|
I don't have them. I have a PhD in biology but not in the specific field so I consider myself to be unqualified.
So what I do is this. I go to wikipedia. I read "Medical, heart-health, and governmental authorities, such as the World Health Organization,[2] the American Dietetic Association,[3] the Dietitians of Canada,[3] the British Dietetic Association,[4] American Heart Association,[5] the British Heart Foundation,[6] the World Heart Federation,[7] the British National Health Service,[8] the United States Food and Drug Administration,[9] and the European Food Safety Authority[10] advise that saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD)."
Then I draw my conclusions. I use the same method for astronomy or physics and it is quite successful.
I am very good in getting an overall picture of a debate or controversy and deciding who argues what for what reason.
I can differentiate now very well between people who just want to argue for crazy ideas and those people who are really smart and innovative and who press forward the boundaries of human understanding.
Entering a discussion about methodology as a layperson only leads to confusion and misunderstanding. When Eshlow sees an argument made against a certain methodology he sees this as a refutation when the person making the criticism is on the same page, but just nitpicking the methodology to keep standards high.
Call it appeal to authority or whatever, I trust in he scientific method. If I'm wrong, my bad. But overall I am more right than wrong so I go with this strategy anyway. If the science is wrong, I will find out.
|
On June 27 2013 00:07 Komei wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 14:47 AoN.DimSum wrote:
ahhh just the circle of life in tlhf.
I want to lose weight! ----> i want to get big! ------> Meat and fat is bad for you! ----> repeat
I still find it hilarious that out of all the vegans that posted here, I can always expect the same thing in every post.
1. china study
2. appeal to authority
3. Supplies zero scientific evidence
4. Refers to some bias vegan propoganda website
5. blames eshlow for cherry picking
6. constantly ignores all posts proving them wrong Get back to me when you have atherosclerosis at age 50. Let's see how 'hilarious' it all is then. I can already imagine the conversation with your doctor. "But eating so much saturated fat, didn't you realize the risk you put yourself in?" "But my diet was fine, no gluten, no sugar, low on carbs, lot's of protein. Ooh btw doc, saturated fat is good for you. It being bad is just a myth. Eshlow and fringe doctor said so." *doctor facepalms* Sad thing is, these paleo guys probably have family members on cholesterol-lowering drugs. I know most vegans and vegetarians have. But I guess those people just need to eat eggs&bacon with coffee every morning and the are alright. Funny how you say we can both appeal to authority, but we also need to post propaganda vegan sites. Haha... Nothing productive said here
I am aware on how the US food industry 'spices up' all processed foods by adding salt, sugar fat and some MSG/similar compounds.
agreed But there is also a debate on fat vs protein vs carbs and saturated fats vs unsaturated fats.
It can't be that saturated fat in lean meat is healthy but the same type of fat in bacon is unhealthy. Lean refers to the amount of fat in a meat, not anything about the actual content. Likewise, bacon is a cut of meat and only as healthy as the pig it came from and how it was made. I only eat uncured back bacon from free range animals with no nitrates (wish it was cheaper  )
One side says carbs cause heart disease, the other says (saturated) fat does. So it's not about processed foods vs
'real' foods.
It's absolutely about the quality of food. Carbs from fruits and vegetables(as opposed to grains and refined sugars) aren't giving people heart disease. Likewise there's difference in high fat/protein diets such as the Inuits who eat a lot of wild game and fish (high in omega 3s) versus someone who eats fast food everyday.
I agree a paleo diet can be better than the SAD. But that doesn't mean the paleo diet is a good diet. Any time you are dieting you are already restricting calories. And processed foods in the US are so bad, going without them is an instant improvement.
Diet does not mean restricting calories. It's just what you're choosing to eat.
|
Zurich15329 Posts
On June 27 2013 00:07 Komei wrote:Show nested quote +On June 26 2013 14:47 AoN.DimSum wrote:
ahhh just the circle of life in tlhf.
I want to lose weight! ----> i want to get big! ------> Meat and fat is bad for you! ----> repeat
I still find it hilarious that out of all the vegans that posted here, I can always expect the same thing in every post.
