Cholesterol: Five foods that fight it and five that feed it.

[kwikdriver]

There’s no denying that a healthy diet is the first line of defense against rising cholesterol. “If you eat a predominantly plant-based diet—with lots of fruits and vegetables plus some fish—you are on the right track to keeping your cholesterol at a healthy level,” says Lisa Dorfman, a registered dietitian and spokeswoman for the American Dietetic Association. That said, certain so-called super-foods can actually help lower bad cholesterol and/or increase the good cholesterol. Ideally, you want to shoot for total cholesterol under 200, with LDL (the bad one) under 110 and HDL (the good one) greater than 35.

Try to incorporate more of these foods into your daily diet:

Almonds: Studies have found that eating just a quarter cup of almonds a day can lower your LDL by 4.4 percent, according to dietitian Leslie Bonci, who is also the director of sports nutrition at University of Pittsburgh Medical Center. “Eating nuts, especially almonds, which are high in good-for-you monounsaturated fat, is better than simply eating a low-fat snack like pretzels,” says Bonci. Of course, they can also be high in calories, so stick with a small serving and choose almonds that are dry roasted without oil.

Oatmeal: You’ve seen the commercials with people proclaiming dramatic drops in their cholesterol numbers thanks to a daily serving of this hot cereal. Those great results are due to the high levels of soluble fiber found in oatmeal. “The soluble fiber binds to the bile acids that are the precursor to the development of cholesterol and help flush it out,” explains Bonci. It doesn’t matter how you get your oats—those instant, just-add-water packets are just as good for you as traditional, slow-cooked versions.

Fish: Omega-3 fatty acids are widely considered to be the best of the “good” fats, and the best place to find them is in fish—especially fatty fishes like salmon, halibut and tuna. According to Dorfman of the ADA, you want to get 1.5 to 3 grams per day of omega-3. A 4-ounce piece of salmon will give you close to 3 grams, and you can also get these fatty acids from walnuts and flaxseed (two tablespoons of flaxseed provides 3.5 grams) and in fish oil supplements.

Red wine: Not everything that’s good for you has to feel virtuous. A glass of red wine, which contains flavanols, has been shown to have anti-inflammatory properties that may help lower cholesterol and stave off heart disease. But in this case, more is definitely not better. “For women, the recommendation is one drink a day and for men it’s two,” says Bonci. More than that will, literally, dilute any potential benefits. These flavanols can also be found in red grape juice and dark cocoa.

Soy: Soybeans, soy nuts and edamame, plus any products made from soy (like tofu, soymilk, etc.) can help to reduce the production of new cholesterol. A little can go a long way—aim for about 25 grams of soy protein a day (the amount in a cup of edamame). And those who are at an increased risk of breast or prostate cancer may want to skip it since too much of soy’s phyto-estrogens can act similarly to the body’s own estrogen (which has been shown to feed some hormone-dependent tumors).

Now that you know the good stuff to add to your diet, try to reduce—or better yet, eliminate—these bad-for-you foods from your repertoire:

Whole-milk dairy products: Saturated fat, which clogs arteries and increases LDL levels, is the No. 1 cholesterol-boosting culprit. And foods like ice cream and cheese are where you’re likely to find them. Swap out the Ben & Jerry’s Chubby Hubby for a lower-fat frozen yogurt, and skip the brie in favor of something less rich, like a part-skim mozzarella.

Processed meats: Bacon, sausage, liverwurst and the like are also wonderful sources of artery-clogging saturated fat. Look for lower-fat options, like bacon and sausage made from turkey and other lean protein sources.

Fast-food fries: Even worse than saturated fats are the dreaded trans fats. “You might as well take a gun and shoot yourself!” says Dorfman. The main source of trans fats are partially hydrogenated oils, and that’s exactly what most fast-food restaurants are still using to cook their fries. Trans fats hit cholesterol with a double whammy—in addition to raising your LDL, they simultaneously lower your HDL.

Tropical oils: Palm kernel and coconut oils are two of the fattiest of oils—100 percent of the bad-for-you saturated variety. Don’t use them when you cook at home, and try to avoid them when you eat out (most fast-food restaurants have eliminated them, but you can check their Web sites for detailed nutritional information). Use heart-healthy mono- and polyunsaturated fats, like olive, canola and safflower oil, instead.

Baked goods: Many manufacturers of packaged cookies and cakes have eliminated trans fats from their recipes, but check the nutrition labels to be sure. But all baked goods—even those that are homemade—are high in saturated fats, thanks to the butter and shortening. Since no one wants to give up dessert completely, eat high-fat baked goods only occasionally, opting more often for low-fat sweets like sorbets.

http://health.msn.com/centers/cholesterol/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100140710

[brobin]

As usual, the Sat fat police are out. Funny, I eat meat and cheese as a huge part of my diet for 3 years now. My doctor says my cholesterol profile is one of the best he has ever seen.

