Olive oil? Healthy or not?!

[mccoy]

This discussion proves that nutrition is a discipline based on degrees of belief. Which by itself constitutes a mathematical theory.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Probability_interpretations

Quote

Subjectivism[edit]

 

Gambling odds reflect the average bettor's 'degree of belief' in the outcome.

Main article: Bayesian probability

Subjectivists, also known as Bayesians or followers of epistemic probability, give the notion of probability a subjective status by regarding it as a measure of the 'degree of belief' of the individual assessing the uncertainty of a particular situation. Epistemic or subjective probability is sometimes called credence, as opposed to the term chance for a propensity probability.

Some examples of epistemic probability are to assign a probability to the proposition that a proposed law of physics is true, and to determine how probable it is that a suspect committed a crime, based on the evidence presented.

Gambling odds don't reflect the bookies' belief in a likely winner, so much as the other bettors' belief, because the bettors are actually betting against one another. The odds are set based on how many people have bet on a possible winner, so that even if the high odds players always win, the bookies will always make their percentages anyway.

The use of Bayesian probability raises the philosophical debate as to whether it can contribute valid justifications of belief.

Bayesians point to the work of Ramsey^[10] (p 182) and de Finetti^[8] (p 103) as proving that subjective beliefs must follow the laws of probability if they are to be coherent.^[20] Evidence casts doubt that humans will have coherent beliefs.^[21][22]

The use of Bayesian probability involves specifying a prior probability. This may be obtained from consideration of whether the required prior probability is greater or lesser than a reference probability^{[clarification needed]} associated with an urn model or a thought experiment. The issue is that for a given problem, multiple thought experiments could apply, and choosing one is a matter of judgement: different people may assign different prior probabilities, known as the reference class problem. The "sunrise problem" provides an example.

 

[mccoy]

Also, dempster-Schafer theory or the theory of belief functions can be used if we choose to proceed further in a scientifical fashion:

 

Dempster–Shafer theory

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

 

Jump to navigationJump to search

 

Arthur P. Dempster at the Workshop on Theory of Belief Functions (Brest, 1 April 2010).

The theory of belief functions, also referred to as evidence theory or Dempster–Shafer theory (DST), is a general framework for reasoning with uncertainty, with understood connections to other frameworks such as probability, possibility and imprecise probability theories. First introduced by Arthur P. Dempster^[1] in the context of statistical inference, the theory was later developed by Glenn Shafer into a general framework for modeling epistemic uncertainty—a mathematical theory of evidence.^[2][3] The theory allows one to combine evidence from different sources and arrive at a degree of belief (represented by a mathematical object called belief function) that takes into account all the available evidence.

In a narrow sense, the term Dempster–Shafer theory refers to the original conception of the theory by Dempster and Shafer. However, it is more common to use the term in the wider sense of the same general approach, as adapted to specific kinds of situations. In particular, many authors have proposed different rules for combining evidence, often with a view to handling conflicts in evidence better.^[4] The early contributions have also been the starting points of many important developments, including the transferable belief model and the theory of hints.^[5]

Edited January 9, 2019 by mccoy

[mccoy]

I've been considering the idea to provide a unified theory of nutrition based on the Dempster Shafer construct, but I'd need to be retired to do that.

Saul, since you are a mathematician, we might join forces!!!

[Saul]

No thanks McCoy.

  --  Saul

 

 

[mikeccolella]

 

Predimed diet which Michael and McCoy have cited extensively explained a bit differently here. A surprising twist when the researchers actually looked at which foods each group was eating and the more vegan like participants had very significant effects. Much more significant than the olive oil effect which unfortunately was a comparison with other fats rather than a low fat comparison. He talks about from 7:00 to 14:00 ish

 

[Gordo]

Nice, I had not seen the vegetarian spin on PREDIMED before.  From the talk:

Note that fish and even low alcohol were associated with higher mortality, while Mono/Sat Fat is almost equal with vegetables for lower mortality?

 

Don't want to veer off topic but Saul asked about whole grains related studies - the whole grain council (obviously a one sided view) assembled a nice table summary of studies here, I like how they put sample size and study design into their table, and organized it into different categories:

https://wholegrainscouncil.org/sites/default/files/atoms/files/2017WGC_ResearchReport.pdf

[Todd Allen]

3 hours ago, Gordo said:

Note that fish and even low alcohol were associated with higher mortality, while Mono/Sat Fat is almost equal with vegetables for lower mortality?

Can't expect much accuracy with such broad categories ignoring the wide ranging properties of all the things and how they are prepared that could fall in to each category.  A deep fried filet-o-fish sandwich from McDonalds eaten with iceberg lettuce (a vegetable!) and sugary buns, ketchup and coke and a side of fries (most commonly eaten vegetable in the US) could be less healthy than a well chosen ceviche served with a dry wine.

