Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2
Results 26 to 36 of 36
  1. #26
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag View Post
    I take exception to this. Saturated fats and animal cholesterol's link to cardiovascular disease has been broken for a while now.
    i'd take exception to this. studies have routinely demonstrated the link between saturated fats (SF) from meat sources with increased risk of coronary vascular disease (CVD).


    Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2012 Oct 4. Diverse physiological effects of long-chain saturated fatty acids: implications for cardiovascular disease. Flock MR, Kris-Etherton PM.

    Replacing saturated fatty acids with unsaturated fatty acids improves the blood lipid profile and reduces cardiovascular disease risk, although the benefits depend on the specific saturated fatty acid(s) being replaced.

    ----------------------------------------------------------

    Animal. 2011 Nov 11:1-9. Dietary fatty acids and cardiovascular disease. Salter AM.

    These recommendations were made largely on the basis of specific effects of these fatty acids on the risk of developing atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease (CVD). The intervening years have seen a plethora of human epidemiological and intervention trials to further elucidate the specific relationship between dietary fatty acid intake, plasma lipids and lipoproteins and cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. A number of recent meta-analyses and systematic reviews have revisited the role of specific dietary fatty acid classes and CVD risk. In general, these continue to support a link between saturated fatty acids (SFA) and CVD morbidity/mortality.


    and...


    "The most recent data suggest that replacing SFA with cis-PUFA (primarily linoleic acid) has the greatest impact on reducing CVD risk."


    more studies that have demonstrated a positive SFA to CVD relation:

    Hu et al. (1999) Nurses’ Health Study
    Hu et al. (1999) Nurses’ Health Study
    Hu et al. (1997) Nurses’ Health Study
    Goldbourt et al. (1993) Israeli Ischemic Heart Disease Study
    McGee et al. (1984) Honolulu Heart Program
    Keys et al. (1980) Seven Countries Study

    i worked for 2 years on a post CABG (coronary artery bypass graft) stepdown unit where we got the folks that just got their chests cracked or had stints put in. care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of patients that came through had diets high in saturated fats and animal cholesterols? how about the percentage of vegetarians? percentage of vegans?

    i'm not saying that no vegan or vegetarian has ever developed CVD but in the 2 years i worked that unit not a single vegetarian or vegan came through with a x1-x4 CABG or even a stint. not one. conversely 100% of the CABG and stint recipients had diets high in saturated fats and animal cholesterol.


    their H&P's and labs indicated the number of grafts (1 to 4) generally seemed proportional to diet, with the higher ratios of animal based saturated fats to plant based sources receiving a higher number of grafts.

    granted it's not a "controlled scientifical research project" but i'd suggest it still demonstrates strong empirical corollary evidence.

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    You also forgot to mention that rice and beans also raise the blood acidity level.
    simply because it's not germane. although it does raise it somewhat there is no accompanyment of fats, cholesterol, etc. as with meat sources. and although it does raise it i've seen no evidence that demonstrates this increase is corollary to the increase caused by animal sources nor corollary to the resulting health issues. just the opposite, in fact.

    similarly, animal cholesterols are not good for the body yet the cholesterol that our bodies produces does not effect the body in the same way.

    populations whose staple diet is beans and rice with little meat/dairy intake do not show the same disease profiles (CVD, MI, TIA, cancers, etc.) as do populations with diets high in meat/dairy. in fact, the increase in occurrence of these diseases along with osteoporosis in populations is corollary to their consumption of meat/dairy.

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    How dare protein sources contain amino acids!
    mentioned that in post #17

