Why NO OIL?

A place to get your questions answered from McDougall staff dietitian, Jeff Novick, MS, RDN.

Moderators: JeffN, Heather McDougall, carolve

Why NO OIL?

Postby Jaggu » Sat Mar 01, 2008 8:12 pm

Hi Jeff,

I have read Dr McDougall and others such as Dr Esslysten talk about not using a drop of oil especially for those who have had heart diease and want to reverse it.

I understand that some oils may contain saturated fat which is bad as it gets converted into Cholesterol. Oils are also high in calories so it will be difficult to maintain healthy weight at the same time keep consuming oil which is high in fat (1 tbsp = 14 g = 140 Calories)

So we can conclude that if oil is used liberally it will raise cholesterol levels, weight gain and other associated problem such as high blood pressure, diabetes etc etc.

Now what if if someone is consuming oils which are very low in saturated fat and high in mono and polyunsaturated fat and used in a very low quantity such as say less than a tbsp?

Can you please explain why oil even in small quantity is prohibited on reversal diet? Should we treat fat from oil equivalent to other fats or there is something beyond fat in an oil which is nutritionally dangerous?
Jaggu
 

Re: Why NO OIL?

Postby JeffN » Sun Mar 02, 2008 10:49 am

Jaggu wrote:Hi Jeff,

I have read Dr McDougall and others such as Dr Esslysten talk about not using a drop of oil especially for those who have had heart diease and want to reverse it.

I understand that some oils may contain saturated fat which is bad as it gets converted into Cholesterol. Oils are also high in calories so it will be difficult to maintain healthy weight at the same time keep consuming oil which is high in fat (1 tbsp = 14 g = 140 Calories)


Now what if if someone is consuming oils which are very low in saturated fat and high in mono and polyunsaturated fat and used in a very low quantity such as say less than a tbsp?


Hi,

My question to you is, why oil?

Due to very effective marketing and advertising, we have become convinced that oil is not only a food, but a health food. This is crazy. To be a food, something must be able to support healthy life and be of some benefit.

Oil is a highly refined processed and extracted food "product". It has no protein or essential amino acids (which we need), it has no carbohydrates, or sugars (which we need), it has no fiber (which we need), it has no minerals (which we need) and has virtually no vitamins (which we need) except for a small amount of Vit E and some phytosterols.

But, on the other hand, it is pure fat and the most calorie dense food on the planet. While all oils have a mixture of mono, poly and saturated fat, most oils are very low in the essential fat omega 3 (which some of us may need more of), very high in the omega 6 (which most of us need to lower) and most oils also have high ratios of omega 6 to omega 3 (which most all of us need to lower).

So, basically you are getting lots of calories (oils has almost 2.5 x more calorie per TB than sugar). lots of omega 6s, some saturated fat (depending on the oil) and virtually no nutrients.

The definition of a junk food is a food that is high in calories (and/or fat, sugar, salt) and has little if any nutrient value at all.

IMHO (and by definition), Oil, is more of a junk food than sugar. And, I hope that in a few years, we will all come to understand it and see it, as such.

Jaggu wrote:So we can conclude that if oil is used liberally it will raise cholesterol levels, weight gain and other associated problem such as high blood pressure, diabetes etc etc.


I do not conclude that. I conclude that oil will significantly increase the calorie density and significantly decrease the "overall" nutrient density of any diet it is added to, which are the exact opposite goals most people are working towards.

Diets with increased calorie density can lead to obesity and obesity does increase your risk for heart disease, diabetes, high blood pressure and many others.

Some oils, depending on the percent saturated fat they contain may directly increase cholesterol levels.

Here is something to think about... right now the typical American diet is 10-12% saturated fat. Olive oil is around 14% saturated fat. The AHA is now recommending that Americans reduce the percentage of saturated fat in their diet to below 10%, if not below 7% (for those at risk, which is just about everyone is America). I think below 5% is optimal.

So, Olive oil = 14%
American Diet = 12%
AHA = 7-10%
Optimal = < 5%

How much of something 14% Saturated fat, can you add to something that is already 12% saturated fat to get the total saturated fat below 10%? let alone below 7%, let alone below 5%? :)

By, the way, guess how many oils have a saturated fat level below 10%? let alone below 7%, let alone below 5%?

