Watcha eating?

[farmgirl19]

Fat, cholesterol, etc. is not bad. Our brains are made of cholesterol, and if our levels get too low, we die. One can have a cholesterol of 10,000, and if there is no inflammation in the vessels, the cholesterol will not be deposited within them. Sugars and simple carbohydrates are the biggest causes of the inflammation.

I have researched diet and nutrition for YEARS, and find that much of what the medical community tells us, is WRONG. Doctors and nurses are not intentionally lying to us, but they are buying into the hype the big pharmaceutical companies feed them.

When the study came out (the Framingham Study) about cholesterol and fats (saturated, unsaturated, poly unsaturated, etc.), it actually showed that the natural diet our parents, and grandparents were on, was healthiest. Of course, by the time the study was released, the processed food companies had already geard up to bring you and sell polyunsaturated margarine, etc., so the real results never saw the light of day.

Between 1955 and 1965, in Yugoslavia, animal fat consumption decreased 25%, yet heart attack deaths increased 3-4 times during the same decade. And that was at the time even more studies (with those same results) studies were being conducted that became the cry for less saturated fat, etc. Many other studies showed the same, but they were swept under the table too.

Organic, non GMO foods are the answer, but it doesn't make it into the mainstream, as Monsanto has a grip on the powers that publish.

 

[IslandTractor]

Fat, cholesterol, etc. is not bad. Our brains are made of cholesterol, and if our levels get too low, we die. One can have a cholesterol of 10,000, and if there is no inflammation in the vessels, the cholesterol will not be deposited within them. Sugars and simple carbohydrates are the biggest causes of the inflammation.

I have researched diet and nutrition for YEARS, and find that much of what the medical community tells us, is WRONG. Doctors and nurses are not intentionally lying to us, but they are buying into the hype the big pharmaceutical companies feed them.

When the study came out (the Framingham Study) about cholesterol and fats (saturated, unsaturated, poly unsaturated, etc.), it actually showed that the natural diet our parents, and grandparents were on, was healthiest. Of course, by the time the study was released, the processed food companies had already geard up to bring you and sell polyunsaturated margarine, etc., so the real results never saw the light of day.

Between 1955 and 1965, in Yugoslavia, animal fat consumption decreased 25%, yet heart attack deaths increased 3-4 times during the same decade. And that was at the time even more studies (with those same results) studies were being conducted that became the cry for less saturated fat, etc. Many other studies showed the same, but they were swept under the table too.

Organic, non GMO foods are the answer, but it doesn't make it into the mainstream, as Monsanto has a grip on the powers that publish.

You may have "researched" diet and nutrition for years but perhaps you should have studied a bit more scientific methodology and epidemiology rather than reading Mother Jones or the Organic Farmer Daily for your information. There is, as yet, zero data that convincingly demonstrates superiority of organic vs non organic food. GMO likewise is no better or worse than other food based on any actual data as opposed to hand wringing. I agree with your point that the medical community is weak on this subject and that big companies producing overly processed foods are wielding way too much power these days but except for the evidence showing bad outcomes from consumption of excess calories and imbalanced diets, there just is too little good data on things like organic vs non organic for anyone to draw a scientific conclusion (yet).

You refer to studies done in Yugoslavia in the 1950's and 60's but don't seem to realize that there was not a single epidemiologist in that country worth their salt so ANY data coming from the former Soviet Union purporting to show anything about medical or public health science must be taken with a huge grain of salt. They just made up data to suit their purposes half the time and the other half is uncontrolled data (for example, how do you know that physicians in Yugoslavia didn't just start diagnosing heart attack more often because it was a trendy thing to do? Happens in this country so it sure could have happened there too especially before sophisticated or even basic medical tests were routine). Also, there were no Russian words to describe "p value" until recently and that means there was no serious statistical analysis being done by or taught to medical scientists. Garbage in, garbage out. Controlled studies of diet are extremely difficult to do and it is best to acknowledge that rather than just adding to the confusion.

 

[txdon]

Farmgirl19,
If our cholesterol levels get too low our liver and every cell in the body will make cholesterol.
What level is too Low?
Do you know of anyone with too low cholesterol, I don't. I'm sure there are some out there but it is very rare and a disease is probably associated making it low not the other way around.
I have not eaten any cholesterol in two years, so I guess eating cholesterol is not necessary to live. I'm healthy, wanna race!

On the contrary I know a lot of people in cardiac rehab with high cholesterol levels.