1. china study
2. appeal to authority
3. Supplies zero scientific evidence
4. Refers to some bias vegan propoganda website
5. blames eshlow for cherry picking
6. constantly ignores all posts proving them wrong Get back to me when you have atherosclerosis at age 50. Let's see how 'hilarious' it all is then. I can already imagine the conversation with your doctor. "But eating so much saturated fat, didn't you realize the risk you put yourself in?" "But my diet was fine, no gluten, no sugar, low on carbs, lot's of protein. Ooh btw doc, saturated fat is good for you. It being bad is just a myth. Eshlow and fringe doctor said so." *doctor facepalms*.
If I get my blood values checked regularly and they are "pretty much perfect for my age", to quote my doctor, will I still die at age 50 because I eat eggs
|
i will get my values checked soon. really curious
|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690
Mayo Clin Proc. 2003 Nov;78(11):1331-6.
Effect of a high saturated fat and no-starch diet on serum lipid subfractions in patients with documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
Twenty-three patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease participated in a prospective 6-week trial at the Christiana Care Medical Center in Newark, Del, between August 2000 and September 2001. All patients were obese (mean +/- SD body mass index [BMI], 39.0+/-7.3 kg/m2) and had been treated with statins before entry in the trial. Fifteen obese patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (BMI, 36.1+/-9.7 kg/m2) and 8 obese patients with reactive hypoglycemia (BMI, 46.8+/-10 kg/m2) were monitored during an HSF-SA diet for 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, between 1997 and 2000.
RESULTS:
In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease,
Bodyweight decreases - mean +/- SD total body weight (TBW) decreased 5.2%+/-2.5% (P<.001) as did body fat percentage (P=.02).
Triglycerides decrease, via a gold standard NMR - Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic analysis of lipids showed decreases in total triglycerides (P<.001), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) triglycerides (P<.001), VLDL size (P<.001), large VLDL concentration (P<.001), and medium VLDL concentration (P<.001).
No increase in LDL, and size of HDL/LDL fractionation increase which are signs of health - High-density lipoprotein (HDL) and LDL concentrations were unchanged, but HDL size (P=.01) and LDL size (P=.02) increased.
Weight loss benefits, which are more significant in the very sick patients - Patients with polycystic ovary syndrome lost 14.3%+/-20.3% of TBW (P=.008) and patients with reactive hypoglycemia lost 19.9%+/-8.7% of TBW (P<.001) at 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, without adverse effects on serum lipids.
CONCLUSION:
An HSF-SA diet results in weight loss after 6 weeks without adverse effects on serum lipid levels verified by nuclear magnetic resonance, and further weight loss with a lipid-neutral effect may persist for up to 52 weeks.
Please tell me how a high saturated fat diet can improve results in ALL categories of serum lipids IN OBESE PAITENTS WITH DOCUMENTED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE if a high saturated fat diet CAUSES CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE.
Seriously, this a no fucking brainer here. If you know anything about science you know that this falsifies saturated fats causing heart disease. If saturated fats cause heart disease these patients would get worse, especially because they already are obese and have atherosclerosis.
You can't make this shit up.
I'm still waiting for an interventional study on:
~non-processed meat causes X,Y, Z
~Saturated fatty acids cause cardiovascular disease (and this above one proves it doesn't quite clearly)
|
I don't get it when people ask their doctor about nutrition. At least in Germany, they actually know very little about it. They have to take a few courses in the first year of college so they think they know what they say is true, but the field of nutrition is changing fast and by the time they are a full time doctor, chances are they forgot 3/4 of the stuff.
If you want a half valuable opinion, don't ask a doctor. Ask somebody who studied nutritional science. However even what they say, take it with a grain of salt due to the fact that it is a fast changing field.
Also I think a lot of people mistake saturated fat with trans-fats or hydrogenated fats.
