125 replies to this topic

[hivemind]

People get atherosclerosis because they have high LDL.

http://www.jaoa.org/..._suppl_3/i.full

In a recent editorial, William Roberts, MD, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, succinctly summarized this complex issue into a simple phrase: “It's the cholesterol, stupid!”

People get sick and diabetic from overeating, but atherosclerosis is about LDL-particles.

[Hebbeh]

Now this is before cooking...and we see that some % of fat will melt and drip off during cooking as witnessed by the sizzling and grease fire flare ups....than can get out of hand if not watching...so how much fat in the cooked burger? .....certainly less than 36%......I'm guessing the final cooked product is more like 75% protein and 25% fat by calories at the most...and more than likely even less....and this is with fatty 80/20 grind.

I personally don't eat much red meat anymore (not that I believe it isn't perfectly healthy in moderation) but who buys 80% anymore? I always buy at least 90% if not 93% lean for the occasional burger....and a good steak is leaner yet. So good quality grass fed beef is in reality down around 10-15% fat by calories on the dinner plate.

Nutrient data for 23563, Beef, ground, 90% lean meat / 10% fat, patty, cooked, broiled
(USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 24)
http://ndb.nal.usda....6?qlookup=23563

By energy:
Protein = 51%
Fat = 49%

You better look again. That isn't what it says. You are confused and misread the chart. It doesn't even list % energy by either protein or fat. It lists TOTAL energy per 100g then per 85 gram serving then 82 gram cooked serving. The breakdown by protein and fat is in grams, not energy or calories. They expect you to be able to do the math. My numbers stand and are backed up by your source if you can read the chart and do the math.

[hivemind]

That is what Joe couch potato has to live up to. It's the excess calories and lack of exercise. That should be obvious. Take this self made sick person and put him on a reduced calorie diet...any reduced calorie diet...and low and behold....they will lose weight and all their health markers will improve. No surprise there. Of course Dr Esselestyn's fat patients lose weight and get healthier in the process on his diet....they would do the same on any interventional diet....no surprises there. Thousands of fat sick people have gone on (insert favorite fad) diet and lost weight and health markers improved. And they will live a long and healthy life as long as they stick to any kind of healthy diet and don't revert back to their old couch potato ways of stuffing their pie holes with junk.

It's the calories (insert favorite word). And if his patients had added exercise...the results would be even better no matter what.

There is nothing magical about a high carb starchy diet to supposedly "cure" atherosclerosis.....any reduced calorie diet will accomplish the exact same thing....it's the reduction in calories and the loss of body fat that improves health markers.

Exercise is not really necessary for avoiding atherosclerosis if the diet is strict enough. It's not just about calories. The source of calories matter. Saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol.

If you have high LDL you are going to get atherosclerosis no matter how hard you exercise.

[Hebbeh]

People get atherosclerosis because they have high LDL.

http://www.jaoa.org/..._suppl_3/i.full

In a recent editorial, William Roberts, MD, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, succinctly summarized this complex issue into a simple phrase: “It's the cholesterol, stupid!”

People get sick and diabetic from overeating, but atherosclerosis is about LDL-particles.

Calorie balance will have a greater effect on cholesterol than anything else. Chronically over eat and get fatter and fatter and LDL will increase. Go on a reduced calorie diet and lose the body fat and LDL will plummet. Calorie balance has a huge effect on LDL in the long haul. Anybody that goes on any kind of reduced calorie diet...any diet...will lose weight...and their LDL markers will decrease...I guarantee it. Being obese yields atherosclerosis IN ADDITION TO diabetes. Diabetes is a risk factor for heart disease. But the root cause is an unhealthy lifestyle driven by excess calories and obesity. Eat 10,000 calories of potatoes each day and I promise you will become obese and develop atherosclerosis. It's the excess calories that are causing the sickness. The excess calories cause obesity and in turn: high LDL, diabetes, and atherosclerosis.

[Brett Black]

You better look again. That isn't what it says. You are confused and misread the chart. It doesn't even list % energy by either protein or fat. It lists TOTAL energy per 100g then per 85 gram serving then 82 gram cooked serving. The breakdown by protein and fat is in grams, not energy or calories. They expect you to be able to do the math. My numbers stand and are backed up by your source if you can read the chart and do the math.

You're right that the USDA link I gave shows fat and protein content in grams(weight). All I did was simply(and courteously) convert that to percentage of total energy - since that was the main metric being used in the discussion.

Here it is in terms of weight:

Nutrient data for 23563, Beef, ground, 90% lean meat / 10% fat, patty, cooked, broiled
(USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 24)
http://ndb.nal.usda....6?qlookup=23563

[By weight per 100g]
Protein = 26.11g
Fat = 11.73g
Carbohydrates = 0.0g


If you convert those weights to percent of total energy you'll find, as I previously reported, that fat constitutes 49% of total energy/calories. This figure does not back up your numbers.

Edited by Brett Black, 13 September 2012 - 02:25 AM.

