Nutrition Advice

Paul Bunyan wrote:

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

* decades of research, across the globe, based on 1000's and 1000's of papers STRONGLY link CVD to high sat fat/high cholesterol intake.

Sure. Please send links to these studies strongly linking CVD to high saturated fat/high cholesterol intake. If this research is indeed out there, I think that I should be aware of it. And if there are actually thousands of these papers out there, it shouldn't be difficult to post 10-15 that provide good evidence.

Absolutely Paul. I think you *do* need to become "aware of it." I think you've convinced yourself that this research is not really out there (for some reason). But of course the definition of "good evidence" is relative. I think it is good evidence. And so do many experts. I never said that it is iron-clad or beyond any doubt. But when put together, it paints a pretty convincing picture, one that I am not ready to abandon whole-sale simply because of a few contrary points of view.

I'm glad you asked by the way. yes, I get caught up in these absurd pissing contests. I get dragged into them by trolls, and then the debate becomes useless. But really, thanks for asking. I will slowly but surely post you research demonstrating this connection. And in fact, on one thread you stated: there are no studies showing differences in "hard end-points" (actual deaths or severe CVD events) when decreasing sat fat and replacing with other calories (for instance UNsat fats) in rigorous studies. These in fact, exist. I will post them occasionally for you here. Please check back.

Sweet. Will check back to see what you post. And for the record, I am aware of studies showing that replacing saturated fat isocalorically with PUFAs, resulted in decreased risk of cardiovascular endpoints. Having not actually read these studies, only heard them referred to in other papers, I'm not aware of the study design (cross-sectional, prospective, RCT). Unfortunately, in becomes difficult to determine whether we should demonize saturated fats or focus on the cardioprotective benefits of certain PUFAs (omega-3's, which likely are beneficial). Anyway, looking forward to seeing what you have to post.

thanks for you interest. It seems you are aware of some of these studies.

But just to be clear: I am not saying that each one of these references will beyond any doubt prove consumption of high amounts of sat fat will cause CVD. No of course not. You are right that disentangling the various confounders (or potential confounders) is ultimately an impossible task, because no one will *just* eat sat fat. There will be many other parts to their diet and lifestyle, and figuring out the exact impacts of those other factors can't by done with certainty. I am simply saying: when putting all the information together, there appears to be a pretty strong causative relationship between high sat fat consumption (particularly when coupled with high cholesterol consumption) and CVD, and T2D. And that (a strong base of evidence) is the best we will EVER be able to do on any diet topic. And then leads me to my next point:

People like you, and others on this thread and others, do not apply the same scrutiny, nor demand the same absolute proof, of their own nutrition beliefs as they do to the sat fat/LDL/CVD hypothesis. Look at FPW and his belief that "wheat is a horrible food, even whole grain wheat." Where is the BEYOND DOUBT proof of that theory? nowhere (in this case because is certainly not true). Where is the ABSOLUTE evidence that "sugar is toxic,"(in any amount, and even within the caloric context?) the new theory appearing in so many popular sources? Again, nowhere. Where is the CONCLUSIVE evidence that low carb diets are superior for weight loss and health compared to higher carb diets (especially when controlling for protein, and in the *long term*) ?? It doesn't exist. UKLr posted on one thread that red meat per se does not in any way promote CVD *other* than the fact that it can be charred when cooking, creating products that promote disease. Avoid this cooking error, and no problem. Where is the IRON-CLAD proof of that theory?? One last time, it simply doesn't exist.

Yes, of course there are suggestions and pieces of research to support all of the above theories (and dozens of pieces of research to contradict them). Yet the amount and quality of the research to support THOSE theories pales in comparison with the the amount/quality of evidence supporting the sat fat/LDL-C/CVD theory. Yet you and others (to varying degrees) confidently proclaim some or all of the above theories as fact, while simultaneously dismissing the "excessive sat fat can be bad for one's health" theory. It's just not consistent.

