5 ms·

Literally hundreds of metabolic ward studies (the gold standard in nutrition) have demonstrated a direct, causal relationship between saturated fat intake and b

Literally hundreds of metabolic ward studies (the gold standard in nutrition) have demonstrated a direct, causal relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol levels. And the correlation between high cholesterol levels and CVD has been known for decades. Don't be fooled by observational studies which fail to disentangle the highly variable baseline individual cholesterol levels from the effects of fat in the diet. Here is a review of 395 direct feeding experiments, which are much more appropriate for measuring the effects of diet: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006469 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006469 http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/circulationaha/108/22/2757.full.pdf http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/circulationaha/108/22/27... https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/2016/jun/13/dont-throw-away-your-statins-yet-ldl-cholesterol-is-still-probably-bad-for-you https://www.theguardian.com/science/sifting-the-evidence/201... This video sums up the issues well: https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-s...

ggm 9y ago
What was the exercise level of the participants in a metabolic ward study? What's the pre screening for inflammation and associated risk issues? Your rebuttal is good in as much as it points to study but surely the reappraisal of these more modern meta analyses carry some weight or are you refuting by appeal to authority? The guardian article says the peer review had misgivings so obviously the epidemiological aspects of this are up in the air. I'm not on statins but I wouldn't stop if I was. I might however take heart that moderate exercise and med diet appears to have upsides?
- cageface 9y ago
  The main point here is that observational studies are much less reliable than mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement. The genetic variability of baseline cholesterol levels is so high that it can drown out the effect of diet in cross-sectional observational studies. Meta-analyses of observational studies are the easiest kind of nutrition study to skew in the direction of the conclusions you want. What's worse, "studies" like these are used as excuse for people to adopt diets very high in saturated fat and animal protein which are not only disastrous for the environment and animal welfare, but have also been shown to be the absolutely worst diets in terms of overall mortality risk: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/controlling-protein-intake-may-be-key-to-longevity https://www.elsevier.com/connect/controlling-protein-intake-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/
  - pakitan 9y ago
    > mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement I believe that's the fancy terminology for "We fed people with substance X and blood marker Y went up", correct me if I'm wrong. How is that in any way reliable unless it's proven that elevated blood marker Y causes CVD? It's only reliable if you want to prove that food X causes elevated Y. Also, I find it amusing that you're deriding observational studies, yet the study you're quoting is observational. And a big problem with a study like this is that it wouldn't discern between a high-protein diet consisting of bacon/sausages and one consisting of grass-fed beef. Processed meat contains all kind of shit, it's a major staple in people's diets and it's not surprising to me at all if people eating that have more health problems.
    - cageface 9y ago
      Observational studies are inferior, it's true, but how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Of course the elephant in the room is that it's ecologically impossible to feed the Earth's population a diet high in animal protein so even if you have convinced yourself it's healthier it's really not an option for the long term. One would also hope that the monstrous cruelty of industrial animal agriculture would factor into your considerations at least a little bit.
      - pakitan 9y ago
        > how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Simple, lock lots of people in a building, feed them the same thing for 50 years and then measure :) That's impossible, of course, which is why I try to take all these studies, no matter what the type, no matter which side of the argument they are on, with a monstrous grain of salt. When trying to find the perfect diet, I think it's better to look into the diet of our ancestors and to refer to the works of Dr. Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. What they did might not be considered technically "science" because it's not peer-reviewed, doesn't have confidence intervals, mortality rates and whatnot but I consider it much more valuable as they spent years on the field studying people's diets and their health, not sitting in a comfy chair measuring blood cholesterol levels. Inuit lived practically on very fatty meat only. One can only imagine their LDL. Why weren't they dropping dead of cancer, diabetes and heart attacks at 30 years of age? Dr. Price says that in all his travels he didn't come upon a group that thrived on plant food only. If I remember correctly there was a community in the Swiss Alps that lived exclusively on wholegrain rye bread, cheese + some meat once a week and they were very healthy. That's was the diet closest to vegan that he described. Of course, these days with all the nutrition science advancements, with the addition of supplements, it's may be possible to thrive as vegan but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig. And yes, I'm well aware that feeding everyone animal protein is not sustainable in any way but that doesn't have much to do with the discussion whether animal protein is bad for your health or not. Given the problems with modern agriculture, it's questionable whether the Earth can sustain 9 billion vegans in the long term either. I try to take into account the cruelty of industrial farming when choosing my food, at least to certain extent. However, you need to note that the very fact of my existence means hundreds/thousands of critters are being killed. From ecological point of view, the best option would be for me to kill myself, not become a vegan. I just have to draw the line somewhere.
