Type 2 Will higher fat harm my good cholesterol readings?

[andcol]

I have read that Ancel Keys tried to publish data that went against his findings years later but he was blocked from publishing it. Too much "money" controlling what was being published at the time. So do not demonise him too much.

 

[Dark Horse]

Although i have not fully studied Ancel Keys work (mainly because it is not available online) but he seems to be seriously debunked. it would appear that his 7 Countries study originally started out with 22 countries being studied, but suddenly this was reduced to 7, and these were the ones that were closest to fitting his hypothesis, in other words cherry picking. His original data has been lost now, and all we have are his final graphs and conclusiions. Subsequent RCT trials have shown his conclusions to be unfounded, apart from Framlingham, which used dodgy statistical analysis methods (i.e. PETO) to back up the NHS guidelines. New meta studies have shown Framlingham to be discredited. One of these meta studies shows that there is no link between dietary cholesterol and out lipid panel results.

So for me it does not matter one jot what he said about this.

In the interests of balance, there are some learned people who feel much of the criticism of Ancel Keys is unjustified :-
Easy read: http://www.startribune.com/in-defense-of-u-research-the-ancel-keys-legacy/267581481/
More technical: http://carbsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ancel-keys-its-time-to-appreciate-real.html

 

[serenity648]

In the interests of balance, there are some learned people who feel much of the criticism of Ancel Keys is unjustified :-
Easy read: http://www.startribune.com/in-defense-of-u-research-the-ancel-keys-legacy/267581481/
More technical: http://carbsanity.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/ancel-keys-its-time-to-appreciate-real.html

your first link is written by:

Dr. Henry Blackburn is a professor emeritus and researcher in the Division of Epidemiology and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. He succeeded Ancel Keys as director of the Laboratory of Physiological Hygiene and was the project officer of the Seven Countries

so he is hardly a disinterested party in his observations of Ancel Keys and his work.

 

[Dark Horse]

your first link is written by:

Dr. Henry Blackburn is a professor emeritus and researcher in the Division of Epidemiology and Community Health in the School of Public Health at the University of Minnesota. He succeeded Ancel Keys as director of the Laboratory of Physiological Hygiene and was the project officer of the Seven Countries

so he is hardly a disinterested party in his observations of Ancel Keys and his work.

I realise that current holders of a position tend to think they know better than their predecessors and can be somewhat biased against them but I can't see a hint of that in the article.

 

[Oldvatr]

I realise that current holders of a position tend to think they know better than their predecessors and can be somewhat biased against them but I can't see a hint of that in the article.

I found evidence of similar bias in your second reference, which is well written, but just as biassed as anything I have seen in this thread.
I am not so interested in maintaining the status quo established in the 1950's if recent reserch shows that it has flaws in it. I bring another meta analysis from Oct 2010:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/
I have seen similar research published in israel, Australia, South Africa, MIT, Ireland by eminenent endocrinologists and cardiac consultants that backs up this new age thinking. I am not fully convinced by their arguments, but I do find it to be viable when tied into my previous research into the Krebs Cycle that governs the endocrine system in humans. The scientists have now identified new lipids that Keys was not aware of in his time, and these are detectable and measurable in our bodies.

i am aware that the Luddites rose up and destroyed the looms, and i can see the big Pharma companies fighting a rearguard action over statins, but I enjoy progress, and hope to use it to my advantage.

 

[SunnyExpat]

I found evidence of similar bias in your second reference, which is well written, but just as biassed as anything I have seen in this thread.
I am not so interested in maintaining the status quo established in the 1950's if recent reserch shows that it has flaws in it. I bring another meta analysis from Oct 2010 that is part of the new age thinking that you so despise, but which I find to be of merit.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/
I have seen similar research published in israel, Australia, South Africa, MIT, Ireland by eminenent endocrinologists and cardiac consultants that backs up this new age thinking. I am not fully convinced by their arguments, but I do find it to be viable when tied into my previous research into the Krebs Cycle that governs the endocrine system in humans. The scientists have now identified new lipids that Keys was not aware of in his time, and these are detectable and measurable in our bodies.

i am aware that the Luddites rose up and destroyed the looms, and i can see the big Pharma companies fighting a rearguard action over statins, but I enjoy progress, and hope to use it to my advantage.

A very good study, and I agree with it's conclusions.

