Why do Dr's have to be so narrow minded????

[cmarie]

Im so tired of the medical community when it comes to cholesterol numbers. They just can't seem to see out side the normal way of doing things.

One year ago I took myself off Lipitor and began eating a very low carb in hopes to bring myself back to better health.

After 6 months, I had my cholesterol done again, my total cholesterol was: 204
Trig 39
HDL 62
LDL 144

and my ratios were: Total/HDL 3.8 (normal <4)
LDL/HDL = 2.7 (<3)
Tri/HDL= 0.68 (<1.8)

To me, my numbers looked pretty good, but my Dr still wanted me to go back onto Lipitor. I asked for 6 more months to prove that diet would be enough.

It's been 6 more months and I just got my results back. This time I had the NMR Lipopofile test done. my results are as follows: Total: 216
Trig: 35
HDL: 69
LDL: 140

My LDL particle size is 21.6 (Pattern A, large and fluffy)
My large HDL-P is 9.4 (low risk > 9.0)
My large VLDL-P is 0.1 (low risk < 0.5)

My ratios are: total/HDL 3.6 ( <4 )
LDL/HDL 2.4 ( <3 )
tri/HDL 0.62 (< 1.8 )

all the numbers from this second test are better then the first, BUT... DO YOU KNOW WHAT MY DR HAD THE NERVE TO SAY???? YUP.... he said... you need to go back on to lipitor and have your blood retested in 2 months..... I said okay and left .....

I'm so angry and discouraged at the same time.

can someone please give me some encouragement....

[gitfiddle]

It took my doctor three years to stop suggesting a statin "because I'm diabetic". He is a very nice, caring physician, but is a product of his training. I just say no. I cite a friend of mine who had the muscle wasting that's one of the side effects and another friend of mine who has lost brain cells, seemingly.

I am paying my doctor for health care but I am still in charge of what I put into my body. This was mentioned earlier this year when the same topic came up. If he insists that you take a prescription, you don't have to get it filled. If he gives you samples, you don't have to take them. Not all doctors sing that tune. I have a doctor friend who backs me up and gives me advice I can live with.

Dr. Mike has opinions on cholesterol levels that you can find by searching his blog. One thing that sticks in my mind is that there are no diseases from having high cholesterol but there are plenty from having cholesterol drop too low.

Stick to your guns. He may be under pressure from his medical association to have a percentage of his patients on statins.

I heard on tonight's news that there is a new super-pill containing a statin, low-dose aspirin and two or three blood pressure drugs. Who's getting rich with that? It's disgusting!

[dvdmon]

This is so ridiculous! Your numbers are fantastic. I wonder did he explain WHY you needed to be on a drug with serious side effects when your risk (based on these numbers anyway) is very low? Doctor's who won't explain this but just push drugs indescriminately and don't explain why are worthless. Get yourself a new one who will actually TALK to you. You may or may not end up agreeing with him, but you will not leave the office enfuriated and wanting to avoid the medical establishment entirely.

[deirdra]

It always kills me how quick many doctors are to prescribe pills, yet think of removing something from the diet as quackery. Both alter the body chemistry, but the latter has no bad side effects. The idea that all "diseases of civilization" are the result of a statin deficiency is scary indeed!

Much of the recent literature has shown that statins don't protect women at all, no matter what their age or cholesterol levels.

[James L]

... It's been 6 more months and I just got my results back. This time I had the NMR Lipopofile test done. my results are as follows: Total: 216
Trig: 35
HDL: 69
LDL: 140

My LDL particle size is 21.6 (Pattern A, large and fluffy)
My large HDL-P is 9.4 (low risk > 9.0)
My large VLDL-P is 0.1 (low risk < 0.5)

My ratios are: total/HDL 3.6 ( <4 )
LDL/HDL 2.4 ( <3 )
tri/HDL 0.62 (< 1.8 )

... can someone please give me some encouragement....If he's just focusing on the total cholesterol, and you want to sort of "work" with him, you may want to consider trying Red Yeast Rice. It's a non-prescription, low-dose "statin" supplement that was shown, in a UCLA research study, to have beneficial effects. You can get it in a good health food store. My primary care physician recommended it after he realized that I was not going to accept a prescription statin drug.

OTOH, your ratios look great, so I would not be concerned. (Maybe it's time to find a new doctor?)

[Roadstr]

Your doc probably wants to see you get your LDL lower, like below 100. That's going to be hard to do if you do not limit saturated fats because saturated fats cause LDL receptors to become resistant. He may also think that your cholesterol is a little high, but less proportionally as high as LDL. Did your doc tell you this and did he express that he was glad to see how high your HDL was?

It's pretty much realized that with a diet high in saturated fats most people will have LDL above 100. On a low carb diet most have an HDL above 55 along with low triglycerides; high HDL is considered protective against CHD, and low triglycerides are predictive to good LDL types (there are different kinds of LDL).

[razgarcia]

There is no clear, convincing evidence that consumption of saturated fats is the cause of elevated LDL levels. Check out this study and decide for yourself: http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/80/5/1102. Remember that association does not equal causation.

[Roadstr]

There are many studies and it's well known that saturated fats cause LDL resistance in cells to cause a high concentration of low density lipoproteins in the blood. I'm not saying it's good or bad, it just is.

Reducing saturated fat intake is associated with increased levels of LDL receptors (http://www.jlr.org/cgi/content/abstract/38/3/459)"Studies with animal models suggest that saturated fatty acids raise low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol levels by reducing LDL receptor- mediated clearance."

From MSN Good Fats, Bad Fats (http://health.msn.com/nutrition/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100231525), "Most experts agree that saturated fats raise levels of LDL ("bad") cholesterol in the blood."

From AJCN study Saturated fats: what dietary intake? (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/80/3/550) "Epidemiologic data suggest that saturated fats increase the concentration of LDL cholesterol in the bloodstream..."

[laughingW]

There are many studies and it's well known
Do you have level 1 evidence for this?

"many studies" could be many non-causal studies.
"well known" could be the bandwagon effect.

It's like saying, It's well known that umbrellas cause rain. There are many studies that show this, In many countries. No matter what time of year, or latitude, or time of day.

[Roadstr]

Is this what you mean from The Journal of Lipid Research. I've also seen people that started taking coconut oil and then questioned why their LDL was so high. But, that's just from the web and peoples experiences.

http://www.jlr.org/cgi/reprint/38/3/459
Title: Reducing saturated fat intake is associated with
increased levels of LDL receptors on mononuclear
cells in healthy men and women

"Abstract Studies with animal models suggest that saturated
fatty acids raise low density lipoprotein (LDL)-cholesterol lev-
els by reducing LDL receptor-mediated clearance."

[kevindill]

Do you have level 1 evidence for this?

Actually there is quite a bit of primary evidence related to LDL receptor resistance. This is one of the mechanisms of statins Google scholar is your friend. There are however two things that cause hepatic ldl receptor resistance, hyperinsulemia and "excessive" dietary palmitic acid, a saturated fat. The "problem" with saying "saturated fat is bad" is that not all SFA's are handled the same in our bodies.

[Roadstr]

Actually there is quite a bit of primary evidence related to LDL receptor resistance. This is one of the mechanisms of statins Google scholar is your friend. There are however two things that cause hepatic ldl receptor resistance, hyperinsulemia and "excessive" dietary palmitic acid, a saturated fat. The "problem" with saying "saturated fat is bad" is that not all SFA's are handled the same in our bodies.

Thanks Kevin... This paper, (http://grande.nal.usda.gov/ibids/index.php?mode2=detail&origin=ibids_references&therow=101062) "Saturated fats and blood lipids: new slant on an old story" says, "dietary palmitic acid (16:0) typically appears neutral." but it goes on to say "When lipoprotein metabolism is impaired, eg, if LDL receptor activity is depressed by the presence of dietary cholesterol, consumption of 16:0-rich TGs can contribute to hypercholesterolemia."
It also says coconut oil will lower both HDL and LDL! I haven't heard of that, I thought all saturated fats would raise HDL.

[laughingW]

Is this what you mean from The Journal of Lipid Research.

Level I: Evidence obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randomized_controlled_trial).

Yes, Roadstr, that seems to be a level 1 evidence paper. However, the study wasn't low carb, so applying it to PP is hypothesis or conjecture, the guessing stage of science.

Me, I'm hypothesizing that sat fat doesn't act the same in a low carb environment as it does in the presence of higher carbs.

[Roadstr]

Thanks. In a little more research I came across a study that may explain why HDL goes up on a low-carb diet. I have a pretty good handle why LDL goes up and there are other studies that I have came across in the past that substitute saturated fats with monounsaturated fats to lower LDL while keeping HDL higher on a low-carb diet. Just haven't found them yet.
An Isoenergetic Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Improves Serum HDL
Cholesterol and Triacylglycerol Concentrations, the Total Cholesterol to
HDL Cholesterol Ratio and Postprandial Lipemic Responses Compared
with a Low Fat Diet in Normal Weight, Normolipidemic Women1,2 (http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/reprint/133/9/2756)
The above study has a reference to Physician’s guide to popular low-carbohydrate weight-loss diets (http://ccjm.highwire.org/content/68/9/761.full.pdf).
I saw a Neurologist today for follow up to a cat scan and carotid ultrasound. Everything is fine and he said the cat scan showed I had a brain of a 20 year old. I have to think about that for a minute, but he also said he would witness autopsies as a graduate student and alcoholics had arteries that were free of plaque... drink up! :nod:

[James L]

I remember reading somewhere on this board (maybe a year or so ago) that increases in HDL were primarily the result of a higher level of physical activity/exercise.

This link seems to support that: Keep HDL High with Exercise (http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002888.html).

[tapper47]

I remember reading somewhere on this board (maybe a year or so ago) that increases in HDL were primarily the result of a higher level of physical activity/exercise.

This link seems to support that: Keep HDL High with Exercise (http://healthlink.mcw.edu/article/1031002888.html).

Exercise and dark chocolate. Yum

[razgarcia]

Then why is it that in societies--historically and contemporary--where natural saturated fats are consumed in fairly large quantities (e.g., Aleutian natives) that heart disease and other so-called "diseases of civilization" are virtually nonexistent? Where the subjects in these studies (which supposedly "prove" that saturated fats are bad for you) controlled for intake of carbs, trans fats, processed meats, chemical food additives? And while we're on the subject of LDL levels, where is the evidence that high cholesterol is the cause of heart disease?