    Quote Originally Posted by beanbag
    I would agree with Meat that if you want to build some more muscle, see what the bodybuilders are doing.
    see #4 in the summary at the bottom of post 17.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  2. #27
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,555
    Your posts are getting longer and longer, and much more defensive and personal. It makes you seem less right and more desperate to win, win what I'm not sure.. Reminds me of when Mike Tyson bit off Evander Holyfield's ear, just sayin. I mean if we're going to get personal than here's my take.....
    Are you a 2 dollar defense lawyer or ambulance chaser? I ask because you seem to be a natural for taking some of the evidence to paint the whole picture.
    It's not about ego, I make it personal and am wildly incoherent? Really? Was Don Quixote a hard gainer too? Pot calling kettle black? I'm almost embarrassed to admit that I read your last post entirely. It reads like a resume that's filled with egotism and defensiveness, and since it has NO helpful info for anyone including op, it's like you just wanted to verbally masturbate all over this thread and are going to bring up anything and everything, or parts of it to be right. Don't listen to someone who's researched what most hard gainers do for success and used it with success, that would be silly. Just keep bringing up things that no one asked about, like cancer. Or tell op not to eat before bed because it disturbs his sleep, even thou he didn't once say he's having that problem. I know, rule # whateva, listen to the patient lol. Rule #2, do as I say not as i do, lol
    So rather than pick throu your post and multi quote all the misleading statements you've made, in an attempt to seem righteous, I'll just take your very first statement which pretty much sums up the problem with your entire post.
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    no, you did not say you hadn't read through all the posts but did read the OP's. i cut and pasted what you wrote, which was, "Well, I didn't read throu all the post".

    so you see i didn't assume anything. i quoted you.
    I said I didn't read all the previous posts, but I did read all of op's. You seem like at least a fairly smart guy so I'm sure you can grasp this one, ready? I read all of op's posts, but didn't read everyone else's. Do you get it now? Ok, one more time, I said I didn't read all the posts, I didn't say, because i actually did, read all of op's. Getting clearer now? They say the third time's a charm, I did read all of op's posts to try and get as much info as possible, but apologized for maybe repeating info that other members could have said. Especially since most, if not all of that info is what mostly everyone, except you, considers the way to go.

    In closing of this dialogue I'll say that I've tried to get you to chime in on other posts because i was led to believe that you where an interesting guy with an open mind, but you always seemed too aloof, and wise to engage, which honestly just intrigued me more, now I've learned otherwise, and the later version of you is much less appealing.
    Round and round we go

  3. #28
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Your posts are getting longer and longer, and much more defensive and personal.... ~irrelevant content snipped~
    nope. just responding to THE ERRANT CONTENT of what you wrote and correcting things you wrongly attributed me saying and then argued against. the reason they're getting longer and longer is you're misquoting and misattributing more and more with each post. it's like you're on a crusade to knock down strawmen and joust windmills rather than have a coherent discussion relevant to statements and points actually being raised.

    interesting you should begin a post that basically was directed at me personally rather than anything even remotely related to the thread with the first sentence quoted above....

    i'll concede you made a typo by saying "post" instead of "posts". thanks for clarifying that. but i'll not bother responding to any of the rest of that post as it's clear you'd rather make this personal than pertain to the subject matter we were discussing.

    cheers!
    Last edited by monogod; 11-18-2012 at 03:55 PM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  4. #29
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by monogod View Post
    i'd take exception to this. studies have routinely demonstrated the link between saturated fats (SF) from meat sources with increased risk of coronary vascular disease (CVD).
    Studies also routinely show the other way, such as this meta-study here:

    Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease

    Background: A reduction in dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health.

    Objective: The objective of this meta-analysis was to summarize the evidence related to the association of dietary saturated fat with risk of coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) in prospective epidemiologic studies.

    Design: Twenty-one studies identified by searching MEDLINE and EMBASE databases and secondary referencing qualified for inclusion in this study. A random-effects model was used to derive composite relative risk estimates for CHD, stroke, and CVD.

    Results: During 5–23 y of follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD.

    Conclusions: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

    The studies you quoted from Hu, Goldbourt, McGee, and Keys all fall under this meta-study. The first two are newer than this.

    [INDENT]Curr Opin Clin Nutr Metab Care. 2012 Oct 4. Diverse physiological effects of long-chain saturated fatty acids: implications for cardiovascular disease. Flock MR, Kris-Etherton PM.

    Replacing saturated fatty acids with unsaturated fatty acids improves the blood lipid profile and reduces cardiovascular disease risk, although the benefits depend on the specific saturated fatty acid(s) being replaced.
    -Cannot read actual paper. The individual saturated fatty acids affect cholesterol levels. Some lower HDL, some raise HDL. If replacing SF with, for example O3 PUFA, showed positive results, that does not prove SF is bad, but rather salmon is good. Everybody already knows that. Also, the author assumes that cholesterol causes CVD, (hence use of the term "risk") which I don't agree with either. If that were true, then we should all take one-a-day statins to lower cholesterol and thus prevent CVD, right?

