Re: Relative effect of fats on cholesterol levels (coconut)

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave and Rodney,

Here are three studies that indicate that coconut fat may not promote

cardiovascular disease in people with low BMI's.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2000.tb09419.x

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/34/8/1552.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/4/845

I'm not sure if these meet you criteria of " hard scientific

journal-level proof. " I would be very interested in hearing people's

opinions of these studies.

I have some self interest here because I occasionally use coconut

creme as a milk substitute in soups and deserts. I would estimate 90%

of the fat in my diet comes from a combination of fish oil and raw or

raw buttered seeds and nuts. My last blood test showed a cholesterol

level of 220 but also a healthy low ratio of cholesterol to HDL.

Best regards, TJ

> >

[Guest guest]

Mountain:

1.The first study seems to be sponsored by the food industry although searching the site never did lead me directly to a specific sponsor (which makes me wonder). It involved (only) 36 rats – a very small number - and no humans. The authors appear to be “food technologists” and, “dieticians,” not exactly the kind of credentials we want to see posted here. (Compare those credentials with Walford’s for example).

2. The second study states verbatim: “The samples of adults on the two atolls are, however, too

small for definitive studies of coronary heart disease and vascular disease. “

3. The third study is also a small one, only 203 subjects. It states: “ Although diastolic blood pressure was not associated with age in Kitavans, systolic blood pressure increased linearly after 50 y of age in both sexes.”

Please stick with large population studies and acceptable journals (such as Pubmed)

From: mountainsport500 <tjordanprescott@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 02:52:30 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Relative effect of fats on cholesterol levels (coconut)

Hi Dave and Rodney,

Here are three studies that indicate that coconut fat may not promote

cardiovascular disease in people with low BMI's.

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1365-2621.2000.tb09419.x

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/34/8/1552.pdf

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/content/abstract/66/4/845

I'm not sure if these meet you criteria of " hard scientific

journal-level proof. " I would be very interested in hearing people's

opinions of these studies.

I have some self interest here because I occasionally use coconut

creme as a milk substitute in soups and deserts. I would estimate 90%

of the fat in my diet comes from a combination of fish oil and raw or

raw buttered seeds and nuts. My last blood test showed a cholesterol

level of 220 but also a healthy low ratio of cholesterol to HDL.

Best regards, TJ

> >

[Guest guest]

Hi Jordan:

Thanks for those references. It seems to me that nothing, regarding

health, ever constitutes " proof " , either way!

I remain unable to download or open PDF files - even those I have

stored on my hard drive - so there is a limit to how much I can

comment on these.

The abstract of the first seems to be saying that the amounts and

types of fats consumed make no difference to lipids values in mice on

CR. Coconut, corn and olive oils all gave similar results. If this

is for real, it might be construed as indicating that CR is so

powerful it overwhelms the CVD effects which might normally be

expected if fully fed mice were similarly fed. Interesting if true.

But the experiment was in mice which do not often die from heart

problems (usually cancer). Also, no claims of benefit are made for

coconut oil.

The second is PDF.

Your third link, the Kitava study, suggests the following, compared

with north americans: Unlike us they are slim and have no CVD; like

us their systolic and lipids rise with age, and HDL drops. Their

lack of CVD may very likely be associated with their apparent caloric

restriction. So perhaps the lesson is, again, that CR is so powerful

it can overwhelm the effects of saturated fats on atherosclerosis.

It would be nice if this means those on CR can eat as much as they

wish, of whatever kind of fat they want. But let's wait for better

evidence before getting carried away here : ^ )))

Rodney.

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Rod: the third reference does not indicate CR (unless I’m missing something). In fact it talks about “food abundance”: The population is characterized by extreme leanness (despite food abundance), low blood pressure, low plasma plasminogen activator inhibitor 1 activity, and rarity of cardiovascular disease.

The “leaness” of the subjects could be due to genetics, which due to the small island population might enhance that trait, or even lots of physical activity.

From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 19:08:49 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Relative effect of fats on cholesterol levels (coconut)

Your third link, the Kitava study, suggests the following, compared

with north americans: Unlike us they are slim and have no CVD; like

us their systolic and lipids rise with age, and HDL drops. Their

lack of CVD may very likely be associated with their apparent caloric

restriction. So perhaps the lesson is, again, that CR is so powerful

it can overwhelm the effects of saturated fats on atherosclerosis.

It would be nice if this means those on CR can eat as much as they

wish, of whatever kind of fat they want. But let's wait for better

evidence before getting carried away here : ^ )))

Rodney.

> > >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Could be. I was assuming that although food was abundant, as they

note, they didn't eat much. Otherwise how does one explain

the " extreme leanness " ? If they are not restricted and are lean

then, as always, we have to ask what happens to all the calories they

supposedly eat but do not retain as body fat? Especially when the

adjective " extreme " is used. But, based on what is in the abstract,

we do not know for sure. Certainly if they run marathons regularly

then that could explain it too.