[Hebbeh]

That is what Joe couch potato has to live up to. It's the excess calories and lack of exercise. That should be obvious. Take this self made sick person and put him on a reduced calorie diet...any reduced calorie diet...and low and behold....they will lose weight and all their health markers will improve. No surprise there. Of course Dr Esselestyn's fat patients lose weight and get healthier in the process on his diet....they would do the same on any interventional diet....no surprises there. Thousands of fat sick people have gone on (insert favorite fad) diet and lost weight and health markers improved. And they will live a long and healthy life as long as they stick to any kind of healthy diet and don't revert back to their old couch potato ways of stuffing their pie holes with junk.

It's the calories (insert favorite word). And if his patients had added exercise...the results would be even better no matter what.

There is nothing magical about a high carb starchy diet to supposedly "cure" atherosclerosis.....any reduced calorie diet will accomplish the exact same thing....it's the reduction in calories and the loss of body fat that improves health markers.

Exercise is not really necessary for avoiding atherosclerosis if the diet is strict enough. It's not just about calories. The source of calories matter. Saturated fat raises LDL cholesterol.

If you have high LDL you are going to get atherosclerosis no matter how hard you exercise.

Not true. A sign of over training (too much chronic exercise) is low cholesterol. You exercise hard enough and it can become a problem in athletes. They have to watch this because when cholesterol drops too low from too much training (over training), hormones also drop and they have trouble recovering and risk injury for those reasons. And you don't need to be an athlete....it can happen to anybody who gets obsessed with training. I've seen it happen and I've experienced it.

And no, exercise is not necessary if dropping calories low enough...thus the CR crowd. But it comes back to calories again. And you can be assured the CR crowd has low cholesterol know matter the source of their limited calories.

But even if eating only potatoes...and you eat potatoes in caloric excess...you will begin gaining fat and your cholesterol marker will go up....cut back on the potatoes and starting losing fat..and cholesterol markers will decrease...I guarantee it.

Personally, I believe the old saying "everything in moderation" for a reason. Eat a balanced healthy diet which includes all food groups (not extreme in either direction) and get a healthy amount of anaerobic and aerobic exercise for the greatest health span....which is way more valuable to me than just simple longevity. I'd rather live a very healthy 95 years than a feeble 100 years.

[Hebbeh]

You better look again. That isn't what it says. You are confused and misread the chart. It doesn't even list % energy by either protein or fat. It lists TOTAL energy per 100g then per 85 gram serving then 82 gram cooked serving. The breakdown by protein and fat is in grams, not energy or calories. They expect you to be able to do the math. My numbers stand and are backed up by your source if you can read the chart and do the math.

You're right that the USDA link I gave shows fat and protein content in grams(weight). All I did was simply(and courteously) convert that to percentage of total energy - since that was the main metric being used in the discussion.

Here it is in terms of weight:

Nutrient data for 23563, Beef, ground, 90% lean meat / 10% fat, patty, cooked, broiled
(USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 24)
http://ndb.nal.usda....6?qlookup=23563

[By weight per 100g]
Protein = 26.11g
Fat = 11.73g
Carbohydrates = 0.0g


If you convert those weights to percent of total energy you'll find, as I previously reported, that fat constitutes 49% of total energy/calories. This figure does not back up your numbers.

My apologies. You are correct and I was mistaken. I should have looked closer. Who would have realized that you are paying for 61% water? So when buying 100 grams of 80/20 burger, you get 61 grams water, 26 grams protein, and 11.7 grams fat. I failed to take the water content into consideration and would never have guessed it contained 61% water. I mistakenly assumed that if purchasing 80/20 that I would in fact get 80% protein and 20% fat rather than the actual 26/11.7 ratio of protein to fat. This would seem to reek of false marketing. I flunked. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I certainly learned a lesson here...in more ways than one. I guess I'll eat even less red meat now.

[hivemind]

People get atherosclerosis because they have high LDL.

http://www.jaoa.org/..._suppl_3/i.full

In a recent editorial, William Roberts, MD, editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, succinctly summarized this complex issue into a simple phrase: “It's the cholesterol, stupid!”

People get sick and diabetic from overeating, but atherosclerosis is about LDL-particles.

Calorie balance will have a greater effect on cholesterol than anything else. Chronically over eat and get fatter and fatter and LDL will increase. Go on a reduced calorie diet and lose the body fat and LDL will plummet. Calorie balance has a huge effect on LDL in the long haul. Anybody that goes on any kind of reduced calorie diet...any diet...will lose weight...and their LDL markers will decrease...I guarantee it. Being obese yields atherosclerosis IN ADDITION TO diabetes. Diabetes is a risk factor for heart disease. But the root cause is an unhealthy lifestyle driven by excess calories and obesity. Eat 10,000 calories of potatoes each day and I promise you will become obese and develop atherosclerosis. It's the excess calories that are causing the sickness. The excess calories cause obesity and in turn: high LDL, diabetes, and atherosclerosis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20351774

These findings provide evidence that consuming PUFA in place of SFA reduces CHD events in RCTs.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/21735388

This updated review suggested that reducing saturated fat by reducing and/or modifying dietary fat reduced the risk of cardiovascular events by 14%

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11122711

substitution of nut fat for saturated fat was associated with 45% reduction in risk.

