Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 hours ago, Ron Put said:

I have been thinking about my consumption of cacao nibs lately, and how the fat I consume daily from them (I've reduced my intake to about 5g-10g per day) and the fat I consume from nuts and avocado stacks up.

A couple of recent studies from Australia seem to suggest that a 7 or 8 to 1 ratio of (whole) carbs to fat is optimum, and if I remember, that's close to what the traditional Okinawan diet was as well. My fat intake is currently between 25% and 30%, most of it from nuts, cacao nibs, and flax (or less often, chia).

And I've been thinking that most studies extolling the benefits of nuts, avocado or cacao use seem to incorporate them as substitutions to unhealthy fats. So, last night I did a quick search and I found a video that may be on to something. I am not saying that it is a definitive answer, but it gave me a pause and I think it's worth exploring:
 

 

This is the case against fats well stated. Even so called healthy fats. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
19 minutes ago, Mike41 said:

This is the case against fats well stated. Even so called healthy fats. 

Interesting. It would be nice to see this n=1 experiment repeated with more subjects and with proper control (i.e. also testing PWV after eating a low-fat meal and/or a mixed meal with or without nuts).

--Dean

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When doctors such as Greger, Esselstyn, Cornish say that a wfpb diet ‘reverses’ heart disease... 

do they literally mean that atherosclerosis plaque is decreased/removed??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, Clinton said:

When doctors such as Greger, Esselstyn, Cornish say that a wfpb diet ‘reverses’ heart disease... 

do they literally mean that atherosclerosis plaque is decreased/removed??

It appears so, based on the admittedly relatively small studies I've seen.

I posted a video interview with Neal Barnard elsewhere which also makes this assertion, see about the 16:15 point onward. 

On the nuts subject, here is what Esselstyn says:
"As nuts are a rich source of saturated fats, my preference is no nuts for heart disease patients. That also eliminates peanuts and peanut butter even though peanuts are officially a legume. For those with established heart disease to add more saturated fat that is in nuts is inappropriate. For people with no heart disease who want to eat nuts and avocado and are able to achieve a cholesterol of 150 and LDL of 80 or under without cholesterol lowering drugs, some nuts and avocado are acceptable. Chestnuts are the one nut, very low in fat, it is ok to eat."

I am thinking that after I am done with my experiment with berberine and moringa (to see if it affects my glucose and insulin numbers), I might cut down my nuts, cacao nibs and avocado intake dramatically, and test a couple of months later, to see what changes it causes, if any. Right now I am at about 25-30g of almonds, 15g of walnuts, and a single Brazil nut, between 2.5g and 3g generally.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I find that if I remove nuts from my diet, according to the Cronometer I am not getting RDA levels of omega 6.

I would be at around 7g (RDA is 17g).

Even when I DO consume a total of 1/4 cup of 50/50 almond and walnuts my total fat intake is less than RDA.

If RDA is actually the best way to optimize health and longevity (at least for fat intake) then some nut intake is probably necessary... or you start adding in other omega 6 sources such as??

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Clinton said:

If RDA is actually the best way to optimize health and longevity (at least for fat intake) then some nut intake is probably necessary... or you start adding in other omega 6 sources such as??

This is an interesting question. For instance, my guess is that the traditional Okinawan diet would be below RDA, but not sure.

1404443107_WillcoxOkinawaStudy.png.ae0b66cb485ce19fcfe73d09be89cd3c.png

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Clinton said:

I find that if I remove nuts from my diet, according to the Cronometer I am not getting RDA levels of omega 6.

I would be at around 7g (RDA is 17g).

Even when I DO consume a total of 1/4 cup of 50/50 almond and walnuts my total fat intake is less than RDA.

If RDA is actually the best way to optimize health and longevity (at least for fat intake) then some nut intake is probably necessary... or you start adding in other omega 6 sources such as??

