We were unable to load Disqus. If you are a moderator please see our troubleshooting guide.
I still don't quite get it. I see why cholesterol and saturated fat don't correlate, because people naturally have different starting points of cholesterol. If only 4% of the population have hypercholestemia, why doesn't saturated fat correlate with heart disease?
I think what it means is that not everyone who eats saturated fat gets heart disease because enough people have naturally low cholesterol so that eating meat and dairy may not affect them in that way. Even though it's the number one killer?
Or is it that pretty much everyone in this country has heart disease???
I think the point is that when you are testing for significant correlation you are comparing the pattern with the noise to determine significance of the pattern. When the pattern is large compared with the noise, we say the correlation is significant. When the noise happens to be large, then it is much easier for the pattern to hide.
Add to this the fact that "normal" people are generally studied and that our population tends to have fairly homogenous behavior, the pattern gets hidden even better.
This good explanation and the excellent video itself get to the truth of the matter -- but how to get the average person to understand? The message that many people have solidified in their own minds recently is that there is no correlation between dietary saturated fat and heart disease. Therefore saturated fat intake doesn't really matter -- so why limit it if it improves the taste of food? The mainstream media has done their part to make a real mess of nutritional science, but why do editors of scientific journals allow for the publication of such deceptive studies?
Remember that statistics are about averages and deviations from averages. Things that are too rare, for example a whole-plant based diet, wash out in the noise as 'outliers'. Within the normal bounds of US society: i.e. between 1 and 3 hamburgers of saturated fat a day, cholesterol is > 150 and as such heart-decease progression is random and a function of genetics and affluence (i.e. can afford a doctor to give you statins?).
Here it is: re-quoting Walter Willett, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, here is the problem:
This paper is bound to cause confusion. A central issue is what replaces saturated fat if someone reduces the amount of saturated fat in their diet. If it is replaced with refined starch or sugar, which are the largest sources of calories in the U.S. diet, then the risk of heart disease remains the same. However, if saturated fat is replaced with polyunsaturated fat or monounsaturated fat in the form of olive oil, nuts and probably other plant oils, we have much evidence that risk will be reduced.
If you had read the transcript you would have known that.
You can sure dish it out can't you? You don't make any sense to me.
It would be great to see a respectful exchange of ideas. We don't need to take a "side." But together we can help each other sift through the information.
Worth the wait.....
This is such a powerful piece that it should absolutely be presented on something like dateline! Everyone should share this video to his many people as possible!
The confusion you referred to in the general public in regards to saturated fat is exactly what I experience every single day with my patients.From my perspective one of the best educational video pieces I have ever seen you produce.
The master at work explaining away the BS we see every day in the nutritional world!
I think you might mean Frontline and I totally agree!! Luckily there have already been a number of refutations of this bad research but a Frontline presentation would portray the necessary touch of evil drama that is going on.
I think you both mean Nightline, frontline is for animal fleas, lol.
OK, I trump the Front, Date and Night'lines' and raise you 60 minutes! :)
Frontline is a series on PBS....not just for fleas anymore (heh-heh).
OK, I trump the Front, Date and Nighte'lines' and raise you 60 minutes! :)
Anyone know if "bitters" are safe to take? They are a popular supplement in the natural foods industry but I'm not sure if they are bogus and maybe even harmful. It hasbeen suggested I should consider these "bitters" as a drink to help with constipation anddigestion.
And I like today's video. Avoid animal products, and saturated fat in excess.
If you study all the various cures for cancer - real cures - you will notice they all feature something with a bitter flavor. Nature's cyanide is a bitter flavor that is effective against out-of-control cell division. In the US, we eat sweet, salty, sour, but not bitter. We have an epidemic of cancer. Swedish bitters are a common tonic in Europe. And you don't have to take bitters. You can simply eat raw seeds, nuts, greens... and you will get plenty of what you need to be healthy. Bitters are everywhere... safe to ingest bitters. We Americans - and Brits - avoid the bitter flavor and our bodies are therefore not well-equipped to resist cancer.
Some people rely on the the hydroxocobalmin form of B12 to get their daily B12. Hydroxocobalamin mops of the cyanide in the body and turns it into B12, thus ridding the body of cyanide. This might be a bad thing, according to your logic. What do you think?
