"dietary patterns associated with positive outcomes: vegetables, fruits, legumes, whole grains, low- or nonfat dairy, lean meat/poultry, seafood, nuts, and unsaturated vegetable oils and low red and processed meats, sugar-sweetened foods and drinks, and refined
grains"
(cont.)
"negative health outcomes are
associated with dietary patterns characterized by higher intake of red and processed meats,
sugar-sweetened foods and beverages, and refined grains"
(cont.)
USDA currently recommends 3 Food Patterns: Healthy U.S.-Style, Healthy Vegetarian and Healthy Mediterranean-Style
"these patterns provide majority of energy from plants (vegetables, fruit, legumes, whole grains,
nuts/seeds) and limit added sugar, solid fats, and sodium"
(cont.)
it seems we may be progressing from the past USDA shenanigans over SFA/cholesterol
"replacing saturated fat with unsaturated fats lowers incidence of CVD"
(cont.)
"The recommended shift from sat to unsat fat occurs best within healthy diet pattern:vegetables,fruit,legumes,whole grains,nuts/seeds,some veg oil, low-fat dairy, lean meat/poultry, fatty fish; lower red & processed meat, sugar-sweetened food and drinks, refined grains"
(cont.)
some uncertainty expressed about role of dietary cholesterol and type of carbs (somewhat understandable, and not damaging, as it is accurately balanced by accurate emphasis on dietary patterns)
(cont.)
bottomline:
1 - no huge differences or surprises
2- some areas to polish up but overall seems pretty balanced and evidence-based
3 - expect industry push-back shenanigans + back-pedaling by USDA + PCRM lawsuits in the months to come 🤣🤦♂️
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
this indicates that 2 populations with the same ApoB level would have different risk depending on what type of ApoB particles are elevated (LDLs? VLDLs? both?)
NO. the study shows all these ApoB particles are atherogenic but points to TG-rich lipoproteins as being even more so *particle for particle*. most people have many more LDLs so the risk attributable to those will still predominate
Re: heart disease in particular, we can find heterogeneity in the literature. Some studies point to a signal of risk for eggs, others find no stat sig effect.
One of the main differences between science and Social Media content is how they deal with heterogeneity.
Social Media feeds you polarization. One FB forum argues eggs are poison, and shows you only the studies reporting risk.
Another argues eggs are a perfect, risk-free superfood, and shows you only favorable studies.
over 2 months, he lost 27lbs. his BMI came down to the normal range
his LDL-C dropped 20%. his triglycerides, 39%
his anecdote illustrates a couple points:
▶️we can lose weight on almost any type of food, as long as we cut calories enough
▶️ some foods make it easier to cut calories. calorically concentrated junk food makes it easier to overconsume calories, so for most people they're not ideal. most people won't achieve the precise control on a day to day basis that the Prof exercised in his experiment
Does high ApoB still raise risk if I´m “metabolically healthy”?
The evidence indicates it DOES.
(thread)
The idea that cholesterol level is completely irrelevant has largely subsided.
As the public is exposed to more scientific evidence, it has become increasingly obvious that blanket denial is not realistic.
So a more nuanced idea emerged.
“it´s about context”
According to this idea, high cholesterol/apoB increases risk in “sick” people (e.g. insulin-resistant/obese/diabetic) but is harmless for the insulin-sensitive & lean