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!

Cancer and diet is a whole new ball game.

One that there are still a lot of questions to be answered. But there is no doubt that certain foods have an effect on lowering certain cancer risks. And probably some foods (or ways of cooking food) that increase certain cancer risks.

'Correlation is not causality'

Exactly, that is why I don't believe that "Obesity Set To Become Main Cause Of Cancer" and "obesity is the new smoking"

"Taxing sugar will not reduce cancer."

I agree bit "obesity is the new smoking", they say, so they will call for it and other things.

obesity is the new smoking

Unhealthy diets cause diseases. That is undisputed.

The obesity epidemic will cause more diseases. There are diseases that are linked to obesity. That is well known.

Reducing obesity is a good thing.

Improving people's diets will improve health outcomes.

Do you disagree with any of those statements?

And probably some foods (or ways of cooking food) that increase certain cancer risks.'

Absolutely and so we come to certain E numbers, certain additives and GM food (which no governmen"tsar" will ever talk about) and we come to good foods that we were told for many years were bad for us, like eggs, when most of us who read any nutrition books not written by the metropolitan elite already knew were good for us.

"Eggs 'protect against breast cancer'

Vitamins in eggs may protect against the disease

Eating eggs may protect women from breast cancer, according to doctors.
Researchers in the United States have found evidence to suggest teenage girls who regularly eat eggs are less likely to develop the disease later in life."

news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/2787731.stm

Is improving people's diets a good thing?

Is reducing obesity a good thing?

If so, what would you suggest to Government?

Vitamins in eggs may protect against the disease

Umm. I used to be a clinical biochemist. I really don't need a link to tell me vitamins have health benefits.

I agree with all of those statements. What I don't agree with is that "obesity is the new smoking" and "Obesity Set To Become Main Cause Of Cancer"

Obesity Set To Become Main Cause Of Cancer

Why not?

Poor diets. Unhealthy lifestyle. I can see the connection.

Anyway - what would you advise Goverment to do on the obesity epidemic?

It's a health issue. Expensive for the NHS and social care.

You're in charge. Solve it.

'Why not?

Poor diets. Unhealthy lifestyle. I can see the connection.'

That doesn't mean you will get cancer unless you are possibly eating lots of GM food.

Diesel fuel can cause cancer

"Diesel exhausts do cause cancer, says WHO"

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18415532

and according to some studies and reports

"Statin Use: The Cancer-Causing Mistake 1 in 4 People Over 45 Make
...
In the US, a staggering one in four over the age of 45 is now taking this unnecessary drug!

Statins act by blocking a crucial enzyme in your liver responsible for making cholesterol.

But that's not all this enzyme is responsible for.

This enzyme also makes CoQ10, which is essential for mitochondrial health.

Perhaps it's not so surprising then that many potentially dangerous side effects go hand-in-hand with statin drug use.
...

According to the study:

"The results of this case-control study suggest that statins may increase the risk of prostate cancer."

Statins Have Been Linked to Increased Cancer Risk for More Than a Decade

While the evidence still appears a bit all over the map, with study results ranging from increased cancer risk to reduced risk, to no noticeable risk at all, what IS clear is that conventional medicine still does not understand the full ramifications of artificially lowering your cholesterol levels, and they simply don't know whether or not the use of these drugs may be adding fuel to an already out of control cancer epidemic.

In short, with well over 30 million Americans now taking statin drugs, we're witnessing a massive ongoing 'live' experiment.

Over 10 years ago, research indicated that besides lowering cholesterol, statins could also promote the growth of new blood vessels. And, although this effect may help to prevent heart attacks and other forms of heart disease, it may also promote cancer as well by increasing the growth of blood vessels in cancerous tumors. Meanwhile, other studies have indicated the complete opposite; that statins can inhibit angiogenesis (the formation of new blood vessels), so again, it's virtually impossible to say that statin safety and effectiveness is based on hard science...

But the statin-cancer connection actually goes much farther back than that. A review published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1996 stated:

"All members of the two most popular classes of lipid-lowering drugs (the fibrates and the statins) cause cancer in rodents, in some cases at levels of animal exposure close to those prescribed to humans. ...

Longer-term clinical trials and careful postmarketing surveillance during the next several decades are needed to determine whether cholesterol-lowering drugs cause cancer in humans.

In the meantime, the results of experiments in animals and humans suggest that lipid-lowering drug treatment, especially with the fibrates and statins, should be avoided except in patients at high short-term risk of coronary heart disease."

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2011/12/07/statin-increases-risk-of-prostate-cancer.aspx

"what would you advise Goverment to do on the obesity epidemic?

It's a health issue. Expensive for the NHS and social care.

You're in charge. Solve it."

