LDL likely plays a role in causing atherosclerosis, with the majority of the damage coming from the oxidized form of LDL. There are at least two ways to increase the concentration of oxidized LDL (oxLDL) in the blood: 1) increase the total concentration of LDL while keeping the proportion of oxLDL the same; 2) increase the proportion of oxLDL. Dietary fats differ in their effects on these two factors, and the net outcome is also dependent on the species eating the fat and the overall dietary context.
The omega-6 polyunsaturated fat, linoleic acid (LA; found abundantly in industrial vegetable oils), may be a factor in the susceptibility of LDL to oxidation. LDL is rich in LA regardless of diet, yet the amount of LA in LDL still depends on diet to a certain degree. Thus, on the surface, one would expect a diet high in industrial vegetable oil to promote atherosclerosis. Unfortunately, it's not that simple, because LA also lowers the amount of LDL in the blood of a number of species, including humans.
The amount of atherosclerosis produced by feeding different fats depends both on how much LDL oxidation occurs and on how the fat affects the organism's blood lipid profile. For example, if corn oil lowers LDL by 3-fold relative to lard in a rabbit model, yet increases the proportion of oxLDL by 50%, the rabbit will probably develop more atherosclerosis eating lard than eating corn oil. This is because the total concentration of oxLDL is still higher in the lard group. On the other hand, if corn oil doesn't reduce LDL at all relative to lard in a rhesus monkey, yet the proportion of oxLDL increases by 50%, the corn oil group will probably develop more atherosclerosis, all else being equal.
Then there are other factors that influence atherosclerosis independently of oxLDL, such as the fat-soluble antioxidants, micronutrients and omega-6:3 ratio of the diets. It's also important to keep in mind that atherosclerosis is only one factor that influences the risk of having a heart attack.
In the last post, I argued that feeding excessive cholesterol to herbivorous or nearly herbivorous animals elevates plasma LDL greatly. In many species, saturated fat exacerbates the increase in LDL due to dietary cholesterol overload. However, in the absence of added cholesterol, several commonly used models of atherosclerosis do not show an increase in LDL upon saturated fat feeding. This is similar to the situation in humans.
Rabbits are one of the most commonly used models of diet-induced atherosclerosis. They are very sensitive to dietary cholesterol, due to the fact that their natural adult diet contains virtually none.
I recently found a great study from 1967 titled "Relative Failure of Saturated Fat in the Diet to Produce Atherosclerosis in the Rabbit" (free full text). Investigators fed rabbits cocoa butter, coconut oil and Crisco (hydrogenated cottonseed oil) at 45% of calories. They found that neither cocoa butter nor Crisco increased the rabbits' cholesterol (they didn't measure LDL directly but it typically increases in proportion to total cholesterol in rabbits), while coconut oil caused a transient increase that disappeared by 6 months on the diet. Cocoa butter caused slight atherosclerosis in some of the animals while none was detected in the coconut oil or Crisco groups.
Next, the investigators fed the rabbits cholesterol along with the fats. 0.25% cholesterol with corn oil or Crisco caused a massive (10-fold) increase in blood cholesterol, and produced atherosclerosis. They didn't pair the saturated fats with cholesterol, but the point is still clear: feeding dietary cholesterol, not saturated fat, to an herbivorous species, is the culprit.
However, subsequent studies in rabbits have shown that saturated fats can produce atherosclerosis without added cholesterol. How can this be? It turns out that it only works in the context of a highly refined "synthetic" or "semi-synthetic" diet (ref). So the dietary context plays an important role as well.
The ability of saturated fat to produce atherosclerosis in animal models requires it to cause a large enough increase in serum LDL that it overwhelms saturated fat's natural tendency to reduce LDL oxidation (relative to LA). This process is typically helped along by feeding huge amounts of cholesterol. In the absence of a large increase in LDL, atherosclerosis does not result, all else being equal.
Several studies in primates support this concept. van Jaarsveld and colleagues showed that feeding vervet monkeys 28% of calories from palm oil (SFA-MUFA), sunflower oil (PUFA) or lard (MUFA-SFA) resulted in similar LDL concentrations in the three groups. After more than two years, the palm oil group had the least atherosclerosis and the sunflower oil and lard groups were similar. It's notable that palm oil was the most saturated fat used in this study.
In another telling study by Mott and colleagues, baboons were fed diets containing 40% of calories from a predominantly saturated fat or a predominantly polyunsaturated fat. Each group was further subdivided into two groups: one receiving a small amount of cholesterol in the feed, and one receiving a large amount. Cholesterol feeding increased LDL and atherosclerosis, while the type of fat had a modest effect on LDL and no effect on atherosclerosis both at high and low cholesterol levels. I've noticed that baboons seem to throw a wrench in the gears of the mainstream conception of blood lipid metabolism.
