Today on the Physicians Committee live podcast, Dr. Neal Barnard (PCRM) discussed a new crossover study. It compared the effects of olive oil on cholesterol levels. In a crossover study it compared a "vegan diet with 4 tablespoons/day of olive oil", to a "vegan diet with 1 teaspoon/day of olive oil". Spoiler alert: the diet 1 tsp/day of olive oil did much better at lowering cholesterol. Link to the study in their show notes.
They did better cuz Olive oil is mostly omega 6 than omega 3. Lowering the omega 6 ration would lower inflammation in the body lowering the need for the band aid of cholesterol to repair on the inflammation. All junk science.
Eating fish, fatty fish etc is problematic now because of man made toxins being left to run into our waterways and oceans. These toxic chemicals and flushed pharmaceuticals, pesticides, herbicides, fungicides are not only killing aqua life but destroying ecosystems.
@@v.a.n.e. Synthetic chemicals (including pesticides, herbicides & fungicides) bioaccumulate in fish over their lifetime and are stored in the fatty tissues. As smaller fish are eaten by larger fish, this bioaccumulation can lead to extremely high levels. This is one of the reasons pregnant women are advised to avoid eating swordfish and certain other species of fish due to high mercury content (mercury is a neurotoxin and can affect development of the fetus). Some pesticides/herbicides/fungicides used in the USA are banned in other countries (neonicotinoids, for instance), so can be a problem in some types of plant foods, though bioaccumulation isn't an issue. The way to avoid that is eating home grown or organically grown plants from a reputable farmer whenever possible.
I believe every carnivore diater has a uncouncious fear that high colesterol may be unhealty but ignore that because he feels good. For me your conversation was very helpful to hear the facts and rethink the ignorance.
Cholesterol is used all through the body to build hormones, cell walls and most importantly your brain. You cut out cholesterol and watch your health decline. You'll develop Alzheimer's disease and end up with diabetes. Have fun with that. Nature doesn't need intervention. Plant based diets are destroying the world and everything on it.
Simon, this was great. You are always so respectful and informative to those who may not know/understand how to interpret or make sense of the body of research regarding nutrition, biomarkers of CV risk and other adverse health outcomes.
from a vegan perspective, sure. any time I hear the Med diet, I know it's politics not science. the Med diet is made up. leading cause of death in Greece is heart disease. A few old people living in a pristine environment who are working all day? sure its the food - nothing to do with genes, lack of pollution and stress etc. anything is better than the SAD.
I've got to be honest, when I saw the title of this video I was apprehensive, almost dreading the thought of watching it. However after watching the it, I thought the amount and quality of information you brought to this conversation was truly significant, very helpful and a very respectful exchange. I'll be saving this to my favourite so I can go back and watch it again.
Your podcast is excellent and should have 10x the subscribers. You really seem to be seeking truth and not to reinforce your personal bias and/or preferences. Great work 👏
I'm 13 months postpartum, nursing a few times a day, and no cycle yet. I have been drawn to high saturated fat foods likely because I was losing weight so fast when exclusively breastfeeding. I know experiences of nursing mothers can be so different but I'm convinced I lost my fat stores from my bottom and thighs because I had a hard time gaining weight when pregnant and my son who is off the charts growth wise required so many calories. I'm trying to gain weight to see if I can get my cycle back without weaning but would love to understand what's going on better for my niche of a circumstance.
Calories in calories out. Saturated fats are quite palatable components of tasty dishes. My sister’s craving were so off during and after pregnancy. It doesn’t mean her body required this and that. People tend to think that for example animals know what their body needs. It is funny to say that. Anyone who lives with a dog knows that dog will literally eat sh1t even though it might be dangerous for him. Chocolate and grapes are bad for them, but would eat it. Drug research such as heroin addiction is often done on mice. The mice will hop on heroin when they can and will become addicted same as humans. I absolutely wouldn’t think your body needed saturated fat. You simply craved it.
I started transitioning from a standard food pyramid diet to whole food plant based a couple of years ago. It was the Game Changers documentary that convinced me to give it a go. I tried for a whole year and during this time mild joint point turned to chronic (mainly hips and ankles). I also had terrible GI issues and sought advice in vegan communities. The general advice was to give the diet more time and your body will adjust. In my case, the GI issues never resolved and it was beans/legumes that made me feel the worse. The turning point was when I got appendicitis and ended up in hospital. Not saying the plant based diet caused the appendicitis, but did wonder if there was a link with the GI issues. After fully recovered from surgery, I had bloodwork done which showed my CRP (inflammatory marker) at 6mg/L. I got it tested a month later and it was at 5 - certainly much higher than ideal. I then started seriously questioning if there was a link between the plant based diet, chronic joint pain and raised CRP. I read that many people had full or partial resolution from chronic inflammation on ketogenic diets so decided to give it a go. I added animal fats/proteins back into the diet including quite a bit of fatty fish. Within a month, I noticed the joint pain starting to subside. This path led me to transitioning to a full carnivore diet a month later. Within 6 months, the joint pain had 100% gone! Bloodwork also showed my CRP had dropped below 1 and it's stayed there ever since. As much as I wanted the plant based diet to work, it simply didn't work for me. Everything in my current bloodwork is perfect apart from elevated LDL/ApoB. I'm not convinced elevated LDL/ApoB in the absence of other risk factors will lead to atherosclerosis. I've also had a CAC scan which thankfully came back as 0. And as someone who is LMHR, I'm experimenting with titrating in some carbohydrates to attenuate the LDL response, just to be on the safe side. So far small quantities of pumpkin, sweet potato and blueberries doesn't seem to be causing any issues. Will check CRP and LDL/ApoB again soon.