At least they finally figured out that transfats they had every eat (to avoid sat fat) are the worse thing you can consume.

Brobin

[Turtle2003]

At least they finally figured out that transfats they had every eat (to avoid sat fat) are the worse thing you can consume

And don't forget that just a few years ago they were telling us not to eat things like nuts and 'fatty' fish like salmon. Baby steps.

I was surprised by the reference to tropical oils. I thought they'd gotten off of that one.

[Lessara]

Keep the fat from the carbs people and no one gets hurt!!

;)

[catfishghj]

The first 3 words of that article say it all. "There's no denying" that I know it all and it is a fact that soy is good and coconut oil is bad.
Obviously an example of someone who has closely studied all the available scientific evidence and we should not question her expertise,

[Angeline]

I'm so sick of the sat fat is bad message. Even more enlightened people still use it as a mantra. I'm curious. What studies are they all basing themselves on? And for that matter, what studies do exonerate Sat fat. I tend to scoff at the TV when I hear that message to which my DH will invariably say.....you're not a doctor. So I'd like to have some good study to compensate for my lack of credentials

[arc]

I'm so sick of the sat fat is bad message. Even more enlightened people still use it as a mantra. I'm curious. What studies are they all basing themselves on?

It's just something that "everyone knows".

Always beware what "everyone knows".

[Hellistile]

Angeline, I have read hundreds of books, articles and research papers on nutrition (I could start a weight loss clinic), which is hundreds more than any of my doctors. So who knows more about nutrition? However, I am in your boat, I don't have a Dr. in front of my name or a PhD after my name. So, no one pays any attention to what I have to say, which is frustrating but at least I am getting healthier while everyone around me is dropping dead at more accelerated speeds.

[ReginaW]

I'm so sick of the sat fat is bad message. Even more enlightened people still use it as a mantra. I'm curious. What studies are they all basing themselves on? And for that matter, what studies do exonerate Sat fat. I tend to scoff at the TV when I hear that message to which my DH will invariably say.....you're not a doctor. So I'd like to have some good study to compensate for my lack of credentials

The biggest problem with the studies most often cited as "evidence" that saturated fat is bad is confounding variables - high carbohydrates, trans-fats lumped as saturated fats (or more recently identified as trans-fats but still way too high in the diet), source of saturated fatty acids not accounted for adequately (ie. stearic acid has a different metabolic effect than palmetic acid) and the use of FFQ as the basis to determine diet quality of those studied.

The whole CONTEXT of the overall studies of diet is wrong as a basis to conclude or exonerate saturated fats in the diet. The confounding factors of higher insulin, blood sugars and TG from the higher carbohydrate content, along with the damage trans-fats cause makes conclusions about saturated fat next to impossible from the studies most often cited as "damning" to saturated fat.

On the other hand, there are a good number of studies available, where diet context is controlled for - trans-fats are controlled or eliminated, starches strictly limited or controlled, total carbohydrate restricted, and/or type of saturated fat consumed investigated.

I think some of the most compelling data is from James Hays at Christiana Healthcare in Delaware - he's done extremely high consumption of saturated fat in the diet (50% of calories) with the elimination of starch (specifically) with very interesting results in patients with advanced atherosclerotic disease....these are the very same folks warned they'll DIE if they consume saturated fats, but they experience improvements when the starch is eliminated and the saturated fats are ad libitum to 50% of calories. If saturated fat is as detrimental to health, especially the cardiovascular system, as we're led to believe, the work by Hays would be damning for saturated fats - it's the mainstay of the diet in his studies....but, his results run counter to everything the dogmatists preach about saturated fat.

Context, IMO, is everything when it comes to dietary saturated fat.

[brklx]

Angeline, I have read hundreds of books, articles and research papers on nutrition (I could start a weight loss clinic), which is hundreds more than any of my doctors. So who knows more about nutrition? However, I am in your boat, I don't have a Dr. in front of my name or a PhD after my name. So, no one pays any attention to what I have to say, which is frustrating but at least I am getting healthier while everyone around me is dropping dead at more accelerated speeds.


Absolutely right ! I have been an avid student of diet and nutrition for the last thirty years of my life, so how can a nutritionist with his brand new diplomma and few courses in goverment and corporate approved nutritional wisdom have any credibility? Or doctor that does not even have those few courses?

