I don't think Esselstyn is correct. There are no good studies showing meat/animal fat cause heart attacks or strokes, it's just the PUFAs - which are plant based.
Potatoes don't grow well when it's too cold, and they get mold easily. Animals you can just keep alive and milk/slaughter. Plus, I tried the potato diet, and I didn't lose any w…
I don't think Esselstyn is correct. There are no good studies showing meat/animal fat cause heart attacks or strokes, it's just the PUFAs - which are plant based.
Potatoes don't grow well when it's too cold, and they get mold easily. Animals you can just keep alive and milk/slaughter. Plus, I tried the potato diet, and I didn't lose any weight on it.
Despite having tried HCLF quite extensively, I've yet to see any benefit except potentially the faster LA depletion. I haven't lost weight on any of my attempts, and they are inferior to keto in most other ways (ease, cost, quality of life, digestion, subjective feeling, fat loss).
I've yet to read the Winston Price book, so I can't comment on that. Although from what I hear of his stuff, I am skeptical that his conclusions are correct, like you are.
I enjoy dialoguing with you. Everyone has their own biases, their own views which they then apply confirmation bias. I am now biased to plant based solely, and you are biased to keto. I am not saying you are ‘wrong’ and my thinking is ‘superior.’
One must be willing to throw out a long held cherished belief if one wants to get to greater truths. I have thrown out most of my previous beliefs regarding major tenants of ‘christianity,’ as well as my taught views of physics and space/time.
Regarding Esselstyn. I believe his study was well done, with the 36 participants whom dropped out were thus a perfect control group. How did the 164 fare compared to the control group of 36? How many events did the 164 have in the study period (and the 5 year follow up) verses the 36? What if he is right? That changing the food virtually eliminated cardiovascular events (there was only a single event in the 164, and this was in a period of cheating, as admitted to by that man). You said “I didn’t think Esselstyn is correct” - yet did you know these details I wrote about above? If you did not, then you discounted the study without actually reading it, showing confirmation bias. (admittedly I show my bias by intensely studying this study). Your next sentence shows the blinding effect. “There are NO good studies” … you used an absolute, which infers you yourself did an evaluation of ALL studies available, and threw out ALL studies based on design flaws or other good reasons. We both know you did not do that, since there are so many studies over the last 150 years, and many more produced daily.
Regarding keto. Is there ANY good long term studies (over 1 year) on large numbers (over 1000) of people doing complete keto? My criteria is not that demanding. The Eskimo, the Masai, are not well studied groups. The digging up of frozen Eskimo shows atherosclerosis even those in their late 30s and early 40s.
Regarding keto for you. Yes, you are correct, you know how you felt, and you know your performance. I ask, how much did you weigh before ketosis, and how much did you weigh after? You said fat loss was one of your benefits.
Do you acknowledge the n=1 (actually n=2) of my dad and his kidney function?
Potatoes and the north. In Canada, the western provinces grow very large amounts of pototoes, even though these are snow bound for 6 months a year, and the winter temperatures often are minus 20 ³C (-4F) and lower. I believe that counters your assertion that “potatoes don’t grow well when it’s too cold”.
Fat loss. We need to have a calorie deficit, in either plant based or keto based lifestyles. Neither results in fat loss if we are in a caloric excess.
There are now what, hundreds of thousands of internet people doing keto/carnivore? There are no crazy rates of heart attacks or anything like that. Dave Feldman is explicitly studying this with regard to LDL.
There seems to be in fact only 1 single carnivore who ever got a heart attack, at least critics keep bringing him up, lol. And he was only doing it for half a year IIRC.
Do you have a link to the Esselstyn study? I'll read it. I admit I don't believe vegans. I've interacted with too many vegans that were dishonest. I don't believe you can be an idealist vegan and be honest about the health consequences. I just haven't seen it. But happy to read that study.
Before keto I wasn't tracking my weight, as it had gotten significantly over 300lbs and I had to wear 6XL pants or something. I barely fit into an airplane seat.
