[TheSutterDynasty]

Originally Posted by blankall

Despite the fact I introduced the concept of dietary cholesterol, you also specifically called out this position as wrong. You're now softening your stance with the "lot less of a risk factor" talk.

I did, did I? Again, I said:

Originally Posted by me

Saturated fats are never good for you. They raise LDL substantially. So no, bacon and fatty steaks are still terrible for you.

You said:

Originally Posted by blankall

The vast majority of cholesterol in your body is produced by the body itself. So while eating cholesterol may result in a very minor and temporary spike in cholesterol levels, it won't affect your overall levels over a period of time.

I called out your "saturated fats do not increase LDL" position wrong. To your "dietary cholesterol does not increase serum lipids" I said:

Originally Posted by me

If I were to take that last part concretely, you would be partially correct in saying that in some individuals actual cholesterol intake (ie cholesterol as in the RDA is 300 mg as in NOT saturated fats) does not affect the serum lipids. This is due to a gene mutation that is not found in many people; most people have a cholesterol-increasing effect from cholesterol intake.

So now that you've (hopefully, but probably not) realized the differences between dietary cholesterol, blood cholesterol, and saturated fats, you'll see I was speaking to an entirely different point and my position has remained the same the entire time.

Originally Posted by blankall

. The truth is that many new scientific studies are showing us that dietary consumption of foods high in saturated fat and cholesterol is not a problem.

The "truth"?

From your original article:http://www.ajcn.org/content/80/4/855...8-c00382dfe4be

The purpose was to evaluate the effects of dietary cholesterol provided by whole eggs on the lipoprotein profile...

During the EGG period, the hyperresponders (n = 18) had an elevation in both LDL cholesterol (from 1.54 ± 0.38 to 1.93 ± 0.36 mmol/L) and HDL cholesterol (from 1.23 ± 0.26 to 1.35 ± 0.29 mmol/L)...

But wait, you just said that dietary cholesterol isn't a problem. But it increases LDL in hyper-responders.. and LDL is a huge/causative risk factor for heart disease. That seems like a problem to me.

Now the problem of saturated fats and LDL...

More crap you spewed:

Originally Posted by blankall

You said it was wrong for stating that dietary cholesterol does not cause heart disease. I, however, was not wrong. Cholesterol levels are controlled by the body. If you eat more, the body prodcues less.

I assume you mean "eat more saturated fat", and I assume this to mean "if you eat more saturated fat, LDL decreases".

This is unbelievably erroneous, but more:

Originally Posted by blankall

The jury is still out on saturated fats, but attitudes are changing quickly:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturat...se_controversy

I'm in the camp that they are not bad for you based on the many studies I have read. The ones that account for the affect of obesity and lifestyle do not show any causal link between saturated fat and cardiovascular disease. The body is capable of metabolising saturated fat and, like cholesterol, a large amount if found naturally in the body. Adding a few drops is not going to change anything. The body will metabolize the excess. If you eat less, the body will compensate by making mroe.

The truth is that its virtually impossible to run a study on saturated fats as the control factors, become the way people live their lives. How do you control your subjects over the course of decades, which is the time scale for the development of heart disease.

Choleseterol and non-trans fat = good

Not only are you saying that saturated fat isn't bad, but it's actually good. In other words, you are saying that saturated fat does not increase LDL, or even that saturated fat decreases LDL.

From your own wikipedia link:

Systematic review Relationship between cardiovascular disease and saturated fatty acids (SFA)

Mozaffarian, 2010[2] 19% reduction in Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) events by replacing saturated fatty acids (SFA) with polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA)

Siri-Tarino, 2010[1] insignificant Danaei, 2009[3] 5% additional mortality risk for each 1% calories exchanging PUFA for SFA

Mente, 2009[4] insignificant Mozaffarian, 2009[5] Reduced risk associated with monounsaturated fatty acids (MUFA) and PUFA compared with SFA and trans-fatty acids (TFA)

Skeaff, 2009[6] reduced events by substituting PUFA

Jakobsen, 2009[7] 5% exchange of SFA for PUFA: 13% decrease events, 26% decrease deaths

Van Horn, 2008[8] 25-35% fats but <7% SFA and TFA reduces risk

Chanu, 2003[9] significant in longer term

Hooper, 2001[10] reducing total fat, SFA or cholesterol intake reduced events by 16% and deaths by 9%. Longer-term trials led to 24% reduction

Hu, 1999[11] exchanging SFA for nuts gave 45% reduction

Truswell, 1994[12] decrease SFA and cholesterol intake, partial replacement with PUFA: 6% reduced deaths, 13% reduced events

Highlighted are the systematic reviews that gave confirming, significant evidence that saturated fats increase LDL, which increases the risk for heart disease. 10/12 reviews found this.

What you're doing is an error in logic. You're erroneously equating two studies NOT finding significance with disconfirming evidence. There are dozens of reasons why a study may not find significance. It's not about a lack of affirming the antecedent, it's about affirming the consequent.

So there you go.

Dietary cholesterol: may increase your risk of heart disease, depending on if you're a hypo- or hyper- responder.

Saturated fats: increase your risk of heart disease