Search
 
 

Display results as :
 


Rechercher Advanced Search

Check Out Our Sponsors
Brought to you by
Hair Loss Forum
Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search
Navigation
 Portal
 Index
 Memberlist
 Profile
 FAQ
 Search

Official Vegan Thread

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:16 pm

Hotspur wrote:Whasamatter Organism. Losing your religion?

While this point may pass many casual readers by, the more observant will note Organism sidestepped my questions, pivoted to other questions and cited other studies. This is how politicians behave.

We can methodically break down your points but that doesn't work for you. I understand why you're trying to diversify but it doesn't wash. Let's both accept your citation of Minger is a bit embarrassing and move onto another issue.

Let me quote the following paragraph. It reaches to the heart of your ignorance here:

The major point being most of it is epidemiological. You cannot conclude causation with epidemiological research. So get over it. I already posted studies that prove that proteins from animals are the opposite of toxic.

You fundamentally misunderstand The China Study. Please refer to 'Biological Plausibility'. That is epidemiological data was tested against existing research highlighting an association between animal products and disease.

You've written alot of things I could correct. I know Ravnskov's 'Cholesterol Myth' well. Since this is the opening salvo for many cholesterol skeptics, I think that's an efficient place to start.

Existing research? Please share, because I just argued against his major biological plausibility, still nothing from you.

What Religion? My statement holds true.

Yes, Thank you, key word, association.

Ok Please go a head and prove that dietary cholesterol has a causative factor in heart disease and cancer.

Minger's look on the T. Colin's interpretation is good, So is Chris Master Johns. Don't know why you think it's embarrassing. For what Reasons? Those points you bought up earlier? Vacant.

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Campbell-Masterjohn.html


You haven't broken down any points.

Please prove all animal protein causes cancer.

My first post came with issues on the subject you haven't addressed, You're the one side stepping. Ironic. Still no evidence from you, again.

Bring up the points I mentioned that you consider side stepping because there are none.

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Tue Sep 13, 2016 9:29 pm

I'm going to have Dinner. I'll respond to Ravnskov first. Then onto something else.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this 'debate' featuring Masterjohn and Barnard:

https://youtu.be/Oynj9zl6WQU

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Tue Sep 13, 2016 10:07 pm

Hotspur wrote:I'm going to have Dinner. I'll respond to Ravnskov first. Then onto something else.

In the meantime, I'll leave you with this 'debate' featuring Masterjohn and Barnard:

https://youtu.be/Oynj9zl6WQU

I'll watch it, thanks

Honestly I don't care what you have to say about Ravnskov, or any ad-hominems..

All you have to do is post a study which holds true on observing a causative role about dietary cholesterol causing cancer and heart disease in a controlled setting. That's not really too much to ask for, I would think you would have came across some that has helped draw your conclusions on.

And please clearly state what your claims are on the subject.. Right now I'm just assuming you think all animal protein is toxic in the only context that because; it's from animals. And also that dietary cholesterol causes cancer and heart disease.

I really respect vegan choices, but can't stand false health claims.


Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  john3333 on Wed Sep 14, 2016 5:01 am

Plant oils are the healthiest oils you can eat.
http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-12-78
Olive oil consumption, specifically the extra-virgin variety, is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular disease and mortality in individuals at high cardiovascular risk.

avatar
john3333

Posts : 180
Join date : 2016-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:24 am

john3333 wrote:Plant oils are the healthiest oils you can eat.
http://bmcmedicine.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/1741-7015-12-78
Olive oil consumption, specifically the extra-virgin variety, is associated with reduced risks of cardiovascular disease and mortality in individuals at high cardiovascular risk.



Not all plant oils.

Olive oil is great, mostly mono-saturated fat.

I already posted other studies on other plant oils that are mostly pufa which can be carcinogenic.

Here are some more

Soybean Oil Is More Obesogenic and Diabetogenic than Coconut Oil and Fructose in Mouse: Potential Role for the Liver
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4511588/

Human genome shaped by vegetarian diet increases risk of cancer and heart disease
https://www.researchgate.net/blog/post/human-genome-shaped-by-vegetarian-diet-increases-risk-of-cancer-and-heart-disease

Omega-6 arachidonic acid mediates and enhances inflammation and thus may well be a contributing factor to the decades long development of heart disease, as well as accelerating the development of cancer cells and tumors."

The plant omega-6 linoleic acid – from which the arachidonic acid is derived – is normally at low levels in traditional whole food diets as well as in fruit oils such as olive oil and avocado oil, or in dairy fat. However, it is a factor of 10 or more higher in industrially produced oilseeds such as traditional sunflower, safflower, corn, soy and peanut oils. The increasing availability of high omega-6 seed oils in the developing world will be most pro-inflammatory and pro-clotting for those persons with the genetics of traditional vegetarians because their genotype will maintain higher omega-6 arachidonic acid in their blood and tissues.

Increase in Adipose Tissue Linoleic Acid of US Adults in the Last Half Century
http://advances.nutrition.org/content/6/6/660.abstract
Over the last half century in the United States, dietary LA intake has greatly increased as dietary fat sources have shifted toward polyunsaturated seed oils such as soybean oil. We have conducted a systematic literature review of studies reporting the concentration of LA in subcutaneous adipose tissue of US cohorts. Our results indicate that adipose tissue LA has increased by 136% over the last half century and that this increase is highly correlated with an increase in dietary LA intake over the same period of time.

Corn oil rapidly activates nuclear factor-κB in hepatic Kupffer cells by oxidant-dependent mechanisms
http://carcin.oxfordjournals.org/content/20/11/2095.long
how N-6 PUFAs are involved in increased cell proliferation in liver is not well understood. Here, the hypothesis that N-6 PUFAs increase production of mitogens by activation of Kupffer cell NF-κB was tested. A single dose of corn oil (2 ml/kg, i.g.), but not olive oil or medium-chain triglycerides (saturated fat), caused an ~3-fold increase in hepatocyte proliferation


Last edited by Organism on Wed Sep 14, 2016 8:16 am; edited 3 times in total

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Wed Sep 14, 2016 7:57 am


Scientific Report of the 2015 Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee
https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-scientific-report/06-chapter-1/d1-2.asp

The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report.2 35

”Cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”"

” Steve Nissen told USA Today. “We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They’ve been wrong for decades.” Nissen also said that advice about reducing saturated fat and salt may be wrong, but no major change in these areas is expected in the new guidelines."

