Jump to content

Sorry!

This site is in read-only mode right now. You can browse all our old topics (and there's a lot of them) but you won't be able to add to them.

Cholesterol

Cameron_R

By Cameron_R
in Diet & nutrition

 Share

Recommended Posts

andy s Member

andy s

Posted
Posted
Thank Andy - in those 6 years, have you had any periods where you've not eaten a BB'er diet (apart from the sups)?

I'm asking to test against the 'the diet doesn't matter theory' with your experience.

I cant honestly say I eat a body buider diet. I dont have the discipline wish I did... but no. I have had long periods (6 months)without sugar, chips/junk and alcohol then been tested without change. To further qualify my results my older brother does very little exercise and eats all the crap food. Im talking fried, fatty and chocolate bars. He however,when tested, constantly maintains significantly lower cholesterol than I do :?

One thing I have noticed that raised mine for certain was lack of sleep when I used to do 12 hour night shifts. That completely screwed it. From memory it actually raised from the constant I had even on the pills.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cameron_R Senior member

Cameron_R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

I cant honestly say I eat a body buider diet. I dont have the discipline wish I did... but no. I have had long periods (6 months)without sugar, chips/junk and alcohol then been tested without change. To further qualify my results my older brother does very little exercise and eats all the crap food. Im talking fried, fatty and chocolate bars. He however,when tested, constantly maintains significantly lower cholesterol than I do :?

One thing I have noticed that raised mine for certain was lack of sleep when I used to do 12 hour night shifts. That completely screwed it. From memory it actually raised from the constant I had even on the pills.

that certainly backs up the theories from earlier in the thread.

Interesting about the sleep - was it just lack of sleep or was there stress as well?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phedder Veteran member

Phedder

Posted
Posted

This and this say everything much better than I ever could, and are extensively referenced. I warn you they are very long reads, but highly enlightening on all things related to dietary fat and health. Conspiracy theories are sometimes valid :wink: When there's money to be made, often the truth will be suppressed.

Serum cholesterol levels are largely independent from dietary cholesterol intake, this is one of many cases where genetics truly do matter most. As an aside, serum cholesterol levels also may have little to do with mortality. Remember correlation does not mean causation.

There's a theory that cholesterol increases with age, along with arteriosclerosis, in an attempt by the body to actually help strengthen the weakening arterial walls. An interesting excerpt.

http://www.ravnskov.nu/myth2.htm

The aorta, the main artery of the body, from 659 American and 260 Japanese people were studied after death. Meticulously all signs of atherosclerosis were recorded and graded. As expected, atherosclerosis increased from age 40 and upwards, both in Americans and in Japanese. Now to the surprising fact.

When degree of atherosclerosis was compared in each age group there was hardly any difference between American and Japanese people. Between age forty and sixty Americans were a little more arteriosclerotic than Japanese; between sixty and eighty there was practically no difference, and above eighty Japanese were a little more arteriosclerotic than Americans.

I'm sure we can all agree that the average American diet differs greatly from the average Japanese diet, yet arteriosclerosis was similar between both populations. There's much more at play than diet here.

Just a few of the studies referenced in those two articles I initially linked (There's 100s)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7939 ... t=Abstract

These data are incompatible with the view that dietary fat intake has any causal role in cardiovascular health. Although hypercholesterolemia is associated with increased liability to death from heart disease, it is as frequently associated with increased overall life expectancy as with decreased life expectancy. These findings are incompatible with labelling hypercholesterolemia an overall health hazard. Moreover, it is questionable if the cardiovascular liability associated with hypercholesterolemia is either causal or reversible. The complex relationships between diet, serum cholesterol, atherosclerosis and mortality and their interactions with genetic and environmental factors suggest that the effects of simple dietary prescriptions are unlikely to be predictable, let alone beneficial.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2144 ... t=Abstract

CONCLUSIONS: The association between reduction of cholesterol concentrations and deaths not related to illness warrants further investigation. Additionally, the failure of cholesterol lowering to affect overall survival justifies a more cautious appraisal of the probable benefits of reducing cholesterol concentrations in the general population.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1638 ... t=Abstract

CONCLUSIONS: Lowering serum cholesterol concentrations does not reduce mortality and is unlikely to prevent coronary heart disease. Claims of the opposite are based on preferential citation of supportive trials.

http://www.ajcn.org/content/29/12/1384.abstract

Cholesterol and triglyceride levels were unrelated to quality, quantity, or proportions of fat, carbohydrate, or protein consumed in the 24-hr recall period.

I know a 24-hr recall isn't the best method, but one can assume the participants diets didn't alter significantly from day to day.