With keto, I lost over 100lbs. Then I gained most of it back, but this time tracked it and it stayed around 300lbs. I know I must've been fatter before, because this time I never got to as large a pant size and never had trouble in airplane seats.
Now, still keto, I'm back down to 220-230lbs, size 34-36 jeans, size L t-shirts, feeling great.
Does that answer your question?
Sure re. your dad's kidney function, I'm not saying one cannot be healthy on a HCLF diet. In fact, that's Kempner's whole deal. I wrote about him recently.
I disagree on the calorie deficit. By definition a caloric deficit MEASURED fat loss, it doesn't cause it. It's like saying miles cause travel.
"After the incredible results from Dr. Esselstyn’s original small heart disease study, a second larger study was conducted in 2014. This study consisted of 198 patients:
119 had undergone previous coronary intervention (stents or bypass surgery)
44 had previous heart attacks
Participants were asked to follow a strict whole food plant based diet, and results were monitored over 4 years. 177 of the 198 participants adhered to the WFPB diet.
Outcomes for the 177 adherent participants:
99.4% avoided any major cardiac event (including heart attack and stroke)
Thanks, I'll check it out. Just from what you posted, my intuition is that the entire benefit is from 1. reducing PUFA and 2. not swamping. I'd suspect similar improvements if they were put on an ex150-style keto diet.
This was a plant based, whole foods, no added oil/fat, with 6 servings of salad greens a day.
My friend, I showed you the most amazing study the proved heart attacks and strokes are caused by food. The protocol is simple and clear.
--
Walter Kempner was no added oil, but there was not the dramatic improvements in CVD outcomes in any studies related to the 60 years at Duke University while the Kempner protocol was active there.
Eskimos in Alaska had high CVD "We focused our attention on other risk factors that might explain the current high rates of CVD in this population." (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2981096/). This should be your ideal group. High access to animal fats. Yet this group has higher CVD, which is opposite of your hypothesis.
--
Do you have any studies supporting your hypothesis?
--
Another great population study is Finland in the 1970s. Peka Puska. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWPMs8TcBE&pp=ygUSUGVrYSBQdXNrYSBmaW5sYW5k This population was eating large amounts of animal fats, and small amounts of seed oils. Thus low PUFA oils. This group should have low CVD rates. See if your hypothesis is verified.
So compatible w/ my hypothesis that it's the linoleic acid. I don't doubt heart attacks & strokes are caused by food. I'm just not sure which component of the food it is.
From the Eskimo study:
> In 1975, Dyerberg et al. surveyed Greenland Eskimos,1 found low rates of reported cardiovascular disease (CVD)
This one seems to use data from 2000-2004. I can confirm from my travels that modern Eskimo food is the worst type of SAD trash you can imagine. Everything is deep fried.
I also suspect high omega-3 intake might not be as beneficial as some people think, it might even be pretty bad at those levels.
Also apparently 56% of the studied Eskimos are current smokers, and 30% are former smokers.
They seem to have a lot of strokes, which I believe omega-3 is implicated in. The study seems to say they have low rates of myocardial infarctions?
> The low rate of MI is difficult to interpret from prevalence data; it could represent high initial mortality or rapid interventions upon presentation. The pattern of relatively high stroke rates also has been seen in other Inuit groups.
From what it sounds like, the chain-smoking modern Eskimos still had way lower CVD than average Americans.
I don't think this study is a slam dunk in showing anything bad about animal foods. Modern day Alaskan Eskimos are in many ways just modern Americans, and in many other ways way unhealthier and probably even less suited to that sort of diet.
That they smoke way more and still have much lower rates of CVD than the average American is actually impressive, though of course it seems much higher than their rates 50 years ago.
I honestly think that fat and oil are the problems. These do not exist in nature, except in rare circumstances.