Jaggu wrote:Can you please explain why oil even in small quantity is prohibited on reversal diet? Should we treat fat from oil equivalent to other fats or there is something beyond fat in an oil which is nutritionally dangerous?


We should treat oil for what it really is (junk food) and the same way we treat other foods in the same category.

Oil is junk food. Pure and simple. Treat it like the junk food it really is.

If you choose to include a small amount of junk food in your diet, that is up to you. I am sure most people, if they otherwise have an optimal diet, could get away with around 5% of their calories from junk food and not be harmed by it.

However, you would probably want to choose the junk food that is going to do the least harm and has the best overall picture But, I am not going to recommend one, or try to figure out which is the best junk food for you. :)

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

PS, OK, I will. The only oil, that comes close to the criteria I mentioned is canola oil. It is the lowest in saturated fat, one of the highest in omega 3s and the only one with a ratio of omega 6: omega 3 that is less than 4:1. Now, to be clear, I am not recommending you consume canola oil, but in comparison to all other oils, I think it has the best overall picture. :)
Last edited by JeffN on Sun Mar 02, 2008 11:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Why NO OIL?

Postby Jaggu » Sun Mar 02, 2008 7:44 pm

JeffN wrote:
Jaggu wrote:Hi Jeff,

Here is something to think about... right now the typical American diet is 10-12% saturated fat. Olive oil is around 14% saturated fat. The AHA is now recommending that Americans reduce the percentage of saturated fat in their diet to below 10%, if not below 7% (for those at risk, which is just about everyone is America). I think below 5% is optimal.

So, Olive oil = 14%
American Diet = 12%
AHA = 7-10%
Optimal = < 5%

How much of something 14% Saturated fat, can you add to something that is already 12% saturated fat to get the total saturated fat below 10%? let alone below 7%, let alone below 5%? :)

By, the way, guess how many oils have a saturated fat level below 10%? let alone below 7%, let alone below 5%?


In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD

PS, OK, I will. The only oil, that comes close to the criteria I mentioned is canola oil. It is the lowest in saturated fat, one of the highest in omega 3s and the only one with a ratio of omega 6: omega 3 that is less than 4:1. Now, to be clear, I am not recommending you consume canola oil, but in comparison to all other oils, I think it has the best overall picture. :)


Jeff,

Thank you for your insightful reply. Believe me I agree when you call oil the junk food. Why oil? without oil food sticks to even non-stick pans!

a Tbsp of olive oil has 10% saturated fat and 16% total fat based on 2000 calories daily diet. So you are right in saying how much of 10% you can add to get below 5-7%? This would be true if you were consuming over 1 tbsp of oil, otherwise it won't be 10% or 16%.

What you stated would be true if someone was consuming let's say 1/2 tbsp and above.

Dr Esslysten says, not to use even DROP of OIL and Dr McD says the same thing ( not to use any oil, not sure whether he said not to use even drop of oil), this made me curious to find out why NOT a single drop of oil. If someone is not overweight, cholesterol numbers are in within limit, is there any thing in oil other than what you have stated ( Junk food, obesity, diebets, high cholesterol, dense calories) that is particular dangerous to those who wants to reverse the heart disease.
Jaggu
 

Re: Why NO OIL?

Postby JeffN » Sun Mar 02, 2008 8:56 pm

Greetings,

According to the standard reference for nutrition analysis, the USDA SR-20, olive oil is 14% saturated fat.

I use percentages for a reason, as when you do, it does not matter the amount you use as the percentage stays the same. Percentage fat is not dependant on the amount. So regardless whether you have a TB or a tsp or a cup or a drop, olive oil is 14% saturated fat. Adding any amount of something 14% saturated fat to something that is 10-12% saturated fat ( the typical American diet) will only (& always) raise the overall total percentage of saturated fat. The more you add, the higher the percentage will go.

If you have a diet that is 2000 calories and 5% saturated fat and you add 1 TB of olive oil, the diet is now 5.5% saturted fat. the percentage went up. If you add just a tsp, the percentage will also go up, but not as much as if you added a TB. If you add 2 TB, it will go up more.