Here is a good article about saturated fats (with scientific sources)
Article
|
On June 27 2013 05:12 eshlow wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690Mayo Clin Proc. 2003 Nov;78(11):1331-6. Effect of a high saturated fat and no-starch diet on serum lipid subfractions in patients with documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Twenty-three patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease participated in a prospective 6-week trial at the Christiana Care Medical Center in Newark, Del, between August 2000 and September 2001. All patients were obese (mean +/- SD body mass index [BMI], 39.0+/-7.3 kg/m2) and had been treated with statins before entry in the trial. Fifteen obese patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (BMI, 36.1+/-9.7 kg/m2) and 8 obese patients with reactive hypoglycemia (BMI, 46.8+/-10 kg/m2) were monitored during an HSF-SA diet for 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, between 1997 and 2000. RESULTS: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Bodyweight decreases - mean +/- SD total body weight (TBW) decreased 5.2%+/-2.5% (P<.001) as did body fat percentage (P=.02). Triglycerides decrease, via a gold standard NMR - ]Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic analysis of lipids showed decreases in total triglycerides (P<.001), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) triglycerides (P<.001), VLDL size (P<.001), large VLDL concentration (P<.001), and medium VLDL concentration (P<.001). No increase in LDL, and size of HDL/LDL fractionation increase which are signs of health - High-density lipoprotein (HDL) and LDL concentrations were unchanged, but HDL size (P=.01) and LDL size (P=.02) increased. Weight loss benefits, which are more significant in the very sick patients - Patients with polycystic ovary syndrome lost 14.3%+/-20.3% of TBW (P=.008) and patients with reactive hypoglycemia lost 19.9%+/-8.7% of TBW (P<.001) at 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, without adverse effects on serum lipids. CONCLUSION: An HSF-SA diet results in weight loss after 6 weeks without adverse effects on serum lipid levels verified by nuclear magnetic resonance, and further weight loss with a lipid-neutral effect may persist for up to 52 weeks. Please tell me how a high saturated fat diet can improve results in ALL categories of serum lipids IN PEOPLE WITH DOCUMENTED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE if a high saturated fat diet CAUSES CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE. Seriously, this a no fucking brainer here. [/b][/b]
What I look for in a study first and foremost is, does the study apply to me?
The subjects in this study were morbidly obese people with an atherosclerotic cardiovascular precondition.
How can this relate to anyone "normal"?
|
On June 27 2013 05:16 DrCooper wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:12 eshlow wrote:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14601690Mayo Clin Proc. 2003 Nov;78(11):1331-6. Effect of a high saturated fat and no-starch diet on serum lipid subfractions in patients with documented atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.Twenty-three patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease participated in a prospective 6-week trial at the Christiana Care Medical Center in Newark, Del, between August 2000 and September 2001. All patients were obese (mean +/- SD body mass index [BMI], 39.0+/-7.3 kg/m2) and had been treated with statins before entry in the trial. Fifteen obese patients with polycystic ovary syndrome (BMI, 36.1+/-9.7 kg/m2) and 8 obese patients with reactive hypoglycemia (BMI, 46.8+/-10 kg/m2) were monitored during an HSF-SA diet for 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, between 1997 and 2000. RESULTS: In patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, Bodyweight decreases - mean +/- SD total body weight (TBW) decreased 5.2%+/-2.5% (P<.001) as did body fat percentage (P=.02). Triglycerides decrease, via a gold standard NMR - ]Nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopic analysis of lipids showed decreases in total triglycerides (P<.001), very low-density lipoprotein (VLDL) triglycerides (P<.001), VLDL size (P<.001), large VLDL concentration (P<.001), and medium VLDL concentration (P<.001). No increase in LDL, and size of HDL/LDL fractionation increase which are signs of health - High-density lipoprotein (HDL) and LDL concentrations were unchanged, but HDL size (P=.01) and LDL size (P=.02) increased. Weight loss benefits, which are more significant in the very sick patients - Patients with polycystic ovary syndrome lost 14.3%+/-20.3% of TBW (P=.008) and patients with reactive hypoglycemia lost 19.9%+/-8.7% of TBW (P<.001) at 24 and 52 weeks, respectively, without adverse effects on serum lipids. CONCLUSION: An HSF-SA diet results in weight loss after 6 weeks without adverse effects on serum lipid levels verified by nuclear magnetic resonance, and further weight loss with a lipid-neutral effect may persist for up to 52 weeks. Please tell me how a high saturated fat diet can improve results in ALL categories of serum lipids IN PEOPLE WITH DOCUMENTED CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE if a high saturated fat diet CAUSES CARDIOVASCULAR DISEASE.Seriously, this a no fucking brainer here. What I look for in a study first and foremost is, does the study apply to me? The subjects in this study were morbidly obese people with an atherosclerotic cardiovascular precondition. How can this relate to anyone "normal"?
