Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I'm not sure why I continue to respond to someone so clearly one-sided in an obvious case where I am willing to accept/admit that there is no single right answer applicable to all people/cases while my "opponent" continues to simply try to prove that I'm wrong, but...in any case, to the original point of this thread, no, dietary cholesterol does not significantly raise blood cholesterol levels, and blood cholesterol levels are often NOT indicative of cardiovascular health, as has been pointed out to me repeatedly since cholesterol levels are only a "marker," and I'm likely dooming myself to die of CVD despite my very low total cholesterol and triglyceride levels.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
The underlying problem, at least most of the time, is poor diet and lifestyle. The difference between addressing the issue with a whole food plant-based diet and a low-carb diet is that the plant based diet actually resolves the issues where as a low-carb diet merely compensates for the issue. That is, low-carb diets make people with insulin problems feel better because it doesn't aggravate their condition but it doesn't resolve the condition. A whole foods plant-based diet on the other hand can resolve the condition and allow the person to respond normally to high carbohydrate foods.
I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at here. First, a "normal" response to high carbohydrate foods is a release of an appropriate amount of insulin (more carbohydrates = more insulin needed). The more insulin your body demands regularly, the more taxed the pancreas becomes; over time, consistently straining the pancreas can lead to insufficient insulin production ability, thereby resulting in diabetes. Eating very low in carbs has been shown to allow the pancreas to "rest" and possibly even regenerate what were previously thought to be permanently depleted beta cells. This appears to work for many; yes, again, anecdotal evidence, but...I've known many who went strictly low-carb and then "splurged" on a high-carb item and were surprised to find they did NOT have the same glucose spike they'd had prior to having done the low-carb WOE for an extended period. Translation: they were able to respond normally to high carbohydrate foods. This has also happened for me previously (again, I hesitate to use my own experiences as prime examples due to the additional factor of having altered my digestive tract). How is this different from what you're saying?
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Japan has one of the lowest rates (out of developed nations) of type 2 diabetes, yet they have the highest carbohydrate (and as a result lowest fat) intake. On the other hand, the US has one of the highest fat intakes and it has one of the highest rates of type 2 diabetes.
You can't pinpoint ONLY fat when there are so many other factors to consider. There is evidence that either low-carb/high-fat OR low-fat/high-carb may be beneficial in general; it's the combination of both high fat AND high carbs that is the most detrimental. Yes, the US eats a lot of fat, but also a lot of carbs. Americans typically aren't just snacking on strips of bacon, slices of avocado, or bits of cheese; instead, they're piling that all on top of bread and serving with fries. Oh, you want to be healthy and avoid the fries? Here, have a baked potato, instead! Or perhaps some nice low-fat baked potato chips. You're free to choose the form of your carbohydrate accompaniment
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Smothering vegetables in butter is hiding them.....
Yes, it is. As I said before, I don't actually like the flavor of the majority of vegetables, various varieties and cooking methods though I've tried. Major downfall for me for the many typical suggested weight loss diets I've tried over the years.
Quote:
Originally Posted by user_id
Regardless, it sounds like you've suffered a lot, I really wish you'd discovered plant-based nutrition before you had your surgery, etc.
Don't EVER feel sorry for me. As I said, I'm healthier now than I have been at pretty much any other point in my life. And by healthier, I mean I feel better, have more energy, and have better results for all the health markers anyone currently knows to measure since we really have nothing else to go by, though you seem to have your own definition of health. I am FAR from suffering. And I actually enjoy the foods I eat (not that you don't enjoy your foods, but, repeating, I personally don't care for most vegetables nor even for the lower-GI fruits like raspberries, blackberries, etc.). The surgery I had had a metabolic impact sufficient to "resolve" my diabetes for some time independent of diet. I did it for that reason, not for weight loss (not that I mind also having lost weight!). I have zero confidence that a plant-based way of eating would have saved me from anything; I know my share of fat vegetarians and even vegans including some fellow weight loss surgery seekers/recipients.
And, I'll end yet again with...different strokes. I know what's right for me and what would be miserable for me.
Read wheat belly. The wheat grown now doesn't resemble the wheat grown previously.
Firstly, again, why the focus on wheat? Its just one out of thousands of plant foods. But....I have read the book. It was odd, for example, the author spends some time ranting about wheat and blaming a number of problems on wheat. Yet the diet he recommends is a low-carb diet, not just a wheat elimination diet. If wheat was the problem, then shouldn't eliminating wheat do the trick?
Of course the wheat grown today resembles the wheat grown previously, but it has certainly changed. So have cattle, chickens, etc..... Animals have been selectively breed to be fatter, yield more milk, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by MUTGR
THe disastrous results I have in mind are the twin epidemics of obesity and diabetes, which have skyrocketed in the last sever decades. The consumption of carbohydrates has skyrocketed the last several decades.
As I pointed out, Americans never consumed a low-fat diet. Today the America diet is, on average, 35% fat. The consumption of fat, protein and carbohydrates has increased over the last few decades (people are eating more of everything!), though carbohydrate consumption has increased a bit more than the others. But the increase is solely attributed to increases in (refined) sugar intake primarily from soda, not from wheat and definitely not from more fruits, vegetables, legumes, etc. Did the low-fat diet fad contribute to the increase in sugar intake...? I doubt it because fat consumption never declined. But, as I said, I don't think the low-fat diet fad was good....just like I don't think the low-carb diet fad is good. Both have fundamental flaws.
Refined sugars are bad, when you're consuming a whole plant based diet you're not eating refined sugars
The more insulin your body demands regularly, the more taxed the pancreas becomes; over time, consistently straining the pancreas can lead to insufficient insulin production ability, thereby resulting in diabetes.