@Danielabit almost none at all, except perhaps the odd occasion when visiting friends and family. I'm also gluten sensitive and cut wheat/gluten out of my diet years ago.
I am so impressed that @MarkBellsPowerProject invited you to be interviewed. We need more open and honest discussions - even if the facts and science aren't always supportive of set paradigms and beliefs.
Simon, it's been quite a while since you've had that rascal Drew Harrisberg on the show. I think you need to get him back on to see what he's up to. Maybe you guys could do another topic review to compare notes to keep each other honest. 😇Cheers!
Love these conversations! I respect the way you bring balance and honesty to the research and that folks have to find what works best for them within this health framework. Enjoying about 90% WFPB w/ some wild fish. This delicious plant based way of eating (using volumetric theory) has brought me back to a lean and healthy BMI as a post menopausal woman and LDL is back in check. Keep up the great work!
I'm very curious what happens to glucose when you lower LDL by 20-30%. I'm generally plant focused but recently changed as I need to get glucose down and insulin under control. I'm having a hard time adding lentils/some plants without spiking my glucose. Trying to avoid saturated fat and using tofu and lean cuts. I'll get lipids tested in a few months, then slowly add back lentils/more plants and test again. I'm kind of stuck in the middle. Adding more nuts/seeds to get about 4-500 calories/day from there to reduce meat.
Simon, I've been thinking a lot about these 2 effects,.. SF increasing cholesterol while PUFA lower it. Neither of these effects are abnormal. Meaning they don't cause illness. So that means there must be some evolutionary survival benefit to both these effects. Here are some thoughts on this. When the diet contains more saturated fat, one can argue that it is a signal for food abundance. Which means the body can go in recovery and maintenance mode. That increases the demand for cholesterol quite a bit. At the same time, when the diet contains more PUFAs, one can argue that is a signal for less food available. The body needs to reduce it's energy expenditure. Which means less recovery and less maintenance. That reduces the demand for cholesterol. From this point of view, both the increasing and lowering effect on cholesterol levels have benefits depending on food availability. I don't know if you agree, but in general, in evolutionary terms, the more meat that was available, the more energy people ate. And when meat became less available, the less energy that was available. So maybe saturated fat is used by the body also to signal food abundance and it triggers all kinds of health processes in the body. (I do agree that high cholesterol, while you already have significant heart disease, may not be ideal.)
@@TheProofWithSimonHill That is certainly a possibility, but if I understand the science correctly, increased meat consumption associates with food abundance and increased plant consumption associates with a lower food availability. This is true I think for plant consumption, not for fruit consumption. Increased fruit consumption associates with food abundance. But this is very seasonal. (In evolutionary context, we now live in a world where everything (meat, plants and fruits), is available year round. Which messes everything up.)
1994 study: "We compared the fatty-acid composition of aortic plaques with that of post-mortem serum and adipose tissue, in which essential fatty-acid content reflects dietary intake. Positive associations were found between serum and plaque omega 6 (r = 0.75) and omega 3 (r = 0.93) polyunsaturated fatty acids, and monounsaturates (r = 0.70), and also between adipose tissue and plaque omega 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (r = 0.89). No associations were found with saturated fatty acids. These findings imply a direct influence of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids on aortic plaque formation and suggest that current trends favouring increased intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids should be reconsidered."
@@StanDupp6371that’s irrelevant because no one is claiming that saturated fat is in plaque. Saturated fat consumption leads to the downregulation of LDL receptors and that causes one to have more circulating LDL in the blood. Maybe it was an interesting idea to explore in 1994, it’s not anymore.
The RDA of 0.8g/kg (or 0.36g/lb) of body weight, is 2 standard deviations above the mean. So that is an adequate daily protein intake for 97.5% of the US population. This talk of 1.6g/kg of daily protein is WAY higher than almost anyone would need. As stated in this video, the less than optimal standard American diet is already providing around 1.2g/kg of protein. So unless you eat a low calorie diet, you are probably already consuming more protein than you need. Any excess protein cannot be stored. So you either turn it into glycogen, which is limited in storage capacity. Any surplus above that is turned into fat storage.
I would really really like to to see Simon in a friendly debate with a long-term raw vegan such as Doug Graham. Some of those raw vegans seem like they are on another level in terms of mood, energy, spirituality, even fitness.