Edited by hivemind, 13 September 2012 - 02:59 AM.

[niner]

Now this is before cooking...and we see that some % of fat will melt and drip off during cooking as witnessed by the sizzling and grease fire flare ups....than can get out of hand if not watching...so how much fat in the cooked burger? .....certainly less than 36%......I'm guessing the final cooked product is more like 75% protein and 25% fat by calories at the most...and more than likely even less....and this is with fatty 80/20 grind.

I personally don't eat much red meat anymore (not that I believe it isn't perfectly healthy in moderation) but who buys 80% anymore? I always buy at least 90% if not 93% lean for the occasional burger....and a good steak is leaner yet. So good quality grass fed beef is in reality down around 10-15% fat by calories on the dinner plate.

Nutrient data for 23563, Beef, ground, 90% lean meat / 10% fat, patty, cooked, broiled
(USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 24)
http://ndb.nal.usda....6?qlookup=23563

By energy:
Protein = 51%
Fat = 49%

This doesn't consider the water content of the patty. By weight, using the same USDA data, the cooked burger is 11.73% fat. The canonical 4 oz patty, after cooking, weighs a meager 82 grams. When considered in isolation, this surprisingly carbohydrate-free (what, no glycoproteins?) food has a macronutrient ratio that looks like a hyperlipider's dream. But we're forgetting the bun, and the lettuce and tomato and everything else on the plate. Meat can certainly be part of a healthy diet- Today, the sum total of animal-source products in my diet was a few ounces of meat, a sprinkle of feta cheese on my salad, and half and half in my coffee. If you looked at the half and half in isolation, why, heavens! It would be a perfectly atrocious macronutrient ratio. So what?

[Brett Black]

Niner, it looks like you're addressing this to me, so:

Now this is before cooking...and we see that some % of fat will melt and drip off during cooking as witnessed by the sizzling and grease fire flare ups....than can get out of hand if not watching...so how much fat in the cooked burger? .....certainly less than 36%......I'm guessing the final cooked product is more like 75% protein and 25% fat by calories at the most...and more than likely even less....and this is with fatty 80/20 grind.

I personally don't eat much red meat anymore (not that I believe it isn't perfectly healthy in moderation) but who buys 80% anymore? I always buy at least 90% if not 93% lean for the occasional burger....and a good steak is leaner yet. So good quality grass fed beef is in reality down around 10-15% fat by calories on the dinner plate.

Nutrient data for 23563, Beef, ground, 90% lean meat / 10% fat, patty, cooked, broiled
(USDA National Nutrient Database for Standard Reference Release 24)
http://ndb.nal.usda....6?qlookup=23563

By energy:
Protein = 51%
Fat = 49%

This doesn't consider the water content of the patty.

Yes it does. Water is considered to have no energy/calories.

By weight, using the same USDA data, the cooked burger is 11.73% fat. The canonical 4 oz patty, after cooking, weighs a meager 82 grams. When considered in isolation, this surprisingly carbohydrate-free (what, no glycoproteins?) food has a macronutrient ratio that looks like a hyperlipider's dream. But we're forgetting the bun, and the lettuce and tomato and everything else on the plate.

I was quite intentionally examining the meat in isolation; that's what the comments I was replying to were about.

Meat can certainly be part of a healthy diet- Today, the sum total of animal-source products in my diet was a few ounces of meat, a sprinkle of feta cheese on my salad, and half and half in my coffee. If you looked at the half and half in isolation, why, heavens! It would be a perfectly atrocious macronutrient ratio. So what?

I wasn't arguing that anything had an "atrocious macronutrient ratio."

[Brett Black]

My apologies. You are correct and I was mistaken. I should have looked closer. Who would have realized that you are paying for 61% water? So when buying 100 grams of 80/20 burger, you get 61 grams water, 26 grams protein, and 11.7 grams fat. I failed to take the water content into consideration and would never have guessed it contained 61% water. I mistakenly assumed that if purchasing 80/20 that I would in fact get 80% protein and 20% fat rather than the actual 26/11.7 ratio of protein to fat. This would seem to reek of false marketing. I flunked. Thanks for pointing that out to me. I certainly learned a lesson here...in more ways than one. I guess I'll eat even less red meat now.

Cool. I'm impressed by your candidness in recognizing error and your willingness to learn from it.

I'm not sure it should be characterized as "false marketing." Reporting macronutrient weights in relation to total food weight would be in line with basic nutrient labelling regulations in many/most countries....for instance. Also I'm not sure that the conclusion should be to eat less red meat.

Edited by Brett Black, 15 September 2012 - 02:51 AM.