 

[NoCrbs4Me]

If you are worried about saturated fat and/or high cholesterol causing heart disease, this interesting lecture will ease your mind:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ls9HWRxvMo

 

[Dark Horse]

I found evidence of similar bias in your second reference, which is well written, but just as biassed as anything I have seen in this thread.
I am not so interested in maintaining the status quo established in the 1950's if recent reserch shows that it has flaws in it. I bring another meta analysis from Oct 2010 that is part of the new age thinking that you so despise, but which I find to be of merit.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2950931/
I have seen similar research published in israel, Australia, South Africa, MIT, Ireland by eminenent endocrinologists and cardiac consultants that backs up this new age thinking. I am not fully convinced by their arguments, but I do find it to be viable when tied into my previous research into the Krebs Cycle that governs the endocrine system in humans. The scientists have now identified new lipids that Keys was not aware of in his time, and these are detectable and measurable in our bodies.

i am aware that the Luddites rose up and destroyed the looms, and i can see the big Pharma companies fighting a rearguard action over statins, but I enjoy progress, and hope to use it to my advantage.

Interesting meta-analysis. I'm looking forward to next year when the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) publishes its latest review on saturated fats.

 

[SunnyExpat]

If you are worried about saturated fat and/or high cholesterol causing heart disease, this interesting lecture will ease your mind:

www.youtube.com/watch?v=8ls9HWRxvMo

It's the same as all previous re-hashs of Kendrick, and it's been well repeated.

It would be interesting to see a few more, from a different source, like the link from @Oldvatr

 

[Oldvatr]

A very good study, and I agree with it's conclusions.

It is interesting that this study found that if you want to replace Saturated fat in your diet(SFA) then don't use carbs like sugar or even low gi carbs. Polyunsaturated (PUFA) is good for reducing CHD, but surprisingly mono-unsaturated (MUFA) came out badly. This study does explain that RCT's using MUFA as replacement were unreliable since no distinction was made between animal or vegetable sources. What this study does not investigate is the replacement of either PUFA or MUFA by SFA. That conundrum is covered by another recent research paper that i am still trying to find a copy of. i have found articles and blogs describing it, but not the original text. it is based on research done by Cambridge Uni.
ETA: this is the closest i can find
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats-and-heart-disease-link-unproven.aspx

 

[Oldvatr]

" ... part of the new age thinking that you so despise" I'm puzzled, where did that come from? I never said I despised anything and I like to keep up-to-date when I can find the time. I'm looking forward to next year when the Scientific Advisory Committee on Nutrition (SACN) publishes its latest review on saturated fats.

OK wrong of me. i will edit it out of my post. You shouldd do the same in my quoted text

 

[Dark Horse]

It is interesting that this study found that if you want to replace Saturated fat in your diet(SFA) then don't use carbs like sugar or even low gi carbs. Polyunsaturated (PUFA) is good for reducing CHD, but surprisingly mono-unsaturated (MUFA) came out badly. This study does explain that RCT's using MUFA as replacement were unreliable since no distinction was made between animal or vegetable sources. What this study does not investigate is the replacement of either PUFA or MUFA by SFA. That conundrum is covered by another recent research paper that i am still trying to find a copy of. i have found articles and blogs describing it, but not the original text. it is based on research done by Cambridge Uni.
ETA: this is the closest i can find
http://www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03March/Pages/Saturated-fats-and-heart-disease-link-unproven.aspx

I think you are referring to this study:- http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638&rf=32524#
If you don't have access to the full article via an institution, you could try this:- Requests for Single Reprints: Rajiv Chowdhury, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, 2 Wort's Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, United Kingdom; e-mail,[email protected].

 

[Oldvatr]

I think you are referring to this study:- http://annals.org/article.aspx?articleid=1846638&rf=32524#
If you don't have access to the full article via an institution, you could try this:- Requests for Single Reprints: Rajiv Chowdhury, MD, PhD, Cardiovascular Epidemiology Unit, Department of Public Health and Primary Care, University of Cambridge, 2 Wort's Causeway, Cambridge CB1 8RN, United Kingdom; e-mail,[email protected].

Yes, this is the one. I see that an errata has been implemented in the report, but this has not been reported much in the press. The primary conclusion remains in place, but the results for Omega-3 and Omega-6 now show benefits that were not reported in the original report. This brings this study into line with the other meta study I previously posted on replacing SFA by PUFA and MUFA.

 

[SunnyExpat]

Yes, this is the one. I see that an errata has been implemented in the report, but this has not been reported much in the press. The primary conclusion remains in place, but the results for Omega-3 and Omega-6 now show benefits that were not reported in the original report. This brings this study into line with the other meta study I previously posted on replacing SFA by PUFA and MUFA.

It seems to be beneficial in all the studies, and it tends to agree in my belief of what my lipids results mean.
Nothing to convince me to eat saturated fats, and let my cholesterol creep higher yet.