This is true, but you're skipping the most important detail. The reason why the pancreas becomes overtaxed in the developed of diabetes is because the person becomes insulin resistant not because they are eating high carbohydrate foods. When your cells become insulin resistant they require far more insulin than normal functioning cells. Thus, someone with normal functioning cells can eat far more carbohydrates and still produce less insulin than someone that has developed insulin resistance and is eating a low amount of carbohydrates.
Carbohydrates aren't the problem, instead its insulin resistance, a normal functioning body can process carbohydrates without overtaxing its pancreas.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
You can't pinpoint ONLY fat when there are so many other factors to consider.
There are other factors, yet when you look at carbohydrate intake and the occurrence of type 2 diabetes among developed nations you find that the more carbohydrate a nation consumes the lower its occurrence of type 2 diabetes. Clearly carbohydrate intake isn't the real issue, instead its other factors. I'd suggest that high fat diets, especially when combined refined carbohydrates, promote diabetes. The high fat diet provides the fuel and the refined carbohydrates provide the spark to light the fire...
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
Yes, it is. As I said before, I don't actually like the flavor of the majority of vegetables, various varieties and cooking methods though I've tried.
Obviously what tastes you prefer has nothing to do with actual nutrition, though I would add that a lot of what drives overeating is a food addiction and its high fat, high sugar and high sodium foods that fuel the addiction.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
I have zero confidence that a plant-based way of eating would have saved me from anything; I know my share of fat vegetarians and even vegans including some fellow weight loss surgery seekers/recipients.
Yes, I'm sure you have zero confidence or you would have tried it. But I don't think you grasp what a whole food plant-based diet is all about.....its not equivalent to a mere vegetarian or vegan diet. Vegetarian and vegan diets can be filled with fats, sugars and sodium just like the typical American diet. You'll notice that I never mentioned vegetarian or vegan diets.....
When it comes to nutrition, there really isn't "different strokes". Though there are some individual differences, the basics of nutrition are the same for everyone.
If you want to know the science and reality of predicting your possible future coronary disease likelihood, ignore the total cholesterol level and divide your triglyceride total by your HDL (healthy cholesterol).
Nearly all routinely assessed lipid variables were associated with the extent of coronary disease, but only the ratio of triglycerides to HDL-cholesterol or to HDL-c were robustly associated with disease extent. Elevation in the ratio of TG to HDL-c was the single most powerful predictor of extensive coronary heart disease among all the lipid variables examined.
"...in adults, the triglyceride/HDL-"good" cholesterol ratio should be below 2 (just divide your triglycerides level by your HDL)."
..the triglyceride/HDL ratio:
2 or less is considered ideal
4 - high
6 - much too high
And, since HDL (high density lipoprotein) is protective against heart disease, the lower the ratio, the better.
In other words, the lower your triglycerides, or the higher your HDL, the smaller this ratio becomes.
It is now believed that the triglycerides/HDL ratio is one of the most potent predictors of heart disease.
A Harvard-lead study author reported:
"High triglycerides alone increased the risk of heart attack nearly three-fold."
And people with the highest ratio of triglycerides to HDL -- the "good" cholesterol -- had 16 times the risk of heart attack as those with the lowest ratio of triglycerides to HDL in the study of 340 heart attack patients and 340 of their healthy, same age counterparts."
Actually, there ARE theories that it is, in fact, "different strokes." And by that, I don't necessarily mean personal preference, but rather hereditary tendencies/genetic predispositions. But I won't get into that since it's clear you care to believe there is only one right type of diet for everyone. Have fun with your soy, legumes, and vegetables, and I'll enjoy my full-fat cheeses, marbled red meats, and butter in the absence of my once bothersome type 2 diabetes. If nothing else, we should at least be able to agree that either way is better than the SAD!
LittleDolphin, I have heard that before as well. I'm getting there - my ratio is less than 3 but not yet less than 2
Actually, there ARE theories that it is, in fact, "different strokes." And by that, I don't necessarily mean personal preference, but rather hereditary tendencies/genetic predispositions.
There are some genetic differences, for example some people can deal with dietary cholesterol better than others. But the basics are the same....can you point me to "theories" that suggest that humans have vastly different nutritional needs based on genetic differences?
Quote:
Originally Posted by jillybean720
If nothing else, we should at least be able to agree that either way is better than the SAD!
Unfortunately not....the long-term studies that are coming out are showing that that greasy diets based around animal fats have worse health outcomes than the baseline.
Actually, there ARE theories that it is, in fact, "different strokes." And by that, I don't necessarily mean personal preference, but rather hereditary tendencies/genetic predispositions. But I won't get into that since it's clear you care to believe there is only one right type of diet for everyone. Have fun with your soy, legumes, and vegetables, and I'll enjoy my full-fat cheeses, marbled red meats, and butter in the absence of my once bothersome type 2 diabetes. If nothing else, we should at least be able to agree that either way is better than the SAD!
LittleDolphin, I have heard that before as well. I'm getting there - my ratio is less than 3 but not yet less than 2
There are some genetic differences, for example some people can deal with dietary cholesterol better than others. But the basics are the same....can you point me to "theories" that suggest that humans have vastly different nutritional needs based on genetic differences?
No. You're welcome to search yourself. If such an ignoramus as myself came across them, I'm sure your all-knowing self could find them as well. I'm not interested in continuing to bang my head against a wall of one-sidedness.
If such an ignoramus as myself came across them, I'm sure your all-knowing self could find them as well.
I see, so there are "theories", but you can't name them or give any information about them....instead I'm suppose to do a blind search for them. But I'm the "one sided" one.....
Regardless, I really do hope you figure things out before its too late. It would be unfortunate if your battle with weight and diabetes gets followed with a battle with heart disease and/or cancer....
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
including some fellow weight loss surgery seekers/recipients.
Does 'Atkins' ring a bell??? 