95% of calories I consume is animal based. I also cut all seed oils. Never felt better ever. My weight is under control, I swam 11 km. Can't praise enough animal based diet. It is miraculous, wonderful, great. Looking back when I was consuming healthy food is as looking the age of darkness. No way I'm going back into the dark hole.
Dr. Alan Christianson says iodine deficiency is non-existent in the western world these days. Unless you follow a strict vegan diet which can be very low in iodine. Too much iodine is what to be aware of and it’s negative affect on thyroid function. See…(Wolff/Chaikoff effect)I’m not sure if Simon is aware of this but I’d be very interested to hear his response to this!
"Our data suggest that a low-calorie ketogenic diet can be considered a successful strategy and therapeutic option for psoriasis management. IL-2 and IL-1β, together with the concentrations of l-leucine, l-alanine, l-glutamine, l-glutamate, and choline, can be considered promising biomarkers for the early diagnosis and correct prognosis of psoriasis patients. The dietary program is feasible, with high compliance, and safe. The main effects depend on reducing VAT, disrupting the inflammatory environment, and the source of inflammatory cytokines." There's an option.
There are no images of stenosis reversal on a high fat, high LDL diet...however there are many images of ct angiography sgowing stenosis reversal on a whole food low fat plant based diet.
"high LDL diet" is incoherent. Maybe you mean "high saturated fat diet" or "diet leading to high LDL levels"? Also what Esselstein's study showed was symptom improvement, not disease reversal. LDL-lowering drugs (statins) are the most effective treatment to lower LDL/ApoB and reduce the progression of Atherosclerosis (edited, see below). If you want to talk about lifestyle medication, there are many things that have been clinically shown to improve health outcomes and health markers and Simon mentioned many in this interview... Low-fat diet isn't one of them. (attempted to clarify in a followup comment but RU-vid deleted it so I'm editing this to be more accurate... My original comment said that I thought statins have been shown to reverse Atherosclerosis.)
@@McCaffreyPickleball false. What Esselstyn protocol showed was not only symptom cessation, but stopped disease progression. He also has documented imaging, pet scans, EKGs. Statins do not reverse Atherosclerosis. They can shrink lesions however a low fat diet must be adhered to. You can eat a high fat diet take statins and still have Atherosclerotic progression
@@billdublewhopper3064 I said it didn't cause disease reveal. I didn't say anything about cessation. Disease reversal is a precise medical term whose conditions were more met by Esselstein's study.
@@billdublewhopper3064 also you're right. I misspoke in my first comment to you. What I should have said is that Statins are the most effective clinically proven method for reducing LDL/ApoB and reducing progression of Atherosclerosis.
Hi Simon, do the US and the UK use the same units of measurement for Apob? I know we use different units for measuring cholesterol for example. If it is different what is a health level of apob using uk measurement units?
Great discussion and a lot of very useful information such as a target for APoB. However Simon, you need to really be similarly specific when it comes to substituting plant protein for animal protein, particularly in the elderly. Older men and women have lower calorie requirements and cannot eat enough plant protein to generate a robust anabolic response to resistance training unless relying on isolates. Even then it takes approximately 1.5 times as much plant protein isolate as it does whey protein isolate to reach the leucine threshold. Personally, I would like to consume only plant protein but I just do not see how to make it work without consuming more calories than I need, even with isolates. Please address this conundrum in the future. Thank you.
I’ll address that in a video. This is where understanding protein density of foods is helpful. ‘Cannot eat enough’ shouldn’t be conflated with ‘it’s easy to not eat enough without planning’. Either way, regardless of chosen diet, some planning needs to occur to optimise a diet for elderly (either they do it or their caregivers)
Interesting discussion with some good points. But I still struggle with the push for PUFA and lowered LDL, especially given the 2016 paper on "Re-evaluation of the traditional diet-heart hypothesis: analysis of recovered data from Minnesota Coronary Experiment (1968-73). BMJ 2016;353:i1246" which concluded "In meta-analyses, these cholesterol lowering interventions showed no evidence of benefit on mortality from coronary heart disease (1.13, 0.83 to 1.54) or all cause mortality (1.07, 0.90 to 1.27)." And this is not a single study, the Rose Corn Oil Trial1 and the Sydney Diet Heart Study also reported that higher intake of PUFAs increased the risk of death in patients with pre-existing coronary heart disease. It wold be good to have citations to some of the studies you say show PUFA was better.
Thanks for detailing those studies and I agree it seems vital to have these conclusions and studies examined and either validated or convincing alternatives presented. I am particularly interested in that the research hou are highlighting specifically seems to focus on the effects of cholesterol lowering after medication rather than just having low cholesterol per se. Will Cromwell mentions a re analysis of the U/J cloesterol acm curve that flattens it out and shows a linear upwards worse outcome with higher tc but from the little I have heard hime talk about it its a single chinese study correcting for things like malnutrition and all that sounded singularly unconvincing.
