Forum: Author Hangout

the more details the author includes (such as the foodstuffs you mentioned), the more impressed I am that the author did the necessary research

I agree entirely and have recently seen examples of incredible correct detail (except Ike and Princess Margaret were not godparents together in real life). Given that sort of quality I couldn't compete.

Some characters appear to live on pizza and burgers and chips (the US meaning, with a higher proportion of salt, saturated fat and acrylamide than the UK meaning) even though they're claimed to have sporting prowess. ;)

I think that the two are semi unrelated.

Sporting prowess depends on DNA, on determination, on luck (a good trainer for example)... Of course they do need foodstuffs; those you mention will give them the energy BUT in the long term have deleterious effects.

At one job my normal breakfast was a big plate of porridge made up of 1 pint heavy whipping cream. 1 cup flour, 3 cups whole milk, 1/2 cup sugar. Pinch of salt. Cinnamon, nutmeg, (more) sugar and melted butter, for serving. The whole lot was boiled until the butter ran out and it was then poured on the stuff on your plate. Excellent for sport (they get gold medals galore) BUT I suspect that it was long term medically dangerous

Reading about various real-life sportsmen's diets, they seem to consume a hell of a lot of high-protein meat like chicken (sans skin, obv) and pasta.

Competitors in the Tour de France need about two-and-a-half times the calories as an office worker about the same size.

Competitors in the Tour de France need about two-and-a-half times the calories as an office worker about the same size

I am surprised the multiple is as low. I used to climb and worked on a minimum daily diet of 6000 calories even when temperatures were "normal" (I think that is well over three times the recommended norm)Nearly three months like that and I didn't gain or lose weight.

I am surprised the multiple is as low. I used to climb and worked on a minimum daily diet of 6000 calories even when temperatures were "normal"

I calculated 6,000 calories per day = two-and-a-half times 2,400 calories for a mostly sedentary lifestyle and same size.
Professional cyclists are usually not large (except for some specialist "sprinters").

recommended 1600 calories a day

May depend on the body mass of the individual. Pygmies probably need less food than Watusi's (think pro-basketball players). Still, 1600 seems like concentration camp rations.

Still, 1600 seems like concentration camp rations.

Some diets are down to 900! Crazy.

Figures are meaningless; does a navvy working outdoors in winter Alaska need the same as madam lounging in a warm room watching the gogglebox; of course not.

Ross's 2400 seems like it would result in obesity in office workers over the long term - I had 1800 in mind but then I never ever look at a 32 ounce steak!

Does anyone know (or was it ever calculated) what the UK civilian wartime ration came to? That turned out to be close to ideal

Ross's 2400 seems like it would result in obesity in office workers over the long term

I took that figure from nutrition guidelines published jointly by the Australian and New Zealand government.
I provided a link to that publication above. I would strongly recommend it to anyone willing to make some efforts to ensure their diet is healthy.
It explains that figure is for a man of average height, moderate activity levels, and about their ideal weight.
It suggests people feed the weight they should be, not their actual weight.
Thin-framed people like me should have a BMI not much over 20. For large-framed people that might be closer to 24.
I plugged my height and a BMI of 21 to calculate my ideal weight at 62 Kg. I then calculated 2400 * 62 / 78, giving my maximum average intake of about 2,000. I am at the age when my maximum is declining as I enter old age. At 55 it would have been about 2,000; if I get beyond 70 it would be down to about 1,600.
The publication explains differences in the calculations for males and females; children, adults, and elderly; pregnancy and lactation. It is very detailed but I think it's written well enough so anyone of average intelligence should be able to figure out its recommendation to them easily enough.

I took that figure from nutrition guidelines published jointly by the Australian and New Zealand government.

I provided a link to that publication above. I would strongly recommend it to anyone willing to make some efforts to ensure their diet is healthy.

It explains that figure is for a man of average height, moderate activity levels, and about their ideal weight.

It suggests people feed the weight they should be, not their actual weight.

Wow; lots of conditions (though I fully understand and do not criticise YOU for this).

