic risk.

CONCLUSION

On the basis of the present data, it is suggested that vegetarians,
especially vegans, could benefit from increased dietary intake of
n-3 PUFA and vitamin B12 and thus improve the balance ratio of
n-3 to n-6 PUFA and vitamin B12 status, which may reduce any
thrombotic tendency that might increase their generally low risk
of cardiovascular disease.

Brian J. MacLean said...

Thank you healthy-longevity for your concern over my “confusion”. My little pugilistic comedy entry was an attempt, somewhat like the chorus in a Greek play, to show how many readers would likely view this interchange. The “jury” I referred to not being in yet, was not specifically about whether LDL was relevant in the pathogenesis of CHD, but rather about the proportion of variance it accounts for in this development. However, for the most part, I have believed over the years that a plant based diet has a higher health value than an animal based one. I argued this point with L.Cordain, M. Enig and S. Fallon on the Paleo Diet and Exercise site back in the mid 90's. I was not arguing for veganism, but for a diet predominantly plant based. I subsequently experimented with a higher intake of organic meat for several years and noted results of less favorable lipid measures. When subsequently lowering animal product intake, my TG's and LDL reduced significantly, with a small increase in HDL. A primary point of contention on this site is interpretation of lipid measures. Despite the obvious contamination of research directions and findings by big economic interests, I believe that the consensus on lipid measures is correct. However, as I pointed out in my last posting, a significant factor to consider beyond "regular exercise and watching that you do not hurt yourself," is the amount of calorie intake, which may be at least as important as plant or animal food selection choices (CR salubrious effects on all bodily systems of those not suffering obvious nutritional deficiencies is supported by research, as well as my personal N=1 example). In the field of toxicology, whether a substance acts as a toxin is dose dependent. If one takes this principal seriously, it seems that an absolutist stance on traditional food choices is questionable.

Regarding the comment by Staffan Lindeberg in Charles’ posting: "The lowest levels of blood pressure (typically 110/70±15/10 mmHg) and serum cholesterol (typically 3±1 mmol/L) have been noted in hunter-gatherers with very high intakes of meat." In addition to a measure of calorie output of this population it would have been interesting to have had an analysis of parasite load. If, as in many HG groups, the blood is replete with CH gobbling parasites, this would perhaps explain this apparent inconsistency.

Tracy said...

Charles, you aren't posting studies that hold any weight Jimmy thinks vegans are trying to pour over the science to rationalize our views? Ha! Read all of the comments by Charles, and tell me who is trying to rationalize whom?

Jimmy, Don is not wasting his time dealing w/ some of the bozos here who have way overstayed their welcome to rationalize his diet choices. There is a major health epidemic on our hands of growing global proportions because confusionists like these guys will go thru great lengths to look for unreliable data, funded by special interests, to support their bad habits. They may continue to chose to eat animal products, but this is way bigger than something personal. Unfortunately, those habits are also addictive, and the powers that be with economic interests will spare nothing to keep publishing bad science to sell products. We are all part of the problem, and when you finally wake up, if you ever do, you will maybe finally get it.

Peter, I love those grains and cooked foods as well. Not to worry about us, we enjoy smoothies, but not daily. I think the problems Esselstyn speaks to involve those who possibly use smoothies as ways to either add in more fats (nuts and seeds), or protein powders which are refined, and unnecessary. Or, they may have smoothies, but under fuel. Just a thought, no science here.

The truth is guys, only time will tell what is best, eh? I know that I am putting my money on the plant-based diet, in whatever form I choose to eat it by the way, for a healthier, longer life. And my guess is your habits will catch up to you, and if you weren't at least a bit concerned about that, you wouldn't try so hard to discredit Don and myself with all the cut and paste crap you continually post.

Thx to Gunther, Peter, Healthy L. et al for your support. BTW Gunther, we will edit our video and repost. ~Tracy

Tracy said...

Charles, the higher the saturated fat, and cholesterol, the less risk for dementia, all cause mortality, heart disease, or whatever else you seem to believe your eating habits are protecting you from. LMAO!

I'm pretty bored with you right now, and think it is time for you to find another blog to inhabit, like say, your own... but I would love to hear from you again during your retirement years. If you remember, and your brain cells are besieged by dementia, please do check in.

Don said...

So the confusionists/denialists would have us believe that the grass fed flesh- and fat-eating Mongolians have short lifespans and elevated risks of cardiovascular and other chronic diseases because their cholesterol levels are too low. LMAO.