I guess everyone is ignoring the PURE study cause it didn't show what they wanted? investigators found that saturated fat was not associated with risk of myocardial infarction or cardiovascular disease mortality and was significantly associated with lower total mortality as well as lower risk of stroke [34]. Surely if you eat within your energy needs it makes a huge difference to how healthy you are. the heart foundation information seems to indicate cholesterol is only a problem if you have other risk factors. there's about 25 risk factors for heart disease, don't just focus on a bit of sautéed fat or an egg or two. we are designed to eat real food and we are omnivores. a lean steak in a dietary pattern of healthy whole foods is not going to harm anyone.
Not ignoring it at all. It’s perfectly explainable / driven mostly by the fact that: - Low saturated fat diets in the study tended to be high in refined carbs - Lot of dairy fats made up the saturated fat content of diet. Dairy foods seem to have a different effect on cardiometabolic health outcomes than those that predominate in red and white meat. Have an entire solo episode out on fats in 2 weeks
No one is ignoring the PURE study. It’s a great example of how refined carbohydrates can be worse for you than many animal foods. There are also findings in PURE that show that fruit, vegetable and legumes were associated with lower CVD (up to 3 servings showed increased benefits). Remember that PURE is one study among many studies that show the benefits of whole plant foods and the detrimental effects of refined carbohydrates.
I was looking for links below the video to the studies showing clear link between meat and cancer. hmm...I am so stoked now to grow some organic grass and leaves in my backyard so I eat healthy.
Here's one: "Effects of red meat, white meat, and nonmeat protein sources on atherogenic lipoprotein measures in the context of low compared with high saturated fat intake: a randomized controlled trial" an RCT by Bergeron, et al
Apologies... You said cancer. Here's a Meta Analysis of studies with average 10 year follow up finding a clear statistically significant association between red meat and various cancers) "Association of meat consumption with the risk of gastrointestinal cancers: a systematic review and meta-analysis"
@@McCaffreyPickleball I shall read that study. Today, I had a colonoscopy. At 60 years old, the report said "no polyps, no cancer." At least in my case. it is fake news. The grass pushers will say anything just like carnivore extremists.
I am glad that you joke about your perspective on seed oils for it is laughably naive. You ought to adopt an holistic, unbiased approach to that issue rather than relying primarily on the study that you do, for your entire set of conclusions in which you unequivocally state that this ultra-processed non-nutritious food, is just fine. I note that you yourself, do not consume it and instead go for good olive oil or avocado oil. You should be leading with that. Look at the history; going back to the introduction of seed oil to the food supply through to today, seed oil has been a smoking gun - ever since corporate adoption as an accepted food for humans. We don't police our technology now, and we certainly did not police it then. It is not reasonable to accept that anectdotal research comparisons of flawed studies, reflected in one study, offset all of the historical correlation between decline of western health and the introduction of oleo-margerines, Crisco & seed oil. Seed oil, is an industrially extracted, ultra-processed chemical oil. Where's the evidence that it is healthy in all of the arenas of health potentials, how can you say that one study interpretation, offsets the entire observable, radical decline of western health through the last century, commensurate with the introduction of processed seed oils? For this is the only new food process that occurred, introducing the establishment of ultra-processed foods. Sugar consumption has not actually gone up much in that timeframe. Your tentative conclusion that plants are better than animal foods, is easy to agree with - but seed oils are not a plant food, they are not a vegetable, they are a multi-chemically washed "food-like combinant" that is not itself food. You can cook food in it and slather it on food but it has slim to no nutritional value (unless it was added using industrial chemical process). Where's your evidence that seed oils stabilize or improve mitochondrial function? What are the benefits of seed oils, if any apart from convenience, profit & the results of one study that looked at other studies that were not necessarily intended to be reviewed for that purpose? There is a reason that a published study looks at only one hypothesis at a time, these after-the-fact group study research analysis are fundamentally flawed as they don't take into account factors in the original research sets that didn't matter to the original study but when taken out of context, could then matter a whole lot in coming to conclusions outside the scope of the original studies. I am amazed that people even take these studies seriously. It is an 'inference' study, searching for what can be inferred by other studies - or maybe not so much. An approach you might take could be, to debunk, point by point the commonly stated problematic aspects of seed oil and to otherwise explain away the decline in western health that is seemingly directly concurrent with the introduction of seed oils. Break that correlation and I'm with you. Otherwise, for thinking people it's just not science or scientific to identify 1 study of one aspect of seed oils and then make a circumspect conclusion on seed oils and health based on that alone. If you are standing with seed oil then imho you need to counter every criticism of seed oil prior to touting it as better than anything else in particular. Otherwise just say you don't know. 'Cause you appear to be working on scant evidence whilst excusing away public concern in regard to seed oil.
