.

[jacob]

Also see,

http://earlyretirementextreme.com/my-hd ... -care.html

[IlliniDave]

Ah, a new word for the day. We do ask for too much from our current medical system some times, which causes doctors to try too hard. It takes a very reasonable person on both sides to prevent iatrogenesis.

I would like to do something like this at some point:

http://www.wellnessfx.com/

But, it isn't cheap. Especially, since it will probably take multiple times to get results that can be used.

@dave
I didn't mean to criticize your specific doctor. It was a criticism of the entire profession.

Chad, I wasn't even considering what you said. That disclaimer was a follow-up to my own post only. I really do like my doc, and presented her in a suboptimal light. I didn't take your remarks to be "against her".

That said, your point was correct and does apply to her to some degree--doctors in general just don't receive any more than token training on diet and exercise. A few of my crossfit pals are MDs and lament that frequently.

[Ego]

It would be interesting if these qualitative loops or closed cycles could be quantified (subject to mathematical extraction) to see if they're somehow an emergent property of any human system or whether they also exist elsewhere. Seems to me that animals, that we credit with some kind of will, never feel the _need_ to do something.

Inaction is also a choice ...

There have been attempts to quantify action-bias in soccer players - who are somewhere between human and animal, aren't they? (sorry JP I couldn't resist )

Action bias of soccer goalkeepers during penalty kicks.
http://ideas.repec.org/p/pra/mprapa/4477.html

When they analysed where most penalty kickers place the ball on taking the penalty they found that just over 1/3 of the time they shoot for the middle and the remaining times, just under two thirds they aim for either the left or right corner. And yet when faced with the decision of what to do almost all goal keepers prefer to leap either to the left or the right rather than standing in the middle, where on average they are marginally more likely to save more goals. The thinking behind such a decision is that it looks and feels better to have missed the ball by diving (action) in the wrong direction than to have the ignominy of watching the ball go sailing past and never to have moved. Action bias is usually an emotional reaction based on the feeling that ‘I have to do something’ even if I don’t know what to do.

Should we argue for the German half-a-point system or the French system?
http://existentialcomics.com/comic/35

*and with this post I believe I won the contest to take a thread the furthest off topic.

[7Wannabe5]

Dragline said @7 -- there might or might not be those correlations. food/body typing has kind of a sordid history of quackery, but there was probably some truth to it that is buried in DNA and gene expression. And if you have African-sourced genetic markers, your variance could be much wider than for others (something we learned when we read "The Sports Gene" in the book club).

That would make sense but my tendency towards gynoid fat distribution is clearly passed down my maternal line which is Polish (my father's heritage is English/Irish) but I also inherited Asiatic dental characteristics (extra root on molar) and slightly folded eyelids from my mother which would generally be more linked to a lower gynoid fat distribution. Anyways, according to the book "The Triumph of Individual Style" (highly recommend to anyone who would like to learn the core rules of fashion so they can spend less money), the likely reason why my waist-to-hip ratio is "healthy' at a relatively high weight is because my rise (distance from groin to belly button) is 4 inches too long relative to the length of my extremities.

[Ego]

I am intrigued by your DNA analysis comments. I would love to hear more specifics about it. What studies are being ordered and how are they being interpreted.

I had mine done through 23andme before the FDA crack down on them last November-- evidently, the FDA disapproves of providing people with information about themselves they just might be able to use. Research is ongoing as to which markers mean what, and keeps getting updated.

J. Craig Venter has a new company offering complete genomic sequencing....

http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/new ... insurance/

Venter's Human Longevity Inc. and Discovery Ltd. will offer comprehensive genetic sequencing and analysis to Discovery's members in the two countries. For $250 and a blood sample, members can get a sequencing of their whole exome, the portion of DNA that codes for proteins, and an analysis of the results. Other services include sequencing of the entire genome, and sequencing of the genomes of cancer cells.

Next month, Human Longevity is unveiling a comprehensive physical, called the HLI Health Nucleus. The first center will be opened in San Diego. Later, Discovery and Human Longevity plan to open other Health Nucleus centers in South Africa and the UK.