As saturated fat is a risk factor for heart disease, the safest approach would be to not add any more Saturated fat to a diet that is already higher in saturated fat than what is recommended, or optimal.

If someone was to use oil, the last thing I would recommend is for them to use it for cooking as heating most oils is not a good idea as it can create harmful chemicals. The oils that are more heat stable and recommended for cooking are more heat stable because they are much higher in saturated fat, so now that would be the issue.

For the last 25 years I have cooked food without the use of any oil as have many many others, & I do not use non-stick pans. You may want to check out the McDougall cookbooks & others like it.

Cooking without oil maybe a change, and a learning experience, but one that is worth making and undertaking.

I guess the answer to your personal specific question would be for you to try & create a diet that is below 5% saturated fat and includes olive oil.

In Heath
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
Last edited by JeffN on Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: Why NO OIL?

Postby Jaggu » Mon Mar 03, 2008 7:06 pm

JeffN wrote:Greetings,

According to the standard reference for nutrition analysis, the USDA SR-20, olive oil is 14% saturated fat.

I use percentages for a reason, as when you do, it does not matter the amount you use as the percentage stays the same. Percentage fat is not Dependant on the amount. So regardless whether you have a TB or a tsp or a cup or a drop, olive oil is 14% saturated fat. Adding any amount of something 14% saturated fat to something that is 10-12% saturated fat ( the typical American diet) will only (& always) raise the overall total percentage of saturated fat. The more you add, the higher the percentage will go.

If you have a diet that is 2000 calories and 5% saturated fat and you add 1 TB of olive oil, the diet is now 5.5% saturated fat. the percentage went up. If you add just a tsp, the percentage will also go up, but not as much as if you added a TB. If you add 2 TB, it will go up more.

In Heath
Jeff Novick, MS, RD



Can you confirm this? When we say your saturated fat consumption should be less than 5% or total fat consumption to be less than 10%. Is that a % of total calories consumed or it's pure percentage? If that's case, you can not eat any food that contains more than 5% saturated fat even in the minuscule amount. Percentage distribution between Saturated, mono, poly unsaturated, carbohydrate, protein will remain the same no matter how small or how big the quantity is. In this case for instance, a drop of oil and and gallon of oil will have the same percentage distribution. Nutrition facts lables are written as a % of daily value which is typically 2000 or 3000 calories.
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Mon Mar 03, 2008 8:05 pm

Hi,

Jaggu wrote: Can you confirm this? .


Sure. The American Heart Association Scientific Position on Fat,

http://www.americanheart.org/presenter. ... ifier=4582

which was published in the journal Circulation in June 2006,

http://circ.ahajournals.org/cgi/content ... t/114/1/82

state:

"Saturated fat intake should not exceed 7 percent of total calories each day."

That is the AHA.

The Ornish, Pritikin, Esselstyne and McDougall program have all published studies on their effectiveness and their diets contain less than 5% saturated fat. In fact, the only programs that have been able to scientifically document the reversal of heart disease have done it on a diet that has less than 5% of calories from saturated fat.

In addition, that is the saturated fat level of most all the populations that have extremely low levels of heart disease and are long lived.

(But, if you like, and you do not like where i get the 5% from, we could just use the 7% as it will not change the main point of my discussion.)

Jaggu wrote: When we say your saturated fat consumption should be less than 5% ...[snip]... Is that a % of total calories consumed or is it a pure percentage?


That is the overall average of total calories from saturated fat. Saturated fat intake should not exceed 5 percent of total calories each day.

Jaggu wrote:If that's case, you can not eat any food that contains more than 5% saturated fat even in the minuscule amount.


I have not said that, nor will I. I encouraged you to try and put together a diet that contains olive oil (which is over 5% saturated fat) and see how much you can add to the diet and still keep the total percentage of saturated fat of the total diet below 5%. It can be done and we can learn a lot from doing the experiment and it can give us a better understanding of the problem.

Many, if not most, plant foods are below 5% saturated fat, so clearly, there is room for foods whose percentage saturated fat is over 5%. However, there is not much room for those foods whose percentage is far over 5%. And, the higher the percentage over 5%, the less room there will be. Olive oil is 14% saturated fat and coconut oil is 91% saturated fat, so there would be less room for coconut oil.