@@TheProofWithSimonHill In the first link, the study seems to focus on LA - Linoleic Acid - though for instance Canola oil, is composed of only 21% Linoleic Acid. Soybean oil is about half linoleic acid. Shouldn't we be focused on ALL of the ingredients in seed oil, not just LA? Seed oil after all is the actual refined food product in question. The title of your first linked study, is "Dietary intake and biomarkers of linoleic acid and mortality: systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies", though Canola oil's vast majority of ingredient, 79%, is actually something else, other than LA. Help me to understand how this study can even be relevant to the question of whether seed oils are healthy, it's like saying a 5 shot revolver is healthy when 4 of the remaining chambers remain untested. Not good odds. Looking rather straw man to me. The question must be, are all of the ingredients in seed oils, an ultra-processed food, without unhealthy ingredients, or not. Not specific to heart health, specific to human health overall. The study doesn't appear to answer that question.
@@TheProofWithSimonHill I see that the second link, also fails to address the actual question as to whether or not refined seed oils have content unhealthy for humans to consume; like the other study, it concentrates on only one ingredient which in common ultra-processed seed oils is only 21% of the overall composition of the oil leaving 79% unaddressed. I think it unscientific to presume that seed oils are good for people in general based on a couple of study reviews that suggest 21% of the ingredients might not be all that bad whilst 79% of the ingredients of the ultra-processed oil as a molecular compound are not quantified or addressed. I get that they are reviewing studies of individuals who responded that they consumed the oils, what I am saying is that there's obviously so much more to the story than this glomming on to linoleic acid & then just excusing away the rest of the equation which is what these studies appear to be doing. Both studies appear to be corporate straw man assertions that seed oils are good oils, without any actual analysis of seed oil content. Who cares whether linoleic acid is healthy, it's in beans bread, grains though you can reduce the amount of the acid by refrigeration or freezing. It's the other stuff, that 79% not to mention gmo pesticides used, potential chemical process residuals and the massive pushback that these chemical companies exert upon regulation that ought to come into the equation. These studies do not at all prove the overall safety of seed oils for human populations as a food source. I am not a seed oil hater, I do not know if the so-called food is harmless, or harmful as it is easily avoidable and best avoided imho & studies such as this only reinforce my avoidance of the products. If 79% of the ingredients of an industrially ultra-processed food that has only been around for one human generation, remain unidentified by the very studies that suggest that they are okay, then I don't think that it is possible to determine that it is a safer food choice than for instance butter which humans have proven to have successfully consumed for thousands of years, or any number of other oil choices such as avocado or EV olive oil. Based upon this lack of informaiton, any other choice is better than seed oils. Human sensitivities to ultra-processed industrial foods are a rather large question mark on the plate of consumers today - or ought to be.
32:00 “….If you’re above 70 mg / dl… then you WILL be laying down plaque….” Demonstrably false claim by Simon. Even by his own earlier claim. Also there is ample evidence that at the very least SOME people have been exposed to 5-10 times this level for many years and have still NOT ‘laid down’ ANY plaque. I thought Simon was more careful with his words and bias?🤷🏼♂️
@@TheProofWithSimonHill Yes you said over 50%. So, what? Under 60%? That doesn’t sound much more than 50/50? I’ll be generous, let’s say it’s 60/40? What are the differences between these 2 significant groups then? Is there useful information regarding what factors may make the difference between the plaque and NOT plaque groups and shouldn’t this be studied more rather than arrogantly proclaiming that we have THE cause and obsessing over that one factor?
You don't lay down plaque by a cholesterol number, but by what you put in your mouth each day. "We compared the fatty-acid composition of aortic plaques with that of post-mortem serum and adipose tissue, in which essential fatty-acid content reflects dietary intake. Positive associations were found between serum and plaque omega 6 (r = 0.75) and omega 3 (r = 0.93) polyunsaturated fatty acids, and monounsaturates (r = 0.70), and also between adipose tissue and plaque omega 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (r = 0.89). No associations were found with saturated fatty acids. These findings imply a direct influence of dietary polyunsaturated fatty acids on aortic plaque formation and suggest that current trends favouring increased intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids should be reconsidered."
As a 40-something, I’ve had high-ish LDL (135) and APOb (101) for a couple of decades. My cardiologist brought up statins, so I opted for a CT Angiogram and was relieved and fortunate to learn I have no detectable calcified or non-calcified plaques. So why should I change my diet and lifestyle, does include red meat and butter, albeit as part of a whole food diet? This directly refutes your comment at 32 min that “if you’re above 70 you will be laying down plaques”. It’s worth noting that I am in terrific metabolic health. Prior to getting the CT Angiogram, my cardiologist convinced me to shift to ultra-low saturated fat diet (ie, plants, fish, white meat chicken). And for the 3 months I implemented this diet, I felt absolutely awful and lethargic.
