View Single Post
Old 10-04-2010, 10:53 AM   #11
Arien Malec
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,035
Default

Arggh. This debate is a bit silly.

The evidence can easily be cherry picked, but the general trends of high vs. low fat and SFA vs MUFA/PUFA are:

1) Lower fat diets tends to promote lower TC and LDL-C , lower carb/higher fat tends to promote higher HDL and Apo-A1 and lower TGs. Same generally holds for PUFA/MUFA vs SFAs.
2) Weight loss tends to swamp all other effects.

So if you are overweight, lose fat the most expeditious way you can, in an approach you can sustain. If that's Paleo/LC, great, if that's Ornish/LF, good onya mate. Don't sweat the fatty acid mix of your diet if you are dropping the pounds. Besides, as one of the paleo/lc bloggers put it, if you are dropping the lard, you are burning SFA internally anyway, so what you eat isn't all that significant.

If you are lean, the dietary approach that keeps you lean is the best approach.

Within a given range of leanness, there's some angels on the head of a pin stuff you can do about fat ratios. Again, the big play is between TC/LDL-C vs HDL -- the approach you'll take will depend on how you interpret the epidemiological risks.

Finally, must of the studies in this area are population/epidemiological, and most of the association between TC/LDL-C and HDL-C, Apo-A1 or Apo-B, etc. is mostly comparing a severely fucked up population with a less fucked up population. That is, most of the disease markers are selecting for a pre-diabetic, metabolic syndrome population.

So above all, don't get metabolic syndrome. If you stay the hell away from metabolic syndrome, pre-diabetes, and full-blown type II, you've done 95% of the good. Have fun with the last 5%, but don't stress about it, because stress is going to swamp that last 5%.
Arien Malec is offline   Reply With Quote