Depends on your source, in this case you’d only need 3 more grams epa

In 2009, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its recommendations for PUFA (203):

  • an omega-3 fatty acid intake of 2 g/day alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and 250 mg/day long-chain omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)
  • an omega-6 fatty acid intake of 10 g/day linoleic acid (LA). 
Edited by Mike41

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is very crude (I'm using population rather than individual data - this is statistical blasphemy and can be way off; furthermore we are interested in a probability distribution rather than mean. We really need individual-level data) but if you take a 50 kg Okinawan from 1949 (http://www.hsph.jp/JT2009/documents/Caloric Restriction, the Traditional Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging.pdf) 0.8 mg/kg RDA = 40 grams protein vs the 39 g reported here (lots of assumptions here, right or wrong). The EAR is of course much lower at ~ 0.66 mg/kg https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4997405/.

Apologies for my laziness, I'm sure there are much better figures are out there, or even in this same study, relative to my flawed back-of-the envelope approximation.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 5:55 PM, Ron Put said:

It appears so, based on the admittedly relatively small studies I've seen.

I posted a video interview with Neal Barnard elsewhere which also makes this assertion, see about the 16:15 point onward. 

On the nuts subject, here is what Esselstyn says:
"As nuts are a rich source of saturated fats, my preference is no nuts for heart disease patients. That also eliminates peanuts and peanut butter even though peanuts are officially a legume. For those with established heart disease to add more saturated fat that is in nuts is inappropriate. For people with no heart disease who want to eat nuts and avocado and are able to achieve a cholesterol of 150 and LDL of 80 or under without cholesterol lowering drugs, some nuts and avocado are acceptable. Chestnuts are the one nut, very low in fat, it is ok to eat."

I am thinking that after I am done with my experiment with berberine and moringa (to see if it affects my glucose and insulin numbers), I might cut down my nuts, cacao nibs and avocado intake dramatically, and test a couple of months later, to see what changes it causes, if any. Right now I am at about 25-30g of almonds, 15g of walnuts, and a single Brazil nut, between 2.5g and 3g generally.

What changes will you be looking at. Endothelial function after a meal is a key factor long term wrt CAD. Pulse wave velocity testing after two comparison meals would be required. One very low fat and one with higher fat.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, Mike41 said:

Depends on your source, in this case you’d only need 3 more grams epa

In 2009, The European Food Safety Authority (EFSA) published its recommendations for PUFA (203):

  • an omega-3 fatty acid intake of 2 g/day alpha-linolenic acid (ALA) and 250 mg/day long-chain omega-3 fatty acids eicosapentaenoic acid (EPA) and docosahexaenoic acid (DHA)
  • an omega-6 fatty acid intake of 10 g/day linoleic acid (LA). 

Thanks Mike,

I've also seen that the Europeans set a lower value for choline as well ... makes me wonder if us Canadians & Americans don't make allowances in the RDA to more align with our higher intake of eggs & animal proteins, and less in-line with what the human body actual requires.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/6/2021 at 11:55 PM, Ron Put said:

On the nuts subject, here is what Esselstyn says:
"As nuts are a rich source of saturated fats, my preference is no nuts for heart disease patients. That also eliminates peanuts and peanut butter even though peanuts are officially a legume. For those with established heart disease to add more saturated fat that is in nuts is inappropriate. For people with no heart disease who want to eat nuts and avocado and are able to achieve a cholesterol of 150 and LDL of 80 or under without cholesterol lowering drugs, some nuts and avocado are acceptable. Chestnuts are the one nut, very low in fat, it is ok to eat."

That's an example of fanaticism. After I heard Esseltsyin in a podcast,  comparing eating nuts to walking too close to the abyss, I ceased being interested in his assertions. Talking like that is not scientific, it's more like the talk of religious fanatics.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Mechanism said:

PS- If it's the micronutrients you are interested in, see Table 2 for %RDA (many are below).

http://www.hsph.jp/JT2009/documents/Caloric Restriction, the Traditional Okinawan Diet, and Healthy Aging.pdf

Some takeaways from that paper; the Okinawan men had a BMI of 21, low protein intake (9%) and very low fat intake (6%) (12g of fat; 3.7g sat, 3.6g MUFA, 4.8g PUFA).

The low-levels of protein and fat are difficult imo to achieve; and not sure that in maximizing human lifespan that it is necessary to achieve or that those percentages are desirable.  This low-protein and low-fat diet however is an excellent testament to the fact that a low-protein and low-fat diet is likely not harmful.

