Study on harmful effects of cooked low carb diets

[TylerDurden]

Here's a study in the daily telegraph newspaper on the harmful effects of cooked low-carb diets:-

 Home ScienceAtkins-style diets can clog up arteries, claims study
Atkins-style low carbohydrate diets made popular by their celebrity disciples may clog up arteries and lead to heart disease, a study suggests.
 
By Richard Alleyne, Science Correspondent
Published: 7:00AM BST 25 Aug 2009

The weight loss regimes are popular because they allow followers to fill up on proteins like red meat and cheese as long as they avoid carbohydrates such as pasta, bread and potatoes.

The slimming plans, followed by the Hollywood actress Renee Zellweger and the singer Geri Halliwell, seemed to offer the holy grail of dramatic weight loss without the sacrifice.

But there have been claims in the past that they are bad for your health, make your breath smell and can even lead to memory loss.

This latest research on mice suggests they could also double the chances of developing atherosclerosis, a clogging up of the arteries that can lead to heart attack and stroke.

The findings also showed that the diet led to an impaired ability of the body to form new blood vessels and therefore recuperate after a heart attack.

The researchers concluded that the diets “could be having adverse cardiovascular effects” on those who follow them.

Cardiologists at the Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center at Harvard University decided to research the health affects of the diets after treating followers for heart attacks.

At the height of their popularity in 2003 an estimated three million Britons were thought to be on the Atkins Diet.

In order to determine the effects on humans, the study, published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, tested two different diets on mice in the laboratory.

The first were on an average western diet of 43 per cent carbohydrate, 42 per cent fat and 15 per cent protein and the second on a low carbohydrate, high-protein diet of 12 per cent carbohydrate, 43 per cent fat and 45 per cent protein.

After six weeks those on the low carbohydrate diet had nearly double the clogging of the arteries (5.4 per cent) compared with the normal diet (2.2 per cent).

The difference was maintained after 12 weeks, with the mice suffering 15.3 per cent and 8.8 per cent clogging of the arteries.

A control group of mice on a high carbohydrate diet – making up 65 per cent of calories – suffered the least furring of the arteries.

The study found that the increased risk came despite normal indicators of heart disease risk, such as cholesterol, being unchanged in the animals fed the low-carb diet.

“It’s very difficult to know in clinical studies how diets affect vascular health,” said Professor Anthony Rosenzweig, Director of Cardiovascular Research at BIDMC.

“They tend to rely on easily measured serum markers [such as cholesterol], which have been surprisingly reassuring in individuals on low-carbohydrate/high-protein diets, who do typically lose weight.

“But our research suggests that, at least in animals, these diets could be having adverse cardiovascular effects that are not reflected in simple serum markers.

“This issue is particularly important given the growing epidemic of obesity and its adverse consequences. For now, it appears that a moderate and balanced diet, coupled with regular exercise, is probably best for most people.”

Last year the All-New Atkins Advantage diet was launched which claimed to offer the same weight loss without the health worries.

Even though it relaxed the rules, it still relied on ketosis - where the body breaks down its own fat because it is starved of carbohydrates.

   
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/6081712/Atkins-style-diets-can-clog-up-arteries-claims-study.html

[carnivore]

The abstract is available here :

http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2009/08/21/0907995106.abstract?sid=1e3ecd37-815e-4fd3-8d8d-4dc3e5a5f189

Vascular effects of a low-carbohydrate high-protein diet
Abstract

The cardiovascular complications of obesity have prompted interest in dietary interventions to reduce weight, including low-carbohydrate diets that are generally high in protein and fat. However, little is known about the long-term effects of these diets on vascular health. We examined the cardiovascular effects of a low-carbohydrate, high-protein diet (LCHP) in the ApoE?/? mouse model of atherosclerosis and in a model of ischemia-induced neovascularization. Mice on a LCHP were compared with mice maintained on either the standard chow diet (SC) or the Western diet (WD) which contains comparable fat and cholesterol to the LCHP. LCHP-fed mice developed more aortic atherosclerosis and had an impaired ability to generate new vessels in response to tissue ischemia. These changes were not explained by alterations in serum cholesterol, inflammatory mediators or infiltrates, or oxidative stress. The LCHP diet substantially reduced the number of bone marrow and peripheral blood endothelial progenitor cells (EPCs), a marker of vascular regenerative capacity. EPCs from mice on a LCHP diet also manifest lower levels of activated (phosphorylated) Akt, a serine-threonine kinase important in EPC mobilization, proliferation, and survival. Taken together, these data demonstrate that in animal models LCHP diets have adverse vascular effects not reflected in serum markers and that nonlipid macronutrients can modulate vascular progenitor cells and pathophysiology.


