[voidlogic]

I mean you no offense, but to me it sounds like your understanding of nutrition science is 10 years in the past.

I do want to point out naturally occurring transfat has very different properties than the artificial common forms. I have never seen a well designed study show a low-fat diet to be superior to a high-fat-moderate-protien-very-low-carb one (usually referred to as VHFLC). I'd be interested if you know of any.

It is no longer generally accepted that dietary cholesterol is dominate factor unless you have mutation such as some of the PCSK9 mutations. Your body syntheses much more cholesterol everyday than you actually eat. The latest US government dietary guidelines has drastically shifted its position on cholesterol, write-up: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2015/02/10/feds-...

We have since learned many things such as the importance of HDL/LDL ratio as being predictive over just LDL for example.

This is a very complex topic and I would recommend this series written by a MD: http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-chol...

This is a 5 part series befitting the complexity of the issue at hand.

[noondip]

No offense taken, I hear what you're saying quite frequently.

Regarding the 2015 DGAC - the report did no original research to exonerate cholesterol, but rather deferred to a 2014 report by the American Heart Association, which has a financial incentive to label cholesterol-laden foods as, "heart healthy". Of course the media has chosen to play them up to stir up controversy and give the illusion there is vast disagreement in nutrition science, but that's simply not the case.

What has happened "in the last 10 years" is intense pressure from food industry lobbying to dilute research, confuse the public and distract from messages warning of saturated fat and cholesterol. Please, check out these short videos to see what exactly I'm talking about:

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/bold-indeed-beef-lowers-chol...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/how-the-egg-board-designs-mi...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/eggs-and-cholesterol-patentl...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/debunking-egg-industry-myths...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/who-says-eggs-arent-healthy-...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/the-problem-with-the-paleo-d...

http://nutritionfacts.org/2015/08/18/dietary-cholesterol-aff...

http://nutritionfacts.org/video/big-food-using-the-tobacco-i...

(I apologize if this seems biased, coming from a single source, but if you check the videos, each has links to cited studies discussed - I simply favor the format the material is presented in)

The Eating Academy articles you've linked are by Peter Attia, a co-founder of NuSI. Please do watch the earlier review of their work I suggested - http://plantpositive.com/warning-signs-nusi-guys-1/

The healthful HCLF diets you're seeking out are known as plant-based (usually vegan, but not exclusively) diets, and are always lauded as health-promoting, albeit supposedly "unpalpable".

Low-fat meaning, low in or void of saturated- and trans-fatty acids, high (10-15% of caloric intake) in essential polyunsaturated omega-3 and omega-6 fatty acids (in the right ratio, ideally 1:1, but more practically, 1:3 or 1:5). Yet, many media outlets and conflict of interest research have no shame in claiming a diet as high as 30, 40, even 50 percent fat (always from animal products) are "low". This is simply nonsense! Your body needs only a little bit of fat, for example to increase vitamin absorption at each meal, or convert it to EPA/DHA.

High-carb meaning, the majority of calories are derived from whole, unrefined, plant-based foods, such as vegetables, fruit, legumes and whole grains, especially ones low on the glycemic index (e.g. brown rice, whole grain pasta, beans, dark green leafy veg, colorful fruit variation, etc.)

Heck, I challenge you to find me a study which says a high-carb, low-fat diet as I've described is not a great recipe for human nutrition. Unfortunately, so many people find such a diet unreasonable for practical, social and other, personal reasons. Also unfortunate is the fact there's little money to be made in promoting these simple and unprocessed foods, so the academic world is not determined to research them.

Anyway, if you're interested in reading more about these sort of diets, check out the work by Colin Campbell, John McDougall, Neal Barnard, Dean Ornish, to name a few. I've fully embraced the dietary lifestyle recommended by them and others, and can only praise the mental clarity, increased energy and satiation experienced as a result. I really believe the "trick" is to cut out processed and animal product foods altogether (at least to the degree you can sustainably practice and at the pace you find to be reasonable) - they're just unnecessary! Sure, it's anecdotal evidence, but I figure it's worth sharing with you.

[voidlogic]

I wonder if we are operating with different ideas of what a VLCHF diet might look like.

Lets talk specifics, let me give an an example of what I might eat in a day on such a diet:

Breakfast: Scamble: 2 eggs with 1 clove of garlic, one or two green onion strands, 3 diced radishes, mushrooms and cabbage (majority by volume). Coffee with cream.

Lunch: Salad: Raw salmon, spinach, watercress, 1/4 an onion, sliced radishes, sliced almonds, avocado, sunflower seeds with a whole fat greek yogurt + olive oil dressing. Water.

Supper: Medium rare steak with mushrooms, grilled kohlrabi and steamed asparagus. Unsweetened Iced green tea.

