Is Cholesterol Bad?

[Seneca]

http://thepeopleschemist.com/does-the-f ... d-aspirin/

[Chad]

Don't disagree with the article. There is little evidence supporting the cholesterol is evil view. Though, that site gives me the creeps, as it has a very infomercial or snake oil salesman feel.

[Seneca]

Don't disagree with the article. There is little evidence supporting the cholesterol is evil view. Though, that site gives me the creeps, as it has a very infomercial or snake oil salesman feel.

Yeah, I wouldn't surf his site much.

I probably should've gone looking for a better link, just came across this one browsing unrelated stuff this AM and figured I'd share.

[Felix]

There are two extremist camps on this:

The vegans:

McDougall, Campbell, Esselstyn, Barnard with their big book "The china study". They have impressive studies showing an actual removal of plaque in arteries with extreme-risk-cases on a low-fat whole foods vegan diet. They believe saturated fat is evil, animal protein is evil, eating animal parts is bad for your health in general.

The low-carbers:

Most prominent in this camp is Gary Taubes with his magnum opus on the topic "Good Calories, Bad Calories" (besides Ravnskoff, Eades and others). He dug up decades of old research contradicting the low-fat advice generally offered and came to the conclusion that carbs and especially sugar are the root of all evil and that people should go on something like the Atkins diet long term to be healthy. He cites the improvement of lipid profiles on Low-carb diets as proof of it reducing heart disease risk factors.

There is also a non-extremist approach, which basically says that weight loss (no matter how it is achieved) all by itself reduces plaques even if carbs and animal products are consumed and they can also show this, explaining basically the results of both extremist groups above.

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/03/0 ... ery.clogs/

So moderation seems to work fine if you keep your weight in check. If I had high risk, I would bet on the vegans, though, given they have the data to show reversal of heart disease. It may well turn out though, that it is a way of overdoing it.

At least that's my current take on it.

[Chad]

From my own experimentation I do better on the lower carb diet. I find The China Study a little shaky based on my own research. Plus, I have yet to meet a vegan that appeared to be healthy. Though, I have seen a couple pictures of these healthy vegans on-line.

[slimicy]

The China Study --any epidemiological study, really-- is flawed and shouldn't be used to defend any type of cause/effect relationship (source:http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmast ... d-for-all/).

There are a lot of new studies, a few just coming out in the last few weeks, that show the higher your cholesterol the lower your chance of death. The actual highest all-cause mortality rates were those with total cholesterol numbers < 100. This lines up with what a lot of the anti-vegan people have been stating all along (especially Taubes), that cholesterol is a necessary component of our blood, and what exists in our body is more related to the overall health of our livers (where cholesterol is manufactured by the body) than by what we actually eat.


Disclaimer: I'm Paleo and a huge Sisson/Taubes/Wolf/Krause fan.


EDIT: I linked to the westonprice site because my work filter is blocking the actual article. It's embedded in the linked article as: The China Study: Fact or Fallacy?

[theanimal]

There hasn't been a legitimate critique of The China Study by someone who is not backed by the meat or dairy industry, or is a proponent of factory farming. I think its really important to research the authors of any presented study. You may be surprised by what you find.

To avoid yet another nutritional battle I will not engage in further discussion. That is all.

[Felix]

I found this one interesting:

http://www.plantpositive.com/

It's a critique of the common arguments in favor of the high-fat/paleo diet made by a vegan.

Very interesting and made me doubt the Taubesian argument of which I used to be a great fan.

I go for moderation now (which should make me get diabetes and/or heart disease depending on who you listen to). It's easier and I must say I feel better this way than on both of the extremes, especially long-term.

I no longer have any stakes in these discussions and mostly read and watch the stuff out of curiosity. However, I must say these videos make compelling arguments.

[Ego]

One of the things that the plant-based vegan physicians as well as many of the fitness-experts, lifestyle-hackers and journalists on the paleo side (ahem ) agree on the fact that cows milk should be avoided. Well, that's not completely true... not all the paleo folks believe it. Sisson is open to the idea. But the one with "Dr." in front of his name (albeit a Phd in Exercise Physiology) is strongly against milk....

http://thepaleodiet.com/qa-with-dr-cordain-milk/

What they don't agree on is why milk should be avoided. The vegan physicians (McDougall MD, Esselstyn MD, Barnard MD, Furhman MD) believe the cholesterol/fat hypothesis. The fitness experts/lifestyle hackers/journalists (Taubes, Sisson, Wolf, Ferris) don't.

Couldn't help myself

[Dragline]

Which kind of cholesterol is the real question. I suppose there are arguments about LDL such as presented on that website, but having a high HDL is pretty much accepted by everyone as a good thing and is correlated with a low CVD risk and increased longevity. Most doctors will look at the ratio now more than the total.

As for the vegan/paleo debate, I think its more about eating non-processed food than sticking to some orthorexic nutrient regime. I find the vegan camp in particular is often attempting to use nutritional science to support a philosophy or religious preference, which ends up doing a dis-service to both.

I like Michael Pollan's advice, which is "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." He observes that many diets - some involving meat and some not -- have given rise to healthy cultures. But none involving processed food. Here's more on that: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/ ... for-eating

Long-term, I think we are likely to find that some people are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of diets or have trouble digesting certain substances, like we already know in connection with dairy products and gluten. At least that's my hypothesis.

