My story is a long one-I developed a squint and then mono-occularism around 5yrs otherwise fit and healthy though shy, quiet but determined. At the age of 13 I felt like someone had switched me on or woken me up but by 15 I had my first allergic response to food-Hovis wheat germ bread. I became muscular easily and not a person to mess with-almost a polar opposite, though still kind and morally minded. I put weight on and by the age of 24 I was diagnosed as having PCOS after going to find out why I had chronic and debilitating cystitis for 3yrs. Even carrying weight I’ve always been sporty, strong and active though. Told I was infertile with only 3 menstruations a year I accidentally fell pregnant in the 2nd year of my engineering degree-yay go me! Though I have never again had cystitis since my 12th week of pregnancy and that truly was something to celebrate along with being able to be a mum to eventually 3 lovely girls. After having my first child at 27 I noticed an advanced amount of ever more intense food reactions and as I had been told at 24 that the only way to eat for the rest of my life I would need to go on a low fat diet to help PCOS then this is what I did for the next 20yrs-getting fatter by the year(strangely enough I lost large amounts of weight whilst pregnant with my next two) and struggling with mobility, allergies, immunity, bone and joint pain and severe monthly migraines to name but a few. My youngest child was finally diagnosed with autism by the age of 11 and I had to give up my job around a year before she was conceived as I had to drive through rapeseed fields daily and not knowing that was the cause of my severe cough and headaches I was given many and various antibiotics and even a chest X-ray. I worked for a supermarket until she was born and didn’t make it back into regular work as it became clear that she needed extra help through life and my husband worked abroad so I was it. My health deteriorated as my allergic responses strengthened and culminated in my back going into a prolonged spasm whilst on holiday in Cornwall resulting in me being in extreme pain and barely able to stand never mind walk for nearly 5 years-then I started to read!!!! WDDTY taught me about nightshades and arthritis then I read books on vitamins and minerals and many excellent books and research articles by very educated authors and now harass my family with supplements and knowledge whilst trying to alleviate the damage to my own being-but worst of all my mum died PA B12 deficient in 2018-coroner wanted me to sue NHS-another story altogether!!!!!
Hello guys I’m a new member and wasn’... - Pernicious Anaemi...
Hello guys I’m a new member and wasn’t sure that this site wasn’t a pop up that I’d accidentally gotten onto ha ha total dinosaur that I am
Welcome to the forum 
Any dietary advice that focuses on reducing total fat (as opposed to saturated and trans fats) is not based on good nutritional science. Despite some confused public health messaging in the 80's, nutrition science as far back as the 1960's already understood that it was only specific types of fat that can be an issue depending on the amounts consumed.
background: hsph.harvard.edu/magazine/m...
Unfortunately trans fats were not as well understood back then and likewise the contribution of refined carbohydrates and added sugars.
With regards to "WDDTY" , I think it is best to stay well clear of the "advice" of that magazine.
wanderingteacake.wordpress....
Actually the lipid scientists all now concur that it’s the polyunsaturated fats that are the problem and not saturated fats- butter, lard, dripping, extra virgin cold pressed olive, avocado and coconut oils are the best and least harmful. I k ow that my worst reactions are to canola/rapeseed oil. Trans fats obviously. Please don’t think that I rely solely on any one source-I read completely around a subject including Lancet. I have a good all round understanding of chemistry, biology and physics, anatomy and physiology not to mention cynicism to keep me grounded. Completely agree that carbs and sugars are amongst the biggest problems in food consumption , however the added chemicals not listed on the ingredients list like fertiliser and pesticide along with the soil deficiencies and preservatives may be just the problems that affect us all?
I think you are confusing the different types of fats. The consensus of scientific evidence on dietary fat intake is that replacing foods high in saturated fats with foods high in poly and mono-unsaturated fats is beneficial to health.
Your list is a bit of a grab bag of different foods, some of which are beneficial and contain substantial mono-unsaturated fat content such as Extra Virgin Cold-Pressed Olive Oil and Avocado Oil, and others which are high in saturated fat and should be limited in the diet (or eliminated) such as butter, lard, drippings and coconut oil. Rapeseed/Canola oil, which is high in polyunsaturated fat, generally shows benefit when it replaces saturated fat in the diet.
This is a good summary:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=6ohAM...
Just a clarification on carbohydrates. Carbohydrates in themselves are not a problem per se, they are only an issue when they are consumed in excess as refined carbohydrates such as those found in junk processed foods, desserts, added sugar, etc.
Wholegrains, Vegetables and Fruit on the other hand contain plenty of carbohydrates but are very beneficial as part of a balanced/well-planned diet.
Yes, sorry I replied to you with carbs as I thought you had mentioned them too? I obviously was referring to highly processed and refined carbohydrates and would say that vegetables can be extremely necessary to human health though not so much fruit it seems. Not called nature’s candy for nuffink. We eat fruit all year round and it is truly tasty but surely a very modern way of self righteously eating (though in a better form) sugar? Also whole grains can be quite harmful to humans-plants didn’t survive our evolution without having an armoury of some very subtle but elegantly effective toxins to pass our way-otherwise we would have eaten them to extinction along with the rest of the animal kingdom ha ha I think however that your lipid science may be outdated and you might find that latest (or should I say now recognised) findings show that fully saturated fats to be the safest to consume followed by the mono unsaturated as by their very structure are less able to be oxidised. Your fat cells can’t tell the difference and so accidentally uptake a mixed bag of lipids leading to some quite catastrophic(though small on a molecular scale) damage requiring a heavy dose of antioxidant to ‘quench’ the forest fires caused internally when they oxidise. Once the polyunsaturated fats are used for cooking (and not eaten unprocessed and raw) they are highly inflammatory to say the least. Use your olive oil as a drizzle to maintain the healthy oleic acid etc I guess it just takes a while for information to pass through? NHS is about 40yrs out of date with an awful lot of it’s advice only benefitting the drugs companies in my experience. My mum worked as a senior staff nurse for 40yrs and most of my reading is from medically trained and respected authorities in their fields that have become so frustrated by the system that they expose the gaps etc I fully applaud all that join the NHS for the greater good of the nation but let’s not forget that nutritional science doesn’t even warrant a mention on their syllabus’s ?
