Greger likes to cite government policies that are decades behind the science, he also cherry picks studies and focuses on irrelevant markers like total cholesterol. He might sound convincing but what he's saying about fat/cholesterol and heart disease is wrong for a majority of the population, and the people at risk of heart disease should probably focus on less processed carbs and more unsaturated fat.
The first video just explains why eggs can't be labeled healthy/nutritious with the current USDA rules/guidelines that say that fat and cholesterol is bad. This is government regulation he's talking about, not actual science.
If the guidelines said fiber and carbs were bad we couldn't label vegetables as nutritious/healthy, that doesn't mean that vegetables would suddenly become bad; it would just mean that the government guidelines were stupid. Just like they currently are with eggs.
This part has nothing to with if eggs are actually healthy, it's just government policy vs. egg companies. All the objections to nutritious are because they contain cholesterol and saturated fat, not because they lack actual nutrients (e.g
whole wheat bread vs.
eggs show eggs to be slightly higher in vitamins/minerals).
And as anyone who's not stuck in the 1970's (with the USDA and Dr. Greger) and reads new studies knows: dietary saturated fat has no practical impact on heart disease in the general population (I'll explain more on dietary cholesterol when discussing the second video below).
Dietary change to reduce saturated fat and partly replace it with unsaturated fats appears to reduce the incidence of cardiovascular events, but replacing the saturated fat with carbohydrate (creating a low fat diet) was not clearly protective of cardiovascular events (despite small improvements in weight, body mass index, total and LDL cholesterol).
...
Subgrouping suggested that this reduction in cardiovascular events was due to studies of fat modification, or fat modification and reduction (not studies of fat reduction alone), seen in studies of at least two years duration, in studies of men (and not those of women), and in those with moderate or high cardiovascular risk at baseline (not general population groups).
The second video is based on observational/epidemiological data which by it's very nature is worthless for dietary recommendations (
longer post).
And a simple test to see if someone has even remotely any clue to what they're talking about in regards to heart disease is to check what type of cholesterol they're talking about. Total cholesterol means they have zero clue, LDL cholesterol means that they're stuck in the 1970's (very little clue), if they talk about LDL particle size they're past the 2000's (might have some clue) and if they talk about LDL particle count they probably at least have some idea.
Peter Attia also has some good articles/videos on why LDL particle count is the best predictor of heart disease risk in lipid panels:
Here's what happens to LDL particle count when you do a low fat diet vs. low carb diet:
SF = Saturated Fat
| Low fat low SF | Low carb low SF | Low carb high SF |
|---|
| Trig (mg/dl) | -15.7 | -44.6 | -55.9 |
| HDL-C (mg/dl) | −1.3 | 0.4 | 3.0 |
| LDL-C (mg/dl) | −2.6 | −11.2 | −0.7 |
| LDL-P (nmol/l) | -59 | -287 | -227 |
LDL particle count saw the greatest improvement from low carb. Unsaturated fat was slightly more beneficial compared to saturated fat, but what mattered was reducing carb intake.
And regarding eggs here's a 1994 study with 20 participants showing just a 10% increase in LDL particle count (apoB) from 4 eggs per day:
Fasting serum apoB levels were determined from samples obtained at the end of the 0- and the 4-egg diet periods. Consumption of the high-cholesterol diet was associated with a 10% increase in serum apoB levels (79.8 ± 22.4 versus 88.5 ± 28.4 mg/dL; Δ=8.7 ± 11.9 mg/dL; P <.01).
A 10% increase isn't meaningful if you're otherwise healthy.
Here's the second study he cites in his favor, observational/epidemiological data:
People resorting to using observational/epidemiological data is another indicator that they actually have no clue what they're talking about.
Edit:
Clarifications.
No comments:
Post a Comment