So I am very interested in this whole Paleo thing. I have been eating grain-free for a few weeks now and just started going sugar-free (sooooo hard) but i wont give up dairy for a while if ever...but anyways, basically what i am wondering that i can't find a straight answer for is that for all my life i have always heard its important to be careful with meat consumption because of cholesterol and high risk for heart disease...ya know, the whole bad rep that bacon and eggs and sausage have because they are always linked with heart attacks and very high cholesterol...I don't want to eat too much meat and get heart disease and clog my arteries with fat...so i was wondering why doesn't this happen with people on the paleo diet? is it the decrease of refined sugars that somehow makes meat less dangerous in this respect? or is it just that people who eat this way often counter much of their meat with good fibrous veggies? And also, does eating eating more foods like bacon eggs and sausage increase risk for heart disease or is that just because it is combined with a high sugar, high carb dietary lifestyle also???
Thank you so much, i hope that question wasn't too confusing...
above is a link to an article written by a well known cardiologist of 25 years, retracting the idea that heart disease is caused by fat and instead linking it inflammation in the body, which for most, grains are to blame.
Go to Hulu and watch the movie Fat Head. It explains how the "Lipid Hypothesis" - the idea that heart disease is caused by saturated fat and cholesterol - is a total fraud. Or you can just Google Lipid Hypothesis and I'm sure you'll find some informative stuff.
Insufficient evidence of association is present for intake of … saturated or polyunsaturated fatty acids; total fat … meat, eggs and milk. Mente A, et al. A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease. Arch Intern Med. 2009 Apr 13;169(7):659-69.
There were no clear effects of dietary fat changes on total mortality or cardiovascular mortality. Hooper L, et al. Reduced or modified dietary fat for preventing cardiovascular disease. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011 Jul 6;(7):CD002137.
You will see we are in the midst of a paradigm shift in our thinking about fat. Best wishes to you!
Also, here's a little clip from 'Fat Head' that addresses your concerns
The blood lipid most correlated with heart disease, and what they see in animal models of heart disease is something called small dense LDL.
Its a form of cholesterol, but a specific type. High carb diets and sugar increase small dense LDL. High fat diets decrease it, instead producing lots of safe light fluffy LDL.
There may be other factors, like stress, and general body inflammation(such as perhaps that from plant oils high in omega 6 and margerine), but a low fat, high carb diet because it raises triglycerides, lowers HDL and increases small dense LDL, it seems most likely it will increase heart disease.
If you like reading, buy the book "Ignore the Awkward: How the cholesterol myths are kept alive" by Uffe Ravnskov, or "The Cholesterol Delusion" by Ernest N. Curtis MD.
There's some concern about chlorine in drinking water causing heart disease. Also, it's known that a very high carb diet increases small dense LDL, which once oxidized, can lead to inflammation and heart disease. Also excess free calcium is known to cause issues.
It turns out that high fat foods, are high in saturated and mono-unsaturated fats, which are inert, and won't cause issues, while PUFAs, or trans-fats, once oxidized are problematic.
One theory is the lipid hypothesis which says that saturated fat is bad for you, and can be measured by the cholesterol in your blood. It is just a theory.
Another theory is that saturated fat in and of itself it not bad for you, in fact can be good for you by protecting your tissues and improving digestion and nutrition. The problem instead is inflammation, blood sugar, and the hormones that go along with them. This is also just a a theory.
We would all love to know the definitive answer for which is correct but we might not ever, since like most theories can't be definitively proven.
Given the number if people eating diets consistent with the lipid hypothesis who are extremely unhealthy, at a minimum one should think that there is something wrong with either the theory or how it is followed.
There are lots of people who abandoned that theory and adopted the second theory and made enormous improvements to their health.
To me, this all adds up to the second theory being worth a shot, and also the possibility that the first theory might be completely wrong.