Very lucky to have no plaque at all at that LDL. Not typical: “Many CVRF-free middle-aged individuals have atherosclerosis. LDL-C, even at levels currently considered normal, is independently associated with the presence and extent of early systemic atherosclerosis in the absence of major CVRFs. These findings support more effective LDL-C lowering for primordial prevention, even in individuals conventionally considered at optimal risk. “ www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0735109717412320
@@TheProofWithSimonHill "Many". But many do not. And the reason that some do and some don't is what's important and why more care and nuance is required when having these discussions. I watch a lot of your content, along with Cromwell, Dayspring, Attia, etc etc. So I don't mean to be harsh, but there's more to the story than you, I, or anyone else understands. And the claim that "if you have LDL above x, you are laying down plaques" is demonstrably untrue. Even according to the study you posted, 4 in 10 people with LDL between 150 and 160 do NOT have atherosclerosis. 4 in 10! Why? Luck? No, it isn't luck. There is an actual reason, and it's imprudent to hand waive this away.
Again, people can smoke and not develop lung cancer. Doesn’t mean smoking isn’t causal. Doesn’t mean the risk shouldn’t be communicated. No different here.
@@TheProofWithSimonHill Again, that's not the point. The point is there are individualize risk factors, and you're either pretending there aren't or ignoring them. The study you linked shows that many people don't have ASCVD risk despite high LDL (4 in 10 with LDL between 150 and 160 don't have it!), yet you'd arbitrarily suggest *everyone* implement extreme dietary intervention to eliminate potentially non-existent risk. Instead, let's understand why ASCVD doesn't emerge in some instead of treating it as a randomized outcome. For those who have ASCVD risk, guard against it. For those who don't, enjoy life and carry on.
@@dustinirwin1 There might be a number of reasons. For some people it is discrepancy between apoB and LDL-c( they have low apoB while LDL-c is elevated). Or their proteoglycans which apoB particles are attracted to may be less sticky so to speak due to some genetic variation, or there is a downregulation of transcytosis so less apoB particles get inside arteries, or your immune system is more calm so less immune cells try to eat up the particles that are stuck and end up as foam cells aggregates aka plaque. Or some combinations of these potential factors, or even some rare unknown factors we haven't even thought about.There's way more that we don't know than what we know. You might start getting plaque somewhere in the future or not. There's no definitive answer, only probabilities.
Easy to be confused here. Cholesterol is needed…. But all cells in your body make all they need. They DO NOT rely on cholesterol production from the liver. All cells produce their own cholesterol and the brain does not rely on systemic cholesterol: "All somatic cells, including astrocytes and oligodendrocytesin the brain, make cholesterol through the same pathway that the liver utilizes, and can obtain some from High-Density Lipoprotein (HDL). Even when LDL-C is extremely low, there is no impairment of cellular cholesterol production and utilization within the brain because the brain produces its own pool of cholesterol , as do all cells in the body. No tissues depend on cholesterol transfer from LDL-C"
@@TheProofWithSimonHilllol. Cool story. It's not true. You are spreading propaganda and causing people to develope Alzheimer's disease. Before 1970 there was no need to medicate people. People are not made to digest all these plant toxins and seed oils long term. Think about what you're doing to people.
Also, high LDL-c is not indicative of ACV, but triglycerides to HDL ratio is far more an indicator. Nutritionists (like Simon) are still under the Ancel Keys hypnotism.
The Trig/HDL ratio was an alternative hypothesis from 20+ years ago that didn't pan out. We have studies now that have looked directly at this and when apob is adjusted for, the trig/HDL ratio is not associated with risk.
I am glad to hear that you do not hesitate to recommend a diet that includes meats. you mention your book as an evidence that you are no stranger to recommending a diet that contains meat, which is true, but you specifically stated that it is about very small amounts. on the other hand, your book contains over 202 uses of the term 'meat', vastly in a negative context, and as part of your 'meat is bad, therefore eat plants' argument. your book is an interesting read, primarily focused on anti-meat rhetoric, but it lacks persuasive facts in favor of an entirely plant-based diet. I'm not ruling out the notion that the proof is in the plants, but I'm afraid you weren't able to find it either.
Show me Atherosclerotic lesion reversal on a Carnivore diet. Not just weight loss. There are countless examples of lesion reversal on a whole food plant based diet via angiography
@@billdublewhopper3064 Esselstyn never reversed anything in any human else he would have some awards, honors or a Noble Prize and he has none in the field of Cardiology or Nutrition biochemistry and he was never a cardiologist he was a general surgeon and they are not allowed to do any type of cardiovascular procedure. His book is not accredited by anything since the diet he promotes will eventually in time cause disease in 100% of all omnivore species. Esselstyn star patient in his book was Dr. Joe Crowe who died in early 2024 at age 72 even though he was always slim, fit and had low cholesterol levels. None of the people you mention have any credentials in Cardiology or nutritional biochemistry.
@@Jeffs60 you obviously are a troll. Dr Caldwell b Esselstyn has received much accolades and has helped hundreds of thousands of people around the planet prevent and reverse Heart disease. A whole food plant based low fat diet is known on every continent and country to lead to decreased disease and all cause mortality.
@@Jeffs60 further your anecdote of Dr Crowe is irrelevant and youre appeal to authority as a negative in this instance carries no weight. All physicians named including Nathan Pritikin have helped Millions reverse diseases including Coronary artery disease.