And here is a comment from Stargazey :

http://lowcarb4u.blogspot.com/2009/08/blood-glucose-cancer-and-coronary-heart.html :

The study you refer to, Low-carb diets linked to atherosclerosis and impaired blood vessel growth was done in mice. After 12 weeks of a diet of 12 percent carbohydrate, 43 percent fat and 45 percent protein they developed significant vascular disease.

When it comes to diet, it is not necessarily wise to compare mice and humans. While both are omnivores, humans spent much of their history hunting and eating animals. They ate some plant matter, but relatively litle of it. Mice will eat insects and dead things, but most of their diet consists of plant-based food. In order to be successful, each species would have developed its physiology to maximize its potential survival based on the food it normally ate. In other words, in terms of diet, a mouse is not a human.

The other thing is that we actually know what a low-carb diet does to the plaque in human arteries. Dr. William Davis is a cardiologist who writes the Heart Scan Blog to encourage his readers to measure, track, and reduce coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

He does this by instructing his readers (and his patients) to eliminate wheat, cornstarch and sugars from their diets. He has a few additional guidelines which you can read about here. At any rate, these people are following a version of a low-carb diet. In case after case, they are able to see a significant reduction in their coronary atherosclerosis with his program. And this is without the use of statins in most cases.

I don't know enough mouse physiology to know why they develop vascular disease on a low-carb diet. However, if you're concerned that low-carbing is ruining your arteries, get your doctor to set you up for a baseline CT heart scan (not a CT coronary angiogram--a completely different test) and then track your plaque score as you continue doing low-carb.

[van]

another factor which apparently has great effects is the type of fat and protein used.  Often in these studies highly oxidized fats will be used as well as protein isolates.  Had the mice been fed live or recently killed naturally grown insects, which are naturally low in carbs,  I would give value to the study. 

[invisible]

laughable that a study that doesn't even show any conclusive results gets published in a newspaper, where the endless studies conducted on actual humans showing improvements in all health parameters (including artery plaque) from carb restriction receive no acknowledgment.

[goodsamaritan]

Anyone tried that Heart Scan thing?  To see if your arteries are blocked?

[carnivore]

http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/08/low-carbohydrate-high-protein-and-apoe.html

Cardiologists are impatient people. If they want to study aortic aneurisms they tend to do things like placing a balloon in the aorta via the femoral artery, inflating it and then pulling. Down the aorta, with the balloon inflated. Or they might go in there surgically, cross clamp the aorta in two places, perfuse the isolated section of aorta with some unpleasant chemical, then set all back to normal and try out the latest drug for aneurism treatment on the preparation. The prime requirement is the suspension of disbelief that the "model" has anything to do with human senile dissecting aortic aneurisms. It doesn't.

Obviously the cholesterol fed Syrian hamster is a great model for arteriosclerosis, but it's boring. There's nothing sexy about feeding a herbivore cholesterol. Sexy needs genetically modified mammals to make it happen.

So you want a mouse to get atheroma? Well, they don't. Feed them mouse chow and they get arterial damage and fibrosis all right, but not nice big juicy cholesterol filled plaque. What to do? Delete a gene.

One offspring from the impatience of cardiologists is the apoE-/- mouse. This mouse is a genetic cripple who's ability to process fat has been severely damaged. There are a very, very, very small number of people in the world who are homozygous for defective apoE. They are functionally apoE-/-. Nature does not allow this commonly. Contrast it with FH where there are hundreds of different types of FH, ie breaking your LDL receptor gene is easily done and evolution has not attempted to conserve it particularly highly.

Feeding a high fat diet to apoE-/- mice is bad news for the mice. Until anyone gives us the full text of the paper we'll have no idea of exactly what they fed to the mice but, ultimately, they broke the mice first. Actually, if Dr Murray is anything to go by, even the full text won't tell us much about what they fed the mice!

