Dietary cholesterol not related to heart disease

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jan 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> Not what you eat, what you don't eat is important.

> Dr Passwater Health World - How Antioxidant Nutrients Protect Against

> Heart Disease- HealthWorld Online

>

>

http://www.healthy.net/library/articles/passwater/noninterview/howanti1.htm#40

 

 

 

 

Here's another link:

 

 

http://agnews.tamu.edu/stories/NUTR/Jun2597a.htm

[Guest guest]

What is vanaspati? I see a reference to a study about vanaspati as an

adulterant in

ghee. Another interesting variable to consider?

[Guest guest]

>

 

 

 

> >

>

http://www.healthy.net/library/articles/passwater/noninterview/howanti1.htm#40

>

> You may want to check out the following link for more medical info on ghee.

>

>

http://www.familyinternet.com/quackwatch/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/ghee.html

 

 

 

Found the study on rural males on Medline. Of course, I'm not a trained

scientist or

anything, but it seems what this study is saying is that males who consumed

less

then a kilogram a month of ghee ( I assume " > kg ghee per month" means less

then a

kilogram). Srila Prabhupada said 1 tablespoon a day of ghee. So, let's see (

English

system sucks) that would be 30 tbs @ month = 15 oz = (15\16 of a lb divided

by 2.2

(lbs per kilogram) = .43 kilograms. So, this study proves that if you eat

more than

double what Srila Prabhupada recommended, you increase your risk of CHD.

 

It still doesn't compare what the rate is in the poor group to rates of heart

disease

in America, for instance, so even if overconsumption is an issue, it would

be

interesting to compare the rates of the overconsumers of ghee to those of say,

the

average American male.

 

Here is an interesting study Quackwatch choose to ignore.

 

 

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/htbin-post/Entrez/query?uid=1294688&form=6&db=m&Dopt=b

 

"Effect of dietary fat on serum and tissue lipids of adult rats.

 

Elshafei MM

 

The effect of 3 types of fat: 1) Ghee, 2) Corn oil, 3) Subsidized vegetable oil

(SVO)

on serum and tissue lipids was studied by

using adult albino male rats mean weight 114 g. Rats fed diet containing SVO

had the

highest serum cholesterol and

LDL-cholesterol concentrations than those fed diet containing ghee or corn oil.

Serum

high density lipoprotein-cholesterol

(HDL) concentration was highest in animals fed the ghee and lowest with those

fed the

SVO diet. On the other hand

phospholipids values tend to be lower when feeding diets containing oils. Also

serum

triglycerides levels were higher on

saturated fat diet than on the unsaturated fat diets. The same trends were

found for

liver cholesterol as in serum cholesterol.

SVO diet gave the highest liver cholesterol concentration. Also SVO gave the

highest

heart phospholipids values."

 

HDL is the "good" cholesterol that clears excess cholesterol, so ghee was

best at

that, and that is a good thing.

[Guest guest]

TFAs are trans fatty acids - the partially hydrogenated oils made from

polyunsaturated oils so commonly used in grains cooked by karmis. Ghee is a

saturated fat.

 

 

 

 

http://www.healthy.net/hwlibraryarticles/passwater/enig23.htm

 

Without the commercial partial hydrogenation process, as would have been the

case more than a hundred years ago, the levels

of TFAs in diets would be relatively low. Only the ruminant fats would have

supplied any, and the types of isomers that are

found in the ruminant fats behave in a very different way from those found in

the partially hydrogenated vegetable oils.

Additionally, the research shows that the TFAs are more of a problem when the

level of saturated fat is low. Diets that are

higher in ruminant fats are also higher in saturated fats. Most ruminant fats

have about 2- 3% TFAs whereas the partially

hydrogenated vegetable fats are commonly 30- 40% and as high as 53% in foods in

this country.