I speculate that the CR (or low calorie intake of 1785kCal), the resulting BMI and the low-protein intake might be the strongest pro-longevity factors here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
47 minutes ago, mccoy said:

That's an example of fanaticism. After I heard Esseltsyin in a podcast,  comparing eating nuts to walking too close to the abyss, I ceased being interested in his assertions. Talking like that is not scientific, it's more like the talk of religious fanatics.

 

It’s not fanatic. He’s talking about severe CAD patients and his research and many years of experience directly dealing with it shows that fats interfere with blood flow and those patients are already suffering from seriously reduced blood flow to their hearts

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Clinton said:

Thanks Mike,

I've also seen that the Europeans set a lower value for choline as well ... makes me wonder if us Canadians & Americans don't make allowances in the RDA to more align with our higher intake of eggs & animal proteins, and less in-line with what the human body actual requires.

Do North Americans have a poorer diet than Europeans?  I doubt it.  Both are lousy.

  --  Saul

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, Mike41 said:

It’s not fanatic. He’s talking about severe CAD patients and his research and many years of experience directly dealing with it shows that fats interfere with blood flow and those patients are already suffering from seriously reduced blood flow to their hearts

I agree on that but then he should have specified that his opinions are rigorously valid for severe CAD patients. As a representative of the general population which luckily does not suffer CVD, I just don't feel like having walked very close to the abyss after eating a couple of handfuls of mixed nuts. Nor the literature on nutrition, in my knowledge, has ever shown that.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, mccoy said:

I agree on that but then he should have specified that his opinions are rigorously valid for severe CAD patients. As a representative of the general population which luckily does not suffer CVD, I just don't feel like having walked very close to the abyss after eating a couple of handfuls of mixed nuts. Nor the literature on nutrition, in my knowledge, has ever shown that.

Well he does mention that healthy people can eat nuts and avocado in the quote that I posted. So he is not suggesting all people should avoid these foods.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nut critique video above  (https://youtu.be/zkC0-sXruM8) seems a bit sketchy...

The first pulse wave velocity scan showed:  Actual age = 38 / Est. Age based on arteries = 22 (16 years younger than chronological age).  He does not say if this was done in a fasted state? This is an important factor.

The second pulse wave velocity scan was taken 3 hours after eating nuts and showed:  Actual age = 39 / Est. Age based on arteries = 39 (same as chronological age)

The third pulse wave velocity scan  (no nuts, and again no information about fasted state or not) showed:  Actual age = 40 / Est. Age based on arteries = 20 (which is 20 years younger than chronological age, a HUGE improvement over his first scan)

I thought it was pretty well known that arterial function is temporarily impaired by dietary fats after consumption, but the affect is temporary.  It is not clear from the video what the guy did exactly, did he only eat nuts one time for the test?  Or did he eat them for a year?  For all we know, the nuts might have contributed to his overall large improvement shown in the 3rd test!  I would love to be tested, but would expect a mediocre result if the test is taken soon after eating fats, but (hopefully) a good result in a fasted state?  

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, Mike41 said:

Well he does mention that healthy people can eat nuts and avocado in the quote that I posted. So he is not suggesting all people should avoid these foods.

No, he doesn't say to avoid but that in healthy people  'some nuts and avocados are acceptable' on the condition that cholesterol is very low...

Now, I take many of my minerals from nuts and seeds. I should swap them with cereals to make up for them. This would entail a high glycemic load and maybe a good push toward pre-diabetes.

What's worst, diabetes or hypercholesterolemia? both of course, but to mantain a low-fat diet, lots of carbs must be ingested to achieve a minimum survival level of calories.

So it all goes down to personal propensities and, at the end, a choice. If I cannot keep both glicemia and cholesterol low, if I cannot reach an acceptable optimization, I must choose which parameter to control less, and eventually take drugs to push it down.

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
23 hours ago, mccoy said:

No, he doesn't say to avoid but that in healthy people  'some nuts and avocados are acceptable' on the condition that cholesterol is very low...

Now, I take many of my minerals from nuts and seeds. I should swap them with cereals to make up for them. This would entail a high glycemic load and maybe a good push toward pre-diabetes.

What's worst, diabetes or hypercholesterolemia? both of course, but to mantain a low-fat diet, lots of carbs must be ingested to achieve a minimum survival level of calories.