Circulation. 1992 Sep;86(3):1046-60.
Report of the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1355411
Definitive interpretation of the associations observed was not possible, although most participants considered it likely that many of the statistical associations of low or lowered TC level are explainable by confounding in one form or another. The conference focused on the apparent existence and nature of these associations and on the need to understand their source rather than on any pertinence of the findings for public health policy. Further research is recommended to explain the observed associations of low TC levels (and TC lowering) with certain noncardiovascular diseases


Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study
http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140673601055532/abstract
We have been unable to explain our results. These data cast doubt on the scientific justification for lowering cholesterol to very low concentrations (<4·65 mmol/L) in elderly people.

"the earlier that patients start to have lower cholesterol concentrations, the greater the risk of death."

Changes in Total Serum Cholesterol and Other Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease in Japan, 1980–1989
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/6/1038.abstract
Considerable increases in total serum cholesterol levels do not offer an explanation of the recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease in Japan.

heighest death rate observed was among those with lowest cholesterol (under 160mg/dl); lowest death rate observed was with those whose cholesterol was between 200-259mg/dl


Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-densitylipoprotein cholesterol and mortality
in the elderly: a systematic review

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full.pdf+html


High-cholesterol diet, eating eggs do not increase risk of heart attack, not even in persons genetically predisposed, study finds
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/02/160211083044.htm
A new study shows that a relatively high intake of dietary cholesterol, or eating one egg every day, are not associated with an elevated risk of incident coronary heart disease. Furthermore, no association was found among those with the APOE4 phenotype, which affects cholesterol metabolism and is common among the Finnish population. In the majority of population, dietary cholesterol affects serum cholesterol levels only a little, and few studies have linked the intake of dietary cholesterol to an elevated risk of cardiovascular diseases. Globally, many nutrition recommendations no longer set limitations to the intake of dietary cholesterol.

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  john3333 on Wed Sep 14, 2016 12:03 pm

All plant oils are safe. The problem with processed plant oils is that the processing makes them unhealthy. I haven't heard a single vegan recommending safflower oil anyways.
Either way, most plant foods are low in fat
Bananas - 3% fat, 93% carbs
Potatoes - 2% fat, 92% carbs
Whole wheat spaghetti - 4% fat, 81% carbs
Lentils - 3% fat, 73% carbs
Black beans - 4% fat, 76% carbs
White rice - 2% fat, 90% carbs
Sugar - 0% fat, 100% carbs
Orange juice - 2% fat, 93% carbs
Orange juice, sugar, and white rice are actually superfoods even though I spoke a little bad of them.

Brown rice - 7% fat, 85% carbs
In 2100 calories of brown rice there is about 6.3g PUFAs, 6g being omega 6. Only about 53 calories of the 2100 are of PUFA. 53/2100 = 0.025%
You can take a few flax seeds, vegetables, and maybe algae oil to balance out the omega 3s and 6s.
PUFAs make 0.025% of the calories, an insignificant amount.

Grains are actually very low in omega 6. Animal products will have much more inflammatory omega 6 fats.

There may not be many negatives for eating cholesterol, but there are no benefits either.

We can't eat meat or fish because they have mercury, dioxins, neurotoxins, arsenic, DDT, putrescine, AGE’s, PCB’s, PDBE’s, alkylphenol endocrine disruptors, and even prescription drugs that end up in rivers and streams.
Meat and fish have methionine, choline, and heme iron too, which promote carcinogenesis.
Cholesterol may not be too harmful, but there are much more powerful toxins in meat, like neu5gc, one of the most inflammatory and carcinogenic compounds found in meat.


Plants are a better source of protein than whey or liver since they are lower in methionine and higher in the beneficial amino acids. They are also low in the toxic omega 6 fats.
There may be some interesting stuff with meat, but its dangers outweigh the tiny, tiny benefits.
Animal products are more expensive than plant foods, and grass-fed/wild animal products are even more expensive, so its best to avoid it even if they have some benefit because you'll become poor!
Vegans can literally survive on a quarter , or less,a day eating rice or potatoes.
Eating grass-fed meat or wild fish would mean you need to spend $20+ a day to eat. That's more than 80 times more money gone to eating.
Even if you have the money for it, you need to work a lot more to find high quality dairy that is A2, unpasteurized, raw, grass-fed milk. That's extremely specific. No normal person would do that or would be able to do that!

In a store near me, organic ground beef is $10 a pound. I don't think that's at least 1000 calories either so I'd need to eat 2 of those packages in a day. Not saying ground beef is healthy, but it's the only organic meat they sell. I don't know about wild fish. I usually ignore the meat sections when I'm in the store. I think I remember wild fish being almost or more expensive than that. Definitely more expensive. Regular farmed shrimp in a store here is about $6 a pound. That's not even wild either. I can't imagine how much wild shrimp costs. They don't sell it in the store I go to. I'd go bankrupt if I ate such luxurious foods.
There's a Whole Foods far away, which does sell some grass-fed meat and wild fish of course, but the cost of driving there alone would ruin me. I'm checking the weekly sales of Whole Foods right now, and Fresh Arctic Char Fillets are $13 a pound. I don't think that's wild either. A pound wouldn't even be at least 2000 calories either. Maybe it is. Cronometer says its only 800. I'd need to eat 3 pounds a day, so $39 a day to eat. That's crazy! Obviously I wouldn't eat only fish in a day, but it's an example. Still, eating 500 or so calories of meat would at least quadruple how much I spend a day on food.
Costs of plants:
10 pounds of potatoes - $0.70 - $2.50
Rice, legumes - pretty much free

The cool thing about plant foods is that you don't need to buy them organic. You can peel a banana and you don't have to worry about the pesticides since most of them are on the peel. You can peel potatoes too. Potatoes have a thinner skin so it might be a bigger problem, but it's ok. You can peel everything! This method won't work for meat though.



If I eat meat I'll never be able to retire.



I guess one of the cheaper "foods" recommended in this forum is coconut oil. It's only about $5 for about 2000 calories of it. I can't eat that for a day though, let alone one meal. It has zero nutrients too. It's more of a seasoning or a supplement than a food even though it doesn't have any flavor. I guess I could pour it on my potatoes, but that seems extremely stupid to me. It would really ruin the nutrient density of my foods too. Oil is really just used to help fry foods, but not as a calorie source. That's what I think. Even though Peatarians make it seem like it's a gigantic part of their diet. Maybe it is, I don't know. Definitely those people who drink bulletproof coffee probably do eat 5+ tbs of coconut oil a day. That can't be healthy.
Maybe it's not too bad. Maybe it's like the Mediterranean diet. People on that diet must get 5+ tbs of olive oil since it's such a huge part of their diet.
I think it's weird to eat that much oil. I know mercola probably eats close to 5+ tbs of oil a day. Maybe a lot more. I'm reading one of his recipes right now where it seems like he's saying to use 4tbs of coconut oil for breakfast. I remember reading that he used 2 or 3tbs for lunch too....  I can't find the link about lunch though. So it's at least 4 tbs of coconut oil a day. It's 400+ calories of oil a day. It's a meal's worth of oil. Crazy.
http://recipes.mercola.com/dr-mercola-breakfast-recipe.aspx
Ketogenic eaters must get much more calories of coconut oil a day too. It's not that big of a deal, but it's oil.
Anyways this coconut oil rant doesn't have to do with meat. I just find it hard to understand those people who say eating oil is healthy. It's just one of the reasons I have a hard time believing Peatarian, Ketogenic, and Paleolithic advocates. I've just never seen this before outside of the internet, but I guess it's not too alien- the successful Mediterranean diet does it.