[kevindill]

Then why is it that in societies--historically and contemporary--where natural saturated fats are consumed in fairly large quantities (e.g., Aleutian natives) that heart disease and other so-called "diseases of civilization" are virtually nonexistent? Where the subjects in these studies (which supposedly "prove" that saturated fats are bad for you) controlled for intake of carbs, trans fats, processed meats, chemical food additives? And while we're on the subject of LDL levels, where is the evidence that high cholesterol is the cause of heart disease?

I think you need to distinguish between animal fat and saturated fat. Most fat from land animals is at least 50% oleic acid, the same fatty acid in olive oil, plus varying degrees poly and saturated fats. During digestion, the body also converts stearic acid (saturated) to oleic acid. Unless you are eating butter or coconut oil by the spoonful you probably aren't getting as much saturated fat as you think. Even then a fair chunk of the lauric acid in coconut oil is converted into the mono-unsaturated fat mono-laurin.

[razgarcia]

You are absolutely right, of course, and in effect you are arguing my case. In another post I stated that lard, for instance, is only 49% saturated and the rest mostly oleic fatty acids.

But the point being argued here seems to be that saturated fat = bad fat = heart disease or other ailments. And my question is this: where are the valid (i.e., not meta-analysis studies), double-blind, controlling for other substances (e.g., carbs, trans-fats, cured meats, ...) studies which conclusively show that eating saturated fats excess of...whatever...is the cause of heart disease, or cancer, or arthritis, or bad hair, for that matter?

I would agree that too much of anything is probably a bad thing. But if a healthy individual eats ~ 2,000 Kcals/day, 60% of which is fat, and half of which is saturated (say, lard, butter and coconut oil), maintains ECC at 40 or below, gets enough protein, abstains from trans fats and so-called "fake food," and exercises regularly, then I would argue that this is a very healthy diet.

And if not, I would reiterate, where's the evidence to the contrary?

[Roadstr]

You are absolutely right, of course, and in effect you are arguing my case. In another post I stated that lard, for instance, is only 49% saturated and the rest mostly oleic fatty acids.

But the point being argued here seems to be that saturated fat = bad fat = heart disease or other ailments. And my question is this: where are the valid (i.e., not meta-analysis studies), double-blind, controlling for other substances (e.g., carbs, trans-fats, cured meats, ...) studies which conclusively show that eating saturated fats excess of...whatever...is the cause of heart disease, or cancer, or arthritis, or bad hair, for that matter?

I would agree that too much of anything is probably a bad thing. But if a healthy individual eats ~ 2,000 Kcals/day, 60% of which is fat, and half of which is saturated (say, lard, butter and coconut oil), maintains ECC at 40 or below, gets enough protein, abstains from trans fats and so-called "fake food," and exercises regularly, then I would argue that this is a very healthy diet.

And if not, I would reiterate, where's the evidence to the contrary?

I don't know of any study based on your "healthy individuals" diet and life style! I would say loose the lard :eek: , but I do think a 5 mile a day walk, 7 days a week and your golden! Can't find any study on that, either.

In all seriousness, it's not what you eat, it's what happens to your body after you eat it and that depends on a whole lot of stuff; exercise duration and intensity, quality of foods, the way your body processes food, etc.

That's why medical professionals look at blood lipid levels. You can tell a lot from those, "oh yeh doc, I jog 3 miles a day" and their HDL is 35! Eating a lot of steak is just another indication and I think we covered that... "oh yeh doc, I eat a lot of fish" and their LDL is 140. Do you get my drift?

Now, can exercise get your HDL to 65, absolutely... can limiting saturated fats get your LDL below 100, absolutely. Will, you live longer.... who knows, but your odds are improving based on statistics and there are studies showing that. I must say, that your physical condition and the degree of intensity will determine the level of your HDL.

[razgarcia]

Again I reiterate, please show me the "gold standard" studies (in Dr. Mike's own words) which conclusively show that:


Eating saturated fats, in a low carb diet, with adequate protein, and void of trans fats and other "crap food" (e.g., things most folks can't pronounce) is a cause of heart disease or other ailments.
High cholesterol levels are the cause of heart disease

Please note my use of the word "cause," not "association."

[Roadstr]

Heart disease is blockage in the arteries that limits the flow of blood.
Can we agree on that?

[laughingW]

I would say loose the lard :eek:
I would too, as in, let loose on the lard.
Mary Dan Eades had a whole post on the goodness of lard.

Lardy, Lardy, When Will They Learn.

Both lard and butter have been vilified (undeservedly) by the all-saturated-fats-are-evil crowd, but where butter has been labeled by them as dangerous for your health, lard has been cast as a mass-murdering serial killer. It’s utter, knee-jerk, nonsense.

I may go make me some whipped lard.


Whipped lard was prepared 2 ways: one with truffles and the other with diced red onion and paprika....
We weren’t sure what to expect with the whipped lard. We were happy to discover that it acted as a flavor amplifier, intensifying and extending flavors without having a specific flavor of its own. It also added a rich mouth feel and was surprisingly light. The quince pickle, which we made with vinegar, spices, and honey, surprised us with its complexity and its combination of tart and sweet acted as an excellent accompaniment to both the whipped lard dishes and the terrine.



Courtesy of Wooly Pigs.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_L1UB__fiez0/ScR8t77wYXI/AAAAAAAABCE/xs8-ssL66Lo/s320/pic1.jpg

[Roadstr]

Here you go. I'm getting tired of finding these studies for you.
High-density lipoprotein cholesterol and coronary heart disease in hypercholesterolemic men: the Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/74/6/1217)
"Total cholesterol was positively associated with IHD mortality in both middle and old age and at all blood pressure levels."

[razgarcia]

Yes, I know. Placque buildup in the arteries which feed the heart will do that. And we also know that there are various kinds of placque composed of several substances (e.g., fat, cholesterol, calcium, protein) and that folks with diabetes (because of excessive serum glucose) are more susceptible to CHD.

But my question is this... Do foods high in cholesterol or saturated fats contribute to CHD? I have come across no conclusive evidence which would lead me to believe that either dietary fat (except "Frankenfats," i.e., hydrogenated or partially hydrogenated fats) or dietary cholesterol is the cause of CHD.

I reconmmend reading The Great Cholesterol Con, by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. He (whimsically and sarcastically at times) debunks the myths of "causes" of CHD. His conclusion is that the primary cause is stress, which is traumatic, causes inflammation, and consequently leads to placque buildup.

How accurate that is I do not know. What I do know is that dietary fats (saturated or not) or dietary cholesterol have not been shown to be the cause of CHD.

[razgarcia]

The study you cited (unless I missed something) refers to serum lipids, not dietary lipids. We know that tryglicerides (blood lipids) can be lowered by restricting carbohydrates, but where does it say that dietary lipids leads to an abnormally high trygliceride count?

Now, this is anecdotal, but my most recent blood test showed a trygliceride count of 36, which is very good by all standards. My diet is almost 60% fat, about half of which is from saturated fats. I suspect the same is true of many others.

[razgarcia]

I need to make a correction to a previous post but haven't figured out how to edit one except a recent one. Anyway, I inadvertently left out the word "NOT" in a couple of places. Here's how it should have read:


Again I reiterate, please show me the "gold standard" studies (in Dr. Mike's own words) which conclusively show that:


Eating saturated fats, in a low carb diet, with adequate protein, and void of trans fats and other "crap food" (e.g., things most folks can't pronounce) is NOT a cause of heart disease or other ailments.
High cholesterol levels are NOT the cause of heart disease

Please note my use of the word "cause," not "association."


PS if someone could show me ho to edit previous posts it would be very much appreciated.

[James L]

...
PS if someone could show me ho to edit previous posts it would be very much appreciated.The ability to edit your post is being time-limited (apparently this is a policy of the current board administrators). In the early days of this board, that wasn't the case, and you could edit (or even delete--which could cause continuity problems) your post long after you had posted it. My best current determination is that you can edit your post for about one day. After that it is fixed in "stone."

[razgarcia]

Well, even one day would be good, but what I find is that once I log out (actually it often logs me out, especially when I'm entering a long reply) and log back in I cannot edit any post except the one I just posted.

It's not the end of the world, mind you, just an inconvenience. This is especially the case with guys like me whose fingers often move faster than their minds.

[Mitra]

The time limit for editing is currently set at an hour, I think. After that you can ask a mod or admin to change it for you.

[razgarcia]

Thank you. I will be mindful of that.

[Roadstr]

I reconmmend reading The Great Cholesterol Con, by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. He (whimsically and sarcastically at times) debunks the myths of "causes" of CHD. His conclusion is that the primary cause is stress, which is traumatic, causes inflammation, and consequently leads to placque buildup.

Do you know of any published studies in well known publications that support Kendrick's views that higher cholesterol is not the cause of CHD or any papers that Kendrick has published in well known journals. I don't go by articles on the web based on opinion, because every @$$ 0000 :eek: has their own opinion and not interested unless they are a cardiologist. Also, most of these opinions takes a view that focuses on one cause and makes a leap to a conclusion without considering all the other factors. After all, what you ate yesterday is going to have a different result in your body than what I ate yesterday... even if we ate the same thing. That's why studies look at all factors involved in a population... smoking, carb intake, omega-3, exercise, etc.

Most opinions that I view as relevant when assessing the effect of diet to CHD to higher levels of cholesterol are based on studies, those are the ones that most doctors regard as credible.

I think what's is needed for you is a "razgarcia diet study". ;) Lardy, lardy!

[razgarcia]

Please read Dr. Kendrick's book. I believe you will find several studies he cites--and critiques--which support the thesis that dietary cholesterol is not a cause of serum cholesterol levels or CHD. You will also find support for similar conclusions in several blogs and other publications by the Drs. Eades.

As for consumption of saturated fats being a cause of CHD, I continue to await for conclusive evidence of causation. The "burden of proof" is on the person/s making the claim that saturated fats cause CHD, not the other way around.

As for a study on myself, that would be anecdotal. But as I stated previously, my bloodwork does not reveal elevated cholesterol levels in spite of eating lard, butter, and coconut oil.

Other than that I see that you and I will simply have to "agree to disagree."

[laughingW]

based on studies, those are the ones that most doctors regard as credible.
Read Dr. Mike's blog on what doctors actually read.

Also, the population studies you mention can still have problems as studies. It's like saying, the study shows umbrellas increase the risk of rain. And then a hundred other researchers do studies to show that umbrellas increase the risk of rain. Now there is "a preponderance of evidence.' And then the media and the whole country thinks umbrellas cause rain.

That is what has happened with total cholesterol as a predictor of CHD. It's not a good one and yet everyone thinks it is.