If you are apoE -/- I wish you luck. Statistically, you're not. Neither is the cardiologist, Dr Rosenzweig, who gave up his LC diet on the basis of this study. But then, he thinks the transgenic apoE-/- mouse is a model for human arteriosclerosis.

[TylerDurden]

"A mouse is not a human" Maybe not, but a mouse is an omnivore just like humans. The degree of plant-matter involved is rather irrelevant(with the exception, I believe, that mice can digest grains much  better than humans?)

[carnivore]

From Hyperlipid :


EDIT: OK, I now have the full text (thanks H) and here is the total information supplied in the methods section about the diets:

"Male pups were placed on one of the three study diets 1 week after weaning: standard chow diet (Harlan Teklad #2018 rodent chow), high-fat ‘Western’ diet (Harlan Teklad # 88137) and a custom-ordered low-carbohydrate diet manufactured to our specifications (Harlan Teklad)."

That's it. It is traditional to give enough information in the methods section to allow another group to repeat your protocol. If the problems in these mice are NOT from being apoE-/- then Foo et all are to be congratulated on developing a diet to produce more problems than the Western or Cafeteria diet, but they ain't telling anyone how to do it! No answer from Murray on the same query.

[razmatazz]

yeah, i call BS in this study as well...i just read about it on BBC health and it made me so angry! After reading good calories bad calories I find it very difficult to believe most stuff about health/scientific studies printed in newspapers/the media.
who knows if the mice were mutants, if they were fed mostly polyunsaturated or rancid fats, etc?

i'm still convinced a low carb diet even if cooked is miles better than the typical western diet...there is tons more evidence to support that

[PaleoPhil]

Here below is still more evidence that the positives of saturated ANIMAL fats outweigh the downsides from cooking them (and raw is even better, of course--I am NOT advocating cooking, let me be perfectly clear about that). The accumulating evidence suggests that raw saturated ANIMAL fat is one of the healthiest foods on planet earth for human beings. Heating it a little doesn't magically turn it into one of the worst.

One of the dirty tricks that the diet dictocrats play is to do a study with hydrogenated saturated fats from plant oils and claim that the ill effects mean we should avoid non-hydrogenated saturated fats from animals. It's amazing that anyone falls for this. Another trick is to play with the study data. Uffe Ravnskov says Ancel Keys was guilty on the first count and Gary Taubes in GCBC says Keys was guilty on the second count.

Saturated [Animal] Fat is Good for You [Yes, even cooked]
Uffe Ravnskov, MD
http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#2Ddzku/www.spacedoc.net/saturated_fat_is_good_for_you_1/

"... I reviewed also the more than thirty studies having shown that patients with heart disease or stroke have not eaten more saturated fat than healthy individuals. (4) Indeed, seven studies have found that stroke patients had eaten less. (5)

The strongest proof for causality is experiments on human beings. If saturated fat causes heart disease, a reduction of such fat in the diet should lower the risk, this is pure logic. But up to 1997, nine such trials had been published and when all the results were put together in a so-called meta-analysis, no effect was seen whatsoever. In a few of the trials the experiment resulted in a little fewer deaths from heart disease, but in other studies mortality had increased. (4,6)

How come that still today saturated fat is seen as a menace to health? What is the evidence? The truth is that there is none."


Part 2
http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#1yrqsh/www.spacedoc.net/saturated_fat_is_good_for_you_2/

Here Ravnskov describes how Ancel Keys' anti-saturated-fat obsession became the accepted dogma of most of the medical and scientific establishment, with some courageous dissenters speaking out against it.

"Instead of giving the test individuals natural saturated fat from animal food in the experiments, many authors had used vegetable oils saturated by hydrogenation, a process that also produces trans fat, and today we know that trans fat indeed causes cholesterol to go up.

...in the eighties American researcher Ronald Krauss found that the most useful risk marker, the best predictor of heart disease among the blood lipids, wasn't the total amount of cholesterol in the blood, neither the bad guy LDL cholesterol, but a special type of LDL particle, the small, dense ones. The most surprising finding was that if somebody ate a high saturated fat diet, the number of these small, dense LDL particles decreased.(13)"


Part 3
http://www.stumbleupon.com/s/#2UM54h/www.spacedoc.net/saturated_fat_is_good_for_you_3/

"A relevant argument against such studies is that what the participants tell you about their diet is not necessarily true. Who can remember what they ate yesterday and how much? And can we be confident that they will eat similar food and similar amounts of that food next week or next year?

A better way to know how much saturated fat we have eaten is to analyze the amount of various fatty acids present in our fat cells. It has been shown that the number of the short saturated fatty acids reflects the intake of saturated fat during the previous weeks or months.(20)

In at least nine studies researchers have determined the amount of these fatty acids in the fat cells. In six of them the content was similar in patients with cardiovascular disease and in healthy individuals meaning that the patients evidently hadn't eaten more saturated fat than healthy people. In the rest the patients had fewer short chain fatty acids, meaning that they had eaten less saturated fat than the healthy control subjects.(21)"

[TylerDurden]

This is all rubbish, of course. There are now many 1,000s of studies which show conclusively that foods high in cooked saturated fats lead to a higher mortality-risk etc with precious little backing up cooked low carb diets(and I've already cited several examples of how the latter studies are deeply flawed, in their assumptions). Being nitpicking about a handful of the studies doesn't obscure the fact that when there are so many such studies, that it is physically impossible for them all to be completely wrong - indeed, the whole point of science is that it is always on the side of the big battalions - in other words, the more scientific papers that favour 1 side over the other, the more likely it is that the larger side is correct. That's why the inevitable argument that advocates of cooked-low-carb-diets use, in the end, is the old tired chesnut, "the conspiracy theory". Sad, really.

*Sigh - given the  promotion/apologia of  cooked diets, as above, I suppose I'll have to shove this into the hot topics forum.*

[TylerDurden]

1 obvious point:- the few studies that pro-cooked-low-carb diet-advocates like to cite never seem to address the main issue behind the multitude of studies damning the consumption of cooked animal foods. That issue , of course, is that most of those anti-saturated fat studies are , in turn, based on a multitude of studies which clearly show the substantial harm done to health by heat-created toxins found in cooked foods, such as advanced glycation end products, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc, as well as showing that heat-created toxins form, to a much larger extent, in cooked animal foods. In order to prove , unequivocally, that cooked low-carb diets are remotely healthy, one would have to show that either humans have fully adapted to such heat-created toxins or that we had developed some sort of tolerance for them. So far, no such evidence has been cited, and there's a multitude of studies done on advanced glycation end products etc., anyway, which is going to be very difficult to disprove.

[PaleoPhil]

1 obvious point:- the few studies that pro-cooked-low-carb diet-advocates like to cite never seem to address the main issue behind the multitude of studies damning the consumption of cooked animal foods. That issue , of course, is that most of those anti-saturated fat studies are , in turn, based on a multitude of studies which clearly show the substantial harm done to health by heat-created toxins found in cooked foods, such as advanced glycation end products, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons etc, as well as showing that heat-created

Actually, if you read GCBC, you'll find that many of the anti-saturated fat studies are really just reviews that quote earlier studies. You ignored, rather than refuted the evidence that multiple people have provided you. Whatever theoretical mechanism you can come up with for cooked SFA causing disease, AGEs or what have you, there is not a single study that provides solid evidence that SFAs actually increase overall mortality, cooked or otherwise--not one. All those that claim to do that have fatal flaws, some of which Anthony Colpo, that pro-SFA fanatic summarizes at the links below. By contrast, there are many that find no negative effects or actually positive effects (you can find many more than I provided in GCBC).

Have you read the full text of a single SFA study? The abstracts can be very misleading. I also used to think that SFA was probably bad, especially when it comes from grain-fed animals and is cooked at high temps, but when I read the actual studies and raw data I could not find a shred of evidence among them. I hope you DO find it, because I'd like you to use it against Colpo, who has been rather arrogant at times. It would be nice to see him get taken down a peg. If you decide to take him on, good luck to you in that effort and I'll be rooting for you. Colpo offered Dr. Eades a reward if he could disprove Colpo's claims on calories in/out, maybe he'll offer you a reward to disprove him on SFAs. At the very least, Dr. Eades will be very grateful to you for taking Colpo to the woodshed. If you really have thousands of studies that show REAL higher mortality-risk from SFAs it should be pretty easy to do. Just be aware that if it becomes obvious that you haven't read the FULL study you cite, and not just the abstract, or if the alleged mortality-risk factors are not linked to ACTUAL mortality or SFAs, he'll verbally rip you a new a-hole.

If you can prove not only Anthony Colpo wrong, but Gary Taubes too, the media and much of the food industry will LOVE you and reward you handsomely. I'm not fond of Taubes' pro-dairy and anti-Paleo bias, so I wouldn't mind seeing him get taken down a peg too.

I'm losing interest in this discussion, since we just seem to be going round in circles and I'm not looking to change your mind, only to state my very different perspective, so that no one can claim that there is only one view on this subject here or that the issue isn't controversial. Here's some links to some of Anthony's stuff, with some excerpts, to help you get started, if you want to take him on and disprove him:

The Great Cholesterol Con
http://people.lulu.com/users/index.php?fHomepage=440719

From: "Saturated Fat Attack"
http://westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/saturated-fat-attack.html
<<There have been numerous randomized controlled CHD prevention trials conducted since the 1960s, in which people have been given either high-polyunsaturate diets or high-saturate diets as the sole intervention. In these trials, extending up to eight years, no cardiovascular or overall mortality advantage has ever been observed that can be attributed to saturated fat restriction. In fact, a number of these trials observed poorer mortality outcomes in the high-polyunsaturate group.>>  --Anthony Colpo,

The Low-Fat Diet Does Not Protect Against Heart Disease, and May Actually Worsen It
From: Why the Low-Fat Diet is Stupid and Potentially Dangerous
Anthony Colpo, Feb. 23, 2006.
(Last updated September 15, 2007).
http://www.anthonycolpo.com/low_fat_diet_dangerous.html

The WHI trial confirmed what well-read cholesterol skeptics have known for a long time: The low-fat diet is a big fat fraud when it comes to preventing heart disease. ....

...I'll just close by saying that the low-fat diet has NEVER been demonstrated to do all the wonderful health-fortifying things claimed for it. The only trials showing favorable effects in people following low-fat diets are those that simultaneously employed other truly useful interventions, like exercise, stress management, increased fruit and vegetable intake and decreased processed food intake, and weight loss. However, there is absolutely no law whatsoever stating that low-fat eating is required for the implementation of any of these strategies. In fact, given the available evidence, one can only conclude that the inclusion of higher fat intakes in these trials may even have improved the results!

The bottom line: Not only is low-fat eating a boring way to go through life, it is a useless and often counterproductive hoax.

And here's Taubes' view--he wrote a whole book on the subject of the alleged problems of saturated fat:

The reason for this book is straightforward: despite the depth and certainty of our faith that saturated fat is the nutritional bane of our lives and that obesity is caused by overeating and sedentary behavior, there has always been copious evidence to suggest that those assumptions are incorrect, and that evidence is continuing to mount." (GCBC, p. xvii)

Good luck.

[TylerDurden]

Look. I would agree on one thing:- the studies focusing on saturated fats are looking at the wrong culprit. Raw saturated fats are fine, it's the glycotoxins produced via cooking that are the real problem. This is something that many scientists are starting to take note, which is why newer studies focus on these toxins found in cooked animal foods, not saturated fats per se:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long

Re Colpo:- Yes, I've read his site and he is indeed a very angry figure. I remember one furious attack he made on Cordain a few years ago which actually made Colpo look rather stupid. Colpo, as I recall, heavily favours consumption of grainfed meat(presumably because of the extra fats).

Re Taubes:- Here's an article attacking Taubes' claims:-  http://www.reason.com/news/show/28714.html

Here's Taubes' reply:-  http://www.reason.com/news/show/28721.html

Here's the original reviewer's reply to Taubes' riposte:-  http://www.reason.com/news/show/28715.html

I guess the above cover most of my concerns. What I am really waiting for, though, is for the cooked-low-carb gurus to properly explain away the large amounts of heat-created toxins in cooked animal foods re claims that they are supposedly non-harmful(or perhaps required re health). I doubt they ever can.

[PaleoPhil]

...This is something that many scientists are starting to take note, which is why newer studies focus on these toxins found in cooked animal foods, not saturated fats per se:-

http://www.pnas.org/content/94/12/6474.long

That isn't a "newer" study--it's from 1997. Most of the studies and reviews I listed for you are from 1999 and after.

Re Colpo:- Yes, I've read his site and he is indeed a very angry figure. I remember one furious attack he made on Cordain a few years...

Yes, and it was his nasty treatment of Cordain and Eades and his claim that there was not a single study at the time (I think it was around 2006, but I'm not sure) that in the text or data of the full study itself (not in the interpretation in the abstract) clearly demonstrated a link between SFAs and heart disease mortality or overall mortality that in part inspired me to investigate. I wasn't convinced that no harm comes from grain-fed saturated fats (though I didn't rule out that they might be safe either), and there's nothing like absolute, angry certainty to make me start to question a claim. When I read the full studies, I found what he said was actually correct. He seems to have done more reading on the subject than anyone except maybe Taubes.

Because of that reading I did, I've already checked out most of the SFA studies from around 2006 and before. If you find a study from 2007 or newer whose raw data refutes Colpo, let me know and I'll check it out. I hope you find one.

Ironically, because I set out to disprove Colpo, I learned that much of the anti-SFA studies were bogus and further investigated low-carb, high-fat diets, and eventually started experimenting with it myself and found that I did much better on a diet much higher in fat and lower in carbs than I had previously expected. Other people (like Ray Audette, William, Dr. Eades, Dr. Wortman, Dr. Phinney, DelFuego, Lex and others) also influenced me in that direction, but I guess I do owe Anthony some credit for spurring me on in that direction.
 

Re Taubes:- Here's an article attacking Taubes' claims:-  http://www.reason.com/news/show/28714.html

Here's Taubes' reply:-  http://www.reason.com/news/show/28721.html

Here's the original reviewer's reply to Taubes' riposte:-  http://www.reason.com/news/show/28715.html

OK, thanks. I don't think I read these and I like Reason magazine, so I probably will. I started reading Fumento's article, but found it to be a bit of a turn-off. It comes across as an attack piece, no matter how correct, but I'll try to finish these in the future when I'm feeling more tolerant of vitriol. I generally prefer dispassionate scientific analysis--such as what Lex tends to provide. I'm not perfect about sticking to that myself, but I try. For example, despite my irritation with Colpo's nasty style, I did not attack his pro-SFA claim because I found the evidence supported him and I would not have written a personal attack piece about him even if I found him to be wrong. I like to think I would have merely sought to refute his claim and perhaps ask him to apologize to those he had attacked, specifying the words I thought he should apologize about.

I guess the above cover most of my concerns. What I am really waiting for, though, is for the cooked-low-carb gurus to properly explain away the large amounts of heat-created toxins in cooked animal foods re claims that they are supposedly non-harmful(or perhaps required re health). I doubt they ever can.

I long suspected that there may be problems with saturated animal fats due to feeding cattle grains and maybe high-heat cooking, but my review of the evidence so far has found it to be pretty weak, especially when it comes to things like demonstrating a connection between SFAs and actual overall mortality (not just alleged markers of heart disease and mortality risk like high total cholesterol or AGEs or even clogged arteries). Plus, my own experience and that of others has found that at least some people do better eating more satured fats and less carbs, not worse. So if there is a major problem with cooked SFAs, it does not appear to be universal. Perhaps there are some small, long-term effects we have yet to measure. I can neither rule that in or out at this time, but one thing does seem clear to me after reading countless studies, articles and books--SFAs are nowhere near as deadly as the dietary police have made them out to be for decades. If there are problems with nondairy SFAs, I suspect they disappear when one eats pasture-fed, raw SFAs, but that is somewhat speculative on my part at this time.

[TylerDurden]

That isn't a "newer" study--it's from 1997. Most of the studies and reviews I listed for you are from 1999 and after.

I quoted it as it was an important phase,as scientists were starting to investigate more closely the damage done by heat-created toxins in cooking.

As regards the harm done by grainfed meat, I should add that AGEs are not only formed via cooking but also when an animal is on an unhealthy diet(such as cattle on grainfed meat). However, while eating meat that is both cooked as well as grainfed is a double-blow re receiving heat-created toxins into the body, even eating cooked grassfed meats is still harmful.

[PaleoPhil]

I quoted it as it was an important phase,as scientists were starting to investigate more closely the damage done by heat-created toxins in cooking.

It was just befuddling to be told that "newer" studies show something different than those I provided, which caused me to think that maybe some new info had come out, then to find out that the study is older than the studies and reviews I listed.

As regards the harm done by grainfed meat, I should add that AGEs are not only formed via cooking but also when an animal is on an unhealthy diet(such as cattle on grainfed meat). However, while eating meat that is both cooked as well as grainfed is a double-blow re receiving heat-created toxins into the body, even eating cooked grassfed meats is still harmful.

To refute or convince people like Colpo, the WAPF, Dr. Harris of PaNu, Taubes and their followers, you'll need more than just evidence of AGEs, you'll need evidence of mortality from cancer or heart disease, or--even better--from overall mortality. If all you can produce is circumstantial evidence of AGEs, allegedly "bad" lipid data, clogged arteries (as in the Masai), etc., they'll just claim those factors are unimportant. Death is hard to refute. Even increased disease rates would probably be better.

[TylerDurden]

It was just befuddling to be told that "newer" studies show something different than those I provided, which caused me to think that maybe some new info had come out, then to find out that the study is older than the studies and reviews I listed.

There are plenty of other studies done on AGEs, it's just that this is more referenced than others.

To refute or convince people like Colpo, the WAPF, Dr. Harris of PaNu, Taubes and their followers, you'll need more than just evidence of AGEs, you'll need evidence of mortality from cancer or heart disease, or--even better--from overall mortality. If all you can produce is circumstantial evidence of AGEs, allegedly "bad" lipid data, clogged arteries (as in the Masai), etc., they'll just claim those factors are unimportant. Death is hard to refute. Even increased disease rates would probably be better.

I am perfectly well aware of the closed-mindedness of cooked-low-carb gurus like Colpo and Sally Fallon. It would be pointless to argue with them(Cordain, for example, once made a polite scientific debunking of Colpo's more ludicrous assertions re the benefits of grainfed meats etc., but, unsurprisingly, Colpo was a bit too dimwitted to accept it, just using strong language(and astonishingly bad science) to back up his own claims. In a way, I'm actually grateful that Taubes, Fallon and Colpo always inevitably  fall back on the lame conspiracy-theory charges as it makes them look utterly ridiculous(and why no mainstream scientist takes them seriously). Given that we also have another kook on the pro-cooking side of things(Wrangham), it just makes us rawists look even better, by contrast.

The fact is that the evidence re AGEs is by no means circumstantial, with vast numbers of studies(1000s now) not only showing direct damage to the body re inflammation etc. via AGEs and other heat-created toxins but also showing improved health if AGE-intake is heavily reduced(re studies done on low-AGE diets). Plus, there are already far too many scientific studies showing clearly that increased consumption of cooked meat leads to increased mortality re cancer and other health-problems - and we all know that cooking generates far more heat-created toxins in cooked animal foods than any other type of cooked food.

On a strict logical level, advocates of cooked foods already have very, very poor claims in favour of cooking. The best they can say is that cooking improves the digestibility of low-quality foods that can't be eaten raw, and a (failed) assertion that "cooking doesn't really do all that much damage". Any respectable scientist will, albeit reluctantly, agree that cooking does damage in all sorts of ways:- it destroys bacteria(the role of bacteria re digestion and mood-enhancement is already established), it destroys enzymes, cooking creates many types of heat-created toxins, and, lastly, cooking causes minor to severe/total loss of nutrients, depending on the vitamin/mineral involved and the relevant temperature.

Of course, generally speaking, as another RVAFer once stated, no amount of good quality scientific evidence re the benefits of raw foods will ever truly convince the scientific establishment as we simply have too long a history of cooking(couple of hundred thousand years) and it may take that long for the majority of  to grasp the concept of raw being better.

[Raw Kyle]

I don't think anyone is claiming raw isn't better than cooked.

[invisible]

There are now many 1,000s of studies which show conclusively that foods high in cooked saturated fats lead to a higher mortality-risk

Zero studies show that

[PaleoPhil]

Quote from: TylerDurden on August 31, 2009, 04:40:28 PM
There are now many 1,000s of studies which show conclusively that foods high in cooked saturated fats lead to a higher mortality-risk

Zero studies show that

Correct. If there were a single study that showed that conclusively in the actual data, I would already have used it to refute Colpo. I'm still hoping for it, but have yet to find one.