Live data from Hacker News

New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

sciencenorway.no

71–80 of 148 posts

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#71
post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The science in this area is actually pretty low quality from a strict evidence-based medicine standpoint. It mostly consists of poorly controlled observational studies, which are only one step above the woo woo fad diets. We still don't have a solid theoretical framework for how all the pieces fit together.

We (and by we I mean the government) just need to bite the bullet and and pay for a multi billion dollar study where we pay tens of thousands of people to control* and monitor what they eat, exercise, etc for 20 years and just figure this out. None of this “well we had 20 grad students journal what they did for 6 months and this is the result” low quality studies. *Morally correct and ethically of course. I’m not say…

Unfortunately such a study still wouldn't produce valid results. The problem is that study subjects don't report accurate data. They lie because they're ashamed of their choices, or they forget, or they just don't know how to accurately count what they eat.

Consider a hypothetical study subject who goes to watch the game at his local bar, drinks 7 beers, eats a plate of hot wings, and then stops at Taco Bell for nachos on the way home. When he wakes up the next morning what do you suppose he'll enter on the form?

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#72
post #5

I am close with someone who has chronic high cholesterol, in addition to a 6-pack abs. She exercises 5x/week and eats .5kg of animal products/week at most, usually white meat. She just visited her heart Dr and was told that her cholesterol is too high and that she needs to cut out animal products entirely as a next step. I am thinking...is this really the modern answer to someone's high cholesterol if they consistent…

I'm in a similar situation (granted, I do eat meat 5-6 days a week). And I have no idea what to do about it except go vegan. I suppose there's a genetic component, as no man in my known family lineage has made it past 60.

Well, if the theory in the article is correct, then high cholesterol may not be a bad thing.

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#73

The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided. It seems more likely that the supposedly "heart healthy" seed oils are causing heart disease. The Carnivore Code has some very good insights (at least in my opinion) [1] And this talk on how seed oils are destroying our health is also pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM [1] https://www.amazon.com/Carnivore-Code-Unlocking-Re…

> The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided

From my personal sifting through research, it seems there's a lot of correlation with different diets which shows people with more health problems often have an animal based diet and people with less health problems often have a more pesceterian diet.

What is absolutely not clear is any of the cause/effect. It's also unknown of the nuances.

For example, what else correlates with those? It often is true that people with pesceterian diets are from specific isolated genetic lineages. It is also often true that when they're not, they tend to be individuals that pay much more attention to their overall health, making sure they don't eat too much, eat high quality produce (organic, wild caught, etc), exercise more, and often are more financially wealthy.

Personally I agree with you, but I also agree with the opposite:

> The idea that vegetables/fruits/nuts/seafood products are unhealthy seems to be misguided

Historically, we've always consumed all these things. Meat, seafood, vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, seeds, human lineage ate all of this for a very long time. Why would any of it be bad for us?

More recently as I've been thinking about this, I'm wondering if it's more related to our modern production of those things, and our changing consumption habits.

Take meat for example, the meat we eat today is very low quality. The animals are themselves unhealthy, fed garbage food, and have a lifestyle unlike their natural one. Can we compare the effect of eating unhealthy meat to healthy meat? We know grass fed beef has way more nutrition than non grass fed beef for example, so there's clearly major differences between eating one or the other.

Now take vegetables, we've not been hard pressing canola into an oil extract and consuming it in high quantity before. This is a modern change.

In fact, I don't even think canola is a plant we would have eaten the seeds off in the past.

So my current thoughts are that low grade produce and processed foods might have a lot more to do with it. And all of the "diets" no matter if you think they are a fad or which affinity you have will emphasize this point: Avoid processed foods and try to get the highest quality ingredients.

In the past, we'd probably eat an animal that had eaten canola itself and processed it for us, and we'd get the canola nutrients through eating the animal.

But also, we wouldn't be eating animal all the time at the quantities we do now. Because winter, and hunting is hard, and lack of preservatives. But also because once we became sedentary, meat was expensive and most people could afford very little of it.

And like I said when we did, it would be this very high quality meat. Very different from what we eat today.

We also wouldn't be consuming all these processed vegetables byproducts, like oils. Appart from those that were very easy to extract, like Olive oils. Everything else that requires modern industrialization to extract it was probably consumed in much less processed forms, such as eating the seeds themselves, or grinding a much smaller amount and getting much smaller amount of oil out of them.

Modernity has brought major changes in that all foods are now of a lower quality, and come in a much more processed form. It made a lot of foods more accessible which mean eating as much as we do is also a modern change. And it allowed us to modify the proportions of what we'd eat, like way more sugar and salt, way less veggies and fruits. In my opinion these are the more consistent factors. So from my readings, I currently conclude the best course of action for your average healthy person is to eat less food overall, eat unprocessed foods of the highest quality (organic, grass fed, wild caught, etc.), In mostly equal quantity of each kind (based on calories), like consume the same calories of meat, fish, veggies, fruits and grains.