If you have a diet that has 2 foods.

Food A contributes 1000 calories and is 2% saturated fat.

Food B contributes 1000 calories and is 8% saturated fat.

Then, the total diet is 2000 calories and the saturated fat is 5%. Yet, half the diet contained a food that was over 5% saturated fat.

The problem in America today, is that the typical American diet is already to high in saturated fat, averaging around 10-12%. So, unless Americans, reduce the saturated fat level in their overall diet, how much of any food over 5% can they add? None.

But, what if Americans did consume a diet that was 4% saturated fat or less, which could be done. Would they then have room for a small amount of some foods that were over 5%? Of course. But, 1) there will not be too much room for them and, 2) the higher the percentage of saturated fat they contained over 5%, the less room there will be.

Jaggu wrote: Percentage distribution between Saturated, mono, poly unsaturated, carbohydrate, protein will remain the same no matter how small or how big the quantity is. In this case for instance, a drop of oil and and gallon of oil will have the same percentage distribution.


Correct. :)

Jaggu wrote: Nutrition facts lables are written as a % of daily value which is typically 2000 or 3000 calories.


That is why I recommend people to never ever look at, or use, the % of DV's on a Nutrition Facts label. :) They are misleading and confusing.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Jaggu » Tue Mar 04, 2008 1:48 pm

Jeff,

Thanks for all your posts. Full of wisdom and I enjoy reading them.

While we are at this what is your take on following.

Excerpts from AHA:

Polyunsaturated fats tend to help your body get rid of newly formed cholesterol. Thus, they keep the blood cholesterol level down and reduce cholesterol deposits in artery walls. Recent research has shown that monounsaturated fats may also help reduce blood cholesterol as long as the diet is very low in saturated fat.

Both types of unsaturated fats may help lower your blood cholesterol level when used in place of saturated fats in your diet. But you should be moderate in eating all types of fat, because fats contain more than twice the calories of either protein or carbohydrate.

Is it true that Poly and Mono unsaturated fat will help lower total cholesterol and may help increase HDL the protective cholesterol?

If that's the case for e.g. Canola oil contains all types of fat and significant portion of that is poly and mono unsaturated fat. If you have to compare all the benefits and drawbacks side by side, how would you do it?

Don't we need some amount of fat ? How much fat is required and what type of what?
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:04 pm

Jaggu wrote:Is it true that Poly and Mono unsaturated fat will help lower total cholesterol and may help increase HDL the protective cholesterol?


It is really misleading the way it is presented.

If a diet is high in saturated fat, and you substitute an equal amount of poly for the saturated, cholesterol levels will "appear" to go down. If you substitute an equal amount of mono, cholesterol levels, will stay the same and/or may go down slightly.

However, this is only when they are substituted on a equal calorie basis for saturated fat. But this does not apply because why would you be eating a diet high in saturated fat? No one, as I showed you, is recommending this. If you take someone who is on a low fat, low saturated fat diet, and their cholesterol is low, and you then add in either mono or poly, cholesterol is not going down any lower.

Jaggu wrote:Don't we need some amount of fat ? How much fat is required and what type of what?


The only fat humans need to eat, that they do not make themselves is called essential fat. The recommended ranges are somewhere around .5 to 1% on the low end to around 3 - 5% calories on the more upper end, depending on how you look at it. The ctual number recommendations are 1.1-1.6 grams by the NAS and 2.2 by the NIH.

This is the equivalent of about 1/4 to 1/5 a tsp.

All whole plant foods range anywhere from 1-15% fat (Oatmeal is 16% fat).

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Jaggu » Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:55 pm

So in nutshell, do not eat any fat of whatsoever type. Certainly not the saturated and trans fat but also unsaturated fats such as poly and mono unsaturated fat. Whatever little essential fats are required, you will get that no matter what as long as you are eating some food. Infact there is no such thing as fat deficiency diet, if at all you have to worry and try hard in making sure you don't eat too much fat.