[Angeline]

According to the study you described above, saturated fat, in the absence of starch, will create an improvement (cardiovascular markers?). Not a real surprise for us, as we are all converted.

However, let's face it, not everyone controls carb. So what about saturated fat in the context of a carby diet? or even in the context of a SAD diet. Does it play a role? Or has it been wrongly implicated.

I find now that the refrain has changed. Nutritionists, at least the ones who don't work for Twinkie companies, have recognized the danger of refined carbs. So they recommend a diet of "good" carbs, lean meat and low-fat dairy products, "good" fats and lots of veggies and fruits. So that is progress of a sort: they dropped the Ornish-like extreme low-fat message, acknowledged the importance of essential fatty acids, and recognized that pasta and white bread doesn’t constitute good food.

What hasn't changed is the demonization of saturated fat, and the strange obsession with "essential" carbs. As far as I can tell, the nutritional profile of most grains (even whole) doesn't justify the pedestal it is currently placed upon. Anyway, I digress.

So. Context. In the context of a typical SAD diet, of junk food, hydrogenated fat, too much refined carb, insufficient veggies..; does sat fat matter? (With all these elements to point a finger at, I wonder why the blame has fallen squarely on sat fat.

What about a middle-ground diet; the one nutritionists espouses; complex carbs, lots of fruits and veggies, controlled amount of refined carbs, and little junk food.....in order words, the diet of someone who still gives a damn ......would sat fat matter?

In other words.....is saturated fat completely irrelevant, or is it only irrelevant in a low-carb context.

[Whoa182]

What about a middle-ground diet; the one nutritionists espouses; complex carbs, lots of fruits and veggies, controlled amount of refined carbs, and little junk food.....in order words, the diet of someone who still gives a damn ......would sat fat matter?

Probably not no...

When you have problems such as excess calories, trans fat, high refined carb diet, saturated fat just adds to the list of 'causes' for higher cholesterol. But limiting saturated fat is far less important (i believe) than eliminating trans fat from the diet which is enirely possible, unlike sat fat. And to get people to stop consuming so many refined carbs everyday would help far more than limiting saturated fat itself.

I believe carbs are not the enemy of course, and many cultures around the world show that a diet high in complex carbs is fine for those that are not metabolically screwed up.

But I think that its the trans fat and *refined* carbs that need to go.

I will never consume huge amounts of saturated fat myself, but since i've been here I've become a bit more open about the possibility that sat fat isn't the main problem and there are far far worse things out there to destroy ones health.

[ceberezin]

Saturated fat is supposedly bad because it raises cholesterol levels. The problem with this belief is not only that the received ideas about saturated fat are completely wrong, the belief that cholesterol causes heart disease is also completely wrong.

[Squarecube]

[snip]
What hasn't changed is the demonization of saturated fat, and the strange obsession with "essential" carbs. As far as I can tell, the nutritional profile of most grains (even whole) doesn't justify the pedestal it is currently placed upon. Anyway, I digress.

So. Context. In the context of a typical SAD diet, of junk food, hydrogenated fat, too much refined carb, insufficient veggies..; does sat fat matter? (With all these elements to point a finger at, I wonder why the blame has fallen squarely on sat fat.[snip]
.

These questions are answered very adequately in Anthony Colpo's very readable book. The Great Cholesterol Con It's available on Amazon and other places It's very thorough and will leave you breathless.

The Lisa Dorfman's (ADA spokesperson) of this world remind me of character's in Ayn Rand's novels. They spread evil without really knowing it, and they usually spend other peoples money doing it. Read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" and giggle. The AHA, NIH, and ADA have spent millions, billions of our dollars on some fairly decent studies, yet they seem blind when it comes to reading the results. It's truly fascinating to watch, cuz at some point their world will all have to tumble down. Or maybe not. Maybe we'll all just have to move to Low Carbville somewhere and live our lives without them and their diseases.

[kwikdriver]

The Lisa Dorfman's (ADA spokesperson) of this world remind me of character's in Ayn Rand's novels. They spread evil without really knowing it, and they usually spend other peoples money doing it. Read "The Fountainhead" and "Atlas Shrugged" and giggle. The AHA, NIH, and ADA have spent millions, billions of our dollars on some fairly decent studies, yet they seem blind when it comes to reading the results. It's truly fascinating to watch, cuz at some point their world will all have to tumble down. Or maybe not. Maybe we'll all just have to move to Low Carbville somewhere and live our lives without them and their diseases.

Considering that Rand espoused a super-libertarian philosophy, and considering that libertarians are the ones most in favor of allowing business free reign, I have to wonder if recommending Rand's novels is appropriate regarding this topic. Certainly, there's plenty of things to giggle at in them, but I wonder if you and I giggled at the same things.