I wonder how they determine such a thing - "Hydroxocobalamin mops of the cyanide in the body and turns it into B12." That has to be based on an in vitro study, There are always interesting effects from manmade chemicals. What do I think? I think Mother Nature knows best. First food... and if you still need supplementation, take a natural form of the vitamin, I avoid manmade chemicals/vitamins. If you listen very closely, your body will tell you what it needs and wants. Also, observe animals... they are good mentors for humans. They know how to eat for their species - and they know how to lie down and let it all go after they've been stressed.
I hear you, but what is your "natural source" of B12? Is it possible to get a natural source on a vegan diet?
There are two things I supplement... B12 and D3. I do not use synthetics. And yes, you can get B12 from miso, from nutritional yeast, from tempeh... probably from a lot of cultured/fermented foods. Oh, here's a good source: http://www.veganhealth.org/...
What kind of B12 supplement, methylcobalamin or the cyanocobalamin? I do very much enjoy and appreciate your comments on this and on your other postings.
Hi, Marty. Thanks for your kind words. I use Kind Organics by Garden of Life.
Nutritional yeast does not supply natural B12 - it is unnaturally fortified (synthetic). I doubt, but do not know for sure, if we can get it from tempeh and miso.
Sure it is. Pick up a carrot straight from the ground and it eat (dirt and all) there's your b12 (we let the animals eat dirt whilst they eat grass etc then we eat the animal therefore using them as a nutrient filter) when we could easily get it straight from the source (like I do because i care about animal, the planet and my health). You can also get b12 from nutritional yeast, non dairy milks, tempeh, spirulena, soy and coconut yoghurt.
Eat it *
Careful -- spirulina contains a useless B12 analog. That's not the real thing.
"Contrary to the many rumors, there are no reliable, unfortified plant sources of vitamin B12, including tempeh, seaweeds, and organic produce. One of the earliest studies conducted on vegans, from the U.K. in 1955,described significant vitamin B12 deficiency in the vegans with some suffering from nerve damage anddementia. This, as well as many case studies since then of vitamin B12 deficiency in vegans, and a great deal of other evidence detailed here, has led to the overwhelming consensus in the mainstream nutrition community, as well as among vegan health professionals, that vitamin B12 fortified foods or supplements are necessary for the optimal health of vegans, and even vegetarians in many cases." http://www.veganhealth.org/.... Any kind of plant milk that has B12 has been fortified. I am not sure, but I think eating the dirt on a carrot would only provide B12 if the soil contained manure. Eating unwashed greens MIGHT give you some B12 if it has some bugs you consume with them.
I don't consider Hydroxycobalamin a "man made" form of B12. It is made by bacteria http://en.wikipedia.org/wik..., and then converted to cyanocobalamin in the production process http://en.wikipedia.org/wik.... But like anything, even if natural, actually treats a disease state, in this case cyanide poisoning, it can be labeled a drug by the FDA. Whether it worksame/better/worse/ than methyl- or adenosyl- probably remains to be seen.
Do you take in any caffeine? Think it is safe and healthy or no? Thanks.
Me? I have an occasional cup of coffee, an occasional cup of green/black/white teas, and usually i prefer some sort of herbal concoction. At this moment, I'm drinking a "chai" type turmeric tea. I've been enjoying the detox dandelion tea from the "Yogi" teas. What are your ideas about caffeine? The better my diet, the less my cravings. And currently I must be 90% 'raw'. :)
Would you mine sharing a sample menu of what you eat on a daily basis? I'm sure it changes from time to time but I do get the feeling that there a people in this community who would greatly benefit (I know I would).
Caffeine is healthy for all but those sensitive to it or who have it close to bedtime and keeping them up. It's been found to greatly reduce the risk of Parkinson's in those with the genetic pre-disposition. Coffee of all forms reduces risk of diabetes, and those with diabetes type II should only have decaffeinated, which helps them control blood sugar as well.
Tea has antioxidants, but it unfortunately is tied for first place for the highest naturally occurring fluoride content of any food. Black and red have the most, green tea has almost as much, and white tea has slightly less. The other food in first place is grape products, wine, leaves, grapes, raisins, etc.. Many don't know this and drink way too much tea and wine.
I don't know that naturally occurring fluoride is a bad thing. The stuff they put in water is fluorine, an artificial harmful substance.
Long but clear. Two thumbs up!