It's nonsensical to compare whole fruit with refined sugar, since the sugar in fruit comes along with lots of fibre, vitamins and phytonutrients which are of great benefit to health.There are countless clinical trials showing the benefits of fruit consumption. Eating at least a handful or two of berries and a couple of fruit, for example, 2-4 servings a day is an excellent addition to most anyone's diet. Seeing fruit as equivalent to refined sugar or as some kind of sinful indulgence is a bizarre distortion of the nutritional science. Why would eating fruit be a "self righteous" behaviour?
The whole plant toxin/anti-nutrient argument is fairly inconsequential since most of these "anti-nutrients" are either eliminated or greatly reduced with cooking, and those that remain may even have health benefits. If these "plant toxins" were so deadly, why do nutrition studies that investigate an increased consumption of plant foods consistently show an improvement in health outcomes instead of the terrible effects of these anti-nutrients?
Lipid science has progressed a lot since the 1950's but the broad picture of excess saturated fat in the diet contributing to raised ApoB levels and by that mechanism, atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease, has only accumulated more and more evidence and remains part of the current scientific consensus on the effect of diet on cardiovascular health. Today we know that trans fats may be even worse than saturated fats and that replacing saturated fats with refined carbohydrates does not improve health outcomes.
Some recent examples from the literature on saturated fat:
Saturated Fats Compared With Unsaturated Fats and Sources of Carbohydrates in Relation to Risk of Coronary Heart Disease: A Prospective Cohort Study (2015)
"Conclusions: Our findings indicate that unsaturated fats, especially PUFAs, and/or high-quality carbohydrates can be used to replace saturated fats to reduce CHD risk. "
ref: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/264...
Getting caught up in the biochemistry of the oxidation of different kinds of fatty acids is to lose sight of the forest for the trees. Even the best biochemists don't understand every nuance of how foods work within the body (there a tens of thousands oh phytochemicals, most poorly studied) and going deep into this area with a cursory biochemistry knowledge leaves one prey to "mechanistic speculation", focusing on specific substances or mechanisms without a full understanding of what actually happens in the body (not in a test tube or in animal studies) and without considering the most important evidence - outcome data, whether the food in which that substance is embedded shows beneficial health outcomes (or not), when consumed in the diet.
Below is a study on the influence of polyunsaturated fats on inflammation.
Association between polyunsaturated fatty acids and inflammatory markers in patients in secondary prevention of cardiovascular disease
"Conclusion: Omega-3 and omega-6 FA intakes are inversely associated with inflammatory biomarkers among CVD patients. Additional studies on omega-3 and omega-6 intake in relation to inflammatory biomarkers in patients in secondary prevention of CVD are needed, particularly regarding dietary patterns that are rich in some sources of PUFA."
ref: pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/283...
A Cochrane systematic review from 2020:
Reduction in saturated fat intake for cardiovascular disease
"The review found that cutting down on saturated fat led to a 17% reduction in the risk of cardiovascular disease (including heart disease and strokes), but had little effect on the risk of dying. The review found that health benefits arose from replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fat or starchy foods. The greater the decrease in saturated fat, and the more serum total cholesterol is reduced, the greater the protection from cardiovascular events. "
cochranelibrary.com/cdsr/do...
This is the current scientific consensus on saturated fat intake and its effect on health. There is no " new evidence" that suggests a benefit for replacing sources of polyunsatured fats with saturated fat.
There are no credible studies that claim that saturated fat is the "safest to consume", as you have claimed.
The current US DRI and "Dietary Guidelines For Americans" recommend less than 10% of calorie intake from saturated fat. Nearly every other reputable nutrition, cardiovascular, lipid and dietetic association in the world also recommends limiting saturated fat, usually to under 10% of calories or so.
With regards to whole grains being "harmful to humans", a 2016 meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies found :
"an inverse association between whole-grain intake and mortality from all causes, CVD, and total cancers; however, the association with mortality from specific cancers needs further investigation. Our findings support the current recommendations on increased whole gain intake for longevity."
ref : sciencedirect.com/science/a...
So much for the terrifying harms from whole grains...
I don't know what "respected authorities" or "lipid science" you have come across or are reading that has convinced you that the consensus scientific position is actually the opposite of what it really is, but I would suggest searching out more informed sources of dietary advice.
m.youtube.com/watch?v=6GM6O...