Blood pressure does seem to be closely related to body weight and

people on CR generally have extraordinarily low blood pressures. So

that fits.

If someone reads the full text perhaps we may become enlightened.

Rodney.

> > > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Rod: up until my mid 50’s I ate like a pig and was extremely thin. Many more calories than I now eat. And all manner of junk.

Nor did I exercise excessively.

My BP was extremely low. My doc used to say: “hmmm, low bp and thin: you’ll live forever”. But he was wrong. I was eating the SAD with lots of calories. I packed it away.

There are plenty of other people who are thin, but eat a lot, and eat badly, and wind up dying younger than they should.

From: Rodney <perspect1111@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Thu, 18 Oct 2007 23:46:44 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Relative effect of fats on cholesterol levels (coconut)

Hi Francesca:

Could be. I was assuming that although food was abundant, as they

note, they didn't eat much. Otherwise how does one explain

the " extreme leanness " ? If they are not restricted and are lean

then, as always, we have to ask what happens to all the calories they

supposedly eat but do not retain as body fat? Especially when the

adjective " extreme " is used. But, based on what is in the abstract,

we do not know for sure. Certainly if they run marathons regularly

then that could explain it too.

Blood pressure does seem to be closely related to body weight and

people on CR generally have extraordinarily low blood pressures. So

that fits.

If someone reads the full text perhaps we may become enlightened.

Rodney.

> > > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca and Rodney,

Thank you for taking the time to review the studies and offer your

feedback.

While I would certainly like to see more diet studies conducted by

Medical Doctors and others with the best of credentials, judging by

their lack of publication in this area, the subject of the healthiness

of native subsistence diets appears to be of little interest to them.

I am not convinced that dietitians and food technologists are unable

to conduct valid studies.

Furthermore if we stick to discussing only large population studies as

you suggest, we will have very little to discuss and virtually nothing

to discuss about CRON. That is not my preference.

I think these studies raise interesting and valid questions about the

normal assumptions concerning saturated fat and are worthy of being

discussed in this forum. I am not suggesting that these studies prove

or are " definitive " of anything.

Two of these articles are actually listed in Pub Med. I had listed

links which allow relatively easy viewing of the actual text of the

studies by members of the group, unlike the listings in Pub Med.

Here are the two Pub Med listings plus 2 others with similar findings

on the healthiness of the Kitava diet.

3 Kitava Diet Studies:

PMID: 9322559 1997

PMID: 8835402 1996

PMID: 8450295 1993

Putaka Diet Study:

PMID: 7270479 1981

Best Regards, TJ

>

> Mountain:

>

> 1.The first study seems to be sponsored by the food industry although

> searching the site never did lead me directly to a specific sponsor

(which

> makes me wonder). It involved (only) 36 rats ­ a very small number

- and

> no humans. The authors appear to be ³food technologists² and,

³dieticians,²

> not exactly the kind of credentials we want to see posted here.

(Compare

> those credentials with Walford¹s for example).

>

> 2. The second study states verbatim: ³The samples of adults on the two

> atolls are, however, too

> small for definitive studies of coronary heart disease and vascular

disease.

> ³

>

> 3. The third study is also a small one, only 203 subjects. It states:

> ³ Although diastolic blood pressure was not associated with age in

Kitavans,

> systolic blood pressure increased linearly after 50 y of age in both

sexes.²

>

> Please stick with large population studies and acceptable journals

(such as

> Pubmed)

>

>

[Guest guest]

TJ: when native peoples live especially significant (i.e. long and healthy lives for example), they are studied very carefully by scientists. For example the Okinawans.

Since there is no definitive answer about coconuts and coconut oil, why bother with it? There’s no harm in eliminating it and possible potential harm in including it in one’s diet. The best case scenario is that it might be harmless. If so, why waste calories? We are about eliminating calories here, not ingesting needless foods - which might possibly unhealthful.

If I’m going to waste calories, believe me, it will be on something much more delicious. Hot Fudge Sundaes come to mind.

As for your preferences, our rules here are that if you want to post studies, they must be of the “convincing” kind – which includes large enough populations in the study to have some meaning as well as all the other qualities we have come to expect to keep the interest of our members.

From: mountainsport500 <tjordanprescott@...>

Reply-< >

Date: Fri, 19 Oct 2007 01:53:28 -0000

< >

Subject: [ ] Re: Relative effect of fats on cholesterol levels (coconut)

Hi Francesca and Rodney,

Thank you for taking the time to review the studies and offer your

feedback.

While I would certainly like to see more diet studies conducted by

Medical Doctors and others with the best of credentials, judging by

their lack of publication in this area, the subject of the healthiness

of native subsistence diets appears to be of little interest to them.

I am not convinced that dietitians and food technologists are unable

to conduct valid studies.

Furthermore if we stick to discussing only large population studies as

you suggest, we will have very little to discuss and virtually nothing

to discuss about CRON. That is not my preference.