Rudel and colleagues fed african green monkeys and cynomolgus monkeys lard (MUFA-SFA) or safflower oil (PUFA) for 40% of calories, with or without added cholesterol. Without cholesterol, both LDL and the degree of atherosclerosis were low in both monkeys fed both types of fat. Cholesterol feeding raised LDL in both species by 2-3 fold, and caused significant atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis was more severe in monkeys fed lard plus cholesterol than in monkeys fed safflower oil plus cholesterol, correlating with their considerably higher LDL.
In sum, the ability of a fat to contribute to atherosclerosis depends in part on its ability to increase oxLDL. One way to do this is to massively raise LDL. This can be accomplished by combining dietary cholesterol overload with saturated fat in certain susceptible species. Saturated fat, in the context of a somewhat normal diet, does not appear to raise LDL very much if at all in most species, in the long term. This includes humans.
Animal models of diet-induced atherosclerosis are useful for studying the disease, but they do not support the conclusion that humans should avoid foods containing natural amounts of cholesterol and saturated fat. "Saturated fats" such as lard, palm oil, beef tallow and coconut oil probably have little or no connection to atherosclerosis in humans, or in most species eating a somewhat natural diet.
42 comments:
Another interesting post. The importance of increasing Omega 3s (fish oil, flax and walnuts, and grassfed meats)and decreasing Omega 6s (vegetable oils and grain fed meat) is not emphasized in nutrition. Instead everyone would rather just take a pill to lower cholesterol. The studies you cite are interesting because they take into account how multifactorial nutrition can be. Thanks.
Hello Stephan -good to see you active again and congrats on your achievement.
If SFAs don't increase LDL how do you explain the results of the metabolic ward studies. It seems to me that these studies, where dietary intake is strickly controlled (subjects can't cheat or fool themselves) should carry alot of weight. These studies seem to consistently show that SFA will raise LDL more that PUFA will lower it. Don't concern yourself with the meta-analysis, but just the individual studies if you like.
You also say that lowered LDL via decreased SFA can't be maintained over longer time lines. But - Ornish published results of 30% -40% lowered LDL over a five year period. I'm no fan of the diet, but those are the results reported.
On Monkeys - Only the African Green Monkey is considered a good model for human modeling for a variety of reason. In this species you don't have to force a huge amount of Cholesterol down their throat to get CAD. When you fed them the same amount of SFA or PUFA with equal cholesterol, only the animals feed SFA get disease.
The amount of cholesterol would approximate a human paleo diet with 4-6 eggs a day.
Anecdotely, I've noticed a couple of posters have reported very high TC and LDL levels since starting on a high SFA paleo diet and I've seen this reported in other places so I'm not sure it doesn't happen.
Regards
Randy
Refs:
Effect of Dietary Fatty Acids on
Serum Lipids and Lipoproteins
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1386252
Dietary lipids and blood cholesterol: quantitative meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=2125600
Meta-Analyses of Plasma Lipoprotein
Responses to Changes in Dietary Fat and Cholesterol
Plasma lipid and lipoprotein responses to dietary fat and cholesterol: a meta-analysi
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/65/6/1747
Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Brown SE, Gould KL, Merritt TA, et al.
Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1998;280:
2001-7. [PMID: 9863851]
Esselstyn CB Jr. Updating a 12-year experience with arrest and reversal therapy for
coronary heart disease (an overdue requiem for palliative cardiology). Am J Cardiol.
1999;84:339-41, A8. [PMID: 10496449]
Ornish D, Scherwitz LW, Billings JH, Brown SE, Gould KL, Merritt TA, et al.
Intensive lifestyle changes for reversal of coronary heart disease. JAMA. 1998;280:
2001-7. [PMID: 9863851]
Compared with dietary monounsaturated and saturated fat, polyunsaturated fat protects African green monkeys from coronary artery atherosclerosis.
http://atvb.ahajournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/15/12/2101
I'm pretty sure that a LCHF paleo diet raises blood cholesterol. It happened to me and to a few people I know personally, but only after a few years of eating like that. Both TC and LDL rose sky high, my friend's and my TC was 8-9 mmol/l at its worst. After reducing the fat content of our diets (like not adding extra butter to food) it fell quite a bit but is still too high. Before going LCHF my cholesterol was too low!
Also Peter-Hyperlipid and Barry Groves have TC above 8 mmol/l.
Do you think this is not of concern?
The first step to getting your cholesterol under control is to have it tested. Once you know what your numbers are and mean, you can measure the success or failure of any cholesterol management program you follow.