[misterE]

I'm not sure it should be characterized as "false marketing."

Technically it’s not false marketing, but it is very misleading. The marketers lead people to believe that 80-20 ground beef is 20% fat. They buy the product on the belief it's low fat… when in reality it’s 70% fat.

Also I'm not sure that the conclusion should be to eat less red meat.

In terms of longevity, red-meat (and meat in general) would be a bad choice (for numerous reasons). Protein-restriction seems to be the ultimate way of slowing the aging process. And dietary-fat restriction is the easiest way to implement calorie-restriction, without restricting the volume or amount of food you eat. Red-meat is high in protein, and high in fat and cholesterol. It also lacks substances that promote longevity, like dietary-fiber and phytonutrients.

Edited by misterE, 15 September 2012 - 05:52 AM.

[niner]

By energy:
Protein = 51%
Fat = 49%

This doesn't consider the water content of the patty.

Yes it does. Water is considered to have no energy/calories.

Well, sure, but what I mean is that the average person thinks in terms of weight, not calories, and the water is a large part of the weight. Anyone can pick up a piece of food, note the heft of it, and have an intuitive understanding of the quantity of fat they're eating. If you were trying to count the grams of fat on your plate, you couldn't do it given the energy ratios of the isolated foods without knowing the water content of each. Vegans like to talk energy ratios because it makes meat look worse, but I think that energy ratios of isolated foods are useless and misleading. What we need to know is the energy ratio of our entire diet, and that can only be computed if we know the total weight of each macronutrient.

I was quite intentionally examining the meat in isolation; that's what the comments I was replying to were about.

I wasn't arguing that anything had an "atrocious macronutrient ratio."

I know. Most of what I'm saying isn't directed at you, but rather to the Vegan Evangelists. They want to speak about energy ratios because meat winds up looking like it has an atrocious macronutrient ratio, however misleading that may be.

[niner]

Technically it’s not false marketing, but it is very misleading. The marketers lead people to believe that 80-20 ground beef is 20% fat. They buy the product on the belief it's low fat… when in reality it’s 70% fat.

That's only the case if the human brain has a built in desiccator and bomb calorimeter. But it doesn't. We have an intuitive understanding of weight, and everyone understands that 20% of 100 grams is 20 grams, so they know what they're getting, and are not being misled. Actually, you are the one who is being misleading, because the energy ratios that you favor make meat look worse than it is.

In terms of longevity, red-meat (and meat in general) would be a bad choice (for numerous reasons). Protein-restriction seems to be the ultimate way of slowing the aging process. And dietary-fat restriction is the easiest way to implement calorie-restriction, without restricting the volume or amount of food you eat. Red-meat is high in protein, and high in fat and cholesterol. It also lacks substances that promote longevity, like dietary-fiber and phytonutrients.

Yeah yeah, if you make meat your only food. If you're only eating a few ounces a day as part of a healthy omnivorous diet, it's fine. It contains carninutrients that are hard to get from plants, and it doesn't contain phytoestrogens and anti-nutrients.

Superfluous-hyphens are superfluous.

[TheFountain]

What does everyone think of the whopping dose of Arachidonic acid most meat eaters are getting and how that plays into overall health outcome?

[misterE]

What does everyone think of the whopping dose of Arachidonic acid most meat eaters are getting and how that plays into overall health outcome?

It’s obviously a negative effect. Chronic meat eating is probably one of the worst things you can do in terms of longevity. And there is plenty of research that supports that claim. Not to mention that meat eating is very damaging to the environment.

Edited by misterE, 21 September 2012 - 03:05 AM.

[Application]

....In terms of longevity, red-meat (and meat in general) would be a bad choice (for numerous reasons). Protein-restriction seems to be the ultimate way of slowing the aging process. And dietary-fat restriction is the easiest way to implement calorie-restriction, without restricting the volume or amount of food you eat. Red-meat is high in protein, and high in fat and cholesterol. It also lacks substances that promote longevity, like dietary-fiber and phytonutrients.

Yeah yeah, if you make meat your only food. If you're only eating a few ounces a day as part of a healthy omnivorous diet, it's fine. It contains carninutrients that are hard to get from plants, and it doesn't contain phytoestrogens and anti-nutrients.

Superfluous-hyphens are superfluous.

Ok its clear you enjoy your meat, so that imposes certain biases.

But what carninutrients (is that a word?) do you think makes the poor macronutrient ratios, negative environmental effects and increased risk of heart disease and cancer worth it?

Edited by Application, 21 September 2012 - 05:31 AM.

[Hebbeh]

Ok its clear you enjoy your meat, so that imposes certain biases.

But what carninutrients (is that a word?) do you think makes the poor macronutrient ratios, negative environmental effects and increased risk of heart disease and cancer worth it?

Nutrient in Eggs and Meat May Influence Gene Expression from Infancy to Adulthood


ScienceDaily (Sep. 20, 2012) — Just as women are advised to get plenty of folic acid around the time of conception and throughout early pregnancy, new research suggests another very similar nutrient may one day deserve a spot on the obstetrician's list of recommendations.

