Bodybuilding Forums

Before I get to my point, I want to make clear that I believe that Mark's nutritional advice is sound. Having said that, please be careful about getting nutritional advice from bodybuilders.

I was recently reading THE BODY SCULPTING BIBLE FOR MEN by James Villepigue and Hugo Rivera. Two well known and respected authorities on body building. In the section on supplements they address the hormone androstenedione. What caught my eye and sent me into a fit wasn't what they had to say about andro itself, but the incredibly misinformed and asinine comments they made about cholesterol in regards to a published study done on andro. I will produce most of what they say for context:

A study recently published in the Journal of the American Medical Association examined short and long-term effects of androstenedione supplementation in thirty young men aged 19-29 years who were not currently engaged in resistance training. In the short-term study, 10 of the 30 men received a one-time dose of 100 mg of androstenedione. For the long-term study, the remaining 20 men performed 8 weeks of resistance training and received either 300 mg per day of androstenedione or a placebo. As expected, the androstenedione/resistance training groups did not experience a rise in free or total testosterone, nor did they experience an increase in strength. To make matters worse, test subjects in the androstendione/resistance training group experienced a rise in HDL (high density liberal protein) cholesterol, which is the bad cholesterol, along with a rise in estrogen! (emphasis mine)

(The Body Sculpting Bible For Men. Hatherleigh Press/Getfitnow.com Books, 2001. P. 87-88)

I almost choked upon reading that glaring mistake. They refer to HDL as "bad' cholsterol, and for what was perhaps meant to make their readers laugh, refer to lipoproteins as "liberal" proteins. This is simply sloppy research at best, and downright deception at worst. This also begs the question concerning the lipid hypothesis for heart disease in the first place. There is no such thing as bad cholesterol, though I wouldn't have been surprised if Villepigue and Rivera had referred to LDL cholesterol as "bad", because many doctors and nutritionists still perpetuate this half-truth. There is definitely more confusion and misinformation over LDL than facts based on research and study. Our bodies produce cholesterol because it is essential for life. Without it we would all die very quickly. To make the case I will quote several points about cholesterol by Sally Fallon, President of the Weston A. Price Foundation; and nutritionist Mary Enig, Ph.D:

1.)

Along with saturated fats, cholesterol in the cell membrane gives our cells necessary stiffness and stability. When the diet contains an excess of polyunsaturated fatty acids, these replace saturated fatty acids in the cell membrane, so that the cell walls actually become flabby. When this happens, cholesterol from the blood is "driven" into the tissues to give them structural integrity. This is why serum cholesterol levels may go down temporarily when we replace saturated fats with polyunsaturated oils in the diet.

2.)

Cholesterol acts as a precursor to vital corticosteroids, hormones that help us deal with stress and protect the body against heart disease and cancer; and to the sex hormones like androgen, testosterone, estrogen and progesterone.

3.)

Cholesterol is a precursor to vitamin D, a very important fat-soluble vitamin needed for healthy bones and nervous system, proper growth, mineral metabolism, muscle tone, insulin production, reproduction and immune system function.

4.)

The bile salts are made from cholesterol. Bile is vital for digestion and assimilation of fats in the diet.

5.)

Recent research shows that cholesterol acts as an antioxidant. This is the likely explanation for the fact that cholesterol levels go up with age. As an antioxidant, cholesterol protects us against free radical damage that leads to heart disease and cancer.

6.)

Cholesterol is needed for proper function of serotonin receptors in the brain. Serotonin is the body's natural "feel-good" chemical. Low cholesterol levels have been linked to aggressive and violent behavior, depression and suicidal tendencies.

7.)

Mother's milk is especially rich in cholesterol and contains a special enzyme that helps the baby utilize this nutrient. Babies and children need cholesterol-rich foods throughout their growing years to ensure proper development of the brain and nervous system.

8.)

Dietary cholesterol plays an important role in maintaining the health of the intestinal wall. This is why low-cholesterol vegetarian diets can lead to leaky gut syndrome and other intestinal disorders.

( Taken from THE SKINNY ON FATS by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig Phd.)
http://www.westonaprice.org/knowyourfats/skinny.html#chol


If only the medical establishment, and Villepigue and Rivera would do their homework. Sheesh!
Now, go and enjoy some eggs, butter, and red meat!

For further reading see:

Know Your Fats : The Complete Primer for Understanding the Nutrition of Fats, Oils and Cholesterol - by Mary Enig PhD.
http://www.amazon.com/Know-Your-Fats-Understanding-Cholesterol/dp/0967812607/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1241291752&sr=8-1

Nourishing Traditions: The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats - by Sally Fallon and Mary Enig
http://www.amazon.com/Nourishing-Tradit ... 752&sr=8-3

The Great Cholesterol Con: The Truth About What Really Causes Heart Disease and How to Avoid It - by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick
http://www.amazon.com/Great-Cholesterol ... 997&sr=8-1


--Paul

Areo77 wrote:I almost choked upon reading that glaring mistake. They refer to HDL as "bad' cholsterol, and for what was perhaps meant to make their readers laugh, refer to lipoproteins as "liberal" proteins. This is simply sloppy research at best, and downright deception at worst. This also begs the question concerning the lipid hypothesis for heart disease in the first place.

It's important to separate the research paper from the bodybuilding book here. Given that the study was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, there could not have been a mistake like that in the research. The results of the study are sound, the mistake was made by the author of the book, in interpreting the results of the study. We don't know what the results of the study actually were, all we are reading is what the author of the bodybuilding book is telling us the results were based on his interpretation.