“It will be the most comprehensive physical you can get anywhere on the planet in 24 hours or less,” Venter said.

Anonymized information from the patients' genome and their health status is licensed to Human Longevity. That information will help HLI make new discoveries, Venter said. Each person's own genomic data belongs to the individuals.


http://www.humanlongevity.com

[Chad]

Dr. Rhonda Patrick is also developing a tool to help someone understand your genetic profile, since the FDA seems more interested in restricting information than testing drugs.

https://foundmyfitness.com/

Coming soon... a powerful tool for interpreting 23andMe raw genetic data!
The interface between genetics and nutrition is fascinating, and I want to make it easier for you guys to learn your own genotype.

I think this might be a way around the FDA restrictions, as it won't be from 23andMe and you will probably have to do a little work to get the answers. FDA probably can't stop that.

[Ego]

New research from Harvard regarding animal fat and cardiovascular disease. Dragline made the point above that many people become gummy-bear and Doritos vegetarians, and then are surprised when their poor vegetarian diet makes them sick. Turns out, that is precisely the shift that the two bogus butter-is-good-for-you studies presented (substituting saturated fat with processed carbs). These are the same studies tech-entrepreneurs-turned-fitness-experts use to justify high animal fat intake. It is now safe to discontinue the silly practice of putting butter in coffee.

http://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2 ... melt-away/

Many people fall back on carbs, especially refined carbs like white bread, when they reduce saturated fat in their diets, said senior author Frank Hu, professor of nutrition and epidemiology. This may in part explain findings from a controversial 2014 paper that called into question recommendations for limiting saturated fat for heart health, and led to headlines promoting the return of butter.

“Our research does not exonerate saturated fat,” said Hu. “In terms of heart disease risk, saturated fat and refined carbohydrates appear to be similarly unhealthful.”

[Chad]

Except there was a Harvard trained doctor,who I think is at Cal now, whose research showed that saturated fat was very beneficial to cardiovascular system. Basically, it greatly improved all the standard blood markers. For instance, it increased HDL and increased the good LDL (fluffy large particle that gets used appropriately by the cells, as opposed to small particle which stays in the blood and damages the arteries).

He actually theorized the most damage is done by eating a high bad carb diet with high saturated fat, but he noted he has not been able to test this hypothesis yet.

The link for the podcast is at the FoundMyFitness link I listed above. The site is down right now, so I can't provide a direct link to the exact podcast. I have posted it before.

[Chad]

Interesting article on saturated fat:

http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-and-butter/

[GandK]

Interesting article on saturated fat:

http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-and-butter/

Thanks for that.

I'm a huge fan of coconut oil, which can help people to lose abdominal fat, in addition to having a lot of other health benefits. Although since one of those benefits is that it has antimicrobial properties, I'm getting a little nervous as I read the microbiome thread...

[Ego]

Interesting article on saturated fat:

http://authoritynutrition.com/low-carb-and-butter/

A few things:

1) About the author from his website:

Kris is a nutrition researcher with a Bachelor’s degree in medicine. He has spent years reading books, blogs and scientific studies on nutrition. Evidence-based nutrition is his passion and he plans to devote his career to informing people about it. He stays fit by lifting weights, taking walks and eating real food.

I have to admit, I didn't know there was such a thing as a a bachelor's in medicine. He sells access to his "members area" of the website at $5 a month.

2) Regarding saturated fat, he quotes the two studies that the Harvard researchers say were flawed because they substituted saturated fat with simple carbs. Yes, both are bad. He then quotes a study that shows what he calls a small improvement if you substitute saturated fat with polyunsaturated fat. He then turns around and says,

"Overall, the evidence seems pretty clear that saturated fat is not bad."

What? In the sentence before that he links to a study that says it IS bad. Hum.

3) According to the lead of the Harvard study, “Our research does not exonerate saturated fat,” said Hu. “In terms of heart disease risk, saturated fat and refined carbohydrates appear to be similarly unhealthful.”