 

[Oldvatr]

While trawling through reports when looking for the Cambridge study discussed above, Icam across the following meta study published in the BMJ in 2015. It compares Saturated fats vs transfats as primary review. It references the Cambridge study, and reaches similar conclusions. But it does add some new insight.
http://www.bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978

First conclusion- trans fats are a very definite no-no. Never.
Second conclusion saturated fats can be viewe as two different classes. Even chain SFA's such as those derived from animal meat and processed meats are the bad guys, and still have a bad track record. Odd chain SFA's from dairy and fish are the good guys and do not have many adverse effects on mortality or T2 diabetes. The study notes the same inconsistency over MUFA's and explain that this may be due to some cohort studies including transfats or carb substitutes under the MUFA label. I find this report to be quite believable, as it reinforces the advice given for the LCHF choices of fat sources without opening the floodgates to all SFA's.
This has been an interesting discussion, but does not actually answer the OP query regarding cholesterol.

 

[Oldvatr]

Last year there was some discussion aired regarding an apparent higher risk of nonvascular morbidity in people with low cholesterol levels. I have just found the registration of two new studies to investigate this. One is to look at a target group of people who were found to have naturally low cholesterol levels on death, and another study looking at people who used diet and/or medications to reduce cholesterol. No publication date has been announced, so these are presumed to be starting or ongoing.
Edit to add:
Finally found this study report that seems to be relevant to this. interesting that it is a re-run of a Minesota Coronary Experiment.
http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246

 

[uart]

The Total is calculated and is normally HDL + LDL + 20% of Trigs

Hi Bluetit, unfortunately that formula is different depending on what units you are using. The one you show there is only valid if you're using the US units of mg/dL.

For the UK units of mmol/L the correct formula is: HDL + LDL + 46% of Trigs.

 

[Bluetit1802]

Hi Bluetit, unfortunately that formula is different depending on what units you are using. The one you show there is only valid if you're using the US units of mg/dL.

For the UK units of mmol/L the correct formula is: HDL + LDL + 46% of Trigs.

Blimey, you are right! I've just done the calculation on my own lipids. Thank you for putting me right.

It's about time the US and UK units were standardised in all aspects of blood measurements.

 

[phoenix]

Although i have not fully studied Ancel Keys work (mainly because it is not available online) but he seems to be seriously debunked. it would appear that his 7 Countries study originally started out with 22 countries being studied, but suddenly this was reduced to 7, and these were the ones that were closest to fitting his hypothesis, in other words cherry picking. His original data has been lost now, and all we have are his final graphs and conclusiions. .

I'm disappointed in that you seem to agree with the demonization of Keys without reading any of his work. I'm sure he would agree that scientific knowledge and understanding develops. His certainly did, he continued to conduct many studies both in the laboratory and in the field over a very long career.

Here is the paper containing the oft miss cited graph. The paper comes from 1953. http://www.wisenutritioncoaching.co...clerosis-A-Problem-in-Newer-Public-Health.pdf .
Keys used data from 1948-1949 from 6 countries using WHO and FAO sources to create a graph You can read why the countries for that graph were selected or rather not selected. He wanted similar countries to the US, because what concerned him was the increasing mortality from heart disease in American men. He did not use data from countries that had recently been occupied or suffered movement populations in WW2. He didn't use spurious data from countries that didn't for example actually have death registration systems. Most importantly it wasn't a study, just one graph in a review about possible links between dietary fat and cholesterol and serum cholesterol and serum cholesterol, fat and heart disease.

Four years later, 2 other researchers critiqued the graph from the paper because of the selection of countries. The data they used was from 1951-3 The data for this period included 22 countries so they used that. That paper isn't online but there is an analysis with screen shots of it here . https://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/

The Seven Countries study was a prospective one and did not start until 1958. It's focus was on not on the countries used in the graph. It focused on areas where traditional, contrasting diets were still being consumed ,cohorts also came from more industrial areas in each of the countries. The study could not report for many years and continued in some phases for 50. There are spin offs into aging that are continuing.
http://www.sevencountriesstudy.com/about-the-study/history/

It's amazing how the internet echo chamber works something is repeated ad infinitum, it even manages to get into books and papers as if it were fact. One blogger has looked at this studied 22 countries but cherry picked 7 of them myth .
https://thescienceofnutrition.wordp...ality-from-heart-disease-a-plagiaristic-note/

Keys wrote about the effect of trans fats on triglycerides back in 1961. He also demonstrated in the lab that hydrogenated oils raised serum cholesterol. The Seven Countries data was also analysed to show differences between fat types (eg trans fats and mortality and certain saturated fats and mortality had fairly similar correlations at 25 years). In an earlier analysis a lower mortality was associated with a higher consumption of olive oil ( but he certainly didn't claim causation see last sentence of abstract ) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743585710493, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/6/903

The diet that Keys promoted was based on a Cretan one which was far from the lowest fat diet in those that he studied. One of his major books for was Eat well stay well the Mediterranean way, which as this blogger writes is far from a 'diet' book with sections on wine, game meats and expresso coffee http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2469.htm (rant over, will go away again)
.