[1] marine mammals, the added fat permits them to have temperature insulation
[2] northern mammals. They add layers of fat as temperature insulation and a source of calories for the winter months
[3] hippopotamus. They 'appear' to have a large layer of fat, though it could be very thick skin. I checked, They are not fat. it is a thick skin and layers of muscle.
--
What 'foods' are high in fat? (not exhaustive list)
[1] nuts
[2] avacados
[3] seeds
[4] olives
[5] coconuts
--
In short, all animals in the wild are lean, with the above exceptions. Only modern agriculture permits large crops of high fat foods, which can then be processed to extract oil.
Only human raised animals get fat, not wild animals.
--
One cannot pick a piece of fat off a tree, or dig it up from the ground. Fat and oil are not 'natural' whereas starches, sugars, and even protein are found in greater abundance in the wild.
--
Saturated fat is also not found in high amounts in wild animals or in plants. One has to work hard to get any types of fats, including saturated fats. Even wild pigs are not that fat, and thus do not have that much saturated fats on them. Humans hunting these lean animals get a lot of protein, but not that much fat from these lean animals.
Wild cows & buffalo still have significant amounts of fat, even if they're not as fat as grain-fed animals. I suppose buffalo are "northern" animals. Cows don't do well in hot climates either.
For large parts of our evolutionary history, fats were widely available in the form of fatty megafauna. We just got done with 300k years of ice age when the agricultural revolution began.
And don't forget, in terms of calories, fat is 2.5x as energy dense as carbs or protein. And we can't eat much more than 30% protein for long.
I just don't see any way in which non-PUFA fats cause heart disease. The mechanism of CVD is oxidized fats. We know which fats oxidize the most.
I am in Asia now, and I can say that neither cows nor buffalo that eat 'free range' are fat. They are lean, have a good amount of muscle, and thick skin. The cows here are actually more durable than the caribou (these animals pull the plows but will die if left fully exposed to the sun). The cows can be left in the sun.
It's very possible that your PUFA fats causing damage theory is correct.
I propose that all fats are not natural, that all fats in nature are scarce, and all animals (except those I wrote about) are lean. Even saturated fats.
An interesting fact I learned about coconuts, is that rats do climb the trees and eat coconuts from the inside.
People whom eat high saturated fats should be very resistant to heart disease, as per your asserted theory. Finland ate very high saturated fats, and their heart disease was very high (see link to Peka Puska). This group would thus falsify said theory/hypothesis. (please refute, regarding the total saturated fats to PUFA fats of Finland in the 50s, 60's and early 70s)
It's not "high saturated fat" that makes people resistant to heart disease in my theory, it's low PUFA (specifically LA).
The Finns do not eat a low-PUFA diet.
Again, while grass-fed/wild animals aren't as fat as grain-fed ones, there is plenty of fat in a wild bison or other wild, big animals. And there were even more during the 300k years of ice age that directly preceeded the agricultural evolution.
So I think fats are quite "natural" in that sense, although not at every time in every place (e.g. maybe not in the tropics now).
I will admit, that I have done keto and plant based, and my weight did not go down.
--
One of the only times it went down, was when I was in strict calorie deficit. 500 calories a day, composing of two pieces of fruit and one small bag of beef jerky. I also did 3 hours (minimum) a day on an elliptical running machine in a nearby gym. In 6 months, I lost 1/3 of a pound a day, every single day. 10 pounds a month, 60 pounds over 6 months. Calories in - Calories out. I was working daily, and my mental focus was always good.
--
The other times my weight went down was when I water fasted. The weight always went down. I did 8, 10, 12, 12, 13, and 17 days of water fasting.
Like you, my weight always came back on. I was eating too much in my normal lifestyle, which showed me I have to change my daily caloric input. I decided to try to eat more water filled foods to reduce the total calories.
--
Like you, I have experimented. I have not lost weight doing plant based, whole foods, limited added oils, with no added salt. I did not lose weight doing keto either (I gained back any weight when I was not strict keto)
--
Now,
- I want to increase my daily activities.