In this controversy about saturated fats, I asked to Dr Barry Sears team about position of some members from Weston Price Foundation supporting a high fat animal diet. They have answered to me:
"Independent studies (see Zone validation at: http://drsears.com/WhatistheZone/tabid/380/Default.aspx) have shown the Zone diet to be superior in hormonal control, blood glucose control, blood lipid control, appetite suppression, fat loss, and most importantly the reduction of silent inflammation.By consuming lean proteins Dr. Sears states that the Zone will provide adequate cholesterol and fats. Interestingly, he recommends fats that are highly monounsaturated.The true test of any diet or PhD recommendation is your personal blood work. See attached.Consuming a diet rich in arachidonic acid and saturated fat can lead to insulin resistance, hyperinsulinemia and then diabetes. Let your blood work be you guide as to how much and which types of fats are best for you."
Hey Randy,
There is a common misconception about LDL-C measurements, frequent in fact among cardiologists and so called nutritionists who do research (like the ones you listed).
LDL-C is made up of Lp(a), IDL, small LDL and large LDL. Subfractionation via NMR, VAP or GGE is the only way to know what the LDL composition, quality and quantity are.
What do you think are good? Do you want a bag of tennis balls (nice, fluffly, anti-atherogenic, full of vitamins, antioxidants, carotenoids, etc) or a bag of dense golf balls?
Dense golf balls are known also as LDL-III and LDL-IV and these are HIGHLY associated with death, coronary risk, and cancer. Dense golf balls also rapidly become oxLDL and cannot fit into LDL-receptors for appropriate metabolism and utilization. Dense golf balls also penetrate and damage endothelium deeper and harder.
Paleo eating and lifestyles preserve the tennis balls and annihilate the golf balls... and lowers the Lp(a), IDL and all small LDL including the most toxic LDL-IVb fractions to ultimately reduce risks of strokes, heart attacks and to invoke regression of atherosclerosis.
-G
A question for saturated fats supporters:
I take everyday in almost every meal organic extra virgin olive oil (I live in Spain, its a national product so cheap and in every supermarket here). It has:
76% Monounsaturated fat (oleic acid)
12% Saturated fat (palmitic acid)
Would it be enough saturated fat?
Dr. B G - Thanks for weighing in.
I do respectfully disagree on the importance of LDL particles size vs number.
As I discussed previously, when confounders are properly accounted only LDL number remains significant. LDL size does not matter.
Here's some quotes and refs:
Nov. 11, 2004 (New Orleans) — The number, not the size, of low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol particles predicts heart disease risk, according to an analysis of blood samples from more than 3,200 participants in the Framingham Heart Offspring Study.
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/493610
-----
the MESA (Multiethnic Study of Atherosclerosis) study, Mora et al.[42] studied the association of LDL-P and particle size by NMR with carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) in over 5,000 apparently healthy individuals. When controlling for traditional CAD risk factors and LDL subclass correlation, both large and small LDL-P, but not LDL size, were significantly associated with carotid IMT.
The LDL-P appears to be a particularly strong predictor of CAD in women. In the prospective CHS (Cardiovascular Health Study),[37] NMR-determined LDL-P and small LDL particle size predicted incident CAD, primarily among elderly women. The LDL-P remained significant, even after adjustment for traditional risk factors, whereas LDL particle size did not."
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/563857_4
-----
Low-Density Lipoprotein Size and Cardiovascular
Disease: A Reappraisal
FRANK M. SACKS AND HANNIA CAMPOS
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/88/10/4525.pdf
"Multiple regression
analysis tested the effect of LDL size across the concentration
range of triglycerides, and the effect of triglycerides
across the range of LDL sizes.
If small LDL size is truly
related to CHD, then it will be so whether triglyceride is high
or low."
But its not.
--------------
Systematic review: association of low-density lipoprotein subfractions with cardiovascular outcomes
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19349632?dopt=Citation
Randy - Hasn't this been addressed in some detail? You continue to claim that LDL particle size is unrelated to outcomes when confounding factors are taken into account - yet you provide no justification for these confounding factors.
Surely you agree that any association can be made stronger or weaker with the inclusion or exclusion of other factors in the analysis? And that unless there's clear independant justification for these factors, it's meaningless to include them. As far as I can tell, you're repeating the same potentially flawed argument and refusing to respond to specific, reasonable counter-arguments. A waste of time, isn't it?
On a separate note, I've been wondering lately about total energy intake in the context of pre-industrial societies vs industrial societies and the association, if any, with healthy/unhealthy outcomes. Would love to hear Stephan's thoughts on this.