megous 9y ago
Correlations are non-transitive. You'd have to study: saturated fat intake <-> CVD
- cageface 9y ago
  Why would they not be transitive in this case? The mechanisms are well understood. All the "blue zone" diets are low in animal protein and saturated fat: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/ea... Eat mostly plants, especially beans. And eat meat rarely, in small portions of 3 to 4 ounces. Blue Zoners eat portions this size just five times a month, on average.
  - tim333 9y ago
    The mechanisms of cholesterol -> heart disease are not well understood. Cholesterol is a natural component of the blood - if it's too low or high it implies you are ill. The levels being off correlate with heart disease but I don't think there's a simple high cholesterol directly causes deposits causation.
    - Gibbon1 9y ago
      What would bother me is the idea of two stories Story one: High cholesterol --> higher rates of plaque deposition -> heart disease. Story two: Inflammation --> plaque deposition that is highly sensitive to cholesterol levels --> heart disease. No Inflammation --> no plaque deposition --> no heart disease. If story one is true, inflammation is unimportant. If story two is true then inflammation is what's important and going after cholesterol levels is treating a secondary cause instead of the primary cause. One gets fooled by the dose/disease relationship in the context of inflammation.
  - megous 9y ago
    Not sure what you're asking? You've shown two correlations and you can't make the conclusion the way you did based on those two correlations. It's just how statistics works in our complex world. Perhaps if you can prove that only cholesterol affects CVD and nothing else. Good luck with that. You'd need to study the relationship directly. Otherwise, your ignoring the whole range of effects that eating saturated fat may have that would counteract CVD. You're just picking one effect (cholesterol) and making invalid transition from that to correlation between saturated fat and CVD.
JanSt 9y ago
> Literally hundreds of metabolic ward studies (the gold standard in nutrition) have demonstrated a direct, causal relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol levels. Yes, saturated fat can raise cholesterol (in some people). > And the correlation between high cholesterol levels and CVD has been known for decades. Correlation is not enough! By the same logic: Building fire stations (eating saturated fat) leads to more firefighters (cholesterol). Firefighters are highly correlated with burning buildings (CVD). So firefighters cause CVD? The body is way to complex for such a simple statement. There are also literally hundreds of studies that show the opposite.
- cageface 9y ago
  There are also literally hundreds of studies that show the opposite. Can you cite some? Actual feeding experiments and not self-reported diets?
  - JanSt 9y ago
    One of the best points of evidence is the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, that was always used for your line of advice and recently turned around. http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-study-rediscovered-challenges-advice-on-saturated-fat/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-stud... You can easily find more yourself.
- Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
  Your statements show some logic. Can you back them up with any actual studies? In my experience that's where these arguments usually start failing.
gassius 9y ago
If you mix a high carbs intake with a high (saturated) fat intake, you cholesterol will rise, and you probably will develop a coronary disease. The thing in those studies, and many others, is how they handle the carbs intake. I would like very much to read about metabolic ward studies in the following terms Baseline Macros and Overall Isocaloric Intake Baseline blood levels (Cholesterol, Insuline, Lipid curve, triglycerides, etc) Baseline BMI or any measure that could gave information of the subject energy reservoir. Macros and Overall Isocaloric Intake during study and duration Resulting blood levels after study and BMI. If anyone can provide links would love to read that
- cageface 9y ago
  Isocaloric studies have been done. I don’t have links handy but if you search a bit I’m sure you can find them. Ray Cronise has done some interesting work on the body’s metabolic priorities: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5326984/pdf/met.2016.0108.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5326984/pdf/met... In short, you’re basically right that eating fat along with carbs or protein will cause your body to store the fat and burn the other fuels it has available instead because storing fat is cheap.
padwan 9y ago
"Cholesterol levels" is a blunt term to use, there are HDL, LDL (with different particle sizes) etc. Correlation != causation "The total body of evidence suggests that attention should be shifted from the harmful effects of dietary SAFA per se, to the prevention of the accumulation of SAFA in body lipids. This shift would emphasise the importance of reducing dietary CHO, especially CHO with a high glycaemic index, rather than reducing dietary SAFA" http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?id=1095 http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?id=1095 -- "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD" http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009... -- "High intake of cholesterol results in less atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particles in men and women independent of response classification" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15164336 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15164336 -- "A high-fat, high–saturated fat diet is associated with diminished coronary artery disease progression in women with the metabolic syndrome." http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1102.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1102.full -- n=1 https://denversdietdoctor.com/lchf-15-years-coronary-artery-calcium-score-zero/ https://denversdietdoctor.com/lchf-15-years-coronary-artery-...