[kevindill]

To the question of Saturated fats and cholesterol, even if a direct arrow isn't present, there is a measurable, repeatable, and predictable change in various sub-fractions of plasma lipids for each of the various fatty acids.

The issue I see here is that you, or whomever, are looking for a single reductive answer, of which there isn't one. CHD is a multi-factorial process, not a single disease event. Also Myocardial Infarction does not equal CHD, nor does CHD always lead to an MI. People on both the pro - con sides of the cholesterol issue like to bandie about stats regarding one or the other as it suits them as if they were the same,and they aren't.

[Roadstr]

To the question of Saturated fats and cholesterol, even if a direct arrow isn't present, there is a measurable, repeatable, and predictable change in various sub-fractions of plasma lipids for each of the various fatty acids.

The issue I see here is that you, or whomever, are looking for a single reductive answer, of which there isn't one. CHD is a multi-factorial process, not a single disease event. Also Myocardial Infarction does not equal CHD, nor does CHD always lead to an MI. People on both the pro - con sides of the cholesterol issue like to bandie about stats regarding one or the other as it suits them as if they were the same,and they aren't.

Thanks Kevin, I think you have summed it up very well.:)

Here is an interesting read (http://www.theheart.org/article/114321.do). I was doing a seach on a company called Esperion which I found out about through a movie I had seen, "The CURE". If you want to see a possible hidding something that really may worked read this (http://blogs.chron.com/sciguy/archives/2008/01/on_the_state_of.html); I'm referring to the part about Esperion's drug disappearing into a black hole after Pfizer bought the patent. The article talks about a VHDL drug that Pfizer bought and testing showed reversal of plaque, but the studies got squashed. From what I had read before was that it worked so well at reducing plaque that patients were having problems (kind of like too much plaque floating around if my memory servers.) I still have the DVD, "The CURE". It's interesting because this small population on an isolated peninsula in Italy are decedents (56 people I believe) of this couple that were married in the 16th century and they all have this VHDL or "Supper HDL"!

[razgarcia]

I agree. But the issue I keep going back to is the causation-correlation between what we eat (i.e., dietary factors) and what's in our blood (i.e., serum levels).

As I understand it, dietary cholesterol's effect on serum cholesterol is miniscule. Likewise, the consumption of dietary fats contributes little to serum lipids (i.e., triglycerides), it's glucose which drives that up.

So the issue then seems to focus on the effect which dietary fats have on serum cholesterol, and the effect of serum cholesterol on CHD, and the effect of CHD on myocardial infarction, and the effect of...whatever on whatever. And here the evidence is not altogether clear. Different types of fatty acids seem to contribute differently to this or that. But these are no doubt affected by genetics and whole host of other environmental factors.

From what I've read and what I see in myself is that eating "good food" (there's a mouthful right there) coupled with adequate protein, keeping ECC low (40g or less/day), lots of fat (omega 3's and saturated fats but minimizing omega 6's and totally eliminating "frankenfats"), and proper exercise is the key to good health.

[Roadstr]

Well Raz, here's my plan. I was eating 3 oat bran muffins a day along with taking plant stanols, keeping saturated fats as low as possible and exercise of course. Testing by Quest Diagnostics (7/17/07) resulted in cholesterol 140, LDL 80, HDL 47 and triglycerides 66. Although, that's too low for me I now have some regulation tools from that experience. The other thing I know is that saturated fats will raise LDL, that's another regulating tool I have. I've also added resveratrol to increase HDL. With all this and exercise I will try to reach my goal...
My goal it to get my cholesterol at 180, HDL and LDL at 70. So, the plan is to keep saturated fats at around 20 grams a day to start, eat 3 oat bran muffins a day, take plant sterols, keep ECC around 130 grams with about 38 grams of fiber, proteins around 140-150 grams. That will be around 1,800 calories, fats will make up around 75 grams of the diet and about 10 will be fish oil along with 20 grams saturated to start off with.
I will test blood lipids weekly to see if I'm going in the right direction. It's the planning and preparation of the food that's going to be the challenge.

[razgarcia]

Roadstr, I am not critiquing what you eat. My only disagreement with you is that you keep insisting that, "...saturated fats will raise LDL." How do you know that is a fact? The evidence is not there.

It is one thing to research and then declare that if serum cholesterol or lipids are this or that it will likely cause this or that. But it is quite another thing to say that if dietary cholesterol or fats are this or that it will then result (i.e., cause) in a particular level of serum cholesterol or lipids. I don't disagree with the former so much as with the latter, for there is no evidence which leads me to believe that eating saturated fats raise LDL levels.

The truth is much more complicated than that and includes many other factors as I've stated previously. A particular fatty acid may lower or raise LDL (fluffy or dense) or HDL or both, which in turn may have a beneficial or detrimental effect on this or that. But to lump it in all together is simply not accurate.

[Roadstr]

Raz, I thought post #12 had a link for a study that demonstrated and described saturated fats (as a class) raise LDL. Beyond that, it was the way I was able to lower my LDL to 80 (see post 38). It's the way my body reacts to saturated fats. I had previously suspected in when doing Atkins because my LDL would go way up! In PP there is no limit to saturated fats and also there is no regard for the level of LDL (except to say they are Type A - fluffy) so they don't matter. Saturated fats will also raise HDL and that's why PP is often considered heart protective because of the cholesterol/HDL ratio.
I had first heard of the link of saturated fats to LDL levels in Robert Kowalski's book in studies he sited. That was required reading by my doc, "The New 8-Week Cholesterol Cure". I can't find my copy right now, it has to be around here somewhere, and when I find it I will post the study(s) he sites. Everything he talks about in his book is supported by published studies. There are more than 4 studies sited on the effects of oat brans effects on cholesterol.

[Roadstr]

Here is the study (http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/full/70/6/949?maxtoshow=&HITS=10&hits=10&RESULTFORMAT=&searchid=1&FIRSTINDEX=0&sortspec=relevance&resourcetype=HWCIT) in AJCN. Reference 1 gives specific amounts of changes in LDL levels with different diets and was the direct reference Kowolski sited in his book.
"This recommendation is based on abundant scientific evidence showing that low-fat diets reduce plasma cholesterol, particularly LDL. The low rate of heart disease in cultures that traditionally eat low-fat diets is manifest. However, low-fat diets also reduce plasma concentrations of HDL cholesterol (1). This leads to the obvious question of whether reductions in both atherogenic LDL cholesterol and antiatherogenic HDL cholesterol translate into reduced heart disease risk in normolipidemic men and women."

[razgarcia]

I went to the site you listed under post 12. The conclusions in the abstract are as follows:


First, although saturated fats as a class raise LDL, they also appear to have primary responsibility among dietary fatty acids for raising HDL, possibly depending on a balanced intake of polyunsaturated fats.
Second, not all saturated fatty acids are equally responsible for changes in LDL or HDL. Only natural triglycerides (TG) rich in lauric (12:0) and myristic (14:0) acids are especially cholesterolemic, whereas 16:0-rich fats can be neutral or cholesterol-raising depending on the metabolic circumstances (lipoprotein setpoint) of the host. In normolipemic individuals with normal lipoprotein metabolism, dietary palmitic acid (16:0) typically appears neutral. When lipoprotein metabolism is impaired, eg, if LDL receptor activity is depressed by the presence of dietary cholesterol, consumption of 16:0-rich TGs can contribute to hypercholesterolemia. Although stearic acid (18:0) is typically considered neutral, exaggerated consumption of 18:0-rich fat (cocoa butter) lowers both LDL and HDL.
Third, the saturated fat effect is related both to the dietary cholesterol load and the lipoprotein setpoint of the host, eg, 16:0 becomes progressively cholesterolemic as dietary cholesterol raises the setpoint.

Now, I don't claim to have a solid grasp on all this, but if I were to summarize it in layperson's words (my field is mathematics and computer science, not biochemistry) it would be as follows:


Saturated fats in the aggregate (i.e., individual varieties of saturated fatty acids behave differently) raise BOTH LDL and HDL. But this is somehow contingent on the amount of polyunsaturated fats (omega 3's? and/or omega 6's?) one consumes. How much? What balance?
Some saturated fatty acids raise cholesterol and others are neutral. But it all depends on the "metabolic circumstances" of the individual.
The amount of serum cholesterol and lipids already in the host factors into how saturated fats affect total cholesterol.

So, to summarize even further, saturated fats may or may not affect serum cholesterol, folks with metabolic syndrome are more susceptible to be affected by consumption of saturated fats (some types but not others) than healthier individuals, and folks with high cholesterol and/or triglyceride levels may experience raised serum cholesterol levels and or serum lipids if they eat too much of certain types of saturated fats.

So, it's not one-size-fits-all. And where do carbs factor in? Or did I miss something?

[Roadstr]

I think you've pretty much covered it. Better than I could.
I don't know about the break down of saturated fats... I mean in my experiment I will adjust beef quantities to vary saturated fats on my menu since that has the most influence. I realize that olive oil, salmon and others have saturated fats and those are taken into account.
In agreement with you though. Good job on the summary... it's complicated.

[laughingW]

My goal it to get my cholesterol at 180, HDL and LDL at 70.
Wow, what a coincidence. Right after I read your goals (good luck!) I was checking in at Mark Sisson's, and he has those numbers. He does it with his Primal Blueprint (like Eades' "paleo" plus primal blueprint exercise). He eats what I think is a ton of veggies and I don't know about the fat breakdown - sorry to go off topic but it was so weird to see those two sets of numbers right next to each other in time.


How’s your cholesterol? Do you have it checked? Your HDL, LDL, total triglycerides?


Thanks…
Last test I had (for life insurance, because I don’t have it tested normally), total was 180, HDL 80, Trigs 70.

[Gaelen]

Heart disease is blockage in the arteries that limits the flow of blood. Can we agree on that?

Nope, we cannot. ;)
What you describe is only one facet of coronary artery disease.

'Heart disease,' at least by medical professional definition, is: "Any disorder that affects the heart. Sometimes the term "heart disease" is used narrowly and incorrectly as a synonym for coronary artery disease. Heart disease is synonymous with cardiac disease but not with cardiovascular disease which is any disease of the heart or blood vessels. Among the many types of heart disease, see, for example: Angina; Arrhythmia; Congenital heart disease; Coronary artery disease (CAD); Dilated cardiomyopathy; Heart attack (myocardial infarction); Heart failure; Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; Mitral regurgitation; Mitral valve prolapse; and Pulmonary stenosis."

By definition, heart disease also include hemorrhagic stroke--which has absolutely ZERO-nothing-nada to do with artery blockage limiting the flow of blood...it in fact is the exact opposite.