I've thought about it. Most of us have eaten potato chips. A bag has a lot of tablespoons of oil. I guess eating tons of oil is normal. Usually people I've met don't add a lot of oil to their own food at home. I don't know why potato chips have so much oil in the first place. Oil doesn't have flavor. Guess it's just so they're satisfying and fillling.

I don't think our diets should be like a bag of potato chips though.

Not all of the ketogenic advocates eat large amounts of coconut oil, but some do. Some people eat 400+ calories of coconut oil every day! That's a meal's worth of coconut oil. A meal's worth. I don't think the medium chain triglycerides change something in the body that makes it require less nutrients lol. That's 400 calories with zero nutrients. Maybe it really does make the body require less nutrients since it's less inflammatory than other oils.

In small amounts used to fry some vegetables wouldn't hurt. Steaming is so much more effortless. I guess stir-frying is more fancy and flavorful(not that the coconut oil adds flavor), but I never do that. Vegetables are usually sweet and have tons of flavor.

That's just how I cook though. You shouldn't take my tips on cooking.


I've thought about it a long time and read about it and written about it. I still think a diet rich in coconut oil is dumb. I was reading a while ago about how the ketones created from coconut oil may help Alzheimer's but I need to read more about that. I'm not convinced.

Eating whole sweet young coconuts would be okay though.

I remember reading something about coconut oil being a laxative. But I think that's stupid. That might be https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steatorrhea or something else that's also bad.

I've attacked olive oil a little before, but not as much as coconut oil. Olive oil isn't too bad. It has oleuropein and other anti-inflammatory compounds. It has a few vitamins unlike coconut oil too. Coconut oil is white too so that means it doesn't have many plant pigments.
I think these saturated fats are really overrated, but I guess some people say it isn't too bad, so it can't be. Michael Greger will surely make another coconut oil video debunking the myths soon probably.
Maybe butter would be healthier than coconut oil. It must be. It's the same except butter actually has some micronutrients.
There's so much hype about coconut oil though. Right now I'm reading it helps with HIV. People love to lie.
Ok this actually looks cool.
http://coconutoil.com/
Maybe I should use coconut oil. I hate saturated fat with all my heart though.
Nah. It's not worth it. It has zero vitamins and minerals. This is so confusing! It's pointless to wait for another Michael Greger video on coconut oil since he hates oil. I will wait though since he has the best research out there.
avatar
john3333

Posts : 180
Join date : 2016-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Thu Sep 15, 2016 12:31 pm

Organism wrote:

Honestly I don't care what you have to say about Ravnskov, or any ad-hominems..

All you have to do is post a study which holds true on observing a causative role about dietary cholesterol causing cancer and heart disease in a controlled setting.

I really respect vegan choices, but can't stand false health claims.


Sure thing Organism. I'm searching high and low. In the meantime can you please post a metabolic ward study 'observing a causative study about' nicotine causing lung cancer? We're waiting.

It's interesting that you should cite Minger and Ravnskov yet refuse to defend their work. Further you ask for 'metabolic studies' about 'cholesterol causing cancer'. Why not 'meat causing cancer'?

Your language is political and not geared toward serving this forum. For the neutrals reading, because I'm sure Organism knows this, here is a hierachy of evidence typically used in research:

Sytematic Reviews & Meta Analysis Of RCTs
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs)
Cohort Studies
Case Control Studies
Cross Sectional Surveys
Case Reports
Perspectives


Here then, is a meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies underlining that dietary cholesterol increases serum blood cholesterol.

Dietary lipids and blood cholesterol: quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/

' Meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies of solid food diets in healthy volunteers. SUBJECTS: 395 dietary experiments (median duration 1 month) among 129 groups of individuals. CONCLUSIONS: In typical British diets replacing 60% of saturated fats by other fats and avoiding 60% of dietary cholesterol would reduce blood total cholesterol by about 0.8 mmol/l (that is, by 10-15%), with four fifths of this reduction being in low density lipoprotein cholesterol.'

INTENSIVE LIFESTYLE CHANGES MAY AFFECT THE PROGRESSION OF PROSTATE CANCER

https://www.ornish.com/wp-content/uploads/Intensive_Lifestyle_Changes_and_Prostate_Cancer.pdf

Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford).(FYI, We'll discuss rates of colorectal cancer if you wish)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19279082

Major dietary protein sources and risk of coronary heart disease in women.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20713902

Red meat consumption and mortality: results from 2 prospective cohort studies.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22412075

HOMOGEMEITY IN THE RELATIONSHIP OF SERUM CHOLESTEROL TO CORONARY DEATHS ACROSS DIFFERENT CULTURES. 40-YEAR FOLLOW-UP OF THE SEVEN COUNTRIES STUDY

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2642008/

Risk Factors for Mortality in the Nurses’ Health Study: A Competing Risks Analysis

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3105270/

Minger and Masterjohn aren't credible sources. They are doing a disservice to their readers and the public. Garth Davis expresses this view well:

Dr. Garth Davis vs Dave Asprey || High Fat Diets

https://youtu.be/yYUb3Q9QqyU

Finally, you have a scattergun approach to this debate. When you're backed into a corner you fire out questions and cite other studies. Try to concentrate on one issue at a time.

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Thu Sep 15, 2016 5:18 pm

Finally, you have a scattergun approach to this debate. When you're backed into a corner you fire out questions and cite other studies. Try to concentrate on one issue at a time

Please point out how any of my studies or notions I've given apparently have nothing to do with the claims I'm arguing against. I've mention for you to do this before, but you failed to do so. You're really making empty remarks here, quite delusional even.

Your empty remarks which btw, are really even more weightless to what you believe me to be doing of "scattergun" allows you to be lazy with excuses not really addressing any of my points without reasoning or evidence. If this was true, then provide examples.

So I'll Address the Dietary Cholesterol and Heart Issue first..& Rest when I have more time.

Dietary lipids and blood cholesterol: quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/

This first study you posted only associates avoiding dietary cholesterol and replacing saturated fat with PUFA lowering total serum cholesterol.

Where in this study does it show dietary cholesterol causes heart disease, associate it or even linking it?


