[quote]orion wrote:
see, I think it would be unwise to conclude that their potatoe-filled diets were unhealthy just because there was meat in them…
[/quote]
…not just meat - a lot of meat. Big difference.
…and when you take away the meat and focus on the vegetarian studies who generally eat ample carbohydrates, you have a population that has fewer instances of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
Meat has saturated fat, no fiber, sparse vitamins beyond the B complex, no phytochemicals, and possibly high amounts of carcinogens depending on how it is prepared.
What do modest amounts of unrefined carbohydrates have that could overpower the dangers of consuming the above in excess?
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
orion wrote:
see, I think it would be unwise to conclude that their potatoe-filled diets were unhealthy just because there was meat in them…
…not just meat - a lot of meat. Big difference.
…and when you take away the meat and focus on the vegetarian studies who generally eat ample carbohydrates, you have a population that has fewer instances of heart disease, cancer, and diabetes.
Meat has saturated fat, no fiber, sparse vitamins beyond the B complex, no phytochemicals, and possibly high amounts of carcinogens depending on how it is prepared.
What do modest amounts of unrefined carbohydrates have that could overpower the dangers of consuming the above in excess?
[/quote]
Wow, that must be the most loaded question since: Do you still beat your wife? Try to answer that with yes or no…
Most of your question can be answered like this: these problems can be solved by consuming vegetables with your meat. Even the problems in the acidic-basic(?) debate. So, the problem would be the lack of vegetables, not the consumption of meat.
[quote]BGB wrote:
I’m looking for people to point me in the dierection of real studies that prove it!
It’s not MY point just to clarify, it’s a point that I want to see possibly proven otherwise. Hell I’m just curious!
I’ve already mentioned who the expert is that started me on this… one that has the things you listed plus is already an author on here.
[/quote]
There are not going to be studies to prove something that is seen as common knowledge and accepted practice in the bodybuilding community. Very low-carb diets are the exception and not the rule and may not exist at all in elite level competitors. The studies that need to be performed will deal with those who were able to rise to a high level on very low carbs. It may be impossible to do becuase the indiviudals just won’t be found. A proper controlled study would take a group of lifters and put them on a ‘traditional’ bodybuilding diet and very solid training program and an experimental group of comparable low-carbers and see if they make comparable gains on the same program.
[quote]orion wrote:
Wow, that must be the most loaded question since: Do you still beat your wife? Try to answer that with yes or no…[/quote]
It’s not a loaded question. I gave specific examples of how excessive meat can be harmful. Now I’m looking for examples of how modest unrefined carbohydrates can be harmful. That is what many are claiming.
I don’t deny that this is possible. As it stands currently however, such a diet that includes only meat and vegetables has not been proven in the long run to be safe. I personally am not going to rely on chance that it is safe and ignore grains and fruit and the benefits they provide.
…since it started being the #1 determinant of LDL cholesterol.
Everyone agrees that trans fats are bad. Well, they are bad because they act like saturated fat in the body.
…since it started being the #1 determinant of LDL cholesterol.
Everyone agrees that trans fats are bad. Well, they are bad because they act like saturated fat in the body.
[/quote]
This is where I have to be a little unpolite:
Prove this.
As far as I know there are 23 long-term studies about saturated fats and CHD?s (which I think you are referring to) and 19 did not find a link, 3 a slightly positive one, one a slightly negative one.
I know where you are coming from, but I?m still having a hard time not making any De-Lorean jokes.
Just to make clear where I come from:
We evolved with saturated fats. Fat found in the brain, inner organs and bone marrow of animals we killed. If we were somehow allergic to it, that would be like a cow that is not able to deal w?th grass.