If you are looking for absolute proof concerning any nutrition topic, you won't find it. Of course I know you know this. But again, don't tell me "carbs raise insulin, and this is the key to fat storage, therefore lower carb diets are superior for weight maintenance/loss" when you can't prove that beyond any doubt, if you demand such absolutely conclusive evidence regarding Sat fat. Just say (as Gary Taubes recently did)- 'you know, we don't actually know ANYthing about nutrition conclusively. The right studies haven't been done.' (more or less). Ok, great, Gary, if we agree with that, then you might as well throw "GOOD calories, BAD calories" in the trash, because he make some pretty conclusive, confident statements about nutrition in that book, right? Yes, he does. "we don't know anything" wouldn't have sold as well, agreed? But he's made his $, so now he can back away slowly from some of those proclamations.

Anyway, that was important as intro to what I will post. I will post at least on paper tonight.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

I am simply saying: when putting all the information together, there appears to be a pretty strong causative relationship between high sat fat consumption (particularly when coupled with high cholesterol consumption) and CVD, and T2D.

No. These are observations and you need to learn not to confuse observations with causation. A reminder of the scientific method is below.

1. Make observations.

2. Form a hypothesis.

3. Test the hypothesis (specifically, try to disprove it).

4. Refine.

Only once you have formed a hypothesis (proprosed a causal mechanism) and tested it can you begin to suggest causation.

I anticipate the links that you are going to share, although I suspect I already know which ones are coming.

p.s. Stop mentioning Taubes every post and stick to the bloody thread at hand.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

UKLr posted on one thread that red meat per se does not in any way promote CVD *other* than the fact that it can be charred when cooking, creating products that promote disease. Avoid this cooking error, and no problem. Where is the IRON-CLAD proof of that theory?? One last time, it simply doesn't exist.

Also, well done on the strawman to end all strawmen. I hereby forbid you from ever again putting words in my mouth.

UK Limey runner wrote:

No. These are observations and you need to learn not to confuse observations with causation. A reminder of the scientific method is below.

1. Make observations.

2. Form a hypothesis.

3. Test the hypothesis (specifically, try to disprove it).

4. Refine.

Only once you have formed a hypothesis (proprosed a causal mechanism) and tested it can you begin to suggest causation.

I anticipate the links that you are going to share, although I suspect I already know which ones are coming.

Thanks for nothing. no, really, LESS than nothing.

Again, it is BEYOND hilarious that you mock the "observations" relating sat fat intake and CVD and yet hold fast and dear your own pet, fad, nutrition theories as if they were beyond doubt. Talk about a hypocrite.

And I know have no idea which papers I will share (unless you've seen me reference them before), because you clearly know little about nutrition outside your little anti-mainstream nutrition cocoon

PS Don't tell me what to do again, bio-imbecile (your games are transparent, trust me .[/quote]

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

UKLr posted on one thread that red meat per se does not in any way promote CVD *other* than the fact that it can be charred when cooking, creating products that promote disease. Avoid this cooking error, and no problem. Where is the IRON-CLAD proof of that theory?? One last time, it simply doesn't exist.

UK Limey runner wrote:

Also, well done on the strawman to end all strawmen. I hereby forbid you from ever again putting words in my mouth.

Strawman? Nice try. And I didn't put words in your mouth. You're in fact a bloody liar-

[quote]UK Limey runner wrote:

Medical doctors, dietitians and nutritionists get big hard-ons for correlations in epidemiologic studies but generally just don't think enough about causal mechanisms. I mean how on earth can a single hydrogen atom (the difference between a saturated fat and an unsaturated fat) be the difference between a chain of carbon that causes heart disease and a chain of carbon that doesn't? Madness. (Spoiler: the answer is that saturated fat intake often correlates well with intake of processed meat cooked at high temperatures. It's not the sat fat, it's the lipid peroxides from the refined vegetable oils and advanced glycation endproducts doing the damage)./quote]

What I claimed you said was 99% accurate. Yes, embarrassing for you. You claim with 100% confidence "it's not the sat fat", and then declare with equal 100% confidence: it's cooking the meat at high temps creating end products that is "doing the damage." no citation, just.....your opinion presented as fact. And you well know that this "fact" is simply a hypothesis that has at most a small bit of evidence supporting it, but is by no means widely accepted and certainly less so than the theories you are slamming as absurd and nonsense and only meaningless correlations.

