What Is The Raw Material Cholesterol Is Made From?

[Wagner83]

Cholesterol: Synthesis, Metabolism, Regulation

Interesting stuff, among the rare things that I could really understand both cAMP and cholesterol biosynthesis are hormonally controlled (and so using exogenous hormones should lead to the body adapting accordingly), there's a sort of constant feedback between the two.

 

[EIRE24]

I've been eating under 20 grams of fat for months now without any so called fat refeed days, ( plenty of fruit and protein though ) my cholesterol was 165 as of a few weeks ago, so obviously fat is not needed.

Under 20 grams of fat is not fat free

 

[tca300]

@EIRE24 Please show me where I claimed to be fat free. My point was my body and my metabolic rate easily uses the 7% of my composed diet of fat for metabolic purposes, there would be none left to use for cholesterol production. Although I suppose my fat stores on my body could supply some for that purpose if needed, but is highly doubtful since people who eat a very low fat starch diet ( who typically have more adipose tissue than myself ) without fruit or table sugar tend to have cholesterol levels under 130.
You seem argumentative, what's your problem? I have spent time out of my life trying to help you personally for free through PM becaused you asked for help. Maybe show some gratitude.

 

[EIRE24]

@EIRE24 Please show me where I claimed to be fat free. My point was my body and my metabolic rate easily uses the 7% of my composed diet of fat for metabolic purposes, there would be none left to use for cholesterol production. Although I suppose my fat stores on my body could supply some for that purpose if needed, but is highly doubtful since people who eat a very low fat starch diet ( who typically have more adipose tissue than myself ) without fruit or table sugar tend to have cholesterol levels under 130.
You seem argumentative, what's your problem? I have spent time out of my life trying to help you personally for free through PM becaused you asked for help. Maybe show some gratitude.

I wasn't trying to argue but haidut said its been shown people can live on a fat free diet with some potatoe and you said you prove that as you have eaten under 20 grams but they are two different scenarios. I do appreciate it I was just trying to point out that they are different situations and not the same?

 

[James IV]

Eating extremely low amounts of dietary fat <10% of calories or so, (as well as eating very high amounts of carbohydrate beyond glycogen storage capacity,) will up-regulate de novo lipogenisis. Much like severe restriction of carbohydrate will up-regulate gluconeogenesis. You don't NEED to eat fat, because of the pathways to turn carbohydrate (and to smaller degree protein) into fat, just like you don't NEED to eat carbs because of the pathways to make protein and fat into glucose. However, I think it's equally as ill advised to say we don't need to eat fat because we can make it, as it is to say we don't need to eat carbs for the same reasoning.

Concerning cholesterol, your body can make it from practically any food source, assuming calories are adequate.

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

Personally, I don't believe elimination or severe restriction of any macronutrient is optimal, in a healthy human.

 

[tca300]

Eating extremely low amounts of dietary fat <10% of calories or so, (as well as eating very high amounts of carbohydrate beyond glycogen storage capacity,) will up-regulate de novo lipogenisis. Much like severe restriction of carbohydrate will up-regulate gluconeogenesis. You don't NEED to eat fat, because of the pathways to turn carbohydrate (and to smaller degree protein) into fat, just like you don't NEED to eat carbs because of the pathways to make protein and fat into glucose. However, I think it's equally as ill advised to say we don't need to eat fat because we can make it, as it is to say we don't need to eat carbs for the same reasoning.

Concerning cholesterol, your body can make it from practically any food source, assuming calories are adequate.

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

Personally, I don't believe elimination or severe restriction of any macronutrient is optimal, in a healthy human.

Have you experimented with different macronutrient ratios? If so, what has made you feel the best? Thanks!

 

[paymanz]

Eating extremely low amounts of dietary fat <10% of calories or so, (as well as eating very high amounts of carbohydrate beyond glycogen storage capacity,) will up-regulate de novo lipogenisis. Much like severe restriction of carbohydrate will up-regulate gluconeogenesis. You don't NEED to eat fat, because of the pathways to turn carbohydrate (and to smaller degree protein) into fat, just like you don't NEED to eat carbs because of the pathways to make protein and fat into glucose. However, I think it's equally as ill advised to say we don't need to eat fat because we can make it, as it is to say we don't need to eat carbs for the same reasoning.