[mikeccolella]

Reading Dean Ornish’s new book. Just came out a week ago. Written by him and his lovely wife. “ Undo it” is about his lifestyle program that he claims will reverse many of the diseases that afflict us. From Breast  cancer to prostrate cancer, stroke, diabetes , dementia and Alzheimer’s. How can that be? Well, according to Dean they are are interrelated health problems caused primarily by the same faulty lifestyles for the most part. Of course genetics makes us more vulnerable, but he insists that only the most extreme genetic outliers are unable to conquer these diseases. So what do we need to do? According to Ornish a low fat, whole food, plant based diet is the basic dietary aspect, also exercise and do not sit for long periods. BTW he claims 1/2 hour of brisk walking or just 5 minutes a day of 6 mph jogging if your pressed for time. Stress management and socialization/loveing relationships. But for this thread let’s focus on OLIVE OIL:

Ornish insists all oils including olive oil damage us in myriad ways. From insulin resistance, fat blocks insulin uptake and contributes to insulin resistance, to decreasing blood flow to our heart and brain via flow mediated dialation impediment, to contributing to cancer and dementia/Alzheimer’s. He goes into considerable detail on how highfat diets contribute to cancer and how they effect our microbiome in a negative manner. Of course he references all of these statements. 

Another very surprising aspect of his book is the criticism of major studies. One in particular,  “De Souza R.J., et al,  Intake of saturated and trans unsaturated fatty acids and risk of all cause mortality, cardiovascular disease, and type 2 diabetes, systemic review and meta analysis of observational studies. BMI, 2015; 351:h3978. Https://doi.org/101136/BMI.h3978. Ornish claims that the authors claimed no relationship in the abstract but instead buried it in the main paper the fact that there was a very strong relationship!!! Ornish goes on to suggest that the authors simply wanted to create sensationalism to get noticed!!!

from page 72: “ Why would a journal do this? Unfortunately, journals are mindful of what is called their “impact factor.” ...So this article claiming that saturated fats is not harmful made headlines all over the world even though the conclusions were the exact opposite of what their data showed!” From the book UnDo It.

WOW! So there you have it eat added fats at your own peril even so called healthy ones like EVOO according to Ornish. At this point let me remind you that Ornish diet/ program is the only lifestyle program paid for by health insurance including my own little small town hospital and this is true all over the country, also even the likes of Bill Clinton follow his advice and U.S. News rates his diet number 1 for heart disease. Bottom line keep fat between 10-15% of calories get your omega 3’s from fish oil caps not fish, eat nuts and or seeds for essential ALA/ omega 6 but very small amounts keeping total fat below 15% of calories. 

Am I convinced not at all, but I am seriously following his diet rec’s at this time. A whole food plant based diet with 15% fat is damn easy to follow and hellava lot More satisfying than a say 35% fat diet using olive oil. Why? Simple whole plant foods are much more satisfying calorie per calories than oil. Thy have flavor, textures and they are very filling. And maybe he is right he does make a compelling argument against fat levels above 15% 

Edited January 13, 2019 by mikeccolella

[Todd Allen]

Hopefully Dean Ornish's work will convince these dumb bunnies to adopt a plant based diet before they get heart disease.

Scavenging By Snowshoe Hares (Lepus americanus) In Yukon, Canada

Quote

Although it is difficult to relate estimates of scavenging frequency to any measure of ecological importance or mechanism, these observations at least demonstrate that the behaviour is a regular occurrence for hares, and individuals will consume carrion from a variety of different species.

 

Edited January 13, 2019 by Todd Allen

[mccoy]

I wonder if Dean Ornish new book is a significant uipdate from his spectrum book published in 2007. 

On 1/13/2019 at 3:18 PM, mikeccolella said:

WOW! So there you have it eat added fats at your own peril even so called healthy ones like EVOO according to Ornish. ....

Am I convinced not at all, but I am seriously following his diet rec’s at this time. A whole food plant based diet with 15% fat is damn easy to follow and hellava lot More satisfying than a say 35% fat diet using olive oil. Why? Simple whole plant foods are much more satisfying calorie per calories than oil. Thy have flavor, textures and they are very filling. And maybe he is right he does make a compelling argument against fat levels above 15% 

I would be curious to know the articles cited by Ornish. D'souza et al is on saturated fats mainly. articles on EVOO often do not even cite the analytical characteristics of the oils studied.

In another thread we discussed with Michael Rae about the theory of intra miocellular lipids as a cause of T2D, but there seems to be no conclusive evidence.

To me a WFPB with 15% is pretty hard to follow and very unconvenient.

For example, the other day I ate one pound of tossed salad with 35 grams of EVOO, vinegar and salt. I really liked it. Without EVOO, I would have had to compel myself to gulp down 100 grams of it and then I woudl have desisted.