Read my edit:
Seriously, this a no fucking brainer here.
If you know anything about science you know that this falsifies saturated fats causing heart disease. If saturated fats cause heart disease these patients would get worse, especially because they already are obese and have atherosclerosis.
These patients already have crap health. If SAT fats really caused CVD it would make it worse much much much more quickly
|
|
|
The point was that doctors/medical students get taught the established scientific position.
Secondly, if your blood values are what they 'ought' to be for your age that means you get heart disease at the rate at which it 'ought' to happen, which is not good enough for me.
Eshlow, read wikipedia.
Also, you link a study of a clinic that considers saturated fat to be 'potentially harmful'. So despite that study, they still think their own research warrants it to make the Mayo Clinic position on saturated fat to be just that "potentially harmful".
Also, studies are controlled environments. No study will 'apply to you', Also, the constraints Eshlow has are meaningless and cannot be met even in a universe where saturated fats do play a role in CVD.
There is never going to be a study that shows saturated fats caused it. Never.
Also, I don't get what 'non-processed meat' means. All meat is processed if you ask me.
So in a universe where saturated fats cause CVD, Eshlow will never know.
Also, I love how Eshlow thinks that if one study can't find a correlation, all other studies that do show one must be wrong. With that logic there can be a 1000 studies that show saturated fats cure you from CVD, if there is one that shows consuming a diet high in saturated fats increases occurrences of CVD, then all those 1000 studies must be wrong.
So Eshlow first changes the burden of proof. That isn't enough. So he puts the requirements for evidence to be convincing to him extremely high. But then not even that is enough to protect his delusion. He even has to go so far as state that one study he likes refutes any other study that have results indicating otherwise, or else it seems he thinks his position cannot be maintained. Because they can't both be right, can they?
|
"Potentially harmful" only means that it has a chance of being harmful. It doesn't seem like it is harmful at all, but there is no fault in saying that it may have some harm that is undiscovered.
On June 27 2013 00:31 Komei wrote:
Call it appeal to authority or whatever, I trust in he scientific method. If I'm wrong, my bad. But overall I am more right than wrong so I go with this strategy anyway. If the science is wrong, I will find out.
If you trust in the scientific method, then why not listen to the study that eshlow pointed out?
Edit: I'm kind of jumping into this argument and I personally know that I am unqualified to know a lot about the subject, but eshlow presents a case that cannot be ignored, and it seems like Komei is just being stubborn in his beliefs.
|
Because the guys that did the study disagree with Eshlow? (he misunderstands what the study results mean)
Because it is just one study among many?
Because I don't look at studies but listen to people that interpret the studies for me?
'Potentially harmful' is not a term medical professionals throw around lightly. They don't say this about starch and they say this despite one research result at their clinic showing that 'patients on high saturated fat are better off'.
Eshlow just can't phantom why one legitimate study can show something completely opposite of another legitimate study. His brain cannot comprehend. Why? Because he thinks in black and white and he doesn't realize how much grey noise there actually is in research results. Why did that 2003 Mayo Clinic research show 'lipid profiles' that were not 'adversely affected'? Well, that's a good question. But I can't say more or else I will be discussing an actual study, which I won't do. But I can only point out that this claim is very constrained to just lipid profiles and 'not adversely affected' is a word which can cover a lot of actual numbers. Since Eshlow seems to think lipid profiles don't even matter to CVD, I wonder why he even cares about this research.
|
Conclusion: "An HSF-SA diet results in weight loss after 6 weeks without adverse effects on serum lipid "
k.
|
Claims to trust scientific method...then completely ignores it and refuses to use it. Classic.
|
On June 27 2013 05:46 mordek wrote:
Conclusion: "An HSF-SA diet results in weight loss after 6 weeks without adverse effects on serum lipid "
k.
