Paper: no evidence of harm from high sat fat(coconut)

[Heretic]

I decided to share it with you since I thought you might be interested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7270479

"Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau island studies."

Prior IA, Davidson F, Salmond CE, Czochanska Z.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Aug;34( 8 ) :1552-61

See also some comments on:

http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.89a ... =.89ac0b99

Stan (Heretic)

[JeffN]

I decided to share it with you since I thought you might be interested.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7270479

"Cholesterol, coconuts, and diet on Polynesian atolls: a natural experiment: the Pukapuka and Tokelau island studies."

Prior IA, Davidson F, Salmond CE, Czochanska Z.

Am J Clin Nutr. 1981 Aug;34( 8 ) :1552-61

See also some comments on:

http://boards.webmd.com/webx?THDX@@.89a ... =.89ac0b99

Stan (Heretic)

The paper was reviewed in my newsletter articles on Coconut.

It is a very old epidemiological (observed) study that has not proven itself in controlled studies..

RCTs of coconut oil, from Dr Castelli's experiments in his early career, to recent ones in PubMed, have shown coconut oil and/or its individual fatty acids, raise cholesterol levels. Castelli's experiments were done in isolated metabolic feeding chambers where they controlled for everything.

Check my website

In Health
Jeff

[Heretic]

Thanks for comments, I will check your articles.

Re: Dr. Castelli and cholesterol

Dr. William Castelli of the Framingham Study? This is what he allegedly said about cholesterol, at another time, quote:

"In Framingham, Massachusetts," admitted Dr William Castelli, Kannel's successor, "the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active." 30 Hubert H, et al, Circulation, 1983, 67:968; Smith, R and E R Pinckney, Diet, Blood Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature, Vol 2, 1991, Vector Enterprises, Sherman Oaks, CA. Castelli, William, "Concerning the Possibility of a Nut...", Archives of Internal Medicine 152(7):1371-1372, July 1992

Regards,

Stan (Heretic)

[JeffN]

Re: Dr. Castelli and cholesterol

Dr. William Castelli of the Framingham Study? This is what he allegedly said about cholesterol, at another time, quote:

"In Framingham, Massachusetts," admitted Dr William Castelli, Kannel's successor, "the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower people's serum cholesterol ... we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active." 30 Hubert H, et al, Circulation, 1983, 67:968; Smith, R and E R Pinckney, Diet, Blood Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease: A Critical Review of the Literature, Vol 2, 1991, Vector Enterprises, Sherman Oaks, CA. Castelli, William, "Concerning the Possibility of a Nut...", Archives of Internal Medicine 152(7):1371-1372, July 1992

Regards,

Stan (Heretic)

Let me post Dr Castelli's personal comments in response to that often misrepresented quote...

He says he was observing that in one of the first dietary history
studies done at Framingham a data set was used which showed that
those who ate the most saturated fat had the lowest cholesterol
readings. That seemed surprising at the time. But even more
surprising, the same data also indicated that those in the group who
ate the most calories weighed the least.

Since eating more and weighing less appeared contradictory, this
raised questions. They realized something must be awry, so they set
out to determine what it was. The answer turned out to be that in
this particular group of subjects those who ate the most saturated
fat also had the highest energy expenditure. So that, although they
ate more, they weighed less because they were burning a lot more
calories. Also relevant was the fact that exercise appreciably
reduces blood cholesterol in the very short term.

So, in order to figure out whether it was eating saturated fats that
was lowering cholesterol, or the exercise instead, they investigated
further. Specifically, a direct quote cut-and-pasted from Dr.
Castelli's recent communication:

".... how do you know that eating cholesterol and saturated fat raise
your serum cholesterol? You have to do a metabolic ward study. Being
on a metabolic ward is like being in prison and the two best studies
were done in Minneapolis (Dr. Ancel Keys) and Boston (Mark Hegsted).
They would increase the cholesterol and saturated fat in your diet,
controlling for everything else and showed the more cholesterol you
ate, or the more saturated fat you ate, the higher you serum
cholesterol went.

In other words it was the higher physical activity that had accounted
for the lower blood cholesterol's of the subjects in the earlier
study - exercise was the confounder that had not been controlled for.

Further, he goes on:

"Virtually all the early diet trials were based on removing saturated
fat and cholesterol from you diet and lowering your serum
cholesterol. They also showed that the better they did this, the
better was the fall in coronary heart disease."

So, Dr. Castelli is saying, not only did lowering saturated fat
intake drop cholesterol, it also reduced heart disease. And further,
Dr. Castelli says:

"....... the latest diet data from Framingham showed that the women of
Framingham who ate a high fat, low calorie diet doubled the deposits
in their carotid arteries compared to women on a heart healthy diet."