- cryptokush 9y ago
  Can you please explain why in direct feeding metabolic ward studies we see a direct link between saturated fat intake and LDL cholesterol levels? We fully understand the mechanisms behind this. Epidemiologic studies of sick populations are useless. http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112 http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112
mtgx 9y ago
A high cholesterol level can mean your body already had high levels of inflammation, so it produces more cholesterol to "fix it". But a side-effect of that is that it clogs your arteries. And it's worse when you have a Vitamin K2-deficient diet, which means calcium is slowly accumulated into your tissues and arteries. Heart attack is caused by the "plaque" that "breaks off". So I'm thinking it wouldn't be a plaque with just the cholesterol alone. It needs the calcium to really turn dangerous. I think everyone needs to do a CAC test. But it seems most doctors believe only the US president and astronauts are good enough for it. This documentary on it is a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WygYk81gXXk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WygYk81gXXk
- QuantumAphid 9y ago
  Not disagreeing, but want to add that heart attacks are usually a result of an inflammatory process within coronary artery walls (as opposed to plaque building up on the outside of the wall). Inflammation in the artery wall leads to plaque buildup (to repair it). If that plaque breaks through the artery wall (the intima) into the bloodstream, a clot forms leading to a heart attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwri-0rTweI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwri-0rTweI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209544/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209544/
  - LinuxBender 9y ago
    Is there anything that can be used to safely reverse the hardening / plaque buildup? I have been using 2-Hydroxypropyl-beta-Cyclodextrin in attempt to reverse damage to the outside of the arteries and will see with time if it helps. I would like to find something that can slowly and somewhat safely soften and dissolve the plaque in the arteries over a long period of time.
    - QuantumAphid 9y ago
      I don't know that there are medical studies showing positive results for any single factor. I've seen videos making the case for vitamin K2 and D3, as well as metformin. You will need to do your homework on this, ideally with a doctor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulemSPBA3DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulemSPBA3DA
gerbilly 9y ago
>the correlation between high cholesterol levels and CVD has been known for decades Exactly, correlation.
QuantumAphid 9y ago
Here's a related theory: People who consume a significant amount of fat tend to become overweight/obese because they also overconsume carbohydrates (and protein), which spikes blood insulin and causes the dietary fat to be stored as adipose tissue. People with a lot of adipose tissue have higher levels of cholesterol, a hormone manufactured by the body to manage its fat stores (among many other things). So in this scenario, is it eating saturated dietary fat which causes unhealthy levels of cholesterol in the blood? Or is it because the person's diet has caused them to become overweight/obese and therefore the body's cholesterol levels have increased as a result? In my own experience, I lost 20% of my body weight (57 lbs) by eating a high fat low-carb diet, supplemented by intermittent fasting. I was on statins (cholesterol medication) and an ARB (for hypertension), and was able to stop taking these meds 18 months after losing the weight. There are lots of reasons to avoid saturated oils/fat. I think it's misleading and overly simplistic to say or imply that dietary fat leads to high cholesterol. https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i/ https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-pa...
- epalmer 9y ago
  I have lost ~50 lbs on a keto diet. I test for ketones almost daily and only fall out of keto 1 out of 10 days or so. My blood chemistry is better than it ever has been. My A1C is great. My LDL and VLDL are very low. I eat saturated fat and olive oil. I eat fish 2 or more times a week. Some white fish (cod) but mostly salmon and a little tuna. I have more weight to lose, maybe another 40 lbs. I was trending towards metabolic syndrome before keto. I exercise for 40 to 50 mins a day, 5 days a week. Strength training walking and more. Since going keto (2 years ago) I have had no colds, no ear infections, no sinus infections. I have had the flu once. That is it. I used to get a lot of ear infections and colds and more. Several times a year. I have heart disease. I had 4-way bypass more than 10 years ago. I take a statin and aspirin. I am under two doctors care, a primary and a cardiologist. They support my keto diet. My primary says my systemic level of infection is very low resulting in less sickness. I am a sample size of one so take that for what it is worth.
- cageface 9y ago
  Losing weight, no matter how you do it, will lower your cholesterol and improve your overall health. And reducing your overall calorie intake also has a lot of benefits. That’s why people can report good results from a lot of different kinds of diets. But the causal link between saturated fat consumption and blood cholesterol levels is very well established. See my earlier comments for links. There are a lot of people out there with very questionable agendas out there trying to confuse people on this issue.