[Roadstr]

Gaelen... any idea on those that do not have to do with arterial plaque? I mean besides hemorrhagic stroke.
Thanks!

[Gaelen]

Gaelen... any idea on those that do not have to do with arterial plaque? I mean besides hemorrhagic stroke.

What kind of ideas would you like? :confused:
Do you mean which of the conditions listed in the definition of heart disease have little or absolutely nothing to do with arterial plaque? If you need more in-depth explanations or definitions of the conditions that are grouped under the medical definition of 'heart disease,' you might try googling "word + definition" for more in-depth explanations.

Only coronary artery disease (CAD) is definitively associated with buildup of arterial plaque--and not all CAD involves plaque buildup, although it's common in that dx. Pretty much all of the other conditions listed in this definition have either little or nothing to do with plaque build-up--including cardiomyopathy, hypertrophic or dilated; mitral regurgitation; mitral valve prolapse; pulmonary stenosis and congenital heart disease (which can happen as young as newborns--who haven't had time to have arterial plaque build-up.)

The definition is, btw, consistent between Medline (for professionals) and WebMD (for laypersons.)

"heart disease, see, for example: Angina; Arrhythmia; Congenital heart disease; Coronary artery disease (CAD); Dilated cardiomyopathy; Heart attack (myocardial infarction); Heart failure; Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy; Mitral regurgitation; Mitral valve prolapse; and Pulmonary stenosis."

[Roadstr]

Thanks Gaelen... Thanks for responding to a not so well thought out question.
I found this on YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3cW8__wFXDA&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Estartchallengetool%2Ecom%2 F2009%2F03%2F5%2Dcommon%2Dtypes%2Dof%2Dheart%2Ddis ease%2F&feature=player_embedded) and here is another good summation (http://www.startchallengetool.com/2009/03/5-common-types-of-heart-disease/) of heart disease for any others that need a primer like I do.
I have a friend that had ablation done to correct a heart arythmia. So I had known of other heart diseases not caused by the build up of plaque. It's just that CAD is the one that I was focusing in on in this discussion... thanks for putting me on the right track! :) 13 million people die of CAD and many don't even see it coming!

[skyhawk]

This is an interesting thread. I am brand new here. I have been studying the cholesterol issue for several years.

[Roadstr]

My thoughts on saturated fats is that they raise cholesterol, but (let me emphasis BUT) with an increase of LDL there is also an increase of HDL. Please don't take this as an opinion that saturated fats are bad. Also, there are different types of LDL and with a lower triglyceride level you will have Type A LDL, a not so dense type that doesn't causes arterial plaque. Another issue is that HDL is more protective than LDL is damaging, by a 2:1 ratio. In other words if your HDL goes up by 1 it negates your LDL going up by 2.
So, if saturated fats are replaced with other fats (to more or less of an extent) does that further reduce LDL while keeping HDL high. I'm curious as to what will happen in my system. Exercise (vigorous) and there are so many other factors. I bought a home cholesterol test kit to find out answers to these questions.
Let us know your thoughts! :)

[skyhawk]

What does this home cholesterol kit measure? Is it just total cholesterol? How accurate do you think it is?

[maxlharris]

Considering lab tests have a reasonably wide margin of error (I think between 10 and 20% on either side of your number), I would suspect a home test to have at least a similar error if not more.

Management guru Peter Drucker opined that what gets measured gets managed. Which speaks to me of a good reason not to get a home cholesterol test. Given the general lack of accuracy of a cholesterol test, the fact that most people who have cardiac events have normal to good cholesterol profiles, and the fact that total mortality increases at low cholesterol numbers as surely as it does at high ones, I don't see much reason to manage cholesterol unless you have very low HDL or very high triglycerides. Both can be fixed with the proper application of the Protein Power protocol (including resistance exercise and saturated fat consumption). Easy management, no measurement required. Save your money for better things.

[Roadstr]

Both can be fixed with the proper application of the Protein Power protocol (including resistance exercise and saturated fat consumption). Easy management, no measurement required. Save your money for better things.

Sounds good... Um, how would you advise, how much resistance training, how many times a week, how much saturated fats. Any aerobics, heart rate targets and where would you say one's cholesterol would end up. Thanks, sounds real easy Max.

I'll start another thread on the cholesterol measurement machine.

[TWS]

My goal it to get my cholesterol at 180, HDL and LDL at 70. So, the plan is to keep saturated fats at around 20 grams a day to start, eat 3 oat bran muffins a day, take plant sterols, keep ECC around 130 grams with about 38 grams of fiber, proteins around 140-150 grams. That will be around 1,800 calories, fats will make up around 75 grams of the diet and about 10 will be fish oil along with 20 grams saturated to start off with.


I'm new to this discussion but I don't understand any of these goals. Cholesterol numbers are a poor indicator of health. About the only thing we keep track of around here is our Triglyceride/HDL ratio. The lower the better.

Fiber is almost worthless in regards to cholesterol numbers. Eat saturated fat from healthy sources. ECC at 130 won't help your triglycerides or HDL.

This Taubes video has some good information, although it's geared towards weight gain: http://darwinstable.wordpress.com/2008/11/26/gary-taubes-why-we-get-fat/ (skip the first 20 mins, evidential cases for sudden weight gain from dietary causes--Pima Indians, etc) *scroll down a bit for both*

And this video is a good explanation of the role of fiber in a healthy diet:
http://gutsense.org/fibermenace/about_fm.html

The other 45 grams of fat, other than saturated/fish oil; from what source are these fats coming? Anything other than healthy saturated fats are inflammatory. This leads to what I believe is the single cause of CHD; low grade, cronic inflammation from dietary sources.

TWS

[laughingW]

Protein Power doesn't buy LDL as a meaningful indicator.

Roadstr as an individual is concerned about such things. Do a search on his posts and you will get the flavor.

[Roadstr]

I'm new to this discussion but I don't understand any of these goals. Cholesterol numbers are a poor indicator of health. About the only thing we keep track of around here is our Triglyceride/HDL ratio. The lower the better.
TWS
I go by what is published in well known scientific journals and by what Dr. Eades has published. I realize many here do not track anything and really don't want to know, but Dr. Eades believes otherwise.
Page 377 of "Protein Power" Dr. Eades mentions the upper limit of LDL, "the upper limit of normal is considered to be 129 mg/dl". Dr. Eades also states on page 382, "As you can see, the ideal cholesterol level is in the area where the U-shaped curve bottoms out, in the 180 mg/dl-to-200 mg/dl range." I would suggest you also read Pg. 384 if you still do not think you shouldn't be concerned about the levels of LDL.
Dr. Eades again says the ideal cholesterol range is 180-200 on page 382. Here is a chart (http://www.exrx.net/Testing/LDL&HDL.html) that Dr. Eades talks about in these pages of the chaper "Cholesterol Madness" of Power Protein.
So, TWS, I understand you think cholesterol numbers are a poor indicator of health as well as many others here. I do not, I agree with Dr. Eades and only attempting to keep cholesterol in the healthy range that he says is 180-200, along with the rest of the world... because that is what has been repeatedly published in well know journals. I would not suggest to put your health on the line by standing with the crowd in front of someone on their soapbox. That's been done before... now we have science... incredible on how many people ignore published papers!
BTW, there are studies that show saturated fats are inflammatory and cause LDL receptors in cells to be LDL resistant. I think you should pick up a copy of Protein Power and read it.
I'm following Dr. Eades recommendations, pg. 381 of Potein Power, "There is an ideal cholesterol range that you should shoot for..." and Dr. Eades says it's 180-200.
Hope this helps you understand where I am coming from and if you think for some reason, that I am not following Protein Power or Dr. Eades writings you are clearly mistaken.
laughingW, I do believe LDL is a meaningful indicator. As you know, I'm sure, with cholesterol at an ideal range around 190, high HDL and low triglycerides LDL will be at an acceptable range.
You should read page 389 on fiber... I could go on and on... just read the book!
Best of health! :)

[maxlharris]

Sounds good... Um, how would you advise, how much resistance training, how many times a week, how much saturated fats. Any aerobics, heart rate targets and where would you say one's cholesterol would end up. Thanks, sounds real easy Max.

I'll start another thread on the cholesterol measurement machine.
Well, that's nice. I missed the specifics in your advice, other than the relatively un-Protein Power suggestions of limiting saturated fat, doing home monitoring of your cholesterol levels, and working towards an ideal of 130 total cholesterol. It makes me wonder why you are even here, since you are mostly uninterested in working the PP program as designed.

Now, for your specifics:
1- How much resistance training? Depends on where you are in your life. More specific input leads to more specific output.

2- How much Saturated fat? See #1, but I will add, in the theme of "What gets measured gets managed," how much saturated fat is seeking to manage and measure something that tends to sort itself with a varied, PP diet.

3- The rest of your junk: Aerobics for cholesterol management? Surely you jest. Cite that please, because I wasn't aware that it did much for cholesterol profiles except lower HDL. Heart rate targets? For resistance work? You must be a reasonably advanced pupil of resistance, doing something like Cross-Fit. Projecting someone's cholesterol profile? If you can do this, you need your own talk show. I wouldn't dare to try and sort something that is largely genetic over the Internet.

Roadstr, it seems to me that you are exactly where the Eades, in Protein Power Life Plan, suggest most Americans are with regard to cholesterol. It might be a good investment of time to go back and read the chapter in PPLP about cholesterol, or at least the summary page at the end of the chapter.

I wouldn't test my cholesterol with a machine, given the inaccuracy of lab based results and the general lack of correlation to actual heart disease. I believe that total cholesterol isn't typically worth managing, so why spend money measuring something I really CANNOT manage on a day to day or week to week basis?

A better question is why you aren't on my ignore list. I am stumped.

[maxlharris]

I go by what is published in well known scientific journals and by what Dr. Eades has published. I realize many here do not track anything and really don't want to know, but Dr. Eades believes otherwise.
Is it better to track everything and hope something actually matters or track a couple things that work? We love you too, Roadstr.

Page 377 of "Protein Power" Dr. Eades mentions the upper limit of LDL, "the upper limit of normal is considered to be 129 mg/dl".

Nice quote out of context. The quote comes from a discussion of cholesterol ratios. At the point in the paragraph where Roadstr's snippet comes from, they've moved on to talking about the LDL/HDL ratio...
"Looking at the other ratio, if your LDL is 120 (the upper limit of normal is considered to be 129 mg/dl) but again, your HDL is only 30 mg/dl, your ratio is 4, above the benchmark of 3 for LDL/HDL. This is a case where the "bad" (LDL) looks good but the "good" (HDL) looks bad."
This is from a whole chapter where they are talking about the wrongful downward revision of numbers and the misinterpretation of numbers.