I think these studies raise interesting and valid questions about the

normal assumptions concerning saturated fat and are worthy of being

discussed in this forum. I am not suggesting that these studies prove

or are " definitive " of anything.

Two of these articles are actually listed in Pub Med. I had listed

links which allow relatively easy viewing of the actual text of the

studies by members of the group, unlike the listings in Pub Med.

Here are the two Pub Med listings plus 2 others with similar findings

on the healthiness of the Kitava diet.

3 Kitava Diet Studies:

PMID: 9322559 1997

PMID: 8835402 1996

PMID: 8450295 1993

Putaka Diet Study:

PMID: 7270479 1981

Best Regards, TJ

>

> Mountain:

>

> 1.The first study seems to be sponsored by the food industry although

> searching the site never did lead me directly to a specific sponsor

(which

> makes me wonder). It involved (only) 36 rats – a very small number

- and

> no humans. The authors appear to be “food technologists” and,

“dieticians,”

> not exactly the kind of credentials we want to see posted here.

(Compare

> those credentials with Walford’s for example).

>

> 2. The second study states verbatim: “The samples of adults on the two

> atolls are, however, too

> small for definitive studies of coronary heart disease and vascular

disease.

> “

>

> 3. The third study is also a small one, only 203 subjects. It states:

> “ Although diastolic blood pressure was not associated with age in

Kitavans,

> systolic blood pressure increased linearly after 50 y of age in both

sexes.”

>

> Please stick with large population studies and acceptable journals

(such as

> Pubmed)

>

>

[Guest guest]

>> the subject

> of the healthiness

> of native subsistence diets appears to be of little

> interest to them.

Quite the contrary. Native populations are of great

interest to them and the subject of many studies

including many longterm studies.

> Furthermore if we stick to discussing only large

> population studies as

> you suggest,

I beleive the suggestion is to stick to well done peer

reviewed main stream published studies. While it may

not be the best system, it is the best we have for

now.

> I think these studies raise interesting and valid

> questions about the

> normal assumptions concerning saturated fat and are

> worthy of being

> discussed in this forum. I am not suggesting that

> these studies prove

> or are " definitive " of anything.

Saturated fat was never abundant in most native

populations around the world. Even in those areas

where coconut is more common, the majority of the

calories they consumed doesnt come from the coconut or

from saturated fat.

In fact, some native populations have virtually no

access to anything that is high in saturated fat. The

tarrahumra indians, a well studied native population,

consume a diet with a fat intake that averages only

12% of total calories, with saturated fat averaging

only 2%. Same with the Pima Indians. Heart disease

and Diabetes are virtually unknown amongst these

native populations.

Well controlled metabolic chamber studies have been

done on saturated fat.

Perhaps Rodney would like to share his perspective on

them and his conversations with Dr Castelli about them

and how some of the info on sat fat, if often

misrepresented and misquoted by many on the internet.

If not, just search the archives for Castelli and

saturated fat.

I just posted one showing the negative effect from

even one meal that was high in saturated fat from

coconut

Personally, I am more interested in the common

denominators of the dietary habits and lifestyle

habits of the many long lived populations (including

native ones) than the few exceptions.

Regards

Jeff

[Guest guest]

I'm not convinced macro-nutrient ratios are as important as getting adequate nutrient coverage, and proper energy balance.  ------Eskimos studios might provide a native group with a  high animal fat diets. Although I don't recall reports of them being very long lived, for sundry reasons. JROn Oct 18, 2007, at 10:20 PM, Jeff Novick wrote:>> the subject> of the healthiness> of native subsistence diets appears to be of little> interest to them.Quite the contrary. Native populations are of greatinterest to them and the subject of many studiesincluding many longterm studies. > Furthermore if we stick to discussing only large> population studies as> you suggest,I beleive the suggestion is to stick to well done peerreviewed main stream published studies. While it maynot be the best system, it is the best we have fornow.> I think these studies raise interesting and valid> questions about the> normal assumptions concerning saturated fat and are> worthy of being> discussed in this forum. I am not suggesting that> these studies prove> or are "definitive" of anything. Saturated fat was never abundant in most nativepopulations around the world. Even in those areaswhere coconut is more common, the majority of thecalories they consumed doesnt come from the coconut orfrom saturated fat. In fact, some native populations have virtually noaccess to anything that is high in saturated fat. Thetarrahumra indians, a well studied native population,consume a diet with a fat intake that averages only12% of total calories, with saturated fat averagingonly 2%. Same with the Pima Indians. Heart diseaseand Diabetes are virtually unknown amongst thesenative populations. Well controlled metabolic chamber studies have beendone on saturated fat. Perhaps Rodney would like to share his perspective onthem and his conversations with Dr Castelli about themand how some of the info on sat fat, if oftenmisrepresented and misquoted by many on the internet.If not, just search the archives for Castelli andsaturated fat. I just posted one showing the negative effect fromeven one meal that was high in saturated fat fromcoconut Personally, I am more interested in the commondenominators of the dietary habits and lifestylehabits of the many long lived populations (includingnative ones) than the few exceptions. RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Francesca:

Well in your case, clearly, you were excreting - not absorbing - a

large proportion of the calories you ate. I cannot see any other

explanation that is consistent with what you describe.