Hi Randy,
I don't think it's worth spending too much effort debating the short-term diet intervention studies. The long-term studies are more relevant and quite consistent with one another:
In MRFIT, diet groups differed by 27% in sat fat intake, TC was nearly identical at 6 years.
In the Lyon Trial, sat fat intake differed by 29%, LDL was nearly identical at 27 months.
In the WHI diet modification trial, sat fat intake differed by 23%, LDL differed by 3% at 3 years.
Diet trials of low-carb diets also support the idea that increasing total and saturated fat does not increase LDL in the long term on average. Here are two trials that supported that conclusion (12 and 24 months, respectively):
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/jn.108.099440v1
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/359/3/229
And the observational studies (reflecting lifetime dietary habits) are also quite clear that saturated fat intake has little to no relation to blood lipids in the long term. For example, in the Health Professionals follow-up study, at a relatively constant linoleic acid intake, there was no relationship between saturated fat or cholesterol intake and serum cholesterol. This was over a wide range of saturated fat intakes.
And of course, there are the Tokelauans, who eat 4X more saturated fat than Americans and have lower LDL.
I've read the study you referenced in African green monkeys. It used added cholesterol as well as different fats. As I described in my post, in some species, saturated fat exacerbates the effect of dietary cholesterol overload. But on a cholesterol-free diet, green monkeys do not develop atherosclerosis when fed saturated fat:
http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/62/2/463S
The other comment I have about the green monkey study you referenced is that they only found a significant effect on lumen stenosis because they had a major outlier individual in the saturated fat group that had 3X more atherosclerosis than any other monkey (see fig 5). If you throw out the outlier, atherosclerosis was actually very similar between the three groups. And by coronary artery intimal area there was no difference between groups.
I don't dispute the finding that Ornish's intervention reduces TC and LDL. But he uses a very low-fat, whole foods diet, plus exercise and meditation. I think the cholesterol reduction has nothing to do with saturated fat.
I know some people have seen their LDL go up on high-fat diets, but others have seen their LDL decrease. A number of commenters have posted blood lipid panels in the comments here showing reductions in TC and LDL on high-fat diets. You also have to keep in mind that the Friedewald equation becomes inaccurate at low trigs, and thus tends to overestimate LDL in low-carbers. It looks like your LDL is increasing when actually it's just a mathematical artifact. Of course, that wouldn't apply to people who see a very large increase, which I acknowledge does occur in some people.
In these studies, was the source of the cholesterol mentioned? In some research, powdered egg yolk, containing high amounts of oxidized cholesterol, was used. This would have a much different effect, I think, than unoxidized cholesterol.
usfoodtrends wrote:
Randy - Hasn't this been addressed in some detail? You continue to claim that LDL particle size is unrelated to outcomes when confounding factors are taken into account - yet you provide no justification for these confounding factors.
Response:
Respectfully, I disagree and encourage you to review the literature.
ALL the papers that have accounted for a Huge confounder show that particle number, not size, is the most important marker. That means that the large fully guys can cause problems, despite what many believe.
Here's the confounder:
It takes more small particles than large particles to fill a given level of LDL-C.
So small particle paricle cause more problems at a given LDL-C because it takes more of them than if they were larger particles.
When you just look at particle numbers and disregard LDL-C and ldl size, it makes little difference if the particles are large or small.
If you know of any evidence to the contrary, I'd be interested in seeing it as this is an important topic.
Regards
Randy
Ref
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19349632?dopt=Citation
Low-Density Lipoprotein Size and Cardiovascular
Disease: A Reappraisal
FRANK M. SACKS AND HANNIA CAMPOS
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/88/10/4525
Adolfo,
I haven't seen anything that would convince me that there is a minimum requirement for saturated fat in the diet. But I will say that getting a lot of monounsaturated fat with very little saturated fat is a bit unnatural.
Helen,
I've heard people suggest that the cholesterol in these feeding studies is oxidized, but I haven't seen the supporting evidence for that statement. It seems to me that you wouldn't have to invoke oxidized cholesterol to explain vascular damage when you're feeding a near-herbivorous animal unnatural amounts of cholesterol.
Hello Stephan,
Much thanks for the detailed response. You've brought up some good comments that I'd like to respond to.
You seem to say that, over the long term, humans will not respond to increased or decreased SFAs. LDL levels might go up or down initially but then equalize at some near your starting point. You point to a number of studies that are consistent with this view.
Here's my reasons for being skeptical:
1. This tendancy has never been recognized previously. As far as I know this "tendency" in humans has never been remarked on in the literature. The metabolic ward studies have never hinted a such an effect. I never heard it reported that SFA modulation lost its effectiveness after a period of time.(even the longer ones)
2. This tendancy is not seen in animals. The effect does not take place with the Green African Monkey after 5 years.
3. The studies you mentioned were all of the free living type so we really don't know what these folks ate.
This is simular the free living diet studies that often seem to favor a metabolic advantage of low carb diets. Once you lock folks up or do double labeled water studies,
you see it's only the calories that count.
