VeggieBoards banner

Heart disease sould not be blamed on animals...

3K views 47 replies 14 participants last post by  carabdle 
#1 ·
My wife has been reading a book, the claims in which we (both vegetarian) found very interesting.

Heart disease should be blamed not on animal fats or cholesterol but upon excess consumption of vegetable oils, hydrogenated fats, and refined carbohydrates (p 134)

This is from The Maker's Diet by Jordan S. Rubin who referenced Diet and Heat DiseaseNot What You Think, Consumers Research July 1996 pp. 15-19. Now, I could have sworn, except for the hydrogenated fats it was the other way around. And I realize that refined carbs are no good, but they cause heart disease?


Here's more.

"At least 50% of dietary fat we consume should be saturated, otherwise calcium cannot be effectively incorporated into the skeletal structure." (p 133)

"Saturated fats enhance the immune system." (p 133)

These quotes from the same book are referenced to Sally Fallon with Mary G. Enig Ph.D in Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook That Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats 2nd edition

And...

Fiber found in grain is a carbohydrate. The overconsumption of high-carbohydrate grain-based foods such as bran, fibrous breakfast cereals, whole-wheat bread (nonsprouted or fermented), and soy, which all contain high amounts of phytates, is a primary cause of intestinal disease and other diseases! (p 141) no reference.

So much of this sounds funny to us. What do you think about these claims? Has anyone ever heard of Fallon or Enig? Are these claims based on truth or are they twisted, misinformed BS?
 
See less See more
1
#2 ·
It seems to me that the connection between sat fat, cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease has been so well established by numerous studies that it's common knowledge at this point.

Sadly, one of the things I learned from The China Study is how easy it is for people with an agenda to create the illusion of solid science backing up their position when in fact it is nothing but junk science or twisted and misleading interpretations of real science. Unfortunately, there is so much of this floating around in today's atmosphere it is becoming increasingly difficult for laypersons to evaluate scientific claims for themselves.

PS: Here is one tidbit I found through a quick Google search on one of the sources you mentioned above:

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Consumers'_Research
 
#4 ·
Seems off to me. Wild meat or grassfed meat has much less saturated fat than factory meat, this is how meateaters used to be able to get away with eating it in the past. The meat people eat nowadays is not similar to the meat of the past, so you can't compare eating meat now to eating meat in the past. The bit suggesing fiber is bad for you, or that fiber is a carbohydrate, is just plain wrong. Fiber is not a carbohydrate unless you're a ruminant. Sorry, but humans aren't ruminants. That book is way way off, in my opinion.
 
#5 ·
Rubin is a NMD, CNC so I tend not to pay attention to people with those titles, especially CNC. These people should realize that it's a red flag. Enig is correct about trans fats and is certainly qualified but I tried to run a search with her name and phytates site:.edu and didn't come up with anything. Seems like it would be a big deal. Sure we know that phytates inhibit minerals but that's nothing a little food combining (or non-combining) couldn't take care. I've never heard of the correlation between phytates and intestinal disease. Interesting.
 
#7 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ludi View Post

Are they talking about celiac disease? Isn't that caused by phytates in wheat?
From what i understand celiac is a genetic disorder or at least has a genetic component. I don't think it's caused by an environmental source tho obviously affected by environmental sources. From what I've read, it tends to run in families.

eta: what I mean to say, is that just because someone has an allergy to a certain food does not mean that the allergy or the cause of the allergy can be generalized to the popullation. Plenty of people are allergic to peanuts for example, but that doesn't mean peanuts aren't good for us. I shouldn't try to communicate before having coffee.


this is an interesting wiki comment

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phytic_acid
 
#12 ·
there are a great number of studies out there that suggest that the origins or major players in heart disease are:

high fructose corn syrup

processed sugar

processed flours (as opposed to sprouted grain)

racid vegetable oils (non cold-pressed)

hydrogenated oils

trans-fats

Generally speaking, vegetable oils (cold pressed), and fat from animals do not contain these elements (rancidity, hydrogenation, or trans-fats). just do a simple web search for nutritional information regarding it.

also, the book you have may have end notes or foot notes, look up the articles themselves and read them to see what they say.
 