I suppose it is possible that the study subjects were all in the same

situation - were excreting a sizeable proportion of calories

ingested.

But we do not have enough information to determine what the

explanation is. We need detailed data for caloric intake, body

temperature, physical activity levels and energy content of feces,

for a start.

So, imo, who knows? ........... given the information we have.

That they did not eat many calories - since it appears that *all* of

them were in the same situation - is as good a possible explanation

as any other, given the inadequate information we have.

Rodney.

> > > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

The evidence that saturated fats are atherogenic has been discussed

here many times previously. Let's consider what the possible

explanations might be if coconut oil, which is absolutely loaded with

the worst of the saturated fats, were to be shown to be harmless.

With such a list of explanations then perhaps we could consider what

the evidence might be to support each/any of them.

Explanations might include:

1. There is some magical ingredient in coconut oil which completely

offsets the athergenic properties of the fat molecules it contains,

lauric, myristic and palmitic especially. (But most oils contain

~100% fat and not much else.)

2. Since at least one of these studies was done under caloric

restriction, it could be that CR is so powerful it can even reverse

the effects of a diet which would be thoroughly atherogenic in a

population consuming the average caloric intake. So then coconut oil

might be dangerous in the general population but not in populations

on CR.

3. Perhaps there is something in coconut which combines with the

saturated fats in such a way that they are excreted instead of being

absorbed in the intestine.

4. .................

Are there other possible explanations? And what is the evidence for

each?

And is there any empirical evidence that coconut oil is BENEFICIAL?

The studies TJ originally posted implied only that it was not

actively harmful. Generally, the approach here is to concentrate the

calories one consumes on foods that are believed to be the most

actively beneficial. Not on what is often termed 'harmless empty

calories'.

The high consumption of coconut in south Asia and their huge CVD

problem is some very tentative evidence that the saturated fats in

cocnut may be harmful. But it is yet to be shown that it is the

coconut in their diet that is responsible. However, it is quite

clear in the south Asia example that the coconut in their diet has

not had any miraculous effect in reversing their CVD, which seems to

help rule out explanation 1 above.

Rodney.

--- In , Jeff Novick <chefjeff40@...>

wrote:

>

> >> the subject

> > of the healthiness

> > of native subsistence diets appears to be of little

> > interest to them.

>

> Quite the contrary. Native populations are of great

> interest to them and the subject of many studies

> including many longterm studies.

>

> > Furthermore if we stick to discussing only large

> > population studies as

> > you suggest,

>

> I beleive the suggestion is to stick to well done peer

> reviewed main stream published studies. While it may

> not be the best system, it is the best we have for

> now.

>

> > I think these studies raise interesting and valid

> > questions about the

> > normal assumptions concerning saturated fat and are

> > worthy of being

> > discussed in this forum. I am not suggesting that

> > these studies prove

> > or are " definitive " of anything.

>

> Saturated fat was never abundant in most native

> populations around the world. Even in those areas

> where coconut is more common, the majority of the

> calories they consumed doesnt come from the coconut or

> from saturated fat.

>

> In fact, some native populations have virtually no

> access to anything that is high in saturated fat. The

> tarrahumra indians, a well studied native population,

> consume a diet with a fat intake that averages only

> 12% of total calories, with saturated fat averaging

> only 2%. Same with the Pima Indians. Heart disease

> and Diabetes are virtually unknown amongst these

> native populations.

>

> Well controlled metabolic chamber studies have been

> done on saturated fat.

>

> Perhaps Rodney would like to share his perspective on

> them and his conversations with Dr Castelli about them

> and how some of the info on sat fat, if often

> misrepresented and misquoted by many on the internet.

> If not, just search the archives for Castelli and

> saturated fat.

>

> I just posted one showing the negative effect from

> even one meal that was high in saturated fat from

> coconut

>

> Personally, I am more interested in the common

> denominators of the dietary habits and lifestyle

> habits of the many long lived populations (including

> native ones) than the few exceptions.

>

> Regards

> Jeff

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney,

I thought one thing was interesting in this paper that TJ pointed out:

http://www.ajcn.org/cgi/reprint/34/8/1552.pdf

Pay close attention to TABLE 6:

Fatty acid composition of the adipose tissue lipids of Tokelauans,

Pukapukans, and New Zealand Europeans

You will notice that the fatty acids in adipose tissue of the

coconut-eating people have a greater proportion of saturated fatty

acids. In particular, lauric acid (C12:0) and myristic acid (C14:0)

are quite elevated and oleic acid (C18:1) is very reduced compared the

New Zealand Europeans. I would assume that this would also be true of

their cellular membranes.