4) The problem is that there may be more immediate, externally-obvious benefits like those mentioned by GandK that result from saturated fat intake, but evidence is showing that the increased intake come with long-term costs.

Instant gratification is tempting. I prefer the long view.

[Chad]

Oh, he is definitely questionable. I should have been clearer. I was posting it for the middle part with the linked studies, which are interesting. Though, they aren't perfect, as you point out.

[Chad]

The website is backup so, here is the podcast about saturated fat and LDL I was talking about earlier:

https://foundmyfitness.com/news/s/egkyx ... ined_carbs

He was also part of the Chori bar study (I've mentioned the study before). Here is some background info on him:

http://www.chori.org/Principal_Investig ... rview.html

This research seems much more realistic than the research demonizing saturated fat, as it backs up my own experience. I changed my diet this year to a higher fat/protein and lower carb. Roughly 25% carb, 40-45% fat, and 30-35% protein. The fat make up is mostly from olive oil, macadamia nut oil, and high fat dairy/butter (not more than 1 tablespoon a day, but usually about 2/3 tablespoon), while the carbs are almost all from vegetables and fruit (virtually no grains, even high fiber ones). This was a change from a 40% carb, 30-35% fat and protein diet, which included grains. This improved my blood markers and let me lose weight. (Note: I usually have a cheat day a week for social activities.)

I'm very skeptical of researchers still supporting the higher carb diets. This doesn't seem to match modern research or my direct experience.

[Ego]

The website is backup so, here is the podcast about saturated fat and LDL I was talking about earlier:

https://foundmyfitness.com/news/s/egkyx ... ined_carbs

He was also part of the Chori bar study (I've mentioned the study before). Here is some background info on him:

http://www.chori.org/Principal_Investig ... rview.html
.

I've been trying to download the podcast today with no success. I'll try again tomorrow. I did read the study he quotes.

While googling him I found his resume online.

http://www.wcir.org/WCIR_CV/Krauss_Ronald_CV.pdf

Page 3, Major Grant Support is interesting reading: I only included a few below.

Principal Investigator, National Dairy Council/Dairy Management, Inc., DMI #1875, “Association of Dairy Consumption with Lipoprotein Subfractions and Cardiovascular Disease in the Malmö Diet and Cancer Study,” 2009 – 2010

Principal Investigator, National Dairy Council/Dairy Management, Inc., DMI #01719, “Changes in LDL and HDL with Increased Intake of Saturated Fat from Dairy Foods in Individuals with Atherogenic Dyslipidemia and LDL Subclass Pattern B,” 2008 – 2010

Principal Investigator, National Cattlemen’s Beef Association “Lipoprotein Effects of Substituting Beef Protein for Carbohydrate,” 2007-2009

Back in the late 1980s before he was funded by Cattleman and Dairy groups, he published a study critical of high fat diets...

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3024477

In the early 2000's he started speaking at dairy and meat industry events. Would someone get paid for something like that?

The study quoted in the podcast was funded by The National Dairy Council.

https://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2014nl/mar/krauss2.htm

....and was pummeled in the same journal...

pdf. http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.full.pdf

His institute at UCSF http://livercenter.ucsf.edu/members/rkrauss.html

Funded by the National Dairy Council since 1989, the overall objective of our Institute is to delineate genetic and metabolic factors responsible for individual variation in susceptibility to the effects of dairy fat on cardiovascular disease risk.

[Chad]

Good catch on his sponsor. Though, it's exceedingly difficult to find any researcher who doesn't have some factor biasing them, but it's a very valid point.

The criticism in the journal seems to suggest we need to confirm all this and expand it to other factors. Isn't that the issue with every health study? Isn't that why we don't just have one a hard answer?

For instance:

Do these traits predict CHD risk independently of established major metabolic risk factors such as adverse total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol, blood pressure (BP), body mass, and hyperglycemia/diabetes?