 

After analyzing hundreds of food samples for TFAs, chemically analyzing food

composites, and calculating dietary information,

I am confident that there are many people in this country who consume 20% of

the

total fat in their diet as TFAs. On average

though, 10.9% is the number we came up with when we looked at all of the

published analyses. The typical french fried

potatoes are around 40% TFAs, and many popular cookies and crackers range from

30 to 50% TFAs, and every donut I

have analyzed has about 35 to 40% TFAs. Since these are all fairly high fat

products, someone who eats a lot of these types of

foods will get a large amount of TFAs. Several years ago, we documented nearly

60 grams of TFAs in someone's typical daily

diet.

 

Passwater: Wow! I hope that's no one I know. Dr. Enig, you mentioned that TFAs

are atherogenic - - that is they cause

atherosclerosis. Then you mention that TFAs are more of a problem when

saturated

fats are low. Yet most people fear

saturated fats because they have been told that it is the saturated fats that

cause heart disease.

 

You are recognized as a leading expert on fats and oils, do saturated fats

cause

heart disease?

 

Enig: The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is completely wrong, but

the statement has been "published" so many

times over the last three or more decades that it is very difficult to convince

people otherwise unless they are willing to take the

time to read and learn what all the economic and political factors were that

produced the anti- saturated fat agenda.

 

Periodically, various reports have come out that show the inconsistencies in

the

theory. You have already discussed this with

the well- known cholesterol and lipids researcher, Dr. David Kritchevsky of the

Wistar Institute. [23] In 1977, Dr. Kritchevsky

noted that it did not make any difference what kind of fat was added to the

whole foods diets in animal studies - - only when

the diets were very unnatural chemically could changes be brought about - - and

from study to study these changes were

inconsistent. [24]

 

As you frequently report, the latest theories regarding heart disease point to

oxidized fats and oxidized lipoproteins as culprits.

This being the case, accusations against chemically- stable, basically non-

oxidizable saturated fat don't make sense. Most

people who find fault with saturated fats do not really understand that our

cells are busy making saturated fatty acids all the time

from carbohydrates and excess protein.

 

So did you catch that - ghee is basically non -oxidisable.

 

Oil industry is huge. As polyunsaturated oils do lower total cholesterol,

they

have a huge economic interest in keeping everyone thinking that dietary

cholesterol is a factor in heart disease and that lowering cholesterol is the

key to prevention methods. The trans fat thing is something they want to bury.

 

The pharmaceutical companies that produce cholesterol lowering drugs also have

a

stake in perpetuating this myth.

 

Do be advised that there are some people that need a different approach. They

have something called something like familial hyper cholesterolanemia ( I may

remember that wrong) which means they have a genetic predisposition to high

cholesterol and heart disease. For them, the statin group of cholesterol

lowering drugs and cholesterol lowering in general may well be advised.

Incidentally, it is this group of people who skewed early studies and lead

early researchers to the diet/heart theory.

[Guest guest]

> >It associates clarified butter plus trans fatty acids. Trans fats are

> >villians; ghee intake associated with trans fats doesn't necessarily make

> >ghee >bad.

>

> Was there any comment on the study limitations in the conclusion (such as

> some statement about it being difficult to tease apart the two sources of

> fat, e.g. since most subjects used both?)

 

It was only an abstract, but it seemed ambiguous to me. Given the old myth of

cholesterol, it was probably not considered a distinction of any relevance.

 

>

>

> >Physical

> >activity ( the opposite of sedentary) is known to increase HDLs which is

> >known

> >to lower CHD. Plus, the off hand remark about smoking, which is a

> >factor >that overwhelms all other factors as a risk factor for CHD, casts

> >doubts.

>

> Smoking wasn't entered as a variable in the multiple regression? Odd.

 

Hey, I really don't now how to read these things. Say, now that you are

shrugging the GHQ monkey off your back, interested in reading some of these

studies? I am working towards a relationship with the doctor of an elder

friend of mine who is open to the forward thinking on lipids, so if you are

really busy, no problem, I will somehow or other eventually hook up with a

health professional.

 

>

>

> >Actually, the one thing that did shine in the study was that urbanites and

> >their life style, are at much greater risk for CHD than rural people.

> >That >was unequivocal.

>

> That is possible, however it doesn't say so in the sentence above - only

> that BMI in urbanites is a correlate. Was the general finding about

> urbanites reported elsewhere in the paper?