I would note that they refined this quite a bit for PPLP 5 years later. And will likely have more refinement in the new book due out later this year.

Dr. Eades also states on page 382, "As you can see, the ideal cholesterol level is in the area where the U-shaped curve bottoms out, in the 180 mg/dl-to-200 mg/dl range." I would suggest you also read Pg. 384 if you still do not think you shouldn't be concerned about the levels of LDL.
Can't read that without my copy handy, but the chart from my Life Plan book (reflecting 5 years of refinement to their thinking over PP), expands the range from about 180 to about 220.

Dr. Eades again says the ideal cholesterol range is 180-200 on page 382. Here is a chart (http://www.exrx.net/Testing/LDL&HDL.html) that Dr. Eades talks about in these pages of the chaper "Cholesterol Madness" of Power Protein.
There are two charts there. Which one are you pointing to? The NCEP chart or the ratio charts? Since we know that the Eades are very into ratios and not into counts as isolated numbers, I would assume the first chart. But knowing you, I think we're talking about the NCEP chart.

Hope this helps you understand where I am coming from and if you think for some reason, that I am not following Protein Power or Dr. Eades writings you are clearly mistaken.
Hrm, where are you not following PP?
1- 100+ g of ECC. Not in PP, except in maintenance for people who can handle that amount without adverse affect, typically people with large amounts of LBM or high levels of activity, since the suggestion in PP was that you might be able to tolerate carbs = protein requirement in maintenance. Are you in maintenance, Roadstr?

2- plant sterols. Can you find me where that's in PP?
3- Oat bran muffins? See #2.
4- Watching/limiting saturated fat. I'd be interested if you could point to something the Eades have written in the past 15 years that advises a healthy person to limit saturated fats to 20g/day.


laughingW, I do believe LDL is a meaningful indicator. As you know, I'm sure, with cholesterol at an ideal range around 190, high HDL and low triglycerides LDL will be at an acceptable range.
Is it meaninful when taken by deduction and volume when the particles can be small and dense or large and light? Since LDL is rarely directly measured, I cannot share your belief that LDL is a meaningful indicator on any test. But beyond that, the type of LDL is at least as important as the amount.
You should read page 389 on fiber... I could go on and on... just read the book!
Best of health! :)
A lot of us are working from Protein Power Life Plan, which contains a lot of more developed thought on the protocol and a lot of reaction to new information from 1995 to 2000.

A lot of us also read Dr. Mike's blog, which contains more reaction to new information from 2000-present. A good example is fiber. The Eades in 1995 were big fans. In 2000, less so. And today, Dr. Mike is very anti, at least added fiber.

You would be well served by getting a copy of Life Plan, or waiting for the new book to come out and updating your library. PP is now 14 years old and ageing.

[Roadstr]

Max... where did the 130 TC number come from, that's too low for me... 140 is too low for me. So, I think you are imagining things that I have not written.
As far as PPLP and cholesterol, again, on page 108, "The mortality risk is lowest in people with total cholesterol levels between 160 and 220, and here's where we suggest it should stay and where people following our nutritional regimen generally wind up naturally." Did I miss something, the Eades have increased their range, but the middle of that range is still 190 as in Power Protein. As far as how much saturated fat we should eat, PPLP on page 318 says, "So we ask that you first concern yourself with eating the kinds of fats that promote health: omega-3.." Again, I must have missed the part where they talk about not being concerned with the amount of saturated fats.
Max, you said, " I wouldn't dare to try and sort something that is largely genetic over the Internet." and that was exactly my point when I said, "Um, how would you advise...". You can't advise, that's why there are blood lipid tests to see how one reacts to diet and exercise. 1 hour of aerobic activity seems to be keeping my HDL up along with what I am eating, and yes... fats (IMHO) play a very important part. I wouldn't presume it would work for you, because everyone of us is different.
I think we can manage things on a day to day basis. Weight would be one, certainly activity and ingested foods will effect blood lipid levels every day as well as the amount of sleep we get and our daily activities producing stress. All these can be managed with the right attitude and the results can be measured... and yes, the accuracy of measuring blood lipid levels may be 3%, but that's accurate enough for me to show trends and if what I am doing is going in the right direction, all the better.
Best of health, Max. :)

[Roadstr]

Hrm, where are you not following PP?
1- 100+ g of ECC. Not in PP, except in maintenance for people who can handle that amount without adverse affect, typically people with large amounts of LBM or high levels of activity, since the suggestion in PP was that you might be able to tolerate carbs = protein requirement in maintenance. Are you in maintenance, Roadstr?

2- plant sterols. Can you find me where that's in PP?
3- Oat bran muffins? See #2.
4- Watching/limiting saturated fat. I'd be interested if you could point to something the Eades have written in the past 15 years that advises a healthy person to limit saturated fats to 20g/day.


1. Started PP 10/2000, now in maintenance. I'm not resistant to carbs and have no health issues and within 10% of desirable weight... my body keeps thinking otherwise, though.
2- plant sterols and 3- oat bran is mentioned in "The New 8-Week Cholesterol Cure" that is referenced on page 389 of PP. Dr. Eades will probably talk about it in his next book. :D
4- I would be interested if you could point to something the Eades have written that advises a person to eat unlimited amounts of saturated fats.

One other point, PPLP, talks about not getting excited about cholesterol readings of up to 250 or LDL's below 190 on page 106. I believe this was said because if one does eat more saturated fats and limits omega-3 fats that's what will happen. I think the good doctor realized this and changed it because folks weren't getting the results that was said in Power Protein. I know I wasn't and I'm healthy, but it did do what it was meant to do. The healthy 190 cholesterol level went flying out the window, but there's more, on page 100 of PPLP it says, "... as bad as or worse than having one above 240 as far as risk of dying goes." So, yes I recognized things do change in what Dr. Eades says, even in the same book! I just take what I learn from him and published studies to reach what I believe are healthy ways of living. Maybe not to everyone, not everyone wants to be slim with a cholesterol level of 190, HDL 70 and LDL below 100... but, that's just me. So far, so good according to my CardioChek cholesterol monitor. :D
Oh yeh... I think fiber is good :p.
Gotta go... take care Max. :)

[TWS]

I think you should pick up a copy of Protein Power and read it.

Best of health! :)

I've read 3 of Eades books along with close 40 books on nutrition in the last couple of years. Taubes, by far, was the most influential. If you haven't read Taubes work, I'd highly recommend it.

I'll not try to change your health plan but from what I've read fiber will lower your cholesterol number by reduction mainly in HDL. The exact opposite of what you want.

Saturated fats from grain-fed animals may be inflammatory. Eat grass-fed. Any grain-based food is going to have negative results which is why we no longer use any grain/seed oil. (the lone exception is olive oil on rare occasions.) I missed the source of your additional 40 gr. of fat.

Cholesterol numbers are used to scare people (not necessarily you) into drug dependency. They are a poor indicator. A focus on this one aspect is big business but misses the point as far as determining a healthy diet.

TWS

**My last blood work came up with this:

Total Ch--245
HDL-------71
LDL------164
Trig-------51

Dr--"medication may be necessary to control this 'high' number."
Me-- "Not without a court order"

I eat a VLC diet with less than 5 gr of fiber a day. My only supplement are Vit D and Magnesium--because I read Eades recommendations.

[TWS]

Protein Power doesn't buy LDL as a meaningful indicator.

Roadstr as an individual is concerned about such things. Do a search on his posts and you will get the flavor.

Thanks. I'll take the time to read though some of the other threads here.

TWS

[maxlharris]

Max... where did the 130 TC number come from, that's too low for me... 140 is too low for me. So, I think you are imagining things that I have not written.
Maybe confusing you with some other nearly trollish individual around here. Seem to recall you had gotten to 130 or 140 in the past, thought it was good, but were happy with 180 in the present. At any rate, if I am confusing you with some other quasi-troll, I appologize.

As far as PPLP and cholesterol, again, on page 108, "The mortality risk is lowest in people with total cholesterol levels between 160 and 220, and here's where we suggest it should stay and where people following our nutritional regimen generally wind up naturally." Did I miss something, the Eades have increased their range, but the middle of that range is still 190 as in Power Protein.
160 to 220 != 180-200.
And while 190 is the median of both ranges, who is to say that 190 is better than 180 or 200? I haven't seen anything suggesting that. And I haven't seen anything suggesting fine tuning of cholesterol is a worthwhile endeavor.

As far as how much saturated fat we should eat, PPLP on page 318 says, "So we ask that you first concern yourself with eating the kinds of fats that promote health: omega-3.." Again, I must have missed the part where they talk about not being concerned with the amount of saturated fats.
You must read differently from the rest of us. Please consult the Blog of Dr. Mike. It's not an issue of unlimited consumption of Sat Fat, it's the self limiting nature of sat fat in a low carb diet. At 130g, in maintenance, it's hard to suggest that you are limiting carbs enough for saturated fat to be self limiting. Maybe it's best that you limit. But, you can read a lot of both Drs. Eades talking about the necessity of saturated fat intake for proper cell maintenance.

Max, you said, " I wouldn't dare to try and sort something that is largely genetic over the Internet." and that was exactly my point when I said, "Um, how would you advise...". You can't advise, that's why there are blood lipid tests to see how one reacts to diet and exercise.
Since you are obsessed with your number, I recommend you get two home kits and do them hourly. :evil: The rest of us can get it with an annual physical, and make adjustments if necessary, which is unlikely, given the lack of contextual danger to any given cholesterol number.

1 hour of aerobic activity seems to be keeping my HDL up along with what I am eating, and yes... fats (IMHO) play a very important part. I wouldn't presume it would work for you, because everyone of us is different.
1 hour of aerobic, plus food consumption, plus macro nutrient consumption and shunning, plus some resistance exercise perhaps. It is ENTIRELY POSSIBLE that your aerobic activity is actually depressing your HDL number and everything else you are doing is masking that. Typically, it is reported that aerobic exercise drops total cholesterol, with a drop across LDL and HDL in proportion. Doesn't help ratios. If ratios are what matters, it's not helping. Since I don't worry about cholesterol (see either Colpo's Cholesterol Con or Kendrick's Cholesterol Con... Kendrick's is better), when I work out, sometimes I work in some intervals, but I wouldn't do an hour a day. But if it works for you, enjoy.

