Does eating fatty foods still clog your arteries even if you exercise vigorously 4 days a week?

>keto can give you heart disease
Bitch, talk to my LDL and triglycerides

>can
aren't you a little triggered?

Probably just constipated

A little :'I

They're almost certainly horrible along with the rest of your blood work

Everyone has bad food days - but regardless no-one gets through life with empty arteries, you already will have some depositing.

The main thing is that some people eat really atrociously, if you're thinking about your diet you are already doing well. Dont go full neurotic, just eat lots of vegetables and do exercise and you'll make it with good heart health.

examine.com/nutrition/is-saturated-fat-bad-for-me/

>no-one gets through life with empty arteries
You can get very close with lifelong low cholesterol though

jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/360289
journals.sagepub.com/doi/abs/10.1177/1753944710368206
drmcdougall.com/misc/2013nl/feb/pritikinarticle.pdf
academic.oup.com/biomedgerontology/article-lookup/doi/10.1093/gerona/59.11.1195

>Dont go full neurotic, just eat lots of vegetables and do exercise and you'll make it with good heart health.
And other recognized modifiable factors such as limiting smoking, drinking, sodium, trans fat, saturated fat and cholesterol

avoid trans fats altogether
saturated fats being bad for you is a meme

Both are bad for you

bait

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/535.abstract?ijkey=c830afd4d2072e430f632665686ca4944910a531

>A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat.

Yeah yeah, we've all seen this flawed study before.

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/458.short

>The recent article by Siri-Tarino et al (1), which reported on a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD) observed that “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.” This finding has generated some interest in the media (2, 3). However, we believe that the interpretations of the results presented in this article are overstated and could be a result of flaws in the methodologic design of the study.
>It is well established that saturated fat intake is associated with increased concentration of serum cholesterol (4), and that serum cholesterol concentrations are associated with CHD and CVD (5). Therefore, serum cholesterol concentrations lie on the causal chain between saturated fat intake and CHD and CVD and to adjust for serum cholesterol concentrations in a meta-analysis will obscure the effect of saturated fat intake on these health outcomes. Yet 7 of the 16 studies included in the meta-analysis of CHD events, and 4 of the 8 studies included in the meta-analysis of stroke events, were adjusted for serum cholesterol concentrations. These studies accounted for nearly half of all CHD and CVD events included in the meta-analyses (see Table 1). Adjustment for serum cholesterol concentrations will inevitably bias the estimates of effect of saturated fat intake toward the null hypothesis.

The meme is that dumbfucks too invested in the pleasant taste of bacon and butter et al intentionally ignore all the evidence demonstrating their harm

>It is well established that saturated fat intake is associated with increased concentration of serum cholesterol
The lipid hypothesis has been heavily debated in recent nutrition literature.

Also, that's not the only metaanalysis that has come to similar conclusions:

bmj.com/content/351/bmj.h3978

>Saturated fats are not associated with all cause mortality, CVD, CHD, ischemic stroke, or type 2 diabetes, but the evidence is heterogeneous with methodological limitations.

ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/459.1.full

>The lipid hypothesis has been heavily debated in recent nutrition literature.

It's mainly debated by people who sell diet books advocating fatty foods to fat people who like cheese. It's not a big debate among expert cardiologists. A consensus about this was reached decades ago.

>hat's not the only metaanalysis that has come to similar conclusions:

There's a few, but they tend to use the same studies, and therefore suffer the same flaws. They get a lot of media attention but rarely are the flaws of the research discussed and put into context.

sciencemag.org/news/2014/03/scientists-fix-errors-controversial-paper-about-saturated-fats

>The calculated relative risk estimates and 95% CIs for saturated fat intake in the subset were 1.13 (0.96, 1.33) for CHD,

Meaning saturated fats were positively associated with heart disease. And that's not even taking into account other flaws of the studies used, like looking at mostly homogenous populations where saturated fat intake didn't differ much between the lower and higher end.

Take it from me
>2 years liftan daily 6 months SS 5x5 then 3x10-14 PPL PPLPPrestrest
>running 5miles for the past year daily
>keto diet for the past 6 months
>annual company checkup
>cholesterol levels at 250
>if 30 days if it doesn't go below 200 I'll be put on meds
>eating a normal diet now minus fatty shit
Just keep your macros balanced, keto will also fuck you up if you go at it too hard - again, balance.

>RMK receives research support from the National Dairy Council, National Cattleman's Beef Association, and the Robert & Veronica Atkins Foundation.

>It's mainly debated by people who sell diet books advocating fatty foods to fat people who like cheese
This is false

> It's not a big debate among expert cardiologists. A consensus about this was reached decades ago.
It is a big debate right now. All the important studies contradicting both the lipid hypothesis and sat fats correlation with heart diseases came out in the 2010s

>There's a few, but they tend to use the same studies
They use the most extensive studies done in the area. That's the point of a meta-analysis: reach a conclusion out of as many data and different methodologies as possible.

Confidence interval = 0.93 - 1.58. Not statistically significant.

>This is false
>It is a big debate right now.

Among who? You're talking about individual papers, in this case one published by people who take money from industries that sell saturated fats, and acting like the fact that a contrary study was published in a medical journal means that the scientific community at large is in a mass debate over the topic. It's not like it's Harvard saying one thing, the American Heart Association saying another, the WHO with their own ideas, the British Heart Foundation being unsure, etc. There's a consensus, and weak papers like these are criticized and rejected by those expert groups.

heart.org/HEARTORG/HealthyLiving/HealthyEating/Nutrition/Frequently-Asked-Questions-About-Saturated-Fats_UCM_463756_Article.jsp

>All the important studies contradicting both the lipid hypothesis and sat fats correlation with heart diseases came out in the 2010s

And despite the evidence being reviewed yearly by major health organizations, it's still a consensus that saturated fats increase CHD risk.