Consuming greater amounts of choline -- a nutrient found in eggs and meat -- during pregnancy may lower an infant's vulnerability to stress-related illnesses, such as mental health disturbances, and chronic conditions, like hypertension, later in life.
In an early study in The FASEB Journal, nutrition scientists and obstetricians at Cornell University and the University of Rochester Medical Center found that higher-than-normal amounts of choline in the diet during pregnancy changed epigenetic markers -- modifications on our DNA that tell our genes to switch on or off, to go gangbusters or keep a low profile -- in the fetus. While epigenetic markers don't change our genes, they make a permanent imprint by dictating their fate: If a gene is not expressed -- turned on -- it's as if it didn't exist.
The finding became particularly exciting when researchers discovered that the affected markers were those that regulated the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal or HPA axis, which controls virtually all hormone activity in the body, including the production of the hormone cortisol that reflects our response to stress and regulates our metabolism, among other things.
More choline in the mother's diet led to a more stable HPA axis and consequently less cortisol in the fetus. As with many aspects of our health, stability is a very good thing: Past research has shown that early exposure to high levels of cortisol, often a result of a mother's anxiety or depression, can increase a baby's lifelong risk of stress-related and metabolic disorders.
"The study is important because it shows that a relatively simple nutrient can have significant effects in prenatal life, and that these effects likely continue to have a long-lasting influence on adult life," said Eva K. Pressman, M.D., study author and director of the high-risk pregnancy program at the University of Rochester Medical Center. "While our results won't change practice at this point, the idea that maternal choline intake could essentially change fetal genetic expression into adulthood is quite novel."
Pressman, who advises pregnant women every day, says choline isn't something people think a lot about because it is already present in many things we eat and there is usually no concern of choline deficiency. Though much more research has focused on folate -- functionally very similar to choline and used to decrease the risk of neural tube defects like spina bifida -- a few very compelling studies sparked her interest, including animal studies on the role of choline in mitigating fetal alcohol syndrome and changing outcomes in Down syndrome.
A long-time collaborator with researchers at Cornell, Pressman joined a team led by Marie Caudill, Ph.D., R.D., professor in the Division of Nutritional Sciences at Cornell, in studying 26 pregnant women in their third trimester who were assigned to take 480 mg of choline per day, an amount slightly above the standard recommendation of 450 mg per day, or about double that amount, 930 mg per day. The choline was derived from the diet and from supplements and was consumed up until delivery.
The team found that higher maternal choline intake led to a greater amount of DNA methylation, a process in which methyl groups -- one carbon atom linked to three hydrogen atoms -- are added to our DNA. Choline is one of a handful of nutrients that provides methyl groups for this process. The addition of a single methyl group is all it takes to change an individual's epigenome.
Measurements of cord blood and samples from the placenta showed that increased choline, via the addition of methyl groups, altered epigenetic markers that govern cortisol-regulating genes. Higher choline lessened the expression of these genes, leading to 33 percent lower cortisol in the blood of babies whose mom's consumed 930 mg per day.
Study authors say the findings raise the exciting possibility that choline may be used therapeutically in cases where excess maternal stress from anxiety, depression or other prenatal conditions might make the fetal HPA axis more reactive and more likely to release greater-than-expected amounts of cortisol.
While more research is needed, Caudill says that her message to pregnant women would be to consume a diet that includes choline rich foods such as eggs, lean meat, beans and cruciferous vegetables like broccoli. For women who limit their consumption of animal products, which are richer sources of choline than plant foods, she adds that supplemental choline may be warranted as choline is generally absent in prenatal vitamin supplements.
"One day we might prescribe choline in the same way we prescribe folate to all pregnant women," notes Pressman, the James R. Woods Professor in the Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology. "It is cheap and has virtually no side effects at the doses provided in this study. In the future, we could use choline to do even more good than we are doing right now."
In addition to Pressman and Caudill, several scientists and clinicians from the Division of Nutritional Science and the Statistical Consulting Unit at Cornell and the Cayuga Medical Center in Ithaca, N. Y., participated in the research. The study was funded by the Egg Nutrition Center, the National Cattlemen's Beef Association, the Nebraska Beef Council, the U.S. Department of Agriculture and the President's Council of Cornell Women. The funding sources had no role in the study design, interpretation of the data, or publication of the results.

http://www.scienceda...20920140152.htm

[misterE]

Nutrient in Eggs and Meat May Influence Gene Expression from Infancy to Adulthood

Eggs do have nutrients, but they also have drawbacks... they are very high in cholesterol and 65% of the calories in eggs is from fat! And since estrogen is given to chickens... eggs are one of the main sources of estrogen in the diet [1]. Eggs are also high on the food-chain, which guarantees they are high in dioxins and other environmental containments.