ggm 9y ago

What was the exercise level of the participants in a metabolic ward study? What's the pre screening for inflammation and associated risk issues? Your rebuttal is good in as much as it points to study but surely the reappraisal of these more modern meta analyses carry some weight or are you refuting by appeal to authority? The guardian article says the peer review had misgivings so obviously the epidemiological aspects of this are up in the air. I'm not on statins but I wouldn't stop if I was. I might however take heart that moderate exercise and med diet appears to have upsides?

cageface 9y ago
The main point here is that observational studies are much less reliable than mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement. The genetic variability of baseline cholesterol levels is so high that it can drown out the effect of diet in cross-sectional observational studies. Meta-analyses of observational studies are the easiest kind of nutrition study to skew in the direction of the conclusions you want. What's worse, "studies" like these are used as excuse for people to adopt diets very high in saturated fat and animal protein which are not only disastrous for the environment and animal welfare, but have also been shown to be the absolutely worst diets in terms of overall mortality risk: https://www.elsevier.com/connect/controlling-protein-intake-may-be-key-to-longevity https://www.elsevier.com/connect/controlling-protein-intake-... https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3988204/
- pakitan 9y ago
  > mechanistic studies involving direct feeding & measurement I believe that's the fancy terminology for "We fed people with substance X and blood marker Y went up", correct me if I'm wrong. How is that in any way reliable unless it's proven that elevated blood marker Y causes CVD? It's only reliable if you want to prove that food X causes elevated Y. Also, I find it amusing that you're deriding observational studies, yet the study you're quoting is observational. And a big problem with a study like this is that it wouldn't discern between a high-protein diet consisting of bacon/sausages and one consisting of grass-fed beef. Processed meat contains all kind of shit, it's a major staple in people's diets and it's not surprising to me at all if people eating that have more health problems.
  - cageface 9y ago
    Observational studies are inferior, it's true, but how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Of course the elephant in the room is that it's ecologically impossible to feed the Earth's population a diet high in animal protein so even if you have convinced yourself it's healthier it's really not an option for the long term. One would also hope that the monstrous cruelty of industrial animal agriculture would factor into your considerations at least a little bit.
    - pakitan 9y ago
      > how do you propose to measure long term mortality rates in a direct feeding study? Simple, lock lots of people in a building, feed them the same thing for 50 years and then measure :) That's impossible, of course, which is why I try to take all these studies, no matter what the type, no matter which side of the argument they are on, with a monstrous grain of salt. When trying to find the perfect diet, I think it's better to look into the diet of our ancestors and to refer to the works of Dr. Weston Price and Vilhjalmur Stefansson. What they did might not be considered technically "science" because it's not peer-reviewed, doesn't have confidence intervals, mortality rates and whatnot but I consider it much more valuable as they spent years on the field studying people's diets and their health, not sitting in a comfy chair measuring blood cholesterol levels. Inuit lived practically on very fatty meat only. One can only imagine their LDL. Why weren't they dropping dead of cancer, diabetes and heart attacks at 30 years of age? Dr. Price says that in all his travels he didn't come upon a group that thrived on plant food only. If I remember correctly there was a community in the Swiss Alps that lived exclusively on wholegrain rye bread, cheese + some meat once a week and they were very healthy. That's was the diet closest to vegan that he described. Of course, these days with all the nutrition science advancements, with the addition of supplements, it's may be possible to thrive as vegan but I'm not willing to be the guinea pig. And yes, I'm well aware that feeding everyone animal protein is not sustainable in any way but that doesn't have much to do with the discussion whether animal protein is bad for your health or not. Given the problems with modern agriculture, it's questionable whether the Earth can sustain 9 billion vegans in the long term either. I try to take into account the cruelty of industrial farming when choosing my food, at least to certain extent. However, you need to note that the very fact of my existence means hundreds/thousands of critters are being killed. From ecological point of view, the best option would be for me to kill myself, not become a vegan. I just have to draw the line somewhere.

