Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / July 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Saturated Fat

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
Chad C. - 24 Jun 2004 23:13 GMT
Where is well-done research showing that saturated fat per se is unhealthy?
I'd really like to see it to believe it, it's such conventional wisdom I
know but that's not enough for me. Any theories as to why saturated fat
might be unhealthy as well?

Thanks folks,

-Chad
Jay Tanzman - 25 Jun 2004 00:24 GMT
> Any theories as to why saturated fat
> might be unhealthy as well?

Uh, it raises serum cholesterol?

-Jay
Chad C. - 25 Jun 2004 00:31 GMT
>> Any theories as to why saturated fat might be unhealthy as well?
>
> Uh, it raises serum cholesterol?
>
> -Jay

And serum cholesterol is the problem and not a correlation?

-Chad
Jay Tanzman - 25 Jun 2004 01:00 GMT
>>>Any theories as to why saturated fat might be unhealthy as well?
>>
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
>
> And serum cholesterol is the problem and not a correlation?

It's atherogenic.

-Jay
Wolfbrother - 25 Jun 2004 23:23 GMT
> > Any theories as to why saturated fat
> > might be unhealthy as well?
>
> Uh, it raises serum cholesterol?
>
> -Jay

    WRONG!

    Dr William Castelli, director of the famous Framingham Heart
Study that is always cited as proof of the dangers of saturated fat
and cholesterol eventualy had to conclude:

"In Framingham, Mass., the more saturated fat one ate, the more
cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person's
serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most
cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, [and] ate the most calories,
weighed the least and were the most physically active."

   Of course this admission came years too late and the steam roller
that is the diet-heart/anti cholesterol anti saturated fat campeign
was already at full speed.  Gotta love modern mainstream medical
research.
Trudy T - 26 Jun 2004 05:10 GMT
>      WRONG!
>
[quoted text clipped - 12 lines]
> was already at full speed.  Gotta love modern mainstream medical
> research.

You'll find that Dr. William Castelli's quote has been misinterpreted by
Atkins and others.

Here's what Dr. Castelli has to say about that frequently misinterpreted
quote:

"That quote is correct but its interpretation by Atkins and Sugar Busters
and others is wrong. The data are diet history data. Very weak science!!!
For example, the people who eat the most weigh the least. You mean that we
all need to eat more so we can lose weight. Only an idiot would believe
that. When you find such a finding in an epidemiological study you must look
for the confounder. At least one of the confounders is exercise. The people
who ate the most, exercised the most and burned off the excess calories and
ended up weighing the least. Better science, where I lock you up in a
metabolic ward has taught us that lowering the saturated fat, the
cholesterol in the diet lowers cholesterol. Even better, over a dozen diet
trials in the history of medicine which took people off the high fat diet
lowered their cholesterols and 4-5 years out they lowered their heart
attack."

You can read more from Dr. Castelli about that quote here:
http://www.vegsource.com/talk/science/messages/833.html

Dr Castelli believes we should cut down on saturated fat, but he doesn't
believe all fats are bad though. He has written a book called Good Fat, Bad
Fat where he promotes the use of healthy oils like olive oil (a staple of
the Mediterranean diet).

Trudy Thelander
http://www.mediterrasian.com
Mirek Fidler - 25 Jun 2004 07:08 GMT
> Where is well-done research showing that saturated fat per se is unhealthy?
> I'd really like to see it to believe it, it's such conventional wisdom I
> know but that's not enough for me. Any theories as to why saturated fat
> might be unhealthy as well?

As for theories, it gets stored into liver cells with LDL receptors and
slows down LDL removal from blood.

Interesting is that it applies to medium chain saturated fat acids only.
Longer chain (stearic acid) are considered benefical w.r.t. LDL levels.

Another theory says that it destroys pancreatic cells when BG is high.

In practice, it is worth mentioning that. e.g. lard contains in fact
only 40% of fat as saturated, and only 25% is of "dangerous" kind. Rest
of fats in lard is "healthy". "Healthy" olive oil contains 11% of
"dangerous" saturated fat. If you consider that on high-carb diet most
carbohydrates get converted to fat in body, very possibly into saturated
one, I would not be surprised if "lard" diet in fact reduced actual
medium chain saturated fat levels in body....

