Active Low-Carber Forums - A good article if you have the time to read it

mike - Agree with your observations. This is a long article by Blum, and a few points worth noting:

Regarding LDL and health with LDL as the villain:

Quote:

While these processes are the widely accepted cause of atherosclerosis — the leading cause of death — researchers place more or less emphasis on differing parts of the atherosclerotic mechanism.

While high triglycerides and LDL-cholesterol have clearly been implicated as "bad guys" and HDL-cholesterol, which (supposedly) carries cholesterol out of the plaque, (may be) one of the "good guys," even when they are taken into account, a lot of disease still remains unexplained.

I agree with Blum in this case, but there's more that doesn't make much sense in many topics covered in this article. For example, regarding protein consumption, his calculation of optimum protein for humans butchers the equation, and he's way short on his idea of recommended daily protein.

Regarding evidence, most studies referenced, including Campbell's studies, are epidemiological studies. So, to posture a solution is premature and uninformed.

Assessment of Taubes' and Cordain's claims:

Quote:

"And finally, his (Taubes') most controversial positions: 1) Chronic diseases like atherosclerosis are caused exclusively by refined carbs and starches and not by fats. (The Paleo gang blames inflammation and not fats.) 2) The following foods can be eaten without restraint: meat, fish, fowl, cheese, eggs, butter, and non-starchy vegetables. Really? 3) Consuming excess calories does not cause us to grow fatter. 4) The obesity epidemic is not due to overeating nor to our sedentary lifestyle."

"While these positions seem ludicrous (especially considering the mountains of evidence presented by the vegetarian and CR advocates, there is a grain of truth in some of them - just a grain. (taken out of context, they are each grossly inaccurate.")

I've bolded one of the statements that isn't consistent with what I know, and if it were true, doesn't make any sense: "The Paleo gang blames inflammation and not fats." This doesn't represent a difference in views in my mind, as inflammation can be caused by many things. The rest of his statements, as he states in this same article, have yet to be proven.

Guyenet's response to his query about satfats and CHD:

Quote:

"Regarding the effect of SFA (satfat) on atherosclerosis and CHD risk, I continue to maintain that a significant role in humans has not been established."

"A recent meta-analysis by Ronald Krauss's group concluded there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. SFA increases LDL cholesterol content (not necessarily particle number) in the short term, but apparently not oxLDL and they also increase HDL. Therefore, the effect of SFA on LDL cholesterol content cannot be used in isolation to predict its effect on CHD risk. What we need to consider are studies that examine the effect of SFA on CHD risk directly. These have been conducted, and they largely indicate that SFA reduction is ineffective for CHD prevention, particularly when it is replaced by n-6 rich refined seed oils."

It's clear that Blum favors a vegetarian or pescatarian WOE. He attempts to present a balanced review, but is clearly weighing his preferences more toward the vegan/vegetarian approach with his gushing over the wisdom and recommendations of Ornish, Esselstyn, Campbell, Furman, and others. Bottom line? We still have no conclusive findings about the role of saturated fat and our health. The epidemiological studies referenced are a distraction, but are also insidious because the implication is that they are totally relevant and accurate.