And still further he notes that the impact on lipids of a high
saturated fat diet is even greater than that measured by standard
cholesterol tests. This is because the tests are normally done after
an eight to ten hour fast. But the atherogenic effects (chylomicron
remnants) peak around the time the meal is eaten and then diminish
dramatically as the hours go by. So they are much greater in the
period immediately following a high fat meal than when the tested
blood is normally drawn many hours later.


In Health
Jeff

[JeffN]

Let's take a closer look at Dr Castelli's response.

If you and I are typical Americans & we each consume a similar diet that has 12% saturated fat and you consume 1500 calories and I consume 3000 calories our relative amount of saturated fat is the same (12%) but our actual is different (20 vs 40 grams). I would be consuming 2x the amount. IF everything else was "equal" our risk would probably be about the same.

But what if in addition, you were sedentary and I was very active. I would have a lower risk of CVD yet I would take in 2x the amount of saturated fat. If a study was done on large number of people who lived like you & me, we would see the exact same results Castelli did. This might stick out. Those who ate 2x the actual amount of saturated fat, had less CVD. However, there is no paradox.



So, yes, exercise offers "some" measure of protection and it can reduce you risk of certain diseases. Many studies have shown that.

This has also been documented in the Masai as one of the reasons they have some protection & do not experience as much CVD as one would tend to expect from their diet. Keep in mind, the Masia also do the equivalent of 2500 calories per day of "activity/exercise" above and beyond their RMR & do experience atherosclerosis. We can't get most Americans to do that much activity/exercise in a week let alone a day!

Jim Fixx, a friend of Nathan Pritikin, decided to disagree with Nathan & hedge his bet that his running would protect him from CVD. He ate what he wanted but he lost that bet at an early age when he dropped dead of a heart attack.

You have to decide where you want to hedge your lifestyle bets. For me, I don't see the point in finding rare cultures who survive on extreme measures due to extreme environments to help me decide what is ideal or where to hedge my bets. To me it is just a great example of what the human body can tolerate if pushed to that extreme.

I prefer not to "walk the line" or recommend others not to do so either. Yet, the human condition seems to drive most people to the extremes of what they can get away with and the only question they want to know is which is better, chicken or beef? And if I choose the beef, than what kind of exercise & how much exercise is best to offset the extra saturated fat in the beef

The they go and do eat the "right" beef & do the "right" exercise & tell everyone they have finally figured it all out & now know how to live a healthy life.

Then the Today Show & Oprah feature them as the latest health expert.

I recently posted the comments from the recent WHO report & why they thought that this whole process of looking for the exception & trying to make it the rule or a reason why not to follow known healthful living guidelines is detrimental of our solving the worlds global health crisis of chronic disease. Right after my post, someone else posted a great analogy of the same principle using 100 people crossing the highway in traffic. Its worth the read!

In Health,
Jeff

[JeffN]

Here are two recent responses that I think put this discussion in its proper perspective...

Hi Jeff,

Are there any certainties?

You often tell people to keep on track,here at McDougall, but how do you know for certain you can say anything if there are always qualifications and variables etc.?

I ask people to focus on the main issues and the things that matter most, which is often translated to the 95-98% discussion.

My willingness to be open to what is known as "outliers" does not invalidate the main issue being discussed. The fact that we can find someone who lived to be 100 and smoked does not mean that we can't say, based on the over-riding trend of the evidence, that smoking will increase your risk of cancer.

This issue, is discussed in the Triage Your Health thread, as the WHO organization discussed it in one of their latest documents, "Preventing Chronic Diseases: A Vital Investment" (06/06/2005)

Quoting..

“ My grandfather smoked and was overweight and he lived to 96”.

Answer: In any population, there will be a certain number of people who do not demonstrate the typical patterns seen in the vast majority. For chronic diseases, there are two major types: 1) people with many chronic disease risk factors, who nonetheless live a healthy and long life; 2) people with no or few chronic disease risk factors, who nonetheless develop chronic disease and/or die from complications at a young age.

These people undeniably exist, but they are rare. The vast majority of chronic disease can be traced back to the common risk factors, and can be prevented by eliminating these risks.

In Health
Jeff

A hundred people run across a busy eight-lane freeway. 78 are hit and killed outright, 14 are hit and die later of their injuries, 6 are hit but eventually recover and 2 make it across unscathed.

Does that mean we shouldn't say "don't go on the freeway because it's dangerous?" I'm quite happy to say with certainty that people should keep off the freeway - the exceptions prove nothing nor undermine my knowledge.

It's unreasonable to ask for a 100% standard, especially with something as complicated as biology. It's the same line the cigarette companies and a few others take about the "smoking doesn't cause lung cancer because some people who've never smoked get it and some people who smoke all their lives never get it." At some point there is a threshold of evidence that just can't be ignored - even if it's far away from 100%.

In Health
Jeff