We know that the fatty acids of cellular membranes affect

permeability, and also that polyunsaturated fatty acids are more prone

to oxidative damage. If there are any advantages to dietary coconut

oil, you will probably find it in a reduced number of free radicals

(perhaps lower cancer rates?), but not in the rate of cardiovascular

disease, unless the diet is also restricted in calories.

It may turn out that coconut oil has some benefits under special

conditions, although those conditions may not be applicable to our

modern way of life.

Tony

>

> The evidence that saturated fats are atherogenic has been discussed

> here many times previously. Let's consider what the possible

> explanations might be if coconut oil, which is absolutely loaded with

> the worst of the saturated fats, were to be shown to be harmless.

>

> With such a list of explanations then perhaps we could consider what

> the evidence might be to support each/any of them.

>

> Explanations might include:

>

> 1. There is some magical ingredient in coconut oil which completely

> offsets the athergenic properties of the fat molecules it contains,

> lauric, myristic and palmitic especially. (But most oils contain

> ~100% fat and not much else.)

>

> 2. Since at least one of these studies was done under caloric

> restriction, it could be that CR is so powerful it can even reverse

> the effects of a diet which would be thoroughly atherogenic in a

> population consuming the average caloric intake. So then coconut oil

> might be dangerous in the general population but not in populations

> on CR.

>

> 3. Perhaps there is something in coconut which combines with the

> saturated fats in such a way that they are excreted instead of being

> absorbed in the intestine.

>

> 4. .................

>

> Are there other possible explanations? And what is the evidence for

> each?

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Tony:

The presence of myristic etc. in adipose suggests the fat is

absorbed, perhaps ruling out another possibe explanation.

Also, relating to your comment below, I wonder if mice on coconut oil

get less cancer. Or if its appearance is delayed?

Rodney.

> If there are any advantages to dietary coconut

> oil, you will probably find it in a reduced number of free radicals

> (perhaps lower cancer rates?), but not in the rate of cardiovascular

> disease, unless the diet is also restricted in calories.>

> It may turn out that coconut oil has some benefits under special

> conditions, although those conditions may not be applicable to our

> modern way of life.

>

> Tony

>

>

> --- In , " Rodney " <perspect1111@>

wrote:

> >

> > The evidence that saturated fats are atherogenic has been

discussed

> > here many times previously. Let's consider what the possible

> > explanations might be if coconut oil, which is absolutely loaded

with

> > the worst of the saturated fats, were to be shown to be

harmless.

> >

> > With such a list of explanations then perhaps we could consider

what

> > the evidence might be to support each/any of them.

> >

> > Explanations might include:

> >

> > 1. There is some magical ingredient in coconut oil which

completely

> > offsets the athergenic properties of the fat molecules it

contains,

> > lauric, myristic and palmitic especially. (But most oils contain

> > ~100% fat and not much else.)

> >

> > 2. Since at least one of these studies was done under caloric

> > restriction, it could be that CR is so powerful it can even

reverse

> > the effects of a diet which would be thoroughly atherogenic in a

> > population consuming the average caloric intake. So then coconut

oil

> > might be dangerous in the general population but not in

populations

> > on CR.

> >

> > 3. Perhaps there is something in coconut which combines with the

> > saturated fats in such a way that they are excreted instead of

being

> > absorbed in the intestine.

> >

> > 4. .................

> >

> > Are there other possible explanations? And what is the evidence

for

> > each?

> >

>

[Guest guest]

just a thought on Tony's & Rodney's comments..

this is why I think all fat should be limited.

Saturated, in excess, brings along one set of risks.

Polys, in excess, bring along another set of risks.

MUFAs, we have seen, in excess, also increase some

risks.

We need to supply our EFAs in the right amounts and

ratios, but to much above and beyond that is

increasing risk of one kind of another.

This can easily be done with a diet that is <20% fat.

Thanks

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

With regard to coconut and CVD this paper is interesting. It is not

only south Asia (India, Sri Lanka) apparently that perceive there may

be a problem with coconut. Note especially:

" These differences can be most reasonably and plausibly explained by

their differences in dietary habits, for example, a higher

consumption of coconut and palm oil, mainly containing saturated fat,

in Singapore " . Ischemic heart disease mortality is *three times*

higher in Singapore:

" Differences in all-cause, cardiovascular and cancer mortality

between Hong Kong and Singapore: role of nutrition. "

Zhang J, Kesteloot H.

Department of Epidemiology, School of Public Health, Catholic

University of Leuven, Belgium.