You have zero to offer, and simply want to attempt to take juvenile shots at me, and continue to offer cryptic comments on the what is causing the obesity epidemic. I've answered the question, you have come close to it. Congratulations on turning this thread into another pissing contest, troll.

I look forward to the papers.

Oh also, refined vegetable oils are not created during cooking. AGE-count can be increased during cooking but many are there from the start.

Your reading comprehension is truly terrible. Perhaps that explains why you cannot figure out cause and effect. Like I said, you are forbidden from misrepresenting me. Cheers, Limey.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

UK Limey runner wrote:

I'm afraid you may struggle to get advice. Threads on nutrition on this board usually end in one of two ways: (1) very few replies, or (2) thread hijacked by Tyrannosaurus rexing to go on a massive rant against ATKINS/PALEO/XFIT MORONS.

Great Limey, keep taking your cheap little shots at me. Sad.

The REASON many threads are "hijacked" (that's BS by the way) by me and turn into me bashing atkins/paleo/x-fit advice, is because every time there is a nutrition thread, those fanatics are the ones that immediately appear and say with any out shred of doubt: 'CUT Carbs! Eat more sat fat! carbs will literally kill you. Wheat is the worst food in history. The more meat the better!'

1) I never said the more meat the better.

2) Wheat is really bad though...worse than you have yet accepted. Sugar too. The general population doesn't quite get how bad sugar is (wheat either), and it (sugar) needs to be a concern even for people who are of normal weight.

And, before we get all enamored with "decades of research", there were scientists who supported the petroleum industry and other industries who had studies that showed that lead wasn't a problem for a long time too.

Paul Bunyan wrote:

And for the record, I am aware of studies showing that replacing saturated fat isocalorically with PUFAs, resulted in decreased risk of cardiovascular endpoints.

This is not true.

What has been shown in these studies is that replacing sat fat with n-6 fats will lead to lower LDL/total cholesterol but to an actual INCREASE in CVD.

Xfit_guy_the_real_1 wrote:

Paul Bunyan wrote:

And for the record, I am aware of studies showing that replacing saturated fat isocalorically with PUFAs, resulted in decreased risk of cardiovascular endpoints.

This is not true.

What has been shown in these studies is that replacing sat fat with n-6 fats will lead to lower LDL/total cholesterol but to an actual INCREASE in CVD.

completely untrue. i will post soon specifically on this issue (yes, so gear up your pot-shots and poorly researched opinions). contrary to popular belief, I do have a life (with certain specifics that keep my from posting even more so than many of you. It's not a matter of free time per se, but I am not sitting in front of my computer all day long as I once did in previous work).

Paul Bunyan wrote:

...let's all take a deep breath and remember that this is a running website, and that American running is kicking ass for the first time in a long while.

And since this is a running website, let's focus on the diet of (distance) runners. Not diet for sedentary people, or discus throwers or pole vaulters.

I cut my BMI from 25 to 20, while eating high carb (60-65% of total calorie) diet. My blood sugar level has been normal (95-100 mg/dl). Is there any reason that I should reduce my carb consumption? Would my running performance improve if I switched to low-carb diet?

Running Formula reader wrote:

Paul Bunyan wrote:

...let's all take a deep breath and remember that this is a running website, and that American running is kicking ass for the first time in a long while.

And since this is a running website, let's focus on the diet of (distance) runners. Not diet for sedentary people, or discus throwers or pole vaulters.

I cut my BMI from 25 to 20, while eating high carb (60-65% of total calorie) diet. My blood sugar level has been normal (95-100 mg/dl). Is there any reason that I should reduce my carb consumption? Would my running performance improve if I switched to low-carb diet?

To answer your questions:

No. (as long as you are getting all essential nutrients. and eat a variety of foods, and get enough protein)

No. Some longer distance athletes do well on a higher fat diet. But little evidence suggests that this is a *BETTER* diet for endurance training than a high carb one.

Thanks for your reply.

Would you recommend a low-carb diet to anyone? If so, who are they?