ANZAC guidelines; I don't know which side had the upper hand but when I was in NZ everyone I came across was mega active - the All Blacks were pretty average.
Aussies were also pretty active and neither lot was as comatose as many (?most) Brits. They wore me out (see last paragraph)

They need to define "moderate" (see above). Until winter came I swam 1000m per day 5 days a week, but now it is 50 to 70mins gym - moderate? Not compared to many I meet. By comparison my medical staff want other of their patients 10 minutes slow walking a day indoors which I consider useless.

"Feed the weight they should be". Sensible but we have this thing in schools where parents are accused of underfeeding their children because their BMIs are not high enough. ( I have heard of threats to take such kids into council care for that reason). A number of the kids involved were quality sports people having the right diet - just look at bony Phelps, the swimmer.

We can no longer find out what is an "ideal" weight because of all the faddists. I'm 5'11, mid 70's, 11stone7 since at least 1959 and a BMI of around 24 . My best man was the same height, in trunks looked as skinny as me but was 3 1/2 stone heavier! Who was better? Don't answer that :D

We can no longer find out what is an "ideal" weight

IIRC, my brother, the doctor I haven't spoken to for a decade, said the most indicative measure for health is the ratio of chest to waist measurements. Bone densities vary a lot, muscle and fat on the limbs is irrelevant, but carry any more than one "spare tyre" and you're putting yourself at risk.

My BMI is lower than yours, and I could easy afford to lose about 5 Kg from around the weight.

Is your brother named Bruce too

Adolf, to those who know him well.

I think the point he was making is BMI cannot reflect body type. I am only a few inches too tall to be the perfect build for a jockey. My "ideal" BMI is about 20. I just searched for the weight of Olympic weightlifters the same height as me. They would not carry any excess fat - to stay within their weight class - but their BMI is about 26! Their chest to waist ratio would be much higher (= healthier) than mine.

Ross's 2400 seems like it would result in obesity in office workers over the long term - I had 1800 in mind but then I never ever look at a 32 ounce steak!

Ultra-low calorie diets are certainly viable.
A 5'10" man could probably maintain their ideal weight, and satisfy all nutrition needs, with average calorie intakes anywhere between 1,600 and 2,400 calories per day.
It's been known for over a hundred years that rats live much longer if their calorie intake is restricted to only about two-thirds of the amount at which they can maintain a suitable weight.
Unfortunately, their aren't many human volunteers willing to accept a lifetime on "starvation rations" to satisfy the curiosity of medical researchers regarding whether that applies to humans too. I assume it does. I have read of research that suggests the mechanism for that is once rats' bodies go into "famine mode", aging mitochondria are tagged for reabsorption by the immune system before they start producing too many free radicals that are so damaging to life expectancy.
I actually believe our species has a potential average life expectancy of about 100 - we only need to eat a lot less food and ensure our selection of foods is more appropriate.

I wish you well avoiding those monster steaks, etc. LLAP :-)

She's vegan now.

That's not safe either. The human body can't manufacture it's own B12. A vitamin B12 deficiency can be fatal.

Vitamin B12 is only available from animal based sources.

She gets B12 in her multi-vitamin. But also in fortified foods like flax seed which is in her cereal. Some other stuff too.

A multi-vitamin seems a wise precaution. There are definitely some nutrients that you need to be careful about once anyone goes completely vegan.

My choice of multi-vitamin is at least two large skim-milk lattes every day. My very extensive analysis concluded that, plus any mixture including grains, oil, fruits and vegetables, and a source of protein is enough to be confident everything is covered adequately.

Watch out for seafood with mercury.

For me, that is the lesser risk. I needed a coronary stent at the age of 48. My prospects were not looking good.

A build-up of heavy metals is a definitely a potential problem with what I do. It becomes worse the higher up the marine food chain you go.

Do you have any suggestions for how to minimise that risk, or ways to test if they are present?

Eat fish that's farm bred.

Thx.
That's the only idea I've ever had for how to minimise that risk.

Switch Blade wrote

Eat fish that's farm bred.

Thx.
That's the only idea I've ever had for how to minimise that risk.

Farmed salmon (at least) is said to be more dangerous than wild because of the antibiotics used, the type of food and the slowness of removing srap.