[1] Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2010;(195):355-67. Hormonal growth promoting agents in food producing animals. Stephany RW

Edited by misterE, 21 September 2012 - 03:50 PM.

[niner]

And since estrogen is given to chickens... eggs are one of the main sources of estrogen in the diet [1].

Perhaps, but a large fraction of next to nothing is still next to nothing. What evidence exists that dietary estrogen is at all significant to human health? For example, how much estrogen is there in the typical egg, and how does that compare to bodily levels in males and females? Please post links to abstracts so we can all check these things easily. If you only post a typed reference, it's a lot more work to look up. To add a link, use the editor's Link button, or just paste the link into the text.

[misterE]

Please post links to abstracts so we can all check these things easily. If you only post a typed reference, it's a lot more work to look up. To add a link, use the editor's Link button, or just paste the link into the text.

Many researchers think that the diet induced hyperestrogenemia is the main cause of breast and prostate cancer, early sexual-maturation, decreased sperm-counts and infertility. Below is a study showing that the natural estrogens in cow-milk can adversely affect the endocrine system.



Pediatr Int. 2010 Feb;52(1):33-8. Epub 2009 May 22.
Exposure to exogenous estrogen through intake of commercial milk produced from pregnant cows.

Maruyama K, Oshima T, Ohyama K.
Source



Abstract

BACKGROUND:

Modern genetically improved dairy cows continue to lactate throughout almost the entire pregnancy. Therefore, recent commercial cow's milk contains large amounts of estrogens and progesterone. With regard to the exposure of prepubertal children to exogenous estrogens, the authors are particularly concerned about commercial milk produced from pregnant cows. The purpose of the present study was therefore to examine concentrations of serum and urine sex hormones after the intake of cow milk.
METHODS:

Subjects were seven men, six prepubertal children, and five women. The men and children drank 600 mL/m(2) of cow milk. Urine samples were collected 1 h before the milk intake and four times every hour after intake. In men the serum samples were obtained before and 15, 30, 45, 60, 90 and 120 min after milk intake. Women drank 500 mL of cow's milk every night for 21 days beginning on the first day of the second menstruation. In three successive menstrual cycles, the day of ovulation was examined using an ovulation checker.
RESULTS:

After the intake of cow milk, serum estrone (E1) and progesterone concentrations significantly increased, and serum luteinizing hormone, follicle-stimulating hormone and testosterone significantly decreased in men. Urine concentrations of E1, estradiol, estriol and pregnanediol significantly increased in all adults and children. In four out of five women, ovulation occurred during the milk intake, and the timing of ovulation was similar among the three menstrual cycles.
CONCLUSIONS:

The present data on men and children indicate that estrogens in milk were absorbed, and gonadotropin secretion was suppressed, followed by a decrease in testosterone secretion. Sexual maturation of prepubertal children could be affected by the ordinary intake of cow milk.

Edited by misterE, 22 September 2012 - 02:59 AM.

[sthira]

Nutrient in Eggs and Meat May Influence Gene Expression from Infancy to Adulthood

[size=4][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif]Eggs do have nutrients, but they also have drawbacks... they are very high in cholesterol and 65% of the calories in eggs is from fat! And since estrogen is given to chickens... eggs are one of the main sources of estrogen in the diet [1]. Eggs are also high on the food-chain, which guarantees they are high in dioxins and other environmental containments.

More about egg eating:

Choline intake and risk of lethal prostate cancer: incidence and survival.
Richman EL, Kenfield SA, Stampfer MJ, Giovannucci EL, Zeisel SH, Willett WC, Chan JM.
Am J Clin Nutr. 2012 Sep 5. [Epub ahead of print]
PMID:22952174

Abstract

Background: Meat, milk, and eggs have been inconsistently associated with the risk of advanced prostate cancer. These foods are sources of choline—a nutrient that may affect prostate cancer progression through cell membrane function and one-carbon metabolism. No study has examined dietary choline and the risk of lethal prostate cancer.

Objective: Our objective was to examine whether dietary choline, choline-containing compounds, and betaine (a choline metabolite) increase the risk of lethal prostate cancer.

Design: We prospectively examined the intake of these nutrients and the risk of lethal prostate cancer among 47,896 men in the Health Professionals Follow-Up Study. In a case-only survival analysis, we examined the postdiagnostic intake of these nutrients and the risk of lethal prostate cancer among 4282 men with an initial diagnosis of nonmetastatic disease during follow-up. Diet was assessed with a validated questionnaire 6 times during 22 y of follow-up.

Results: In the incidence analysis, we observed 695 lethal prostate cancers during 879,627 person-years. Men in the highest quintile of choline intake had a 70% increased risk of lethal prostate cancer (HR: 1.70; 95% CI: 1.18, 2.45; P-trend = 0.005). In the case-only survival analysis, we observed 271 lethal cases during 33,679 person-years. Postdiagnostic choline intake was not statistically significantly associated with the risk of lethal prostate cancer (HR for quintile 5 compared with quintile 1: 1.69; 95% CI: 0.93, 3.09; P-trend = 0.20).