megous 9y ago

Correlations are non-transitive. You'd have to study: saturated fat intake <-> CVD

cageface 9y ago
Why would they not be transitive in this case? The mechanisms are well understood. All the "blue zone" diets are low in animal protein and saturated fat: https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/eating-to-break-100-longevity-diet-tips-from-the-blue-zones https://www.npr.org/sections/thesalt/2015/04/11/398325030/ea... Eat mostly plants, especially beans. And eat meat rarely, in small portions of 3 to 4 ounces. Blue Zoners eat portions this size just five times a month, on average.
- tim333 9y ago
  The mechanisms of cholesterol -> heart disease are not well understood. Cholesterol is a natural component of the blood - if it's too low or high it implies you are ill. The levels being off correlate with heart disease but I don't think there's a simple high cholesterol directly causes deposits causation.
  - Gibbon1 9y ago
    What would bother me is the idea of two stories Story one: High cholesterol --> higher rates of plaque deposition -> heart disease. Story two: Inflammation --> plaque deposition that is highly sensitive to cholesterol levels --> heart disease. No Inflammation --> no plaque deposition --> no heart disease. If story one is true, inflammation is unimportant. If story two is true then inflammation is what's important and going after cholesterol levels is treating a secondary cause instead of the primary cause. One gets fooled by the dose/disease relationship in the context of inflammation.
- megous 9y ago
  Not sure what you're asking? You've shown two correlations and you can't make the conclusion the way you did based on those two correlations. It's just how statistics works in our complex world. Perhaps if you can prove that only cholesterol affects CVD and nothing else. Good luck with that. You'd need to study the relationship directly. Otherwise, your ignoring the whole range of effects that eating saturated fat may have that would counteract CVD. You're just picking one effect (cholesterol) and making invalid transition from that to correlation between saturated fat and CVD.

JanSt 9y ago

> Literally hundreds of metabolic ward studies (the gold standard in nutrition) have demonstrated a direct, causal relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol levels. Yes, saturated fat can raise cholesterol (in some people). > And the correlation between high cholesterol levels and CVD has been known for decades. Correlation is not enough! By the same logic: Building fire stations (eating saturated fat) leads to more firefighters (cholesterol). Firefighters are highly correlated with burning buildings (CVD). So firefighters cause CVD? The body is way to complex for such a simple statement. There are also literally hundreds of studies that show the opposite.

cageface 9y ago
There are also literally hundreds of studies that show the opposite. Can you cite some? Actual feeding experiments and not self-reported diets?
- JanSt 9y ago
  One of the best points of evidence is the Minnesota Coronary Experiment, that was always used for your line of advice and recently turned around. http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246 https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-study-rediscovered-challenges-advice-on-saturated-fat/ https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2016/04/13/a-decades-old-stud... You can easily find more yourself.
Erlich_Bachman 9y ago
Your statements show some logic. Can you back them up with any actual studies? In my experience that's where these arguments usually start failing.

gassius 9y ago

If you mix a high carbs intake with a high (saturated) fat intake, you cholesterol will rise, and you probably will develop a coronary disease. The thing in those studies, and many others, is how they handle the carbs intake. I would like very much to read about metabolic ward studies in the following terms Baseline Macros and Overall Isocaloric Intake Baseline blood levels (Cholesterol, Insuline, Lipid curve, triglycerides, etc) Baseline BMI or any measure that could gave information of the subject energy reservoir. Macros and Overall Isocaloric Intake during study and duration Resulting blood levels after study and BMI. If anyone can provide links would love to read that

cageface 9y ago
Isocaloric studies have been done. I don’t have links handy but if you search a bit I’m sure you can find them. Ray Cronise has done some interesting work on the body’s metabolic priorities: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5326984/pdf/met.2016.0108.pdf https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5326984/pdf/met... In short, you’re basically right that eating fat along with carbs or protein will cause your body to store the fat and burn the other fuels it has available instead because storing fat is cheap.

padwan 9y ago

"Cholesterol levels" is a blunt term to use, there are HDL, LDL (with different particle sizes) etc. Correlation != causation "The total body of evidence suggests that attention should be shifted from the harmful effects of dietary SAFA per se, to the prevention of the accumulation of SAFA in body lipids. This shift would emphasise the importance of reducing dietary CHO, especially CHO with a high glycaemic index, rather than reducing dietary SAFA" http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?id=1095 http://www.njmonline.nl/getpdf.php?id=1095 -- "A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD" http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009... -- "High intake of cholesterol results in less atherogenic low-density lipoprotein particles in men and women independent of response classification" http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15164336 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15164336 -- "A high-fat, high–saturated fat diet is associated with diminished coronary artery disease progression in women with the metabolic syndrome." http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1102.full http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/80/5/1102.full -- n=1 https://denversdietdoctor.com/lchf-15-years-coronary-artery-calcium-score-zero/ https://denversdietdoctor.com/lchf-15-years-coronary-artery-...