Lowfat eating is not easy and Ornish' books are full of recipes, which are not very immediate to prepare. Also, in other countries like Italy there are no low calories substitutes for oil. 

 

Edited January 14, 2019 by mccoy

[Saul]

Hi McCoy!

Learn to eat raw vegetables, without oils.  It's not difficult.

  --  Saul

[tea]

The Effect of Exclusive Olive Oil Consumption on Successful Aging: A Combined Analysis of the ATTICA and MEDIS Epidemiological Studies

[mccoy]

9 hours ago, Saul said:

Hi McCoy!

Learn to eat raw vegetables, without oils.  It's not difficult.

  --  Saul

Saul, sometimes I'll do that, but the amounts eatable that way without nausea are pretty small, especially so in some specieses.

[mccoy]

9 hours ago, tea said:

The Effect of Exclusive Olive Oil Consumption on Successful Aging: A Combined Analysis of the ATTICA and MEDIS Epidemiological Studies

Thanks Tea for the article, I counted the references, about 25 articles are cited illustrating the benefits of OO or a mediterranean type diet. 

Now, are these articles less valid or more valid than those against OO cited by Dean Ornish? Which is the Bayiesian prior?

My anecdotal experience is that I've been thriving on an high fats diet, with lots of EVOO. Ancel Keys noticed the low prevalence of CVD in the Mediterranean area. If EVOO were detrimental, he should have noticed an high incidence of CVD.

We get back to the fact that nutrition is based on degrees of belief.

I don't even rule the placebo effect. Guys read by a super-authoritative figure like Ornish that EVOO is bad, 15% fat max is good, they follow that and are all right.

Guys read that a keto diet, 85% fats cures from diseases, they eat like they, often they are much better.

I myself am convinced that cold exposure plus many oranges, xenohormetic compounds and exercise will make me immune to disease, and I don't get ill.

Placebo governs? Maybe...

Edited January 15, 2019 by mccoy

[mikeccolella]

Again this does not address the issue. Is olive oil beneficial or is it the lesser of two evils? That question won’t be answered until a well done clinical trial compres a WFPBLF diet to one with added olive oil. Fat chance that’s ever going to happen, so that leaves us with clear evidence that high fat meals slow down blood flow in our capillaries as measured scientifically in real human beings, and Ornishs claims that high fat diets cause cellular resistance to insulin and ultimately contribute to type 2 diabetes and promote cancer, especially prostrate cancer. The Ornish diet has been used in real people to inhibit prostrate cancer with success according to Ornish and he documents that. Again I am not a zealot but it seemeth to me why dump nutritionally deplete and very high calorie oils on our food when we can choose Whole Foods? ALSO it comes down to quality of life, if oil is something you gotta have then go for it. Personally I’m with Saul on this one, I’ll take the extra Whole Foods any day over oils. So again their is no evidence that olive oil added to a WFPB diet offers any benefit and for all we we know it may actually be a negative. 

Edited January 15, 2019 by mikeccolella

[Saul]

Hi Mike!

In the study quoted by Tea, we don't know what the the "no olive oil" people were eating or drinking instead -- in fact, we have little information on the comparative diets of the three groups.

And, the study appears is in an issue devoted exclusively to "olive oil" -- there may be investigator bias.

  --  Saul

 

[mccoy]

There rarely is no bias, as the Ioannidis article cited by Mike illustrates. Esseltsyin leading a study on lowfat diet is biased a priori, no kidding about that!

Likewise, Mark Sisson leading a study on a regimen based on paleo diet is hardly unbiased.

 

Edited January 15, 2019 by mccoy

[Todd Allen]

11 hours ago, mikeccolella said:

Ornishs claims that high fat diets cause cellular resistance to insulin and ultimately contribute to type 2 diabetes and promote cancer,

"high fat diets" are typically also high sugar diets and only about 45% fat.

Ketogenic diets reverse type 2 diabetes and are being tested for cancer treatment with good preliminary results. 

 

[mccoy]

Todd, the HAllberg et al. article shows an effective management, not a reversal, of T2D with a ketogenic diet.

Neal Barnard claimed a reversal of T2D with a vegan lowfat diet, but, as per previous discussion with Micheal Rae, his article only showed a management of such a condition.

Reversal would be proved by below 100 mg/dL fasting blood gluocose, adequate repsonse to a glicaemic challenge test, adequate IR/Homa indexes and so on...

[Gordo]

On 1/13/2019 at 9:18 AM, mikeccolella said:

 get your omega 3’s from fish oil caps not fish, eat nuts and or seeds for essential ALA/ omega 6 but very small amounts keeping total fat below 15% of calories. 