I take a dessert spoon of oat bran on my cereal every morning on doctor's advice. My cholesterol is 5 but almost all "good". I avoid preprepared foods because of all the additives and at home we use skimmed milk (when I am not making the likes of pannacotta with double cream, sugar and other nasties. Hard cheese and cheesecake get regularly eaten but we do avoid huge meals - a 5 ounce steak and veg is enough for me.

My blood pressure is up at 125/72 due to the pills I have to take and I have put on about 2 lbs since 1959.

A lot of favourable things have been written about the UK wartime rations causing a drop in heart problems etc.

My cholesterol is 5 but almost all "good".

Which type of cholesterol (total, HDL, or LDL), and 5 what? Cholesterol levels are generally given in mg/dl from blood tests. 5 mg/dl would be extremely and unhealthily low for either total or HDL.

Which type of cholesterol (total, HDL, or LDL), and 5 what? Cholesterol levels are generally given in mg/dl from blood tests. 5 mg/dl would be extremely and unhealthily low for either total or HDL.

The conversion of units is 38 of your units equals one of ours. So his 5 is your 190. That is borderline, but if the HDLs are high enough it's okay. Add to that low blood pressure and he's doing fine.

The conversion of units is 38 of your units equals one of ours.

So what are your units?

So what are your units?

1 mg/dL = 38.6 mmol/L

The conversion of units is 38 of your units equals one of ours. So his 5 is your 190. That is borderline, but if the HDLs are high enough it's okay. Add to that low blood pressure and he's doing fine

I don't know the units, simply that UK government would like the figure in the fours so I am marginally fine. My doctor isn't worried because I do get a bit of exercise and it is the good type.

As to oatbran reducing cholesterol I am slightly puzzled by the statement that it does nothing to reduce mortality. If the heart is not being clogged up then that risk is reduced (sometimes a particularly unpleasant way to go)so which other causes of mortality rise to balance it? Strokes perhaps?

which other causes of mortality rise to balance it? Strokes perhaps?

That's a good question; I do not know the answer.
The answer is definitely not strokes. The mechanisms that cause strokes and heart attacks are identical. The medical profession actually lumps both together under the term "cardiovascular disease".
It is certainly not dementia or Alzheimer's either. Everything that helps reduce risks of cardiovascular disease will also reduce the risks of diseases of aging which affect the brain.

I have seen this elsewhere, but my stated opinion, "... but it does not help mortality rates," is directly quoting my brother, Geoff Murray, who is a specialist in palliative care.

The mechanisms of CV disease are not yet understood. If "HDLs are extremely important" seems like old news to you, it is was only discovered about 20 years. What has become known since, but nobody knows why, is that inflammation has a substantial role in risks of CV disease.

I am not a doctor, so I preface the medical advice I am about to give with, "BUT, ask relevant professionals before acting on."

These are the most important recommendations I would make to you:
1. Ask your doctor if it is worthwhile continuing to include oat bran in my diet? (I expect the answer will be 'no'.)
2. Are my risk factors high enough to justify starting on 10 mg of statins per day? (I expect the answer will be 'yes'.)
3. Is it worthwhile starting to eat a LOT of garlic, to assist my immune system? (I expect the answer will be 'YES!')

I take a dessert spoon of oat bran on my cereal every morning on doctor's advice.

I stopped using oat bran over 20 year's ago, on doctor's advice. It does reduce your cholesterol levels, but lengthy studies showed that did nothing to reduce mortality. Still, it won't do you any harm, and I'm sure it keeps you regular. :-)

Total cholesterol of 5 (= 200 in American units) is not ideal, but high HDLs, low blood pressure, and correct weight adds up to a very low risk of cardiovascular disease, dementia, and Alzheimer's. :-)

consumers compensate in other areas so they still develop obesity and diabetes :(

That's definitely no me.

it's actually good practice to give your system a sugar hit from time to time

I get my sugars from lactose in skim milk dairy products and fructose in fruits. The body rapidly breaks those and sucrose down in the blood to the same chemicals.

Modern thinking is that you can pretty much eat an unlimited quantity of eggs because their cholesterol is good.