I agree that this is the best educational video pieces I have watched on your website, Dr. Greger, and it will help me in discussions with "knowledgeable" friends and colleagues regarding the saturated fats controversy. Thank you!
This video addresses saturated fat from animal foods (meats, butter, etc.) What about saturated fat from plants, say, from coconut oil? i know Dr. Greger has videos on coconut oil, but he hasn't convinced me yet that coconut oil is bad for people. To be fair, nobody has convinced me that it's good, either.
Why not see if it is bad for YOU? Get a home lipid test (or go to one of the anylabtestnow franchises), if you currently use CO go two weeks without it, two weeks with it and then two more weeks without it (or if not using CO, 2 wks with, then without and then with again), and see what your LDL levels are at the beginning and end of each time period? (I'm not responsible for any CVD events during the test fyi)
David, Jen, Mark, Daniel: Can you kindly refer me to a definitive study or meta analysis that shows that high blood LDL levels, as measured by a standard home or clinical blood test, causes heart disease?
You realize how you sound, right?
I mean, can you kindly refer me to a definitive study or meta analysis that shows that high levels of smoking, as done outside with clove cigarettes, cause lung cancer?
Before you asked that question of yours, could you even have named 3 types of evidence that are thought to link high serum LDL with heart disease in the scientifically mainstream view?
Dear Largelytrue: Had I known, I wouldn't have asked. I thought this site was all about education, not people trying to impose their beliefs on others.
You can ask questions, but do you understand my point? You seem to have been assuming that there's a ~10 page report that all scientists point to about the definitive reasons why high LDL is thought to be a significant contributer to heart disease, and your question was framed in a way that suggested that if such a report could not be produced, then surely the evidence for the connection between serum LDL and heart disease is not strong, in spite of the fact that a wide consensus of professionals are organized around managing the disease through an approach that centers in part on LDL lowering.
If you are coming from a position of general ignorance about what the science says, it helps to get the lay of the land first. You might want to have a look at William Roberts' (the presently vegan cardiologist who is editor of the American Journal of Cardiology) manuscript of 20 common questions about heart disease, which aims to briefly give the lay of the land to a more general audience:
"What evidence connects atherosclerosis to cholesterol?
The connection between cholesterol and atherosclerosis is strong (9, 10):
a. Atherosclerotic plaques similar to those in humans can be produced in nonhuman herbivores by feeding them large quantities of cholesterol and/or saturated fat. It is not possible to produce atherosclerotic plaques experimentally in carnivores.
b. Cholesterol is found within atherosclerotic plaques.
c. In societies where the serum total cholesterol is <150 mg/dL, the frequency of symptomatic and fatal atherosclerosis is exceedingly uncommon; in contrast, in societies where the total cholesterol level is >150 mg/dL, the frequency of symptomatic and fatal atherosclerosis increases as the level above 150 increases.
d. The higher the serum total cholesterol level, and specifically the higher the serum LDL cholesterol, the greater the frequency of symptomatic atherosclerosis, the greater the frequency of fatal atherosclerosis, and the greater the quantity of plaque at necropsy.
e. In placebo-controlled, double-blind, lipid-lowering studies of adults without symptomatic atherosclerosis, the group with lowered serum LDL cholesterol developed fewer symptomatic and fatal atherosclerotic events compared with controls.
f. In placebo-controlled, double-blind, lipid-lowering studies of adults with previous symptomatic atherosclerosis, the group with lowered LDL cholesterol levels after the event had fewer subsequent atherosclerotic events than did the group that did not lower their cholesterol levels (controls).
g. LDL receptors were discovered in the liver by Brown and Goldstein, and the absence or decreased numbers of LDL receptors in patients with quite elevated serum cholesterol levels indicates a genetic defect in an occasional patient (3–5)."
So that's a broad range of claims for you to investigate, some of which come with ready references for further reading. References 9 and 10, in particular, try to give an overview of all the evidence for Diet-Heart.
Please check that short video.
Dr Esselstyn did several studies, see the autopsies results:
No one else is achieving what he does these days, as you know is able to heal terminal coronary patients just with diet, every day. :)
It's not scientific, nonetheless, it's rational to assume all saturated fats have the same effect , until proven otherwise. (Aside from that, isolated fats/oils of _any_ type aren't truly healthy.)