Some people have reported that on a low fat diet their HDL went down along with total cholesterol. Isn't high HDL supposed to reverse the plaque build up in the arteries by transporting it to lever? on the same token, higher LDL will plug the arteries. Once the arteries are plugged, total lower cholesterol and hence low LDL may prevent the further build up but for reversal don't you need higher HDL?
Last edited by Jaggu on Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Tue Mar 04, 2008 6:57 pm

To sum up the issues around fat....

1) The need for essential fats can be meet through whole natural foods without adding any concentrated sources.

2) Unsaturated fats are less harmful than saturated fats.

3) Hydrogenated Fats and Trans fats are probably the worst fats.

4) Substituting saturated fat with unsaturated fats, without adding additional calories, may lower cholesterol levels and the risk for CVD and some cancers and possible DB. This is an "improvement", not an ideal recommendation and is a result of the "substitution" and not the "addition".

5) Substituting refined carbohydrates and/or sugar with unsaturated fats
without adding additional calories may lower risk for CVD, DB and some
cancers. This is an "improvement", not an ideal recommendation and a result of the "substitution" and not the "addition".

6) there is absolutely no evidence than adding either saturated fats, or
unsaturated fats to an otherwise optimal diet will improve the diet.

7) the Med diet was healthy not because of the olive oil, but in spite of
the olive oil. If the olive oil added any benefit, it was because of
some phytonutrients in the olive oil, and not any specific fat or fatty
acid.

8 ) Oils rich in PUFAs are more unstable than oils rich in MUFA and have
been shown to increase growth rate (but not initiate) of some cancers in
animals and possibly in humans, especially those which are high in Omega 6s.

9) I have never seen any conclusive evidence putting sat fat in a "healthy"
light. Maybe my light needs new bulbs. :)

10) Focus your diet on and consume a variety of healthy unrefined unprocessed fresh fruit, veggies, starchy veggies, whole grains and legumes.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

HDL

Postby JeffN » Wed Mar 05, 2008 9:58 am

Jaggu wrote:So in nutshell, do not eat any fat of whatsoever type. Certainly not the saturated and trans fat but also unsaturated fats such as poly and mono unsaturated fat. Whatever little essential fats are required, you will get that no matter what as long as you are eating some food. Infact there is no such thing as fat deficiency diet, if at all you have to worry and try hard in making sure you don't eat too much fat.


There is no need to eat (or add) any food high in fat, or refined fat (oil).

However, the fat that occurs naturally in the fruits, veggies, starchy veggies, and legumes is good for you, and is good to eat in its natural state.

It is possible to be fat deficient if you ate a low fat diet based on white flour and white sugar and other highly processed junk foods. But, no one is recommending that.

Jaggu wrote:Some people have reported that on a low fat diet their HDL went down along with total cholesterol. Isn't high HDL supposed to reverse the plaque build up in the arteries by transporting it to lever? on the same token, higher LDL will plug the arteries. Once the arteries are plugged, total lower cholesterol and hence low LDL may prevent the further build up but for reversal don't you need higher HDL?


HDL has been thought of as the good cholesterol but as in everything there is more to the story. it is much more than just a number.

There are subfractions of HDL and some are good, some not so good.

In recently published research on men in a three-week low fat program, blood tests showed that on entry the men (typical high-fat American-style eaters) had normal amounts of HDL, but the HDL tended to be pro-inflammatory. Pro-inflammatory HDL promotes plaque build-up in the arteries.

But after three weeks on a healthy low fat diet, exit blood tests showed the HDL had been converted from having pro-inflammatory qualities to having anti-inflammatory qualities despite the fact that total levels of HDL had on average gone down a little. Anti-inflammatory HDL is beneficial because it does a good job of removing LDL from the arterial system.

The lead author Dr. Christian K Roberts and colleagues at UCLA concluded, "Pay attention to the quality of HDL, not the quantity, The function of HDL may be more important than the steady-state plasma [blood] levels.”

Journal of Applied Physiology, 2006; 101: 1727.

In addition other new research found that even one meal rich in saturated fat could interfere with the ability of “good” HDL cholesterol to protect against damage to arteries.