    The other studies you mentiaon also show that there is a correlation btw cvd and cholesterol, or btw cvd and sf, but as well all know from rule #563, correlation does not imply causation.

    i worked for 2 years on a post CABG (coronary artery bypass graft) stepdown unit where we got the folks that just got their chests cracked or had stints put in. care to hazard a guess as to what percentage of patients that came through had diets high in saturated fats and animal cholesterols? how about the percentage of vegetarians? percentage of vegans?

    i'm not saying that no vegan or vegetarian has ever developed CVD but in the 2 years i worked that unit not a single vegetarian or vegan came through with a x1-x4 CABG or even a stint. not one. conversely 100% of the CABG and stint recipients had diets high in saturated fats and animal cholesterol.
    I bring up rule #563 again. I don't have a problem with your observations, but I can equally claim that "vegetarians eat more fruits and vegetables, which are rich in anti-oxidants that reduce inflammation and plaque build up. Meat eaters lead hedonistic lives which also includes smoking and drinking."


    granted it's not a "controlled scientifical research project" but i'd suggest it still demonstrates strong empirical corollary evidence.

    populations whose staple diet is beans and rice with little meat/dairy intake do not show the same disease profiles (CVD, MI, TIA, cancers, etc.) as do populations with diets high in meat/dairy. in fact, the increase in occurrence of these diseases along with osteoporosis in populations is corollary to their consumption of meat/dairy.
    Maybe the rice eaters were skinny asians toiling all day in the paddies, and the meat eaters were living hedonistic sedentary lifestyles.

    Also, hot days cause drowning, and playing basketball makes you tall.

    The fact is that humans have been eating SFs like animal and coconut for millions of years and so we are able to metabolize these without keeling over.

  5. #30
    meh... whatever
    Reputation: monogod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Posts
    5,436
    beanbag, i'll certainly concede there are studies that show evidence for both sides of the argument and was certainly not arguing otherwise.

    however, my point was not to prove absolute causation but rather to point out that the correlation between SF and CVD had not been irrefutably broken as you suggested it had been.

    not entirely sure i agree with the broad generalization that "meat eaters are hedonistic smokers and drinkers", but i will certainly concede that exercise combined with an increased intake of fruits and veggies will certainly help to minimize and/or even counteract the damage correlary to meat intake. but isn't that just tacitly agreeing with my basic point? more veggies and less meat equals less CVD? hmmmmm.... for a second there it almost sounded like you were suggesting correlation implies causation.

    additionally, those who take better care of themselves tend to eat less meat and ingest less animal based saturated fats period. again suggesting causation -- for both the detriments of meat and the benefits of high plant based intake. so in the grand scheme of things i'm not simply demonizing SF as the ONLY cause because there are clearly other coexisting causalities and co-morbidities.

    however, if something is detremental it seems to me to be more prudent to excise it from the diet completely rather than take measures to reduce or counteract the detrimental effects -- especially when meat offers absolutely nothing beneficial or necessary to the human body that cannot be found in a wholly plant based diet.

    regarding rule #563, i was not making a *** hoc ergo propter hoc or post hoc ergo propter hoc argument. i stated pointedly that it was not a scientifical study. while correlation does not necessarily imply causation it does not mean that it never can.

    corollary evidence such as in two years of working a post CABG unit without seeing a single vegetarian or vegan and the false cause fallacies you mentioned are not even remotely similar and comparison of the two would perhaps be a logical fallacy itself.

    why? if i want to be tall will paying basketball do it? no. would it assist in any way, shape, or form to help me reach that goal? no.

    conversely, if i want to stay out of a post CABG unit due to having a stint or x1-x4 graft would being a vegan do it? very likely. and though not wholly responsible would have a huge impact in helping me to attain that goal. in fact, if one was in a high risk category for ending up in a CABG unit and show pre-markers and preliminary occlusion going vegan could REVERSE this progression and alter the path leading to a CABG. this has been positively demonstrated and observed.

    similarly, as i recall the SF in coconut is a medium chain fatty acid while the SF in meat is a long chain fatty acid. so i'd suggest the comparison of the two to be somewhat moot.
    Last edited by monogod; 11-18-2012 at 03:34 PM.
    "Knowledge is good." ~ Emil Faber

  6. #31
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,701
    OK, I see where you are coming from. You think that meat -> saturated fats and cholesterol -> increased blood cholesterol -> CVD, and certainly there are a lot of epidemiological (sp) studies that point this correlation out. However, I don't think anybody has found a direct metabolic pathway as to how the SF you eat ends up as arterial plaque. That's why it's only correlative and not causative.