"No one maintaining a total serum cholesterol <150 mg/dl has succumbed to coronary artery disease in the Framingham study.6 Campbell et al,4 in the Cornell-China study, reports hundreds of thousands of rural Chinese going years without a single coronary event."
Updating a 12-Year Experience With Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease (An Overdue Requiem for Palliative Cardiology)

If you want to eat meat, saturated fat, partially hydrogenated fat, cholesterol...etc.... and that is fine, you do not have to justify it here on TBN. Just make sure of your facts when you say excessive cholesterol is not bad.

Every body is different and respond differently to cholesterol, stress, smoking, alcohol, lack of exercise, diet, and everybody has those good or bad genes. You just have to find out what works for you. What works for you might be fatal for me.

We agree inflammation is a large problem, and while simple carbohydrates are part of the problem it is much larger and there is something else in the equation - I wish someone knew all of the answers.

My grandfather lived on a farm and grew their own food between 1905 and 1968 when he died of heart disease. He raised pigs and love to eat them, the more fat the better but he was not overweight. He had heart disease for many years and never ate at a fast foods place. Since everyone else in my bloodline lived past 80 I think I got his bad gene.

Organic and non GMO is not the answer, it might play a roll in the equation (I have not studied it extensively) but it is much more complicated.

Even vegans get heart disease but at a rate of 50% less than meat eaters... so there is something else or vegans would not get heart disease at all. The Low fat and plant based with non processed foods looks like the best way to go at this point in history for those with heart disease.

Please with your advise, make sure you do no harm.

 

[txdon]

Tonight I had a large salad, baked spring rolls, Quinoa with peas and a black bean date brownie. All no fat added, no sugar, zero cholesterol.
Wanna race.

 

[IslandTractor]

TXDon is very focused on cholesterol and fat but those are only part of the story in preventing coronary heart disease. Smoking is a bigger factor generally especially for younger people so it is really important to stop smoking. Exercise is a good part of the equation as well as keeping yourself close if not below to your ideal body mass index of 25 or so. Walk thirty minutes a day. Drink a couple of beers a day and you get about as much benefit as being on a strict diet. Keep hypertension under control and maintaining proper weight can have a beneficial effect here too. One baby aspirin a day, for individuals not at risk of bleeding problems, is likewise quite effective in lowering risk of primary MI.

For someone young with a cholesterol >200mg/dl, there is certainly a reason to get that down but I wonder about the quality of data that supports extreme measures to control cholesterol in older individuals. Different cardiologists seem to have different opinions and there is really pretty limited data to bolster the ultra low cholesterol/fat diet approach IMO. Unless you are in a very high risk group to begin with (strong family history etc), lowering your cholesterol from 160-200 down to less than 160 (hardly the sort of extreme lowering that TXDon manages) lowers your risk very slightly but is not easy to do. It also is less important in sixty year olds than in twenty year olds. And, that lowering of risk is not as critical as weight, exercise and smoking as a factor, again so long as you are not talking about an individual with strong family history of heart disease or hyperlipidemia. That is why I argue with TXDon, I am unwilling to torture myself to lower my risk of MI from 12% down to 10% in the next ten years (which is the baseline risk simply by being 60 years old with good or perfect other scores). I'd rather walk, watch my weight, pop a baby aspirin and have a couple of beers and eat a real brownie. Moderation in all things.

 

[txdon]

Island Tractor where do you get the lowering of risk figures of 12% to 10% over ten years?
So the sacrifice of fat/cholesterol does not justify your perceived risk.

What would be the number that would justify a change in diet - I suspect, truthfully, there is none. People here have said they will not give up certain foods to live longer, period. They will jump to the theory "I could die tomorrow in an accident". This justification is OK with me. But when you throw figures out PLEASE back them up.

Explain moderation PLEASE. Exactly how many ounces or FL ounces. EVERYONE says MODERATION and EVERYONE does EXCESSIVE.

I know more non-smokers who have heart disease than smokers with heart disease. I do know a lot of smokers that came down with cancer.

Cardiologist - ask yours how much they were taught about nutrition. Some might have maybe had one semester many years ago. Most are interventionist specialist by way of bypass and stents. They are good-they saved my life, but now what can they do for me?

 

[IslandTractor]

Island Tractor where do you get the lowering of risk figures of 12% to 10% over ten years?
So the sacrifice of fat/cholesterol does not justify your perceived risk.

What would be the number that would justify a change in diet - I suspect, truthfully, there is none. People here have said they will not give up certain foods to live longer, period. They will jump to the theory "I could die tomorrow in an accident". This justification is OK with me. But when you throw figures out PLEASE back them up.

Explain moderation PLEASE. Exactly how many ounces or FL ounces. EVERYONE says MODERATION and EVERYONE does EXCESSIVE.

I know more non-smokers who have heart disease than smokers with heart disease. I do know a lot of smokers that came down with cancer.