In the study, scientists at the Heart Research Institute in Sydney, Australia fed subjects 2 different meals. One meal was high in saturated fat. Three and six hours after each meal, the scientists measured blood flow and assessed how well HDL was protecting arteries from inflammation. The saturated fat meal essentially turned “good” HDL cholesterol into “bad” HDL cholesterol particles. Instead of being anti-inflammatory, they become pro-inflammatory.

Journal of the American College of Cardiology, 2006; 48: 715.

Another study measured reverse cholesterol transport (RCT) which is the ability of HDL to remove cholesterol. When the subject were put in a healthy low fat diet, the level of HDL went down but the RCT stayed the same. This showed than while the absolute number may have dropped somewhat, the efficiency of the HDL went up.

In other words, having a high HDL from a higher fat diet, may not be a good thing and may in fact, be a bad thing. Yet, having a lower HDL from a healthy lower fat diet, may not be a bad thing and in fact may be a good thing.

The best way to raise HDL is to lose weight and exercise regularly.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Re: HDL

Postby JeffN » Wed Mar 05, 2008 10:06 am

Quoting from

Was Dr Atkins right? Dean Ornish, MD
JADA, Issue 4, Pages 537-542 (April 2004)

What about HDL?

The reduction in HDL-C that may occur on a low-fat diet is another example of a half-truth that is confusing to many people. HDL returns cholesterol to the liver for metabolism, a pathway known as reverse cholesterol transport. Most Americans consume a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol, so those who are able to increase HDL-C in response to this diet are at lower risk than those who cannot, since they will be more efficient at metabolizing excessive dietary fat and cholesterol. In simple terms, those with higher HDL-C levels have more “garbage trucks” (HDL) to get rid of the “garbage” (excessive fat and cholesterol).

However, reducing dietary fat and cholesterol may cause a decrease in HDL-C because there is less need for it. This does not confer the same risk of atherosclerosis as in Americans with low HDL levels who are consuming a high-fat diet (41). In other words, when you have less garbage, you need fewer garbage trucks to remove it, so a reduction in HDL on a low-fat diet is not harmful.

There are no data showing that the physiologic reduction of HDL-C levels with a low-fat diet is detrimental, especially in that LDL-C usually decreases more than HDL-C (42). In locations such as Asia, where a low-fat diet has been the norm, HDL-C levels are low, yet the incidence of CVD is among the lowest in the world (43). In rural China, for example, the average LDL is less than 95 mg/dL.

In contrast, someone who increases the amount of fat and cholesterol in their diet (eg, an Atkins diet) may increase their HDL-C because their body is trying to get rid of the extra garbage (fat and cholesterol) by increasing the number of available garbage trucks (HDL). Eating a stick of butter will raise HDL-C in those who are able to do so, but that does not mean that butter is good for the heart. HDL-C is predictive of relative heart disease risk only in populations in which everyone is eating a similar high-fat diet, such as the Framingham population.

To understand better the mechanism of this phenomenon, Breslow and colleagues studied the turnover of HDL apolipoproteins (apo) A-I and A-II in 13 subjects on two contrasting metabolic diets. Upon changing from high to low intake of saturated fat and cholesterol, the mean HDL-C decreased 29%, whereas apo A-I levels fell 23%. Mean apo A-II levels did not change. The fractional catabolic rate (FCR) of apo A-I increased 11%, whereas its absolute transport rate decreased 14%. The decrease in HDL-C and apo A-I levels correlated with the decrease in apo A-I transport rate but not with the increase in apo A-I FCR. In contrast, within each diet, the HDL-C and apo A-I levels were inversely correlated with apo A-I FCR both on the high- and low-fat diets but not with apo A-I transport rate (44).

Therefore, diet-induced changes in HDL-C levels correlate with and may result from changes in apo A-I transport rate. In contrast, differences in HDL-C levels between people on a given diet correlate with and may result from differences in apo A-I FCR. The mechanism of the effects on HDL-C levels of changing from a high- to low-fat diet differs substantially from the mechanism explaining the differences in HDL-C levels between individuals who are eating a high-fat diet.

In summary, decreases in HDL-C due to a low-fat diet have a very different prognostic significance than someone who cannot raise HDL-C as much on a high-fat diet.

