[Sca-cooks] Re: OT Cholesterol

[Stephen Bloch]

At 10:47 AM -0500 11/23/04, Phlip wrote:
>In the first place, saturated fat is saturated fat. Doesn't matter if it's
>vegetable based, or animal based, it's the same stuff. If you like butter,
>eat butter- it's no better or worse for you than margarine, other than some
>of the garbage they add to margarine to make it "look" like butter.

True, but animal fats TEND to be more saturated than plant fats.  A 
notable exception is coconut and other palm oils, which are highly 
saturated (and very popular with the food industry for their keeping 
qualities).  A better rule of thumb than "animal or vegetable?" is 
"is it solid or liquid at room temperature?"

>Eggs are high in cholesterol. However, one of the things that was discovered
>after the big flap about eggs being high in cholesterol was touted, and not
>advertised anywhere nearly as much, is that eggs contain their own enzymes
>and such which break the cholesterol down so it's essentially harmless.

Obviously, eating more cholesterol is going to increase the amount of 
cholesterol in your blood.  But many things are obvious that aren't 
necessarily true.  As I understand it, there's surprisingly little 
scientific evidence connecting the cholesterol you eat and the 
cholesterol in your blood; there's more evidence connecting the 
saturated fats you eat and the cholesterol in your blood.

>But, as far as trying to make what sounds like a wonderful egg bread more
>healthy? I wouldn't bother. Instead, I'd eat it as part of my balanced diet.
>You could always do what some of the "high fiber, low-carb" breads are doing
>, and make your bread, essentially, out of sawdust, if you're that concerned
>;-)

I've bought a couple of kinds of high-fiber, low-carb bread, and 
found that most of them tasted like sawdust.  So after my wife and I 
started low-carbing a year and a half ago, I started experimenting 
with my own, and it's got a good flavor and texture (just a little 
spongier than what you might expect).  It contains nothing that 
humans didn't evolve eating, like sawdust, artificial sweeteners, or 
xanthan gum -- the most processed ingredient is wheat gluten -- and a 
slice comes out around 9 g protein and 5 g "net carbs".

At 11:24 AM -0500 11/23/04, Lonnie D. Harvel wrote:
>When I asked my doctors about a good diet, all of them handed me the
>current version of the FDA food pyramid. When I asked about Atkins, my
>caridologist offered to kill me himself to save time. "Any diet that
>suggests pork rinds are better for you that carrots is ridiculous" was the
>quote. Though I have never been convinced that such a claim is true of the
>low-carb diets, what is on most menus as low-carb, or Atkins friendly, is
>usually about the worst thing on the menu for someone concerned about
>cardiovascular health.

There was a Scientific American article about this some two years 
ago, saying that the USDA food pyramid (not FDA -- and why we get our 
dietary guidelines from the agriculture department rather than FDA or 
NIH is another story) was intentionally oversimplified to avoid ALL 
fats on the theory that the unwashed masses couldn't tell the 
difference between saturated and unsaturated fats.  But the 
researchers knew that saturated fats were worse, so since saturated 
fats usually come along with animal protein, they recommended going 
easy on animal protein too, which that left only carbohydrates to 
fill up the rest of the diet.  Which wouldn't be so bad if the food 
industry had responded with beans and whole grains, but instead they 
responded with Entenmann's Fat-Free (mostly sugar and white flour), 
which is more profitable.

Atkins oversimplifies in the other direction: rather than saying all 
fats are bad, and all carbohydrates are good, he says all fats are 
good, and all carbohydrates are bad.  (Even Atkins recommends adding 
many vegetables, selected fruits, and some whole grains back into 
your diet after an initial "crash" period.)  This wouldn't be so bad 
if the food industry had responded with eggs, fish, and lean meat, 
but instead they've responded with artificial sweeteners and 
saturated fat, which are more profitable.

>Anyway, on a diet with a foundation in grains, vegetables, and fruit (not
>vegetarian), eating in moderation, and keeping my fat intake in the range
>of 20% of my calories, I dropped from 255 to 220 over a space of two years
>and have stayed at this weight for the last nine years. I also dropped my
>cholesterol from 465 to 280 with this diet and then went on Lipitor to
>drop farther and work on the balance of good and bad cholesterol. I need
>to start exercising regularly to get down to 200.

After my wife and I started a low-carb diet, my total cholesterol 
briefly jumped, then gradually dropped back to where it was before, 
albeit with less "bad" LDL, less "bad" triglycerides, and more "good" 
HDL.  I lost 25 pounds and 4 inches of waistband in the first six 
weeks, and have basically stayed there for the subsequent year and a 
half.  My wife lost a good deal more and has likewise kept it off. 
We're eating more meat than I would have chosen, but we're also 
eating a lot more salad than before.
-- 
                                     John Elys
          (the artist formerly known as mar-Joshua ibn-Eleazar ha-Shalib)
                                 mka Stephen Bloch
                                 sbloch at adelphi.edu