- I want to get to sleep earlier (instead of asleep at 2 or 4 am, waking at 10-12 in the morning - its good to run my own business).
- I want to eat earlier in the day.
- I want to increase my whole foods sugar intake daily as a test (similar to Kempner's protocol, but mostly fruit, and brown sugar, and potatoes)
--
Caloric deficit measures intake of food. The term 'deficit' applies to being under the daily intake to maintain (as you well know). I want to eat less than I ate in the past which maintains my weight, and much less than what I ate to gain my current weight. Fat loss is the dependent variable related to caloric intake. The caloric intake does not measure fat loss/gain. A weight scale measures fat loss/gain compared to previous measurements. Calories taken in is independent, fat gain/loss is dependent on calories intake.
--
Keto and heart attacks. "no crazy rates of heart attacks" and " in fact only 1 single carnivore who ever got a heart attack". The fact you stated these absolutes suggest an ideologue (suggests). Please review Esselstyn, because this was focusing on people whom were having crazy rates of heart attacks. What are agreed upon markers for CVD? Most normal people are now saying that cholesterol is not a marker. So the ultimate 'marker' is people whom have had an event and survived.
Since Esselstyn's study only used the above marker for inclusion of participants, we know that all the people had CVD for heart and/or stroke. We can agree that these people had crazy rates that being 100%. Those that remained in the study, had a 99.6% reduction in actual CVD events. Not relative. Absolute.
The study group of 200 (Esselstyn did a first study on 20 people) is large enough to find the results relevant.
If you or I want to avoid having heart attacks, we can use this study to examine actual people with histories of what we want to avoid. The intervention was diet based. Those that stayed on the diet change had virtually 100% reduction/reversal of CVD. Change ones food results in reversal of CVD events.
I don't think Esselstyn is correct. There are no good studies showing meat/animal fat cause heart attacks or strokes, it's just the PUFAs - which are plant based.
Potatoes don't grow well when it's too cold, and they get mold easily. Animals you can just keep alive and milk/slaughter. Plus, I tried the potato diet, and I didn't lose any weight on it.
Despite having tried HCLF quite extensively, I've yet to see any benefit except potentially the faster LA depletion. I haven't lost weight on any of my attempts, and they are inferior to keto in most other ways (ease, cost, quality of life, digestion, subjective feeling, fat loss).
I've yet to read the Winston Price book, so I can't comment on that. Although from what I hear of his stuff, I am skeptical that his conclusions are correct, like you are.
I enjoy dialoguing with you. Everyone has their own biases, their own views which they then apply confirmation bias. I am now biased to plant based solely, and you are biased to keto. I am not saying you are ‘wrong’ and my thinking is ‘superior.’
One must be willing to throw out a long held cherished belief if one wants to get to greater truths. I have thrown out most of my previous beliefs regarding major tenants of ‘christianity,’ as well as my taught views of physics and space/time.
Regarding Esselstyn. I believe his study was well done, with the 36 participants whom dropped out were thus a perfect control group. How did the 164 fare compared to the control group of 36? How many events did the 164 have in the study period (and the 5 year follow up) verses the 36? What if he is right? That changing the food virtually eliminated cardiovascular events (there was only a single event in the 164, and this was in a period of cheating, as admitted to by that man). You said “I didn’t think Esselstyn is correct” - yet did you know these details I wrote about above? If you did not, then you discounted the study without actually reading it, showing confirmation bias. (admittedly I show my bias by intensely studying this study). Your next sentence shows the blinding effect. “There are NO good studies” … you used an absolute, which infers you yourself did an evaluation of ALL studies available, and threw out ALL studies based on design flaws or other good reasons. We both know you did not do that, since there are so many studies over the last 150 years, and many more produced daily.