Translation: High saturated fat diets result in weight loss without negative effects on cholesterol (hdl, ldl, total, etc) levels.
|
On June 27 2013 05:50 decafchicken wrote:
Claims to trust scientific method...then completely ignores it and refuses to use it. Classic.
You mean like the World Health Organization,[2] the American Dietetic Association,[3] the Dietitians of Canada,[3] the British Dietetic Association,[4] American Heart Association,[5] the British Heart Foundation,[6] the World Heart Federation,[7] the British National Health Service,[8] the United States Food and Drug Administration,[9] and the European Food Safety Authority[1]?
And unlike 'Gary Taubes, a science writer specializing in controversy ' and 'Pork Marketing Canada' and self-proclaimed internet health guru 'studybomb' Eshlow ?
If that is your definition of 'scientific method', I'd rather not use it so I am safe with the first group.
On June 27 2013 05:51 decafchicken wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:46 mordek wrote:
Conclusion: "An HSF-SA diet results in weight loss after 6 weeks without adverse effects on serum lipid "
k. Translation: High saturated fat diets result in weight loss without negative effects on cholesterol (hdl, ldl, total, etc) levels.
Translation: their CVD didn't improve but the restrictive diet, enforced on them by being in a research project, did limit their calorie intake.
Note, I didn't read the study, because I don't want to debate it, but that's how I'd translate it.
To me that study result the way it is concluded there is completely meaningless to the question what is the role of saturated fat in relation to CVD.
If you love studies, the wikipedia link Eshlow is hiding from you lists 11 studies that actually tried to find data on this question and shows here results (and these results explain why the list of organizations mentioned take the position they do, apparently in violation of all you think you knew about science) (Hint hint).
You will see Eshlow's study is not there because it doesn't have the ambition to try to throw any light on this question.
|
Either serum lipid levels affect CVD or they don't.
|
Zurich15329 Posts
On June 27 2013 05:28 Komei wrote:
The point was that doctors/medical students get taught the established scientific position.
Secondly, if your blood values are what they 'ought' to be for your age that means you get heart disease at the rate at which it 'ought' to happen, which is not good enough for me.
I guess this was in reply to me. I didn't write "ought to be", or "average" or any of that. I said perfect, as in perfectly healthy. Again, will you still tell me I am working myself to an early grave with my diet while I am regularly tested and my doctor confirms based on those tests that I am perfectly healthy.
|
The study doesn't say anything about the effect of serum lipid levels on CVD. And since Eshlow probably disputes that it does have an affect (it's probably either gluten or glucose), the fact that serum lipid levels are not much worse doesn't mean much, does it?
Anyway, these people already had CVD so by definition no research done on them can answer the question at hand. Only truths from mechanisms can be glanced at. Maybe losing weight improves lipid levels just as much as eating high saturated fat worsens it?
User was banned for this post.
|
On June 27 2013 06:04 zatic wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2013 05:28 Komei wrote:
The point was that doctors/medical students get taught the established scientific position.
Secondly, if your blood values are what they 'ought' to be for your age that means you get heart disease at the rate at which it 'ought' to happen, which is not good enough for me.
I guess this was in reply to me. I didn't write "ought to be", or "average" or any of that. I said perfect, as in perfectly healthy. Again, will you still tell me I am working myself to an early grave with my diet while I am regularly tested and my doctor confirms based on those tests that I am perfectly healthy.
I don't want to say anything about you in particular, but you bring it up. What 'perfect' means is probably 'average'. If not, a blood test result gives a number, not a word. If you know your numbers, fine.
Yes, eating a diet that according to our best current understanding puts you at a greater risk of CVD, probably puts you at a greater risk of CVD.
Also, according to the pro saturated fat people, low cholesterol levels are bad. (hint: they say this because they believe saturated fat causes high cholesterol) So you can't have it both ways.
As for eggs, high cholesterol levels are caused by eating saturated fat, not by eating high cholesterol. Eggs are high in cholesterol, but considering how much fat they contain, they are not that high in saturated fat.
That's probably also why studies have had a hard time to connect egg consumption with higher cholesterol levels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