 

Yes, very clearly.

 

> That brings up another

> question; was this a crossectional or longitudinal study?

 

I would have to guess at what that even means. Hey, it's true, I'm just

bluffing my way through this scientific stuff. The only reason I even passed

science class in school is because my science teacher's kid was in my Sunday

School class I taught and his kid was really enjoying it ( I went to a

boarding school where we had required church attendence on Sunday and teaching

Sunday School was more fun than sitting in a pew).

 

>

>

> Also, odd that being sedentary wasn't associated with CHD in males.

>

> Thank you for doing and presenting these lit reivews. Interesting!

>

> Ys,

> Madhusudani dasi

 

Actually, I want to order some of these studies from Medline, but they only

send them to Health Science Libraries and there is some charge. I can probably

hustle a relationship with a local college, but do you have that kind of

access? Do you have any idea how much these studies cost? My elder heart

patient friend will foot the bill if it is reasonable. She is motivated

because her doctor is fairly cool, prescribing vitamin E and has her on olive

oil and other things that all used to be considered alternative, but she wants

to be able to convince him that ghee would be fine.

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jan 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

 

> Enig: The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is completely >

wrong,

 

> So did you catch that - ghee is basically non -oxidisable.

>

 

 

Yes, but does it cause "love handles"? ;-)

[Guest guest]

WWW: Janesvara (Dasa) ACBSP (Syracuse - USA) wrote:

 

> [Text 2024912 from COM]

>

> On 17 Jan 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

>

>

> > Enig: The idea that saturated fats cause heart disease is completely >

> wrong,

>

> > So did you catch that - ghee is basically non -oxidisable.

> >

>

> Yes, but does it cause "love handles"? ;-)

 

That is another issue. Quality of a fat is one thing, quantity is

another. Obesity is a risk factor on it's own. One tablespoon a day,

except on occasional feast days. (I know, you'll be digging for that

Vaisnava calendar with the 100 plus festival days :-)

 

SB 11.20.19 purport.

 

"It is stated in Bhagavad-gétä that if one is too austere or too sensuous

one cannot control the mind. Sometimes one may bring the mind under control

by allowing the material senses limited satisfaction. For example, although

one may eat austerely, from time to time one may accept a reasonable amount

of mahä-prasädam, opulent foods offered to the temple Deities, so that the

mind will not become disturbed. "

 

 

PoP 4

 

"Krsna has given us nice food—fruits, grains, vegetables, and milk—and we

can prepare hundreds and thousands of nice preparations and offer them to

the Lord. Our process is to eat krsna-prasäda and to satisfy the tongue in

that way. But we should not be greedy and eat dozens of samosäs, sweetballs,

and rasagulläs. No. We should eat and sleep just enough to keep the body

fit, and no more. It is stated,

yuktähära-vihärasya

yukta-ceñöasya karmasu

yukta-svapnävabodhasya

yogo bhavati duùkha-hä

“He who is temperate in his habits of eating, sleeping, working, and

recreation can mitigate all material pains by practicing the yoga system.”

(Bg. 6.17)"

 

NoI 1

 

"Vegetables, grains, fruits, milk products and water are proper foods to

offer to the Lord, as Lord Krsna Himself prescribes. However, if one accepts

prasäda only because of its palatable taste and thus eats too much, he also

falls prey to trying to satisfy the demands of the tongue. Sri Caitanya

Mahäprabhu taught us to avoid very palatable dishes even while eating

prasäda. If we offer palatable dishes to the Deity with the intention of

eating such nice food, we are involved in trying to satisfy the demands of

the tongue. If we accept the invitation of a rich man with the idea of

receiving palatable food, we are also trying to satisfy the demands of the

tongue. In Caitanya-caritämåta (Antya 6.227) it is stated:

jihvära lälase yei iti-uti dhäya

çiçnodara-paräyaëa kåñëa nähi päya

“That person who runs here and there seeking to gratify his palate and who

is always attached to the desires of his stomach and genitals is unable to

attain Krsna.”