Regarding keto. Is there ANY good long term studies (over 1 year) on large numbers (over 1000) of people doing complete keto? My criteria is not that demanding. The Eskimo, the Masai, are not well studied groups. The digging up of frozen Eskimo shows atherosclerosis even those in their late 30s and early 40s.
Regarding keto for you. Yes, you are correct, you know how you felt, and you know your performance. I ask, how much did you weigh before ketosis, and how much did you weigh after? You said fat loss was one of your benefits.
Do you acknowledge the n=1 (actually n=2) of my dad and his kidney function?
Potatoes and the north. In Canada, the western provinces grow very large amounts of pototoes, even though these are snow bound for 6 months a year, and the winter temperatures often are minus 20 ³C (-4F) and lower. I believe that counters your assertion that “potatoes don’t grow well when it’s too cold”.
Fat loss. We need to have a calorie deficit, in either plant based or keto based lifestyles. Neither results in fat loss if we are in a caloric excess.
There are now what, hundreds of thousands of internet people doing keto/carnivore? There are no crazy rates of heart attacks or anything like that. Dave Feldman is explicitly studying this with regard to LDL.
There seems to be in fact only 1 single carnivore who ever got a heart attack, at least critics keep bringing him up, lol. And he was only doing it for half a year IIRC.
Do you have a link to the Esselstyn study? I'll read it. I admit I don't believe vegans. I've interacted with too many vegans that were dishonest. I don't believe you can be an idealist vegan and be honest about the health consequences. I just haven't seen it. But happy to read that study.
Before keto I wasn't tracking my weight, as it had gotten significantly over 300lbs and I had to wear 6XL pants or something. I barely fit into an airplane seat.
With keto, I lost over 100lbs. Then I gained most of it back, but this time tracked it and it stayed around 300lbs. I know I must've been fatter before, because this time I never got to as large a pant size and never had trouble in airplane seats.
Now, still keto, I'm back down to 220-230lbs, size 34-36 jeans, size L t-shirts, feeling great.
Does that answer your question?
Sure re. your dad's kidney function, I'm not saying one cannot be healthy on a HCLF diet. In fact, that's Kempner's whole deal. I wrote about him recently.
I disagree on the calorie deficit. By definition a caloric deficit MEASURED fat loss, it doesn't cause it. It's like saying miles cause travel.
https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC5466936/
(pasted from another website, below)
"After the incredible results from Dr. Esselstyn’s original small heart disease study, a second larger study was conducted in 2014. This study consisted of 198 patients:
119 had undergone previous coronary intervention (stents or bypass surgery)
44 had previous heart attacks
Participants were asked to follow a strict whole food plant based diet, and results were monitored over 4 years. 177 of the 198 participants adhered to the WFPB diet.
Outcomes for the 177 adherent participants:
99.4% avoided any major cardiac event (including heart attack and stroke)
144 improved
39 experienced reversal of CAD
4 worsened
5 deaths, but none of them were cardiac-related
93% improved angina
average 18.7 pound weight loss
Outcomes for 21 non-adherent participants:
0 improved
11 with CAD progression
13 worsened
2 deaths, both of which were cardiac-related
Thanks, I'll check it out. Just from what you posted, my intuition is that the entire benefit is from 1. reducing PUFA and 2. not swamping. I'd suspect similar improvements if they were put on an ex150-style keto diet.
This was a plant based, whole foods, no added oil/fat, with 6 servings of salad greens a day.
My friend, I showed you the most amazing study the proved heart attacks and strokes are caused by food. The protocol is simple and clear.
--
Walter Kempner was no added oil, but there was not the dramatic improvements in CVD outcomes in any studies related to the 60 years at Duke University while the Kempner protocol was active there.
Eskimos in Alaska had high CVD "We focused our attention on other risk factors that might explain the current high rates of CVD in this population." (https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC2981096/). This should be your ideal group. High access to animal fats. Yet this group has higher CVD, which is opposite of your hypothesis.
--
Do you have any studies supporting your hypothesis?
