The grey matter in your brain is mostly cholesterol. I've personally lost 10 pounds in 10 days eating a high fat, low carb diet, with light excercise about 3 days a week. Kerrygold is my #1 choice for butter, because it comes from grass-fed cows.
Separately, I don't know if I understand your point. To me you are saying that because the grey matter in our brains is made of cholesterol that means we should eat more cholesterol and your recommendation for how to get more cholesterol is by using grass fed butter.
Did I correctly state your point?
The reality is that you can have a diet that is relatively high in fat and still lose weight, just as you can have a diet that is low in fat and still put on weight. As for cholesterol, it isn’t a toxin that should be eradicated from your diet - it’s something that just needs to be eaten in moderation (perhaps with butter on toast for breakfast, rather than fried chicken for lunch).
Studies show that you generally need a level of < 150 mg/dL to avoid heart disease. That's quite a bit below the average "normal" level. But today's average is NOT physiologically optimal.
Sure, but show me where cholesterol intake correlates to LDL.
At some point someone managed to convince the public subconscious that food fat = body fat, and that food cholesterol = body cholesterol. And it's a ridiculous notion.
I don't eat protein to become protein.
As for the dietary cholesterol itself, see here: http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549...
"Serum cholesterol concentration is clearly increased by added dietary cholesterol but the magnitude of predicted change is modulated by baseline dietary cholesterol. The greatest response is expected when baseline dietary cholesterol is near zero, while little if any, measurable change would be expected once baseline dietary cholesterol was > 400-500 mg/d." (That is 2 eggs or 400 g beef etc.)
You conveniently fail to mention that it increases HDL and LDL in proportion, when a common marker for heart disease is the LDL/HDL ratio. [1]
> Animal products are basically the only products to contain dietary cholesterol. So there you have at least a strong correlation.
No, that's a non-sequitor. It would have been a correlation if a higher LDL/HDL ratio was contributed to dietary cholesterol, which it isn't. [2]
From your link:
> High-density lipoprotein (HDL) was consistently increased in most studies, with HDL2 increasing more than HDL3 after cholesterol consumption (42,43). Interestingly, the increase in serum HDL cholesterol re- sulting from cholesterol feeding appears to be greater when the background diet is high in polyunsaturated fatty acids (29). .....
> These subtle changes in lipoprotein composition and concentration-apart from changes in serum total or LDL cholesterol concentrations may help explain recent epidemiologic findings that implicate dietary cholesterol as an independent risk factor for coronary disease after fasting serum total cholesterol and other known cardiovascular risk factors have been controlled for (67, 68). However, because changes in LDL cholesterol accounted for most of the changes in total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol will be the focus ofthe remaining discussion.
Even the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee doesn't state that cholesterol over consumption is of no concern. [3]
While dietary carbohydrates don't raise cholesterol, they do lower HDL, thus raising the LDL/HDL ratio. [4]
If you'd like, I'll admit that eating animal fats can increase LDL, but it's not the whole picture.
Some bonus sources for low carb (high fat) diets improving cardiovascular health: [5] [6]
But as I've read a lot of them, there's also opposing studies, like: [7]
My point is: approach this from an attempt to find truth, not from trying to prove that animal fat is bad, because it really shines through which one it is.
[1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22037012
[2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24075505
[3] https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015-BINDER/meeting7/do...
[4] https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2015/02/25/ask-...
[5] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24075505
Even so, check out this element of its conclusions:
"The greatest response is expected when baseline dietary cholesterol is near zero, while little, if any, measurable change would be expected once baseline dietary cholesterol was > 400-500 mg/d. People desiring maximal reduction of serum cholesterol by dietary means may have to reduce their dietary cholesterol to minimal levels (< 100-150 mg/d) to observe (even) modest serum cholesterol reductions while persons eating a diet relatively rich in cholesterol would be expected to experience little change in serum cholesterol after adding even large amounts of cholesterol to their diet."
It didn't even differentiate HDL from LDL, let alone the actually harmful subsets like small-particle LDL.
My point was that people see the “no cholesterol” message and start eliminating cholesterol from their diet...but then they end up replacing all the sources of fat in their diet with carbohydrates, or in some cases end up not getting enough of some nutrients which are often found in foods that are relatively high in cholesterol (e.g. iron or calcium).
The message about cholesterol should be more nuanced - less “don’t eat cholesterol”, more “don’t consume more than X mg”.
When you eat less, the body adapts by working more energy efficient. So you eat 10% less, meaning the body can use only 90% of the normal energy supply. It react by using only 85%, storing that extra 5% in case things get worse later on. So the body expects that later on, supply could drop to 70% or much less. Then those stored 5% are really useful.
However, when you go back to that original 100%, before the weight loss, meaning that you should go back to that weight, the body still stays in 5% save modus. The effect is that you gain weight in the long run, and it will be harder to lose weight the next time.