People need to get metbolic healthy for starters Do what works best for me as mimlist choose to leave small footprints on planet resources Alot people have no connection to nature birds and bees cycle of life . Everything eat and do has impact planet resources.
Yea? I would love to see a diet where plant are causing harm. Because I think many keto people tend to think that when they were eating standard american diet that they were eating plants 🤣 if potatoes would count haha
@@peterfialka5315 well I actually only ate vegetables, fish and meat for a year. And was still getting excruciating pain at least once a month. Dumped the vegetables and haven’t looked back that was 25 months ago.
@@Damudean what kind of pain? I am super curious. I was raised on very meat based diet. I absolutely couldn’t stand the smell and the looks of veggies. One day I turned it around. Haven’t has meat in 8,5 years
So Simon says Saturated Fats are a problem not Poly Unstaturated Fats and the Peat guys Mark Bell had on a while ago say exactly the opposite. Its a matter who you believe. Well I believe no one anymore in the healthspace.
Sorry, Simon... ApoB and LDL are not "causal" with regard to atherosclerosis. Many people with high levels of them never get atherosclerosis. The "causal" aspect of ASCVD is multi-factorial. Insulin resistance, HBP, inflammation, endothelia disfunction, glycation, oxidization, genetics, etc. My mother smoked for 30 yrs, ate anything she wanted, had LDL levels of 230+ for 40 years.... no ASCVD. Me, on the other hand, smoked for 35 yrs, ate anything I wanted, had high LDL and Trigs for 20 years....... I got a CAC score of 600 at age 58. I have ASCVD. Keto diet has changed my life. In 10 months, I'm down 50 lbs, metabolic health is drastically improving, reversing my pre-diabetes and insulin resistance, back in the gym hitting it hard, and feeling amazing. Please stop saying LDL/ApoB is causal.... There are SO many factors over and above the cholesterol numbers that need to be addressed.
Thanks for your comment. It is causal. That doesn’t mean it shows up in 100% of cases. Just as smoking is causal for lung cancer but not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer. pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28444290/ I’m glad you’re doing well 🙏🏼
@@TheProofWithSimonHill If it's causal. then why do you not get atherosclerosis in the veins, only arteries? Veins contain the same amount of LDL particles as arteries yet almost never get any plaque buildup. This suggests other factors in play, doesn't it? This is a legitimate question.
@@BillyBoy66Eating protein is causal to building muscle, that doesn't mean that if you just eat protein - you'll build muscle. It's a necessary condition, but it is not guaranteed.
What I don’t understand from all the anecdotal stories from keto/carnivore people is why they skipped whole food plant based diet and jumped straight to keto and now they fight in comments with their stories saying how well they are better now. I mean you are better cause you lost excess body fat and most likely corrected your insulin sensitivity etc but Simon has never been promoting poor diet. If you tried WPBD then you might get the same benefit without a subconscious fear of having high LDL and as a plus you would limit your part of cruelty in the world. It is a win win on all fronts so why fight back against plant based diet?
Total cholesterol and all-cause mortality by sex and age: a prospective cohort study among 12.8 million adults In conclusion, U-curve relationships between TC and mortality were found, regardless of sex and age. TC ranges associated with the lowest mortality were 210-249 mg/dL
@@TheProofWithSimonHill I agree 100 percent. here's my take. if you have high glucose "and" high lipids, it's a recipe for disaster. not everyone has the ability to effectively process carbohydrate. sometimes its not a simple choice, do i want to lower lipids? or do i want to lower glucose?
Dont eat high amounts of carbs and fats together in same meals. Eat a wide range of foods you can tolerate based on genetics, blood type, ancesters, and current body composition. Eat high quality animal protein, non starchy veggies, and high quality fats. That solves the health epidemic 😊 globally. You dont need to listen to podcasts purely on speculation of nutrition because they have a preference or agenda to there sponsors.
@@abarnes8718 That is what's being honest is about. Whether you eat or not eat fish for whatever reason fish health outcomes are very positive and are on par with PUFA rich plant based foods.
not that surprising; that's the fate of the vast majority of dieters who followed a strict plant-based diet. in the end, almost everyone turns to meat.
@@v.a.n.e. Meat and fish are very different both in health outcomes taste and saturated fat content. I've eaten enough meat for 2.5 years I was carnivore to last me a lifetime. Not really enjoying it anymore. Fish on the other hand I still like a lot. Right now fish seafood hydrolysed collagen low fat fermented dairy and an occasional egg or two is all I eat in terms of animal foods. Plant based diet that isn't properly supplemented is not sustainable.
@@demonfedor3748 well, that's perhaps more of a question that depends on your culinary abilities or perhaps access to a certain type of food from an economic or other aspect, which will ultimately have an impact on your enjoyment of food. however, here, I mean the channel itself, it is more about an approach that is based on religious grounds, which is not always the most optimal approach. the main problem of the plant-based diet is that there are still no supplements that will satisfy all needs, as 'modern science' is more concerned with financial benefits than novel discoveries.