--
Another great population study is Finland in the 1970s. Peka Puska. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xnWPMs8TcBE&pp=ygUSUGVrYSBQdXNrYSBmaW5sYW5k This population was eating large amounts of animal fats, and small amounts of seed oils. Thus low PUFA oils. This group should have low CVD rates. See if your hypothesis is verified.
So compatible w/ my hypothesis that it's the linoleic acid. I don't doubt heart attacks & strokes are caused by food. I'm just not sure which component of the food it is.
From the Eskimo study:
> In 1975, Dyerberg et al. surveyed Greenland Eskimos,1 found low rates of reported cardiovascular disease (CVD)
This one seems to use data from 2000-2004. I can confirm from my travels that modern Eskimo food is the worst type of SAD trash you can imagine. Everything is deep fried.
I also suspect high omega-3 intake might not be as beneficial as some people think, it might even be pretty bad at those levels.
Also apparently 56% of the studied Eskimos are current smokers, and 30% are former smokers.
They seem to have a lot of strokes, which I believe omega-3 is implicated in. The study seems to say they have low rates of myocardial infarctions?
> The low rate of MI is difficult to interpret from prevalence data; it could represent high initial mortality or rapid interventions upon presentation. The pattern of relatively high stroke rates also has been seen in other Inuit groups.
From what it sounds like, the chain-smoking modern Eskimos still had way lower CVD than average Americans.
I don't think this study is a slam dunk in showing anything bad about animal foods. Modern day Alaskan Eskimos are in many ways just modern Americans, and in many other ways way unhealthier and probably even less suited to that sort of diet.
That they smoke way more and still have much lower rates of CVD than the average American is actually impressive, though of course it seems much higher than their rates 50 years ago.
I honestly think that fat and oil are the problems. These do not exist in nature, except in rare circumstances.
[1] marine mammals, the added fat permits them to have temperature insulation
[2] northern mammals. They add layers of fat as temperature insulation and a source of calories for the winter months
[3] hippopotamus. They 'appear' to have a large layer of fat, though it could be very thick skin. I checked, They are not fat. it is a thick skin and layers of muscle.
--
What 'foods' are high in fat? (not exhaustive list)
[1] nuts
[2] avacados
[3] seeds
[4] olives
[5] coconuts
--
In short, all animals in the wild are lean, with the above exceptions. Only modern agriculture permits large crops of high fat foods, which can then be processed to extract oil.
Only human raised animals get fat, not wild animals.
--
One cannot pick a piece of fat off a tree, or dig it up from the ground. Fat and oil are not 'natural' whereas starches, sugars, and even protein are found in greater abundance in the wild.
--
Saturated fat is also not found in high amounts in wild animals or in plants. One has to work hard to get any types of fats, including saturated fats. Even wild pigs are not that fat, and thus do not have that much saturated fats on them. Humans hunting these lean animals get a lot of protein, but not that much fat from these lean animals.
Wild cows & buffalo still have significant amounts of fat, even if they're not as fat as grain-fed animals. I suppose buffalo are "northern" animals. Cows don't do well in hot climates either.
For large parts of our evolutionary history, fats were widely available in the form of fatty megafauna. We just got done with 300k years of ice age when the agricultural revolution began.
And don't forget, in terms of calories, fat is 2.5x as energy dense as carbs or protein. And we can't eat much more than 30% protein for long.
I just don't see any way in which non-PUFA fats cause heart disease. The mechanism of CVD is oxidized fats. We know which fats oxidize the most.
I am in Asia now, and I can say that neither cows nor buffalo that eat 'free range' are fat. They are lean, have a good amount of muscle, and thick skin. The cows here are actually more durable than the caribou (these animals pull the plows but will die if left fully exposed to the sun). The cows can be left in the sun.
It's very possible that your PUFA fats causing damage theory is correct.
I propose that all fats are not natural, that all fats in nature are scarce, and all animals (except those I wrote about) are lean. Even saturated fats.