NB: the 5% example used here is just a guess to describe the way this works. I have no idea if this is 5% or 20%, and I suppose this is personal, depends on your history etc.
I'm thinking about doing the keto diet myself. So I'm not against it. I'm just aware of the danger of rebound, the jojo-effect.
>"It react by using only 85%, storing that extra 5% in case things get worse later on. So the body expects that later on, supply could drop to 70% or much less. Then those stored 5% are really useful."
This doesn't sound right.
On your first point, yes. Most diets work, as long as they fit with your persona and schedule. Anything you feel comfortable with and can stick to. Just by "doing" a diet, you end up being a lot more conscious of what you put in yourself.
When someone asks me for advice, it's mostly the same:
* Write down everything you eat for two weeks, weigh yourself before and after. The initial point was to measure your actual TDEE, but people invaribaly end up eating less and losing weight during those two weeks because they don't want to write down "half a package of Ritz crackers" in their log.
* Take an honest before pic. When you think you've stopped progressing after a few weeks after the initial burst, being able to compare backwards is invaluable as a motivator.
> When you eat less, the body adapts by working more energy efficient. So you eat 10% less, meaning the body can use only 90% of the normal energy supply. It react by using only 85%, storing that extra 5% in case things get worse later on. So the body expects that later on, supply could drop to 70% or much less. Then those stored 5% are really useful.
This is however not anything I'm comfortable believing before I read it from reputable sources. From a strict weight standpoint, I've rarely seen anything that doesn't align to your TDEE mainly differing by your weight and muscle/body ratio, unless chemically induced.
There was a recent study on alcohol in this scenario, but even that mostly indicated the effects on hunger, not on energy expenditure: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/behindtheheadlines...
While I'd say that the keto diet works, it's not very practical, when accounting for eating in restaurants, socially (other people cooking for you, you cooking for others), etc.
What is your goal? Just losing weight? Being healthier? Body recomposition?
What is your life today? Could you cut out something you indulge in now? Alcohol, snacks, sugar in your drinks? Would you be content in cutting those out?
Do you work out? Could you see yourself doing that a few times a week? What would you enjoy doing? Hard 7 minute work-outs daily? Fun climbing/swimming/rowing/hiking? Lifting in gyms?
TLDR; Whatever diet/routine works is whatever you can stick with. I hate running/endurance training, so HIIT and calisthenics is what I've had most fun with. Would love climbing if I didn't hate heights :)
I just do not want to record a snack of Doritos (100s of calories) versus a snack of a carrot (30kCal)
Do something that creates a habit, something that you don't have to put effort in. That will continue to work.
It's not just that the cows are grass-fed, it's to do with the lushness of the grass they eat.
Super green (why? because it rains soooo much!), which introduces more carotene into the cows diet.
Compare the color of Kerrygold to regular butter, it's WAAAAY more yellow.
Example: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24703903
There's however tons of this. Most keto bloggers will try to tell you that increasing LDL-C is okay for different reasons (depending on who you read). That is however just not true. The link between LDL-C and heart disease is very strong and has been proven over decades.
All I could find was this (although it doesn't seem like they were checking ketone levels) https://www.researchgate.net/publication/311279409_Visceral_...
Do you have a study that shows ketogenic diets are indeed better for weight loss than other diets?
I merely said that it works. People on a keto diet often say something along the lines of "Oh, keto is such a good diet. I lost 20 pounds with it". And I believe them. But that should not be the only measure of how good a diet is for you. Weight is important but not everything.
From your link:
> These differences were not significant at 24 months.
-----------
> and increasing insulin resistance.
I'm going to need to insist on sources on this.
As for the cholesterol, the study I linked was probably not a very good example - sorry. Saturated fat does raise cholesterol however - so unless you are on a vegan low carb diet, you will see it rise. (IF you keep your weight steady, weight loss almost always lowers cholesterol)
The low carb group lost 6.2 kg of fat. That is a lot. I do wonder what happens if you look at insulin sensitivity when weight and fat mass remains mostly neutral. I do not know if there are studies done on that (in humans). I will have a look around.
Agreed.
> The low carb group lost 6.2 kg of fat. That is a lot. I do wonder what happens if you look at insulin sensitivity when weight and fat mass remains mostly neutral. I do not know if there are studies done on that (in humans). I will have a look around.
Sure, but if it's purely weight dependant, then high fat isn't a factor. And if it's not, why did it increase sensitivity?
I'm not trying to say that fat is the one solution to everything, but I'm definitely saying it's not the one cause for everything. I can cite multiple studies showing the various detriments of carbs, and likewise the pitfalls of fat, but when the circumstances are key, then isn't that simply the answer?
Don't be afraid of butter and eggs, don't be afraid of rice and carrots. Eat everything in moderation. Maybe stay away from sugar and deep fried treats?