All good questions, but would seem difficult to answer in any one study. Though, there seems to be a lot of studies supporting the loss of body mass and reduction of glucose readings by increasing fat and decreasing carbs. I know that's personally the case for me, as I have been measuring my body composition and blood markers over the last 8 months (BP, resting pulse, HDL, LDL, triglycerides, glucose, etc.). My diet* changes also coincide with increased exercise, so obviously there are multiple variables at work. If I had to rate which ones impacted my health the most it would be:

#1 - Calories consumed
#2 - Exercise
#3 - Higher fat ratio diet. Though, not Atkins or Paleo level. I kind of describe it as a cross between Mediterranean and Paleo.

I am going to continue to track everything going forward. It will be interesting to see how the blood markers fare over the long-term. While, I'm not that interested in the weight loss part of it, as I'm extremely confident that will continue until I hit a lower body fat level.

Some further studies:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20089734

Replacement of saturated fat by polyunsaturated or monounsaturated fat lowers both LDL and HDL cholesterol. However, replacement with a higher carbohydrate intake, particularly refined carbohydrate, can exacerbate the atherogenic dyslipidemia associated with insulin resistance and obesity that includes increased triglycerides, small LDL particles, and reduced HDL cholesterol. In summary, although substitution of dietary polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat has been shown to lower CVD risk, there are few epidemiologic or clinical trial data to support a benefit of replacing saturated fat with carbohydrate. Furthermore, particularly given the differential effects of dietary saturated fats and carbohydrates on concentrations of larger and smaller LDL particles, respectively, dietary efforts to improve the increasing burden of CVD risk associated with atherogenic dyslipidemia should primarily emphasize the limitation of refined carbohydrate intakes and a reduction in excess adiposity.

One question from this one would be the amount and ratio of poly to saturated fat. Also, it should be mentioned that slightly higher chlosterol may not be bad if it's higher HDL and higher LDL large particle, which is what other studies have suggested saturated fat does.

As a side note, this review of studies suggests the correlation of high saturated fat to heart disease isn't strong even in the studies that suggest the correlation.
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2 ... rease.html

One of the longest-running, most comprehensive and most highly cited observational studies, the Framingham study was organized by Harvard investigators and continues to this day. When investigators analyzed the relationship between saturated fat intake, serum cholesterol and heart attack risk, they were so disappointed that they never formally published the results. We know from multiple sources that they found no significant relationship between saturated fat intake and blood cholesterol or heart attack risk***.

This one basically backs up the study in my previous post. Yes, it's funded by organizations with an interest in saturated not being demonized.
https://news.osu.edu/news/2014/11/21/st ... -in-blood/


*I wanted to break my diet down further than just the "25% carb, 40-45% fat, and 30-35% protein." That 40% in fat isn't all saturated fat by any means. Though, I did replace any non/lowfat dairy with the full fat version and I use about a tablespoon of butter every day at dinner. I usually hit around 30g of saturated fat a day. Though, the day or two a week I eat beef bumps that up to high 30s in saturated fat. So, obviously I'm not eating a ton of saturated fat in the 45% fat portion of my diet.

[IlliniDave]

*I wanted to break my diet down further than just the "25% carb, 40-45% fat, and 30-35% protein." That 40% in fat isn't all saturated fat by any means. Though, I did replace any non/lowfat dairy with the full fat version and I use about a tablespoon of butter every day at dinner. I usually hit around 30g of saturated fat a day. Though, the day or two a week I eat beef bumps that up to high 30s in saturated fat. So, obviously I'm not eating a ton of saturated fat in the 45% fat portion of my diet.

This is very close to the "Zone Diet", where in terms of calories its about one-third each for protein/carbs/fat. Like you, I do personally better with a somewhat fewer carbs and near elimination of grains and starchy veggies. Had large improvements in blood lipids and BP when I made the switch. My MD thought I was lying about having thrown out the cholesterol meds she'd prescribed, even though my improvement was 2-3x anything she'd ever seen with the drug in question. This switch came right on the heels of 6-months fastidiously adhering to the American Heart Association nutrition guidelines for at-risk patients (during which I got worse). That experience is why I am unwilling to blindly accept scientific "consensus" on a topic. Those guys were trying to kill me in order to maximize their revenues from my drug consumption! Always follow the money.

