Oops, they got it wrong about cholesterol

[claig]

"We've all spent time worrying about our cholesterol levels, but what if it was all... a conspiracy! What if the truth was that eating lots of fat doesn't clog your arteries and kill you, and that there's been a deliberate effort to ignore that evidence in order to secure the financial fortunes of Big Pharma's major anti-cholesterol drugs?"

www.cbsnews.com/news/dawn-of-the-cholesterol-skeptics-big-pharma-conspiracy-theorists-get-a-turn-in-the-spotlight/

"Flawed science triggers U-turn on cholesterol fears"
...
Its Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee plans to no longer warn people to avoid eggs, shellfish and other cholesterol-laden foods.

The U-turn, based on a report by the committee, will undo almost 40 years of public health warnings about eating food laden with cholesterol. US cardiologist Dr Steven Nissen, of the Cleveland Clinic, said: 'It's the right decision. We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They've been wrong for decades.'

Doctors are now shifting away from warnings about cholesterol and saturated fat and focusing concern on sugar as the biggest dietary threat.

The Daily Mail's GP Martin Scurr predicts that advice will change here in the UK too.
...
He added that the food industry had effectively contributed to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing it with sugar.

Matt Ridley, a Tory peer and science author, yesterday said there should be an inquiry 'into how the medical and scientific profession made such an epic blunder'.

He described the change of advice in the US as a 'mighty U-turn' and said studies linking high cholesterol and saturated fat in food to heart disease were 'tinged with scandal'."

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3096634/Why-butter-eggs-won-t-kill-Flawed-science-triggers-U-turn-cholesterol-fears.html

I wonder if a similar thing will happen in about 40 years to the "save the planet" climate change warnings.

Oops!

Do you know the difference between soybean oil and soy beans?

Soybean oil does not contain phytooestrogens. Because it has been extracted.

Soybean oil contains ...oil.

I guess you knew that. Phytoestrogens are the issue with soy beans. You don't find them in soybean oil

claig If you are going to try to make scientific points about health, try to understand some science. Otherwise your points will be refuted.

'She needs some real experience of science.'

The last time was the incident in Form 5B with the bunsen burner and I'm not starting that lark again. Now I google frantically to discover the truth.

They are not telling everyoeveto avoid salt anymore. They are telling certain patients to eat more salt.

It's in nearly all our bread. No choice, no one asked us if we wanted it. No advice on it from the great and the good

Exactly what do you think is in our bread?

Does bread contain phytooestrogens (from soy beans) ?

but Claig, you are not discovering any truth! You are not making any sense, and you are not showing any understanding. You 'd do better to get some real hands on experience.

Now I google frantically to discover the truth

Some people may not be telling the truth. They are telling their version of it.

'Some people may not be telling the truth. They are telling their version of it.'

I agree with that. But I'm talking about the Daily Mail.

Phytooestrogens are found in lots of food. Soy bread has a high amount of them.

Soya - well Google it and you'll see lots of contrasting views. I could show you links where they are a good thing and contribute to health. I could show contrasting links.

All depends on the site you visit and their point of view.

That's why I try to link to journals and research. Not a site run by someone with an axe to grind.

Soybean Oil: Lurking Danger in Processed Foods

articles.mercola.com/herbal-oils/soy-bean-oil.aspx

and a lot of it is now GM.

Phytoestrogens

The positive

www.sanitarium.com.au/health-and-wellbeing/eat-to-live

The negatives

www.drlaurendeville.com/articles/soy-phytoestrogens-necessarily-bad/

The more balanced scientific approach

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3074428/

Phytoestrogens are plant derived compounds found in a wide variety of foods, most notably soy. A litany of health benefits including a lowered risk of osteoporosis, heart disease, breast cancer, and menopausal symptoms, are frequently attributed to phytoestrogens but many are also considered endocrine disruptors, indicating that they have the potential to cause adverse health effects as well.

Consequently, the question of whether or not phytoestrogens are beneficial or harmful to human health remains unresolved. The answer is likely complex and may depend on age, health status, and even the presence or absence of specific gut microflora.

Clarity on this issue is needed because global consumption is rapidly increasing. Phytoestrogens are present in numerous dietary supplements and widely marketed as a natural alternative to estrogen replacement therapy. Soy infant formula now constitutes up to a third of the US market, and soy protein is now added to many processed foods.

As weak estrogen agonists/antagonists with molecular and cellular properties similar to synthetic endocrine disruptors such as Bisphenol A (BPA), the phytoestrogens provide a useful model to comprehensively investigate the biological impact of endocrine disruptors in general. This review weighs the evidence for and against the purported health benefits and adverse effects of phytoestrogens

'I could show you links where they are a good thing and contribute to health. I could show contrasting links.'

But that's always the way. This whole thread is about their u-turn on cholesterol after 40 years. Who do you believe? I know whom I believe. I don't care what Monsanto, the WHO, government spin doctors and lobbied officials say, I say no way.

What you are missing in the big picture is politics and policy of elites. Scientists are way down the pecking order in the big scheme of things.