On the comments regarding doctors or nutritionists knowing all due to their extensive studies, consider who's teaching them and what studies they are informed by. I know many people currently studying both, not to be smug but half of what they tout makes me cringe. Everything comes down to money. The studies showing that low fat or cholesterol free diets are beneficial are often funded and publicised by those companies that have a financial interest in that information being regarded by the general public and medical community as truth. Those which show the opposite are often suppressed and rarely see the light of day. In the early 1900s the average diet consisted of large amounts of saturated animals fats (meat and butter etc) yet heart disease was quite rare. Enter the 50s and onwards when foods became more processed and vegetable oils were praised as healthy and heart protective, and people were advised to eat low saturated fat and low cholesterol, yet heart disease was more rampant than ever? There was money to be made by those companies that produced the processed foods and vegetable oils, studies were funded and it became the status quo for low fat low cholesterol to be the answer to all heart related health problems. The first article I linked dives into this quite deeply.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cameron_R Senior member

Cameron_R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Excellent post Phedder. Your effort to post supporting evidence is appreciated.

In the early 1900s the average diet consisted of large amounts of saturated animals fats (meat and butter etc) yet heart disease was quite rare. Enter the 50s and onwards when foods became more processed and vegetable oils were praised as healthy and heart protective, and people were advised to eat low saturated fat and low cholesterol, yet heart disease was more rampant than ever?

But surely some of the massive increase in heart disease is related to the fact that people started to live long enough for it to become an issue, rather than die from measles/Tuberculosis/Malaria/Diarrhoea/etc like it was back then. Life expectancy in 1900 was about 50.

I'll be pissed with myself if you all have got my hopes up for my cholesterol test and the results are shit.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Phedder Veteran member

Phedder

Posted
Posted
But surely some of the massive increase in heart disease is related to the fact that people started to live long enough for it to become an issue, rather than die from measles/Tuberculosis/Malaria/Diarrhoea/etc like it was back then. Life expectancy in 1900 was about 50.

Most certainly, and it's good to see that you're truly thinking about it. Question everything and try view things from as many angles as possible, it does cause some issues (lecturers don't respond well to incessant asking of "but why?" :lol: ) But I like to think it ultimately leads to greater understanding, just involves plenty of confusion along the way :pfft:

'The Oiling of American' does infact mention your query, albeit without hard numbers to answer the difference greater longevity compared to dietary changes make. Reading the whole article is all I can suggest, and yes it will take a while but if you find it fascinating it's well worth it.

Here's where they acknowledge the significance of life expectancy changes, quite brief as the purpose of the article is diet related and the significance that has on heart disease.

http://www.drcranton.com/nutrition/oiling.htm

MI was almost nonexistent in 1910 and caused no more than three thousand deaths per year in 1930. By 1960, there were at least 500,000 MI deaths per year in the US. What life-style changes had caused this increase?

One change was a decrease in infectious disease, following the decline of the horse as a means of transport, the installation of more sanitary water supplies and the advent of better housing, all of which allowed more people to reach adulthood and the heart attack age. The other was a dietary change. Since the early part of the century, when the Department of Agriculture had begun to keep track of food "disappearance" data—the amount of various foods going into the food supply—a number of researchers had noticed a change in the kind of fats Americans were eating. Butter consumption was declining while the use of vegetable oils, especially oils that had been hardened to resemble butter by a process called hydrogenation, was increasing—dramatically increasing. By 1950 butter consumption had dropped from eighteen pounds per person per year to just over ten. Margarine filled in the gap, rising from about two pounds per person at the turn of the century to about eight. Consumption of vegetable shortening—used in crackers and baked goods—remained relatively steady at about twelve pounds per person per year but vegetable oil consumption had more than tripled—from just under three pounds per person per year to more than ten.3

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Cameron_R Senior member

Cameron_R

Posted
  • Author
Posted

Quick update .... Mr Dr literally laughed out loud when I told him that I'd been chatting with people who thought that approx 80% of your Cholesterol risk/levels was hereditary (ie in your genes).

He said that the medical literature he sees, and the patients he's had over the years show that a very low % of the cases (like 5%) are due to "Familial Hypercholesterolemia" (hereditary type). The rest is diet and exercise (or lack there of).

Apart from that, he said to be sceptical of the sources (and funding of sources) for reports/papers that say otherwise.

This site says it's 1 in 500 people have it:

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/diseases/facts/familialhypercholesterolaemia.htm

Aaaaaanyway. I'll get my bloods done on Monday morning. Should take a week or two to get the results. I'll post them up after that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
andy s Member

andy s

Posted
Posted
Quick update .... Mr Dr literally laughed out loud when I told him that I'd been chatting with people who thought that approx 80% of your Cholesterol risk/levels was hereditary (ie in your genes).

Aaaaaanyway. I'll get my bloods done on Monday morning. Should take a week or two to get the results. I'll post them up after that.

Talk to two different Doctors about any medical condition and you will most likely get two different theories. I was given the information by a cardiac surgeon at Mercy Hospital and again after doing a cardiac test (treadmill) at the Apollo by Dr Andrew Maslowski who is apparently one of NZs top cardiologists. They would most likely laugh out load at your GP :pfft:

Regardless, good luck with your tests and dont be afraid of taking some meds if thats what it will take to bring them down.

Andy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
 Share
Go to topic listing


  • Popular Contributors

    Nobody has received reputation this week.

×
×
  • Create New...