Do you have any sources for that?
I've never seen anything that suggests the source of dietary cholesterol makes any difference at all. Until I see anything from a trustworthy source I'm going to regard it as akin to the kind of "medical research" cigarette companies used to produce.
However, I'm not denying it is possible. The research has overturned a lot of its opinions in the last few decades.
What I have heard is that dietary cholesterol is nowhere near as bad as it was once believed to be.
The last I heard, the ratio of total cholesterol to HDLs is much more important than total cholesterol - but total cholesterol is still an independent risk factor. Also, dietary cholesterol "generally" has little effect on your ratio, but does affect total cholesterol when it gets beyond certain levels.
I'd definitely want to know of any research showing that the cholesterol in eggs increases HDL levels more than total levels.

Thanks for your succession of comments.

I can't find the studies supporting my assertion

I'm just back from a trip to the mall for coffees. While there I decided to try an email to the Education Team within the Coronary Care Unit of the hospital that implanted a stent in my heart about 15 years ago. I will explicitly ask about any recent research into dietary cholesterol, and specifically the type that eggs contain. Hopefully, I'll be able to post my enquiry and their reply here later.

The last time I researched this was about 6 years ago. Medical opinions can change a lot in that period of time.
I clearly recall two things I found from reputable sources at that time.
1. The American Center for Disease Control had some basic information pages about cholesterol on its website. There were a few decorative photos. I'm sure the reason for the photo of a plate with some fried eggs and bacon was intended to suggest "This may be dangerous", not "We recommend this".
2. The website of the Berkeley Medical School (among the highest ranked medical schools in America) had a recommendation that dietary cholesterol be limited to an average of 300 mg for most people, but 200 mg for those with any high risk factor. [Roughly speaking, 3 serves of 100 mg of meats is a long way short of 300 mg of dietary cholesterol, but two serves of meat and one egg yolk will put you just over.]

The consensus seemed to be that an egg a day is safe for most people

That was definitely the "consensus" the last time I checked, with the qualification that some now think the recommendation should be bit lower.

although given the further information about your health, you don't qualify as 'most people'.

I strongly doubt anyone has ever said I "qualify as 'most people' " about anything! :-) Perhaps, relative poverty? :(
Certainly, no doctor has ever said that when talking about the health of my CV system.

personally I regard eggs as safe and I will continue to eat as many as I want when I want.

I would say some people may safely eat several eggs per day, for others any more than one per second day may be unsafe.
For growing children of poor parents in Third World countries I'd consider them the closest thing they'll get to a blessing from God!
My recommendation to you about whether it is wise to continue eating a lot of eggs would be this:
Ask your doctor whether it is a reasonable precaution for you to start taking a low dose of statins. If they say you don't need it, keep on doing what is working for your metabolism. If they say yes, I would try to limit my consuption of egg yolks to at most one per day.

BTW, I never use whole eggs in cooking. I substitute two tablespoons of cooking oil plus the egg while in any recipe that uses eggs.

Latest research shows that free radicals actually play a vital role in human physiology. Loading up on antioxidants lowers your cancer risk up to a certain point, after which it increases again. You can consume too many antioxidants :(

AW! FUCK!
Can you identify any studies supporting that assertion?
I'll ask about that too in my letter to the Education Team.

[mechanisms that cause strokes and heart attacks] can be the same but they can also be very different.

Actually, I do not care about the mechanisms.
Do you have any comment on whether the risk factors may be different?

BTW, may I wish you a happy and healthy new year. :-)

I have no idea what the 'optimum' dose might be.

I suspect that the ideal dosage varies a lot between individuals to the point that a dosage that might increase the likelihood of cancer for one person might actually cause vitamin E deficiency on another. As will all foods and supplements, the ideal dosage likely depends on many factors and in some cases even identical twins might have different needs.

Vitamin E supplements

AH! That explains the mystery.
My opinion about nutrient supplements is DON'T! - unless you have a specific reason for not relying on getting adequate intakes from natural foods.

Trust me, I researched these things VERY thoroughly. I assume you regard me of being capable of becoming quite obsessive when I set about trying to make somebody here's life a misery. :-) NOW, try to imagine how obsessive I was when I thought I needed to research something carefully to protect my own life!