Raising and lowering HDL—beneficial or harmful?

An example of the half-truth of saying that anything that raises HDL-C is beneficial whereas anything that lowers it is harmful came at the November 11, 2003 annual scientific session of the American Heart Association. A paper was presented from Tufts University titled “One Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing Body Weight and Heart Disease Risk.” The researchers concluded “All diets resulted in significant weight loss from baseline and all but the Ornish diet resulted in significant reductions in the Framingham risk score” (45). This study was widely reported and caused many to say, “See, another study showing that the Atkins diet is good for your heart.” It sounds good, but it is not true.

The Framingham risk score is calculated from age, sex, total cholesterol, HDL, smoking, and systolic blood pressure (46). Only total cholesterol and HDL changed in this study, so these were the only factors in determining the risk score. Total cholesterol decreased much more on the Ornish diet than on any of the other diets. However, HDL increased more on the other diets, so the differences in the Framingham risk score were due primarily to changes in HDL.

The abstract did not mention that people lost the most weight on the Ornish diet, it was the only one to significantly lower LDL-C, and it was the only one to significantly lower insulin (even though one of the main premises of the Atkins and Zone diets is their purported effect on insulin). Also, C-reactive protein and creatinine clearance were significantly lowered only on the Ornish and Weight Watchers diets.

As stated earlier, a low-fat, whole foods diet has been proven to reverse heart disease using actual measures of coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial perfusion, whereas none of the other three diets has been shown to do so. It was terribly misleading when this abstract made it appear as though the Atkins diet is better for your heart. This is especially incongruous when, as mentioned earlier, the only study to examine blood flow on the Atkins diet found that it actually worsened (35).


35. 35Fleming R, Boyd LB. The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow. Angiology. 2000;51:817–826. MEDLINE

41. 41Bonow RO, Eckel RH. Diet, obesity, and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:2057. CrossRef

42. 42Connor WE, Connor SL. The case for a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. N Engl J Med. 1997;337:562–563. MEDLINE | CrossRef

43. 43Campbell TC, Parpia B, Chen J. Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease (The Cornell China Study). Am J Cardiol. 1998;82:18T–21T. MEDLINE

44. 44Brinton EA, Eisenberg S, Breslow JL. A low-fat diet decreases high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels by decreasing HDL apolipoprotein transport rates. J Clin Invest. 1990;85:144–151. MEDLINE | CrossRef

45. 45Dansinger ML, Gleason JL, Griffith JL, Li W, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. One-year effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in decreasing body weight and heart disease risk. 2003;Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, Orlando, November 11, 2003.

46. 46National Institutes of Health. Risk assessment tool for estimating 10-year risk of developing hard CHD (myocardial infarction and coronary death). Available at: http://hin.nhlbi.nih.gov/atpiii/calcula ... rtype=prof. Accessed March 5, 2004
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Jaggu » Sun Mar 09, 2008 6:40 pm

Jeff,

I watched your wonderful health food Vs healthy food video on VSH. In one of the post here you had mentioned that you don't like to use % Fat numbers ( % of Daily value)

I would like to know what the problem is using %DV numbers.

For e.g. Let's say I should be consuming 2000 calories daily.

no more than 10% should be from fat, so maximum daily calories from fat would be 10%X2000 = 200 calories or 200 calories/9 cal/per gram = 22 grams of total fat about no more than 3rd should come from saturated fat, so saturated fat intake should be less than 200/3 = 67 calories or 7.5 grams.

I guess the reason % of DV doesn't make sense to us is due FDA's guidelines for fat calories are different. FDA allows 30% calories from fat( as opposed to us who believes that no more than 10% should be from fat) , so 21% total fat listed on a label in a Tbsp of olive oil is about right.

If we multiply FDA % by 3 that should give us correct % for 10% fat diet. or go by the total grams of calories that should come from fat as mentioned above. (22 grams total fat, 7.5 grams from saturated fat)

Do you think above line of thinking is correct?