Mirek
Robert Ruddy - 25 Jun 2004 17:00 GMT
>Where is well-done research showing that saturated fat per se is unhealthy?
>I'd really like to see it to believe it, it's such conventional wisdom I
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
>
>-Chad

I think the best diet advice is to look at populations that are noted
for their longevity and follow their model. Having said that, however,
it is interesting to see that not 100 years ago people cooked with
lard, drink full fat milk, used cream in their coffee, ate bacon and
eggs, etc and heart disease wasn't anywhere near as common as it is
today. Obviously there's a lot to be said for an active lifestyle as
well.

Regards.

Rob
Mirek Fidler - 25 Jun 2004 17:31 GMT
> >Where is well-done research showing that saturated fat per se is unhealthy?
> >I'd really like to see it to believe it, it's such conventional wisdom I
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> I think the best diet advice is to look at populations that are noted
> for their longevity and follow their model.

Well, but you have to choose very wisely to prove anything :)

You could end with indians eating low-fat vegetarian diet and having
high incidence of coronary diseasy and spanish eating more saturated fat
while lowering their numbers...

> Having said that, however,
> it is interesting to see that not 100 years ago people cooked with
> lard, drink full fat milk, used cream in their coffee, ate bacon and
> eggs, etc and heart disease wasn't anywhere near as common as it is

Nice theory, but obvious answer to this is that people died much sooner
because of other diseases, so that heart disease did not have time to
develop....

Mirek
Wolfbrother - 26 Jun 2004 01:46 GMT
> > >Where is well-done research showing that saturated fat per se is
>  unhealthy?
[quoted text clipped - 27 lines]
>
> Mirek

   Actualy your "obvious answer" is totaly wrong.  People did not
have any shorter life span than we do now.  The so called "average
life span" calculations are extremely missleading and you are dooped
if you believe the distortion that a so called "longer life span" of
todays people is the reason for heart disease and other degenerative
diseases or as they are sometimes WRONGLY called "diseases of aging"
The fact is people DID live to old ages and there was very little
heart disease, diabetes or many of the other degenerative conditions
that are rampant today.  Not only that but they are striking younger
and younger people than ever including teenagers and young children.
100+ years ago before the human diet was changed so drasticly
americans ate a much healthyer diet full of saturated fat and
cholesterol from animal sources and lacking modern fake foods like
trans fat, polyunsaturated vegetable oils, refined flower, and sugar.
These are the major causes of modern degenerative conditions like
heart disease and diabetes.  Most people simply do not understand the
magnitude of the change in the human diet that started around 100
years ago.

Good example:

In 1956, an American Heart Association (AHA) fund-raiser aired on all
three major networks. The MC interviewed, among others, Irving Page
and Jeremiah Stamler of the AHA, and researcher Ancel Keys. Panelists
presented the lipid hypothesis as the cause of the heart disease
epidemic and launched the Prudent Diet, one in which corn oil,
margarine, chicken and cold cereal replaced butter, lard, beef and
eggs. But the television campaign was not an unqualified success
because one of the panelists, Dr. Dudley White, disputed his
colleagues at the AHA. Dr. White noted that heart disease in the form
of myocardial infarction was nonexistent in 1900 when egg consumption
was three times what it was in 1956 and when corn oil was unavailable.
When pressed to support the Prudent Diet, Dr. White replied: "See
here, I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw an
MI patent until 1928. Back in the MI free days before 1920, the fats
were butter and lard and I think that we would all benefit from the
kind of diet that we had at a time when no one had ever heard the word
corn oil."