This list may not be complete, but I think it's pretty close. These are the only reasons I can think of why someone should consider taking any nutrient supplements, rather than relying on getting everything they need from an adequate variety of natural foods:
* Women who menstruate might need extra Iron
* Pregnant and lactating women may need a variety of things, but almost certainly folates
* People over 50, more so for women, should consider extra Vitamin D to preserve their bone density (broken bones among the elderly are often fatal :(
* I can be difficult to get adequate folates, but avoid high-dose supplements. [In Australia some brands sell both 0.5 mg and 5 mg supplements. I consider the high-dose versions quite dangerous]
* Various types of vegetarian/vegan diets may require some supplements, and I'd probably recommend fish oil

Someone like me needs supliments. I don't eat fish or vegetables, and not many fruits.
I take a multi, fish oil, CoQ10, D, and Turmeric. Turmeric is a natural anti-inflamatory.

It has occurred to me I have been overzealous in some of my comments here. I did an enormous amount of research, but it was mostly on the "essential nutrients" and their optimal levels, and not much on nonessential nutrients that may provide various benefits.

My off-the-cuff comments about the supplements you listed are:
Fish oil: it is a natural food, even if it comes packaged in a capsule. If you're eating actual fish, then keep on taking those. There are several different types of omega-3 fatty acids that are very beneficial and the only place to get them is in oil in, or from, fish.
CoQ10: nonessential, but there are reasons I've forgotten why some people should take it as a supplement.
Vitamin D: the one essential nutrient I'd happily recommend any oldie may take as a supplement
Turmeric: I forgot about that one. Wonderful stuff. Along with garlic, a food everyone should be trying to consume quite a lot of. The taste can be extreme, so the natural food inside a capsule is a great idea.
Multi-vitamin: DON'T! Eat your broccoli, Jimmy ... and those carrots too. They're good for you. But, if you refuse to do the sensible thing, then taking the damn multi-vitamin seems like the least stupid alternative.

I know someone with severe arthritis. He takes a teaspoon (I think) of turmeric every day ... and swears by its benefits.

This list may not be complete, but I think it's pretty close.

Useful but peeps do need to look at their personal situation.

For about 14 years I have been prescribed a drug which has all sorts of limitations. I knew it blocked vitamin B6 but, thanks to this thread I discover that I should have been avoiding tea, caffeines, chocolate ....In addition it reduces the levels of many minerals.
Life is too short so I simply take a multivit

The consensus seemed to be that an egg a day is safe for most people, although given the further information about your health, you don't qualify as 'most people'.

For the laymen like most/all of us medical opinion seems to change as fast as a whore drops her knickers.

Eggs c a n be dangerous for the elderly or those with impaired resistance to disease (or so "they" said) whilst uncooked eggs (as in some delicacies) are even more dangerous(though I haven't had problems yet and my resistance is definitely impaired)

Think of the great wine debate; it's good for you; no it isn't - never drink wine; red wine is good for you; no it isn't; red wine made in a specified manner is safe - and that is the latest I have heard

The French placed an outright total ban on a specified aniseed type drink, I suspect because they thought it made people mad. That drink is now legal again.

I think I am more likely to die of the stress this doctors' debate causes (or my own hand as a result of that stress)than of egg or wine poisoning

uncooked eggs (as in some delicacies) are even more dangerous

The risk is food poisoning from salmonella. It very rarely kills, but you may feel awful for 12-24 hours.

It would be interesting to know the comparative dementia rates for overpopulated countries like England ...

AW! FUCK!

England (where you live) population density 424/sq.km
Java (where I live) population density 1,121/sq.km

England (where you live) population density 424/sq.km

Java (where I live) population density 1,121/sq.km

I doubt if it has been done but surely those figures should be calculated on habitable area. Looking at England I would guess more than 15% of the area is effectively uninhabitable.

Awnlee jawking wrote

It would be interesting to know the comparative dementia rates for overpopulated countries like England ...

I'm not convinced that dementia is directly related to population density. I suggest that ability to reach old age, food types and lifestyle are more relevant as well as availability of places to dump dementia sufferers. In overpopulated countries would they get the same life sustaining care?

overpopulated countries like England and Japan compared to underpopulated countries like New Zealand and Canada.