Cardiologist - ask yours how much they were taught about nutrition. Some might have maybe had one semester many years ago. Most are interventionist specialist by way of bypass and stents. They are good-they saved my life, but now what can they do for me?

Sorry, I meant to post this link: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/164214-overview#aw2aab6b3

It is just a eMedicine review of the topic. I believe the charts I refer to are derived from this: 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. Dec 14 2010;56(25):2182-99. . I got the 10% figure for a sixty year old with no other risk factors from the chart you will find. The 12% comes from adding one point for having a cholesterol over 160 rather than under 160.

Yes, moderation in alcohol consumption is important. Two drinks a day for a male, one for a female is what is recommended.

And I agree that many cardiologists are not well versed in nutrition but the AHA publishes reviews/guidelines that are written by groups of cardiologists using evidence based criteria for developing their recommendations. So the AHA recommendations are staid and conservative generally but reasonably supported by data.

 

[dmccarty]

Here it is ...a recipe for all to cook up for tonight or tomorrows breakfast...
______________
SOS (MILITARY STYLE CREAMED BEEF)
1 pound ground beef
1 medium onion, chopped
1 tsp. Crisco or oil
salt and black pepper, to taste
3 tablespoons flour
2-1/2 cups milk (more if you like it thinner)
6 slices buttered toast or biscuits
...
As you were....Enjoy !

The SOS I have always eaten used dried beef. Never seen ground beef used but that sure is cheaper which means I would get more meat. :licking::laughing::laughing::laughing: The dried beef was always SALTY. Onions are different too.

This is almost a saw mill gravy recipe and really what is the difference between saw mill gravy and SOS but the meat? I never noticed how close the recipes were to each other.

Later,
Dan

 

[sixdogs]

...

...

...

Cardiologist - ask yours how much they were taught about nutrition. Some might have maybe had one semester many years ago. Most are interventionist specialist by way of bypass and stents. They are good-they saved my life, but now what can they do for me?

Interesting comment. When I needed to find nutritional information, and I mean specific in terms of acceptable fat or salt content, all I got were generalities by people I figured should know. So I kept asking different people and kept getting vague and non-specific answers. I don't give up easy but finally sort-of gave up and did the research myself. And that is the answer, you have to do the leg-work on your own. Check, cross check and verify.

I'll add I ran across an old school nearly retired MD heart doc from a teaching hospital who is now a pretty good friend and he told me the people that fare the best over the long haul are those that have a solid cardio program and follow it every day. Toss in reduction of stress plus diet and that's what he told me.

 

[txdon]

Sorry, I meant to post this link: http://emedicine.medscape.com/article/164214-overview#aw2aab6b3

It is just a eMedicine review of the topic. I believe the charts I refer to are derived from this: 2010 ACCF/AHA guideline for assessment of cardiovascular risk in asymptomatic adults: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. Dec 14 2010;56(25):2182-99. . I got the 10% figure for a sixty year old with no other risk factors from the chart you will find. The 12% comes from adding one point for having a cholesterol over 160 rather than under 160.

Ok thanks. So the 2% is the difference between cholesterol levels of one point and that is your incentive for not going on a <10% fat diet?
Does anything in the studies address a diet <10 fat, I know AHA does not?

The incentive for me is summarized in these two paragraphs:

"These mechanical interventions treat only the symptoms, not the disease. It is therefore not surprising that patients who receive these interventions often experience progressive disease, graft shutdown, restenosis, more procedures, progressive disability, and death from disease. Thus, the leading killer of men and women in Western civilization is being left untreated. What is being practiced is "palliative cardiology": nontreatment of heart disease leading to disease extension and frequently an eventual fatal outcome.

In contrast, a 5-year experience has shown excellent results in patients with severe coronary artery disease who followed a plant-based diet containing <10% fat and who took cholesterol-lowering medication. 14 During this arrest and reversal therapy their lipid levels fell significantly, they experienced no new coronary events, and angiography showed that their disease had stabilized and in some cases selectively reversed. The goal at study onset in 1985 had been to achieve a total serum cholesterol of <150 mg/dl, the level seen in cultures where coronary artery disease is virtually absent.3"
Updating a 12-Year Experience With Arrest and Reversal Therapy for Coronary Heart Disease (An Overdue Requiem for Palliative Cardiology)

The <10% is a radical dietary change but I am not trying to prevent heart disease - I have it. I am trying to slow it down, or stop it, or reverse it. I cannot see anyone doing this lifestyle change just to prevent it. That is why I don't try to change anyones diet, I just interject what I must do. Consider yourself very fortunate if you do not have heart disease. If you do have heart disease my best advise is to follow my lead. I know of none in the medical profession that would disagree with me.