According to the confusionists, we should have total and LDL cholesterol levels far exceeding those found in wild animals, human infants, and groups of people well-documented to have no atherosclerosis. They want to believe that adult humans need /benefit from having TC more than 50% and LDL at least 200% above known required and physiologically normal levels. LMAO.

For some reason, they clearly understand that a blood sugar level 50-200% above physiological levels is harmful, and that a body fat level 50+% above physiological levels is harmful, but they believe that a blood lipid level 50-200% above physiological levels is not only not harmful, it is, according to them, positively beneficial. LMAO.

Since they appear to agree that eating animal flesh and fat raises blood cholesterol, they must think that the Mongolians have short lifespans, etc. because they don’t eat enough animal flesh and fat to raise their cholesterol levels high enough to prevent heart disease and cancer and lengthen their lives. LMAO.

Following the line of reasoning of the confusionists further, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and thousands of primary care physicians throughout the industrialized world have relied on the weakest of evidence as the basis for prescribing LDL cholesterol-lowering diets and medications to tens of millions of patients. LMAO.

If these confusionists are correct that lowering LDL cholesterol will not protect against cardiovascular disease but will shorten your lifespan, then the NIH, NHLBI, and thousands of primary care allopathic physicians are guilty of institutionalized malpractice, actually shortening the lives of tens of millions of people by lowering their cholesterol levels to physiological ranges. I’ll let the reader judge how the likelihood of that.

Reader, if you want to find out if you have carnivorous dentition, or a carnivorous/omnivorous psychophysical constitution, try to eat an animal the way any other natural carnivore or omnivore does, without any tools, cooking, or condiment. Simply grab the animal while it is still alive, and sink your fingers and teeth into it while it is still squirming and fighting, and see if you genuinely enjoy sticking your face into the blood, guts, and feces. Let your heart’s reaction to this prospect guide you to what to eat.

If you think you are an insectivore, eat insects the way any other insectivore does. Grab the buggers and put them in your mouth without cooking or condiment. If you relish the thought, with no revulsion, you’re a natural insectivore. If you think that the fact that some people have eaten insects proves that eating insects benefits human health, you must also think that the fact that some people smoke cigarettes proves that smoking cigarettes benefits human health.

I have had enough of these jokers in my living room misleading my guests. From here on out, I am moderating comments. Stand for truth, goodness, compassion, and beauty, or get lost.

Brian J. MacLean said...

Regarding the "jury", it is also not in on the sustainability of a vegan diet over lifetime. As there have been no true vegan cultures, and so few vegans in any culture, the answer to this remains unclear. On a anecdotal level, I have noticed that many of those individuals who have adopter veganism drop out after a number of years. Some of those individuals explicitly stated that this was due to social inconvenience, while others stated that they developed a "craving" for meat after a number of years as a vegan and noted that following eating meat products, their sense of well being and energy levels improved. However, it was difficult to get a clear picture of the nutritional quality of their vegan diet, so no definitive conclusions were evident. Also, this sense of more energy with meat eating in these cases, may not be due to the nutritional superiority of meat, but rather due to its apparent stimulating qualities.

Charles Grashow said...

@Tracy

Well - I'm 58 going on 59 with not a sign of dementia at all - physically I'm in the best shape of my life - workout 4-6 days/week

What I will do is post my latest blood test results when I get them in 2 weeks

Brian J. MacLean said...

Perhaps should have said this earlier Don, but I love your site. Some of the most intelligent and spirited discussion of nutrition I have come across. Thanks for your great work.

Brian J. MacLean said...

I would be interested in anyone commenting on any data addressing the nutritional sustainability of a vegan diet over an extended period of time. This is a question I have often heard from the public in general and from former vegans.It is of particular interest to me as I continue to reduce animal foods in my diet.

Charles Grashow said...

Don said

Following the line of reasoning of the confusionists further, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, and thousands of primary care physicians throughout the industrialized world have relied on the weakest of evidence as the basis for prescribing LDL cholesterol-lowering diets and medications to tens of millions of patients. LMAO.

"If these confusionists are correct that lowering LDL cholesterol will not protect against cardiovascular disease but will shorten your lifespan, then the NIH, NHLBI, and thousands of primary care allopathic physicians are guilty of institutionalized malpractice, actually shortening the lives of tens of millions of people by lowering their cholesterol levels to physiological ranges."

One of the few things you said that I agree with

Peter said...

@Charles,

I am glad you find that article with William C Roberts, Twenty Questions on Atherosclerosis, it's excellent piece.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1312295/

As Brian already said, look for parasites and seasonal hunger, moreover, it's a myth that HG-populations take most of their calories from meat.