#13 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesseract View Post

It seems to me that the connection between sat fat, cholesterol, and cardiovascular disease has been so well established by numerous studies that it's common knowledge at this point.

Sadly, one of the things I learned from The China Study is how easy it is for people with an agenda to create the illusion of solid science backing up their position when in fact it is nothing but junk science or twisted and misleading interpretations of real science.
Tess,

Are you saying that TCS is based on pseudo-science? Or am I just reading that sentence incorrectly (always highly possible
)?
 
#14 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by Washoe View Post

Theres one other true statement therethat fiber is a carbohydrate. Cellulose is a polysaccharide. The rest is pure unmitigated nonsense.
Yeah but humans can't digest it, so , not relevant to their argument....

"The major component in the rigid cell walls in plants is cellulose. Cellulose is a linear polysaccharide polymer with many glucose monosaccharide units. The acetal linkage is beta which makes it different from starch. This peculiar difference in acetal linkages results in a major difference in digestibility in humans. Humans are unable to digest cellulose because the appropriate enzymes to breakdown the beta acetal linkages are lacking. (More on enzyme digestion in a later chapter.) Undigestible cellulose is the fiber which aids in the smooth working of the intestinal tract.

Animals such as cows, horses, sheep, goats, termites, and soil bacteria possess the necessary enzymes to digest cellulose."

http://www.elmhurst.edu/~chm/vchembo...cellulose.html
 
#15 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by compassionate1 View Post

Are you saying that TCS is based on pseudo-science? Or am I just reading that sentence incorrectly (always highly possible
)?
No, although some people would say that and mean it in exactly that way. What I mean is that Colin Campbell discusses that very problem in a section of the book and walks through some examples of how junk science is used (and valid science misused) by people with agendas to perpetuate misleading ideas. Of course, you have to remember that everyone has an agenda. Unfortunately, the only way to tell the reasonable interpretations from unreasonable requires both the ability and the will to get hold of the original studies, and go through them all with an educated eye. It also helps if you have information on who is actually funding the studies and what their agenda is, which can be hard to come by. The average layperson can't feasibly do that, so it comes down to a question of who you trust. I personally have concluded that Campbell is trustworthy.
 
#19 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

from what i understand, certified nutrition consultant = mail order garbage. I read an article once about a puppy that passed the test and became a CNC.
Actually, like any health profession, there are good & bad CNCs.

And many mediocre CNCs still know more about nutrition than MDs.

This discussion would be enhanced by an explanation of why each bad element impacts heart health, rather than simply listing them, although that might be a challenge.

All of the aforementioned foods sound terrible, so perhaps it would be best to avoid them all, rather than praising saturated fats in order to bash carbohydrates, etc.
 
#20 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by organica View Post

Actually, like any health profession, there are good & bad CNCs.

And many mediocre CNCs still know more about nutrition than MDs.
Since any one can be a CNC by taking a test via mail, I don't see the value in it. It's meaningless. At least MD's are forced to take at least one class in nutrition. One class isn't needed to become a CNC, which is why a dog can hold the title. But...makes no difference to me who buys into what. It's bitter sweet lol.

for what it's worth tho I know many do not appreciate quackwatch

http://www.quackwatch.org/04Consumer...corg/aanc.html
 
#21 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by gaya View Post

Since any one can be a CNC by taking a test via mail, I don't see the value in it. It's meaningless. At least MD's are forced to take at least one class in nutrition. One class isn't needed to become a CNC, which is why a dog can hold the title. But...makes no difference to me who buys into what. It's bitter sweet lol.
But Gaya, university education has become a luxury that some can't afford.

It is a lot cheaper to take the CNC course from a REPUTABLE place (google "Alive Academy" for good one) than go for the university dietician degree.

In my experience, dieticians (& all the GPs/MDs I've talked to) are duped into the "we all need meat & dairy for optimum health" mythology in a BIG way. I have also had such university-educated professionals trash organic food as "just a rip-off" & argue strongly for the "everything in moderation" theory- including junk food in that "everything".