 

[Oldvatr]

I'm disappointed in that you seem to agree with the demonization of Keys without reading any of his work. I'm sure he would agree that scientific knowledge and understanding develops. His certainly did, he continued to conduct many studies both in the laboratory and in the field over a very long career.

Here is the paper containing the oft miss cited graph. The paper comes from 1953. http://www.wisenutritioncoaching.co...clerosis-A-Problem-in-Newer-Public-Health.pdf .
Keys used data from 1948-1949 from 6 countries using WHO and FAO sources to create a graph You can read why the countries for that graph were selected or rather not selected. He wanted similar countries to the US, because what concerned him was the increasing mortality from heart disease in American men. He did not use data from countries that had recently been occupied or suffered movement populations in WW2. He didn't use spurious data from countries that didn't for example actually have death registration systems. Most importantly it wasn't a study, just one graph in a review about possible links between dietary fat and cholesterol and serum cholesterol and serum cholesterol, fat and heart disease.

Four years later, 2 other researchers critiqued the graph from the paper because of the selection of countries. The data they used was from 1951-3 The data for this period included 22 countries so they used that. That paper isn't online but there is an analysis with screen shots of it here . https://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-got-it-wrong/

The Seven Countries study was a prospective one and did not start until 1958. It's focus was on not on the countries used in the graph. It focused on areas where traditional, contrasting diets were still being consumed ,cohorts also came from more industrial areas in each of the countries. The study could not report for many years and continued in some phases for 50. There are spin offs into aging that are continuing.
http://www.sevencountriesstudy.com/about-the-study/history/

It's amazing how the internet echo chamber works something is repeated ad infinitum, it even manages to get into books and papers as if it were fact. One blogger has looked at this studied 22 countries but cherry picked 7 of them myth .
https://thescienceofnutrition.wordp...ality-from-heart-disease-a-plagiaristic-note/

Keys wrote about the effect of trans fats on triglycerides back in 1961. He also demonstrated in the lab that hydrogenated oils raised serum cholesterol. The Seven Countries data was also analysed to show differences between fat types (eg trans fats and mortality and certain saturated fats and mortality had fairly similar correlations at 25 years). In an earlier analysis a lower mortality was associated with a higher consumption of olive oil ( but he certainly didn't claim causation see last sentence of abstract ) http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0091743585710493, http://aje.oxfordjournals.org/content/124/6/903

The diet that Keys promoted was based on a Cretan one which was far from the lowest fat diet in those that he studied. One of his major books for was Eat well stay well the Mediterranean way, which as this blogger writes is far from a 'diet' book with sections on wine, game meats and expresso coffee http://www.uh.edu/engines/epi2469.htm (rant over, will go away again)
.

Hey the guy gave the world K rations, BMI, and the Mediterranean diet which qre still in use today. He did work on high altitude adaptation by humans, and apparently proved that man could never climb Everest. He also kicked off the whole lipidemia studies that are relevant to where we are today, Unfortunaltely, it is with recent modern tehniques and statistical analysis methods that some are beginning to think his work has led us down a slightly wrong path, and opened the door for big pharma to make mega bucks out of us/

The problem i have with Keys is that the graphs exist, his results exist, but the data he based his conclusions on appears to be missing. I am not the only one who has tried searching for it without success. I have today read 2 new meta studies that explicitly had to exclude the 7 countries study from their research. i had the experience several times during my own attempts to find out more about his work, but I was repeatedly blocked by a Court injunction preventing access to the data. i do not know who put this in place or why, but i cannot get behind the pretty pictures that you refer to.

I liken Keys to the guy at Sony that invented Betamax. Brilliant in its time, and better than VHS, but both are now superseded by advances in technology. We used to think Newtonian mechanics desvribed all things in the physical world, but we now know that Quantum mechanics break all the rules he set in place, At least we have his Principae to understand how he reached his conclusions. Things move on. i am moving on. The Time Magazine that originally bought Keys into the limelight has just recently withdrawn their support for his theory by publishing a 'debunking' article which was also carried by the New~York Times. So I am at least in with the 'in crowd'.
Time magazine is moving on too.