cryptokush 9y ago
Can you please explain why in direct feeding metabolic ward studies we see a direct link between saturated fat intake and LDL cholesterol levels? We fully understand the mechanisms behind this. Epidemiologic studies of sick populations are useless. http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112 http://www.bmj.com/content/314/7074/112

mtgx 9y ago

A high cholesterol level can mean your body already had high levels of inflammation, so it produces more cholesterol to "fix it". But a side-effect of that is that it clogs your arteries. And it's worse when you have a Vitamin K2-deficient diet, which means calcium is slowly accumulated into your tissues and arteries. Heart attack is caused by the "plaque" that "breaks off". So I'm thinking it wouldn't be a plaque with just the cholesterol alone. It needs the calcium to really turn dangerous. I think everyone needs to do a CAC test. But it seems most doctors believe only the US president and astronauts are good enough for it. This documentary on it is a good one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WygYk81gXXk https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WygYk81gXXk

QuantumAphid 9y ago
Not disagreeing, but want to add that heart attacks are usually a result of an inflammatory process within coronary artery walls (as opposed to plaque building up on the outside of the wall). Inflammation in the artery wall leads to plaque buildup (to repair it). If that plaque breaks through the artery wall (the intima) into the bloodstream, a clot forms leading to a heart attack. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwri-0rTweI https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cwri-0rTweI https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209544/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3209544/
- LinuxBender 9y ago
  Is there anything that can be used to safely reverse the hardening / plaque buildup? I have been using 2-Hydroxypropyl-beta-Cyclodextrin in attempt to reverse damage to the outside of the arteries and will see with time if it helps. I would like to find something that can slowly and somewhat safely soften and dissolve the plaque in the arteries over a long period of time.
  - QuantumAphid 9y ago
    I don't know that there are medical studies showing positive results for any single factor. I've seen videos making the case for vitamin K2 and D3, as well as metformin. You will need to do your homework on this, ideally with a doctor. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulemSPBA3DA https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ulemSPBA3DA

gerbilly 9y ago

>the correlation between high cholesterol levels and CVD has been known for decades Exactly, correlation.

QuantumAphid 9y ago

Here's a related theory: People who consume a significant amount of fat tend to become overweight/obese because they also overconsume carbohydrates (and protein), which spikes blood insulin and causes the dietary fat to be stored as adipose tissue. People with a lot of adipose tissue have higher levels of cholesterol, a hormone manufactured by the body to manage its fat stores (among many other things). So in this scenario, is it eating saturated dietary fat which causes unhealthy levels of cholesterol in the blood? Or is it because the person's diet has caused them to become overweight/obese and therefore the body's cholesterol levels have increased as a result? In my own experience, I lost 20% of my body weight (57 lbs) by eating a high fat low-carb diet, supplemented by intermittent fasting. I was on statins (cholesterol medication) and an ARB (for hypertension), and was able to stop taking these meds 18 months after losing the weight. There are lots of reasons to avoid saturated oils/fat. I think it's misleading and overly simplistic to say or imply that dietary fat leads to high cholesterol. https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i/ https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-pa...

epalmer 9y ago
I have lost ~50 lbs on a keto diet. I test for ketones almost daily and only fall out of keto 1 out of 10 days or so. My blood chemistry is better than it ever has been. My A1C is great. My LDL and VLDL are very low. I eat saturated fat and olive oil. I eat fish 2 or more times a week. Some white fish (cod) but mostly salmon and a little tuna. I have more weight to lose, maybe another 40 lbs. I was trending towards metabolic syndrome before keto. I exercise for 40 to 50 mins a day, 5 days a week. Strength training walking and more. Since going keto (2 years ago) I have had no colds, no ear infections, no sinus infections. I have had the flu once. That is it. I used to get a lot of ear infections and colds and more. Several times a year. I have heart disease. I had 4-way bypass more than 10 years ago. I take a statin and aspirin. I am under two doctors care, a primary and a cardiologist. They support my keto diet. My primary says my systemic level of infection is very low resulting in less sickness. I am a sample size of one so take that for what it is worth.
cageface 9y ago
Losing weight, no matter how you do it, will lower your cholesterol and improve your overall health. And reducing your overall calorie intake also has a lot of benefits. That’s why people can report good results from a lot of different kinds of diets. But the causal link between saturated fat consumption and blood cholesterol levels is very well established. See my earlier comments for links. There are a lot of people out there with very questionable agendas out there trying to confuse people on this issue.