Nathaniel Dominy, Phd. biological anthropology, professor, Darthmouth.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ufNEoLeVplc&list=UUjtpP3jb9LOpbGxdNQhk3Qg&index=22&feature=plcp

Did Cooked Tubers Spur the Evolution of Big Brains?

"Nor do modern tropical hunter-gatherers rely heavily on meat. Among modern tropical African tribes, "there is no case of [people] eating more meat than plant food," Wrangham points out. For example, anthropologists James O'Connell and Kristen Hawkes of the University of Utah, Salt Lake City, found that although a hunter belonging to the Hadza tribe of Tanzania on average might catch one large animal per month, often weeks would go by with no kills. The Hadza hunt with bows and arrows, technology far more advanced than that of any early humans, yet even for these modern hunters, "this is no way to feed the kids," says Hawkes.

But if meat wasn't responsible for the increase in brain size 1.8 million years ago, what was? Cooked tubers, says Wrangham, arguing that these starchy roots would have been quite abundant on the plains of Africa 2 million years ago, even when drier climates made fruits, nuts, and perhaps animal prey scarce. Today, there are 40,000 kilograms of tubers per square kilometer in Tanzania's savanna woodlands, for example. Other tuber-eating animals, such as wild pigs, thrived in Africa during this time, and Wrangham notes that fossil mole rats, which subsist almost entirely on tubers, have been found among hominid remains from 2 million years ago".

http://cogweb.ucla.edu/Abstracts/Pennisi_99.html

Brian J. MacLean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Brian J. MacLean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Peter said...

@Charles,

as Don have pointed out scientific journals often accommondates bro's and cranks, this does not mean that the biomedical community would take them seriously, though.

Good example is this:

"The Cholesterol hypothesis: Time for the obituary?

In an excellent and unmasking article Michel de
Lorgeril and Patricia Salen (7) reviewed and discussed the cholesterol-lowering drug trials published before and after the Vioxx affair was disclosed in 2005 (which resulted in new clinical research regulations). Before the Vioxx scandal the dominating
part of the published statin trials were highly positive, especially in the secondary prevention trials. After 2005 most studies have been either negative or obviously biased"

De Lorgil is classic crank and denialist. The above argument is critically flawed as the succesfull Jupiter -trial was published after the year 2005, a fact which they happily "forget". In fact the phony statement initially made by de Lorgil was not even published in peer-reviewed platform.

After the year 2002 the positive effects of statins was proved in all major patient groups (high-risk patients, diabetics and those who've already had a coronary event) since it's not ethical nor reasonable to replicate these trials anymore, 3rd generation of statin trials were initiated. These included often very small patient number on very challenging patient settings (kidney failures, malfunctioning of the heart and aortic valve, etc). Statins could not help these patients very well because often very little is to be done on these challenging cases by default.

De Logril uses blatantly flawed arguments based on halft-truths and distortion of the context. That's how classic cranks have always operated it's their "modus operandi". As said, it's good that no one in the biomedical community take these whackjobs seriously, however it's unfortunate that these cranks are often very succesfull in pushing their fairytales among lay people. Throw in some conspiracy theories and pretend you are the new Galileo espousing the truth and you have formula of success.

Don said...

Do some of you spend every waking moment monitoring my blog and my responses or lack thereof?

I certainly don't. I took a day off for fun and relaxation and didn't even look at my email. I happen to have a life outside of the internet.

If you don't see your comment posted immediately, don't make assumptions about my motivations.

Brian J. MacLean said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Charles Grashow said...

@Peter

what is your position on grains within the context of a plant based/fruit based diet?

Good or Bad

Loren Cordain

http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/2010/03/24/loren-cordain-caution-on-saturated-fats-disaster-with-grains-will-be-public-after-march-25th/

"We believe that wheat upregulates metalloproteinases. It upregulates metalloproteinase 2 and metalloproteinase 9. If you look at the final dissolution of that fibrous plaque, what causes that fibrous plaque to rupture– it’s made out of collagen and smooth muscle and cholesterol. What causes it to rupture is metalloproteinases. They up-regulate and degrade the collagen, and when the fibrous cap breaks, that is the event that kills you. We believe elements in the Western diet, including Wheat and corn and grain and legumes and high glycemic load carbohydrates, these upregulate the enzymes that directly cause the rupture of the fibrous cap."