You must be confused with dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol and how they relate to heart disease, using decade old hypothesis which have already proven false.

But that's ok I get it you don't even understand what's going on that's why you think this study is enough proof. I had go through researching it myself years ago.

Keep an open mind. Again like I always say draw your own conclusions.

It's known polyunsaturated fats can lower total cholesterol, however not by putting cholesterol in it's optimal use but by being anti-metabolic,apparently that's enough to market it to be 'healthy' even though evidence suggest otherwise.

Lowering total cholesterol in this way is associated with many diseases and death. I already posted studies about low-cholesterol and all- cause mortality, you can research this further for yourself.

High Serum Cholesterol is a protective mechanism in disease, serving as important carries and synthesizers of protective hormones in the human body for proper functioning at the cellular level.

High cholesterol can represent a marker for heart disease, but not the cause of it. There's a huge difference in that, and a very important point. If you don't understand there's really no point to even discuss things further with you.


Since you failed again to provide any, here are some actual relevant studies with the subject of dietary cholesterol and heart disease

Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109578

"Forty studies (17 cohorts in 19 publications with 361,923 subjects and 19 trials in 21 publications with 632 subjects) published between 1979 and 2013 were eligible for review. Dietary cholesterol was not statistically significantly associated with any coronary artery disease (4 cohorts; no summary RR), ischemic stroke (4 cohorts; summary RR: 1.13; 95% CI: 0.99, 1.28), or hemorrhagic stroke (3 cohorts; summary RR: 1.09; 95% CI: 0.79, 1.50)"

Also very important from the study to note, because for your hypothesis to be true, you would need to see correlation between LDL-C and dietary cholesterol and heart diease.

"Dietary cholesterol did not statistically significantly change serum triglycerides or very-low-density lipoprotein concentrations."


Adding that from Recent Studies LDL isn't even a good predictor of mortality risk.

2016. Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-densitylipoprotein cholesterol and mortality
in the elderly: a systematic review

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401.full.pdf+html
http://www.healthline.com/health-news/bad-cholesterol-may-have-bad-rap#3

The research team — comprised of experts from seven different countries — evaluated data collected from 19 studies on a total of 68,094 older adults. The team was seeking to determine if LDL cholesterol is associated with death in the older adults.

According to the cholesterol hypothesis, it should directly relate. According to the BMJ study, it doesn’t.

Researchers say almost 80 percent of the participants in the studies who had high LDL cholesterol did not die because of their cholesterol level.


“the benefits from statin treatment have been exaggerated.”

"What researchers are learning is that cholesterol may not be a direct indicator of heart disease and total cholesterol — the accumulation of three types of fat in the blood — could be a useless metric."

2016. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279303939_Dietary_cholesterol_and_cardiovascular_disease_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Lower intake of dietary cholesterol has been recommended by some to optimize clinical outcomes or prevent incident CAD; however,there is a lack of longitudinal data (observational or trials) tosupport such a recommendation

Yes, that's right meaning your studies you posted with cholesterol are completely useless in this discussion.

Which makes the studies I already posted like this, which you fail to comment on, still relevant.

Changes in Total Serum Cholesterol and Other Risk Factors for Cardiovascular Disease in Japan, 1980–1989
http://ije.oxfordjournals.org/content/22/6/1038.abstract

Considerable increases in total serum cholesterol levels do not offer an explanation of the recent decline in mortality from coronary heart disease in Japan.

heighest death rate observed was among those with lowest cholesterol (under 160mg/dl); lowest death rate observed was with those whose cholesterol was between 200-259mg/dl

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:07 pm

You wrote:

Organism wrote:'The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report'

I published a meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies proving the association. Then you wrote:

Organism wrote: You must be confused with dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol and how they relate to heart disease, using decade old hypothesis which have already proven false.

In one sentence your disputing the association between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol. When challenged you act dumb and pivot to the association between heart-disease and cholesterol.

Read the studies listed beneath. You'll find further research outlining the association between the consumption of animal products and chronic disease, including heart disease and cancer. But that won't work for you.

Let's tighten the net shall we and focus on your charge the 'Lipid Hypothesis' is wrong. This debate could go on forever. But I'm enjoying it. It's a good refresher.

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Thu Sep 15, 2016 6:40 pm

Hotspur wrote:It's interesting that you should cite Minger and Ravnskov yet refuse to defend their work. Further you ask for 'metabolic studies' about 'cholesterol causing cancer'. Why not 'meat causing cancer'?


Minger's 'work' doesn't really need defending, since she's not drawing any conclusions, she's posting her findings from the raw data China Studies use, and seeing how much evidence there is for Collins Interpretations.

It's a very good read, What particular parts about the findings she had do you not agree with? and Why?

No more ad-hominem's, if you have a particular issue, bring it up the findings and discuss it.

Because her "work" is assessing the original data of The China Study, Meaning her "work" is from THE CHINA STUDY data it's self and Campbell's 'evidence' of biological plausibility'.

So bring up the points she made you don't agree with and why, since all of it comes from T. Colin himself anyways.

There was many issues brought up, there are many that she brought up that I haven't even fully researched yet.

So that doesn't mean I'm out to debunk the entire set of studies, there maybe some valuable data there, I have no pre-set beliefs on them.

I'm looking and viewing all information that has been made available to me.

There are generalizations Campbell has made that in my right mind no way could I draw a conclusion from within my understanding of the logic he used.

What's so alarming is how many people do use the China Study to draw conclusions even knowing the nature of the study design.

Anyways, here's an example how T. Campbell, the author of the china study interprets studies.

So Denise looked into one of the rat studies 'how high animal protein, specifically casein is cancerous', Campbell likes to use as biological plausibility for some of his generalizations that animal protein is toxic.

This study he brings up on "Forks over Knives".

https://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks-over-knives-is-the-science-legit-a-review-and-critique/

Minute 16:10—Shortly afterward, Dr. Campbell came across a scientific paper published in a little-known Indian medical journal. It detailed work that had been done on a population of experimental rats that were first exposed to a carcinogen called aflatoxin, then fed a diet of casein, the main protein found in milk.

[Campbell:] “They were testing the effect of protein on the development of liver cancer. They used two different levels of protein: They used 20% of total calories, and then they used a much lower level, 5%. Twenty percent turned on cancer; 5% turned it off.”

Although the above is true, it’s only one (misleading) part of the story. We’ll explore exactly what’s wrong with this summary later on, when Campbell’s own research comes to the fore in the film. But for now, let’s just look at one spot where the film lets a figurative cat (err, rat?) out of the bag.