I think we can manage things on a day to day basis. Weight would be one, certainly activity and ingested foods will effect blood lipid levels every day as well as the amount of sleep we get and our daily activities producing stress. All these can be managed with the right attitude and the results can be measured... and yes, the accuracy of measuring blood lipid levels may be 3%, but that's accurate enough for me to show trends and if what I am doing is going in the right direction, all the better.

Are you going to measure daily? Weekly? Without fasting? With fasting?

It's 9:50 AM, CST. Have you checked your cholesterol today? *sigh* Maybe they will invent a constant monitor, so you can know how each bite affects you.

Measure what you want, manage it how you like. Please read the disclaimers in my signature.

[maxlharris]

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/02/Correlation_examples.png
Ignore the bottom two rows, which are for illustration. The top row is what concerns us.
Consider 1 or -1 as 100% accuracy for a test. Because correlation is basically that, accuracy. Test result on the X-axis, actual hidden truth on the Y-axis.

As you lower the correlation, you are getting a fuzzier line. Error intrudes. Factors we haven't factored come into play. At 80% (.8), that line needs a shave. At 40% (.4), that line is auditioning to be an oval. At 0% (.0), there is no line (or we can look at the second row* or the third row**).

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0813/is_n4_v15/ai_6393690/
At least +/-15% on your doctor's office cholesterol test. Add in directions more complicated than stick your finger and bleed into the tube, and you can increase that by some unknown factor.

Roadstr recently said that if his test were 3% accurate, it would be enough to give him a trend to work with. Me thinks not.

*In the second row, we see that a .0 correlation can be a line, a flat line running east to west (or north to south). What gives? It means that across a range of variables, the result is always the same. In the case of our test, no matter what your underlying true cholesterol is, your test result always comes back 180.

** In the third row, we see a lot of fun patterns that do not show correlation, though they make patterns we can see. Fun, they are showing us that other variables are at work. Or that random chance has made a pattern that shapes our data. But typically, we are missing a variable.

[Gaelen]

1. Started PP 10/2000, now in maintenance. I'm not resistant to carbs and have no health issues and within 10% of desirable weight... my body keeps thinking otherwise, though.

And what is your body telling you 'otherwise,' Roadstr? Seriously?

I am also within 10% of my desirable (for me) body weight, which is based on my activity levels and calculated LBM. I weigh 185 +/- 3 lbs. right at this moment; my goal weight is 165 +/- 3 lbs. And yeah, I incorporate +/- 3 lbs. because, as a woman, the scale bounces. It's always bounced, it's always going to bounce, and I can live with that and don't let slight daily variances freak me out. I aim for an average, and that's fine enough.

However, 185 lbs, with or without that +/- weight, may be within 10% of my goal weight but it is NOT maintenance for me. I clearly have more to lose. And I know from long practice that if I eat at maintenance levels (which I did while on chemo treatments) I will not lose that extra 10%. So I don't consider myself at maintenance. If you do, well, I guess then you're happy being 10% above ideal weight?

I'm curious about your statement 'having no health issues.' Aren't you the guy who is worried about his coronary artery disease risk--or am I confusing you with someone else? If you don't have CAD or a family history or any health issues pointing to CAD, then have you been told you've got CAD, or is that just the illness you choose to be concerned about? To paraphrase Leonard Saltz MD, an oncologist at Sloan Kettering in NYC, 'you can't sit around worying about or listening for your arteries to harden.' (Saltz's original quote is "you can't sit around listening for cancer cells to grow.")

2- plant sterols and 3- oat bran is mentioned in "The New 8-Week Cholesterol Cure" that is referenced on page 389 of PP. Dr. Eades will probably talk about it in his next book. :D

'The 8 week Cholesterol Cure' was first published in 1987 and published again as the revised "New 8wk Cure" in 2001. The Drs. Eades published PPLP in 2001, and published their own maintenance book 'Staying Power' in 2005, along with a condensed version of PP called 'The 30day Low Carb Diet Solution' in 2003. No book from the Drs. Eades published after Kowalski's book earned a mention of Kowalski's 'cholesterol cure' (to my recollection, but I don't keep my library here at work so am working from memory.) However, I did check MIke's blog (just click the "Blogs" link at the top of the page if you'd like to search them yourself.) You might find this particular reference can give you a bit of perspective. What you think you know about what Mike Eades is saying in PP, PPLP and his other work is suffering a bit from your own personal interpretations:

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/statins/jane-brody-and-her-elevated-cholesterol/

The last two paragraphs are a pretty good summary:
Remember, if the lipid hypothesis is valid (and it still is only an hypothesis), the only measurements that really matter are triglyceride levels, HDL levels and LDL particle size. You want your triglycerides to go down; you want your HDL to go up; and you want to get your LDL particle size bigger.

Restricting carbohydrates makes triglyceride levels fall like a rock. Fat, especially saturated fat, makes HDL levels go up. And at least a dozen studies have shown that shifting from a low-fat diet to a low-carb, higher-fat diet shifts LDL levels from small to large.

You get all these benefits from a low-carb diet. Too bad Ms. Brody hasn’t figured this out. Or maybe she has, but she just doesn’t want to give up her low-fat ice cream.

4- I would be interested if you could point to something the Eades have written that advises a person to eat unlimited amounts of saturated fats.

Roadstr, I don't have enough hours in my day to engage in internet sparring just for the sake of proving someone else's argument inadequate. ;) So I'm going to decline to play 'name that quote' with you (and to others who might be tempted to fall into this trap, you might want to remember that reinforcing behavior with more of the same seldom stops what you'd like to end... ;) )

However, I will point out one thing--you have lowered fat intake and saturated fat (by your own admission) to VERY low levels (30% or less of total intake), and you work to keep it there. If that works for you, that's fine. Is it PP? No--not as originally written, not as developed or evolved over time. It's your perspective on PP--but it's not the plan Mike Eades and Mary Dan Eades developed.

Responses to you that ultra-low sat fat consumption is not recommended by the Drs. Eades, and that 'sat fat is bad' is not one of their positions have been met by you characterizing the response as license to eat 'unlimited amounts of saturated fats.'

Roadstr, just because you have chosen an extreme position--limiting fat intake and limiting sat fat to ultra-low levels--does NOT automatically mean that those who [correctly] point out that PP doesn't recommend lowering fat consumption or ultra low sat-fat are also saying that PP advocates consuming unlimited amounts of sat fat--or of anything, for that matter. Your own extreme position doesn't mean that a position in opposition to your own advocates going overboard in the opposite direction. That's a really common ploy in debate. But it's a ploy, and I'll decline to take that bait, thank you.

Assuming that those who disagree with you go to an opposite extreme from your own views, or that playing 'name that quote' will justify your very personal interpretation of low carb eating, isn't helping your reputation. It elevates the noise -> signal ratio of your posts well beyond the level of rational discussion.

And while some are fond of saying 'it's your science experiment' to those who choose to 'tweak' the Protein Power WOE to their own needs, you've taking 'tweaking' off the low carb grid into another WOE entirely. Your posts indicate that you advocate eating low fat (under 30% total, less than half of that saturated) along with 40% or more of your daily intake from carbs. You're Zoning (maybe), but you're not doing PP, not even PP maintenance for athletes (who, btw, aren't usually still working on that last 10% of excess body weight.)

[maxlharris]

Interesting. I hadn't noticed the 10% thing.
I am currently weighing in at 218 lbs.
BMI goals (for what they are worth) put my ideal weight at 148 (absurd) to 195.
Working from 190 (What I weighed in my senior year in high school, and was lean at that weight) I'm hrm, ~15% over my goal. Of course, most people my age, weight and height choose 199 as their goal, and by that standard, I'm <10% over, whereas once I was 36% over that goal.

That's an interesting way of looking at it.

Funny how we change

[Roadstr]

Sorry, I didn't think everybody would be so touchy about LDL, saturated fat and measuring cholesterol!
Gaelen, I limit saturated fats to 20 grams and my fat intake will vary, but probably average around 45% give or take 5. If I take saturated fats without counting my LDL increases dramatically. There is some CHD in my family, however, in 2003 I developed prostate cancer and a few years ago carcinoid cancer in the upper intestine... both of which have been cured, but saturated fats are not good for either of those diseases. What I meant by being disease free was a term my oncologist used to describe my current condition.
I wasn't looking to get anyone into internet sparing about saturated fats. It's just that Dr. Eades doesn't put a value on saturated fat intake in either one PP or PPLP. I wondered why?
Anyway, people telling me that I advocate a cholesterol level of 130, then a carb level of 40%... percentages don't work by the way... I vary carbs between 40 to around 120 (ECC). Then calling me a troll or troll-like! Sounds like some are just going back into ketosis or just very grumpy today!

[maxlharris]

*sigh*
Roadstr: If I have miscategorized you, I'm sorry.

I very strongly believe that fear over cholesterol is hype. I can point you to the resources that led me to my very strong belief. (including both main PP books, Taubes, Kendrick and Colpo... and if Dr. Mike and Colpo agree on something beyond questions of sky color and hour of the day, you are probably on to something, such is the bile between them).

What then irks me, personally, is not the challenge of the belief, but the spread of what I (personally) consider bad information.

I stick by "What gets measured, gets managed." I stand by my consideration of measuring cholesterol on a frequent basis (more often than once every 6 weeks at the extreme low end) as patently absurd*.

I think I'm done in this thread.

*Absurd, you ask? Facts:
1- Lab environment cholesterol tests are at least +/-15% accuracy. That's after a 5% invalid rate. Home tests invariably have higher error rates, despite company claims of "The same error rate as your doctor's office, 95% accurate."
2- Indirect, volumetric measurement of LDL, not factoring particle size.
3- Natural variability in cholesterol numbers from meal to meal, day to day.
4- Gradual movement in various particles... Triglycerides move quickly up or down, LDL less so, and HDL tends to move very gradually.
5- Multivariate factors that influence cholesterol
a- genetics are the pareto A category
b- differening effects of various dietary lipids, below the SFA/MUFA/PUFA level. Not all sat fats are the same. Palmitic, not good, other sat fat can be very good. Same with MUFAs, DHA/EPA very good, ALA Omega 3, good, Omega 6, not so great, omega 9, very good, etc.
c- Exercise, wine, etc.
6- Oversold correlation with heart events, under emphasis on total mortality curve correlation.
7- And so on.

[Roadstr]

*sigh*
Roadstr: If I have miscategorized you, I'm sorry.
I think I'm done in this thread.


No worries, Max... me, too.
Thanks for your views, maybe I will see it the same way, but not today... my eyes are starting to cross! :o

[Gaelen]

Sorry, I didn't think everybody would be so touchy about LDL, saturated fat and measuring cholesterol!