Dr. Sears (Zone guy) is sort of anti-saturated fat (favors fish oil, nuts, olive oil omega-3s). But his book is 20+ years old and he may have modified due to newer research. Don't remember the source but I remember reading that there's some sort of optimum with about 50% of fat from saturated animal fat, and 50% fat from the various "healthy" unsaturated sources (fish, olive, nuts, etc).

[jennypenny]

Sort of related ... Last spring, the FDA went after KIND bars for having too much fat to call themselves "healthy."

http://money.cnn.com/2015/04/15/news/co ... index.html

"Nuts ... contain nutritious fats that exceed the amount allowed under the FDA's standard," the company said in a blog post. "This is similar to other foods that do not meet the standard for use of the term healthy, but are generally considered to be good for you like avocados, salmon and eggs."

[Ego]

@Chad, So it sounds like we agree that refined carbs should be avoided because they cause heart disease. No question. Also you said, "As a side note, this review of studies suggests the correlation of high saturated fat to heart disease isn't strong even in the studies that suggest the correlation". The new study I quoted above says the effect is similar to that of refined carbs.

It seems this is where we disagree. We agree that evidence shows that saturated fat is correlated with heart disease. We disagree on just how bad it is.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precautionary_principle

[Chad]

@IlliniDave
I guess it is kind of close to the Zone Diet. Though, that wasn't actually the basis for the creation of my current diet. I created mine based on some overall rules/guidelines, such as:

- Fat is fine to eat, even saturated fat. Just make sure it's from good sources (olive oil, nuts, seeds, grass fed beef, eggs, fatty fish, etc.).
- Keep calories roughly in the 2000-2500 per day range. This prevents over eating of the above, as nuts and seeds can add up quickly.
- Eliminate low nutrition foods. This basically eliminates grains, even multi-grain products with little processing. Obviously, it eliminates processed foods. It also means carbs are fine if they are from vegetables and fruits, which means the total amount of carbs will be low. Though, I do stay away from potatoes, but I do have a sweet potato every now and then. They actually have a significant amount of nutrition.

These rules along with my personal tastes and my blood work led me to my current diet.

I had the same improvement in my blood work like you had with your cholesterol. I went from high in almost every marker to low-middle in every marker in about 3 months (could have been sooner, but didn't have my blood tested before that). Luckily, my doctor was supportive of the dietary changes even before my good blood work came in. Very supportive.

@jp
Yeah, I don't have any doubt the old food pyramid is debunked. It seemed to be created to focus on food that can be easily stored for long periods of time and easily produced. Not what actually provided nutrition.

[Chad]

@Ego
Yeah, we are probably closer than further apart on this issue. Though, I don't think a normal/non-extreme amount of saturated fat is bad for you at all. I actually think it's good for you. I don't think that only eating eggs, beef, cheese, etc., like Atkins, is good either, but most extremes of any kind aren't.

I also don't think that most health studies are very well managed. Including the ones I actually rely on. They leave too many other variables out of the equation. Though, I do think we can glean bits and pieces from these studies. For example, the study done with Chori bars, which I have mentioned in the past. Taking very unhealthy people and just adding in a bar with high nutritional value improved their blood work and caused weight loss. This seems to suggest the nutritional value of the food should be a primary guideline in what to eat, which means not just the macros. Also, even though he was funded by the dairy industry, Krauss's conclusions about saturated fat improving the particle size of LDL is significant.

I do think you could eat the low processed grains (multigrain with high fiber naturally occurring not falsely added in) in a diet and be ok. It's just that they are very easy to overeat, as a piece of bread is less filling, less nutritious, and has more calories than an apple, orange, bell pepper, etc. Plus, if you have grain with every meal there isn't a lot of room left for vegetables and fruit with actual nutrition.

Part of my strong stance on saturated fat, and fat in general, is how stupidly demonized it has been. So, I probably go a little over board in support.