An interesting fact I learned about coconuts, is that rats do climb the trees and eat coconuts from the inside.
People whom eat high saturated fats should be very resistant to heart disease, as per your asserted theory. Finland ate very high saturated fats, and their heart disease was very high (see link to Peka Puska). This group would thus falsify said theory/hypothesis. (please refute, regarding the total saturated fats to PUFA fats of Finland in the 50s, 60's and early 70s)
It's not "high saturated fat" that makes people resistant to heart disease in my theory, it's low PUFA (specifically LA).
The Finns do not eat a low-PUFA diet.
Again, while grass-fed/wild animals aren't as fat as grain-fed ones, there is plenty of fat in a wild bison or other wild, big animals. And there were even more during the 300k years of ice age that directly preceeded the agricultural evolution.
So I think fats are quite "natural" in that sense, although not at every time in every place (e.g. maybe not in the tropics now).
I agree with much of your deeper analysis.
Great refutals.
I will admit, that I have done keto and plant based, and my weight did not go down.
--
One of the only times it went down, was when I was in strict calorie deficit. 500 calories a day, composing of two pieces of fruit and one small bag of beef jerky. I also did 3 hours (minimum) a day on an elliptical running machine in a nearby gym. In 6 months, I lost 1/3 of a pound a day, every single day. 10 pounds a month, 60 pounds over 6 months. Calories in - Calories out. I was working daily, and my mental focus was always good.
--
The other times my weight went down was when I water fasted. The weight always went down. I did 8, 10, 12, 12, 13, and 17 days of water fasting.
Like you, my weight always came back on. I was eating too much in my normal lifestyle, which showed me I have to change my daily caloric input. I decided to try to eat more water filled foods to reduce the total calories.
--
Like you, I have experimented. I have not lost weight doing plant based, whole foods, limited added oils, with no added salt. I did not lose weight doing keto either (I gained back any weight when I was not strict keto)
--
Now,
- I want to increase my daily activities.
- I want to get to sleep earlier (instead of asleep at 2 or 4 am, waking at 10-12 in the morning - its good to run my own business).
- I want to eat earlier in the day.
- I want to increase my whole foods sugar intake daily as a test (similar to Kempner's protocol, but mostly fruit, and brown sugar, and potatoes)
--
Caloric deficit measures intake of food. The term 'deficit' applies to being under the daily intake to maintain (as you well know). I want to eat less than I ate in the past which maintains my weight, and much less than what I ate to gain my current weight. Fat loss is the dependent variable related to caloric intake. The caloric intake does not measure fat loss/gain. A weight scale measures fat loss/gain compared to previous measurements. Calories taken in is independent, fat gain/loss is dependent on calories intake.
--
Keto and heart attacks. "no crazy rates of heart attacks" and " in fact only 1 single carnivore who ever got a heart attack". The fact you stated these absolutes suggest an ideologue (suggests). Please review Esselstyn, because this was focusing on people whom were having crazy rates of heart attacks. What are agreed upon markers for CVD? Most normal people are now saying that cholesterol is not a marker. So the ultimate 'marker' is people whom have had an event and survived.
Since Esselstyn's study only used the above marker for inclusion of participants, we know that all the people had CVD for heart and/or stroke. We can agree that these people had crazy rates that being 100%. Those that remained in the study, had a 99.6% reduction in actual CVD events. Not relative. Absolute.
The study group of 200 (Esselstyn did a first study on 20 people) is large enough to find the results relevant.
If you or I want to avoid having heart attacks, we can use this study to examine actual people with histories of what we want to avoid. The intervention was diet based. Those that stayed on the diet change had virtually 100% reduction/reversal of CVD. Change ones food results in reversal of CVD events.
Were the Esselstyn people doing keto? If not, I don't see how that's relevant to my keto claim. Obv the SAD is bad, we now that much.
I do believe you can prevent CVD via diet, I just think it's "remove linoleic acid."