Notice that the Prudent Diet seems perfectly designed to maximise
profits of the food industry, removing such low profit traditional,
healthy foods from animal sources and replacing them with high profit
easily produced fake processed foods.  All this began around 100 years
ago and within one generation of these MAJOR changes in the american
diet severe health effects began to apear in the public.  this trend
can be seen in every modernized country as it replaced its traditional
diet with modern "prudent diet" style eating habits.  Within about 20
years (one generation) degenerative conditions such as heart disease
wich were once rare began to become widespread.  This is really not
some kind of secret.  This isnt rocket science.  Its all right there
for anyone to see and understand.  THIS is the "obvious answer"  not
some fabricated excuse to shift the blame like "diseases of aging" do
to "longer life spans"  That is a joke and anyone who cares to open
their eyes can see the truth.

    Just for fun why dont you look up some famous or well known
people who lived 100 200 or even 300 years ago and see how long they
lived.  For example take the first 15 presidents who lived in the
1700-1800s.  I do not think even one of them lived less than 60 years
old who died of natural causes and several lived into the 80s and even
90s back in the late 1700!!  Look up the ages of famous classical
music or opera composers.  Many of them lived several hundred years
ago and lived to similar ages.  Really the only exeptions are
accidental deaths or from infections or infectious diseases.  Gengis
Khan who lived around 800 years ago! was fighting wars in his 60s
untill he died from falling off his horse around the age of 65.  This
not only shows longevity but superb health well into old age.  How
many 65 year olds do you know today that could be leading armies into
battle on horseback?  They would have leave their rest homes and wheel
chairs first.  These are just a few examples.  People die from heart
disease now in their 30s and 40s so do not tell me its from old age.
Get some real information and discern answers for YOURSELF.  Do not
just spout out apologist mainstream drivel that is simply designed to
make excuses for their own failure.
Mirek Fidler - 26 Jun 2004 17:56 GMT
>     Actualy your "obvious answer" is totaly wrong.  People did not

FYI, my have found this "obvious anwser" on Weston Price pages...

> have any shorter life span than we do now.  The so called "average
> life span" calculations are extremely missleading and you are dooped
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
> magnitude of the change in the human diet that started around 100
> years ago.

Sorry, but what you described just another hypothesis.

What I wanted to suggest with my post is that epodemiologic dietary
studies are always fussy bussines..

> Good example:
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
> kind of diet that we had at a time when no one had ever heard the word
> corn oil."

OK, list to the end of that article (which I of course have read). There
should be chapter "Epidemy that has not happened" or something like
that...

Mirek
john - 26 Jun 2004 20:31 GMT
Wasn't the average mortality rate skewed because it factored in a very
high infant mortality?  {To use a very simplified example, if an
infant dies at 1 year and an adult dies at 75 years, the the average
mortality rate is 38.  My great-grandmother had 18 children; 6 died in
childbirth or under the age of one year, but my great grandparents
lived to their late 80s.}

>> > >Where is well-done research showing that saturated fat per se is
>>  unhealthy?
[quoted text clipped - 102 lines]
>just spout out apologist mainstream drivel that is simply designed to
>make excuses for their own failure.
Wolfbrother - 28 Jun 2004 19:40 GMT
> Wasn't the average mortality rate skewed because it factored in a very
> high infant mortality?  {To use a very simplified example, if an
> infant dies at 1 year and an adult dies at 75 years, the the average
> mortality rate is 38.  My great-grandmother had 18 children; 6 died in
> childbirth or under the age of one year, but my great grandparents
> lived to their late 80s.}


Bingo.  The widespread belief that people are living longer than ever
today is simply and that it is the reason for our massive health
problems is a dirty lie meant to excuse modern medicine of its
failures.  People believe it because it is "common sense"  We are a
modern technologicaly advanced society so we must be healthyer and
living longer than people used to.  To believe otherwise would be to
accept the fact that our modern society is a disasster and in decline
and people would rather be self dilusional than accept reality in most
cases.
Marcio Watanabe - 02 Jul 2004 18:10 GMT
>Wasn't the average mortality rate skewed because it factored in a very
>high infant mortality?  {To use a very simplified example, if an
>infant dies at 1 year and an adult dies at 75 years, the the average
>mortality rate is 38.  My great-grandmother had 18 children; 6 died in
>childbirth or under the age of one year, but my great grandparents
>lived to their late 80s.}

It never ceases to amaze me that in a sci newsgroup, at all places,
there are so many people who think that just because life expectancy,
for instance, in 1900 was 47 years, people just didn't live till their
70s and 80s.
Robert Ruddy - 12 Jul 2004 16:45 GMT
>>Wasn't the average mortality rate skewed because it factored in a very
>>high infant mortality?  {To use a very simplified example, if an
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>for instance, in 1900 was 47 years, people just didn't live till their
>70s and 80s.  