I'm still not convinced one should limit plant based whole food derived fats (nuts, seeds, avocados).  I'm also surprised Ornish would still be suggesting the use of fish oil given the potential risks vs. algae based supplements:

https://www.superfoodly.com/benefits-of-vegan-omega-3-epa-dha-sources-vs-fish-oil/

2nd rebuttal: vegans have higher DHA levels

Plant-based dieters tend to eat more omega 3 rich grains, legumes, and seeds as substitutes for meat and dairy (which are almost entirely omega 6)

Even higher than fish eaters! That’s from a 2010 study which was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (30).

The researchers looked at 14,422 people between the ages of 39 and 78. Among them were men, women, meat-eaters, vegatarians, and vegans.

Guess what? Even though omega 3 intakes were 57-80% lower in the non-fish eaters (vegans), the amount of DHA in their blood was actually found to be higher at 286.4 micromoles per liter versus 271 for the fish eaters.

If one needs fish for adequate DHA as many claim, then why do the vegans have the highest amounts, despite taking in no direct sources of DHA? It’s likely because they are taking in higher amounts of the precursor – ALA – and the ultimate effect that has even exceeds those who consume fish + lower amounts of ALA. It’s hard for the pro-fish crowd and vegan haters to brush this study aside given how large the sample size was – over 14,000 people

Edited January 17, 2019 by Gordo

[Saul]

Hi Gordo!

There is a danger of having too high an w6/w3 ration on most vegan diets.

  --  Saul

[Saul]

Also:  If you use ALA for w3's, you may or may not get your EFA's -- the essential ones are the long chain w3's, such as found in fish oil (or better still in fish!).  Some people are efficient in converting short-chain w3's into long chain -- some are not.

IMO, veganism is a religion.

But, I think that we all think that a good diet is plant based -- with little, if any, animal sources.

A 100% vegan diet is:

Starch, salt, sugar, olive oil and edamame.

Enjoy.

😁

  ==  Saul

[Todd Allen]

4 hours ago, mccoy said:

Todd, the HAllberg et al. article shows an effective management, not a reversal, of T2D with a ketogenic diet.

...

Reversal would be proved by below 100 mg/dL fasting blood gluocose, adequate repsonse to a glicaemic challenge test, adequate IR/Homa indexes and so on...

The study showed aggregated statistics with significant drops in HOMA IR as measured by both c-peptide and insulin, reduction and sometimes elimination of all medications for diabetes including insulin, drops in fasting blood glucose, HbA1c, etc.  a lot of evidence of a shift away from a diabetic phenotype.   In addition other biomarkers of health and CVD risk are improving such as triglycerides, HDL and hsCRP.  According to Dean Ornish, et al high fat, especially animal fats, should be raising triglycerides and inflammation although there has been evidence to the contrary for decades.

A presentation by Dr. Jeff Volek explaining what ketogenic diets do with respect to diabetes and insulin resistance and some of the mechanisms involved.

Presentations by Dr. Sarah Hallberg with more details on the studies she's involved in and her belief it is more than management is clear.  Her studies are planned to last 5 years and the 2nd year data should be published soon.

A presentation by Dr. Eric Westman on his extensive clinical experience managing and in some cases reversing type 2 diabetes using ketogenic diets.  Unlike low fat vegan evangelists he makes suggestions of when to avoid the diet though I don't think he goes far enough as others like Dr. Peter Attia find one or more concerning biomarker responses in 10 to 20% of patients adopting ketogenic diets.

 

[TomBAvoider]

There was a study discussed by MR somewhere in one of these threads, wherein they had one cohort on EVOO and another on nuts isocalorically (in the context of a mediterranean diet), and the outcomes were not *more* favorable for nuts (from what I remember, EVOO came out ahead, though not by a lot). I don't have time right now to look for it, but assuming that my recollection is correct, then what happens to the idea that EVOO is comparatively unhealthy because it represents an extracted oil, rather than a whole food like nuts. If that were true wrt. EVOO, then the group on nuts (everything else being equal), should have better outcomes than the "unnatural" EVOO (and the conventional wisdom regards nuts as a health food).

And apparently, Ornish recommendations changed in favor of nuts:

https://www.ornish.com/zine/new-scientifically-validated-guidelines-nuts-and-seeds/

If my recollection of the substitution/comparison study is correct, I don't see how one is justified in recommending nuts, while disparaging EVOO (as I understand the current Ornish position).

[Todd Allen]

2 hours ago, TomBAvoider said:

There was a study discussed by MR somewhere in one of these threads, wherein they had one cohort on EVOO and another on nuts isocalorically (in the context of a mediterranean diet), and the outcomes were not *more* favorable for nuts (from what I remember, EVOO came out ahead, though not by a lot).

Perhaps it was this study https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26450601 ?  In which case it looks like both nuts and EVOO beat the low fat control by a few points of blood pressure but by different mechanisms.  It looks like nuts won but I don't think the results are dramatic enough to pass judgement given the limitations of the study.  It surely doesn't suggest in any way that one should avoid either nuts or olive oil.