Note: I used olive oil as an example, since we already discussed that issue here. But this line of thinking will be the same for all food lables.
Jaggu
 

Postby JeffN » Mon Mar 10, 2008 7:32 am

Jaggu wrote:Jeff,

I watched your wonderful health food Vs healthy food video on VSH. In one of the post here you had mentioned that you don't like to use % Fat numbers ( % of Daily value)

I would like to know what the problem is using %DV numbers.


Hi Jaggu

Thanks. Glad you enjoyed it.

It is not that I don't like them, it is that the % DV is worthless.

The problem is simple. Yes, you can work out all kinds of math to make them applicable, but the reality is, the do not apply to anyone, and even if they did, they are based on recommendations that are not helpful, but harmful.

It is also misleading because it rates a product on relation to the limits for the day, which allows many products to look better than they are, as they are in relation to a full days allowed amount. It is a perfect system to help many bad foods look better and thus fulfil the misleading message of the ADA that "All foods fit".

My system compares each product to itself, so you can see right then and there, how the product rates in relation to how many calories this specific product contributes to you.

At any given moment in the USA, 100s if not 1000s if not 10s of 1000s of people of all ages, gender, medical/ health concerns, etc will be reading the label of a product. The % DV gives you the illusion that they are applicable to each one of these people, but the reality is, that is impossible. Some %mDV are based on calories, some on grams, some on serving size by weight and all are misleading.

My guidelines are simple. They are based on calories, and the amount of calories you will consume. It is relevant to you and can be applied to any package.


Jaggu wrote:For e.g. Let's say I should be consuming 2000 calories daily.

no more than 10% should be from fat, so maximum daily calories from fat would be 10%X2000 = 200 calories or 200 calories/9 cal/per gram = 22 grams of total fat about no more than 3rd should come from saturated fat, so saturated fat intake should be less than 200/3 = 67 calories or 7.5 grams.

I guess the reason % of DV doesn't make sense to us is due FDA's guidelines for fat calories are different. FDA allows 30% calories from fat( as opposed to us who believes that no more than 10% should be from fat) , so 21% total fat listed on a label in a Tbsp of olive oil is about right.

If we multiply FDA % by 3 that should give us correct % for 10% fat diet. or go by the total grams of calories that should come from fat as mentioned above. (22 grams total fat, 7.5 grams from saturated fat)

Do you think above line of thinking is correct?


I think it is logical but it doesnt work on the label and is much more difficult than the system I recommend.

If you limit the % fat to less than 20% in packaged products, as I recommend, which gives you some lee way and allows for some averaging in the day, ie. some higher fat products balanced out by the lower fat fruits, veggies, and whole grains, ending up with an average of 10- 15% or less. The less higher fat products, and the more lower fat whole foods, the lower the average. I use 20% to make the math easy. If you want, use 15%.

Second, if you eliminate all forms of hydrogenated fats, tropical oils and saturated fat from the ingredients, you guarantee you will limit/eliminate the amount of saturated fat and trans fat. However, if you use the printed grams of saturated fat, they can round those numbers down and you do not always get an accurate picture.

I applaud your efforts to try and make a bad system better, but why? I have given you a much simpler system.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD
User avatar
JeffN
 
Posts: 8849
Joined: Tue Jan 08, 2008 5:56 am

Postby Jaggu » Mon Mar 10, 2008 8:16 am

JeffN wrote:
Jaggu wrote:Jeff,

I applaud your efforts to try and make a bad system better, but why? I have given you a much simpler system.

In Health
Jeff Novick, MS, RD


Thanks Jeff. Your method is to look for calories from fat CFF on the label and make sure they are under 20%, which could be computed as CFF/ total calories per serving*100 which will work like a champ.

As you said, manufactures are allowed to round down fat to 0 if it contains less than 0.5 g of fat. In which case, the label will indicate 0 calories from fat as you had shown with PAM spray especially when the serving size is very small.

Do you know if they have to list calories from fat no matter what the weight is.

Also while we are at this, as far as rounding on FAT goes, what does FDA allows? Does it ONLY allow rounding to zero when fat content per serving is less than 0.5 grams? or should we be aware of any other marketing gimmick?
Jaggu
 

Next

Return to Jeff Novick, RD

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests



Welcome!

Sign up to receive our regular articles, recipes, and news about upcoming events.