If I ate like that instead of listening to my CNC & reading lots myself, I'd be obese like my GP & psychiatrist. The GP is a former President of Doctors Nova Scotia btw.
 
#22 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by organica View Post

But Gaya, university education has become a luxury that some can't afford.
I can't speak for Canada (btw, i'm coming to halifax!!!) tho I was under the impression that Canda is pretty supportive of its students but here in the States, anyone can get an education if they have the brains to do so. If they can't figure that out, then they certainly shouldn't be health advisors.

Quote:
It is a lot cheaper to take the CNC course from a REPUTABLE place (google "Alive Academy" for good one) than go for the university dietician degree.
You can't substitute 4 years of rigorous learning for one test. Plus, as the site I linked shows, these tests can be dubious. I've been studying nutrition science full time for about six years now and I would never speak with the kind of conviction as some of these hacks do and I live and breath the stuff. As far as $$$ goes, I don't see how it's not doable in the west if a person is healthy (mentally and physically), intelligent, and has the necessary time to devote to their studies in order to become qualified health care professionals.

Quote:
In my experience, dieticians (& all the GPs/MDs I've talked to) are duped into the "we all need meat & dairy for optimum health" mythology in a BIG way. I have also had such university-educated professionals trash organic food as "just a rip-off" & argue strongly for the "everything in moderation" theory- including junk food in that "everything".
Imo, nutrition education should only include nutrition science. If a person understands the biochemistry behind nutrition than little room is left for propaganda imo.

Quote:
If I ate like that instead of listening to my CNC & reading lots myself, I'd be obese like my GP & psychiatrist. The GP is a former President of Doctors Nova Scotia btw.
As stated, I question the education of dieticians as well organica. Some of it makes me uneasy. And, I also believe that lay people can be just as informed or more informed about nutrition compared to the average MD. I take issue with using false titles that are misleading. It's scamming, whether the CNC realizes this or not and I'd guess that most don't realize it because they simply do not have the education to know the difference.
 
#23 ·
"I can't speak for Canada (btw, i'm coming to halifax!!!) tho I was under the impression that Canda is pretty supportive of its students but here in the States, anyone can get an education if they have the brains to do so. If they can't figure that out, then they certainly shouldn't be health advisors."

Actually, it's fairly easy to get government loans but v. many students are realizing that the debt is monstrous upon graduation. I had to declare bankruptcy on my student loans, & then the govenment banned the ability to go bankrupt on student loans!! My ex owes 30 grand & earns $10 an hour in his field. THis is not unusual.

"You can't substitute 4 years of rigorous learning for one test. Plus, as the site I linked shows, these tests can be dubious. I've been studying nutrition science full time for about six years now and I would never speak with the kind of conviction as some of these hacks do and I live and breath the stuff. As far as $$$ goes, I don't see how it's not doable in the west if a person is healthy (mentally and physically), intelligent, and has the necessary time to devote to their studies in order to become qualified health care professionals."

Not all the schools offer one test only, although doing it by mail is common. But then again, so was open-book testing at my undergrad university, which proves about as much.

"Imo, nutrition education should only include nutrition science. If a person understands the biochemistry behind nutrition than little room is left for propaganda imo."

Care to speculate on why they spew propaganda after the unbiased nutritional info they get in med school or dietician degrees?

"As stated, I question the education of dieticians as well organica. Some of it makes me uneasy. And, I also believe that lay people can be just as informed or more informed about nutrition compared to the average MD. I take issue with using false titles that are misleading. It's scamming, whether the CNC realizes this or not and I'd guess that most don't realize it because they simply do not have the education to know the difference."

I'd argue once again that there are good & bad CNCs, dieticians & doctors. I am actually thinking of going for a CNC designation, because I can't afford to return to university, yet I have an interest in nutrition & would like to learn more & maybe practice.

If you want to eat vegan in Hfx, talk to me!!
 