" BACKGROUND: The majority of inhabitants in Hong Kong and Singapore

are ethnic Chinese, but all-cause and cardiovascular mortality rates

in these two regions are markedly different. This study describes

differences in the magnitude and trends in mortality and attempts to

explain these differences. METHODS: Data of mortality rates in 1963-

1965 and 1993-1995 in the age class of 45-74 years, dietary habits

and other factors were compared between Hong Kong and Singapore using

Japan, Spain and the USA as reference countries. Mortality and food

consumption data were obtained from WHO and FAO, respectively.

RESULTS: Large differences in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality

exist between Hong Kong and Singapore. The difference in total cancer

mortality was less consistent and smaller. The most pronounced

finding was that ischemic heart disease mortality in 1993-1995 was

2.98 and 3.14 times higher in Singapore than in Hong Kong in men and

women, respectively. Of the five countries considered, Singapore has

the highest all-cause mortality in both sexes in the period of 1960-

1995. The ratio of animal to vegetal fat was higher in Singapore

(2.24) than in Hong Kong (1.08). Singapore had higher serum

concentrations of total cholesterol and low-density lipoprotein

cholesterol than Hong Kong, but the opposite result was observed for

high-density lipoprotein cholesterol. CONCLUSIONS: There are striking

differences in all-cause and cardiovascular mortality between Hong

Kong and Singapore. These differences can be most reasonably and

plausibly explained by their differences in dietary habits, for

example, a higher consumption of coconut and palm oil, mainly

containing saturated fat, in Singapore. "

PMID: 11855581

Rodney.

> >

> > >> the subject

> > > of the healthiness

> > > of native subsistence diets appears to be of little

> > > interest to them.

> >

> > Quite the contrary. Native populations are of great

> > interest to them and the subject of many studies

> > including many longterm studies.

> >

> > > Furthermore if we stick to discussing only large

> > > population studies as

> > > you suggest,

> >

> > I beleive the suggestion is to stick to well done peer

> > reviewed main stream published studies. While it may

> > not be the best system, it is the best we have for

> > now.

> >

> > > I think these studies raise interesting and valid

> > > questions about the

> > > normal assumptions concerning saturated fat and are

> > > worthy of being

> > > discussed in this forum. I am not suggesting that

> > > these studies prove

> > > or are " definitive " of anything.

> >

> > Saturated fat was never abundant in most native

> > populations around the world. Even in those areas

> > where coconut is more common, the majority of the

> > calories they consumed doesnt come from the coconut or

> > from saturated fat.

> >

> > In fact, some native populations have virtually no

> > access to anything that is high in saturated fat. The

> > tarrahumra indians, a well studied native population,

> > consume a diet with a fat intake that averages only

> > 12% of total calories, with saturated fat averaging

> > only 2%. Same with the Pima Indians. Heart disease

> > and Diabetes are virtually unknown amongst these

> > native populations.

> >

> > Well controlled metabolic chamber studies have been

> > done on saturated fat.

> >

> > Perhaps Rodney would like to share his perspective on

> > them and his conversations with Dr Castelli about them

> > and how some of the info on sat fat, if often

> > misrepresented and misquoted by many on the internet.

> > If not, just search the archives for Castelli and

> > saturated fat.

> >

> > I just posted one showing the negative effect from

> > even one meal that was high in saturated fat from

> > coconut

> >

> > Personally, I am more interested in the common

> > denominators of the dietary habits and lifestyle

> > habits of the many long lived populations (including

> > native ones) than the few exceptions.

> >

> > Regards

> > Jeff

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Hi folks:

And regarding colon cancer and coconut oil, this one does not look

good for coconut oil, or olive oil:

Clin Sci (Lond). 1998 Mar;94(3):303-11.

" Dietary fish oil suppresses human colon tumour growth in athymic

mice. "

Calder PC, J, Yaqoob P, Pala H, Thies F, Newsholme EA.

Division of Human Nutrition, School of Biological Sciences,

University of Southampton, U.K.

" 1. Human colon tumour growth, initiated by subcutaneous inoculation

of HT29 cells, was measured in athymic mice fed ad libitum on high-

fat (210 g/kg) diets rich in coconut oil (CO), olive oil (OO),

safflower oil (SO) or fish oil (FO); a low fat (LF; 25 g/kg) diet was

used as the control. In one experiment the mice were fed the

experimental diets for 3 weeks before HT29 cell inoculation and were

killed 2 weeks post-inoculation. In a second experiment the mice were

maintained on the LF diet until 4 days post-HT29 cell inoculation;

they were then fed the experimental diets for 17 days.

" 2. Compared with mice fed the LF diet, tumour size was increased in

mice fed the CO, OO or SO diets for 3 weeks before HT29 cell

inoculation; FO feeding did not significantly increase tumour size.

" 3. Feeding mice the CO or OO diets from 4 days post-inoculation

increased tumour growth rate and tumour size compared with feeding

the LF, SO or FO diets; tumour growth rate and size did not differ

among mice fed the latter diets.

" 4. The fatty acid composition of the tumours was markedly influenced

by the fatty acid composition of the diet.