    Vegetarian and vegan diet can be healthy, but I don't think it is necessary (for the OP) to purposely restrict meat intake.

    I come from a different camp (vaguely paleo-centric) that says cvd is due to inflammation and oxidized fats that are hanging off of your LDL's. (excuse me if I get some details wrong) In this case, SF's are good because they are very resistant to oxidative damage, and poly-unsaturated fats are bad because they oxidize easily. (i.e. people are dying off because of all the foods soaked in modern corn and soybean oils) Vegetables and fruit are protective partly because they have anti-oxidants, plus other nutrients that do this and that. But steak is not bad either. It is a highly nutritionally dense food with lots of protein and other nutrients that do this and that.

    At least in this case, my views are backed up by various metabolic mechanisms as to how things work. People who are interested in finding out the non-botched version of what I wrote above can read the writing of Chris Masterjohn (daily lipid), Mark Sisson (Mark's daily apple), and Chris Kresser (Healthy Skeptic).

    Oh, also paleo diet is against rice and beans and grains. Just sayin'.

    My only advice to the OP at this point is to not fear the meat and maybe try to fit in some more sources of omega 3's like salmon or pastured meat products. Watch out for the O6's in nuts. The veggies are there to protect you from the potato chips, and whatever you stir-fried up in "healthy" vegetable oil, not that delicious steak with a pat of grass-fed butter on top. (Slightly hyperbolically speaking)

  7. #32
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,555
    Good stuff Beanbag. Why avoid o6's of some nuts?
    Round and round we go

  8. #33
    Gumnut Peddler
    Reputation: Grinderz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    564
    When I started this thread I was looking for tips for helping with weight. I was not expecting a debate on which food types are better than others for things like heart disease, nor am I interested in any of this to be honest.

    I am going to keep eating fruit/veg/salads/meat/fish/nuts/etc because I am a firm believer that you should enjoy what you eat. For the record, I eat meat approx 3 - 4 times per week. I also have a very active lifestyle, and I figured that I am already better off than those who sit in front of the TV eating McDonalds all day.

    Reading through all of this, about 90% of the information within this thread is not going to help me put on a bit of weight/lean muscle. I am also aware that 'technically' I could drop even more weight and still ride fine, but this is not what I am looking for.

    Can we please keep the responses relevant to the topic as this is a genuine question and concern.

    Thanks,
    Grinderz
    Burning fat, not oil.

  9. #34
    mtbr member
    Reputation: theMeat's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Posts
    4,555
    Agreed.
    There's no escaping the fact that you need to eat at least breakfast lunch and dinner to expect gains. When I was gaining the most muscle, while still trimming fat I'd eat 5-6 meals a day.
    Some other members brought up some good points. Think Beanbag said isolates for less lactose. I'm not sure if they're all lactose free but that's easy to find out.
    Someone else said you just have to make the time and the commitment like you do for other aspects of your goals. Pack some food and eat it. I mean you could eat a banana and pbj while walking to your car or whatever if you really had to. Ask anyone who's had to work for an obviously excellent physic and they'll tell you again and again that diet is at least 60% of that equation. Get yourself two lunch boxes/bags. They even have some cool Skooby Doo ones if that's a good motivator for ya, lol
    Round and round we go

  10. #35
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by theMeat View Post
    Good stuff Beanbag. Why avoid o6's of some nuts?
    It's debatable, but in general you want the ratio of O6 to O3 not to be too high.

  11. #36
    Save Jesus
    Reputation: beanbag's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Posts
    2,701
    Quote Originally Posted by Grinderz View Post
    I am going to keep eating fruit/veg/salads/meat/fish/nuts/etc because I am a firm believer that you should enjoy what you eat.

    Can we please keep the responses relevant to the topic as this is a genuine question and concern.
    lift heavy things
    boost your hgh levels

Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 1 2

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •