Cholesterol after 3 years of eating mostly meat and fat

FOB wrote:
And those mainstream organizations are trustworthy like our government is
trustworthy. They are all funded by special interests.

Del Cecchi wrote:
||
| I would feel better if the links were to sites from mainstream medical
| organizations. These have a whiff of kook about them.
|
| Yes, it seems that genetics are primary driver of blood lipids, body
| fat
| probably second, food intake third. That doesn't mean scarfing fat is
| good for you.


Fine, you get your information from sites with agendas and conspiracy
theories, or wherever you please. I said "I would feel better..."

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Hollywood wrote:
On Sep 28, 10:31 pm, Del Cecchi wrote:

Jim Fixx. Look it up.


The man who started the American Fitness Revolution.

And then died at age 52.

Of a massive heart attack. And he has terribly sclerotic vascular
system.

Course, he outlived his dad (who checked out at 42, first heart attack
at 35). So, maybe it's about family history. Is that your point?


pretty much. he said that anyone who could run a marathon would never
die of heart disease. This was before statins had been
invented/discovered.

--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Hollywood wrote:
On Sep 29, 10:57 am, wrote:

You know that diet isn't the biggest factor with cholesterol - its
genetics. You've probably read about the traditional diet of the
Masai warriors in Africa - essentially blood and milk, a very high
cholesterol diet. These guys have very low serum cholesterol levels -
pure genetics.


One might take the Masai to show that dietary cholesterol does matter,
in the opposite way that anyone thinks. In the absence of
carbohydrates
in their diet (milk sugar being it), perhaps they don't have to worry
about
the fat/cholesterol content of their diet. Perhaps the fat is
protective in
the absence of carbs.

That would be a valid interpretation. It matches with my results and
I'm
about as distant, genetically, from a Masai, as is humanly possible.


We know genetics can cause some people to be resistant to a
cholesterol-lowering diet - or to be more sensitive to a high-fat
diet. All you can do is hope to moderate it with diet. There are
people with familial hypercholesterolaemia - and they do need drugs on
top of a low fat diet to keep their levels down. They could pretty
much eliminate every scrap of cholesterol from their diet, and their
bodies would still make enough to keep their levels too high. Your
liver manufactures something like 1,000 mg of cholesterol a day (and
more in some people). An additional 200 to 500 mg can come from
diet.


The research showing linkage between dietary cholesterol and serum
cholesterol is tenuous at best. We're talking the 5% portion of the
problem,
if it's a problem anyway. If you're eating 300 mg (typical American)
and your
liver is chunking out 1000 mg, you're working on the small end of the
stick.

And why would your liver evolve to produce 1000mg of the stuff a day
if you
don't need it?

Perhaps it confers some advantage in young people, and nature or gaia or
evolution cares not what happens to 50 or 60 year olds? Most folks were
dead of something by then anyway, way back then.




--
Del Cecchi
"This post is my own and doesn’t necessarily represent IBM’s positions,
strategies or opinions.”

Del Cecchi wrote:
Hollywood wrote:

On Sep 28, 10:31 pm, Del Cecchi wrote:

Jim Fixx. Look it up.



The man who started the American Fitness Revolution.

And then died at age 52.

Of a massive heart attack. And he has terribly sclerotic vascular
system.

Course, he outlived his dad (who checked out at 42, first heart attack
at 35). So, maybe it's about family history. Is that your point?


pretty much. he said that anyone who could run a marathon would never
die of heart disease. This was before statins had been
invented/discovered.



AND ?

Del Cecchi wrote:
Hollywood wrote:

On Sep 29, 10:57 am, wrote:

You know that diet isn't the biggest factor with cholesterol - its
genetics. You've probably read about the traditional diet of the
Masai warriors in Africa - essentially blood and milk, a very high
cholesterol diet. These guys have very low serum cholesterol levels -
pure genetics.



One might take the Masai to show that dietary cholesterol does matter,
in the opposite way that anyone thinks. In the absence of
carbohydrates
in their diet (milk sugar being it), perhaps they don't have to worry
about
the fat/cholesterol content of their diet. Perhaps the fat is
protective in
the absence of carbs.

That would be a valid interpretation. It matches with my results and
I'm
about as distant, genetically, from a Masai, as is humanly possible.


We know genetics can cause some people to be resistant to a
cholesterol-lowering diet - or to be more sensitive to a high-fat
diet. All you can do is hope to moderate it with diet. There are
people with familial hypercholesterolaemia - and they do need drugs on
top of a low fat diet to keep their levels down. They could pretty
much eliminate every scrap of cholesterol from their diet, and their
bodies would still make enough to keep their levels too high. Your
liver manufactures something like 1,000 mg of cholesterol a day (and
more in some people). An additional 200 to 500 mg can come from
diet.



The research showing linkage between dietary cholesterol and serum
cholesterol is tenuous at best. We're talking the 5% portion of the
problem,
if it's a problem anyway. If you're eating 300 mg (typical American)
and your
liver is chunking out 1000 mg, you're working on the small end of the
stick.

And why would your liver evolve to produce 1000mg of the stuff a day
if you
don't need it?

Perhaps it confers some advantage in young people, and nature or gaia or
evolution cares not what happens to 50 or 60 year olds? Most folks were
dead of something by then anyway, way back then.




Perhaps it doesn't confer some advantage in young people.

Don't we die because of the snake and the apple of knowledge?

When we talk about "evidence", make sure to really consider evidence
and not second hand newspaper articles.

As far as I understand, no one established that high cholesterol
causes dying of heart disease, or causes a higher rate of dying. (no
causative relationship).

i

Hollywood wrote:

The research showing linkage between dietary cholesterol and serum
cholesterol is tenuous at best.

And why would your liver evolve to produce 1000mg of the stuff a day
if you don't need it?

I know of at least two reasons.

Cholesterol is the body's fat transportation mechanism. It's used to
move fats to and from storage. This usage explains why being in
ketosis from low carbing causes the triglycerides portion of
cholesterol to plummet in almost everyone - While in ketosis the
liver sweeps the blood for fat to convert to acetyl-CoA plus ketones
for energy for the rest of the cells. What this portion doesn't
explain
is the movement of all the other types of cholesterol.

So without cholesterol someone on a zero carb diet would kneel
over and die for lack of ability to burn their stored fat. There
would
be no Inuits in the world for example.

Cholesterol is also used as a temporary patching system for
damaged cells until new healthy cells can be grown in that place.
If the damage is constant the cholesterol plaque can build up
slowly. This happens in arteries in response to high blood
pressure for example. In arteries the problem isn't the cholesterol
plaque as such but the tendency of old plaque to gather calcium.

So without cholesterol we'd all die of heart attacks while we were
still young.

One interesting thing about heart attacks - According to my
brother the verterinarian dogs and cats don't die of heart attacks
at anything like the same rate as humans. They die of kidney
failure or intestinal blockage or cancer or whatever but rarely
from heart attacks. Yet cats are obligate canivores and dogs
are recently evolved from carnivores towards omnivores. They
can be feed extremely high cholestrol diets and be quite healthy.
Since they aren't human, just how well that experience maps
to humanity is open for debate.

" wrote:
"Roger Zoul" wrote:
wrote:

don't try and defend a high cholesterol diet as being good for you
unless you have the SCIENTIFIC long-term studies to show how wrong all
that research is, and not using any of that Atkins mumbo-jumbo ...

Well, you wrote all that. Yet, I don't think you have much real knowledge of
any scientific research. Have you ever bothered to even read a research
paper?

I'm a retired dentist and taught at a dental school.

You're also a fervent vegitarian who will discard any study that
concludes that eating meat is healthy. Just being a vegitarian
who does not push it on others would mean you are biased,
but you push it constantly as your agenda. There's no point
in showing you studies about meat eating because you are
certain to dismiss any such story.

On the low carb front, you have posted that you think the fat
in even one egg yolk is enough to be a problem, yet you eat
a hundred or more packets of artificial sweetener per day.
That makes any opinion you have on anything low carb to be
laughable.

As a dentist, you use a hundred or more packets of artificial
sweetener per day, apparently ignoring the fact that each
and every packet contains sugar. You know, that sugar stuff
that causes teeth to rot.

You may call that Atkins stuff mumbo jumbo, but looking at
your posting history makes me laugh that you bother to react
to postings like Igor's.

I tried low fat for 20 years and gained 50 pounds, then tried
Atkins and lost 40 in the first year. I struggle with maintenance
but low carb works for me far better than low fat did. I still
try to post in favor of low fat for anyone who does well on it. My
bias is clear but it's orders of magnitude less than yours.