4 ms·

Numerous direct intervention studies have shown the clear causal link between dietary saturated fat and blood cholesterol levels. You can obscure this fact by p

Numerous direct intervention studies have shown the clear causal link between dietary saturated fat and blood cholesterol levels. You can obscure this fact by playing games with population meta studies because individual baseline levels vary a lot and are genetically determined. https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-set-up-to-fail/ https://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-saturated-fat-studies-s... Anecdotally, I and several people I know have dramatically dropped our blood cholesterol levels by cutting this stuff out of our diets.

ryanworl 8y ago
Why are you concerned with blood cholesterol as opposed to e.g. calcium scoring or actual inflammation markers you can measure almost as easily as a lipid panel? One does not spontaneously develop atherosclerosis from elevated blood cholesterol. That just doesn’t make sense from a metabolic perspective.
- cageface 8y ago
  Elevated LDL is very highly correlated with heart disease. Studies that show that people born with genetically very low cholesterol levels are practically immune to heart disease reinforce this. The mechanism for this is well understood.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    There are many studies confirming no link between high LDL and heart disease. It’s a myth.
    - cageface 8y ago
      Meat industry smoke and mirrors siezed upon by people that want to feel good about eating thier bacon, unfortunately: https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo If what you say is true then why are people born with exceptionally low cholesterol levels basically immune to heart disease?
      - bad_user 8y ago
        I don’t know from where you get your ideas, but as a matter of fact low LDL is associated with heart disease!
        cageface 8y ago
        You could, you know, actually watch the video I linked.
        bad_user 8y ago
        I don't watch YouTube bullshit. Start by reading this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068
        cageface 8y ago
        He summarizes a bunch of peer review studies in that video instead of just choosing one that supports his point of view. Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy but it also peaked in 1999: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-americans-consume-its-complicated/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-american... What's exploded since then is chicken and cheese consumption.
        mmt 8y ago
        > Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy I'm unconvinced that anything is "definitely unhealthy", especially when lumping "sugar" (which sugar?) in with "sweeteners". First, I want a credible mechanism of action (e.g. "Sugar, the bitter truth", on Youtube, since you seem to like Youtube videos), then I want credible studies, which we're terribly light on, before reaching any conclusions. > but it also peaked in 1999: Assuming obesity (after some delay, according to whatever theory this is) did not also peak, that merely refutes the theory that obesity is directly proportional to sugar consumption (in whatever way measurement methodology that article used). AFAICT, that theory is a strawman. A more nuanced theory would include all intake of fructose, to the exclusion of glucose (e.g. sucrose only counts half but HFCS is variable depending on formulation), with an accounting of absorption prevention by the presence of fiber (as in fruit). An even more nuanced theory wouldn't depend on a simple linear proportional correspondence but would assume a minimum "safe" daily fructose dose above which obesity effects would be triggered. Perhaps, above that, the degree of obesity in the individuals suffering from it would follow a proportional curve, but the rate incidence in the population wouldn't be expected to go down until the rate of consumption fell below that minimum threshold for enough individuals. Assuming that threshold corresponds to 40g of sucrose daily [1], all the numbers in the article are so far above it, a 15% drop fails to refute such a theory. > On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down Most importantly, this kind of statistic would have to be considered suspect on its face, because it's unclear if fruit juices, a source of highly-concentrated, fiber-free fructose, are included. Is it considered a "sweetener" if it was there all along and almost everything else was removed? The body doesn't care, but the government statisticians might. We need not look to chicken and cheese if "refined" sweeteners have just been swapped out for "natural" ones. [1] the US RDA for all sugars is 50g, according to the article. A better estimate for the threshold, according to such a theory, would be pre-obesity US sugar consumption, such as from the 1950s.
bad_user 8y ago
There is no link between high cholesterol and heart disease, I.e. correlation is not causation. If we are speaking of anecdotes, I eat a lot of fat, I’m on a keto diet and my cholesterol dropped to normal after I began keto. And this is actually consistent with the claims of high fat proponents... that it’s insulin that triggers the metabolic syndrome, causing problems with LDL too, and insulin levels and resistance go up because of the sugars and the refined carbs in our diet.
- cageface 8y ago
  Fats and protein also stimulate insulin release and a steak triggers a bigger insulin response than a bowl of white pasta. Check any chart of insulin responses to confirm this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index Losing weight by any means will lower your cholesterol. But the typical high fat low carb keto diet has the highest mortality rate of any popular diet.
  - bad_user 8y ago
    Protein stimulates insulin, but fat does not ;-) This is why modern low-carbs diets are "high fat, moderate protein". Also, this is NOT a war against all carbohydrates, but against refined carbohydrates, like sugar (corn syrup) or white flour. These refined carbohydrates in our daily diet have raised the insulin resistance of the population to the point that we have a type 2 diabetes and obesity epidemic on our hands and the problem is worse year by year. N.B. our bodies can recover from insulin resistance, there are numerous reports of people with type 2 diabetes getting rid of their disease after a low carb diet. However it can take years for your metabolism to go back to normal and in the meantime things like potatoes (which otherwise are healthy and satiating) are unfortunately bad for you. Of course, you can blame refined carbs for damaging your body, and NOT potatoes. > But the typical high fat low carb keto diet has the highest mortality rate of any popular diet. That's a myth. Show me the evidence. On the other hand, this is my favorite study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068
    - 8y ago

ryanworl 8y ago

Why are you concerned with blood cholesterol as opposed to e.g. calcium scoring or actual inflammation markers you can measure almost as easily as a lipid panel? One does not spontaneously develop atherosclerosis from elevated blood cholesterol. That just doesn’t make sense from a metabolic perspective.

