http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2002/08/17/saturated-fat1.aspx (warning - have to give up an email address to get this link)
This is a three part article from two wicked smart ladies. Sally Fallon is President of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and wonderfully articulates the findings of Dr. Price's priceless book. Dr. Enig, PHD and all, brings the biochemistry aspect into the discussion. Between the two of them, you can get your learning on about why you want to eat a big batch of saturated fat in your healthy diet.
Thursday, February 4, 2010
Even the Mass Media Catching On to Saturated Fat
http://www.menshealth.com/men/nutrition/food-for-fitness/saturated-fat/article/b675909829731110VgnVCM10000013281eac
"If Atkins means eating lots of meat, eggs and cheese, won't all that saturated fat wreck your cholesterol levels and put you on the road to heart disease? Well, no. There's no good evidence of that. And there's plenty of evidence that the opposite is true--that eating more saturated fat lowers the risk for heart disease. That's what a recent Harvard University study found: People who had the highest saturated fat intake also had the least plaque buildup on their artery walls. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition described the findings as an "American Paradox." In the Stanford University study that made recent headlines, women on the "fatty" Atkins diet ended up with the healthiest cholesterol levels and the best blood pressure readings, compared to those on other diets, notably the famous Ornish low-fat diet."
The paradox here, if there is one, is how so many smart people - doctors, nutritionists, health researchers - could have gotton it so wrong with regards to fat, cholesterol and heart disease. In fact, the mounting evidence is that for the last 30 years, they've been giving the opposite of the right advice.
One note - with regard to women and the last sentence above - no one really knows what a good or bad level of cholesterol is. The studies show different results for different age groups of women. One thing is certain - there's absolutely no evidence that high cholesterol is unhealthy for any age women. If anything, the reverse is true and especially for older women.
"If Atkins means eating lots of meat, eggs and cheese, won't all that saturated fat wreck your cholesterol levels and put you on the road to heart disease? Well, no. There's no good evidence of that. And there's plenty of evidence that the opposite is true--that eating more saturated fat lowers the risk for heart disease. That's what a recent Harvard University study found: People who had the highest saturated fat intake also had the least plaque buildup on their artery walls. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition described the findings as an "American Paradox." In the Stanford University study that made recent headlines, women on the "fatty" Atkins diet ended up with the healthiest cholesterol levels and the best blood pressure readings, compared to those on other diets, notably the famous Ornish low-fat diet."
The paradox here, if there is one, is how so many smart people - doctors, nutritionists, health researchers - could have gotton it so wrong with regards to fat, cholesterol and heart disease. In fact, the mounting evidence is that for the last 30 years, they've been giving the opposite of the right advice.
One note - with regard to women and the last sentence above - no one really knows what a good or bad level of cholesterol is. The studies show different results for different age groups of women. One thing is certain - there's absolutely no evidence that high cholesterol is unhealthy for any age women. If anything, the reverse is true and especially for older women.
Wednesday, February 3, 2010
Be A Fat Head
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/about/
If you have not seen this film, I highly recommend it.
Aside from being an education wrapped into a very entertaining format, it skewers many of my favorite targets. It also introduces you to several SMEs, who have mountains of free information on the web, as well as published writing.
Did I mention it is also funny? If you are converted to the low carb approach but have friends or family who are afraid of fat, get them in front of this movie - available on Amazon for under $20.
If you have not seen this film, I highly recommend it.
Aside from being an education wrapped into a very entertaining format, it skewers many of my favorite targets. It also introduces you to several SMEs, who have mountains of free information on the web, as well as published writing.
Did I mention it is also funny? If you are converted to the low carb approach but have friends or family who are afraid of fat, get them in front of this movie - available on Amazon for under $20.
More on the Stanford Low Carb Study by Gardner
http://www.menshealth.com/men/nutrition/food-for-fitness/low-carb-diet/article/11ff6f83c9821110VgnVCM10000013281eac
"If you listened to the radio or caught the TV news shows recently, you know what the big news was for overweight Americans: Low-carb diets work, and they're healthy. " "But the 12-month study by Stanford University, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is the strongest evidence so far that carbohydrates, not fat, are the main culprit in America's struggle to slim down and to lower risk of heart disease. And that's the big takeaway from this study--that eating the fat of an Atkins diet doesn't increase heart-disease risk, it reduces it."
Read on and enjoy. You can see the study's author speak (youTube) about this study following the link here: http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2010/01/vegetarian-examines-evidence-foragainst.html
"If you listened to the radio or caught the TV news shows recently, you know what the big news was for overweight Americans: Low-carb diets work, and they're healthy. " "But the 12-month study by Stanford University, published today in the Journal of the American Medical Association, is the strongest evidence so far that carbohydrates, not fat, are the main culprit in America's struggle to slim down and to lower risk of heart disease. And that's the big takeaway from this study--that eating the fat of an Atkins diet doesn't increase heart-disease risk, it reduces it."
Read on and enjoy. You can see the study's author speak (youTube) about this study following the link here: http://fireofthegodsfitness.blogspot.com/2010/01/vegetarian-examines-evidence-foragainst.html
Tuesday, February 2, 2010
Saturated Fat IS THE GOOD FAT!
http://www.menshealth.com/men/health/heart-disease/saturated-fat/article/a03ddd2eaab85110VgnVCM10000013281eac?print=true&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.menshealth.com%2Fmen%2Fhealth%2Fheart-disease%2Fsaturated-fat%2Farticle%2Fa03ddd2eaab85110VgnVCM10000013281eac
"For decades, Americans have been told that saturated fat clogs arteries and causes heart disease. But there's just one problem: No one's ever proved it. Suppose you were forced to live on a diet of red meat and whole milk. A diet that, all told, was at least 60 percent fat -- about half of it saturated. If your first thoughts are of statins and stents, you may want to consider the curious case of the Masai, a nomadic tribe in Kenya and Tanzania.
In the 1960s, a Vanderbilt University scientist named George Mann, M.D., found that Masai men consumed this very diet (supplemented with blood from the cattle they herded). Yet these nomads, who were also very lean, had some of the lowest levels of cholesterol ever measured and were virtually free of heart disease.
Scientists, confused by the finding, argued that the tribe must have certain genetic protections against developing high cholesterol. But when British researchers monitored a group of Masai men who moved to Nairobi and began consuming a more modern diet, they discovered that the men's cholesterol subsequently skyrocketed.
Similar observations were made of the Samburu -- another Kenyan tribe -- as well as the Fulani of Nigeria. While the findings from these cultures seem to contradict the fact that eating saturated fat leads to heart disease, it may surprise you to know that this "fact" isn't a fact at all. It is, more accurately, a hypothesis from the 1950s that's never been proved."
Take the link and read on, it's awesome to find information this useful and interesting in the mass media.
The info regarding the Masai highlights a pattern seen frequently - traditional diets yeild healthy, fit humans, who, when subsequently are exposed to the Western diet, become sick like Westerners. Thus, the Paleo model of nutrition for health.
"For decades, Americans have been told that saturated fat clogs arteries and causes heart disease. But there's just one problem: No one's ever proved it. Suppose you were forced to live on a diet of red meat and whole milk. A diet that, all told, was at least 60 percent fat -- about half of it saturated. If your first thoughts are of statins and stents, you may want to consider the curious case of the Masai, a nomadic tribe in Kenya and Tanzania.
In the 1960s, a Vanderbilt University scientist named George Mann, M.D., found that Masai men consumed this very diet (supplemented with blood from the cattle they herded). Yet these nomads, who were also very lean, had some of the lowest levels of cholesterol ever measured and were virtually free of heart disease.
Scientists, confused by the finding, argued that the tribe must have certain genetic protections against developing high cholesterol. But when British researchers monitored a group of Masai men who moved to Nairobi and began consuming a more modern diet, they discovered that the men's cholesterol subsequently skyrocketed.
Similar observations were made of the Samburu -- another Kenyan tribe -- as well as the Fulani of Nigeria. While the findings from these cultures seem to contradict the fact that eating saturated fat leads to heart disease, it may surprise you to know that this "fact" isn't a fact at all. It is, more accurately, a hypothesis from the 1950s that's never been proved."
Take the link and read on, it's awesome to find information this useful and interesting in the mass media.
The info regarding the Masai highlights a pattern seen frequently - traditional diets yeild healthy, fit humans, who, when subsequently are exposed to the Western diet, become sick like Westerners. Thus, the Paleo model of nutrition for health.
Nice Bird Dog from Whole Health Source
http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.com/2010/01/new-saturated-fat-review-article-by-dr.html
This is really interesting. Here's a respected researcher who's pursued proof that saturated fats are the cause of human illness, who recently recognized there's no proof to support that conjecture.
I recommend WHS blog very highly. Muck like Dr. Mike Eades' blog, one can learn almost as much from the comments as from the author's posts.
This is really interesting. Here's a respected researcher who's pursued proof that saturated fats are the cause of human illness, who recently recognized there's no proof to support that conjecture.
I recommend WHS blog very highly. Muck like Dr. Mike Eades' blog, one can learn almost as much from the comments as from the author's posts.
Monday, February 1, 2010
The Good, The Bad, the Ugly
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704762904575025313433081780.html?mod=WSJ_hp_mostpop_read
The good in this article starts with stating that being slender does not mean one is healthy. Eating poor quality, or too much, food is a recipe for poor health regardless of your waist size. This is a nice bit of writing, and useful info to boot: "The findings of the Mayo study, which was published in November in the European Heart Journal, suggest that reducing heart risk requires increasing the percentage of lean muscle mass at the expense of body fat. That underscores the importance of exercise in maintaining cardiovascular health-including weight lifting and other resistance training, which helps build lean body mass. Eating a healthy diet is important in reducing body fat, too, but Dr. Lopez-Jimenez observes that if you only restrict calories, you risk losing an equal amount of body fat and lean muscle tissue and thus you could end up weighing less without significantly reducing the percentage of body fat."
Here's another bit of really good info: "But Dr. Eckel and other medical experts caution that the findings need to be validated with additional research. Big epidemiological studies such as the Mayo report are useful for spotting important trends and raising hypotheses for further inquiry. But they are not necessarily reliable for prescribing specific remedies for individual patients." This quote should be in every article about observational studies. It would help many folk sort through the confusion of conflicting conclusions that are inevitable with so many published reports about observational studies.
Summary of the good: exercise is important for health and fitness, and specific types are more important than others. I also like the fact that they say, even if they don't say it clearly enough, that caloric restriction (aka starvation diets) are not the best means to healthy weight loss, as they cost you lean mass in the short term (and in the long term, lead to weight gain, usually with increased body fat).
The bad in this study is it still refers to BMI as a meaningful measure of individual health. Any individual with a rigorious strength program and a moderate body fat level will exceed the BMI standards BECAUSE they are healthy! This number may hold significance for a population, but is beyond stupid to use as a measure of individual health. At least the writer documents this fact: "A BMI of 30 or higher indicates obesity, while people in the range from 25 to 29.9 are considered overweight. The overweight category in particular has generated controversy because many people who exercise regularly and are considered fit have BMIs above 25." So why didn't the WSJ stop there before printing this bit of tripe: "BMI, or body mass index, is a key indicator of healthy weight."
The ugly is that they missed the key conclusion, there for the taking, for anyone with knowledge of these topics: The real cue that one is ill and at greater risk for contracting the diseases of civilization is HAVING metabolic syndrome. Excess body fat is a symptom of eating poor quality food, and indicates you may soon have metabolic syndrome, but isn't the key variable. "High body fat among normal-weight men and women was associated with a nearly four-fold increase in the risk for metabolic syndrome-a cluster of abnormalities including elevated blood sugar and blood pressure. This syndrome is common among people who are obese and is an increasingly important precursor to diabetes and cardiovascular disease." That language is far too general.