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#74
post #73

The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided. It seems more likely that the supposedly "heart healthy" seed oils are causing heart disease. The Carnivore Code has some very good insights (at least in my opinion) [1] And this talk on how seed oils are destroying our health is also pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM [1] https://www.amazon.com/Carnivore-Code-Unlocking-Re…

> The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided From my personal sifting through research, it seems there's a lot of correlation with different diets which shows people with more health problems often have an animal based diet and people with less health problems often have a more pesceterian diet. What is absolutely not clear is any of the cause/effect. It's also unknown of the nuances. For examp…

> Historically, we've always consumed all these things. Meat, seafood, vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, seeds, human lineage ate all of this for a very long time. Why would any of it be bad for us?

Because evolution trends toward living long enough to reproduce. People often die of heart disease once they're old enough they weren't having kids (although exceptions certainly exist).

Evolution doesn't give a fuck if fruit suddenly becomes poisonous to you on the day you turn 65. Youve passed on your genes, your survival is now irrelevant.

So the things that will help us live a long time are not driven by evolution. "We've always eaten it" is a terrible argument because it should be followed by "but the average lifespan was like 40 up until a few decades ago".

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#75
post #23

PROBLEM #1: High saturated fat diet correlated to high serum cholesterol ANSWER #1: Serum cholesterol is transferred back-and-forth between the blood and cell membranes to maintain a constant cell rigidity; normal behavior PROBLEM #2: High serum cholesterol correlated to cardiovascular disease ANSWER #2: Chronic inflammation associated with metabolic disorders upsets the various regulatory systems I find the second a…

I think it is more: PROBLEM #2: high serum cholesterol is correlated to cardiovascular disease, but eating high saturated fat-diets is not . ANSWER #2: It appears that studies that assess the effect of a particular diet depends a lot upon the health of the individual prior to the study start; thus, using a random population results in non-significant results. Note that I agree with you otherwise. I would suspect that…

My key takeaway is that the ratio of saturated:unsaturated fat in the diet does control the concentration of serum cholesterol but any ratio between 1:0 and 0:1 (provided you get enough essential fats) is perfectly normal and does not impact health negatively either way. The function of serum cholesterol is maintaining cell rigidity throughout the body, not just in arteries. I have never heard this explanation before; it makes sense. This claim should be easy to verify experimentally.

The question then turns to the underlying cause of atherosclerosis. The arguments, to me, seem circular. Ultimately, the important question is how much of the plaque is due to a damaging agent like sugar and how much is due to a hyperactive inflammatory response. Measuring inflammation independent of arterial wall damage seems incomplete.

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#76
post #74
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided From my personal sifting through research, it seems there's a lot of correlation with different diets which shows people with more health problems often have an animal based diet and people with less health problems often have a more pesceterian diet. What is absolutely not clear is any of the cause/effect. It's also unknown of the nuances. For examp…

> Historically, we've always consumed all these things. Meat, seafood, vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, seeds, human lineage ate all of this for a very long time. Why would any of it be bad for us? Because evolution trends toward living long enough to reproduce. People often die of heart disease once they're old enough they weren't having kids (although exceptions certainly exist). Evolution doesn't give a fuck if f…

You're right, the evolutionary argument is just one dimension.

I don't think it's irrelevant, because logically we should have evolved to process what we eat so it doesn't kill us. But evolution could have settled on a compromise between availability to the food and some "good enough" health and lifespan like you say, live at least 40 years, healthy enough to have and raise offsprings.

It just seems a good starting point to start refining from.

I've alluded to other dimensions, like how it seems plant and seafood heavy diets correlate to longer healthier lifes and meat heavy ones don't. But I also wanted to point at the uncertainty exactly in those. We don't really have data of people on very good meat quality diets versus your typical large scale meat production. So it can be premeditated to just blame meat.

Similarly more modern forms of vegetable based byproducts also have studies showing correlation with inflammation and other issues. And again I think it be premeditated to just blame vegetables.

In the end, when I consider multiple dimensions that I've read about, the diet most consistently appearing "healthier" in the average is what I said. A varied source of nutritions from different foods, all of high quality, with no excess in any one of them over the others, with overall eating less of it all, with minimal processed food consumption. For which I was just showing that even the evolutionary dimension corroborates.

Another way to look at it, we don't know enough about any single food and their risk, so a diversified portfolio is the best strategy to mitigate the risks, similar to financial investments.

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#77
We have known for many decades that it is oxidized blood cholesterol that correlates with heart disease. Fred Kummerow showed this back in the '50s, 60+ years ago. But you can't get a blood test for oxidized cholesterol.

Fred Kummerow spent his whole working life getting trans fats out of the US food pipeline. He proved trans fat was poison in 1957, and finally in 2009, under compulsion of a lawsuit, the FDA declared it toxic. Then, they issued no regulations restricting their use until forced by another lawsuit, in 2014. Then, they gave vendors 3 more years to put poison in stuff being sold as if it were food. In 2018 it was supposed to be illegal to sell trans fats as food, but a number of companies still do, under waivers.