Agreed.

My great grandmother, who grew up in the 1800's, lived to a ripe old
age of 93. She cooked with lard, ate eggs every day and used cream,
not milk. Her favorite treat was ice cream. Full fat of course. How
did she die? She died peacefully in her sleep. Isn't it odd that those
same foods suddenly became unhealthy in the next century?

Regards.

Rob
john - 12 Jul 2004 21:01 GMT
Apparently those foods became unhealthy in the late 1950s or early
1960s.  When someone in my parents generation wanted to lose weight
they cut out "starches"-----potatoes, bread, rice, sugar, etc.

>>>Wasn't the average mortality rate skewed because it factored in a very
>>>high infant mortality?  {To use a very simplified example, if an
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
>Rob
Piezzo Gurl - 19 Jul 2004 04:36 GMT
She must be in the Guiness book of world records then as being one of the
unusual old people for her time.

The average age expectancy has risen considerably.

> >>Wasn't the average mortality rate skewed because it factored in a very
> >>high infant mortality?  {To use a very simplified example, if an
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
>
> Rob
Wolfbrother - 19 Jul 2004 12:07 GMT
> She must be in the Guiness book of world records then as being one of the
> unusual old people for her time.
>
> The average age expectancy has risen considerably.

Yes "unusualy" old just like any number of random people I can look up
from the 19th, 18th and even 17th century.

Thomas Hobbes: 1588-1679  age 91!!

Robert herrick: 1591-1674  age 83

Isaac Newton: 1642-1727  age 85

Colley Cibber: 1671-1757  age 86

George Frederic Handel: 1685-1759  age 74

John Quincy Adams: 1735-1826  age 91

James Madison: 1751-1836  age 85

Andrew jackson: 1767-1845  age 78

Benjamin Franklin: 1706 - 1790  age 84

Richard Strauss: 1864–1949  age 85

Giacomo Meyerbeer: 1791–1864  age 73

Charles Gounod: 1818–1893  age 75

Lowell Mason: 1792–1872  age 80

John Philip Sousa: 1854–1932  78

I could go on and on but you get the picture.  Despite what most
people would believe or assume people DID regularly live to fairly old
ages hundreds of years ago and they did so without all our so called
modern medical wonders because they were in better health than the
elderly people of today.  When you look at it rationaly you have to
ask yourself just how far have we really come.  If you consider that
people were living to these ages hundreds of years ago with their
primitive medical knowlage it is amazing that any people today should
be dying in their 50s and even 40s of degenerative conditions and now
most medical professionals are predicting a SHORTER life span for the
next generation do to the unbelievably poor health of todays children.
It is a simple fact that our modern society and modern medicine is a
total failure.
tcomeau - 19 Jul 2004 21:29 GMT
> > She must be in the Guiness book of world records then as being one of the
> > unusual old people for her time.
[quoted text clipped - 45 lines]
>  It is a simple fact that our modern society and modern medicine is a
> total failure.

They say that the death rate goes down when doctors go on strike. I
wonder how much of that is attributable to fewer drugs being
prescribed and administered?

TC
Piezzo Gurl - 20 Jul 2004 02:05 GMT
Always notice how the ages of these people are listed because it was
exceptional and not the norm.

> > > She must be in the Guiness book of world records then as being one of the
> > > unusual old people for her time.
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
>
> TC
Wolfbrother - 20 Jul 2004 08:35 GMT
> Always notice how the ages of these people are listed because it was
> exceptional and not the norm.