#24 ·
Quote:
Originally Posted by organica View Post

Actually, it's fairly easy to get government loans but v. many students are realizing that the debt is monstrous upon graduation. I had to declare bankruptcy on my student loans, & then the govenment banned the ability to go bankrupt on student loans!! My ex owes 30 grand & earns $10 an hour in his field. THis is not unusual.
My friend went to school in canada a long time ago (married a canadian) due to the "benefits" candian students recieved...like help with housing or something? I can't remember. But yea, many young people do screw themselves with majors that don't go anywhere and can't pay the bills after graduation (as we've both mentioned in past threads). Fortunately for health majors, this isn't the case. You can usually land a job.

Quote:
Not all the schools offer one test only, although doing it by mail is common. But then again, so was open-book testing at my undergrad university, which proves about as much.
I think it depends on the uni, the major and the prof. I had an open book final in organic chemistry and the book was frigging useless lol.

Quote:
Care to speculate on why they spew propaganda after the unbiased nutritional info they get in med school or dietician degrees?
ohhh, me and mine speculate quite a bit and the info they get is not always unbiased...obviously. It gets passed along like it does with lay people. If a person doesn't really undersand the science behind the information then they obviously can't determine its validity. For example, some work I've been involved with might not get published because the findings do not support current thought! I don't know the scientists running this study personally because they are at a different university (i'm only analyzing their samples for them) but my boss and i are really peeved over it. Sometimes people want something to be true so badly that they ignore the truth even tho it's valuable and this info will never find it's way to publication, then academia, then the public. Ime, most scientists know better or at least the ones I work with but I'm pretty lucky. You know I support physicians 100% simply due to the rigorous road involved (here in the states at least) but most, if not all, of my profs find it to be the easier path.
but i suppose there's a bit eliticism (sp?) in those opinions. At the same time, there's nothing like an md/phd imo.

Quote:
I'd argue once again that there are good & bad CNCs, dieticians & doctors. I am actually thinking of going for a CNC designation, because I can't afford to return to university, yet I have an interest in nutrition & would like to learn more & maybe practice.


I hope you take the time to learn what nutrition is really about and that's human biochemistry. If you don't have a solid understanding of biochem/physiology/metabolism etc then imo I don't see how you could avoid propaganda, whether it's propaganda you believe in or not. But, i'm kind of a stickler because it's my field as any one would be. I could give you a reading list at some point if you are interested.


Quote:
If you want to eat vegan in Hfx, talk to me!!

Yes, Yes , Yes! I would be so appreciative.
 
#25 ·
the sat fat, cholesterol, and heart disease connections are really focused on certain elements.

according to the book Fats that Heal, Fats that Kill by Udo Erasmus, PhD, saturated fat that we eat (from plant or animal sources) is utilized into energy almost immediately. Cholesterol taken into the body is also utilized for cell health and the body naturally balances the cholesterol taken in with the cholesterol produced. If there's less cholesterol taken in, then the body will produce more; if there's more cholesterol takin in, then the body will produce less.

but what is interesting is that white flour, white sugar, high fructose corn syrup--essentially processed foods--and rancid/hydro/trans fats cannot be effectively utilized by the body. Trans can't even be broken down, which causes stress to the system. sugars, syurps and flours are converted into saturated fat (which is "stickier" than regular saturated fat, according to the test), and that 'sticky' saturated fat is what sticks to arterial walls and causes blockages. Cholesterol is created to bind and move these fats out of the system--thus increasing cholesterol.

beyond this book, there is a great deal of evidence to support this idea--and more has been developed since this book was written. There's another book called Cholesterol Myths, which has more information about these studies.
 
#26 ·
gaya:

would you say that it is possible for an individual to have the CNC and yet still be well versed in these topics?

you and i have spoken on occassion about certain elements of biochem (in generalities) and metabolism and so on (i tend to focus on hormones, isn't that strange?). you would probably concede that i've been studying nutrition for quite a while and have a decent handle on the information out there--right?

so, if i took the CNC rather than going back to uni for a 4 year degree in it, would you think that i could offer clients good information?
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top