The paper from India that Campbell found is called The Effect of Dietary Protein on Carcinogenesis of Aflatoxin, which appeared in the Archives of Pathology in 1968. Indeed, the researchers discovered that rats fed 5% of their diet as casein were generally free from cancerous growths, whereas the rats fed 20% casein were riddled with ’em. But at the 16:37-minute mark, we get to see a snippet of this paper that shows us something equally important:



Don’t get distracted by those red letters! What we’re interested in is the sentence near the bottom, which the film’s producers apparently didn’t notice: “In all, 30 rats on the high-protein diet and 12 on the low-protein diet survived for more than a year.”

Let that sink in for a moment. Maybe it’ll hit a little harder if I told you that in the “high protein vs. low protein” experiments discussed in this paper, 10 low-protein rats died prematurely while all the high-protein rats stayed alive. In other words, the overall survival rate for the 20% casein group was much better than for the 5% casein group, despite the fact they had liver tumors. The low-protein rats were dying rapidly—just not from liver cancer. And as we’ll see later, the reason the non-dead, low-protein rats didn’t get tumors was partly because their liver cells were committing mass suicide.

So when rats where fed a carcinogenic aflatoxin that burnens the liver, the rats who had the higher intake of casein %10 lived longer, while the lower group %5 died more quickly.

In other words, if you were fed a toxic carcinogen (alfatoxin) let's see what happens with different levels protein intake of casein.

The lower %5 turned it (cancer) off because.. their liver died and so did the rats.

These are the kind of studies people are relying on that all animal protein is toxic? Are you kidding me? LOL.

Great Logic. Superb. Ground breaking.

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Thu Sep 15, 2016 7:37 pm

As much as I enjoy a debate, this has descended into tuition. I don't have time for voluntary work of the learning disabled. If you want to debate Minger and The China Study, we'll go through it in excruciating detail.

If, on the other hand, you'd like us to discuss The Lipid Hypothesis we'll do that. Let's go through this 1 issue at a time. Let me know which you'd like to debate -- Otherwise stop wasting everyone's time.

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:17 pm

Hotspur wrote:As much as I enjoy a debate, this has descended into tuition. I don't have time for voluntary work of the learning disabled. If you want to debate Minger and The China Study, we'll go through it in excruciating detail.

If, on the other hand, you'd like us to discuss The Lipid Hypothesis we'll do that. Let's go through this 1 issue at a time. Let me know which you'd like to debate -- Otherwise stop wasting everyone's time.

Funny when I asked for you to post details of what you specially think she found in the data that you didn't agree with..

3rd time I asked you now, and you're still saying the same thing. "Let's debate and get into detail"

Still no reply,

https://rawfoodsos.com/the-china-study/

Go head

What do you not agree with and why?

Do you care to comment on the study the presented about the rats and casein? How was that and his rat students relevant to the generalization that all animal protein is toxic?

His views on dietary cholesterol and evidence of disease is very weak? Where is his evidence? And why does he use that to formulated statistics associating animal protein to cancer when the opposite is found with the data?

Do you care to comment on the major studies I posted about the dietary cholesterol and heart disease?

--

Go and research diet-lipid-heart hypothesis if you want, I don't see how that will help you're case.

Let me help you though,

19 February 2016
Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)

http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

Objective To examine the traditional diet-heart hypothesis through recovery and analysis of previously unpublished data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) and to put findings in the context of existing diet-heart randomized controlled trials through a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Conclusions Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.

In a study published Tuesday in the journal BMJ, a team of American researchers report the results of a re-evaluation of surviving raw data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE), one of the largest clinical trials to test the “diet-lipid-heart hypothesis,” which suggests that eating saturated fat and dietary cholesterol raises cholesterol in the blood and thus increases the risk of heart disease.
They found that MCE’s findings do not demonstrate that switching to a low saturated fat diet protects the heart.

The new analysis of the old data did reveal that eating less saturated fat tends to lower cholesterol levels in the blood. But it also showed that such a dietary change has no effect on clinical outcomes, specifically the incidence of atherosclerosis, heart attack or premature death.

In fact, the vegetable-fat diet was associated with an increased risk of dying from heart disease among people over the age of 64.


The new re-analysis of the data found a similar reduction in blood cholesterol among the people on the low-saturated fat diet — an average of about 13.8 percent. The re-analysis also found, however, that for each 30 mg/dL reduction in total cholesterol there was a 22 percent increase in the risk of death.

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Thu Sep 15, 2016 10:43 pm


In one sentence your disputing the association between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol. When challenged you act dumb and pivot to the association between heart-disease and cholesterol.

Another delusional remark which doesn't weigh anything.

You can see I wrote before, which does get to the heart of the matter, no pun intended.

"Ok Please go a head and prove that dietary cholesterol has a causative factor in heart disease and cancer."


'The 2015 DGAC will not bring forward this recommendation because available evidence shows no appreciable relationship between consumption of dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, consistent with the conclusions of the AHA/ACC report'

Yep that's directly from the recently updated Guidelines.

Not my own words, and you are misunderstanding what that quote means in the appropriate context that matters.

The headline being more specific means, dietary cholesterol has no consistent relationship within the available evidence to show it's association with SERUM RISK FACTOR LEVELS OF CHOLESTEROL with disease. And not that it has zero effect in cholesterol serum levels.

Other words, dietary cholesterol doesn't show the relationship to negative associations of the serum level cholesterol that are seen in heart disease.

How is that not obvious too you? It's obvious to people who understand that not all cholesterol is the same, and that type matters, also to what extent in a particular scenario.

No where did I say dietary cholesterol had zero effect on serum cholesterol. There are many factors that can shape serum cholesterol levels; lifestyle, and disease such as low-thyroid levels.

So what really matter is does dietary cholesterol affect serum cholesterol in a negative way which can be positively cause heart disease?

See the studies I already posted. Care to comment?

Here are some more>

Dietary cholesterol provided by eggs and plasma lipoproteins in healthy populations.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16340654

Whole egg consumption improves lipoprotein profiles and insulin sensitivity to a greater extent than yolk-free egg substitute in individuals with metabolic syndrome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23021013

Prospective Study of Egg Consumption and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease in Men and Women
http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=189529

So how is that a pivoting when whole subject is finding research on the causative link with dietary cholesterol and heart disease?

That's exactly what you're trying to prove isn't it?

Dietary cholesterol is one excuse vegans use against eating animal products because they think it causes heart disease.

So what is the point posting that first study then?

Which you still have no evidence for.

You are subconsciously trolling yourself and me of time.

This is a very thin line, I'm being honest when I say it's hard for me to you're remarks against what I post seriously.

I'm doing my best to be fair and open minded but I see non of that in return.

since I whole-heartedly think your wasting my time now.

Your acting as If I have sole responsibility of drawing up conclusions for you and everyone who reads it.

But this is common for people who rely on authoritative type closed-minded thinking.