To boil it all down - if you restrict carbohydrate intake and control metabolic syndrome, your health improves as do the markers of good health. If you eat too much carbohydrate but lose weight by compulsive exercise or chronic calorie restriction (great example of this in Taubes' "Good Calories Bad Calories" discussion of the treatment of President Eisenhower); or reduce your blood pressure with meds; or reduce your LDLs with statins; you are still sick - and are just masking symptoms with medicine. Better to use meds if you need them, but in my logic, I will never 'need' meds until after I've pursued remedy via a restricted carbohydrate (50-100 grams per day) dietary alternative.
The good in this article starts with stating that being slender does not mean one is healthy. Eating poor quality, or too much, food is a recipe for poor health regardless of your waist size. This is a nice bit of writing, and useful info to boot: "The findings of the Mayo study, which was published in November in the European Heart Journal, suggest that reducing heart risk requires increasing the percentage of lean muscle mass at the expense of body fat. That underscores the importance of exercise in maintaining cardiovascular health-including weight lifting and other resistance training, which helps build lean body mass. Eating a healthy diet is important in reducing body fat, too, but Dr. Lopez-Jimenez observes that if you only restrict calories, you risk losing an equal amount of body fat and lean muscle tissue and thus you could end up weighing less without significantly reducing the percentage of body fat."
Here's another bit of really good info: "But Dr. Eckel and other medical experts caution that the findings need to be validated with additional research. Big epidemiological studies such as the Mayo report are useful for spotting important trends and raising hypotheses for further inquiry. But they are not necessarily reliable for prescribing specific remedies for individual patients." This quote should be in every article about observational studies. It would help many folk sort through the confusion of conflicting conclusions that are inevitable with so many published reports about observational studies.
Summary of the good: exercise is important for health and fitness, and specific types are more important than others. I also like the fact that they say, even if they don't say it clearly enough, that caloric restriction (aka starvation diets) are not the best means to healthy weight loss, as they cost you lean mass in the short term (and in the long term, lead to weight gain, usually with increased body fat).
The bad in this study is it still refers to BMI as a meaningful measure of individual health. Any individual with a rigorious strength program and a moderate body fat level will exceed the BMI standards BECAUSE they are healthy! This number may hold significance for a population, but is beyond stupid to use as a measure of individual health. At least the writer documents this fact: "A BMI of 30 or higher indicates obesity, while people in the range from 25 to 29.9 are considered overweight. The overweight category in particular has generated controversy because many people who exercise regularly and are considered fit have BMIs above 25." So why didn't the WSJ stop there before printing this bit of tripe: "BMI, or body mass index, is a key indicator of healthy weight."
The ugly is that they missed the key conclusion, there for the taking, for anyone with knowledge of these topics: The real cue that one is ill and at greater risk for contracting the diseases of civilization is HAVING metabolic syndrome. Excess body fat is a symptom of eating poor quality food, and indicates you may soon have metabolic syndrome, but isn't the key variable. "High body fat among normal-weight men and women was associated with a nearly four-fold increase in the risk for metabolic syndrome-a cluster of abnormalities including elevated blood sugar and blood pressure. This syndrome is common among people who are obese and is an increasingly important precursor to diabetes and cardiovascular disease." That language is far too general.
To boil it all down - if you restrict carbohydrate intake and control metabolic syndrome, your health improves as do the markers of good health. If you eat too much carbohydrate but lose weight by compulsive exercise or chronic calorie restriction (great example of this in Taubes' "Good Calories Bad Calories" discussion of the treatment of President Eisenhower); or reduce your blood pressure with meds; or reduce your LDLs with statins; you are still sick - and are just masking symptoms with medicine. Better to use meds if you need them, but in my logic, I will never 'need' meds until after I've pursued remedy via a restricted carbohydrate (50-100 grams per day) dietary alternative.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)