I am afraid to ask… Do you think that eating cholesterol is also bad and egg yolks should be avoided? Do you also think that high cholesterol leads to CHDs? That is usually part of that bundle of myths.
well the harvard study brought up these differences.
both groups lost about the same amount of weight.the atkins group lost the most fat.both lowered bad cholesterol,but atkins lowered it more and raised good cholesyerol.it was a year long study.now if the lowering of cholesterol was due to weight loss then the aha diet’ cholesterol lowering must have bben for the same reason.if this is the case,then it still shows atkins was able to do better under the same situation.the one other thing is and i may be wrong about this, but i think the atkins group ate more total calories as well.
what studies have shown that a grain diet is healthy in the long run?aren’t we seeing the results of high carb now?
[quote]orion wrote:
This is where I have to be a little unpolite:
Prove this.[/quote]
Look it up. You’ll find plenty of information about it. Saturated fats are most often implicated in raising LDL.
However, not all saturated fats have this effect, which may be what you are referring to. Lauric, myristic, and palmitic acids, most notably raise LDL, while stearic acid does not. But this breakdown is quite impractical anyway, since most of these acids appear together in the same foods.
If you’d really like to have some studies, I’ll give you some:
-J. Stamler and coauthors, Relationship of baseline serum cholesterol levels in 3 large cohorts of younger men to long term coronary, cardiovascular, and all-cause mortality and to longevity, Journal of the American Medical Association 284 (2000):311-318.
-D. Steinburg and A.M Gotto, Preventing coronoary artery disease by lowering blood cholesterol levels, Journal of the American Medical Association 282 (1999): 2043-2050.
-F.D. Kelly and coauthors, A stearic acid-rich diet improves thrombogenic and atherogenic risk factor profiles in healthy males, European Journal of Clinical Nutrition 55 (2001):88-96.
-F.B. Hu and coauthors, Dietary saturated fats and their food sources in relation to the risk of coronary heart disease in women, American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70 (1999): 1001-1008.
-W.E. Connor, Harbingers of coronary heart disease: Dietary saturated fatty acids and cholesterol-Is chocolate benign because of its stearic acid content? American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 70 (1999): 951-952.
I’ll admit, I haven’t read these myself, but they are the basis of some of the information in my textbooks. If you find legitimate fault with them, tell me, and I’ll recant all that I’ve said about saturated fats.
I’m not saying eating any saturated fat at all is harmful, and I definately never said we are allergic to it.
No. I was expecting that.
The theories about the causes of heart disease are many, and I’m familiar with several of them, including those that focus on vitamin/mineral deficiency, sugars, additives, and trans-fats. I don’t believe high cholesterol is the sole cause of heart disease, but it almost always accampanies it. It is an established risk factor, an association, not necessarily a cause. But why would I want to take any chances knowing that there is such a strong association?
Obesity is a risk factor,too. Am I going to let myself become fat because it’s not an established cause? No. Smoking is a huge risk factor. Am I going to smoke because it’s not a proven cause? No. Am I going to put some more butter on my 16 oz prime rib knowing that high levels of saturated fat is a risk factor? I’m just not willing to take that chance.
[quote]havoc501 wrote:
well the harvard study brought up these differences.
both groups lost about the same amount of weight.the atkins group lost the most fat.[/quote]
An important difference.
It shows that Atkins is better at making people lose weight. It does not prove that continuing the diet for many years is healthy. That has yet to be proven.
I don’t doubt it, but I don’t think it has much relevance.
Yes, we are. High carb. High refined carb. Not moderate unrefined carb, which is what I’m arguing is healthy.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
Am I going to put some more butter on my 16 oz prime rib knowing that high levels of saturated fat is a risk factor? I’m just not willing to take that chance.[/quote]
Now you are just making me hungry. I’m off to eat some more meat.
Why is it that many of the most elite athletes in the world consume a carb rich diet (60% CHO, 15% PRO, 25% Fat)?
Why is it that some of the most elite athletes in the world consume a moderate carb diet (40% CHO, 30%PRO, 30% Fat)?