Read the studies listed beneath. You'll find further research outlining the association between the consumption of animal products and chronic disease, including heart disease and cancer. But that won't work for you.

I'll look into it. How you can draw conclusions with these types of studies post is beyond me.

Oh, and the studies showing no link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease?

You're just ignoring that? Who's pivoting.. You are completely avoiding the subject and the studies.

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Thu Sep 15, 2016 11:12 pm

I'm wasting my time here. In my last post I asked you to pick 1 of 2 subjects. Your response was the free association we see above. Y'see, when I clearly outline why your citations are wrong, you'll run to another 3 subjects.

From here on out I'll limit my responses to you. The DGAC report you cite, which was roundly condemned for heeding to industry lobbyists, also recommended reducing saturated fat and red meat. The study is nonsense -- But you raised it.

On this very subject, I'm looking forward to this documentary -- https://youtu.be/8DPD7R1GY_Y?t=23s

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Fri Sep 16, 2016 5:36 am

Hotspur wrote:I'm wasting my time here. In my last post I asked you to pick 1 of 2 subjects. Your response was the free association we see above.

If you read my post, you can see I'm picking what is relevant to the broad statement of "all animal protein is toxic". Which I am obviously against.

Also the subject of dietary cholesterol and it's risk factor in the major mortality of diseases, since that is relevant to the health claims from Campbell are used The China Study to limit dietary cholesterol.

So then please explain, how does providing studies on dietary cholesterol and heart disease equals free association?

Y'see, when I clearly outline why your citations are wrong, you'll run to another 3 subjects.

That false excuse of yours is not evidence, just evidence that you misunderstood what was being implied.

You quoted the DGAC report headline, Which is obviously based on the subject of dietary cholesterol & it's causative association with heart disease risk factors of serum cholesterol.

No association between dietary cholesterol affecting serum cholesterol in a negative way is obviously applied in that heading.

So you thought that meant dietary cholesterol and didn't change serum cholesterol, which in no way did I say that in my own words.

By the way which (altering cholesterol) doesn't matter unless the serum cholesterol levels affected in a negative way, since many things can affect cholesterol levels, lifestyle, exercise, diet, toxins, health status.

Again, what matters is does it change it in a negative way in relation to disease. This should be completely obvious, since we are talking about disease.

You state your study has to do with dietary cholesterol affecting serum cholesterol, but in there is no link to how that effects serum cholesterol in a negative way that leads to heart disease.

So please explain how your first study is relevant or evidence that dietary cholesterol is associated to cause heart disease or cancer?

From here on out I'll limit my responses to you. The DGAC report you cite, which was roundly condemned for heeding to industry lobbyists, also recommended reducing saturated fat and red meat. The study is nonsense -- But you raised it.

Provide evidence of it being condemned for heeding to industry lobbyist, this doesn't even make sense to dismiss the research.

Since their conclusion is based on their research within the medical literature, the studies being independent of DGAC.

If you don't agree with their conclusion, cool, but provide evidence.

Then I post other major studies regarding the subject which finds the same conclusion.

"Forty studies (17 cohorts in 19 publications with 361,923 subjects and 19 trials in 21 publications with 632 subjects) published between 1979 and 2013 were eligible for review.

Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109578

"Dietary cholesterol did not statistically significantly change serum triglycerides or very-low-density lipoprotein concentrations."

And..

2016. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279303939_Dietary_cholesterol_and_cardiovascular_disease_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Lower intake of dietary cholesterol has been recommended by some to optimize clinical outcomes or prevent incident CAD; however,there is a lack of longitudinal data (observational or trials) tosupport such a recommendation

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  john3333 on Fri Sep 16, 2016 10:18 am

https://draxe.com/shrimp-good-5-scary-shrimp-nutrition-facts/
https://draxe.com/eating-tilapia-is-worse-than-eating-bacon/
If you eat vegan it looks like you don't need to eat wild or organic foods. It is mostly animal products that are heavily contaminated in antibiotics,dioxins,pesticides,and banned chemicals.
It is best to get your omega 3 from flax seeds, like Michael Greger recommends.
Not even wild seafood is free of dibutyltin and organic pollutants, so it must be avoided if you want to regrow hair.
Grass-fed meat and dairy may still have antiobiotics and are loaded with pesticides especially because of biomagnification. Organic food still uses many pesticides so they will concentrate in animals.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biomagnification
You still won't be able to avoid the heme iron that causes colon cancer or the TMAO that causes heart disease.
avatar
john3333

Posts : 180
Join date : 2016-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Fri Sep 16, 2016 12:00 pm

Hotspur wrote:Y'see, when I clearly outline why your citations are wrong, you'll run to another 3 subjects.


... And in your response you did exactly that. I'll concentrate on 1 issue at a time.

Hotspur wrote:From here on out I'll limit my responses to you. The DGAC report you cite, which was roundly condemned for heeding to industry lobbyists, also recommended reducing saturated fat and red meat. The study is nonsense -- But you raised it.

Organism wrote:Provide evidence of it being condemned for heeding to industry lobbyist, this doesn't even make sense to dismiss the research. If you don't agree with their conclusion, cool, but provide evidence.

The Physicians Committee Sues USDA and DHHS, Exposing Industry Corruption in Dietary Guidelines Decision on Cholesterol

https://www.pcrm.org/media/news/physicians-committee-sues-usda-and-dhhs

'Several DGAC members came from institutions that were funded by the egg industry and relied on egg-industry-funded research findings when they removed limits on dietary cholesterol earlier this year. In allowing this to happen, the USDA and DHHS violated the Federal Advisory Committee Act, which mandates that the advisory committee “will not be inappropriately influenced by the appointing authority or any special interest.”

In violation of federal law, the American Egg Board has made a longstanding effort, costing several million dollars, to change federal policies and make cholesterol appear to be safe. Approximately 90 percent of research studies on dietary cholesterol are now funded by the egg industry.'

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:50 am

Hotspur wrote:
... And in your response you did exactly that.

Not true. Delusional excuse to dig your head in a hole and block out information.  

Hotspur wrote:

The Physicians Committee Sues USDA and DHHS, Exposing Industry Corruption in Dietary Guidelines Decision on Cholesterol

I agree it's irresponsible to be money influenced which may effect bias, and think it's a huge problem in the food industry, agriculture businesses involving soy, corn, have huge money influences and political ties.

2 out of 14 members in question. It's fair to investigate how the research money was used, and the particular set of studies with conflict of interest are up to examination.

This in no way provide a valid excuse for the rest of the independent scientific literature available for examination to be ignored.

The preliminary studies to support the diet-heart-hypothesis have been heavily scrutinized, and much of current medical literature supports that.

No surprise that site and Lawsuit are from vegetarian physicians, of course their whole belief system is challenged, along with their social identity built based off their careers.