So it all goes down to personal propensities and, at the end, a choice. If I cannot keep both glicemia and cholesterol low, if I cannot reach an acceptable optimization, I must choose which parameter to control less, and eventually take drugs to push it down.

Your assumptions are based on cholesterol, but it appears high fat meals may contribute to stress in the arteries which overa lifetime could be a hazard.

https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0053474

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mike, I believe the changes in some parameters (sometimes not even very large) were not so impressive considering the kind of shake they drank (probably in two gulps). That is probably not at all comparable to a meal with lots of vegetables/fibers, nuts or seeds or EVOO, a little cheese. Besides: AFAIK, also (pre)diabetes entails vascular damage. Back to the optimization issue.

Quote

The HF/HE shake consisted of 53%(w/v) fresh cream, 3%(w/v) sugar and 44%(w/v) water and reflected a macronutrient composition of 6g protein, 95g fat (of which 54g saturated), 22g carbohydrates and represented a total energy content of 3992KJ. The average breakfast shake was, based on macronutrient composition, comparable to a breakfast as averagely consumed by young men in the Netherlands [16]. This average breakfast shake consisted of 43%(w/v) full cream milk, 48%(w/v) full cream yoghurt, 4%(w/v) lemonade, 4%(w/v) fantomalt (Nutricia B.V., the Netherlands) and 1%(w/v) wheat fiber and reflected a macronutrient composition of 17g protein, 14.5g fat, (of which 9g saturated), 49.5g carbohydrates and 2.3g fiber and represented a total energy content of 1674KJ (NEVO 2006). Both shakes had a total volume of 500 ml.

 

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/9/2021 at 1:03 PM, mccoy said:

but to mantain a low-fat diet, lots of carbs must be ingested to achieve a minimum survival level of calories.

Based on what I've been reading lately, lots of whole carbs (and fiber), and relatively low fat and protein, may be the key to good health. SO, you are on to something :)

Endothelial function is what it is, and to me at least, it makes some sense that one would want to minimize the transient impairment effect fats have on it, be they from nuts or EVOO. As mentioned before, I personally have dramatically reduced my EVOO intake, and I am happy with my decision (and I do take olive leaf extract, just so I don't miss out on the phenolic compounds. But the point I was initially pondering is that most of the nuts and cacao studies that find them beneficial use them as a substitute to alternatives generally considered unhealthy. I am still pondering it, but I am leaning toward at least reducing the amounts of nuts and cacao I consume daily.

And Esselstyn and Ornish, and others, preach about super low-fat diets as a way of reversing CVD, and have the (albeit relatively small) studies to prove it. But as quoted above, Esselstyn certainly finds a small amount of nuts to be fine for healthy people. I see nothing wrong with this.


 

On 3/7/2021 at 3:22 PM, Mike41 said:

What changes will you be looking at.

Ironically, I have the Withings body scale that measures Pulse Wave Velocity, but that feature was blocked in the US pending FDA approval (it's been years now). It is available on the identical Withings scales sold in the EU and it appears to be reasonably accurate based on the studies presented for approval in the EU. I can't believe nobody here has one...

But since I can't test my PWV, I was planning to see where my cholesterol, glucose and insulin go once I reduce my fat intake. Reducing EVOO resulted in a dramatic cholesterol drop, so I don't expect anything as major now, but who knows. I was going to wait to start reducing, but have already started, and now my daily fat intake is in the low 20% of total calories.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 3/11/2021 at 2:13 AM, Ron Put said:

Based on what I've been reading lately, lots of whole carbs (and fiber), and relatively low fat and protein, may be the key to good health. SO, you are on to something 🙂

There is not very much literature on the VLF vegan diet. Maybe nothing at all. McDougall's, Esselstyn, and the like. So many carbs would tend to increase glycemic index in some people. McDougall's diet is mostly carbs, although healthy ones. The IML theory may be true but should be compared to a low-carb diet.

To me again, it seems that some people should choose whether to avoid high glycemia or high cholesterol. There is no possibility of optimization for some people and at a certain age.

So the question is: what's the effect of a  low-fat-high-carb diet on blood sugar? A controlled trial on All significant parameters: fasting concentration, postprandial concentration, HA1C, healthy people, large sample, all ages. This would really show if a VLF (vegan) diet is a win-win or is  a win-loose.

 

Edited by mccoy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×