As you can see this would be a day low in processed foods, high in greens with both a low glycemic index and glycemic load, weighing in at a reasonable 1800 kcal. It blows my mind that the video's you shared calls something like this dangerous?! Not only is it far better than the average American diet, unlike a high-carb diet this no chance of leading to insulin resistance, metabolic syndrome and eventually type II diabetes.

[noondip]

No doubt your meal plan is already miles ahead of SAD (the standard American diet), and you deserve to pat yourself on the back. Avoiding fast food, added sugar beverages, eating organic foods (low in pesticide and higher in nutritional yield) is a huge leap in the right direction.

You've also packed a heavy dose of antioxidants, vitamins and minerals from the great veggies, healthy fats (avocado, sunflower seeds - note, not oil!). What's more, the salmon is high in EPA and DHA content, further reducing inflammation in the body and promoting the health of so many vital bodily functions. You've even correctly recognized a 1800 calorie daily allowance as being near optimal. It even appears you're meeting the World Health Organization's recommendation to get at least 55% of calories from carbohydrates and probably getting enough fiber (which only 3% of Americans do!)

Now, the bad news - by breakfast time, you've already exceeded the daily recommended intake for cholesterol (300 mg; each egg contains approximately 250 mg). The meats (even if local, wild-caught, or raised "naturally") most certainly contain questionable levels of persistent organic pollutants, which bioaccumulate at alarming rates in fat-soluble tissue of animals, estrogen, antibiotics, and possibly even harmful bacteria which will upset your gut glora and inflame the liver, colon and kidneys. The cooked steak has a dangerous amount of acrylamide and other carcinogens produced when flesh is cooked at high temperatures. Olive oil is just empty calories - just unnecessary fat with the majority of nutritional benefits destroyed by the extraction process. High amount of sodium from red meat is also known to increase blood pressure and cause insulin resistance. Nitrites and nitrates have also been shown to increase insulin resistance and to impair the function of the pancreatic beta cells. Finally, there is the heme iron found in the meat which is quite damaging if consumed in excess.

Now, I really don't think you need to worry, especially if your genetics don't predispose you to any chronic illness. But, I am of the opinion the outlined meals are not ideal. Maybe you're not interested in pursuing a gold nutrition standard each day and at each meal, and that's perfectly understandable! However, let's agree there is room for improvement, especially if you struggle with BMI, high blood pressure, high cholesterol, mood problems, attention defecit, or other ills, many of which are caused or at least exacerbated by the foods I've recommended avoiding.

On a slight tangent, have you used the website, Cronometer? It basically tallies up all the foods consumed in a day and gives a highly detailed report of what you ate, right down to each amino acid profile and the like. It's free - I really recommend checking it out!

[voidlogic]

I fear we may have to agree to disagree; ironically, I think we have a lot of common ground. I would like to point out of couple of closing thoughts:

>It even appears you're meeting the World Health Organization's recommendation to get at least 55% of calories from carbohydrates and probably getting enough fiber (which only 3% of Americans do!)

This doubtful; while the total carbs of this diet might reach this threshold- Most designers of well formed teratogenic diets are targeting net carbs (<30g). I would imagine this fiber portion of the carbs (well over 50% in this case) does not really count towards caloric carbs.

>you've already exceeded the daily recommended intake for cholesterol (300 mg; each egg contains approximately 250 mg)

Unless you have the right (wrong?) mutations, I think the jury is still out on this. Would you be surprised if I told you my serum cholesterol has not been negatively impacted?

>Nitrites and nitrates have also been shown to increase insulin resistance and

These meals should be limited to what naturally occurs- which is minimal compared to processed meat.

>However, let's agree there is room for improvement, especially if you struggle with BMI, high blood pressure..

This diet made it easy (satiety perspective) to shed 60 lbs and take my blood pressure from 138/75 -> 112/66. So while I cannot speak for others I really must disagree for my own account.

>On a slight tangent, have you used the website, Cronometer?

Very cool website, thanks for the share.

Thanks for the interesting conversation.

[beachstartup]

dude, just stop. the guy is firmly in the anti-fat camp, probably a vegan, and his mind is made up. did you notice his smarmy and condescending tone?

his frame of reference is so incompatible with what you're trying to communicate that he literally can't even talk to you like an adult.

you might as well try to convince him gravity pulls things up.

[voidlogic]

While I will concede I failed to convince him, I think he was polite and civil, which amongst those who disagree is rare these days.

[beachstartup]

i don't think condescension is polite.

[noondip]

Coming from someone who earlier proclaimed, "i'm a keto True Believer[tm]", it's quite ironic seeing you say this. I wonder why I've struck such a chord with you?