" 5. We conclude that human colon tumour growth is influenced by the

type of fat consumed in the diet. Human colon tumour growth in this

model is promoted by feeding high fat diets rich in medium chain

saturated fatty acids (CO) or monounsaturated fatty acids (OO). A

high fat diet, rich in long chain n - 3 polyunsaturated fatty acids

(FO), does not promote colon tumour growth. The effect of a high fat

diet rich in n - 6 polyunsaturated fatty acids (SO) depends upon the

time at which it is fed: if fed before tumour cell inoculation such a

diet promotes tumour growth, whereas if fed once tumour growth is

initiated it does not. This suggests that n - 6 polyunsaturated fatty

acids promote the initiation of colon tumour growth, but do not exert

growth-promoting effects on colon tumours once they are established. "

PMID: 9616265

Rodney.

> > >

> > > >> the subject

> > > > of the healthiness

> > > > of native subsistence diets appears to be of little

> > > > interest to them.

> > >

> > > Quite the contrary. Native populations are of great

> > > interest to them and the subject of many studies

> > > including many longterm studies.

> > >

> > > > Furthermore if we stick to discussing only large

> > > > population studies as

> > > > you suggest,

> > >

> > > I beleive the suggestion is to stick to well done peer

> > > reviewed main stream published studies. While it may

> > > not be the best system, it is the best we have for

> > > now.

> > >

> > > > I think these studies raise interesting and valid

> > > > questions about the

> > > > normal assumptions concerning saturated fat and are

> > > > worthy of being

> > > > discussed in this forum. I am not suggesting that

> > > > these studies prove

> > > > or are " definitive " of anything.

> > >

> > > Saturated fat was never abundant in most native

> > > populations around the world. Even in those areas

> > > where coconut is more common, the majority of the

> > > calories they consumed doesnt come from the coconut or

> > > from saturated fat.

> > >

> > > In fact, some native populations have virtually no

> > > access to anything that is high in saturated fat. The

> > > tarrahumra indians, a well studied native population,

> > > consume a diet with a fat intake that averages only

> > > 12% of total calories, with saturated fat averaging

> > > only 2%. Same with the Pima Indians. Heart disease

> > > and Diabetes are virtually unknown amongst these

> > > native populations.

> > >

> > > Well controlled metabolic chamber studies have been

> > > done on saturated fat.

> > >

> > > Perhaps Rodney would like to share his perspective on

> > > them and his conversations with Dr Castelli about them

> > > and how some of the info on sat fat, if often

> > > misrepresented and misquoted by many on the internet.

> > > If not, just search the archives for Castelli and

> > > saturated fat.

> > >

> > > I just posted one showing the negative effect from

> > > even one meal that was high in saturated fat from

> > > coconut

> > >

> > > Personally, I am more interested in the common

> > > denominators of the dietary habits and lifestyle

> > > habits of the many long lived populations (including

> > > native ones) than the few exceptions.

> > >

> > > Regards

> > > Jeff

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I don't see at all how the nonabsorption, or " excretion, " of calories

is the explanation here. Does not anyone with a healthy digestive

system absorb the calories that they consume (other than some

percentage of the dietary fiber content)? Would not the rate of

metabolism of the calories be a more likely explanation?

-Dave

> > > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

For the rate of metabolism to explain large energy deltas, the body temp would have to be pretty elevated to scrub off energy.Without getting too graphic, I have seen undigested food in my stool from time to time. Our ability to extract energy from food depends on sundry variants. * Length of our intestines (varies between people).* transit time* bile acid and digestive enzymes present* interactions with foods eaten at same timeand probably several more factors. I remember a guy (Dean) on another CR list who actually measured the undigested energy content of his waste to get a better handle on his personal food math. Since I don't know what to do with a precise answer if I had it, or if it would translate to my eating different foods, etc, I don't pursue it. Trying to make fine measurements for such a crude science seems a misdirected effort, but do what floats your boat.JROn Oct 20, 2007, at 12:16 AM, orb85750 wrote:I don't see at all how the nonabsorption, or "excretion," of calories is the explanation here. Does not anyone with a healthy digestive system absorb the calories that they consume (other than some percentage of the dietary fiber content)? Would not the rate of metabolism of the calories be a more likely explanation?-Dave> > > > > >> > > >> > >> >>

[Guest guest]

Do you have any scientific references regarding the " excretion of

calories? "

Certainly there are some fibrous foods (usually low calorie) and hard

foods (e.g. whole flax seeds) that may not be digested/fully

digested. However, the vast majority of foods that Americans eat do

not fall into these categories, and calorie absorption is quite

efficient. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a weight problem in

this country--and elsewhere. Most of the so-called carb-blockers

advertised to prevent the absorption of calories in recent years have

turned out to be fraudulent and the Federal Trade Commission has

taken notice and responded with large fines in some cases.

My previous post was a response to Rodney's explanation of " excretion

of calories " as the reason that some people can eat a lot and not

gain weight. I do not believe that is a correct explanation, unless

those people are eating an inordinate amount of fibrous foods.

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

> >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

I agree that is probably not the sole explanation but perhaps one in combination. Caveat Lector this is more one rat anecdotal, but this morning I observed undigested corn in my stool.  I do consume an above average amount of fiber but don't know if that explains my observation. I am pretty sure I didn't absorb those calories. [i don't enjoy writing about it and apologize to the list for this graphic sharing.]Another factor I forgot to add to my short list wrt energy balance is what I would call micro-activity. Not digging ditches or hard labor but cumulative low level activity. I have seen some slender people who were just about vibrating. They were always moving. Not exactly like the way shivering generates heat and burns calories but not far from it. Little things like gesturing with your arms while you talk, standing and walking around while you talk on the telephone. I suspect these little behaviors add up.  I also don't recall seeing similar micro-activity from overweight people who are often more sedentary. and lethargic. Warning: another one rat anecdote coming... When I was obese I would alter my behavior in subtle ways. Rather than making several small trips to get something from another room, I would wait and combine several needs into into one errand. I noticed a reversal in this behavior after I lost weight, when I became more active in large and small ways. Sorry I don't have any cites: My understanding of current thought is there are large errors in self reporting of energy intake. Controlled studies show lesser variance than the general expectation.Dean published the results of his calorimeter tests but I couldn't get into the (CRSOC) archives just now, and didn't see it on his personal website.I believe the reason(s) for current obesity trends are several and too obvious to justify debate, unless you want to argue over which one reason is most contributory.JROn Oct 20, 2007, at 11:31 AM, orb85750 wrote:Do you have any scientific references regarding the "excretion of calories?"Certainly there are some fibrous foods (usually low calorie) and hard foods (e.g. whole flax seeds) that may not be digested/fully digested. However, the vast majority of foods that Americans eat do not fall into these categories, and calorie absorption is quite efficient. Otherwise, there wouldn't be such a weight problem in this country--and elsewhere. Most of the so-called carb-blockers advertised to prevent the absorption of calories in recent years have turned out to be fraudulent and the Federal Trade Commission has taken notice and responded with large fines in some cases. My previous post was a response to Rodney's explanation of "excretion of calories" as the reason that some people can eat a lot and not gain weight. I do not believe that is a correct explanation, unless those people are eating an inordinate amount of fibrous foods.> > > > > > > >> > > > > >> > > > >> > > >> > >> >> >> >>

[Guest guest]

Hi Dave:

There are only a few possible explanations of the 'eat as much as

they want and stay slim' phenomenon. Of course the laws of

thermodynamics must apply.

If these people take in a large number of calories, are NOT getting a

huge amount of exercise from lugging around 350 pounds of weight all

day, do not have a huge body that needs an unusually large number of

calories to function (-Benedict), are not running marathons

daily, then where else do those calories go?

Metabolic rate is one possibility as you point out, and calories

excreted unabsorbed is another. If there are others also, let's

discuss them.

As regards metabolic rate, I cannot say I have noted that slim people

tend to sweat a lot more than obese people. Indeed, rather the other

way round. If people do have a high metabolic rate for their weight

the heat must come out somewhere, and should be evident in body

temperature. Is there evidence for this?

As regards excretion of calories in feces, we discussed here about a

year ago that when almonds are eaten they generally do not have as

much effect on weight as expected because much of the fat in them is

not absorbed. IIRC I believe it was Jeff who posted about that. At

the time, several people including me, noted anecdotally that we had

noticed that eating a lot of almonds surprisingly did not seem to

have the same effect on weight as, for example, eating a lot of oats

(oats was my anecdotal experience).

In addition there is the well-known phenomenon by which people after

appendix removal find they no longer digest certain foods. I am a

case in point. Corn, peas and other beans if swallowed with outer

coating intact simply pass straight through unchanged - as JR so

eloquently described (!)

In addition we have discussed here a number of times how some people

find that although having an adequate oral intake of certain

nutrients, are found to be deficient in certain nutrients when blood

levels are checked. 'Apricot' here described her experience with

this. She had difficulty finding a source of vitamin D that would

get her blood level up to where it needed to be. But she

experimented and did eventually find one that her intestine would

absorb.

I have no reason to suppose those are the only three examples where

the proportion of calories and other nutrients in foods ingested will

vary among individuals because of varying degrees of absorption.

However, if the majority of these slim people have body temperatures

sizeably above 'normal' let's hear about it. Of course as a general

rule the opposite seems to be true. One classic characteristic of

slim people on CR is having a body temperature about 1°C lower than

the norm. Not higher.

Rodney.

> > > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>

[Guest guest]

Rodney:

Most often when one refers to an individual that can consume " as much

as they want " and never gain weight, I believe they are talking about your

typical American diet .

Dave

> > > > > > > >

> > > > > >

> > > > >

> > > >

> > >

> >

>