[slimicy]

What they don't agree on is why milk should be avoided. The vegan physicians (McDougall MD, Esselstyn MD, Barnard MD, Furhman MD) believe the cholesterol/fat hypothesis. The fitness experts/lifestyle hackers/journalists (Taubes, Sisson, Wolf, Ferris) don't.

One theory from the Paleo side of the fence:
http://articles.mercola.com/sites/artic ... -milk.aspx

[Seneca]

One of the things that the plant-based vegan physicians as well as many of the fitness-experts, lifestyle-hackers and journalists on the paleo side (ahem ) agree on the fact that cows milk should be avoided. Well, that's not completely true... not all the paleo folks believe it. Sisson is open to the idea. But the one with "Dr." in front of his name (albeit a Phd in Exercise Physiology) is strongly against milk....

http://thepaleodiet.com/qa-with-dr-cordain-milk/

What they don't agree on is why milk should be avoided. The vegan physicians (McDougall MD, Esselstyn MD, Barnard MD, Furhman MD) believe the cholesterol/fat hypothesis. The fitness experts/lifestyle hackers/journalists (Taubes, Sisson, Wolf, Ferris) don't.

Couldn't help myself

If you think the cow milk debate is bad, you should look in to human milk and the associated zealots for breastfeeding.

(I'm scared enough of those people I feel compelled to say our son is breastfeed only in case one of them finds me.)

[Ego]

I like Michael Pollan's advice, which is "Eat food, not too much, mostly plants." He observes that many diets - some involving meat and some not -- have given rise to healthy cultures. But none involving processed food. Here's more on that: http://www.webmd.com/food-recipes/news/ ... for-eating

Long-term, I think we are likely to find that some people are genetically predisposed to certain kinds of diets or have trouble digesting certain substances, like we already know in connection with dairy products and gluten. At least that's my hypothesis.

I agree. I think you are spot-on about dietary predispositions and cancer, heart-disease, stroke and diabetes.

As someone who was never particularly troubled by the ethics of hunting, fishing or meat eating, I was surprised by Pollan's review of Pete Singer's book.

http://michaelpollan.com/articles-archi ... als-place/

[bike_the_world]

The China Study --any epidemiological study, really-- is flawed and shouldn't be used to defend any type of cause/effect relationship (source:http://www.westonaprice.org/blogs/cmast ... d-for-all/).

These folks make the same point that mere observation of lived experience is no substitute for the gold standard of evidence provided by a randomized and double-blind controlled clinical trial...

http://www.bmj.com/content/327/7429/1459

[Hottentot]

http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/08/06/final- ... onse-html/

[JohnnyH]

Meh, I think it's a measure of inflammation; at the scene of the crime but not the culprit... I think Dragline hit it on the head: avoiding processed foods is more important than any dogma.

For myself, pasta, sugar, bread, varieties of corn syrup, white carbs makes for incredibly efficient weight gain (seems to defy law of conservation of mass)... My body also reacts poorly to processed oil and modern fried foods. Meanwhile, I can consume twice the calories (stupid unit for human digestion non-combustive breakdown) in nonprocessed fats, wild meats, virtually all the fruits, vegetables, berries and even beer/wine my hungry body can consume. AND slowly loose weight until my equilibrium point (caveat; naturally gravitate towards 1 meal daily).

There is also a non-extremist approach, which basically says that weight loss (no matter how it is achieved) all by itself reduces plaques even if carbs and animal products are consumed and they can also show this, explaining basically the results of both extremist groups above.

I know several engineering types that adhered to this like a religion: calorie in = calorie out... Deep down I think they used it as a justification for eating all the tasty "healthy" power bars, breakfast cereals and pasta required to replenish their ambitious glycogen demands... Anyway in my limited case stude (n=5), despite athletic practices and very low BMIs, they usually seem to age just like those who lack. Tragic, athletes who perform and look fantastically finding out they have heart problems.

[Dragline]

I know several engineering types that adhered to this like a religion: calorie in = calorie out... .\

I always thought it was weird that people with scientific backgrounds, who you think would be more likely to think critically, would believe a simplistic notion such as "calorie in = calorie out". Unless you are injecting raw glucose, there have to be myriad chemical processes to get those calories out of the food and turn them into usable calories in the body. Any complex chemical system that also involves energy storage is going to have lots of variables and potential outputs.

"Your body is like the motor in your car" has to be one of the least useful models -- but I guess it would have some surface appeal to mechanical engineers.

[Hottentot]

I tried eating a lot and eating a little, i'm always at 67kg no matter what.
Stopped eating bread and rice, came back to eating bread and rice, started eating one full plate in dinner, now eating two full plates, i can eat any fruit. As long i am not eating junkie food, i'm always at 67kg no matter what. Exercising or not.

[JohnnyH]

I tried eating a lot and eating a little, i'm always at 67kg no matter what.
Stopped eating bread and rice, came back to eating bread and rice, started eating one full plate in dinner, now eating two full plates, i can eat any fruit. As long i am not eating junkie food, i'm always at 67kg no matter what. Exercising or not.

I hate to adhere to this cliche, especially since it has proven untrue to my now 30 y/o body... BUT: How old are you?... The teenage body consumes corn syrup and exudes [athletic] excellence. I adamantly deny the "slowing metabolizing" theory, but the teenage body thrives through tons of abuse. This seems to slowly taper off as you approach 30.

[George the original one]

> This seems to slowly taper off as you approach 30.

And exceed 30 (or 40).