cageface 8y ago
Elevated LDL is very highly correlated with heart disease. Studies that show that people born with genetically very low cholesterol levels are practically immune to heart disease reinforce this. The mechanism for this is well understood.
- bad_user 8y ago
  There are many studies confirming no link between high LDL and heart disease. It’s a myth.
  - cageface 8y ago
    Meat industry smoke and mirrors siezed upon by people that want to feel good about eating thier bacon, unfortunately: https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo If what you say is true then why are people born with exceptionally low cholesterol levels basically immune to heart disease?
    - bad_user 8y ago
      I don’t know from where you get your ideas, but as a matter of fact low LDL is associated with heart disease!
      - cageface 8y ago
        You could, you know, actually watch the video I linked.
        bad_user 8y ago
        I don't watch YouTube bullshit. Start by reading this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068
        cageface 8y ago
        He summarizes a bunch of peer review studies in that video instead of just choosing one that supports his point of view. Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy but it also peaked in 1999: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-americans-consume-its-complicated/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-american... What's exploded since then is chicken and cheese consumption.
        mmt 8y ago
        > Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy I'm unconvinced that anything is "definitely unhealthy", especially when lumping "sugar" (which sugar?) in with "sweeteners". First, I want a credible mechanism of action (e.g. "Sugar, the bitter truth", on Youtube, since you seem to like Youtube videos), then I want credible studies, which we're terribly light on, before reaching any conclusions. > but it also peaked in 1999: Assuming obesity (after some delay, according to whatever theory this is) did not also peak, that merely refutes the theory that obesity is directly proportional to sugar consumption (in whatever way measurement methodology that article used). AFAICT, that theory is a strawman. A more nuanced theory would include all intake of fructose, to the exclusion of glucose (e.g. sucrose only counts half but HFCS is variable depending on formulation), with an accounting of absorption prevention by the presence of fiber (as in fruit). An even more nuanced theory wouldn't depend on a simple linear proportional correspondence but would assume a minimum "safe" daily fructose dose above which obesity effects would be triggered. Perhaps, above that, the degree of obesity in the individuals suffering from it would follow a proportional curve, but the rate incidence in the population wouldn't be expected to go down until the rate of consumption fell below that minimum threshold for enough individuals. Assuming that threshold corresponds to 40g of sucrose daily [1], all the numbers in the article are so far above it, a 15% drop fails to refute such a theory. > On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down Most importantly, this kind of statistic would have to be considered suspect on its face, because it's unclear if fruit juices, a source of highly-concentrated, fiber-free fructose, are included. Is it considered a "sweetener" if it was there all along and almost everything else was removed? The body doesn't care, but the government statisticians might. We need not look to chicken and cheese if "refined" sweeteners have just been swapped out for "natural" ones. [1] the US RDA for all sugars is 50g, according to the article. A better estimate for the threshold, according to such a theory, would be pre-obesity US sugar consumption, such as from the 1950s.

bad_user 8y ago

There is no link between high cholesterol and heart disease, I.e. correlation is not causation. If we are speaking of anecdotes, I eat a lot of fat, I’m on a keto diet and my cholesterol dropped to normal after I began keto. And this is actually consistent with the claims of high fat proponents... that it’s insulin that triggers the metabolic syndrome, causing problems with LDL too, and insulin levels and resistance go up because of the sugars and the refined carbs in our diet.

cageface 8y ago
Fats and protein also stimulate insulin release and a steak triggers a bigger insulin response than a bowl of white pasta. Check any chart of insulin responses to confirm this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Insulin_index Losing weight by any means will lower your cholesterol. But the typical high fat low carb keto diet has the highest mortality rate of any popular diet.
- bad_user 8y ago
  Protein stimulates insulin, but fat does not ;-) This is why modern low-carbs diets are "high fat, moderate protein". Also, this is NOT a war against all carbohydrates, but against refined carbohydrates, like sugar (corn syrup) or white flour. These refined carbohydrates in our daily diet have raised the insulin resistance of the population to the point that we have a type 2 diabetes and obesity epidemic on our hands and the problem is worse year by year. N.B. our bodies can recover from insulin resistance, there are numerous reports of people with type 2 diabetes getting rid of their disease after a low carb diet. However it can take years for your metabolism to go back to normal and in the meantime things like potatoes (which otherwise are healthy and satiating) are unfortunately bad for you. Of course, you can blame refined carbs for damaging your body, and NOT potatoes. > But the typical high fat low carb keto diet has the highest mortality rate of any popular diet. That's a myth. Show me the evidence. On the other hand, this is my favorite study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068
  - 8y ago