And like you, neglecting many large multiple cohort meta analysis studies, and even re-examining older studies questioning the role of the heavily relied upon diet-heart-lipid hypothesis, which hasn't been proven but research shown to have no evidence for.

One of the egg cholesterol studies I posted even cites the first study you posted as evidence to show that eggs increases total blood cholesterol which isn’t associated with heart disease.

Understand the difference between:

-  Studies of dietary cholesterol linking for serum cholesterol dependent of the diet-lipid-hypothesis.

- Observations of dietary cholesterol and saturated fats associating with mortality events of heart disease.

Would you like to re-asses the primarily evidence to the guidelines created around the late 1950's and beyond that where anti-dietary-cholesterol?

History Lesson. More Political than scientific in Dietary Guidelines

It was many vegetarian physicians with flawed bias's not forgetting to mention very little scientific evidence, in position of authority who influenced the dietary guidelines being anti-dietary cholesterol in the first place this allowed vegetable oils being massively marketed as healthy and consumed which has increased dramatically more than meat consumption, saturated fat and sugar.

1957. American Heart Association skeptical about any link between dietary cholesterol and heart disease.

- Along the time, some committee members where dropped and Ancel Keys join the board who was vegetarian anti-saturated fat advocate.

Even Ancel keys states the following:
The evidence—both from experiments and from field surveys—indicates that the cholesterol content, per se, of all natural diets has no significant effect on either the serum cholesterol level or the development of atherosclerosis in man.

In the context that he and other researchers found dietary cholesterol doesn’t absorb much into the human body and effect atherosclerosis.

1961. American Heart Association advised to reduce saturated fat, meat, and warn against high cholesterol.

1977. Low-fat Enthusiast Senator George McGovern, Chairman of Senate Select Committee

Him and vegetarian, Ancel key anti-saturated fat supporters like Nick Motten ( who became the source of 5 year installments of nutrition policy at the USDA. )

"basically set the nutritional standards under which we are still oppressed.  They have been a disaster, as some scientists at the time predicted they would be." - Michael Eades, MD

"And some scientists knew ahead of time that they would be.  Phil Handler, the president of the National Academy of Scientists asked Congress, “What right has the federal government to propose that the American people conduct a vast nutritional experiment, with themselves as subjects, on the strength of so very little evidence that it will do them any good?”  Dr. Pete Ahrens, an expert on cholesterol metabolism, told the McGovern committee that the effects of a low-fat diet weren’t a scientific matter but “a betting matter.”

It’s twenty-five years later and we aren’t winning this bet.  Each US American now eats sixty pounds more grain per annum and thirty pounds more cheap sugars, mostly from corn.  [Is it any wonder we’re all fat?]"




Has replacing saturated fat and dietary cholesterol with vegetable oils show to work in protecting against all cause mortality or heart disease mortality?

Since this is exactly what you're arguing for, let's look at some of the evidence older & recent.


Test of effect of lipid lowering by diet on cardiovascular risk. The Minnesota Coronary Survey.
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/content/9/1/129.abstract
“a 4.5-year, open enrollment, single end-time double-blind, randomized clinical trial that was conducted in six Minnesota state mental hospitals and one nursing home. It involved 4393 institutionalized men and 4664 institutionalized women. The trial compared the effects of a 39% fat control diet (18% saturated fat, 5% polyunsaturated fat, 16% monounsaturated fat, 446 mg dietary cholesterol per day) with a 38% fat treatment diet (9% saturated fat, 15% polyunsaturated fat, 14% monounsaturated fat, 166 mg dietary cholesterol per day) on serum cholesterol levels and the incidence of myocardial infarctions, sudden deaths, and all-cause mortality”
“Findings: For the entire study population, no differences between the treatment and control groups were observed for cardiovascular events, cardiovascular deaths, or total mortality.

Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73)
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
“Objective: To examine the traditional diet-heart hypothesis through recovery and analysis of previously unpublished data from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment (MCE) and to put findings in the context of existing diet-heart randomized controlled trials through a systematic review and meta-analysis.”
“The MCE (1968-73) is a double blind randomized controlled trial designed to test whether replacement of saturated fat with vegetable oil rich in linoleic acid reduces coronary heart disease and death by lowering serum cholesterol.”

“Conclusions. Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.”



Use of dietary linoleic acid for secondary prevention of coronary heart disease and death: evaluation of recovered data from the Sydney Diet Heart Study and updated meta-analysis
http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707

“In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats.”

Dietary fats: a new look at old data challenges established wisdom
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1512

"The researchers' controversial analysis published in 2013 also found that replacing saturated fats in the men's diets lowered their cholesterol but they were more likely to die from a heart attack than those from the control group who ate more saturated fat.

If blood cholesterol values are not a reliable indicator of the risk of heart disease, "then a careful review of the evidence that underpins dietary recommendations is warranted", Dr Veerman said."

The questionable role of saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids in cardiovascular disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9635993
No significant differences in fat intake were noted in six case-control studies of CVD patients and CVD-free controls; and neither total or CHD mortality were lowered in a meta-analysis of nine controlled, randomized dietary trials with substantial reductions of dietary fats, in six trials combined with addition of PUFA. The harmful effect of dietary SFA and the protective effect of dietary PUFA on atherosclerosis and CVD are questioned.

Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus
CONCLUSIONS:
A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD

Dietary Cholesterol ( already posted these, still no comment )

Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26109578

"Dietary cholesterol did not statistically significantly change serum triglycerides or very-low-density lipoprotein concentrations."

And..

2016. Dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease: A systematic review and meta-analysis.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/279303939_Dietary_cholesterol_and_cardiovascular_disease_A_systematic_review_and_meta-analysis

Lower intake of dietary cholesterol has been recommended by some to optimize clinical outcomes or prevent incident CAD; however,there is a lack of longitudinal data (observational or trials) tosupport such a recommendation[/i]

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Sat Sep 17, 2016 11:38 am

Lol.

Hotspur wrote:Y'see, when I clearly outline why your citations are wrong, you'll run to another 3 subjects.

Congratulations on pasting large sections of Lierre Keith's Vegetarian Myth on this forum. Let's concentrate on the DGAC report and the influence of the Egg industry before moving on:



According to you the American Heart Association, FTC and Supreme Court are involved in a widespread, cross-generational conspiracy funded by the broccoli industry? Try to focus.

As we know the DGAC are currently being sued for using studies funded by industry to make their determinations. The DGAC report cited the following citations we can debate. And I'm happy to:

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23676423.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24222015

So before proceeding, please tell me you're happy to stand by these studies and won't run away to Ancel Keys -- Who I know well -- or the 1950's recommendations of the AHA?

Let's focus this debate so the board benefits.