I think, Roadstr, that what everyone is 'touchy' about is some of the inconsistencies, personal perceptions and misinformation being presented as facts throughout your collection of posts. For instance, this statement:

Gaelen, I limit saturated fats to 20 grams and my fat intake will vary, but probably average around 45% give or take 5.

Really? Because in the "Too much Red Meat Shortens Life" post in Media Watch, you posted this as an example of your daily intake. I grant you that it was a day you didn't get all of your calories in (you had some tests) but if the percentages this day's intake represent hold true, then my estimation that you're trying to stay around 30% fat (less than half of that saturated) and 40% carb intake hold true.
I've done the math a couple of ways; the result ends up 30% fat, 40% carbs (more or less.) Based on your posts to date, it's unlikely that the missing meal/snack you should have eaten on this day would have consisted only of fat. BTW, the CRON-o-meter numbers and percentages in this example, as well as the lipid percentages are off--that may or may not be significant in your perception of your overall intake.

This was the menu in post #19 (http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88208&postcount=19) in the 'Red meat' thread:
Gaelen, I didn't work out yesterday and the calories are lower than what I usually take in. I didn't have lunch until 3PM and I try to eat 5 times a day.
===========================================
Nutrition Summary for March 26, 2009
Report generated by CRON-o-Meter v0.9.5
===========================================
Energy | 1326.4 kcal I get 1356.3--Gaelen
Protein | 121.2 g 484.8/1356.3=36%
Carbs | 115.5 g 462/1356.3=34%
Fiber | 22.3 g didn't subtract fiber from carb count since carbs listed already appear to represent ECC
Fat | 45.5 g 409.5/1356.3=30%
Lipids (34%)
===========================================
Saturated | 10.1 g 35%

where you had responded to my question about this statement regarding your daily fat intake, from post #15 (http://www.proteinpower.com/forum/showpost.php?p=88143&postcount=15) (boldface mine: Gaelen):

I think a nice steak is a very nutritious for the body from time to time. It has a lot of nutrition that cannot be gotten from other foods. I also think saturated fats below 15 g a day is good for me along with equal amounts of other natural occurring fats found in walnuts, almonds, fish, dairy and chicken. I don't think 60-100 grams of saturated fat is good for me, even with carbs below 40 grams a day.

I understood your reply to mean that you aimed for 30g of fat, or thereabouts, daily. When I asked, you confirmed that your daily fat intake was around 30g/day of TOTAL fats, and that you normally (on days without medical tests) tried to hit around 1800 calories. The menu shows fat intake of 30%. It's not math whiz time to extrapolate your typical daily percentages from that post and the other information you've provided.

I wasn't looking to get anyone into internet sparing about saturated fats. It's just that Dr. Eades doesn't put a value on saturated fat intake in either one PP or PPLP. I wondered why?

Perhaps Dr. Eades doesn't 'put a value on saturated fat intake' because, while eating the truly low carb diet of less than the 55g he describes in PP for transition/maintenance, he's discovered that the reseach indicates sat-fat is irrelevant. And yeah, I know he talks about adding in carbs. But he doesn't say you *have* to add in carbs in maintenance...and he certainly doesn't advocate adding in carbs to levels which risk reversing the benefits of low carbing.

[Roadstr]

Gaelen, sorry for any confusion. I eat the majority of my carbs in the AM and try not to eat any latter after 3PM. That's why those numbers were scewed... I think... not sure what your point is. I decrease my carbs through the day. I try to eat a meal about every 4 hours and those meals decrease in carbs. I try to limit saturated fats below 20 grams. My total fats are probably around 70 grams. I take a couple of tablespoons ( probably 8 grams total of cod fish oil ) and I don't limit olive oil. I'm getting tired of counting, but this is ballpark and relevant to my current blood work. I have been eating oat bran, black berries, walnuts, spring mix, broccoli and brussel sprouts for carbs.
If any of this sounds unhealthy, or not keeping with PP, sorry for the confusion. Don't want to cause any harm. I may increase saturated fats in the future, but for right now I'm not so sure. I think that's what the problem is, I put a number on saturated fats and no one else has. I think I have been pretty consistent and truthful, it's been others that have put numbers in their posts that declare I have said.
One final point, I don't think anything is irrelevant, including saturated fats, carbohydrates, fiber or anything else. All this is relevant, unless it works against your argument, then of course you want to dismiss it.

[Gaelen]

I have been eating oat bran, black berries, walnuts, spring mix, broccoli and brussel sprouts for carbs.
If any of this sounds unhealthy, or not keeping with PP, sorry for the confusion.

Roadstr, the only thing that would put your 'carbs' not-in-keeping-with-PP is the quantity of your carbs (and if you're a purist, the fact that you're eating oat bran in any quantity, since purists eliminate all grains.) Elsewhere, you've posted that you eat three oat bran muffins per day and that your carb intake is around 130g/day. Haven't seen the muffin recipe, but even low carb almond flour muffins (my own recipe, using nothing but nut flour, eggs, peanut butter and kefir) run around 8g ECC apiece...so there's certainly potential for high carb intake depending on the ingredients in your oat bran muffins. The posted menu was already at 115g ECC, and I didn't subtract the listed fiber from the carbs because without the fiber subtraction, the calories listed were already too low. If you're getting 120-130g/ECC per day, and you're not already at ideal body weight and not an athlete by the PP definition (two hard workouts of an hour or more each, daily) then your carb intake is outside the boundaries of PP.

I think I have been pretty consistent and truthful, it's been others that have put numbers in their posts that declare I have said.

Roadstr, when I attribute numbers to you, I've quoted directly from your posts. As for consistent, between these two threads your sat-fat grams have gone from "below 15 grams/day" with "an equal amount of other naturally occurring fats" which would bring you to 30g/day, to "I try to limit saturated fats below 20 grams. My total fats are probably around 70 grams." It's inconsistencies like that from thread to thread which create misunderstandings. It's not like we read posts here in a vacuum. Some of us actually do go back and look at what's been said before prior to commenting. So we do notice inconsistencies.

One final point, I don't think anything is irrelevant, including saturated fats, carbohydrates, fiber or anything else. All this is relevant, unless it works against your argument, then of course you want to dismiss it.

re: 'unless it works against your argument, then of course you want to dismiss it.' That's simply not accurate, and frankly it's a bit insulting. When an argument disagrees with well-constructed research, I and others here will often point out the faults in the argument. The arguments against saturated fat consumption are typically based on studies which are not well-constructed (scientifically) and you've been given those references in this and other discussions. For my part, once I've determined that the science on which it's based is faulty, then yes, the points of the argument carry far less weight with me. If that's dismissive, guilty as charged.

[Roadstr]

I'll not try to change your health plan but from what I've read fiber will lower your cholesterol number by reduction mainly in HDL. The exact opposite of what you want.


Actually it's the beta glucan, b-glucan, found in oats and barley that actually increases HDL. Oat bran has 1.5 times as much b-glucan as in oats, so you get more bang for your carb dollar, so to speak. 1/3 cup of oat bran is 14 ECC's. Now, how much does it take to make a change in cholesterol, and where is the sweet spot... the most bang for your carb intake... only about 1 cup or 42 ECC's from oat bran a day. Of course, that's only if you think having a cholesterol level below 200, low LDL and high HDL is of value to your health. Some may disagree, and I understand their position... it's your choice.
Here is a study (http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6WHK-45FC910-15&_user=10&_rdoc=1&_fmt=&_orig=search&_sort=d&view=c&_acct=C000050221&_version=1&_urlVersion=0&_userid=10&md5=179da349c4ae27978e4548babd1496f1) and while it lowers LDL, it also significantly raises HDL.
"...reductions in the levels of total cholesterol (39%), LDL-cholesterol (61%) and triglyceride (21%), and significant elevation in the level of HDL-cholesterol (34%)."

[Roadstr]

Gaelen... here is a typical day's diet that I was following, it's a day from earlier this month to reflect what my previous posts that you refer too. More carbs on this day than most days, but I also workout quite a lot on some days. Some days I don't work out and some days I don't eat enough. I believe this in keeping with PPLP carb intake guidlines on pg 335 of <120... well, close enough I would think because it is a WOE and not a diet for me. I do not see anything in the table on pg 335 that says how much I must exercise or what quality of meats I must eat. I didn't mean to be insulting, but I am being accused of not following this WOE and I believe I am.

General
===========================================
Energy | 1790.8 kcal
Protein | 150.3 g
Carbs | 161.2 g
Fiber | 38.5 g
Fat | 75.1 g
Water | 1215.7 g

Lipids
===========================================
Saturated | 20.6 g 103%
Monounsaturated | 29.6 g
Polyunsaturated | 12.8 g
Omega-3 | 3.0 g
Omega-6 | 6.2 g
Cholesterol | 482.1 mg
Phytosterol | 648.7 mg

Coffee, brewed from grounds, prepared with tap water 2 cup (8 fl oz) 4.7
Oat Bran Muffins Plane w/Stevia 59 g 94.3
All Whites 56 g 30.0
Egg, whole, cooked, poached 50 g 71.0
Oatmeal, McCann's Irish Oatmeal, Quick Cooking 20 g 75.0
Fish Oil, Nature's Answer 1 tsp 45.0
Blueberries, frozen, Wild Boreal 40 g 20.4
Blackberries, raw 40 g 17.2
Egg, white, cooked 70 g 36.1
Promise Activ Margarine 4 g 12.9
-----Meal----- 1 g 0.0
Metamucil Berry Burst 17.4 g 60.0
Aloe Juice, Wild Berry 0.5 cup 20.0
Oat Bran Muffins Plane w/Stevia 84 g 134.3
Promise Activ Margarine 6 g 19.3
-----Meal----- 1 g 0.0
Beef, ground, 95% lean meat / 5% fat, patty, cooked, pan-broiled 110 g 180.4
Muir Glen Tomato Ketchup 12 g 14.1
Oat Bran Muffins Plane w/Stevia 87 g 139.1
Promise Activ Margarine 5 g 16.1
-----Meal----- 1 g 0.0
Sorrento String Cheese 25% Reduced Fat 1 Stick 70.0
V8, Low Sodium 1 5.5 fl oz 33.6
-----Meal----- 1 g 0.0
Salmon Fillets, Wal-Mart 2 4 oz 200.0
Rice, brown, long-grain, cooked 0.5 cup 108.2
Spring Mix, Earthbound Farms, Organic 60 g 16.9
Oil, olive, salad or cooking 2 tsp 79.6
Broccoli, cooked, boiled, drained, without salt 1 1/2 cup, chopped 27.3
Promise Activ Margarine 6 g 19.3
-----Meal----- 1 g 0.0
Ricotta Cheese, Part Skim, Wal-Mart 1 Serving (1/4 C) 80.0
Blackberries, raw 0.25 cup 15.5
Cod Liver Oil, Carlson's 1 tsp 45.0
Nuts, almonds 3 almond 20.7
Jarrow Whey protein powder 1 scoop 85.0

[laughingW]

What are the ingredients in Promise Activ margarine? Their web site does not even say, which is very squirrely in this day and age. Even Burger King tells ingredients.