Oh dear, I had just compiled a very lengthy and explanatory reply and have just lost it in cyberspace. I will give a brief summary and suggest some more reading resources if I can stay awake. I agreed with your 10-15% intake of saturated fats but still think that people are eating too much fruit and hence fructose without moderation. Fruit consumption can of course be healthy but mostly it is detrimental to vegetable intake in the name of health. It’s sugars that make you fat after all that’s how humans survived winters and avoided frostbite. I have personal experience of how damaging plant toxins can be as I have problems with nightshades mustard and rapeseed in particular and can confidently say that cooking o ly removes 40% of nightshade toxin. I also have to pressure cook lentils to render them edible-I wonder how much nutritional benefit is left then? Atherosclerosis has led a merry dance hasn’t it? It turns out that the LDL have been the cause and that cholesterol has been wrongly blamed. The artery splits, a clot forms in the split which is held in place by fibrinogen and then covered by cholesterol as a sort of waterproof Elastoplast. With subsequent rips that usually occurs at the edges becoming concentric layers of repair leaving streaks of cholesterol and trapped gunk (remains of clot and binding) that form narrowings of the inner lining. I too have read Cochrane and Pubmed etc and have realised that the facts have been obfuscated by not saying exactly in what form these fats were consumed- big difference between a rasher of streaky bacon and a slice of cheese after all never mind the fact that the polyunsaturated fats that when eaten raw do contain some beneficial nutrients ie oleic acid but how many people consume raw oil? Even most nuts have been roasted. Once cooked/heated then these ‘healthy’ polyunsaturated oils become oxidised and pro-inflammatory (thus causing damage to epithelial cells such as artery walls etc). That’s without taking into account the extraction processes in production. Canola oil (rapeseed) had to be GM’d to make it ‘safe’ to consume and goes through a fair number of processes to make it palatable leaving behind trace chemicals that I guarantee don’t ever get listed on the ingredients. The oxidative damage ‘burns down the whole forest’ to the point that when unchecked by strong antioxidants, the damage at molecular level can sometimes be large enough to be seen with the naked eye. I agree that the bigger picture needs to be used when assessing nutrition and that it is by its very nature subjective but the entire picture should be seen and not pre-edited. Let’s not forget that Axel Keys had scientific consensus not so long ago and that Linus Pauling and Cameron were both destroyed as frauds and quacks with the help of the Mayo clinic when their research and findings are now accepted by even NHS. Also noted is the fact that the only organisations that can afford large cohorts are those that publish papers beneficial to their profit margins and bury those that don’t. Caveats used in nearly all stating that further research needed etc to protect from ridicule and litigation no doubt into the future. We as humans have evolved very little over the last century but our foodstuffs have exponentially changed in their nutrition density and toxic load let alone the carbon footprint left by distribution and modern farming practices. Apologies for this brief reply, I will get you those references another day I’m afraid as it’s very late and there are books to be sought out. Please don’t take offence at my words though as I will try not to at yours and enjoy the debate as you never know when you will learn something new and that is my motto in life to question and learn each day
Bye for now
Also please note that I used to think the same as you do on points of nutrition and health outcomes but I’ve read an awful lot that has dotted i’s and crossed t’s in a way that has blown my mind and answered so many anomalies for me in the last few years-paired with personal and familial experiences and observations. I played bbc and itv off against each other during lockdown after trying without success to get a tv doctor to use his forum to tell everyone and particularly the BAME sections of uk society the importance of taking D3 and K2 for Covid. Got weatherman on one and local newsreader on other to say don’t forget to take D3 or get outside as much as possible ( laughable in a lockdown). Can you only imagine my rage when around 10 months ago Lancet released the statement claiming that if people had taken D3 etc that it would have halved the death rate?! I debate and act in a way to exact positive change through education and access to it and use that as my motivation without fear of ridicule or peer pressure etc
Best wishes x
There is a lot to go through in your response so I apologise in advance for the length. I would echo your statement that no offense is taken, or intended!
My interest is only in getting to the best available evidence and clearing up any confusion that may exist so that we can all get the highest quality information to improve our health and avoid wasting time or money in cul-de-sacs which could be useless for us or even harmful.
You had written:
"I agreed with your 10-15% intake of saturated fats"
Thats a misrepresentation - what I said was that "Nearly every other reputable nutrition, cardiovascular, lipid and dietetic association in the world also recommends limiting saturated fat, usually to under 10% of calories or so."
Most diets already have a saturated fat intake in the range of 10-15%, which all things considered, and of course depending on genetics and lifestyle factors, may involve an increase in cardiovascular risk. It's only at 10% of calories or below that we start to see risk coming down universally which is why its mentioned as a good target by most professional associations.
Where did you get the 15% of calories figure? I havent seen any evidence-backed claims for that being an adequate saturated fat target.
--
"still think that people are eating too much fruit and hence fructose without moderation. Fruit consumption can of course be healthy but mostly it is detrimental to vegetable intake in the name of health."
Again you are focusing on a specific nutrient (fructose) without regard to how the effects of consuming that nutrient in a (healthy) food differ from the effect of consuming (for example) raw, purified fructose.
Purified sugars are certainly harmful when consumed in a caloric excess and particularly in processed foods, soda etc. But the serious chronic diseases of our time are not being caused by people eating too much fruit! This is a total misunderstanding. Fruits contain fibre that helps slow the digestion of sugars and which also makes you feel full, thus making it more difficult to eat too many at a time. Fruits contain very few calories so it simply isnt plausible that they would displace vegetables in the diet. Fruits are (generally) not interchanged with, or displacing vegetables, they are normally a snack between meals, a dessert or starter and less often part of a main dish.
But even if single serving or two of vegetables was displaced by fruit, can you be sure that that would be a bad thing? Fruits are packed with vitamins, fiber, antioxidants and phytonutrients, some of which may not have a vegetable equivalent - variety is a very important thing in the diet for microbiome health and the various different fibres of different foods feed different kinds of beneficial gut bugs which all contribute to health.
-----
I understand you have some kind of intolerance to nightshades or rapeseed but that is not a universal complaint and does not generalize to recommending that everyone should avoid such foods. No more than the fact that some people have celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity means we that we should all avoid gluten.
"I also have to pressure cook lentils to render them edible-I wonder how much nutritional benefit is left then? "
Well firstly, it shouldnt be necessary to pressure cook lentils. Unlike beans, lentils can cook on the stove in 15-20 mins depending on the variety and how soft you like them. You might be suprised at how much nutrition remains after pressure cooking.
The following is paraphrased from the "Complete Food & Nutrition Guide" from the Academy of Nutrition and Dietetics (US):
In general cooking can sometimes ENHANCE nutrition rather than reduce it. For example, the lycopene in tomatoes is absorbed better from cooked or processed tomatoes, Carotenoids are also more available when cooked as is lutein, a phytonutrient found in corn. Heat has also been shown to increase the bioavailability of thiamine, niacin, folate and B6.
With regard to pressure cooking this video covers it pretty well (in short, nothing whatsoever to worry about):
m.youtube.com/watch?v=NA7em...
"Atherosclerosis has led a merry dance hasn’t it? It turns out that the LDL have been the cause and that cholesterol has been wrongly blamed."
Not exactly no. It is ApoB or LDL-P (LDL particle number) which is causative for heart disease. This is often approximated to say that "LDL" is causal for heart disease but this loose approximation is not fully correct and true risk is better measured by ApoB.
It is true that very early in his career, Ancel Keys believed that dietary cholesterol could be the most significant dietary contributor to heart disease (this is called forming a hypothesis, which is what good scientists do) but as he tested that hypothesis and the results came in he realized that cholesterol did not play nearly as impactful a role in the genesis of heart disease than did saturated fat. But, contrary to popular belief, dietary cholesterol was never completely exonerated and it can still play a role in elevating ApoB although generally not to the same degree as trans fats, saturated fats and refined carbohydrates. The US dietary guidelines recommend keeping dietary cholesterol "as low as possible".