"In 10 rhesus monkeys and two other monkeys, they were able to induce myocardial infarctions, and electrocardiographic abnormalities, unexpected and relative sudden death in these non human primates are also consistent with signs that are frequently observed in humans. This is an obscure paper that absolutely needs to be addressed by the unlimited saturated fat type groups."

http://www.meandmydiabetes.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/Atherosclerosis-Primates-Bond-1980.pdf

Charles Grashow said...

http://jn.nutrition.org/content/125/8/2055.full.pdf

LDL Receptor Activity Is Down Regulated Similarly by a Cholesterol-Containing Diet High in Palmitic
Acid or High in Laurie and Myristic Acids in Cynomolgus Monkeys

"It seems that independent of species, the saturated fatty acids lauric, myristic and palmitic acids consistently elevate plasma LDL cholesterol concentrations in the presence of dietary cholesterol,whereas caproic acid (10:0) or lower (8:0 or 6:0) and stearic acid (18:0) have little impact (Hayes and Khosla 1992, Woollett et al. 1992b).

In conclusion, these data suggest that the concentrations of lauric, myristic and especially palmitic acids in the oil blend diet exerted suppressive effects on LDL receptor activity, resulting in elevated plasma LDL cholesterol concentrations compared with the unsaturated fat diet. The fact that consumption of the highly saturated coconut oil diet (saturated fat) abundant primarily in lauric and myristic acids resulted in a reduction in LDL receptor activity (Table 4) similar to that of the oil blend diet suggests that the quality of the fat in the oil blend diet exceeded the threshold for optimal receptor activity. These data further suggest that even if the total fat intake of the Western diet remains as high as 36-40% of energy, a reduction in total saturated fatty acids, especially palmitic acid, will contribute to a reduction in plasma LDL cholesterol concentrations. Therefore, future diet recommendations may need to consider the concentrations of these fatty acids if they are to be effective in reducing plasma LDL cholesterol concentrations.

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

@Charles,

why do keep posting this nonsense about what an obese excersise scholar says? Please, watch primitivenutrition -serie which documents Cordains spin-doctor maneuvers.

Primitive Nutrition 2: I, Copernicus, Part I
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VQGo8gc8028&list=PLCC2CA9893F2503B5&index=2&feature=plpp_video

And, don't waste people's time anymore by copypasting ridiculous nonsense by cranks in an attempt to confuse people by camouflaging your attempts in the form of some silly question. As if you would be interested what we have to say.

Although, I recommend whole-grains, the refined grains are probably the healthies food group in the SAD -diet. Do you think you are the only one who can copypaste questionable observational studies, here, have it!

Evaluation of the evidence between consumption of refined grains and health outcomes

"This review evaluates the available evidence on the relationship between consumption of refined grains and health outcomes. A total of 135 relevant articles were identified from database searches of studies published between 2000 and 2010. The great majority found no associations between the intake of refined-grain foods and cardiovascular disease, diabetes, weight gain, or overall mortality. A few studies found that very high intakes might be associated with some types of cancers, but at moderate levels of consumption the risks were not significant. The totality of evidence shows that consumption of up to 50% of all grain foods as refined-grain foods (without high levels of added fat, sugar, or sodium) is not associated with any increased disease risk. Nonetheless, eating more whole-grain foods remains an important health recommendation, and most consumers will need to reduce their current consumption of refined grains to no more than one-third to one-half of all grains in order to meet the targets for whole-grain foods".

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1753-4887.2011.00452.x/abstract;jsessionid=825E3490E9E84E6907F58729A666EDAC.d04t01?deniedAccessCustomisedMessage&userIsAuthenticated=false&fb_source=message

A scientific look on the claims made by William Davis in his book "Wheat Belly".
http://www.aaccnet.org/publications/plexus/cfw/pastissues/2012/OpenDocuments/CFW-57-4-0177.pdf

Brian J. MacLean said...

From incessant selectively blind critiques, and now ads from Big Pharma- Yikes, what next?

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.clevelandclinicmeded.com/medicalpubs/diseasemanagement/cardiology/heart-disease-risk-reduction/#bib53

Cardiovascular Disease Prevention

nathaniel garsh said...

@nothing91
I'm looking for a response of yours where you deconstructed Don's behavior. I remember very little of it but I believe you called him "very slippery" and you said his reasoning included "constructing a straw man argument and then attacking that straw man", "changing the game when confronted", or something in this spirit. I have looked through all posts still up but I'm unable to find it. Do you recall where this response was? Is is even still up? Do you remember what your response was? I think I'm following similar, if not the same, patterns in my reasoning, and I think identifying the mechanics of it might help me.

gallier2 said...