Conclusion: Of the 47,896 men in our study population, choline intake was associated with an increased risk of lethal prostate cancer.

[misterE]

Handb Exp Pharmacol. 2010;(195):355-67.
Hormonal growth promoting agents in food producing animals.

Stephany RW.

Source

Verhulstlaan 12, NL-3723, JR, Bilthoven, the Netherlands. rainer_stephany@yahoo.com

Abstract

In contrast to the use of hormonal doping agents in sports to enhance the performance of athletes, in the livestock industry hormonal growth promoters ("anabolics") are used to increase the production of muscle meat. This leads to international disputes about the safety of meat originating from animals treated with such anabolics.As a consequence of the total ban in the EU of all hormonal active growth promoters ("hormones") in livestock production, in contrast to their legal use [e.g. of five such hormones (17beta-estradiol, testosterone, progesterone, trenbolone and zeranol) as small solid ear implants and two hormones as feed additives for feedlot heifers (melengestrol acetate) and for swine (ractopamine) in the USA], the regulatory controls also differ sharply between the EU and the USA.In the EU the treatment of slaughter animals is the regulatory offence that has to be controlled in inspection programs. In the USA testing for compliance of a regulatory maximum residue level in the edible product (muscle, fat, liver or kidney) is the purpose of the inspection program (if any).The EU inspection programs focus on sample materials that are more suitable for testing for banned substances, especially if the animals are still on the farm, such as urine and feces or hair. In the case of slaughtered animals, the more favored sample materials are bile, blood, eyes and sometimes liver. Only in rare occasions is muscle meat sampled. This happens only in the case of import controls or in monitoring programs of meat sampled in butcher shops or supermarkets.As a result, data on hormone concentrations in muscle meat samples from the EU market are very rare and are obtained in most cases from small programs on an ad hoc basis. EU data for natural hormones in meat are even rarer because of the absence of "legal natural levels" for these hormones in compliance testing. With the exception of samples from the application sites - in the EU the site of injection of liquid hormone preparations or the site of application of "pour on" preparations - the hormone concentrations observed in meat samples of illegally treated animals are typically in the range of a few micrograms per kilogram (ppb) down to a few tenths of a microgram per kilogram. In the EU dozens of illegal hormones are used and the number of active compounds is still expanding. Besides estrogenic, androgenic and progestagenic compounds also thyreostatic, corticosteroidal and beta-adrenergic compounds are used alone or in "smart" combinations.An overview is given of the compounds identified on the EU black market. An estimate is also given of the probability of consumption in the EU of "highly" contaminated meat from the application sites in cattle. Finally some data are presented on the concentration of estradiol in bovine meat from animals treated and not treated with hormone implants. These data are compared with the recent findings for estradiol concentrations in hen's eggs. From this comparison, the preliminary conclusion is that hen's eggs are the major source of 17alpha- and 17beta-estradiol in the consumer's daily "normal" diet.

Edited by misterE, 24 September 2012 - 12:28 AM.

[xztop123]

From what I gather about Price, the only thing he could conclude was that eating according to your own heritage along with some nutrients that are found primarily in animal livers are optimal.

This could be fruititarian, a high starch, or a high fat diet so long as you supplemented it with some form of Vit D/A/K(liver)

I also feel like Fallon misrepresents Price's findings by turning it into the "eat all the butter you want" diet.

Edited by xztop123, 24 September 2012 - 05:23 AM.

[xztop123]

Where's the evidence that potatoes and whole-grains are good for you? Sure whole-grains are better than white-grains, but that does not make them a superfood.

These are just a few...

Am J Clin Nutr. 2006 Jan;83(1):124-31. Whole-grain intake is inversely associated with the metabolic syndrome and mortality in older adults. Sahyoun NR, Jacques PF, Zhang XL.

Am J Clin Nutr. 2002 Aug;76(2):390-8. Whole-grain intake is favorably associated with metabolic risk factors for type 2 diabetes and cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study. McKeown NM, Meigs JB, Liu S.

Nutr Rev. 2012 Jul;70(7):387-96. Effect of whole grains on markers of subclinical inflammation. Lefevre M, Jonnalagadda S.

Eur J Clin Nutr. 2004 Nov;58(11):1443-61. Cereal grains, legumes and diabetes. Venn BJ, Mann JI.

J Nutr. 2012 Jul;142(7):1304-13. Greater whole-grain intake is associated with lower risk of type 2 diabetes, cardiovascular disease, and weight gain. Ye EQ, Chacko SA, Chou EL, Kugizaki M, Liu S.

Proc Nutr Soc. 2003 Feb;62(1):135-42. Whole grains protect against atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease. Anderson JW.



