From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Tue May 06 2003 - 23:39:33 MDT
Brian Atkins wrote,
>
> http://www.ptyza.com/pamstuff/lcjaneen.htm
This kind of research looks sloppy to me. Like some of the other
discussions I have seen, this seems to be based on older studies that lump
"fats" together, or don't distinguish between good and bad cholesterol.
More problematically, this writer seems to think a good cholesterol "ratio"
means high HDL with no regard to what the LDL level is. I think this author
misunderstood what the "ratio" was supposed to be a ratio of. Instead of
increasing the ratio of HDL with respect to LDL (as I think should be done),
she seems to think that increasing the ratio means raising HDL or total
cholesterol without any mention of LDL. I think this is a misunderstanding
on her part.
So the real question is whether raising total cholesterol with saturated
fats is as good as raising HDL while lowering LDL. She seems to think it
is. She advocates deliberately eating more saturated fats to raise total
cholesterol (including HDL). I agree that this would do it. But my goal is
not to raise my total cholesterol. My goal is to raise HDL and lower LDL so
that the ratio between them is raised. This can be done, as she points out,
by eating more unsaturated fats and not saturated fats. So it appears that
we agree in theory on the effects of different dietary fats on HDL and LDL
serum levels. We disagree on the goals. I, for one, do not want to raise
my total cholesterol without lowering my LDL.
Specific points:
Point 2 says "HDL ratio has been proven to be a better standard to assess
cardiovascular risk." But HDL isn't a ratio. I think what she is
misunderstanding is that a high ratio between HDL and LDL is desired. She
seems to assume that this ratio is simply high HDL.
Point 2 goes on to say that "all fats raise HDL" as if this were a good
thing. I submit that this "ratio" isn't improved unless LDLs are lowered at
the same time.
In point 4 she seems to concede my understanding of fats. Saturated fats
"raise cholesterol", meaning total cholesterol. Monounsaturated fat raises
HDL, but not total cholesterol (because it lowers LDL). Polyunsaturated
fats do the same. So her chemistry matches mine. Saturated fats are good
if you want to raise total cholesterol. Unsaturated fats are good if you
want to raise HDL and lower LDL.
When she quotes studies that say raising cholesterol is good, she doesn't
seem to distinguish between different kinds of cholesterol.
She also seems confused, and concedes in point 6 that studies are
inconsistent with regard to saturated fats and raising cholesterol. I think
the problem is in her interpretation and failure to distinguish between
different types of cholesterol.
In point 7 she dismisses all studies showing saturated fats as bad as being
contradictory, inconclusive and ambiguous. It almost seems that she
concedes that there are many studies that contradict her claims, but she
rejects them all and selectively accepts only those that are consistent with
her beliefs.
In point 8 she seems to assume that raising total cholesterol is not bad as
long as HDL is raised. I think this is a misunderstanding that improving
the "ratio" would means lowering LDL while HDL is raised. If both kinds of
cholesterol are raised, the ratio may not be improving. I don't think she
knows what this "ratio" means.
Then in point 8 she seems to imply that maybe saturated fats are bad,
because she argues that they are not eaten in isolation in meat, but are
combined with the monounsaturated fats which are good and would counteract
the effects of the saturated fats. This seems to be inconsistent with her
other claims that saturated fats are good and maybe unsaturated fats are
bad.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Tue May 06 2003 - 23:52:28 MDT