[Guest guest]

>What is vanaspati? I see a reference to a study about vanaspati as an

>adulterant in

>ghee.

 

Vanaspati literally means vegetables. but in colloquial use in India,

vanaspati refers to that old villain - 'vegetable ghee'.

[Guest guest]

COM: Vijaya-venugopala (das) JPS (Persian Gulf) wrote:

 

> [Text 2027746 from COM]

>

> >What is vanaspati? I see a reference to a study about vanaspati as an

> >adulterant in

> >ghee.

>

> Vanaspati literally means vegetables. but in colloquial use in India,

> vanaspati refers to that old villain - 'vegetable ghee'.

 

Aha. Thank you. Another variable to consider when survey type studies

are done.

[Guest guest]

AGTSP

 

It should be noted that Madhava Ghosh prabhu was just dealing with an

abstracts of the paper, as was I in my earlier commentary of/reply on 8

January, and some of your questions may not be answerable from an abstract

only. (Additionally, he was just quoting from it and I didn't think he ever

studied statistics, which you surely had your fill of on your way to your

PhD in psych). For example:

 

 

<<Was there any comment on the study limitations in the conclusion (such as

some statement about it being difficult to tease apart the two sources of

fat, e.g. since most subjects used both?)>>

 

The abstract seems to indicate that this methodology was beyond the

purview of the article.

 

 

<<Smoking wasn't entered as a variable in the multiple regression? Odd.>>

 

Not odd if you consider how difficult it may have been to get a

population sample of Indian males between 24-64 in N. India WHO DON'T

SMOKE, to act as a control. (Using females would give ypu a sex confound:

hardly any smoke at all).

 

<<That is possible, however it doesn't say so in the sentence above - only

that BMI in urbanites is a correlate. Was the general finding about

urbanites reported elsewhere in the paper? That brings up another

question; was this a crossectional or longitudinal study?>>

 

Abstract reading and the MeSh clearly indicate it was a

crossectional study.

 

<<Also, odd that being sedentary wasn't associated with CHD in males.>>

 

I would think that statisticians would find so much fault with all

the regression analysis done in that paper, to begin with. Additioanlly, I

would think there may be some problem with a valid operational definition

for "sedentariness" in the first place; secondly the problem would be to get

a sample of enough males who WERE "sedeantary" in any case to control for

this variable.

 

Copy of your e-mail follows:

 

<<At 17:41 -0800 1/16/99, COM: Madhava Gosh (das) ACBSP (New Vrindavan -

USA)

wrote:

 

>"Univariate and multivariate regression analysis with adjustment for

>age showed that sedentariness in women, body mass index in urban men

>and women, milk and clarified butter plus trans fatty acids in both

>rural and urban in both sexes were significantly associated with

>coronar artery disease. It is possible that lower

>intake of total visible fat (20 g/day), decreased intake of milk,

>increased physical activity and cessation of smoking may benefit

>some populations in the prevention of coronary artery disease. "

>

>It associates clarified butter plus trans fatty acids. Trans fats are

>villians; ghee intake associated with trans fats doesn't necessarily make

>ghee >bad.

 

Was there any comment on the study limitations in the conclusion (such as

some statement about it being difficult to tease apart the two sources of

fat, e.g. since most subjects used both?)

 

>Physical

>activity ( the opposite of sedentary) is known to increase HDLs which is

>known

>to lower CHD. Plus, the off hand remark about smoking, which is a

>factor >that overwhelms all other factors as a risk factor for CHD, casts

>doubts.

 

Smoking wasn't entered as a variable in the multiple regression? Odd.

 

 

>Actually, the one thing that did shine in the study was that urbanites and

>their life style, are at much greater risk for CHD than rural people.

>That >was unequivocal.

 

That is possible, however it doesn't say so in the sentence above - only

that BMI in urbanites is a correlate. Was the general finding about

urbanites reported elsewhere in the paper? That brings up another

question; was this a crossectional or longitudinal study?

 

Also, odd that being sedentary wasn't associated with CHD in males.

 

Thank you for doing and presenting these lit reivews. Interesting!

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi>>