If you contact me by mail I can forward you all nothings91 comments since june 2011 on this board. As I follow most blogs via their rss feed and using thunderbird as a client, all the comments and posts are stored permanently. Even if the blog maintainer is a revisionist and changes the content of his blog, I still have them. Even Don's ridiculous article about the buoyancy of fat in the blood is still there.

nathaniel garsh said...

that is very kind of you. i dont seem to be able to find your email anywhere however.. mine is nathanielgarsh@gmail.com

Charles Grashow said...

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35058896/ns/health-heart_health/t/bad-cholesterol-its-not-what-you-think/#.UHoF88XXZMI

Then Dr. Gofman asked people about their health and diet. He learned that having high LDL or high triglycerides correlated with an increased risk of heart disease, high HDL correlated with a low risk of heart disease, and that the two profiles responded entirely differently to foods in the diet. (He also learned that cholesterol could be packaged either tightly clustered or loosely assembled within LDL; measuring it did little to reflect this risk.) Saturated fat raised LDL, while carbohydrates raised triglycerides, ultimately lowering HDL. (Dr. Gofman even recognized that LDL was made up of subtypes, although the meaning of the diversity was unclear at first.) It was groundbreaking work, but too advanced for the movement it ultimately spawned. With so few analytical ultracentrifuges available, researchers began using cheaper methods of counting lipoproteins, methods now offered during routine physicals. One form of cholesterol became "good," the other "bad."

Dr. Krauss was working part-time in Dr. Gofman's old lab and flipping through some data cards when he noticed a correlation that would change everything. As he combed through a recently completed study of 80 men and 54 women in Modesto, California, Dr. Krauss noticed that the people with low HDL tended to have high LDL. But not just any LDL was elevated; only the smaller forms observable to Dr. Gofman's analytical ultracentrifuge.

"I started studying these readouts, and what popped out were some amazingly strong inverse correlations," he says, still amazed at his good fortune. "It was just sitting there in the data." Dr. Krauss had found that small, dense LDL particles were the evil twin of good cholesterol. HDL and small LDL tended to move at the same time, he discovered, but in opposite directions. If your smaller forms of LDL were high, your HDL was low; if your smaller forms of LDL were low, your HDL was high. Whether one was the cause and the other was the effect was unclear, but given the newly discovered importance of HDL, the importance of smaller forms of LDL was now real

Charles Grashow said...

This created a practical problem. Lumping all forms of LDL cholesterol together, as labs currently do when they count it in your basic blood draw, tells us little about how much of that LDL is small and how much is large. "Everyone doesn't necessarily have the same amount of very small LDL in their LDL," Dr. Krauss explains. Some people have mostly large LDL, a group Dr. Krauss would describe as "pattern A," while others have mostly small LDL (and usually, low HDL and high triglycerides), a group Dr. Krauss would label "pattern B." The second group has an increased risk of heart disease (a finding suggested again this year through the use of ion mobility). Large LDL, on the other hand — and large LDL is usually the majority of the LDL that shows up in a standard blood profile — is mostly benign.

Dr. Krauss discovered that while a diet high in saturated fat from dairy products would indeed make your LDL levels rise, "saturated fat intake results in an increase of larger LDL rather than smaller LDL particles," as he wrote in an American Journal of Clinical Nutrition review he co-authored in 2006. A diet heavy in full-fat cheese and butter — but not overloaded in calories — triggered the relatively harmless health profile described as pattern A. (Having demonstrated the benign consequences for cholesterol from consuming dairy fat, he is currently conducting studies to find out if the same holds true for diets high in saturated fat from beef.)

Not only is dairy fat unlikely to increase heart-disease risk, Dr. Krauss and others have learned, but reducing saturated fat in a way that increases carbohydrates in a diet can shift a person's LDL profile from safe to dangerous. That's pretty much what happens whenever some well-meaning person with "high LDL" starts eating "low-fat" frozen dinners filled out with corn-derived additives, all the while engaging in the customary ravaging of a basket filled with dinner rolls.

Anti Carnist said...

Don, I thought I'd bring this paper to your attention. It details several health issues in the ancient Mongols like low life expectancy, gout, obesity, and suspected cardiovascular problems. Alcoholism probably paid a role in all of this, but I think it would foolish to claim that their animal-based diet had nothing to do with it either.

afe.easia.columbia.edu/mongols/pastoral/masson_smith.pdf