>That's the point of a meta-analysis: reach a conclusion out of as many data and different methodologies as possible.

Not at all. A meta-analysis is best used to compare very similarly designed studies, like with drug trials. As this Harvard professor puts it >The controversy should serve as a warning about meta-analyses, Willett adds. Such studies compile the data from many individual studies to get a clearer result. "It looks like a sweeping summary of all the data, so it gets a lot of attention," Willett says. "But these days meta-analyses are often done by people who are not familiar with a field, who don't have the primary data or don't make the effort to get it." And while drug trials are often very similar in design, making it easy to combine their results, nutritional studies vary widely in the way they are set up. "Often the strengths and weaknesses of individual studies get lost," Willett says.

For anyone interested in what these meta-analysis look like on the inside, here's a set of videos that show you why some studies fail to find connections between saturated fat and CHD or stroke

youtube.com/watch?v=a-Tx9dCbv-g
youtube.com/watch?v=3Wi9dzkTiU4

This is a very recent debate, of course major institutions like those are gonna stick with the old consensus and recommend a discretionary consumption of saturated fats. That doesn't mean the debate doesn't exist or these are "weak" papers.

And the fact that industry insiders are behind these isn't relevant at all for anyone with a bit of experience in the nutrition field: most research done is usually backed up by food industries. Hell, even most NGOs involved in the nutrition sphere have a connection of some kind to health/food industries.

>This is a very recent debate

It's actually a very old debate, and it was settled by the 1980s. I've yet to see any group of expert cardiologists even hint that the foundation of the science they've been using in the field is suddenly wrong. All I've seen is them criticizing these recently published papers and repeating that saturated fats do increase CHD risk.

hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/2014/03/19/dietary-fat-and-heart-disease-study-is-seriously-misleading/

>The journal Annals of Internal Medicine recently published a paper suggesting there is no evidence supporting the longstanding recommendation to limit saturated fat consumption. Media reporting on the paper included headlines such as “No link found between saturated fat and heart disease” and articles saying “Saturated fat shouldn’t be demonized” springing up on social media.
>However, Walter Willett, chair of the Department of Nutrition at Harvard School of Public Health, warns that the conclusions are seriously misleading, as the analysis contains major errors and omissions.

From the AHA link in the previous post

>A report appeared in the Annals of Internal Medicine that raised questions about the saturated fat-heart disease link. However, that report has been heavily criticized by experts in the scientific community and the authors have issued several corrections and explanations.
>The American Heart Association isn’t the only leading health organization to find a definitive link between saturated fats and heart disease. Eleven authoritative bodies – including the World Health Organization; the Institute of Medicine; the governments of the United States, the United Kingdom; and the European Union – independently reviewed the scientific evidence and concluded yet again that saturated fat is associated with heart disease.

Does the fat build-up in your arteries ever get washed out if you lose weight and do lots of cardio?

The only way that's been scientific proven to reverse plaque in arteries is with a very low-fat vegetarian diet, in some cases with cholesterol-lowering drugs and/or exercise

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9863851
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/7500065
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25198208

The older you get, the harder it is for your arteries to recover from diet-induced damages. It's good to start eating well early on to avoid that plaque building up in the first place.

Arteries are cleaned with HDL cholesterol. And the best ways to raise your levels of HDL cholesterol is exercise, losing weight and quitting smoking.

Interesting. But my point still stands, just live life with a mind to being healthy and dont worry about the minutiae, you'll be doing better than 80% of the population anyway.

I used to be crazy on point with my diet and cardio and then got crohns regardless, ive since just accepted that no matter what we do we'll all get crippled and die and what you'll look back on is the enjoyment, not the work.

I still live very healthily but now i let myself eat cake, have a drink etc.

Don't eat garbage. A nicely done steak with a salad and some taters isn't perhaps the "healthiest" but it definitely fits in a healthy diet. If you really *have* to have a sauce with it, that's fine too, assuming you make it yourself. You should get better meat instead such that you don't need a sauce, and at the very least ensure that you don't have too much sauce.

>have a drink
Strange. I barely enjoy the effects of alcohol most of the time anymore. I know I'm not the only one.

But yeah, you should be able to have one once in a blue moon. But make sure to make it special.

Well i never drank before so thats probably why, never felt the inclination until i was 24 and got diagnosed then when i was better i started having more fun in life.

Diagnosed? I'm sorry, I tried to read back but couldn't find anything about illness.

Crohns is a gut and joint disease

I have ADD. Sorry. It's nice to know what you have, though. Lets you adapt, gives you a fighting chance.

I guess, its a very poorly understood disease though. Doctors have no real idea what causes it and cant tell you how it will progress: some people make it through life with almost no issue, others go to dignitas within a few years. I could live totally fine until I die at 90, bleed out tonight, or have all my intestines removed, poo in a bag and be crippled by arthritis by 40.

How I see it though is that we all live under those same terms just slower - we will all end up wretched and dying and thinking where did all the time go, it seemed like we would live forever.

Now im just see it that life is a funny thing, and none of us ever did anything to have it - its a gift to have felt experience and lived and we should all enjoy it every so often, living for the future will eventually just leave you dead. I lived so healthily and probably ended up more ill than anyone else I know.

this.

Learn to cook and get good at it. A delicious homemade meal >>>>>> fast food garbage and is usually much healthier for you