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Sat Sep 17, 2016 8:46 pm

Hotspur wrote:Lol.
Congratulations on pasting large sections of Lierre Keith's Vegetarian Myth on this forum. Let's concentrate on the DGAC report and the influence of the Egg industry before moving on

How is one quote large sections of the book? More Delusion.

How about focus on the real subject of scientific evidence you still fail to address or provide.


According to you the American Heart Association, FTC and Supreme Court are involved in a widespread, cross-generational conspiracy funded by the broccoli industry? Try to focus.

Where did I mention that. Another delusional remark.

If you cared to read my post with an open mind, I was pointing out how it was those (who where vegetarian or anti-saturated fat) within roles of authoritative directly influenced USDA dietary guidelines to set dietary cholesterol restrictions with more bias then there was evidence in the first place.   

If you think their evidence was good enough during that time to first start restricted dietary cholesterol, like I said provide the preliminary research to support those guidelines.

As we know the DGAC are currently being sued for using studies funded by industry to make their determinations. The DGAC report cited the following citations we can debate. And I'm happy to:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23676423.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24222015
So before proceeding, please tell me you're happy to stand by these studies and won't run away to Ancel Keys -- Who I know well -- or the 1950's recommendations of the AHA?
Let's focus this debate so the board benefits.

I don't see how this helps anyone or even you for supporting evidence for the notion that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease.

You know how much that weighs compared to the other research conducted?

Please explain, why this issue with DGAC provides any objective evidence for you to support that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease.

You're dodging what matters again, and still ignoring the rest of the evidence independent of interest that points to dietary cholesterol and saturated fat having no effect on heart disease.

Their conclusions aren't based on just one of studies that are questioned for conflict of interest. And my personal conclusions aren't based on their authoritative opinon but my own supportive research and understanding of physiology.

If you disagree to take in account the rest of the relevant research within the available science to show no causation, then this would be a completely illogical debate. and you're wasting everyone's time.

It's clear why you're focused on this particular issue; so you can ignore objective findings based on the other majority of research, which obviously is important.

Since you have such an issue with that one study and the conclusion of the new guidelines then I'm happy to drop it has evidence and look at the other studies I provide. Which should of already been obvious to you. Why should we focus on a study with conflict of interest when we can focus on those which don't? Where's your reasoning in that? ( It's clear why )

So where's your evidence to prove consumption of dietary cholesterol contributes to heart attack? You still haven't posted a shred of evidence that supports that.

You haven't providing anything to besides condemning the one study and questioning the influence of DGAC while ignoring the rest of the scientific literature.

So what does that prove about dietary cholesterol linking to heart disease? And how does that give you an excuse to ignore other conclusions based on the objective research I've supplied?

Because It doesn't.

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Hotspur on Sat Sep 17, 2016 10:47 pm

Earlier I noted this wasn't a debate -- It's tuition. You cited Ravnskov, Minger and the DGAC report. When challenged to debate these points you pivot to other studies. It's laughable.

... Still ignoring the rest of the evidence independent of interest that points to dietary cholesterol and saturated fat having no effect on heart disease.

Given that Ravnskov is the founding father of cholesterol skepticism (and who's organization funded one of the erroneous studies you've cited) that would be an efficient place to start.

Do you still stand by the DGAC findings? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer will suffice.

Hotspur

Posts : 94
Join date : 2015-09-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  john3333 on Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:15 pm

Hotspur, I absolutely agree with you.
avatar
john3333

Posts : 180
Join date : 2016-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Sun Sep 18, 2016 12:45 pm

Hotspur wrote:Earlier I noted this wasn't a debate -- It's tuition. You cited Ravnskov, Minger and the DGAC report. When challenged to debate these points you pivot to other studies. It's laughable.

... Still ignoring the rest of the evidence independent of interest that points to dietary cholesterol and saturated fat having no effect on heart disease.

Given that Ravnskov is the founding father of cholesterol skepticism (and who's organization funded one of the erroneous studies you've cited) that would be an efficient place to start.

Do you still stand by the DGAC findings? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer will suffice.

You are ignoring all the studies done, and using ad-hominem.

"Ad hominem (Latin for "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is a logical fallacy in which an argument is rebutted by attacking the character, motive, or other attribute of the person making the argument, or persons associated with the argument, rather than attacking the substance of the argument itself."


So What are you're points against Ravnskov, Minger, and DGAC and how does that prove that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease?

You are also ignoring all the other research posted falsifying the-diet-heart-hypothesis.

I've mentioned many times to point out what you don't agree with and provide evidence.

What's laughable is you never have you posted any evidence that dietary cholesterol causes heart disease.

How many times have you said "let's start" and provided nothing after.

You are the one that is challenged with evidence, and have not supplied any.

"Ad hominem attacks can take the form of overtly attacking somebody, or more subtly casting doubt on their character or personal attributes as a way to discredit their argument. The result of an ad hom attack can be to undermine someone's case without actually having to engage with it."

Hotspur wrote:
Do you still stand by the DGAC findings? A simple 'Yes' or 'No' answer will suffice.

Yes, I stand by the conclusion that there is no evidence to prove dietary cholesterol causes heart disease.

If you disagree with that statement or the specific findings of that one study in question of conflict of interest, provide evidence why the findings are false.

DGAC being sued by vegetarians, doesn't provide any evidence of diet-lipid-heart hypothesis. Please explain how that would.

If you disagree provide evidence and why it would.

Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Organism on Sun Sep 18, 2016 1:09 pm

Since no-one is posting evidence. Might as well post some more.

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis: Stuck at the Starting Gate?

http://wholehealthsource.blogspot.ca/2009/07/diet-heart-hypothesis-stuck-at-starting.html#uds-search-results

"I'm not going to spend a lot of time on the theory in relation to dietary cholesterol because the evidence that typical dietary amounts cause heart disease in humans is weak.  Here's a graph from the Framingham Heart study (via the book Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease, by Dr. Harumi Okuyama et al.) to drive home the point. Eggs are the main source of cholesterol in the American diet. In this graph, the "low" group ate 0-2 eggs per week, the "medium" group ate 3-7, and the "high" group ate 7-14 eggs per week (click for larger image):"


"The distribution of blood cholesterol levels between the three groups was virtually identical. The study also found no association between egg consumption and heart attack risk. Dietary cholesterol does not have a large impact on serum cholesterol in the long term, perhaps because humans are adapted to eating cholesterol. Most people are able to adjust their own cholesterol metabolism to compensate when the amount in the diet increases. Rabbits don't have that feedback mechanism because their natural diet doesn't include cholesterol, so feeding them dietary cholesterol increases blood cholesterol and causes vascular pathology."


Organism

Posts : 97
Join date : 2014-03-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Official Vegan Thread

Post  Sponsored content


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum