The Oxidized Lipid Hypothesis

[Guest guest]

http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.\

html

The cholesterol-fed rabbit produced atherosclerosis but the

response-to-injury rabbit did not. Why?

Chris

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth\

..html

> The cholesterol-fed rabbit produced atherosclerosis but the

> response-to-injury rabbit did not. Why?

what *exactly* were these rabbits fed? Is it possible to

refine the true chemical cholesterol without any lipids and feed that

to the rabbits? I find discussions of " cholesterol " very confusing

because more often than not, what is being discussed is lipoproteins

that have a little bit of cholesterol in them and NOT pure

cholesterol. It's kind of like calling a car a seat. Yes a car has a

seat in it, but is it appropriate to call the whole vehicle a seat?

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> Did you read the article?

I thought I did because I read the link you sent earlier, but

now I see this is a different link, which I haven't read. My response

was really to the discussions of cholesterol and rabbits in your

review of The Cholesterol Myths.

I'm off to read this new link now

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

>http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth\

..html

> The cholesterol-fed rabbit produced atherosclerosis but the

> response-to-injury rabbit did not. Why?

now I've read the article as well as the book review and both

are excellent as usual, although I did find a few typos

I still have the general complaint that often the word " cholesterol "

is used in place of " lipoprotein " and sometimes it is not and that

makes it difficult to tell which is which at times.

The highway is full of seats ... or is that cars? Or trucks? Or

buses? Or bicycles? Or all of the above?

For instance, where you say:

" The lesion possessed a fatty core rich in crystalized and calcified

cholesterol deposits and was covered with a fibrous cap. "

Are these deposits some form of lipoproteins or pure chemical

cholesterol with calcium?

Likewise:

" The rabbits developed cholesterol deposits all throughout their

bodies, in their eyes and internal organs. "

Again, are these deposits some form of lipoproteins or pure chemical

cholesterol?

I'm guessing that since the rabbits injected with pure cholesterol did

not develop atherosclerosis, that the deposits are lipoproteins of

some sort that include cholesterol. It's interesting that they

produced " disease by feeding pure cholesterol dissolved in sunflower

oil " . Apparently the cholesterol was converted into LDL in the

rabbits, which then induced the atherosclerosis in the rabbits when it

could not be properly metabolized. Sunflower oil is high in PUFA, so

I'm guessing that the LDL would also be high in PUFA.

Why didn't they feed pure cholesterol with normal rabbit food? Does

this not cause atherosclerosis? I'm guessing it wouldn't because I

don't think rabbits normally eat much in the way of fats to produce

excess LDL with pure dietary cholesterol.

I'm surprised that they were able to get rabbits to eat meat, eggs,

and milk in the initial tests. That would be like trying to feed

rabbit food to cats. I guess if they're hungry enough....

It was also interesting that they could induce the atherosclerosis in

rabbits by feeding them milk. Was that an all milk diet? And what

happens in other adult mammals when fed milk? Would it matter if the

milk was raw versus pasteurized?

As you can tell, I have more questions than answers

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> It is cholesterol, probably esterified to fatty acids. The foam

> cells metabolize the lipoproteins, and they accumulate the

> cholesterol esters. Eventually I think they basically blow up and

> leave a pile of cholesterol esters in their place. So usually at

> the core you have cholesterol esters and maybe some other fatty

> material and that is surrounded by foam cells that haven't blown up

> yet.

thanks for clarifying. I would guess there's a lot more fatty

acids than cholesterol in atheromas and that they would be better

characterized as " lipid " deposits than " cholesterol " deposits.

Part of the confusion is my own. I looked up cholesterol in wikipedia

and it says cholesterol is BOTH a lipid AND a sterol:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol

I thought it was just a sterol. Furthermore, I thought " lipids " and

" fats " were interchangeable, but I see now they are not - fats are a

subset of lipids, which also include sterols, waxes, and even the

fat-soluble vitamins:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid

> > It was also interesting that they could induce the atherosclerosis

> > in rabbits by feeding them milk. Was that an all milk diet? And

> > what happens in other adult mammals when fed milk? Would it

> > matter if the milk was raw versus pasteurized?

>

> I think the point is that the milk contains cholesterol, and the

> rabbit is not equipped to consume dietary cholesterol so does not

> adjust its own synthesis, thus secretes more lipoproteins into the

> blood in response.

So, I guess some mammals, like humans can adjust their cholesterol

production to keep a steady supply of LDL and cholesterol related

hormones regardless of the amount of cholesterol that's in the diet.

Whereas, rabbits apparently continue producing the same amount of

cholesterol even when large amounts are incoming from the diet and

thus end up with a large excess that can't be metabolized readily.

What do you know about human adult consumption of milk in regards to

atherosclerosis? I would assume that raw milk from grass-fed cows

would be protective, although I'm not sure that would apply to

pasteurized milk.

Speaking of milk, I've noticed that milk is relatively low in some

nutrients we are supposed to need in much more abundance. How can

that be, if young mammals thrive entirely on milk? Milk is fairly low

in potassium, sodium, niacin, and vitamins C, E, and K1, relative to

dietary " standards " . Perhaps another reason to suspect that some of

these standards are too high. Is there any reason adults would need

much more potassium than young children, for instance?

Children are growing fairly rapidly in size, but adults are also

growing in the sense that the body is constantly re-building itself.

Why wouldn't milk be the perfect food for adults as well? What

happens with exclusive raw milk diets for other adult mammals and does

it matter whether the milk is species specific?

Since dairy was one of the three key foods that Weston Price found to

provide good health, I'm curious what form of dairy is best - whether

to go with more kefir and cheese and less milk, or if it's beneficial

for adults to drink a cup or two of raw milk a day.

[Guest guest]

--- Masterjohn <chrismasterjohn@...> wrote:

> True, but I don't see why you think they have more fatty acids than

> cholesterol. I'd have to look it up, but they should probably have

> roughly equal amounts if the main source of each is cholesterol

> esters.

but since both cholesterol and fatty acids are lipids, it would

be more correct to characterize the deposits as " lipid " , which

includes both. Calling the deposits " cholesterol " is a bit misleading

since there are also fatty acids involved.

> > Speaking of milk, I've noticed that milk is relatively low in some

> > nutrients we are supposed to need in much more abundance. How can

> > that be, if young mammals thrive entirely on milk? Milk is fairly

> > low in potassium, sodium, niacin, and vitamins C, E, and K1,

> > relative to dietary " standards " . Perhaps another reason to

> > suspect that some of these standards are too high. Is there any

> > reason adults would need much more potassium than young children,

> > for instance?

>

> The vitamin E standard is WAY too high. Its basis is a total joke.

> The potassium requirement is probably exaggerated by sodium intakes.

> The ratio of the two in milk is similar to the ratio of the RDA.

> There should be differences between young and adult requirements and

> requirements of different species, and differences between standard

> milk and ideal milk.

Yes, I've been suspecting the conventional vitamin E daily requirement

is too high for diets low in PUFA, since most foods high in vitamin E

also are fairly high in PUFA.

Below is a list of the percent of the official " Dietary Reference

Intake " (DRI) levels for males age 19-50 provided by 2.25 cups of milk

- enough to provide about 100 percent of the DRI for vitamin B12,

based on the USDA nutrient data base that is likely using factory farm

pasteurized milk that has added vitamin D3.

%DRI

109.8 Vitamin D

100.7 Vitamin B12 cobalamin

84.0 Iodine

77.3 Vitamin B2 riboflavin

71.4 Phosphorus

62.0 Calcium

60.0 Vitamin B7 biotin

39.7 Vitamin B5 pantothenic acid

36.9 Selenium

20.1 Vitamin B1 thiamin

20.0 Zinc

18.7 Vitamin A Equivalent

17.1 Vitamin A Retinol

16.7 Potassium

15.2 Vitamin B6 pyridoxine

14.6 Sodium

14.3 Choline

13.1 Magnesium

6.9 Vitamin B9 folate

6.7 Copper

3.7 Vitamin B3 niacin

2.2 Vitamin E alpha tocopherol

2.1 Iron

0.9 Vitamin K naphthoquinone

0.7 Manganese

0.0 Vitamin C ascorbic acid

Notice that copper, iron, and manganese are way down the list. On the

flip side, maybe B12 is under-rated in the DRI. And of course,

vitamin K2 is not even listed in the DRI

I compared the USDA data to measurements reported for raw milk at:

http://www.raw-milk-facts.com/what_is_in_raw_milk.html

and the differences are not all that great for most vitamins and

minerals. The largest differences were that raw milk had about a

tenth of the vitamin D (since none was added), about 30% more vitamin

A (that would push it up to 24% of the DRI), and 19 mg of vitamin C

(21.1% of the DRI versus none from USDA).

I haven't seen detailed figures on how typical human milk varies from

typical cow's milk, although I would not expect huge differences for

most nutrients.

> > Since dairy was one of the three key foods that Weston Price found

> > to provide good health, I'm curious what form of dairy is best -

> > whether to go with more kefir and cheese and less milk, or if it's

> > beneficial for adults to drink a cup or two of raw milk a day.

>

> Raw kefir's probably better, but I don't know for sure.

That's what I'm guessing too, since I make about half of my raw milk

into kefir. I suspect diabetics should go with all kefir, yogurt, and

or cheese and no milk.