Just listen to Noam Chomsky on why intellectuals are servants of power and why it is the people who always bring real change.

Soybean Oil: Lurking Danger in Processed Foods

FFS - that's not about soybean oil as such. That's about any bloody oil which has been partially or fully hydrogenated to make it harder and this introduces trans fats.

That is completely separate from the article you linked to about soya beans

1. Soya beans contain phytoestrogens. A good thing or not.

2. Soybean oil is polyunsaturated. So it's an oil. No phytoestrogens.
   However, manufacturers hydrogenate it to use it in food stuffs. This is where trans fats come in. Trans fats are unhealthy. But any bloody vegetable oil which is hydrogenated can also make trans fats.

Do you see the difference?

This whole thread is about their u-turn on cholesterol after 40 years

Cholesterol levels are still important in health. HDL / LDL ratios. They are important.

If you want to ignore your HDL /LDL ratio, fine. But telling people that they shouldn't worry about their cholesterol (i.e. their HDL / LDL ratio) which is what doctors tend to look at now is irresponsible and pseudoscience.

There is a poster, Beaaware, who posts on BSE. She has been banned from the forum. They won't let her post. She posts nearly only about BSE because she knows people who have died of it and she tries to warn others because she knows it for real and she is banned.

She knows how it was covered up, she has studied it, she campaigns for it, but she is banned.

why it is the people who always bring real change

I'm afraid that Farage who smokes and drinks a lot and is also under a lot of pressure is prime heart attack material.

It's all a conspiracy....

I love a Claig thread. You're very earnest. I'd love to meet you in real life.

"I'm afraid that Farage who smokes and drinks a lot and is also under a lot of pressure is prime heart attack material."

I'm sure he is OK. He probably eats fish which reduces inflammation which is a risk factor for heart attacks. He certainly goes fishing.

"They were amazed to find that the patients with the low TG/HDL ratio who smoked, didn’t exercise, had hypertension, and had elevated levels of LDL cholesterol had a much lower risk of developing heart disease than those who had a far better lifestyle but a higher TG/HDL ratio. This indicated that lowering your TG/HDL ratio may have a far greater impact on whether you develop heart disease than adopting a better lifestyle"

"But telling people that they shouldn't worry about their cholesterol (i.e. their HDL / LDL ratio) "

But I don't say that. I don't even know what HDL / LDL ratio is.

What I say is eat eggs, fish, meat, butter, saturated fats etc because they are good for you and now the US authorities have done a u-turn after 40 years of telling people that they were bad for your heart.

I say soy, artifical sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup etc are bad for you, but in the main, the great and the good say nothing about them

I say GM is bad for you, not eggs and bacon. What do the great and the good say about GM? The same the say about fracking.

Yes - because they are risk factors.

Fish is good for you. As has been pointed out on here.

This indicated that lowering your TG/HDL ratio

than adopting a better lifestyle

I would argue that looking at what you eat is part of developing a better lifestyle.

Triglyceride to HDL ratio - see I'd love to discuss all this but I suspect you don't have the biochemical knowledge.

But yes - HDL : Cholesterol ratio is important. It's used to calculate the LDL based on the Trigs level but that calculation has some assumptions that fail

TG / HDL ratio. You want it low

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/

But that means that "cholesterol" is important. In all its many forms. It's just that its levels and types are complicated by your diet.

I watched a documentary on Netflix last week called "Fed Up" and it was a real eye-opener, horrifying actually. It is now we have been manipulated (and still are) by the food industry. I started a thread about it.

Since watching the documentary I have stopped eating foods with added sugar (sweet and savoury). I miss it, but it is bad for my health and I now look forward to improving my health and maybe even losing some excess weight (but that will be a side effect, not why I'm doing it).

I've always been wary of plastic spreads and, despite pressure from others, kept to keeping proper butter in the fridge.

But I don't say that. I don't even know what HDL / LDL ratio is

Yes - you've been dismissing cholesterol all along. Scientists know it's important. But it's more complicated than simple cholesterol

What I say is eat eggs, fish, meat, butter, saturated fats etc

Depends how much and what else is in your diet. In don't think anyone has ever said fish is bad for you.

I say soy, artifical sweeteners, high fructose corn syrup etc

I'd agree with that - but soy is debatable.

I say GM is bad for you

I'd love to debate this one - but then the whole thread would get derailed.

'I would argue that looking at what you eat is part of developing a better lifestyle. '

Absolutely. You are what you eat. That is why we need choice in our food, so we can avoid soy-based and GM-based and fed food sources andwhy we need mandatory labelling so that corporations and the great and the good can't keep the public in the dark about what is in their food.

'see I'd love to discuss all this but I suspect you don't have the biochemical knowledge'

I don't have the biochemical knowledge, but you can discuss it because others do and I can always google to learn the basics and fill in the gaps.

I may have to get all my nutrition books out (not wtten by the great and the good) but by researchers who have studied the science and disagree with the official line and give an alternative analysis