4.
The Atkins study was for 5 years and semi ward type (?). We have a much better idea of what these guys were eating. They had large decreases that were mantained.
They also did mild aerobic exercises, meditation and yoga. At most these life style have only shown very mild if any effect on LDL.
5.
You'll have to look this up to confirm (I haven't), but I think the MN mental hospital showned that the group with the better P/S ratios maintained their levels. This is important because this was a long metabolic study
For now I think your suppostion needs more proof. As it stands now, it remains to be proven. I certaintly think it's very important if true.
Nevertheless, we know that it doesn't apply to all people. Take Chrissy for example.
My main point in all this stuff, is I think we need to more data about very high LDL numbers in the highest 20%. Some caution is reasonable at these levels.
Hello Chrissy,
I've provide a link to a scientific paper that argues that native Hunter/Gathers had (have) LDL levels from 50 - 70 and total freedom from CAD.
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/articles/JACC%20LDL%20Final.pdf
Also here's a link to alot more of the same.
http://www.thepaleodiet.com/published_research/
Regards
Randy
Hi Randy,
I wasn't the one who came up with the idea that saturated fat doesn't influence TC or LDL in the long term. I got the idea from Drs. Harumi Okuyama and Bill Lands in their book "Prevention of Coronary Heart Disease", edited by Dr. Artemis Simopoulos. I thought the idea was half-baked at first, but after looking into it was convinced.
Actually, Okuyama et al. state that the effects of linoleic acid on blood cholesterol are also transient, but I haven't found that to be the case in the controlled studies I've seen (at least out to a few years). It's not consistent with the Minnesota cornonary survey result (that you mentioned), the Finnish trial, or the VA trial, all of which greatly increased LA intake and saw sustained lowering of total cholesterol and/or LDL-C.
But in every case I'm aware of where linoleic acid didn't change much, long-term diet trials show that altering saturated fat intake has little to no effect on TC or LDL for the average person. I haven't found an exception yet. Of course, that doesn't mean that every individual will react the same.
The tendency for saturated fat to transiently affect lipids is seen in animals from time to time. In the paper "Relative Failure of Saturated Fat in the Diet to Produce Atherosclerosis in the Rabbit" that I referenced in my post above, coconut oil feeding caused a transient 6-month increase in total cholesterol in rabbits. I also think it's interesting that in the van Jaarsveld study referenced above, feeding green monkeys (called vervet monkeys in the study) palm oil resulted in similar LDL and less atherosclerosis than sunflower oil. Lard caused the same amount of atherosclerosis as safflower oil. Those diets did not contain any added cholesterol.
I'm a little bit worried when I see people with sky-high LDL as well. The associations between LDL and heart attacks were nearly all performed on people eating a standard Western diet. So I don't know how much it applies to someone with an atypical diet. Still, I do recognize the point you brought up that HGs had generally low TC and LDL. That makes me think it's our natural state. Yet most HGs eat a lot of animal foods and some eat plenty of animal fat...
I think the reasons behind high cholesterol are poorly understood. When we can point to populations that eat absurdly large amounts of saturated fat and have low TC and LDL, we have to accept at a minimum that there are other important factors. There has been so much focus on saturated fat that other mechanisms have been overlooked.
I'd really like to know what causes the characteristically high total cholesterol and LDL of Western societies. My current best theory is sub-clinical hypothyroidism. Not a deficiency of thyroid hormones in most cases, but a lowered response of the tissues to T3 and T4-- called "type II" hypothyroidism.
Hypothyroidism down-regulates LDL receptors, increases LDL and promotes atherosclerosis across species.
Anyone else have a theory to add?
I really have a hard time believing that myself and three of my friends who had the same response are special cases, when there is only one person I know who went on a similar diet and still had normal cholesterol after 3 years. I know this is only an uncontrolled experiment of 5 people but a study of 31 people on Jan Kwasniewski extremely high-fat diet says the same:
"In most dieters, concentrations of beta-hydroxybutyrate, free fatty acids, total cholesterol, and low-density lipoprotein cholesterol exceeded the upper limits of the reference ranges for nonstarved subjects."
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19083495
Many of these people were dieting for more than 3 years. Maybe it takes a few years for such effects to manifest. Maybe this really isn't dangerous in the context of a high-fat diet. I can not know but I switched to a more "normal" diet myself.
