[ExI] Old Nutrition Studies

[Jason Resch]

On Wed, Aug 26, 2015 at 12:14 PM, James Clement <clementlawyer at gmail.com>
wrote:

> On Sun, Aug 23, 2015 at 8:46 PM, Jason Resch <jasonresch at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> My only contention with what you say below is that according to the
>> largest meta-study to date, it appears that saturated fats are harmless.
>>
>>
>>
> I'm a quantified selfer, and have spent the past few years extensively
> reading nutrition studies (Calorie Restriction, Fasting, Ketogenic,
> Vegetarian/Vegan, Paleolithic, etc.), as well as most of the popular health
> books including Taubes, Sears, Cordain, Campbell, Wolf, Mosley, Perlmutter,
> Sinatra, Volek & Phinney, Lustig, McDougal, and McDonald . From 2013 to
> 2014 I read over 2,500 papers. One thing that I noticed is that every data
> set has outliers and while many variables are statistically significant for
> particular biomarkers, there are always huge numbers of outliers.
>
> In my own case, I've had my whole genome
> <https://my.pgp-hms.org/profile/hu82E689> sequenced since 2009 and
> myself, sister, parents, and other relatives 23andMe'd since 2010, and we
> all have a genetic propensity towards Type II Diabetes. For the past
> several years I've been taking my blood sugar measurements many times a day
> (fasting, and immediately before and after meals) with a goal of achieving
> early morning fasting blood sugar readings of 70 - 85 mg/dL and post-meal
> spikes of no more than 120 mg/dL. I've been repeatedly surprised how small
> amounts of carbohydrates on one day can raise my blood sugar the next
> morning and throw it off for as much as 24 hours (e.g., goodbye my nightly
> microbrewed beer). I also take my cholesterol measurements once a week (as
> soon as I wake up, fasted) using CardioChek
> <http://www.amazon.com/Cardio-Starter-Cholesterol-Analyzer-cholesterol/dp/B00408NZRS/ref=sr_1_3?ie=UTF8&qid=1440609156&sr=8-3&keywords=cardiochek>,
> which can measure Total Cholesterol, HDL, and Triglycerides. My father (age
> 81) has super low LDL and high HDL, is thin, but has had two bypass
> operations in his life. My mother has had high LDL and low HDL all of her
> life (Total Chol over 300) and has no heart problems at 82 years of age.
> Saturated fats (in my case coconut oil and high saturated-fat nuts) cause a
> very significant increase in LDL cholesterol (measured by subtracting HDL
> from Total Choles). I've proven this over and over to myself, by varying
> only the saturated fat I'm eating and seeing what happens.
>
> I personally think that LDL Particle Size
> <http://mainheartclinic.com/2011/05/cholesterol-particle-size/>,
> C-Reactive Protein, Homocysteine, Triglycerides, and blood sugar are far
> bigger risk factors for coronary disease than total cholesterol. LDL
> particle size may end up being the most important as having a LDL Type A
> profile (large, fluffy particles) put one at much less risk for CVD than
> does Type B profile (small, dense particles). Other than blood sugar (which
> is part of the general CBC), however, none of these tests are generally
> requested by doctors, even for people who have heart trouble, despite their
> relevance to CVD risk. LEF and LabCorp both sell such tests DTC, however.
>
> The upshot is that I don't think a single rule, such as "saturated fats
> are bad" or "eating low carbs is good" (or their reverse) can apply to
> everyone, when for any genetic risk there are usually 1/3 to 2/3 of humans
> who have different variants from those of the favorable-risk group. I think
> that people who want to really control their health need to read as much as
> they can about the latest health information (from scientists or those
> summarizing scientific work) and then test themselves rigorously and
> frequently. In this regard, I think Mark Cuban
> <http://www.emrandhipaa.com/emr-and-hipaa/2015/04/24/mark-cubans-suggestion-to-do-regular-blood-tests/>
> was completely correct.
>
>
James,

Well said. I think it is a travesty that doctors are so eager to prescribe
cholesterol lowering drugs based on only a total cholesterol drug test,
when a slightly more expensive test (one time cost) might show there is no
risk given one's lipid profile.  I have also reached the conclusion that
total LDL is a mostly meaningless number and that number of particles is
what one should pay attention to. Failing that, given a standard test that
provides only HDL, Trigylcerides, and LDL, ignore LDL and consider only the
HDL/Triglycerides ratio. It should be greater than 1/2.

Statins have a large list of side effects, and it is terrible to think how
many people might be on these when they don't need to be.

This cardiologist outlines the problem well:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wgpl0zOg2ZY

Jason
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150826/46743b60/attachment.html>