Concerning cholesterol, your body can make it from practically any food source, assuming calories are adequate.

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

Personally, I don't believe elimination or severe restriction of any macronutrient is optimal, in a healthy human.

I'm agree with your logic to some degree, but we should keep in mind that making glucose out out of proteins is a catabolic process but making fat out of carbs is an anabolic process.

They are not same ,

In my opinion we need some dietary fat(maybe occasionally) for better digestion.

 

[James IV]

I'm agree with your logic to some degree, but we should keep in mind that making glucose out out of proteins is a catabolic process but making fat out of carbs is an anabolic process.

They are not same ,

In my opinion we need some dietary fat(maybe occasionally) for better digestion.

Gluconeogenesis is only catabolic in a energy deficit , otherwise it uses dietary protein/fat intake for conversion. The only reason de novo lipogenisis isn't truly catabolic is because it's practically impossible to run out of fat stores. But that doesn't mean it can't be damaging. In an energy deficit context, fat produced by DNL that would normally be used structurally can be scavenged for energy. So in this sense, it is catabolic, or rather anti-anabolic.

 

[James IV]

Have you experimented with different macronutrient ratios? If so, what has made you feel the best? Thanks!

I have, and I have come to realize unless you have a static life, you cannot have a static macro split. It may work for bodybuilders that have a very structured eating and exercise schedule, but it doesn't work well if you like spontaneity. My breakdown floats according to my lifestyle.

 

[Wagner83]

I have, and I have come to realize unless you have a static life, you cannot have a static macro split. It may work for bodybuilders that have a very structured eating and exercise schedule, but it doesn't work well if you like spontaneity. My breakdown floats according to my lifestyle.

So what did you notice? I'm guessing that the more physically active the more carbs and the less active the more fats, is that right? Anything else?

 

[burtlancast]

Acetyl CoA from glycolysis of glucose and Beta oxidation of fatty acids

Actually, the acetate used to synthesize cholesterol comes from fructose rather than from glucose.

This was highlighted by Pauling in his book "How to live longer and feel better" where he cited 2 experiments by Milton Winitz ( 1964 and 1970) where he proved with human volunteers that the feeding of sucrose (fructose + glucose) yielded higher cholesterol blood concentrations than just glucose alone ( calories adjusted).

Pauling proposed to lower the consumption of table sucrose in order to cut on the incidence of atherosclerosis, and thus of heart attacks.

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.

 

[paymanz]

Actually, the acetate used to synthesize cholesterol comes from fructose rather than from glucose.

This was highlighted by Paulng in his book "How to live longer and feel better" where he cited 2 experiments by Milton Winitz ( 1964 and 1970) where he proved with human volunteers that the feeding of sucrose (fructose + glucose) yielded higher cholesterol blood concentrations than just glucose alone ( calories adjusted).

Pauling proposed to lower the consumption of table sucrose in order to cut on the incidence of atherosclerosis, and thus of heart attacks.

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.

I wondering what's difference between their ordinary food and experiment food, on ordinary food period their cholesterol level is higher than sucrose diet!

 

[burtlancast]

There you go:

Abstract : 1. Fifteen healthy men underwent regular examinations of physical condition, blood chemistry, haematology and urine, electrocardiogram, basal metabolic rate and ophthalmology for 22 weeks while on chemically defined diets: an aqueous solution of essential and non-essential amino acids, water-soluble vitamins, glucose and glucono-δ-lactone and mineral salts with a supplement of ethyl linoleate containing fat-soluble vitamins; that diet with 25% of the glucose replaced by an equal weight of sucrose; or a "nitrogen-free" diet with amino acids replaced by isocaloric glucose. This was followed by a 2-week phase-out period on a diet with peptone replacing the amino acids of the first diet and then 13 weeks on a normal diet.
All remained physically healthy with normal physiological functions throughout the study. All blood chemistry, haematology and urine values were normal. The intake of chemically defined diets provided from 2400 to 3350 kcal per day. Overweight subjects lost weight, underweight subjects gained weight and normal subjects showed no weight change. There was generally a decrease in a number of body measurements even in subjects who gained weight.
Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were considerably reduced during the period on chemically defined diets but returned to the original normotensive values on reversion to natural foods. An average weight loss of 5.5 lb during the first week of experimental diets was maintained and was almost restored by weight gain on return to natural foods. Weight loss was thought to be partly caused by lack of gastro-intestinal bulk with the chemically defined diets, for mean weekly output of faeces was less than 350 g with only 5 to 10% solid content. Serum cholesterol values were decreased by about 30% after 4 weeks on the glucose defined diet. They were increased by the sucrose diet and reduced again on re-introduction of the glucose diet.

 

[James IV]

So what did you notice? I'm guessing that the more physically active the more carbs and the less active the more fats, is that right? Anything else?

My fat stays fairly constant. Low fat intake doesn't seem to work for me. Carbohydrate correlates to activity, yes. Also overall stress is taken into account.

 

[Djukami]

@EIRE24 Please show me where I claimed to be fat free. My point was my body and my metabolic rate easily uses the 7% of my composed diet of fat for metabolic purposes, there would be none left to use for cholesterol production. Although I suppose my fat stores on my body could supply some for that purpose if needed, but is highly doubtful since people who eat a very low fat starch diet ( who typically have more adipose tissue than myself ) without fruit or table sugar tend to have cholesterol levels under 130.
You seem argumentative, what's your problem? I have spent time out of my life trying to help you personally for free through PM becaused you asked for help. Maybe show some gratitude.

@EIRE24 was just making a point. Actually, she stole the words from my mouth. I was going to point the same as soon I read your post.
If "I've been eating under 20 grams of fat for months" equals to "obviously fat is not needed.", come on, since when 20 = 0? If you were eating only fruits, that would be very different.
Then you assume that your body is doing X and Y with your fat intake which is merely speculation from things you have read and learned. Even if they are true, I think you cannot say that you are 100% sure what is going on inside your body.
Also, your 20 grams of fat come from milk, if I am correct, which is probably a very particular fat. If you said you were eating fruits + olive oil, for instance, it would be a complete different scenario. I could create more scenarios, but I think you get what I am saying.
You're jumping to conclusions in a n=1 situation.

 

[tca300]

@EIRE24 was just making a point. Actually, she stole the words from my mouth. I was going to point the same as soon I read your post.
If "I've been eating under 20 grams of fat for months" equals to "obviously fat is not needed.", come on, since when 20 = 0? If you were eating only fruits, that would be very different.
Then you assume that your body is doing X and Y with your fat intake which is merely speculation from things you have read and learned. Even if they are true, I think you cannot say that you are 100% sure what is going on inside your body.
Also, your 20 grams of fat come from milk, if I am correct, which is probably a very particular fat. If you said you were eating fruits + olive oil, for instance, it would be a complete different scenario. I could create more scenarios, but I think you get what I am saying.
You're jumping to conclusions in a n=1 situation.

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.

 

[chrismeyers]

I will one up him as an example. I have been on a fat free milk only diet for close to 3 months now and I have never felt better. Straight up. No oils, no coconut, nothing. So that tells me one unequivocable thing. Your body can produce any fat or cholesterol it needs from enough glucose. Skim milk has at most 0.1 grams of fat per cup. Basically trace levels.

 

[EIRE24]

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.

Jeez dude I didn't mean for it to be like That. I hope you are being sarcastic apologising there isn't any need

 

[EIRE24]

I will one up him as an example. I have been on a fat free milk only diet for close to 3 months now and I have never felt better. Straight up. No oils, no coconut, nothing. So that tells me one unequivocable thing. Your body can produce any fat or cholesterol it needs from enough glucose. Skim milk has at most 0.1 grams of fat per cup. Basically trace levels.

How many calories? Grams of proteins and carbs?

 

[tca300]

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