How do you determine if countries are over or under populated? And most people live in cities in all of the countries mentioned above. In Canada and New Zeal and Enthusiasm the cities tend to be further apart than in England and Japan, and smaller. But all countries have lands with relatively few people and cities with lots of them. I suspect diet and cultural issues affect dementia rates more than population. Isolation may affect the rate of dementia. Friends and relatives may help stave it off. And either help you live longer or make it seem that way.

The case studies of the victims all had something in common - they thought they were doing the right thing by not consuming sugary food or drinks.

Thanks. I start almost every day with two "sugary drinks". The skim milk in my lattes contains just under 50 g of sugar per litre, in the form of lactose. Compare that with sugary soft drinks which typically contain just over 100 g/L.

The case studies of the victims all had something in common - they thought they were doing the right thing by not consuming sugary food or drinks.

It took 24 hours for my 'Oh! That is interesting' moment to arrive!
That does anecdotally support the 'use it or lose it' theory. :-)

my 'Oh! That is interesting' moment

I had such a moment that may have saved my life about 8 years ago. I mean that literally! Before that moment the chances I would die within 8 years from a heart attack or stroke were significant.

I read a report on a short medical study. There were only a couple of dozen participants and it only lasted 2 weeks. Their cholesterol was measured before and after a two-week period on a diet with just over 50% of calories coming from fats, mostly from avocados, but importantly, largely unsaturated fats, not saturated ones.

I forget the actual results. Those certainly included substantial improvements in the ratio of total to HDL cholesterol, and I think, reductions in total cholesterol too.

That's when it hit me. The simple misconception that almost killed me was that unsaturated fats were less bad than saturated and trans. The fact is they are beneficial, even up to high levels, while the saturated are harmful.

It is usually recommended that fats comprise about 25-30% of someone's energy intake. I will happily go beyond 30% - but I am always very conscious of keeping the proportion of saturated fats I consume as low as practicable.

There is one danger with diets containing a lot of total fats. Fats deliver 9 calories of energy per gram compared to 4 from protein and carbohydrates (which include sugars). If you change to a higher-fat diet without reducing the quantities of food you eat, you'll tend to put on weight. I did not find that adjustment hard to make.

My total cholesterol before this discover was never below 5.0 (200). Since then it has almost never been above 4.0 (160), and my HDLs have barely ever moved from 1.0 (40). There's something in my metabolism that causes that, but my typical readings before and after have LDLs almost halved with HDLs unchanged. :-)

Personally I suspect that small amounts of saturated fat are beneficial

EVERY food that has some naturally occurring has some saturated and some unsaturated fats.

ALMOST every plant foods has 10-20% of its fats saturated. The ONLY plants which higher percentages of saturated that are not safe because their total fats are insignificant are palm oil (90%), and cocoa butter and coconut (60%). I have to be VERY CAREFUL of palm oil in SE Asia - it's very cheap - but all you'd ever need to do is check food labels for the percentage of fats that are saturated getting above about 20%.

Cocoa butter (chocolate) is okay if you limit yourself to a small amount in any one day. At low levels the antioxidants it has will outweight any damage from the additional saturated fats.

The only real problem with any plant foods is that manufacturing processes can turn healthy fats into unhealthy ones. Margarines are not as unhealthy as butter, but they are VERY MUCH more unhealthy than the natural oils used to make them. Solid fats at room temperature = solid cholesterol on the walls of your blood vessels!

Among animal foods rough percentages of saturated fats are:
Dairy milk: 60%
Pork: 50%
Lamb: 45%
Beef: 40%
Chicken: 35%
Seafoods: 25-30%

But often far more important is what percentage of the foods is fat, and where is it. With pork, lamb, and beef you can trim visible fat - which has a much higher percentage of fat than the muscle - but there's still a lot of of fat inside the muscle. Kobe beef is delicious; it is so because it has been bred to have a lot of fat inside the muscle.

With birds you can remove a large percentage of total fat by removing the skin. The way I calculate what is acceptable in my diet, I consider four chicken drumsticks with skin removed equally as bad as one with the skin. There's not much difference between chicken and duck, but turkey has so little fat in the muscle I would not be concerned about eating it every meal.