Quite often, studies on the effect of dietary cholesterol are confused by the way risk changes with cholesterol intake, increasing initially but levelling out at a certain point, at which additional dietary cholesterol has little effect on LDL. This is explained here:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=G1NZN...
----
"The artery splits, a clot forms in the split which is held in place by fibrinogen and then covered by cholesterol as a sort of waterproof Elastoplast. With subsequent rips that usually occurs at the edges becoming concentric layers of repair leaving streaks of cholesterol and trapped gunk (remains of clot and binding) that form narrowings of the inner lining."
I think you are confusing three different things, atherosclerosis, arterial dissection, and the formation of blood clots.
In atherosclerosis, lipoproteins such as LDL enter the arterial wall and become stuck, being engulfed by immune cells called macrophages. This leads to foam cell formation in the arterial wall. A cascade of processes then lead to increased immune reaction, inflammation, death of the foam cells and build-up of cholesterol inside the plaque. The artery does not need to split, nor does any clot need to form.
However it is possible for the plaque to rupture, which can lead to formation of a blood clot within the artery. In this case, Fibrinogen is of course involved with blood clot formation.
To learn more about Atherosclerosis, watch this video:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=ntD4e...
An artery "splitting" is a completely distinct process from atherosclerosis called arterial dissection. Although atherosclerosis increases risk for arterial dissection, they are two distinct processes. You can have full blown atherosclerosis and die from a heart attack or stroke without ever experiencing an arterial dissection. Many cases of arterial dissection are unrelated to atherosclerosis and involve blunt force trauma and other factors. You can learn more about arterial dissection here:
theneurologypractice.com/ar...
"but how many people consume raw oil? "
I would have thought quite a lot since its pretty common to pour a bit of olive oil over a salad?
-----
"Even most nuts have been roasted"
Although its possible to buy roasted nuts, nearly every supermarket of any decent size that I've ever been in sells raw nuts of various varieties, unroasted.
-----
"Once cooked/heated then these ‘healthy’ polyunsaturated oils become oxidised and pro-inflammatory (thus causing damage to epithelial cells such as artery walls etc). "
I think instead of speculating on theoretically inflammatory processes/effects it might be better to listen to a registered dietician on what oils to choose for different purposes:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=yD0vo...
In brief: Olive Oil has a high smoke point and is not easily oxidized so is well suited for frying (or salads etc), while canola/rapeseed oil is a good choice for roasting/baking or salad dressings. I reserve EVOO for salads and use a "light" olive oil for frying. I would also add here that Hemp Seed oil can be a nice variation now and then.
You've written a lot about the oxidative damage and inflammatory effect of polyunsaturated fats and make the extraordinary claim that : "the damage at molecular level can sometimes be large enough to be seen with the naked eye." How can you know this? Was there a randomized controlled trial of polyunsaturated fatty acids that shows damage "large enough to be seen with the naked eye"? Were you in a lab doing this research? Provide a link to the study, I would love to read about it.
Alinea Nutrition have an excellent blog on this very subject so I will quote the whole conclusion here:
"In order to sustain the case that PUFA intake is deleterious to human health, anyone advancing the argument has to provide a rebuttal to the multiple lines of evidence from RCTs, prospective cohort studies, and biomarker studies, which all converge to the same conclusion. They can’t.
In order to sustain such a case, the putative mechanisms of lipid peroxidation and inflammation have to be shown to relate to adverse health outcomes with supporting evidence of sufficient quality in humans. It isn’t there.
And in order to sustain such a case, the handful of studies that are cited in support of such an adverse effect in humans need to stand up to scrutiny of their methodology. They don’t.
A total body of evidence: ecological studies, prospective cohort studies, tissue biomarker studies, metabolic ward studies, intervention studies, and meta-analyse respectively of cohort studies, biomarker studies, metabolic ward studies, and intervention studies. Every line of evidence converges to a conclusion in favour of the role of polyunsaturated fats, including the omega-6 linoleic acid, and health outcomes in humans."
I highly recommend reading the entire blog:
Of Rats and Sydney Diet-Heart: Drawing a Line Under Polyunsaturated Pseudoscience
alineanutrition.com/2020/09...
-----
"Let’s not forget that Axel Keys had scientific consensus not so long ago"
Among actual nutrition scientists, Ancel Keys still has 😁. The link between saturated fat and heart disease has become probably the most well-supported relationship in all of nutrition science.
----
"Linus Pauling and Cameron were both destroyed as frauds and quacks"
Linus Pauling In later years began to promote pseudoscience about the benefits of massive doses of Vitamin C. This is quackery and was rightly dismissed as such.
I had never heard of him but I guess the Cameron you're referring to is Daniel Cameron?
That situation seems well explained by this blog:
sciencebasedmedicine.org/ch...
I will gratefully accept a link to an NHS website page which vouches for the benefits of megadosing vitamin C and that "chronic lyme disease" should be treated with long term antibiotics.
----
I could not find any "statement" from The Lancet saying that Vitamin D supplementation would have halved the death rate from COVID-19. Can you provide a link to the statement?
The Lancet COVID-19 Commission released their last report (to date) in September 2022:
The Lancet Commission on lessons for the future from the COVID-19 pandemic
You can read it here:
thelancet.com/journals/lanc...
It contains a lengthy section : "recommendations for ending the COVID-19 pandemic, preparing for the next, and long-term sustainable development".
Nowhere in this section do they recommend that Vitamin D supplementation be prioritised. In fact, Vitamin D doesn't even get a mention.
Although some meta-analysis initially showed promise for the prospect that Vitamin D could be effective versus COVID-19, this was unfortunately not borne out in later randomised controlled trials, as reported on by the researchers here : m.youtube.com/watch?v=Sgh20... .
Perhaps you were referring to one of the studies covered here?
m.youtube.com/watch?v=yhpc2...
----
"the carbon footprint left by distribution and modern farming practices. "
Food distribution is a very small component of the overall carbon footprint. What you eat matters a lot more than where your food travelled from.
see : ourworldindata.org/food-cho...
----
"I agree that the bigger picture needs to be used when assessing nutrition and that it is by its very nature subjective but the entire picture should be seen and not pre-edited. "
I dont agree that nutrition is "by it's very nature subjective".