    It may not have been the "norm" but it certainly was not rare or
non existant as medical authorities would have us believe and indeed
most people do believe that in those times everyone dropped dead in
their 30s and 40s of heart attacks which is just not true but it
certainly goes a long way in making our modern society out to look
much better than it really is and that suits the authorities just
fine.  And as for it not being the norm the reason for that is not
nutritional or health related at all as it is today.  It was do to
other reasons that I mentioned before.  Today the causes of death are
much different.  People do not die in their sleep of old age anymore
the way humans and animals are supposed to, they mostly die from
degenerative conditions caused by poor nutrition and toxic modern
foods.  The fact that most people now believe the OUTRAGEOUS and
widespread lie that all these modern diseases are a result of humans
living longer and that humans are SUPPOSED to die eventualy from
things such as heart disease just goes to show you how ignorant and
brainwashed they are and how we have come to accept the fact that our
minds and bodies will deteriorate and we will all end up in rest homes
as normal.  People have no clue what the standard for real human
health is because we are surrounded by poor health and have come to
expect it.  The truth is that all humans have the potential to live a
very long and HEALTHY life free of degenerative conditions and
retaining physical and mental strength to the day you die (vs.
becoming some wheelchair bound invalid with diminished mental capacity
unable to take care of yourself as is the "norm" today).
   
    The fact is people WERE healthier in the past and lived long
lives and if you were able to give people in the past the modern
technology we have in areas such as sanitation, emergency medicine,
infant mortality reduction, infection and infectious disease control,
then the old ages of 80s, 90s and beyond would not only be the "norm"
it would be expected.
Piezzo Gurl - 21 Jul 2004 02:33 GMT
Are you ashamed of your responses?

Why do you try to hide and make them hard to read by bottom posting? Grow up
and get with the 90s

> > Always notice how the ages of these people are listed because it was
> > exceptional and not the norm.
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> then the old ages of 80s, 90s and beyond would not only be the "norm"
> it would be expected.
Wolfbrother - 20 Jul 2004 04:56 GMT
> They say that the death rate goes down when doctors go on strike. I
> wonder how much of that is attributable to fewer drugs being
> prescribed and administered?
>
> TC

That is true.  Doctors are one of the leading causes of death.  Aside
from emergency care for traumatic injuries etc. they do far more harm
than good.
Robert - 20 Jul 2004 06:14 GMT
> > They say that the death rate goes down when doctors go on strike. I
> > wonder how much of that is attributable to fewer drugs being
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> from emergency care for traumatic injuries etc. they do far more harm
> than good.
Spam from the Christian Scientist Church  that Wolfman and TC belong to.
Stop trying to spread your religion on this NG.
Wolfbrother - 20 Jul 2004 19:30 GMT
> > tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>  news:<b550f406.0407191229.1335dc00@posting.google.com>...
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Spam from the Christian Scientist Church  that Wolfman and TC belong to.
> Stop trying to spread your religion on this NG.

Dont you have some drugs to take dumbass?
tcomeau - 20 Jul 2004 22:02 GMT
> > tunderbar@hotmail.com (tcomeau) wrote in message
>  news:<b550f406.0407191229.1335dc00@posting.google.com>...
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Spam from the Christian Scientist Church  that Wolfman and TC belong to.
> Stop trying to spread your religion on this NG.

Bless you.

This from someone who refuses to state clearly his affiliations with
the pharma industry.

TC
Robert Klute - 22 Jul 2004 00:15 GMT
>They say that the death rate goes down when doctors go on strike. I
>wonder how much of that is attributable to fewer drugs being
>prescribed and administered?

I thought it was because there was no one to sign the death certificate
during the strike.
Robert Ruddy - 13 Jul 2004 02:07 GMT
>>Wasn't the average mortality rate skewed because it factored in a very
>>high infant mortality?  {To use a very simplified example, if an
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
>for instance, in 1900 was 47 years, people just didn't live till their
>70s and 80s.  

Agreed.

My great grandmother, who grew up in the 1800's, lived to a ripe old
age of 93. She cooked with lard, ate eggs every day and used cream,
not milk. Her favorite treat was ice cream. Full fat of course. How
did she die? She died peacefully in her sleep. Isn't it odd that those
same foods suddenly became unhealthy in the next century?

Regards.

Rob
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.