Likewise with other "game" animals. Rabbit, buffalo, and - sorry, Skippy, it's you or me - kangaroo meat are all basically safe to eat. The animals we evolved to include in our diet were not unhealthy for us. It's the way we've selectively bred domesticated animals which has made them so dangerous.

Dairy fat is extremely bad for two reasons. The percentage of saturated fats is VERY high, but also it has a lot of very short saturated fats. Fats all have an active end and some length of carbon and hydrogen attached to it. The number of carbons in naturally occurring fats varies from 4 to about 26. In plants almost all are 18-22. Longer than 22 are rare, but beneficial, and only exist in fish. Dairy fat has a lot that are only 6-10. When these short molecules are used to make cholesterol they tend to make the HDL break up more quickly into LDLs.

BUT ... None of this really matters if you were born with the right metabolism. If your cholesterol measurements are good and you don't have any of the main risk factors (diabetes, smoking, family history, high blood pressure, obesity), ignore everything I said above and keep on doing whatever you're doing now.

it wasn't very scientific but it does raise the issue of whether saturated fats have been unfairly demonised.

I would say, "NO!"

I think the links are proven for: saturated fats = increases in total/HDL cholesterol ratios = increasing deaths heart attack & stroke.

I don't think I've said anything above that is incorrect, but I would concede almost all of my extensive research was into unprocessed foods. I rarely eat any processed foods at all, except bread. BTW, my diastolic blood pressure dropped from mid-90s to mid-60s when I did that. I attribute that almost entirely to the virtual elimination of added salt from my diet.

Perhaps I should only have said the fats in margarine are not as bad as in butter. What else manufacturers of margarine do, beyond turning good fats into bad fats, I cannot really comment it.

It is the extreme heat in manufacturing processes that I believe is most unhealthy. AFAIK, trans fats hardly exist at all in natural foods. It's mostly manufacturing processes that create them.

Are trans fats inadequately demonised? That would not surprise me at all, and could well be the reason for some apparent anomalies.

Personally, 'when the revolution comes' I'd gladly put executives of the three massive food conglomerates in the queue just behind those from cigarette companies. :-)

Ross at Play

Margarines are not as unhealthy as butter

I suspect the opposite is true because of all the crap they put in margarine.

Awnlee; I think we have to be careful here. Margarine is (from memory) a product of van den Burgh and I haven't seen it in the shops for quite a few decades. Yes - it was not healthy. Are you thinking of the plethora of spreads which adorn the supermarket shelves - some bad, some worse and nicknamed marge? I have one in front of me which CLAIMS 12.7% saturated fats. I have had others with 20%, 13.8%, 8%, 18% - they range widely

I admit to being confused. Olive oil is said to be healthy but I have Italian at 14.7% saturated fat, French at 15% and cooking oil (actually rapeseed oil) at 7.3%. There is a big red warning against the rapeseed oil - High! My wife has sunflower seed oil at 6.2% with no warning! Unsalted butter 49.3% unsaturates!

I acknowledge the comments about chicken skim being fat laden. However, a well known British female chef did a TV programme during the run up to Christmas in which she massages pure butter into the turkey before putting olive oil on it. Now, I like the skin all crackly like pork but was she responsible? It did taste good. Generally I try to avoid all sorts of added fat, accepting that raw materials do contain various fats; life IS a terminal medical condition.

A last question for the experts; people from a mountainous area in western Asia have the longest average lifespan - 100 years being common. Their principal diet item is yoghourt; sensible in terms of fat? (I don't like yoghourt)

Olive oil is said to be healthy but

Not all unsaturated fats are equally "good". :(

Intuitively, you'd think if saturated fats are generally bad, and poly-unsaturated fats are generally good, then mono-unsaturated fats would be somewhere in between. That is not so.

Fat molecules have long branching chains of Carbon atoms with Hydrogen atoms hanging of those. They can be weird shapes. The ones that are dead-straight, are called trans fats and known to be unhealthy. The particular shape of the most common mono-unsaturated fat in olive oil seems to be particularly good. I don't think anyone knows why. Avocados are exactly the same shape.

You may have heard of Omega-3 fats, which are thought to be particularly good. That's a similar thing. There's something in their shape that makes them better, but I don't think anyone understands when.