@@v.a.n.e. There are supplements that satisfy most if not all needs in terms of micronutrients regardless of diet . They are called " oral multivitamin multimineral " or OMV for short. A good one will contain 27/27 essential micronutrients in appropriate doses. So I have no idea what are you even talking about. Vitamins were discovered many decades ago. I haven't seen any religious beliefs or diet tribalism pushed by this channel. And I personally keep religion away from my plate.
Protein satiety: When I eat 1800 calories of nuts, I don't feel hungry for 5 or 6 hours. When I eat the same amount of protein powder, without calories I feel hungry in three hours.
Are you saying you've eaten 1800 calories of protein powder and found it to not be as satiating as 1800 calories of nuts? Or that you matched the protein content in 1800 calories of nuts with protein powder and found it less satiating? Big difference. Satiation can come through several pathways... Protein is the most satiating macronutrient, fat is second, and carbs are third. But that comes with the caveat that fiber is a carb which is also very satiating. Digestion time also improves satiation. Adequate micronutrients help foster satiation, and volume improves satiation (or low energy density). Nuts have all three macronutrients and fiber, in addition to good micronutrient profiles, but they are very energy dense. Protein powder on the other hand obviously has few macros other than protein, has few micronutrients, digests very quickly, and has no fiber. Assuming you're eating raw nuts, they will be fairly satiating compared to most foods. Protein powder should be used as a supplement. If you want it to help with satiation, eat it with other foods.
you need energy source, preferably fiber rich... volume, fiber and protein provide satiety, complex carbs or fats give energy.. extracting energy from protein is not the best strategy - rabbit starvation experiment
All the evidence is showing it's the problem. Not the food and drug company data, but like most people with a heart attack coming in with normal range LDL? LDL builds muscle and scabs damage on arteries as part of the healing process, sugar causes damage, lowering LDL and causing lower HDL in the process seems to give you a higher concentration of damaged LDL less HDL to clear out LDL, and less healthy LDL. Heart attacks didn't even happen in a hundred people a year before we had international fruits and vegetables shipping and mass scale fridges and freezers. You don't have to be keto all the time but when you go back up on your 200 years and look at restaurant menus, it was pretty keto. The problem is that we went from having the summer and fall allowing more carbs and then winter and spring or hardly any carbs were ever available other than the tropics, to 24-hour 7 days a week 365 days a year access to honey fruits veggies they don't have to be fermented, back in ancient Greeks they would just get you off of bread and stuff if you had type 2 diabetes if your pee was so sweet that ants loved it... The stuffing complicated you aren't supposed to binge on fruits and vegetables 24 hours a day 7 days a week your entire life your body needs a freaking break.
Complex carbs are good and additive sugar of course is not so good. Who told you that sugar is recommended? You can search for any dietary guidline and sugar is not great but don’t confuse sugar with fruits
You focus so much on cholesterol and the importance of being plant based for that, but I'll tell you what. I'm thirty seven and have eaten animal products and no processed foods for over twenty years straight and my LDL is sixty three (lower than yours), and HDL is fifty eight (optimal) and total cholesterol one hundred thirty six. I believe my lipids are better than yours. Plant based isn't the only way to keep healthy lipids and isn't even optimal. I eat lots of plants, but I also eat 2 eggs a day (have for over 20 years straight) and plenty of chicken, salmon, turkey, etc in addition to plants like oats, sweet potatoes, almonds, avocado, vegetables, berries. I love your stuff but was surprised when I heard what your lipids were on one of your other episodes. my trigs are thirty six. VEgan/plant based is not necessary for optimal health you really need to get over this and start embracing a more well rounded diet that includes both plants and animals. NO hate- I LOVE your work, point of view, insights, etc. Just giving my experience.
Anecdotes are cool and all…. But I prefer data from controlled studies and large populations. That shows us the typical response. You must have great genes - which is awesome for you!
@@TheProofWithSimonHill But why does a "typical" response matter? People have, on average, one testicle, but very few people actually have one testicle.
I think he said numerous times that some people get away with more than others. Especially when you are still young, since atherosclerosis can build very slowly. So he advices personal testing to see if changes might be happening. I had LDL below 60 when in my thirties. I'm 66 now and have been on a plant based diet since 1970 (completely plants for the last 13 years) and my LDL seems to be slowly creeping up towards 80-90. I should do more testing to see what's happening. No weight gain, no muscle loss. Too much chocolate?😋
I am 33 years old and have multiple risk factors for CVD including extensive family history . A couple of months before measuring my apoB I went on a diet very low in saturated fat cholesterol animal foods and refined carbohydrates and pretty rich in plant protein polyunsaturated fats and fiber. I got my apoB measurements at 116. I decided to take 5 mg rosuvastatin and 10 mg ezetimibe. Three months on medications and it went to 81(both times measured at the same lab with 12-14 h if fasting). Guess I am not lucky. I upped the dose and I will also try to lose weight. I hope for the best but reality right now has other plans.