Why is it we are even arguing about this? A study came out of China indicating that the most evil macronutrient was protein. It recommended a green based diet. Big effing deal. Is everyone going to buy into it just because it was a study? I doubt it.
I have changed my eating habits from when I was much younger. Back then, I consumed 5000+ kcals/day, with tons of protein, read: meat. Now, I am at about half that, with a little protein at each meal, still healthy amounts, proper fat consumption, and my carbs are unrefined, read: fruit, veggies, legumes, whole grains.
I wasn’t prone to any disease when I was younger, and I’m not now. My body has changed. If I consumed the type of quantities now that I did then, I would have to build double doors throughout the house. By the same token, if I ate then like I do now, I would have needed an anchor tied to my butt to keep down in a strong wind.
Eat wise and be healthy. It’s not rocket science. We are nowhere near understanding what the human body can consume and what it can’t and what variables factor into the mix.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
havoc501 wrote:
well the harvard study brought up these differences.
both groups lost about the same amount of weight.the atkins group lost the most fat.
An important difference.
both lowered bad cholesterol,but atkins lowered it more and raised good cholesyerol.it was a year long study.now if the lowering of cholesterol was due to weight loss then the aha diet’ cholesterol lowering must have bben for the same reason.if this is the case,then it still shows atkins was able to do better under the same situation.
It shows that Atkins is better at making people lose weight. It does not prove that continuing the diet for many years is healthy. That has yet to be proven.
the one other thing is and i may be wrong about this, but i think the atkins group ate more total calories as well.
I don’t doubt it, but I don’t think it has much relevance.
what studies have shown that a grain diet is healthy in the long run?aren’t we seeing the results of high carb now?
Yes, we are. High carb. High refined carb. Not moderate unrefined carb, which is what I’m arguing is healthy.[/quote]
how can a diet of meat and refined carbs cause bad cholesterol to rise,because of sat. fats.
but a diet with just meat and the same sat. fats lower the bad cholesterol?if sat. fats are bad,they’re bad all the time.
and it’s not due to better choices of lean meats while on atkins.
and you’re right.cholesterol is a poor marker for heart disease.i forget the % of ppl who have heart attacks but no classic symtoms but it’s high. i have also heard of europeans with very high cholesterol levels yet still very little in heart disease.
[quote]havoc501 wrote:
how can a diet of meat and refined carbs cause bad cholesterol to rise,because of sat. fats.
but a diet with just meat and the same sat. fats lower the bad cholesterol?if sat. fats are bad,they’re bad all the time.[/quote]
Saturated fats were implicated in high levels of LDL before the low-fat craze of the 70s and 80s. It was this implication that started the craze.
So yes, if saturated fats are bad, they are bad all the time. They were bad before people started eating more refined carbs, and they were during that time period. Now, instead of just higher rates of heart disease, we have higher rates of obesity and diabetes, too. Saturated fat has never been eliminated from the picture; nothing has warranted its elimination yet.
[quote]Angelbutt wrote:
havoc501 wrote:
how can a diet of meat and refined carbs cause bad cholesterol to rise,because of sat. fats.
but a diet with just meat and the same sat. fats lower the bad cholesterol?if sat. fats are bad,they’re bad all the time.
Saturated fats were implicated in high levels of LDL before the low-fat craze of the 70s and 80s. It was this implication that started the craze.
thats fine,but it still is to be asked,why was sat. tagged the culprit and not the refined carbs?
So yes, if saturated fats are bad, they are bad all the time. They were bad before people started eating more refined carbs, and they were during that time period. Now, instead of just higher rates of heart disease, we have higher rates of obesity and diabetes, too. Saturated fat has never been eliminated from the picture; nothing has warranted its elimination yet.
[/quote]
so if saturated fats are bad,and bad all the time,why didn’t ppls cholesterol skyrocket on atkins?