Whole-grains and potatoes have played a vital role in the development of civilization. Simply put, if humans didn’t harvest and capitalize on the value and potential of grains… there would be no cilivization and we wouldn’t be here having this discussion. Potatoes are the staple-food in South-America and the population of Ireland doubled when the potato was introduced to their culture. The Irish depended so much on the potato that when the crop failed, millions of people died as a result of starvation, this event was called the Irish Potato Famine.

Whole-grains and potatoes have supplied the major source of calories to every part of the world. Corn in North America, potatoes in South America, wheat in Europe, millet in Africa, Barley in the Middle-East, and rice in Asia. Only recently (in the last 100 years) have humans had so much access to rich foods (meat, dairy, sugar, processed-foods, etc). It is the rich mans food that causes disease. Obesity, heart-disease, diabetes, cancer, gout, tooth-decay, were all disease reserved for the wealthy, rich aristocrats and royalty, who could afford to eat such delicacies daily, as a result they developed diseases of affluence. The common person ate grains and vegetables and labored all day in the sun.

Low carb seems to have plenty of evidence for disease control:
http://www.mercola.c..._low_grains.htm

The fact that a diet (like say mostly white rice) can allow people to reach puberty and reproduce does not make it an optimal diet by any means.
White potatoes, cooked, are higher on the glycemic index than Fruit Roll ups :
http://www.health.ha...r_100_foods.htm

There are many studies on both sides. What I can say is that I have seen a friend, first hand, bring his type 2 diabetes under control by eliminating grains, starches and other high carbohydrate foods from his diet. He, like myself, now eats mostly lean meat, whey isolate, low sugar fruits like berries, and vegetables with occasional nuts and chia seeds and sometimes a tablespoon of raw olive or coconut oil. On starchy foods his blood sugar was all over the place. I do ok with oats but only eat them occasionally as they cause weight gain for me.

http://www.marksdail...d-worst-fruits/
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com
http://articles.merc...-than-this.aspx

You would be eating less in accordance with Weston Price recommendations than someone who ate starch heavy foods with some offal included. They do not recommend eating high protein foods without fat, or just eating muscle meat (whey protein is a big no-no)

Also, to address the cardiovascular thing... Dr William Davis is the only cardiologist that I know of that recommends low carb, so I see his name pop up a lot. He is using a Calcium Score test to determine someone's degree of blockage. Esselstyein and Ornish were using an Angiogram. The tests are vastly different in their degree of sensitivity and specificity with the latter being much more comprehensive.

If you're concerned about your vascular/heart health high carb is the way to go and there really is no arguing with that. The person who championed the Paleo diet, Cordain clearly states that palmitic acid is bad for endothelium.

[Chupo]

If you're concerned about your vascular/heart health high carb is the way to go and there really is no arguing with that. The person who championed the Paleo diet, Cordain clearly states that palmitic acid is bad for endothelium.

It may be counter-intuitive but you end up with less palmitic acid in the blood by eating low carb.

http://rdfeinman.wor...-in-your-blood/

[platypus]

Eggs do have nutrients, but they also have drawbacks... they are very high in cholesterol and 65% of the calories in eggs is from fat!

You should not be afraid of fat. Good fats and protein are the foundations of a varied diet.

Edited by platypus, 24 September 2012 - 10:28 PM.

[misterE]

Eggs do have nutrients, but they also have drawbacks... they are very high in cholesterol and 65% of the calories in eggs is from fat!

You should not be afraid of fat. Good fats and protein are the foundations of a varied diet.

Omega-3 are good fats. The fats in eggs are unessential (saturated and monounsaturated).

[misterE]

It may be counter-intuitive but you end up with less palmitic acid in the blood by eating low carb.

Perhaps if you eat low-fructose. Palmitic-acid comes from one of two places. You can either eat it directly (mainly from animal-fats) or you can synthesize it from fructose (a carbohydrate). But not all carbohydrates are able to convert into palmitic-acid. I’ve already showed the classic study by Hudgins et al, showing that starch decreases the production of palmitic-acid rich tryglycerides in the liver, while sucrose (which contains 50% calories as fructose) increases it’s synthesis. In fact that is why some studies indicating that a high-fat diet (usually high in monounsaturated-fats) is healthier than a high-carbohydrate diet (which is high in sucrose).

The best way to lower palmitic-acid is to eat very low-fat and favor complex-carbohydrates (starch) over simple-carbohydrates (sugar). This decreases palmitic-acid via two pathways, instead of one.

[misterE]

If you're concerned about your vascular/heart health high carb is the way to go and there really is no arguing with that.

--At least not until studies are done showing a high-protein diet can reverse atherosclerosis.




One of the reasons why high-starch diets help reverse atherosclrosis might be due to the fact that insulin (which is released after digesting starch) increases nitric-oxide in the endothelium. Nitric-oxide prevents plaque from damaging the enothelium and helps remove plaque that has already formed. Most low-carb gurus make insulin seem like a villain-hormone because it causes you to store the fat you ate, but insulin has some very beneficial effects in the body, one of which is nitric-oxide production.

Edited by misterE, 25 September 2012 - 03:18 AM.