Nutrition is a science in which observations can be made, questions formulated and then tested to see if a hypothesis is supported by the evidence. As evidence accumulates, a hypothesis becomes better supported and we gain confidence in it, or conversely, evidence accumulates against it and it is weakened. Over time, converging lines of evidence from different sources, from both observational studies and experimental trials increase confidence in an assessment. On certain nutritional questions, what the preponderance of evidence shows is not by any means subjective. In some areas there may be nuances in the intepretation of results but its impossible to support the assertion that sources of polyunsaturated fat should be replaced with sources of saturated fat. The evidence against that is literally overwhelming. Every single credible study points in exactly the opposite direction.
I would encourage you to do exactly what you say should be done - look at the entire picture, the preponderance of the evidence. Stop fixating on the theoretical effects of single nutrients and look at the human outcome data which show the exact opposite of what you claim.
-----
"I’ve read an awful lot that has dotted i’s and crossed t’s in a way that has blown my mind and answered so many anomalies for me in the last few years-paired with personal and familial experiences and observations"
To be frank, the kind of opinions you have put forward are pretty much variations on a theme that are put forward by many misinformed alternative health, low-carb and carnivore diet YouTube guru's who have little grounding in nutrition science. They may not be your direct source but it is the sort of positions that people often come to from watching too many of these ill-informed people and with too little exposure to real nutrition science and scientists.
Whatever it is that you have been reading (or watching/listening to), its not been based on solid science.
You claim to have a better knowledge of the current state of lipid science than do I yet you do not understand atherosclerosis, you believe the consensus on saturated fats vs polyunsaturated fats is the opposite of what all credible evidence shows it to be and I cannot find any credible science that supports your claim of health benefits from replacing sources of polyunsaturated fat with saturated fats.
I look forward to any papers backing up anything that you have claimed thus far and with regards to polyunsaturated fat you might want to first check them against the Alinea Nutrition article I shared above since they already went through that evidence in forensic detail.
Oh and the reference to high dose intravenous vitamin C was on NHS cancer section listed as something like symbiotic treatment-not a direct quote but forgive me as it was before 2018. I noticed it was removed without explanation-maybe too many people were asking for it? Who knows other than it is being used to great effect in a number of countries I understand-but then hey-what would I know? Ha ha😂
Hello in one breath you accuse me of specificity and the next of randomisation? If you want to know where I heard the Lancet statement then it was broadcast in full on our UK national news so I’m going to say BBC as it was late evening when I tuned in? Also if you still advocate for Ancel Keys then you must also be aware of his duplicity and who was his paymaster? Perhaps you can use some of his theories or hypotheses but I choose to read many that have been published and that also have not been disproven by peers that give a different approach. It is in anomalies that we learn the most. If current scienctific hypothesis had all the answers then AF etc should have been solved by now wouldn’t you say? There are too many wealthy organisations with skin in the game to just blindly trust many researchers as the wording and statistics can be very easily manipulated to ‘prove’ their standpoint. I think that you and I are going to be forever at loggerheads I’m afraid. Perhaps only time will tell which is right as I fully stand by my decisions on which ‘proof’ to choose having read many on both sides of the argument and I extrapolate the advice to investigate whole body outcomes for all approaches-so you may find that consuming your veggie oils and 4 fruits a day works for you but I’m sorry to say that I totally disagree and find that advice to be problematic. You might be pleased to know that I won’t be posting replies to you moving forward as you seem to rigidly set in your ‘beliefs’ and unable to accept that scientific facts are being disproved daily but that will tell in time. Hope we are all alive to see it 😵💫
Also I certainly don’t rely on YouTube for information and I have never referred to Lyme Disease???? As each human is very different to the next then of course nutritional science is subjective! The books I read are only dangerous if dropped as I should call them tombs actually and usually have 200pages of very tightly packed references to back up the publication! Usually written by Medically trained doctors at the end of their careers and no longer bound by NHS and NICE etc though I don’t just read UK work so am aware of a lot of other countries research and protocols on quite a number of diseases/disorders and how they differ from UK. You may not be concerned where or who grows your food and how it is treated in order to maintain nutritional integrity but I’d bet it’s not just myself that is?😵💫🥴
On specificity and randomization:
Where did I accuse you of randomization? What would that even mean? Are you talking about randomized controlled trials?
I never used the word specificity either but you are focusing on nutrients like fructose without considering whether consumption of fructose in its natural form as part of a normal, healthy intake of fruit can be meaningfully compared to outcomes in trials where 100g of pure fructose was fed to participants. Spoiler: It can't.
-----
On Fructose:
As long as added sugar is kept below 10%, ideally 5%, I would paraphrase Danny Lennon from Sigma Nutrition:
Worrying about fructose specifically is "a distraction from meaningful decisions that you should be making about your diet"
Focusing on fructose as a reason to reduce fruit consumption is just not supported by the evidence.
I recommend you listen to the full episode from Sigma Nutrition:
"Fructose in Perspective – Dietary Villain or Misunderstood Nutrient?"
sigmanutrition.com/episode476/
I did not advice anyone that they should consume "veggie oils" and "4 fruits a day". Lets recap what I wrote again :
"Eating at least a handful or two of berries and a couple of fruit, for example, 2-4 servings a day is an excellent addition to most anyone's diet."
A 2021 study described in the Harvard Health Letter found that:
"The most effective combination of fruits and vegetables among study participants was two servings of fruits plus three servings of vegetables per day, for a total of five servings daily."
ref : health.harvard.edu/nutritio...
It is not necessary for anyone to consume vegetable oils but if they wish to, and they choose healthy oils such as Olive Oil and Rapeseed/Canola oil, used in moderation, replacing foods high in saturated fat like butter/coconut oil, then all available evidence shows this to be beneficial for health.
Here's a good short on Canola/Rapeseed Oil:
m.youtube.com/shorts/ik7Ifp...
You wrote:
"Also if you still advocate for Ancel Keys then you must also be aware of his duplicity and who was his paymaster? Perhaps you can use some of his theories or hypotheses but I choose to read many that have been published and that also have not been disproven by peers that give a different approach"
I do not "advocate for" Ancel Keys. I simply think he made important contributions to nutrition science. Please, tell me more about his "duplicity". I'm particularly interested in any accusations that he "faked data", a worn out classic among low-carb advocates, but feel free to roll it out again so everyone can get to hear about it.
I do not claim that his peers may not also have made valid contributions. I do not claim he was right about everything or that he was without flaws. But his hypothesis in relation to saturated fat in the diet has held up robustly over time and has stronger converging lines of evidence for it today than ever.
------
You wrote:
"If current scienctific hypothesis had all the answers then AF etc should have been solved by now wouldn’t you say?"
A strawman. Where did I claim that science or scentific hypotheses had "all the answers" ? Transparent nonsense.
----
You wrote:
"There are too many wealthy organisations with skin in the game to just blindly trust many researchers as the wording and statistics can be very easily manipulated to ‘prove’ their standpoint. "
You presume to educate me on how to skeptically read studies? I wrote an article for this site on this very subject detailing how to research claims in a skeptical way, verify sources etc. I provide videos covering several examples of scientific fraud and other resources on how research could be improved. This is not news to me.
My article : healthunlocked.com/pasoc/po...
----
You wrote
"You may not be concerned where or who grows your food and how it is treated in order to maintain nutritional integrity but I’d bet it’s not just myself that is?😵💫🥴"
Yet another strawman. I wrote that, specifically in relation to the carbon footprint of food: "What you eat matters a lot more than where your food travelled from". I stand by that statement which is backed up by the data presented in the link I provided. I never said I did not care about where my food grows, who grows it, or how it is treated. There are clearly considerations beyond the carbon footprint which can be considered such as organic, pesticide-free etc.
On YouTube:
You express what seems to be outrage at the idea that you might rely on information from YouTube. First, a clarification : lets recap exactly what I said:
"To be frank, the kind of opinions you have put forward are pretty much variations on a theme that are put forward by many misinformed alternative health, low-carb and carnivore diet YouTube guru's who have little grounding in nutrition science. They may not be your direct source but it is the sort of positions that people often come to from watching too many of these ill-informed people and with too little exposure to real nutrition science and scientists.
Whatever it is that you have been reading (or watching/listening to), its not been based on solid science."
You can see that I never accused you of obtaining or relying on information from YouTube so your accusation that I did so is.... yet another strawman. Seems to be a pattern here!
Secondly, you might not be aware of this but YouTube can be an excellent source of evidence-based scientific information. So much so that masters courses in nutrition from well-regarded universities refer to YouTube videos as useful supplementary learning resources. For example, this video is a high quality undergraduate introduction to carbohydrates:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=LeOUI...
You can also find interviews on YouTube with top scientists in their fields , like Professor Gardner from Stanford University or Walter Willett. I have already posted several videos from one of the best evidence-based nutrition science educators on YouTube, Gil Carvalho of Nutrition Made Simple.
Although I never claimed that you get your information from YouTube (read what I said again), perhaps you should? You would certainly gain a better understanding of atherosclerosis from watching Gil Carvalho's video on it than what you attempted in your description of it. Don't dismiss an entire resource just because you can also find nonsense and misinformation there.
On Vitamin C/Linus Pauling
There were some headlines around Vitamin C and Cancer in 2018. The situation is covered fairly well by this article from Cancer Research UK:
news.cancerresearchuk.org/2...
Their excerpted conclusion was that:
"But when headlines draw connections between this research and what we eat, cancer patients may be left asking: ‘Is it worthwhile taking vitamin supplements?’ Martin Ledwick, Cancer Research UK’s head information nurse, says cancer patients shouldn’t take them without first talking to their doctor.
“The key thing is we just don’t know if it is safe to take them alongside conventional treatment that is known to work. It is possible that in some situations they may interfere with the way chemotherapy works, which might make treatment less effective.”
This doesn’t mean to say vitamin C won’t be of benefit to some patients one day. But there’s certainly no evidence yet from any clinical trial that vitamin C improves cancer survival.
Either way, given the mixed results so far, media reports around vitamin C could be doing more harm than good. And as for vitamin C as the next big wonder drug? The signs aren’t pointing that way just yet."
The National Cancer Institute (NIH) has a page on Intravenous Vitamin C and Cancer:
cancer.gov/about-cancer/tre...
The same institution has another interesting page covering a 2020 study, Intravenous High-Dose Vitamin C in Cancer Therapy :
cancer.gov/research/key-ini...
The conclusion of their study was that:
"Vitamin C as a cancer therapy has had a controversial past. What has been intriguing are small clinical trials that suggest some responses, but with no clear rationale for why cancers should respond to vitamin C or a path forward for explaining which patients are most likely to respond. Now a growing number of preclinical studies are showing how high-dose vitamin C might benefit cancer patients."
A 2021 paper on "Vitamin C and Cancer: The Role of Vitamin C in Disease Progression and Quality of Life in Cancer Patients"
contained these concluding remarks in the abstract:
"the anticancer impact of high doses of IVC remains debatable in spite of growing evidence that high dose vitamin C shows anti-tumorigenic activity by elevating the amount of reactive oxygen species (ROS) in cancer cells without meaningful toxicities. Hence, there is an urgent requirement for rigorous and well-controlled assessments of IVC as an adjuvant therapy for cancer before clear conclusions can be drawn. Thus, more clinical trials are required to determine the additive impact of high dose vitamin C in cancer patients."
Overall it looks to me like high dose intravenous vitamin C shows some promise for Cancer treatment but it is still early days with the research to make any definite conclusions about it.
Does this mean that Linus Pauling has been vindicated?
Lets consider a quote from Arthur Robinson who worked with Pauling for many years:
"The results of these experiments caused an argument between Linus and me, which ended our 16-year period of work together. He was not willing to accept the experimentally proved fact that vitamin C in ordinary doses accelerated the growth rate of squamous cell carcinoma in these mice.
At the time, Linus was promoting his claim that “75% of all cancer can be prevented and cured by vitamin C alone.” This claim proved to be without experimental foundation and not true. . . . Vitamin C increased the rate of growth of cancer at human equivalents of 1 to 5 grams per day, but suppressed the cancer growth rate at doses on the order of 100 grams per day (near the lethal dose), as do other measures of malnutrition."
You can read more about this whole saga at sciencebasedmedicine.org/hi...
Remember this is all in relation to Cancer. There is NO benefit to Vitamin C supplementation for the general population if one is getting adequate Vitamin C in their diet as explained here:
m.youtube.com/watch?v=knDB7...
On my reference to lyme disease:
You had written:
"Linus Pauling and Cameron were both destroyed as frauds and quacks with the help of the Mayo clinic when their research and findings are now accepted by even NHS. "
This was unclear so I asked if you were referring to the Daniel Cameron described here:
sciencebasedmedicine.org/ch...
who holds (to be charitable) some very questionable opinions on Lyme Disease.
You may be talking about a different "Cameron", I cannot read your mind. You claimed that NHS accepted "Cameron's" research and that of Linus Pauling, claims for which you, as ever, have not provided evidence.
----
On Science, Subjectivity and Objectivity
Nutrition in the sense of which diet and required nutrient intake may best suit any specific individual is certainly individual, I would agree with that. We know that aspects such as food intolerances or allergies, various medical conditions like celiac disease and genetic factors all have a bearing on diet choices and which diet may work best for a specific individual.
Nutrition, as a science however, though comprising many subjective elements aims towards objectivity through the rigor of the scientific process. This process, like human beings, is not and never will be , perfect. It will never provide 100% formal proof in the same sense that a mathematical statement can be proven.
This excerpt from an Oxford University Press blog may be helpful:
Scientific facts are not 100% certain. So what?
"The mere fact that we do not comprehend a problem or its solution in the minutest detail does not preclude sensible action. We don’t need a finished theory of slippery to prevent slipping.
When the sowers of doubt claim that we can’t do anything because not all the data are in, they’re half-correct. All of the basic science data are not in, that’s true. But then all of the basic science data never will be in. It’s wrong to imply that, therefore, applied science is stymied. It’s not. We need to know only whether feasible steps would alleviate a problem and then—guided by the best information we have—take them. For decades, we’ve known that preventative actions can reduce the dangers of climate change, tobacco-smoking, etc. We’ve done little, in part because we’ve been misled by self-interested economic forces that want us to believe that any action must wait for total understanding"
from blog.oup.com/2020/03/scient...
On your accusation that I am "unable to accept that scientific facts are being disproved daily" , the following blog contains a good summary of the problem with this:
Truth: why science doesn’t care about your opinion
from Yves Laszlo, Professor of Mathematics at Université Paris-Saclay
"Even though Einstein’s relativity seems to bury Newtonian physics, he didn’t actually refute his predecessors’ theories. Rather, he refined them. Both Newton and Einstein were essentially right: Newton’s physics is right for ‘slow’ speeds (bearing in mind that even a hypersonic rocket has a slow speed in this context!) but not for speeds close to c (the speed of light). For slow speeds, both Einstein’s and Newton’s theories coincide. Einstein simply offered a more thorough explanation of the universe.
Another example would be genetics. When Mendel was studying heredity in pea plants, he knew that characteristics could be passed down through the generations in a species. We then learnt of the existence of DNA and that heredity is contained within the genes that parents transfer to their offspring. So, for a while, scientific fact had been that our genetic inheritance was defined solely by our DNA that was wired at birth.
More recently, we discovered epigenetics: the existence of molecular switches capable of turning genes on or off in a process that can happen at any point over the lifespan of an organism. Thus meaning that experiences can influence gene functions by making small adjustments to our DNA and, on top of that, these ‘acquired’ modifications can be transferred to our offspring through the generations. Again, the role of DNA in heredity was not refuted; instead, it was our understanding of the bigger picture that matured.
These examples show the fundamental importance of the scientific questioning driven by the fruitful ‘collective doubt’, opposite to peremptory assertions often surrounding opinions or worse ‘alternative facts’."
from polytechnique-insights.com/...
On the alleged Lancet statement that Vitamin D supplementation would have halved the death rate:
Claiming that the Lancet released a statement but when asked for it saying that in fact it was something you heard on the news on the radio hardly constitutes backing up the evidence for a claim. All kinds of nonsense can be heard on the radio. Including on "reputable" channels. Radio presenters frequently misunderstand or misinterpret science. Without the actual statement (which doesnt seem to exist) you are just making yet another claim for which you can provide no evidence.
-----
In Conclusion
You have stated that your purpose is to "educate", but how do you expect to educate others about subjects which you do not understand?
You insist that you are privileged with new lipid science that the entire scientific community seems to be unaware of.
Lipid science that would overturn decades of nutrition research. Momentous indeed. Indeed you seem to think that this already happened and that lipid scientists (and nutrition experts I guess?) now agree with your view that foods containing mostly polyunsaturated fats should be replaced in the diet by foods containing mostly saturated fat.
There's just one small problem with this whole story of yours.
It never happened.
There is no "new" lipid science that has overturned decades of research.
You can't provide a paper or reference for it because it doesn't exist.
You have not responded to a single line of the Alinea Nutrition blog on the subject in which nutrition professionals investigated the issue to a depth and competence which I have not seen elsewhere.
The opinion of the majority of lipid scientists, dieticians, nutrition researchers and anyone with a passing knowledge of nutrition is and remains the opposite of what you claim. Their opinion is backed by a mountain of converging lines of evidence pointing in the exact opposite direction, as already explored in detail by Alinea Nutrition in their blog.
You seem to be under the impression that viable alternative "proof" exists, in which you choose to believe, but you cannot seem to present this proof or reference any paper or book(s) that would outline it other than alluding to mysterious 200 page books packed with references written by ex-doctors. Why such caution to not name these mysterious texts? Maybe because you know the authors are renowned quacks?
You know that doctors receive very little training in nutrition right? And you realize that 200 pages is a pretty modest length paperback - most serious textbooks run to .... say 650 pages in the case of my nutrition textbook, 870 pages for my book on Nutrient Metabolism, 1309 pages for my biology textbook. With references. Any clown can write a 200 page book and even self-publish it if they want. With tightly packed references! Having references doesnt mean that the claims in the book check out.
The book may be misrepresenting the source, quoting it out of context, it may be an unreliable source, or the source may show the opposite of what the book claims. I have checked references in the past where I found a claim suspicious and found it not to check out. So your claim that I am rigidly set in my "beliefs" is complete nonsense - I always try to be open to new evidence emerging that may change my mind on something and I am generally skeptical of overblown claims, those that claim to overturn the field (like yours) or those from a biased source.
You have many many other claims, none of which have been supported with evidence, the closest you got being: "I heard it on the radio".
Feel free to reply with more misrepresentations of my positions, "explanations" of things you don't understand and links to "recommended reading resources". Perhaps something by Malcolm Kendrick or maybe Zoe Harcombe?
Please remember I mean no offence and have taken no offence by what you have written and my purpose is only to ensure evidence-based information reaches forum readers.
I agree that it is unlikely we will agree and that is not really the intention of my post/replies. I think this is covered well in this article :
jamesclear.com/why-facts-do...
I am more interested in demonstrating to other readers that your claims have have no evidential basis.
Try cancer.gov ‘intravenous high-dose vitamin c therapy in cancer treatments’
Also Lancet released their statement and it was read out on national tv during the evening news-It was fairly recently-within this last year.
I’m sure you are more than capable of searching for yourself though you do seem to be selective in your reading?
It’s strange but have you never wondered what would happen if a cancer ‘cure’ were found? I think that an awful lot of companies posing as charities would be suddenly defunct and unemployed execs would be scrabbling for work? There are lots of phase 1and 2 tests but none of the wealthier drugs companies seem to want to fund phase 3 trials-a bit like turkeys voting for Christmas wouldn’t you think? 😂😂😂
Hi. I am not in a position to offer you any advice but I am sorry to hear what you have gone through.
It took a year for my own mother to be diagnosed with PA. She was fobbed off all the time, given tonics, as they did back in the day, go to bed earlier with hot milk, etc etc. She became so unwell my dad had to demand a hospital appointment and it was only then she got a diagnosis and treatment. It was an awful time.
I wish you well.
It is truly the shame of our nation that something as well researched and safe but crucial to life like B12 is so overlooked. I think there is a petition somewhere trying to get B12 status made a part of a normal blood test screening? You and your family are so lucky to have found her PA in time. My mum had tests done and was given tablets even though she was PA. In my opinion and obviously the coroner’s the NHS didn’t cover themselves in glory 😵💫
I totally agree.
I sometimes get the impression doctors don't take these vitamin levels too seriously. I was deficient in Folate last year and became quite unwell. I had to tell GP what tests to do!! Just as well I did. Dr didn't even ask what my diet was like just text a prescription and that was it. When you have to prompt them some don't like it and see it as telling them what to do but for the sake of your own health you have to, that's the way I see it anyway.
We were very lucky indeed with my mum but it did come worryingly close to her not having a good outcome. She was very poorly indeed. I am so sorry your mum did not receive the correct treatment. It is both heartbreaking and infuriating.
Good luck.
I’ve come to realise that doctors have been taught pharmacologically and are completely sure that they know best until they don’t. I’ve found that I have 2doctors in my practice that I trust as they fully accept that they are still learning-even in their 50’s. I’ve even given a gift of Dr Chandy’s ‘B12 in clinical practice’ book to one and he gracefully accepted it in the spirit in which it was given. He hadn’t been taught even an hour’s lesson on nutrition in his entire training which to me is very concerning. So when NHS talks about preventative medicine I think they might be talking statins and not vitamins unfortunately. Nothing surprises or shocks me much these days, which I find sad. Like most of us we only fully understand an injustice when its been aimed at ourselves and gain the motivation to act or educate ourselves etc modern science is miraculous and the pace of discovery is astounding but the findings need to be shared and not weaponised or monetised but they are not…yet 🤞
I completely agree.
There appear to be some GPs who stick to what they have known for years and are not open to looking outside the box they know.
I do question if GPs are trained very well, if at all, on the importance of good vitamin levels. From my own experience with Autoimmune Thyroid disease which affects absorption of certain vitamins, when I requested for them to be tested I have been asked, why do you want to know that!!!
Thank goodness for forums like this where people can share their experiences as I felt it was just me who seems to hit a wall when asking for the basics in medical treatment. 😒
Just a quick hello EyesWideNow,
Wonderful about having your pregnancies and being a mum to 3 beautiful girls I am so sorry to read of your health journey.
My sincerest condolences to read of your mother dying of this deadly illness. My thoughts are with you and your family.
Thank you so much for your kind concern. I’m just thankful that my children have made it to adulthood with 2living parents as it seems that more people are dying younger or living more of their lifespan unhealthy and in pain. I am now older and fatter than I’ve ever been but in less pain and feeling fitter and healthier than I have in 20yrs-what an anomaly?! Pain is and has probably been for me the greatest motivator for change and when anyone is ill in my family and doesn’t try the remedy then I say that they must either enjoy pain or not be in enough pain to want to fix it ha ha
Best regards x
I throughly enjoyed reading your views, and totally agree with you. So well detailed and explained, well done! Hopefully more people will come round to this way of eating for health, you only have to look at how many people have reversed their diagnosis of type 2 diabetes. You have to wonder why it's so much on the increase, and the main drug...metformin. Doesn't this have an effect on your b12 levels? Bet your GP wouldn't tell you that!They would say eat carbohydrates, low fat everything, take this drug and no... your b12 level is normal.
Hello, thank heavens I’m not going mad! There are likeminded people out there and YES metformin hinders your B12 along with many other pharmaceuticals. I try to communicate in plain terms as easily to understand as possible but I do know I go on a fair bit and am probably speaking to the converted with way more experience and knowledge than myself ha ha
Thank you Myanna23 🥰👍
Not what you're looking for?
You may also like...
Methyl Cobalamin Injections
This Sherlock is at a cross roads on where to go for treatment?
Doctor said you can become allergic to b12. Oh please what next
Reaction to B12 tablets
Heartfelt thanks to all.
Just when you think it can't get worse, guess what?
A few symptoms that just won’t give!! 
Doctor refused to give me B12 tablets but symptoms have returned
Low stomach acid DUE TO b12 deficiency 
Sylvia Plath and B12?