Stephan, I agree with you about the cause of high cholesterol being hypothyroidism. Cholesterol usually goes down with therapy. Also, Broda Barnes prevented heart disease in more than 90% of the patients he treated for hypothyroidism, which is telling.
Randy, thanks for the links... I am not sure to which extent we can still compare ourselves with HGs. As Weston Price would say, there was a lot of intercepted heredity meanwhile. This article talks about this: http://www.wesleyan.edu/bio/sultan/SES_Nature.pdf (I know we usually talk about the quality of nutrition declining, but some of my recent ancestors went through periods of starvation with hardly any animal foods available). It's hard to draw conclusions when things are so very complicated.
Stephan:
"I'd really like to know what causes the characteristically high total cholesterol and LDL of Western societies. My current best theory is sub-clinical hypothyroidism."
You could be right on track. Matt Stone wrote quite a bit about metabolism in context of LC-diets. There are some anecdotal reports about LC causing hypothyroidism. Even Atkins acknowledged hypothyroidism as a possible side effect of "his" diet. The anorexic effect of high fat eating could, over time, lower the caloric intake too much, which prompts the body to downregulate metabolic rate. I think that is an intersting topic that warrants further investigation.
Barry Sears PhD team told me Dr Barry Sears will give me his personal opinion about Mary G. Enig PhD work and recommendations about saturated fats.
I also saw Weston Price Foundation members criticize Loren Cordain and his paleo diet because of avoinding salt among other things. Just curious.
About fats, where I live in mediterranean culture we use monounsaturated fats as main fats most probably, we eat olive oil from breakfast to dinner, and nuts and almond are also part of our traditional diet. I feel the same in South Italy and Greece.
Chrissy,
Regarding your link (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19083495), the abstract goes on to say that the subjects had relatively low concentrations of TGs, high levels of HDL, and normal ratios of LDL/HDL (as well as TotalCholesterol/HDL). Only one subject demonstrated insulin resistance, and the final sentence is:
"These results indicate that long-term (>1 year) compliance with a low-CHO high-fat "optimal diet" does not induce deleterious metabolic effects and does not increase the risk for cardiovascular disease, as evidenced by maintenance of adequate glycemic control and relatively low values for conventional cardiovascular risk factors." (emphasis mine)
Granted, I don't have anything to go on other than the abstract, but how exactly is this study an indictment of an LC diet?
Chandler,
This was not meant as an indictment of the LC diet, I thought the subject of this post was if SF/cholesterol in the diet raises blood cholesterol.
However, I have to say that I didn't quit eating like this only because it raised my cholesterol levels but also because after a couple of years of this I ended up with various health problems. And this doesn't mean I'm avoiding SF now, mainly I'm just trying to eat more carbs... Just my two cents I guess!
Stephan,
As allways an interessting post!
I sometimes wonder if it is optimal to be on a very low carb diet all the time.
Could it be that the optimal way to eat would be to emulate the seasonal availability of different foods?
Ie VLC during the winter with mainly fat and protein and more carbs in forms of vegtables, fruit and berries, tubers etc in the summar?
Cheers
GoEd
Chrissy,
I suppose I found it odd that you juxtaposed that study with the comment that your rising cholesterol levels had been a factor in returning to a normal diet, especially considering the researchers themselves mentioned that the participants had low-risk CVD values (my not-so-rhetorical question is whether lower cholesterol levels are recommended for any purpose other than to reduce CVD risk?).
However, I do understand your rationale for switching--after all, it's one thing to witness someone else's TGs and cholesterol rise and safely speculate on whether "...this really isn't dangerous in the context of a high-fat diet"; it's another thing altogether to become the experiment yourself.
I have obtained Dr Barry Sears opinion about Weston Price Foundation position supporting saturated fats:
"Dr. Sears appreciates the links and offers (as you know) there are studies that counter the saturated fats and cholesterol studies.
He agrees that cholesterol is important, that high cholesterol and heart disease is a myth, and the importance of saturated fats. The key is moderation and how these fats contribute to inflammation.
As we have mentioned previously it’s one’s blood work that will provide the answers as to which diet and how much fat is best.
You may find these links to be of interest.
http://drsears.com/ZoneandChronicDisorders/HeartDisease/tabid/387/Default.aspx
http://drsears.com/portals/6/Documents/Inflammation%20Medical%20Brochure.pdf
http://drsears.com/tabId/399/itemId/12781/Fish-oil-not-statins-is-key.aspx
http://drsears.com/tabId/399/itemId/10317/Are-we-fighting-the-wrong-enemy-of-heart-disease.aspx search for Parts 2 & 3.
Sincerely
Ps. Dr. Sears cautions consuming more that 3-4 whole eggs per week. The arachidonic acid in the yolks provides the substrate for the pro-inflammatory eicisanoids"
Randy - I don't have studies that refute this, just a core question - as I understand the issue: given two people with identical LDL levels, the person with proportionally more large LDL particles will be better off in relative terms?
Stephen - what about the association of energy intake with LDL levels and makeup?
http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/reprint/85/3/977
Certainly there are issues in this study in terms of lack of detail re supplementation and exact diet - the claim is that the study diet was comparable to the pre-study diet, just lower in total energy.
Anecdotally, it certainly seems like people from traditional cultures put on significant weight when they live in industrialized societies. Of course, association is not causation, and weight/abdominal fat/BMI is a complex area.
That said, is it worth exploring whether excess energy intake alone results in higher LDL, and reduced energy intake results in lower LDL? Assuming a diet within the wide ranges we see in traditional societies.
I guess this begs the question - is it the high availability of fructuse and cheap industrial fats that leads to abdominal fat, that then leads to poor lipid profiles - or are fructose and cheap industrial fats direct causes of both?
Hi Chrissy,
These last two posts are primarily about the difference between types of fat, rather than amount of fat. The question I was addressing is whether fat saturation affects LDL/atherosclerosis in animal models.
I think there is definitely the potential for extremely high-fat Kwasniewski-style diets to raise LDL, but that may have nothing to do with the saturated fat. A number of animal models get high LDL on very high-fat diets regardless of the fats' saturation. You might see the same effect if you got 80% of your calories from olive oil.
The low-carb studies that showed LDL remaining the same when fat and saturated fat are increased were not as extreme as Kwasniewski's "Optimal diet". Dieters typically consumed 25-30% of calories from carbohydrate.
Hi GoEd,
That makes sense on a hypothetical level, but I haven't seen any data that directly support that style of eating at this point.
Adolfo,
Thanks for the information. I have not seen any data in humans that saturated fat contributes to inflammation. The data are all from rodents and cell culture. The few studies that have looked into it in humans have not found that saturated fat increases inflammation. But the methods used so far have been crude. I look forward to more detailed human studies so we can really settle the question.
The amount of arachidonic acid in eggs depends on how they were raised. Chickens fed flax have 1/2 the AA in their eggs as conventional chickens. Pastured chickens will also produce eggs with less AA. The effects of AA also depend on the overall dietary context, as EPA is a competitive inhibitor of AA metabolism. You also have to consider that eggs are one of the most nutritious foods commonly eaten, so there is more to the equation than simply PUFA balance.
I take every day a whole egg from flax fed chickens.
Probably one day I will have a clearer opinion about saturated fats (Dr Barry Sears position seems to be 'saturated are not bad and you can include some of them, but monounsaturated and omega3 are better at the end'), while I will go on taking cold-pressed organic olive oil, nuts, peanuts and avocados (these are my mediterranean fats, i am spanish), a little organic sesame oil (due to its antiinflamatory lignans which inhibits AAcid production) my daily Omega3EPA-DHA concentrate and will include organic coconut oil in breakfats (my new saturated fats source!).
I will be reading most probably a Mary Enigg book this autumn.
An interesting inflammatory sources picture:
http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2009/images/apr2009_responds_07b.jpg
usfoodtrends,
You raise an important question, what is the role of total caloric intake in blood lipids. I can't really answer that question, it's very hard to disentangle cause and effect here. But in the study you linked to, calorie restriction/weight loss didn't affect LDL over the course of 3 months.
I do think there are definitely some calorie-independent effects of diet quality. For example, excess fructose causes more visceral fat accumulation, unfavorable blood lipid changes and insulin resistance than glucose.
usfoodtrends Wrote:
Randy - I don't have studies that refute this, just a core question - as I understand the issue: given two people with identical LDL levels, the person with proportionally more large LDL particles will be better off in relative terms?
Reply:
Thanks for you comment as it clarifies the misunderstanding regarding LDL-C, LPL-P and LDL size.
LDL-C is the amount of cholesterol in all (both large and small).
LDL-P is the total number of LDL particles (both large and small)
Lets consider subject "Mr. Small" that has an LDL-C of 120 all small particles. Since the particles are small more of them are needed to account for an LDL-C of 120.
Mr. Big also has has an LDL-C of 120 of all big particles. It will take Less particles to account for an LDL-C of 120.
So you are correct, Mr. Small has a higher risks because he has More particles than Mr. Big even though they have the same LDL-C. Because Mr Small has more particle he's at higher risk.
Let's say Mr Big increases his LDC-C and therefore his LDL particle numbers higher than Mr Small. His risk will then be higher because he's now got more LDL particles, even though they are large.
Some believe that your LDL-C doesn't matter, as long as your particles are big. The empirical data says this is not so. Risk increases with LDL particle number irrespective of size.
Some folks here have very high levels of Big LDL particles. The data shows these higher numbers indicate higher risk. That's all I'm trying to say.
Regards
Randy
Hey Stephan,
A bit off topic, but I'm wondering what you think of this study:
http://jn.nutrition.org/cgi/content/abstract/130/8/2020
Someone sent it to me saying that it proved that phytic acid is actually good for us, and since our intestines produce phytase in response to phytic acid, fermenting grains (or otherwise preparing them in such a way so as to remove the phytic acid) is unnecessary. Not exactly sure how to respond to this and wondered if you had any thoughts.
David
David,
Glad you brought this up. It illustrates the problem with extrapolating rodent studies to humans haphazardly. Humans produce 30X less phytase than rats:
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1375699
In humans, phytase activity is so low it is not currently thought to contribute to breakdown of PA. PA clearly reduces mineral absorption in humans, it's been shown repeatedly in feeding trials.
I think it's telling that rats express enough phytase to degrade PA but humans don't. Dogs also don't break down PA.
Thanks for the quick reply, Stephan. Looks like my friend was quite ill-informed!
I think that was my first time commenting here, but I've been reading your posts for quite some time. I think I've learned more about nutrition from your blog than I did from my entire undergrad degree in natural health studies!
Thanks again,
David
Thanks Randy,
A clear and simple explanation.
In other words?
Oxidised LDL are a significant risk factor in vascular disease.
All LDL particles are subject to oxidation and so a risk factor.
Small LDL are more at risk of oxidation and so present a greater risk than large LDL.
Here's a forthcoming animal study to be published in Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences that might be of interest:
Vascular effects of a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet.
And here's a related press release:
Low-carb diets linked to atherosclerosis and impaired blood vessel growth
Randy,
"So you are correct, Mr. Small has a higher risks because he has More particles than Mr. Big even though they have the same LDL-C. Because Mr Small has more particle he's at higher risk."
very illuminating, thanks for the explanation.
I wonder if the above model takes tissue HUFA concentration into account. You mentioned previously that studies linking total LDL counts to CAD controlled for many confounders, but I would suspect that tissue HUFA wasn't controlled, that value doesn't seem to be on researchers radar.
It is important to note that certain drugs can elevate cholesterol levels. These include steroids, oral contraceptives, furosemide (Lasix) and other diuretics, and levodopa (L-dopa, sold under the brand names Dopar, Larodopar, and Sinemet), which is used to treat Parkinson’s disease. Beta-blockers, often prescribed to control high blood pressure, can cause unfavourable changes in the ratio of LDL to HDL in the blood. Cigarette smoke contains large quantities of free radicals, many known to oxidise LDL cholesterol, making them more likely to be deposited on the walls of the blood vessels. The effect of cigarette smoke may be due to the direct oxidation of lipids and proteins, and it may also have indirect effects, such as the depletion of various antioxidant defences, which then allow other cellular processes (inflammation, for example) to modify LDL. In addition, smoking increases levels of LDL, lowers levels of HDL and increases the blood’s tendency to form clots. Underactive Thyroid and stress also result in an overproduction of natural cholesterol, and obesity causes unfavourable changes in serum lipoprotein levels.
www.beatingcholesterol.com
"It seems to me that you wouldn't have to invoke oxidized cholesterol to explain vascular damage when you're feeding a near-herbivorous animal unnatural amounts of cholesterol."
What's with these researchers, they try to induce disease by feeding carb-eaters loads of fat, then they fail to see that the same thing is likely to happen when they feed fat-eaters (humans) toxic quantities of carbs. Sheesh!
Seriously, I've nearly finished reading your PhD course on nutrition (or so it seems!) on this blog and it mostly makes a whole lot more sense than the Conventional Wisdom. Your material ties in neatly and also crosses over with stuff from numerous other sources, and you present it excellently. IF the stuff constantly posted by the likes of Randy both here and elsewhere actually *worked* there would be no "epidemics" of carvdiovascular disease, Type 2 and obesity and they certainly wouldn't be getting worse.
Some papers relating lipid ratios to both LDL particle size and to insulin resistance - a useful connection since they are also related to cardiovascular risk
http://trinkwasser.wordpress.com/2009/08/28/lipid-ratios/
The papers I quote have further good stuff in their references.
Another factor is the lipoprotein a which Peter covers
http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2008/04/lipoproteina-and-genetics.html
also in further posts including one relating to ox-LDL
and AFAICR also William Davis has covered this: another factor which is obliquely connected to LDL levels and particle sizes and numbers
Post a Comment