He died in 2017, at age 102. He spent the final two years of his life working on Parkinson's, which had taken his wife, since trans fats had (he thought) finally been outlawed. He was a great hero of experimentally-grounded health science.

https://www.drmirkin.com/histories-and-mysteries/fred-kummer...

India and Brazil are still struggling to get it outlawed. The big corporations have resisted because selling poison as if it were food remains profitable.

We are still confused about fats. But a takeaway should be that nobody has ever found any evidence of harm from eating saturated fat, or benefit from eating unsaturated fat, despite decades trying.

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#78
post #73

The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided. It seems more likely that the supposedly "heart healthy" seed oils are causing heart disease. The Carnivore Code has some very good insights (at least in my opinion) [1] And this talk on how seed oils are destroying our health is also pretty interesting: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM [1] https://www.amazon.com/Carnivore-Code-Unlocking-Re…

> The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided From my personal sifting through research, it seems there's a lot of correlation with different diets which shows people with more health problems often have an animal based diet and people with less health problems often have a more pesceterian diet. What is absolutely not clear is any of the cause/effect. It's also unknown of the nuances. For examp…

I think you're probably right.

> Historically, we've always consumed all these things. Meat, seafood, vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, seeds, human lineage ate all of this for a very long time. Why would any of it be bad for us?

In terms of fruit, it would have been seasonal, and it would have been good for us to put on weight when we got the chance. So some fruit is probably fine, but I suspect people eat too much of it.

There's also a theory that we only resorted to seeds if we couldn't get anything better. Which would explain some of the research that shows seed oils tell fat cells to stay "open" and keep growing. It was a signal that we were on hard times, and needed the extra energy stored.

For vegetables, I guess it comes down to "which ones". I guess the same would probably be true of fruits and nuts, too.

> And like I said when we did, it would be this very high quality meat. Very different from what we eat today.

And we would have eaten nose-to-tail, meaning we'd have eaten the liver, spleen, heart, etc.

> Modernity has brought major changes in that all foods are now of a lower quality, and come in a much more processed form.

Yeah, I think that's where our biggest problems are likely coming from. It looks a lot like the seed oils might be the worst offenders.

> So from my readings, I currently conclude the best course of action for your average healthy person is to eat less food overall, eat unprocessed foods of the highest quality (organic, grass fed, wild caught, etc.), In mostly equal quantity of each kind (based on calories), like consume the same calories of meat, fish, veggies, fruits and grains.

I'm not sure about equal quantities, but I'm also not sure what the right quantities are either. I'm not convinced we should be eating grains at all, and we should probably be careful about fruits. Maybe only eat them when they're in season? I dunno.

Fish is tricky, just because you have to be careful of mercury, even if they're wild caught. So I guess just try to find the types with the lowest mercury levels?

In terms of vegetables, it can also be tricky. Nearly all plants have some kind of toxins to protect themselves (they obviously can't run or fight back with teeth and claws). Our livers have mechanisms to deal with toxins, of course, but which ones we can handle and how much is not clear (to me). I guess it might be one of those cases where you have to experiment and figure out what seems to work for you, at least until we have better understandings of them.

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#79
post #74
post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The idea that animal products are unhealthy seems to be misguided From my personal sifting through research, it seems there's a lot of correlation with different diets which shows people with more health problems often have an animal based diet and people with less health problems often have a more pesceterian diet. What is absolutely not clear is any of the cause/effect. It's also unknown of the nuances. For examp…

> Historically, we've always consumed all these things. Meat, seafood, vegetables, fruits, nuts, grains, seeds, human lineage ate all of this for a very long time. Why would any of it be bad for us? Because evolution trends toward living long enough to reproduce. People often die of heart disease once they're old enough they weren't having kids (although exceptions certainly exist). Evolution doesn't give a fuck if f…

> Because evolution trends toward living long enough to reproduce.

I'm not sure it's that simple. Given that humans tended to live in tribes, it was in the tribe's best interest if people were healthy and vital beyond reproduction, for hunting, protection, care of young, passing on wisdom, etc.

> People often die of heart disease once they're old enough they weren't having kids (although exceptions certainly exist).

There are cultures where heart disease is nearly unheard of. So I don't think this explanation is very satisfying.

Re: New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

#80
post #57

This guy has been arguing for years that it is sugar (fructose actually) that increases the "bad" LDL in your blood stream https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM

Robert Lustig is right that fructose (half of common sugar) is responsible for a variety of ills: exactly the ones Americans die of, by the millions. There is a lot of Lustig material on youtube, all of it excellent, all thoroughly grounded in rigorous experimental science. We need more Robert Lustigs.

The normal metabolic route is that excess fructose, beyond what the liver can afford to process immediately or store itself, is carried wrapped in cholesterol to fat cells to be stored.

If you take statins, excess fructose gets dumped into your bloodstream not wrapped in cholesterol, which is much worse. It causes oxidation of blood lipids, which have long been known to cause heart and circulatory problems.

Post reply on HN