[quote]havoc501 wrote:
so if saturated fats are bad,and bad all the time,why didn’t ppls cholesterol skyrocket on atkins?[/quote]
…because saturated fats are not the only risk factor for LDL; they are the primary one, but being being overweight and consuming trans-fats and little vitamins and minerals are factors, too. These factors, did change or likely changed, respectively, for the people on the Atkins Diet in the study you keep citing.
Also, do you know how much saturated fat the people in that study were consuming? Did their saturated fat levels increase from before they began the diet or did they decrease or stay the same? Does it matter since they lost weight? How much weight loss does it take to offset an increase (if it even occurred) in saturated fat intake?
I think we can all agree that blood cholesterol is not the consequence of a single cause. That’s why it is important to consider all possible causes, which includes saturated fat consumption.
[quote]orion wrote:
You are aware that most meat is lean anyway? It would be very hard to eat too much saturated fat (if that is possible at all). [/quote]
Not necessarily. Lean and lean-marbled with-fat portions of cooked meat contain 10-21% fat and 23-32% protein. (The rest is primarily water.) This is still not bad, but lean meat is not completely void of fat.
Preparation of meat at home generally produces more lean pieces because people cut away extra fat and can control how they cook the meat. However, the rates of eating out of the home have risen significantly over the years. Restaurants prepare meat with extra butter or processed fat products to make it tastier and juicier. I’ve witnessed perfectly good chicken being slathered with some sort of fake butter product that was not visible when the chicken was finished cooking, although this doesn’t reflect the fat content of chicken itself.
Restarurants also typically use 30% fat ground beef because it’s cheapest.
Furthermore, they advertise cuts of beef as “prime” or “choice.” These are the top USDA quality grades. One of the criteria for grading is the amount of marbling. Prime usually always means high in fat.
So, while it is possible to eat lean meat, lean is a relative term, and this possibility is confounded by the increasing rates of eating out of the home and the draw of high quality graded cuts.
I don?t know what they do to meat in the US but I know what they do with other food…
The meat I use has around 5-10% fat.
The low-fat-insanity was started by the fact that fat per gramm has more calories than protein and carbs AND the fact that in the 50?s someone who was a mediocre doctor, a fraud as a scientist, BUT a very good politician tinkered together a study that linked saturated fats to CHD?s where he conveniently chose the 6 nations that supported his views and neglected all others.
The myth that high cholesterol in food causes the blood cholesterol to rise comes from a study in the 40?s (!!) that was done with dried, powdered eggs that were apparently used during WWII. Something that happened during processing actually did make the blood cholesterol rise, but not the eggs themselves.
This is the link to Antony Colpo?s website.
If you want to hear the other site of the story, check it out. You should be aware though that he probably has read every study you posted, plus a few hundred more.
If you want to check it out yourself get the WHO data on blood cholesterol and on CHD around the world. If you are able to link the two, I?d be impressed.
[quote]orion wrote:
I don?t know what they do to meat in the US but I know what they do with other food…[/quote]
I do, too. I’m taking a class on it right now.
Just a question - If you don’t care about saturated fat, why are you buying lean cuts?
I don’t know much about the man you are referring to, but I’d like to find out. What was his name? What countries did he use?
However, like I already mentioned in an earlier post, scietific research on nutrition is constantly being updated. The USDA Dietary Guidelines are revised every five years based on current research. The studies I provided weren’t from the 50s. They are current.
You seem to be insisting that I believe that dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol. I don’t believe that, as I already mentioned to you.
If you want to hear the other site of the story, check it out. You should be aware though that he probably has read every study you posted, plus a few hundred more.[/quote]
Thanks, I surely will check him out.
I’d be impressed with myself, too, since I know that saturated fat is NOT THE ONLY FACTOR. When you are analyzing cross -sectional studies of entire countries, so many other circumstances are involved: activity level, obesity rates, average lifestyle, and other characterisics of diet, such as trans-fats, unsaturated fats, and fiber. Focusing on just saturated fat is an uncritical, oversimplifying way of drawing conclusions about heart disease.