The think I am cautious of with all spreads (substitutes for butter) is that high heat is used in the manufacturing process and that causes some bonds to become saturated. I am certain they are not as healthy as the natural oils used to make them. I do not use them for that reason, but I cannot be sure whether they are a little, or a lot worse. If the label says less than 20% saturated fats, they are probably merely less good than natural oils.

However, a well known British female chef did a TV programme during the run up to Christmas in which she massages pure butter into the turkey before putting olive oil on it. Now, I like the skin all crackly like pork but was she responsible? It did taste good. Generally I try to avoid all sorts of added fat

I DO NOT do that.
I ADD FAT all the time - as long as it is a natural vegetable oil.
As long as you're not gaining weight, I think added vegetable oils are BENEFICIAL!
For that recipe, I'd have replaced the butter with more olive oil.

people from a mountainous area in western Asia have the longest average lifespan - 100 years being common. Their principal diet item is yoghourt; sensible in terms of fat? (I don't like yoghourt)

I strongly suspect the milk for their yogurt is not coming from dairy cows. The explanation for their longevity would then be some animal fats that aren't particularly bad plus a lot of other things in their lifestyle that are beneficial.

Cholesterol is not made in your body with blood. It's adsorbed from what you eat like Ross pointed out with a better diet.

Cholesterol IS made by the body, in the liver. All vegans would die if had to rely on what is in our food. The amount we consume has little effect on our cholesterol levels until our consumption gets quite high. That won't happen from normal quantities of meats, but the amount in one egg yolk every day gets you quite close to the amount that will increase cholesterol levels.

Red meat helps in the production of red blood cells

My conclusions were that was a myth created by advertisers.

I developed a very detailed spreadsheet to calculate everything. My requirements were based on this publication. The contents of foods were based on this US Dept Agriculture database. Getting adequate iron was never a problem, although for pre-menopausal women it might have been.

Cholesterol IS made by the body, in the liver.

While the majority of the Cholesterol produced by the human body is produced in the liver, every cell in your body is capable of making cholesterol.

https://health.howstuffworks.com/diseases-conditions/cardiovascular/cholesterol/difference-between-ldl-and-hdl-cholesterol1.htm

every cell in your body is capable of making cholesterol.

I wasn't aware of that.
My understanding is that the liver releases cholesterol in entangled clumps, the "good" HDLs. Those are broken down and used to by the body as required. When HDLs are created using saturated fats, especially trans, those clumps break apart more quickly. My analogy is a clump of crooked sticks in a river will tend to stay together longer than straight sticks.
The cholesterol made outside the liver would be individual molecules, the "bad" LDLs. Dietary cholesterol would certainly enter the body that way too.
I don't understand the research suggesting dietary cholesterol increases total levels, but not the ratio. I think the liver must be continually sweeping up LDLs and releasing them as HDLs - so what then affects your health is how quickly they are being broken down in the body.

Is there anything you'd like to add to that? Anything contrary you insist on saying. :-)

Is there anything you'd like to add to that?

My understanding is that only the cholesterol from the liver and/or dietary cholesterol shows up in the bloodstream. The little bit that is produced outside the liver is for immediate use by the cell that produced it.

Anything contrary you insist on saying. :-)

Nope.

@ Me
Anything contrary you insist on saying. :-)

@ You
Nope.

"A new year's resolution?" he typed hopefully. :-)

May I suggest you ask your wife: do you know you are getting an adequate intake of all 20 amino acids?

I expect she does know, but vegans do need an adequate variety of foods to ensure they are getting enough of them all.

The total amount of protein humans need is actually quite small, only about 5% of total calorie intake. We have evolved to require all 20 of the amino acids, the different types of protein. Different families of plants have evolved to only use different subsets of those twenty. For example, some may not use three of the twenty, while others may not use a different five.

If I recall correctly, the rule to ensure you're getting enough of them all is something like you need foods from any two out of three food groups, and those groups are grains, legumes, and nuts.

It's really not a problem if you know you need to do something, but if vegans can become malnourished if they are not aware of this, and they don't eat foods from a correct selection of food groups.

She's new to being vegan. She's working with our doctor and following his guidance.

My job is done :-)