Margarine is one of those things that is not Protein Power.

[maxlharris]

Promise Active Spreads, from the FAQ:
Q: Do Promise activ® Spreads contain any trans fatty acids?
A: On a per serving basis, Promise activ® Spreads are free of trans fatty acids.

This suggests that dreaded zero that isn't really zero, due to rounding laws.

Here are the ingredients from the regular version:
Ingredients
http://www.freshdirect.com/media_stat/images/layout/330000.gif Vegetable Oil Blend (Canola Oil, Palm Oil, Palm Kernel Oil, Liquid Soybean Oil),
Water
Plant Sterol Esters
Whey (Milk)
Salt
Soy Lecithin
Vegetable Mono And Digycerides
Lactic Acid
(Potassium Sorbate, Calcium Disodium EDTA) Used To Protect Quality
Vitamin E
Cyanocobalamin (Vitamin B12)
Pyridoxine Hydrochloride (Vitamin B6)
Artifical Flavor
Vitamin A (Palmitate)
Beta Carotene (For Color)
Vitamin D3.
I dunno about you, but it's got a lot of ingredients that I'm not a big fan of.
Soy is there twice.
Canola is the first ingredient
Esters always make me nervous.

Why this and not butter? Because of the plant sterol esters that might lower your cholesterol.

Can't find ingredients for the Light version. That's nervous making. I had to pull the ingredients from an online grocery.

[laughingW]

A: On a per serving basis, Promise activ® Spreads are free of trans fatty acids.

This suggests that dreaded zero that isn't really zero, due to rounding laws.
Yes, and relies on an arbitrary serving size, as opposed to actual people serving sizes, measured from the average of actual people.

It used to be that the standard of identity for vegetable oil - like soybean oil - included a small percent of hydrogenation for stability's sake. And that where a food had a standard of identity, that didn't need to be included on the label. i wonder if that is still true.

[razgarcia]

Here are the ingredients found in the butter I buy:


Cream.
Salt.

Both single-syllable words. Why anyone would want to ingest unpronounceable, multi-syllabic, who-knows-what-havoc-they-cause-to-your-system chemicals is beyond me.

[Roadstr]

To funny razgarcia... but, your simplicity warrants my attention and reconsideration.
Max, the light I think is a saturated fat reduced version... ingredients look the same. This diet is changing today, BTW. Probably much more inline with a Phase I... if I can't get all cylinders functioning I'll reconsider, but I'll give it 14 days to get there.
I gotta go get some butter now.

[razgarcia]

FWIW, here are the ingredients in the other fats I buy:

Olive oil:


Olive oil.

Coconut oil:


Coconut oil.

Penzoil:


Refined petroleum (I feed this one to my cars).

[Roadstr]

Only 0W-20 Mobil1 for the Roadstr! Studies show less lead and copper. LOL!
Olive oil, yes... lowers LDL and no effect on HDL.
Coconut oil, no... lowers both LDL and HDL.
I forgot where I got the info on coconut oil, so don't take it as my firm conviction. I might change my mind because of the effects it's been shown to have on Alzheimer's so there is something protective in it that is beneficial. So much stuff, so little time.

[maxlharris]

Olive oil, yes... lowers LDL and no effect on HDL.
Coconut oil, no... lowers both LDL and HDL.
I forgot where I got the info on coconut oil, so don't take it as my firm conviction. I might change my mind because of the effects it's been shown to have on Alzheimer's so there is something protective in it that is beneficial. So much stuff, so little time.
http://www.coconut-info.com/mary_enig_cholesterol.htm
I beg to differ.

What about studies where animals were fed unprocessed coconut oil? Enig wrote: "Hostmark et al (1980) compared the effects of diets containing 10% coconut oil and 10% sunflower oil on lipoprotein distribution in male Wistar rats. Coconut oil feeding produced significantly lower levels (p=0.05) of pre-beta lipoproteins (VLDL) and significantly higher (p=<0.01) alpha-lipoproteins (HDL) relative to sunflower feeding."

It seems (from this link and many others) that most of the folks who dispute the basic premise of coconut oil as a healthy oil do so based on studies where partially hydrogenated coconut oil was fed to mice (here mousey mousey, eat this transfat and let's see where your cholesterol winds up) or just don't like saturated fat (which raises the question of why you'd need to hydrogenate it in the first place... it's already a solid at room temp).

[Roadstr]

Boy Max...Published in the August 15th, 2006 Journal of the American College of Cardiology, shows the effects on HDL.

[razgarcia]

Max, great article from Dr. Mary Enig on coconut oil; thank you for passing it on. I have read several other articles on coconut oil but missed this one. Her research is consistent with others I've read which show numerous benefits to eating coconut oil (due to it's high lauric acid content). These include:


Improving cholesterol ratios. It is interesting to note that coconut oil seems to raise the cholesterol levels of individuals with low cholesterol levels but lowers the overall cholesterol levels of individuals with high cholesterol levels. More importantly, it moves the HDL/LDL ratios in a favorable direction in both groups.
Significantly improving resistance to bacterial, viral, yeast, and fungal infections.
Improving brain function in Alzheimer patients. It seems that lauric acid is directly metabolized into ketones in the liver, and that ketones, unlike glucose, help restore much of the lost neural activity (check out this link: http://www.coconutketones.com/).

Dr. Enig recommends eating 3.5 Tbs of non-hydrogenated coconut oil on a daily basis. I eat 2 Tbs of extra virgin coconut oil daily (I mix it with yogurt cheese). I'm considering mixing my protein powder with coconut milk instead of almond milk to increase my daily amount of lauric acid.

[Roadstr]

There are a lot of interesting articles about coconut products and effects on blood lipids.
Here (http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2008/12/coconut-lowers-ldl-vldl-and.html) is one I feel comfortable in that they site a number of studies. The studies this article sites didn't include milk shakes and carrot cake in the studies!

[maxlharris]

There are a lot of interesting articles about coconut products and effects on blood lipids.
Here (http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2008/12/coconut-lowers-ldl-vldl-and.html) is one I feel comfortable in that they site a number of studies. The studies this article sites didn't include milk shakes and carrot cake in the studies!

Me am confused...

http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2008/12/coconut-lowers-ldl-vldl-and.html

Article title:
Coconut Lowers LDL, VLDL and Triglycerides, Raises HDL (http://inhumanexperiment.blogspot.com/2008/12/coconut-lowers-ldl-vldl-and.html)

but Roadstr say:
Coconut oil, no... lowers both LDL and HDL.
To avoid cognitive dissonance, me assume that Roadstr was mistaken in quote above, and is now in agreement with Raz & Max on what happens when you put the Lime in the Coconut and drink em both up. You feel all better.

(That said, I haven't made the leap to Coconut Oil, or Palm Kernel Oil {not to be confused with palm oil} as of yet.)

[Karole]

How do we know if we have hydrogenated coconut oil? I have some LouAna coconut oil that I've been using to cook with lately, as it doesn't have the coconut smell and taste that my other coconut oil has.

The label reads Non hydrogenated 0 transfat per serving 100% pure and natural--and the ingredient lists only coconut oil. Is it safe to use it-- I don't want to raise my cholesterol ---or do I need to stick only with the extra virgin coconut oil to be safe.

I guess my question is : Is the only safe coconut oil the extra virgin type or is this one okay since it says non hydrogenated ? Thanks.

[razgarcia]

The LouAna coconut oil, sold at Wal-Mart at low prices, is definitely non-hydrogenated. However, and as you noticed, it lacks the fresh coconut smell and taste of the virgin or extra virgin varieties. I also noticed that the texture of the LouAna is "stiffer" than the organic variety.

This leads me to believe that the LouAna coconut oil is refined either by way of heating and/or chemical extraction--I am not sure how they extract it from the meat. But the only way to ensure purity and non-degradation of the lauric and other fatty acids is to extract the oil through mechanical means only (i.e., presing the meat to extract the oil). And the only products that are guaranteed to be processed by pressing are the organic varieties.

If you search the web you should be able to find organic coconut oil at affordable prices, but you may have to purchase it by the gallon.

[Karole]

Thanks for the prompt reply Razgarcia. I do have some of the cold pressed extra virgin on hand but really don't care for the smell during cooking so I got the LouAna to cook with.

I agree it seems to have a different consistency than the extra virgin oil I got at the health food store. I think I will forgo the LouAna just to be on the safe side and just use my extra virgin coconut oil for baking and candy making or in my protein shakes. Afterall, its the good lauric acid I am after so I don't want it altered anymore than it has to be.

Again thanks for the explanation and thoughts on the LouAna.

[Roadstr]

Me am confused...
me assume that Roadstr was mistaken in quote above, and is now in agreement with Raz & Max on what happens when you put the Lime in the Coconut and drink em both up. You feel all better.


;) You too kind Max, yes, "I put 'da Lime in 'da coconut". I read somewhere that it raised both LDL and HDL. Again, conflicting studies and reading with tinted glasses... funny how that works. That's why they call it "spinning" a story I guess.

Actually that may be a great tonic, I was doing fresh squeezed lemon with 2-3 T of EVOO first thing in the AM. Don't do it if you have any issues with your gall bladder! I've flushed my gall bladder and liver and know what would happen before I did it. I have to try 'da lime & EVCO.

I sent this article (http://www.tampabay.com/news/aging/article879333.ece) to a relative about a month ago. My relative researched coconut oil and found the highest quality for the lowest cost was the orgainic Nutiva brand EVCO in bulk and that's what they ordered. They actually became obsessed with finding the very best! I've seen the Nutiva in Wal-Mart as well, but pretty much any Organic Extra Virgin will do. I bought GardenofLife at WF because it was on sale (not now though). It's good, too. I just fried some talapia in it... my birdies love it too... I have 2 caiques. Gracie will run off with a tab of butter if she can get away with it and it's hell to pay to get it back! I think EVCO is better for 'em, and I think they like it even better than butter. They don't get too much though! George will eat anything, but luuuves EVCO on his sausages!

Don't worry, I don't intend to check their cholesterol.:eek: