What Is The Raw Material Cholesterol Is Made From?

[chrismeyers]

How many calories? Grams of proteins and carbs?

I dont count calories so I really dont know. I go through about a gallon and a half of skim per day. 104 grams of sugar per half gallon so you can do the math. And skim is around 64 grams of protein per half gallon.

 

[EIRE24]

I dont count calories so I really dont know. I go through about a gallon and a half of skim per day. 104 grams of sugar per half gallon so you can do the math. And skim is around 64 grams of protein per half gallon.

Nice. Happy you feel awesome!

 

[Travis]

Which is of course wrong, since the concentration of cholesterol has nothing to do with either atherosclerosis incidence or heart attacks, as was proved by Uffe Ravnskov.

And it's been proved by others as well.

Check out these Pearson correlation coefficients:

Here, Dr. Rath statistically correlates the serum parameters with the arterial parameters (artery taken from bypass; blood taken days before). You will see that total serum cholesterol barely correlates with arterial cholesterol. Apoprotein(a)—and the attached Apo B—have the highest correlation. These two apoproteins are covalently linked with cysteine bridges and together form the structural basis of lipoprotein(a).

I'm probably flogging a dead horse here, but there may be others reading who are not totally convinced. There are even other scientists besides Pauling and Rath who prove this. I good non-Pauling–Rath summary is:

Lipoprotein(a) as a Strong Indicator for Cerebrovascular Disease
Gerald Zenker, M.D.

Also, Malcolm Kendrick realizes that cholesterol is not the primary cause (he has a website.) His focus seem to be stress, which can certainly contribute and does not contradict the Pauling–Rath etiology. High-stress can increase blood pressure, causing damage. Also, I think that stress may reduce protein (collagen) synthesis need to maintain the arterial wall.

The Damage ⟹ Lp(a) binding ⟹ plaque series of events seems to adequately explain all risk factors. Salt, which raises blood pressure and subsequent leakage/damage, has been linked with cardiovascular disease as well. This is what you would expect.

The fact that total serum cholesterol and fat is correlated with cardiovascular disease is simple: the high-tryglycerides and cholesterol merely serve as a proxy for a cooked meat and dairy diet, two food items which are high in salt and low in vitamin C.

 

[Djukami]

Most of my fat comes from hydrogenated coconut oil, but your right, I shouldn't have made any claims of certainty. And apologize to anyone I might have hurt or offended.

Oh, ok, my bad. I like your diet though. I wish I could eat like that.

No I'm serious. Sometimes I get too big for my britches, and need to tone it back.
@EIRE24

Happens to everyone! I also know pretty well when I am impulsive and I always regret it afterwards.

 

[Djukami]

I was not vegan and eat and ate meat
BUT I do have a bad liver, actually that was the reason why I ate little fat. I did not stand it well. Actually I discovered that good mayo solved the problem (I can even make coconut oil mayo!)
I should test it again because it was a long time ago.

Thanks for answer meatbag, and I am a meatbag as well, I love meat and hate veganism (vegans are fine, they are poeple!)

Can you tell me what happens when you eat fat?
I think I have a bad liver too.
For example, since my teens, I remember eating fat (perhaps too much?) and burping sulfur burps on the next days.
Also, if happens to eat meat with some extra fat with it, I immediately feel my legs trembling because of the fat. Few bites more and I will end up in the bathroom.
I also see some fat in my stools. No that much, they are simply kinda greasy, I would say.

Of course, the general idea is to avoid fat. But I don't know if that is the better option, because, perhaps, it can turn my liver even more sluggish on digesting fat.
I also have low cholesterol.

What are your symptoms?

(Sorry for the off topic)

 

[Westside PUFAs]

just like you don't NEED to eat carbs because of the pathways to make protein and fat into glucose.

"How many times have you heard the following statement? “Science has proven that we don’t need carbohydrates at all.” This is always stated as if it was some kind of revelation and of course justification for a very low carb diet. If you don’t need to eat carbs, that must prove that they are useless, and therefore we shouldn’t eat them, right?

Of course the statement is nothing more than a shortsighted misrepresentation of physiology. The statement that you don’t need to eat carbohydrates is based on the well-known principle of gluconeogenesis, the method by which your body can make glucose from non-carbohydrate sources, primarily amino acids. There’s a reason for this. Glucose is so critical to your health that the body has a simple mechanism for ensuring its concentration in blood for the times when you unfortunately can’t get carbohydrates into your diet. It’s a safeguard against a natural or self-imposed tragedy. It prevents you from slipping into a coma and dying due to lack of sufficient blood sugar. This is not an argument for a low-carb diet or for the uselessness of carbohydrates. It is in fact proof positive of how critical carbohydrates are to your life and health.

If carbohydrates were useless as some low-carb enthusiasts want to believe, we would be able to convert fatty acids into glucose instead of using precious amino acids. It’s time to put away this childish argument." - McCarbthyism

You may run into nutritional deficiencies by eliminating entire macronutrient groups (foods) if food quality isn't carefully addressed.

Not really. The FSV:

D - meant to get from sun.
A - can be and mostly is for most people in the world converted from BC. Peat said with optimal thyroid function and enough b12 this will convert.
E - a weird one that comes from mostly pufa sources. I don't think E is important but I still don't see the need to eat "fat" to get enough vitamin E.
K - k1 is easy to get and k2 can be made bacteria just like b12.

Nothing there suggests that you must therefore eat large amounts of ruminant cream or coconut to get FSV. Fat is the least important macro.

For k2, it depends on your k1 intake and your amount of the species of bacteria that convert it into k2. But there is also some evidence of non-gut bacteria tissue being able to make k2 in rats:

"These data offer conclusive proof that the tissue-specific formation of MK-4 from K is a metabolic transformation that does not require bacterial transformation to menadione as an intermediate in the process."

 

[James IV]

"How many times have you heard the following statement? “Science has proven that we don’t need carbohydrates at all.” This is always stated as if it was some kind of revelation and of course justification for a very low carb diet. If you don’t need to eat carbs, that must prove that they are useless, and therefore we shouldn’t eat them, right?

Of course the statement is nothing more than a shortsighted misrepresentation of physiology. The statement that you don’t need to eat carbohydrates is based on the well-known principle of gluconeogenesis, the method by which your body can make glucose from non-carbohydrate sources, primarily amino acids. There’s a reason for this. Glucose is so critical to your health that the body has a simple mechanism for ensuring its concentration in blood for the times when you unfortunately can’t get carbohydrates into your diet. It’s a safeguard against a natural or self-imposed tragedy. It prevents you from slipping into a coma and dying due to lack of sufficient blood sugar. This is not an argument for a low-carb diet or for the uselessness of carbohydrates. It is in fact proof positive of how critical carbohydrates are to your life and health.

If carbohydrates were useless as some low-carb enthusiasts want to believe, we would be able to convert fatty acids into glucose instead of using precious amino acids. It’s time to put away this childish argument." - McCarbthyism



Not really. The FSV:

D - meant to get from sun.
A - can be and mostly is for most people in the world converted from BC. Peat said with optimal thyroid function and enough b12 this will convert.
E - a weird one that comes from mostly pufa sources. I don't think E is important but I still don't see the need to eat "fat" to get enough vitamin E.
K - k1 is easy to get and k2 can be made bacteria just like b12.

Nothing there suggests that you must therefore eat large amounts of ruminant cream or coconut to get FSV. Fat is the least important macro.

For k2, it depends on your k1 intake and your amount of the species of bacteria that convert it into k2. But there is also some evidence of non-gut bacteria tissue being able to make k2 in rats:

"These data offer conclusive proof that the tissue-specific formation of MK-4 from K is a metabolic transformation that does not require bacterial transformation to menadione as an intermediate in the process."

Did you read my post? I didn't say not to eat carbs.

I also didnt say you would definitely run into nutritional deficiencies, I said you may.
Didn't you say you occasionally did high fat days? Why do you do this if you don't think you need fat for optimization?
Lots of people that go on extremely low fat diets have all sorts of problems. You can show me all the nutrition on paper that you like, but it doesn't outweigh human experience. And there is a convincing amount of evidence building that the nutritional databases for food are probably way off, and that foods are hardly uniform in nutrition content. Which is kinda obvious if you think about it.

Also "Nothing there suggests that you must therefore eat large amounts of ruminant cream or coconut to get FSV. Fat is the least important macro."

That's your opinion, not a fact. There are dozens of fat containing foods that are extremely nutritious. Egg yolks, cheese, organ meats, etc. When you tell people to avoid fat, you are telling them to avoid quite a variety of nutritious foods. Not just butter and oils which you seem to obsess over.
Futhurmore, thousands of people are turning their health around by lowering carbohydrate, and increasing fat in their diets. You may not like it yourself, but it's a life changer for many, many people.

 

[Westside PUFAs]

Didn't you say you occasionally did high fat days? Why do you do this if you don't think you need fat for optimization?

I don't think I need it for optimization. I do it for pleasure and experimentation.

Didn't you say this?:

"Im coming around to @Westside PUFAs idea that isolated fat sources (including saturated), should probably be limited for long term, sustained, fat loss. Yes, I've stopped drinking glasses of heavy cream! But I feel the same way about added sugar and nutrient deplete starch. Seems to me, that nutritional deficiencies, may be a large driving factor in total hunger, and in turn, caloric "requirement."

"I also agree with @Westside PUFAs statements."

Lots of people that go on extremely low fat diets have all sorts of problems. You can show me all the nutrition on paper that you like, but it doesn't outweigh human experience.

That can be said for anything. I can say the same for high fat.

That's your opinion, not a fact.

That's your opinion.

There are dozens of fat containing foods that are extremely nutritious.

Extremely? Not really. Egg yolks don't have much A. Whole eggs do have some B's. But "extremely" is not the right word. Also, organ meats are not really fatty as much as they are "protein-y" and just because something is nutritious does not mean that it is an optimal food because it may be too nutritions in the case of liver's A and cystine content or chocolates leucine and theobromine and/or it may have other things besides it's nutrients that are problematic like industrial toxins and hepatic viruses in nutritious oysters.

“Cysteine, an amino acid which is abundant in muscle and liver, happens to block synthesis of the thyroid hormone. When we are starving or under stress, cortisone causes these protein-rich tissues to be consumed. If metabolism continued at a normal rate, stress or hunger would quickly destroy us. The cysteine which is released from muscle though, inhibits the thyroid, so metabolism is slowed.”-RP

Futhurmore, thousands of people are turning their health around by lowering carbohydrate, and increasing fat in their diets. You may not like it yourself, but it's a life changer for many, many people.

I can same the same for "many people" doing the other way around, higher starch, lower fat. Who cares. We are simply talking nutrition philosophy. We are having a discussion and people can take from it whatever they wish. So saying "many people" do this or that doesn't do much for the reader. Let's make each others points from an individual and physiological POV and then the individual decides who made a better argument. It's simple. We have to explain why we think something works or doesn't and not just mention random small groups of people.

 

[Travis]

Good points ↑Westside↑ I was curious on the cysteine contents and looked them up—again:

Beef=1.03%
Inter- and Intra-Laboratory Variation in Amino Acid Analysis of Food Proteins
Kale=1.60%
The amino acid composition of kale (Brassica oleracea L. var. acephala), fresh and after culinary and technological processing
Almonds=0.30%
Chemical Composition of Selected Edible Nut Seeds

(These values are expressed as percent of total protein.)

That's one thing that always got me about Ray Peat. Everytime I would read in his articles that muscle was high in cysteine and methionine, I would check to find out that the protein ratios aren't radically different than in plants. He's probably right about muscle, but beef also has enzymes and cell components which appear to even-out the total amino acid ratios.

 

[yerrag]

A - can be and mostly is for most people in the world converted from BC. Peat said with optimal thyroid function and enough b12 this will convert.
E - a weird one that comes from mostly pufa sources. I don't think E is important but I still don't see the need to eat "fat" to get enough vitamin E.

I had to try to figure out what BC means. BC is beta carotene. Btw, what does FSV mean? I feel like I don't know enough about Peat to memorize all the abbreviations.

Does Vitamin E come mostly from PUFA sources? I've read some articles that says coconut oil is rich in Vitamin E, but there are no references. Vitamin E seems to be a mystery to me. I don't even think Ray Peat has expounded much on good Vitamin E sources. Funny thing is Ray says Vitamin E is more than just an antiozidant. According to him, t is classified by the FDA as an antiozidant because it does not want Vitamin E to be classified as an anti-estrogen, as I recall. That does not make Vitamin E unimportant at all.

 

[What-a-Riot]

@yerrag FSV - Fat Soluble Vitamins

 

[yerrag]

@yerrag FSV - Fat Soluble Vitamins

Oh, riighht! A D E K. Thanks!
a

 

[James IV]

I don't think I need it for optimization. I do it for pleasure and experimentation.

Didn't you say this?:

"Im coming around to @Westside PUFAs idea that isolated fat sources (including saturated), should probably be limited for long term, sustained, fat loss. Yes, I've stopped drinking glasses of heavy cream! But I feel the same way about added sugar and nutrient deplete starch. Seems to me, that nutritional deficiencies, may be a large driving factor in total hunger, and in turn, caloric "requirement."

"I also agree with @Westside PUFAs statements."



That can be said for anything. I can say the same for high fat.



That's your opinion.



Extremely? Not really. Egg yolks don't have much A. Whole eggs do have some B's. But "extremely" is not the right word. Also, organ meats are not really fatty as much as they are "protein-y" and just because something is nutritious does not mean that it is an optimal food because it may be too nutritions in the case of liver's A and cystine content or chocolates leucine and theobromine and/or it may have other things besides it's nutrients that are problematic like industrial toxins and hepatic viruses in nutritious oysters.

“Cysteine, an amino acid which is abundant in muscle and liver, happens to block synthesis of the thyroid hormone. When we are starving or under stress, cortisone causes these protein-rich tissues to be consumed. If metabolism continued at a normal rate, stress or hunger would quickly destroy us. The cysteine which is released from muscle though, inhibits the thyroid, so metabolism is slowed.”-RP



I can same the same for "many people" doing the other way around, higher starch, lower fat. Who cares. We are simply talking nutrition philosophy. We are having a discussion and people can take from it whatever they wish. So saying "many people" do this or that doesn't do much for the reader. Let's make each others points from an individual and physiological POV and then the individual decides who made a better argument. It's simple. We have to explain why we think something works or doesn't and not just mention random small groups of people.

The quote you posted above is not different than what I'm saying now. And way to pull that second quote out of context. I was agreeing with you on a specific point you had made, and you use it to imply I agree with everything you say. Come on man.

My point is not that low fat or low carb is better for fat loss. Whatever macros allow a person to eat the appropriate amounts of food and consume adequate nutrition, are the "best" macros.
People eat too many calories, with not enough nutrition. It's not much more complicated than that. Instead of trying to find some magic macro ratio, I think we should eat an inclusive diet, based on a large variety of nutritious foods. The majority of people enjoy a certain amount of fat when consuming animal foods. Most people would rather eat a chicken leg, than a chicken breast. Fat makes food enjoyable, which you clearly agree with since you do fat days for pleasure. Telling people fat is what's causing their problems is continuing the orthorexic narrative prevalent on almost every nutrition forum on the internet. Removing a macro, fat or carbs, will make people eat less, that's it.

The modern problems of man are not because of eating the wrong macro ratios. So trying to find some perfect ratio is wasting time. And continuing to tell people that a certain macro is the problem in people's diets, I think, is as you put it, "unhelpful to the reader."

 

[Wagner83]

The quote you posted above is not different than what I'm saying now. And way to pull that second quote out of context. I was agreeing with you on a specific point you had made, and you use it to imply I agree with everything you say. Come on man.

My point is not that low fat or low carb is better for fat loss. Whatever macros allow a person to eat the appropriate amounts of food and consume adequate nutrition, are the "best" macros.
People eat too many calories, with not enough nutrition. It's not much more complicated than that. Instead of trying to find some magic macro ratio, I think we should eat an inclusive diet, based on a large variety of nutritious foods. The majority of people enjoy a certain amount of fat when consuming animal foods. Most people would rather eat a chicken leg, than a chicken breast. Fat makes food enjoyable, which you clearly agree with since you do fat days for pleasure. Telling people fat is what's causing their problems is continuing the orthorexic narrative prevalent on almost every nutrition forum on the internet. Removing a macro, fat or carbs, will make people eat less, that's it.

The modern problems of man are not because of eating the wrong macro ratios. So trying to find some perfect ratio is wasting time. And continuing to tell people that a certain macro is the problem in people's diets, I think, is as you put it, "unhelpful to the reader."

I suspect that starch may be an important player, by that I mean as soon as starch is eaten in pretty high quantities, then the amount of other macro nutrients and fructose does matter when it comes to energy levels, food coma, maybe insulin resistance and other issues. At least this is what I have noticed so far, enough fructose and low fat allow me to eat lots of starch without issues (for now), if I skip the fructose or add a lot of saturated fats (currently experiencing with olive oil) then hello food coma.. Small amount of starch as part of a rich varied meal may be fine.
I do consider starch as a source of nutrients, wacky potatoes in particular.

 

[James IV]

I suspect that starch may be an important player, by that I mean as soon as starch is eaten in pretty high quantities, then the amount of other macro nutrients and fructose does matter when it comes to energy levels, food coma, maybe insulin resistance and other issues. At least this is what I have noticed so far, enough fructose and low fat allow me to eat lots of starch without issues (for now), if I skip the fructose or add a lot of saturated fats (currently experiencing with olive oil) then hello food coma.. Small amount of starch as part of a rich varied meal may be fine.
I do consider starch as a source of nutrients, wacky potatoes in particular.

For sure, there is definitely variability in how certain foods make people feel, and any number of things effect this. It definitely doesn't mean starch or fat is good or bad.
Post meal energy levels alone doesn't make any food good or bad in a health context. Getting tired after a meal doesn't nessecarily mean it was bad for you, nor harmful in any way.

If someone is tired all the time and fat, then they are probably consuming energy beyond thier ability to use it. Ironically, over abundance of unusable energy in the body is usually responsible for lethargy for most people that are overweight.

 

[Travis]

Getting tired after a meal doesn't nessecarily mean it was bad for you, nor harmful in any way.

It could if you're a tennis-player. This could mean the difference between winning a trophy or getting beat by Mardy Fish!

Coconut does not make people fat, Pacific Islanders who get about 50% energy from fat prove this. I think refined foods are largely to blame for obesity, although it was possible before that time if you were royalty with private cooks and an endless supply of food.

It has much to do with the fatty acid's chain length. Studies with medium-chain fatty acids show that each two carbon (C—C) segment reduces β-oxidation by a factor of 10². The authors explained this by diffusion rates and the fact that these short fatty acids don't need carnitine transport to enter the cells.

Raw coconut does not give me a food coma, but roasted peanuts do.

And not all carbs are good either. Sucrose is metabolized faster that starch or glucose alone, and dry starch can be persorbed.

I think both a high-fat diet and a high carbohydrate diet can be okay if you make the right choices. Certain fatty acids are metabolized very efficiently.

 

[Mito]

"These data offer conclusive proof that the tissue-specific formation of MK-4 from K is a metabolic transformation that does not require bacterial transformation to menadione as an intermediate in the process."

For what it's worth, Chris Masterjohn has done a lot research on Vitamin K and believes that statement to be true. He thinks the contribution of vitamin K by gut bacteria is very little to none.

 

[Travis]

He thinks the contribution of vitamin K by gut bacteria is very little to none.

I think he's actually right. I read a few studies where they induced a vitamin K deficiency in rats. You could not do this if gut bacteria made a significant contribution.

BTW: Phylloquinone-deficient rats get soft tissue calcification. One of the authors reported that the arteries were so brittle that they crumbled.

 

[Mito]

I read a study where they induced a vitamin K deficiency in rats. You could not do this if gut bacteria made a significant contribution

"To elucidate the role of intestinal bacteria in the conversion of phylloquinone into menaquinone-4 (MK-4) we investigated the tissue distribution of vitamin K in germ-free rats. The rats were made vitamin K deficient by feeding a vitamin K-free diet for 13 days............Our results demonstrate that the conversion of phylloquinone into MK-4 in extrahepatic tissues may occur in the absence of an intestinal bacterial population and is tissue specific. A specific function for extrahepatic MK-4 or a reason for this biochemical conversion of phylloquinone into MK-4 remains unclear thus far."
Intestinal flora is not an intermediate in the phylloquinone-menaquinone-4 conversion in the rat - ScienceDirect

 

[James IV]

The secret is, if you eat a large variety of nutritious foods, you don't have to worry about all the nuance. It's mostly folks that are scared of some category of real food that need to worry about how long thier fatty acids chains are, and how much vitamin K thier butthole is producing.