[LC FP]

In Dariush Mozaffarian's 2004 study in AJCN he showed that women eating a relatively low fat (high carb) diet, those who ate the most saturated fat had NO PROGRESSION of CAD over the study period. Those eating the much ballyhooed monounsaturated fat had some progression, and those eating mostly polyunsaturated fat had the most progression. So there!

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/80/5/1175?ijkey=440c26e3275f1d8a8b02162ef5fe0a9eda6757ec&keytype2=tf_ipsecsha

[Angeline]

I'm still very annoyed at Anthony. Overnight he turned his website and mailing list from an altruistic endeavor to a vehicle for promoting his book and agenda. I'll hold off buying his book for now.

On the other hand, yesterday I stumbled on a book called Eat Fat Loose Fat by Mary Enig and Sally Fallon, both from people I respect. It talks at length about how saturated fat and cholesterol have been given a bad rap, and how the studies quoted to support the lipid hypothesis in fact do nothing of the sort.

I wish I was the sort of person who could read those studies for myself and understand them enough to be able to determine that. Since I am not, I have to trust people to do it for me. There is always the niggling little doubt however, that maybe the people I listen to, have their own biases and blind spots.

[kyrasdad]

I will never consume huge amounts of saturated fat myself, but since i've been here I've become a bit more open about the possibility that sat fat isn't the main problem and there are far far worse things out there to destroy ones health.

I am not suprised that your opinions have evolved, given the amount of thought and research you seem to put into nutrition issues. It is definitely not a given that saturated fat is the main problem; and really not a given that it's a problem at all. It's illogical for our nutritional establishment to rail against prime rib or steak and stand mute on simple carbs. They make noise about the obvious simple carb, sugar based culprits - Twinkies and some sugary snacks - but even then they decry the fat in these things as much or more than the sugar or highly refined carbs.

[K Walt]

I've been monitoring this 'sat fat is bad' claim for years now, and it always strikes me that the effects -- if any -- are tiny, and almost impossible to tease out from dozens of other variables and factors. It is not like arsenic. It is not cigarette smoking. You can only talk about its effects by using statistical sleight of hand.


If sat fat were SO deadly -- as the mainstream parrots keep saying -- the effects would be powerfully obvious in every study. However, in the studies that DO show any effect -- and they are few and far between — you have to do a lot of math to see ANY effect at all.

Example. If you smoke heavily, your RR (risk ratio) of contracting lung cancer is something like 30. You are 30 times -- 3000 % -- more likely to contract lung cancer than a non-smoker. That's a bone-jarring, in-your-face effect.

The most 'profound' results I've ever seen on the 'dangers of god-awful' saturated fat place your 'risk ratio' somewhere around 1.80 to 2.25. In comprison that's barely measurable.

Others place it well below 1.00 -- meaning it could be considered beneficial.

Saturated fat made for a wonderful and identifiable whipping boy -- and gave people something tangible to rail against. So it became fashionable to denigrate it.

But if you ask -- as I have done at least 20 times -- a doctor or dietician or 'expert' to cite the studies and data that show saturated fat will cause heart attacks (NOT just affect some blood value or number) in real people, they simply CANNOT produce the studies. It is all folklore and superstition.

[arc]

In Colpo's book, he lists 22 major controlled trials done on saturated fat. Out of the list, only four showed any negative effect and they all had confounding issues.

In one of the negative studies, there were considerably more heavy smokers in the sat fat group. There was only a slighly higher death rate in that group, almost not statistically significant. Considering the amount of smokers in the group, it almost looked like sat fat was protective for them. :lol:

[refmls]

As someone with a bachelor's degree in chemistry, the argument about good fat vs. bad fat has never made sense to me. If polyunsaturated fat is bad, because it has more than one double bond that can be broken, adding a hydrogen and releasing oxidizing free radicals, and monounsaturated fat is better, because it has only one double bond, then shouldn't saturated fat, which doesn't have any double bonds to release free radicals, be better even than monounsaturated fat?

[kwikdriver]

As someone with a bachelor's degree in chemistry, the argument about good fat vs. bad fat has never made sense to me. If polyunsaturated fat is bad, because it has more than one double bond that can be broken, adding a hydrogen and releasing oxidizing free radicals, and monounsaturated fat is better, because it has only one double bond, then shouldn't saturated fat, which doesn't have any double bonds to release free radicals, be better even than monounsaturated fat?


But poly-unsaturated fats are "heart healthy," according to the good and wise Ms. Dorfman of the ADA. Surely we can trust her? (http://www.cspinet.org/integrity/nonprofits/american_dietetic_association.html)