As far as cholesterol goes, nobody doubts that it is an important component of life, but I don't think that's a very good argument for saying we should eat lots of it because cholesterol is not an essential nutrient as our bodies can make it for the most part. Testosterone has many beneficial effects as well but that doesn't mean I want to go injecting myself with a ton of it either. Everything turns bad when taken in excess, even something so seemingly simple and harmless like water.

While I think there is more to heart disease than high levels of cholesterol in the blood, there is much we still don't know and it is better to a take a more humble and cautious approach to the subject. The results of various scientific studies are out there, its up to us to look at all the facts and results and decide what we can learn from them.

SurferX wrote:

Areo77 wrote:I almost choked upon reading that glaring mistake. They refer to HDL as "bad' cholsterol, and for what was perhaps meant to make their readers laugh, refer to lipoproteins as "liberal" proteins. This is simply sloppy research at best, and downright deception at worst. This also begs the question concerning the lipid hypothesis for heart disease in the first place.

It's important to separate the research paper from the bodybuilding book here. Given that the study was published in a peer-reviewed medical journal, there could not have been a mistake like that in the research. The results of the study are sound, the mistake was made by the author of the book, in interpreting the results of the study. We don't know what the results of the study actually were, all we are reading is what the author of the bodybuilding book is telling us the results were based on his interpretation.

Perhaps you should go back and read what I actually said. My point had nothing to do with the study itself, or the subject under study: androstenedione. In fact, I haven't read the study, and Rivera and Villepigue don't bother to directly quote it. So I am not aware of what the researchers themselves said about HDL cholesterol, and I'm quite certain that they didn't refer to lipoproteins as "liberal" proteins. The point I was making was that Rivera and Villepigue are ignorant of "accepted" truth about cholesterol. Mainstream medical authorities--even those who foolishly hold to the lipid hypothesis for heart disease--reference HDL as "good" cholesterol. It is evident that Rivera and Villepigue obviously mix up LDL and HDL when they make the statement, "HDL cholesterol, which is the bad cholesterol". This implies there is a "good" cholesterol. This was an elementary blunder on their part. They confused HDL and LDL, and implicated HDL as "bad". But, then again, is it surprising that they did this? No, it isn't. What would you expect from two ironheads who make up terms as they go along, i.e., calling lipoproteins - "liberal" proteins. Again, my point, be careful who you take nutritional advice from. Take the time to read the literature for yourself.

As far as cholesterol goes, nobody doubts that it is an important component of life, but I don't think that's a very good argument for saying we should eat lots of it because cholesterol is not an essential nutrient as our bodies can make it for the most part. Testosterone has many beneficial effects as well but that doesn't mean I want to go injecting myself with a ton of it either. Everything turns bad when taken in excess, even something so seemingly simple and harmless like water.

I didn't say, "eat lots of cholesterol". I said eat liberally of known healthy food. We eat food, not cholesterol. Yes, cholesterol is in many foods. But we don't say I had "cholesterol for breakfast this morning". We say "I had eggs for breakfast this morning". Which is why your point about testosterone is moot. Do foods contain testosterone? If so, should we eat foods that do? I certainly didn't say to inject cholesterol, or testosterone into your arm. But I do recommend not having a morbid and unfounded fear about eating foods that are rich in cholesterol.

The point I was making in quoting Mary Enig was that with the hysteria and misinformation spouted about cholesterol, many laypeople have an unfounded concept of cholesterol as some odd, "poisonous" like foreign substance that should be avoided at all costs. This is utter nonsense based on ignorance of basic human physiology. I am promoting education over unwarranted paranoia. The American public needs to be re-educated after decades of Ancel Keys' nonsense being pounded like a drum into our brains.

One other point that bears mentioning is that the data tells us that eating cholesterol has no effect on cholesterol levels in the blood. That's not to say that our diet has no effect on cholesterol levels, but the consumption of cholesterol itself has no discernible effect. So, the point is, have the cholesterol rich foods that humans have been consuming for eons, without the modern epidemic of heart disese. Namely; eggs, butter, and red meat.

Lastly, the research data that is available for anyone to review if they like tells us that over half of all heart attack victims have low levels of LDL, the allegedly "bad" cholesterol. And, many heart attack victims have very low levels of total cholesterol. In fact,the data suggests (and this can be found in Malcolm Kendrick's book I link in my previous post) that very low levels of total cholesterol are a much stronger marker for heart disease than high total cholesterol. Read the data, not the medical hyperbole based on a defunct hypothesis; namely, the ubiquitous lipid hypothesis, which has been assumed in spite of strong and compelling evidence to the contrary.

While I think there is more to heart disease than high levels of cholesterol in the blood, there is much we still don't know and it is better to a take a more humble and cautious approach to the subject. The results of various scientific studies are out there, its up to us to look at all the facts and results and decide what we can learn from them.

Indeed, there is more to heart disease than "high levels of cholesterol". And the data flies in the face of those who side with the lipid hypothesis. Read Malcolm Kendrick's book THE GREAT CHOLESTEROL CON. He is anything but alone in his arguments that cholesterol plays no role in heart disease at all. The lipid hypothesis is a great example of the epistemological limitations of science. We must go where the evidence leads, and admit that empirically derived data is based on probability and induction. And thus, cannot furnish us with knowledge. Not in the true philosophical sense.

--Paul