Ban high fructose corn syrup in food, put a whopping tax on the profiits of drinks manufacturers for fizzy drinks, ban advertising of fizzy drinks, regulate the use of sugar in foods and continue with an education programme.

That doesn't mean you will get cancer unless you are possibly eating lots of GM food

FFS - it's about increased risk. Being obese does not mean you will get cancer. It means you are at increased risk of getting cancer.

So reducing obesity is a good thing as is improving diets.

So again - you are in charge. How would you improve public health through diet?

Ban high fructose corn syrup in food, put a whopping tax on the profiits of drinks manufacturers for fizzy drinks, ban advertising of fizzy drinks, regulate the use of sugar in foods and continue with an education programme

All good things. Will reduce obesity. But cancer will still be an issue.

'How would you improve public health through diet?'

Ban artificial sweeteners, ban high fructose corn syrup, regulate sugar, tax profits of drinks companies who make fizzy drinks, ban GM food or GMO additives, ban toxic additives, mandatory labelling of food, mandatory education on nutrition and cooking in schools, tax money spent on public education of healthy food and how to cook it, paid for TV programmes explaining how to cook good basic meals, ban soy in food etc etc

That would be my first 100 day programme. After that lots of scientific study based on books written by non-metropolitan elite authors to remove all other harmful additives I have miised out.

I'd agree with some of that. I think that a lot of that is on the plan anyway.

What's your position on red meat in your policy?

The "experts" tell us there is no problem and they want to install smart metrs in all our homes. And they say that "obesity is the new smoking".

"British families at risk from smart meters, campaigners tell MPs

Smart energy meters offered to every British home could be as dangerous as a "bullet from a rifle" because of the radiation they emit, campaigners have told MPs.
Officials said smart meters are perfectly safe, as the level of radiation they emit is less than that of a mobile phone. Energy companies are planning to install the devices in British homes by 2019 to make gas and electricity readings more accurate.

However, Stop Smart Meters UK told MPs that there is evidence the radiation could be 140 to 800 times higher than that from mobile phones.

Dr Liz Evans, a campaigner, said there are hundreds of studies showing "evidence of harm could be acute", including possible "chronic effects from long term exposure such as cancer, infertility, dementia, genetic damage, immune system dysfunction and damage to foetuses".

"We are many of organisations calling for a precautionary approach, particularly for children," she said.

www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/energy/10015679/British-families-at-risk-from-smart-meters-campaigners-tell-MPs.html

'What's your position on red meat in your policy?'

I think it is good for you, contains B vitamins etc. I don't believe them on red meat, just as I didn't believe them on eggs, bacon, butter etc

"He added that the food industry had effectively contributed to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing it with sugar."

If you were a conspiracy theorist, you would be wondering how come they get it so wrong so often. I'm not one, so I just ignore lots of their advice and use common sense.

"After school health check Teyo was classed in 'very overweight' category
Mother has slammed report insisting he is very active and has healthy diet
She said: 'I think it's despicable. You have to use some common sense'."

"Sweden Becomes First Western Nation to Reject Low-fat Diet Dogma in Favor of Low-carb High-fat Nutrition"

healthimpactnews.com/2013/sweden-becomes-first-western-nation-to-reject-low-fat-diet-dogma-in-favor-of-low-carb-high-fat-nutrition/

Difficult to say whether he eats healthily and gets plenty of exercise without knowing the mothers definition of healthy and lots of exercise. Regardless of that if he's eating more calories than he's burning off, he's going to be overweight however healthy the food is.

The boy in the first article is definitely not 'skinny' as his mother describes him. The girl is quite visibly very overweight. That shouldn't really have been a surprise to her parents but we've lost track of what normal is supposed to look like in children.

Here is an article in Spiked. Spiked is a good magazine, it is generally contrarian and sceptical and doesn't follow the politically correct metropolitan elite line and most of its leading contributors are former Marxists. I don't know whether what it says is true, but it gives a different line to the metropolitan elite's line.

"Four fat myths about obesity and cancer

A new report from the World Cancer Research Fund recycles some highly dubious claims about our waistlines and health.

The fat police have tried to frighten us for so long they’ve used up most of their stock of scary images. Yet the media still run with every ‘The Fat End is Nigh’ story, no matter how absurd.
...
The new WCRF report is largely based on a report published two years ago by the same group that claimed that a third of cancers were caused by diet and lack of exercise. That controversial report advised people to be as thin as possible, and to avoid red and preserved meat and alcohol. The problem with this latest effort from the WCRF is that it is as blatantly and foolishly wrong as its 2007 version. This is especially evident in four areas.

Are cancer and obesity linked?

The report’s headline-grabbing claim about the link between obesity and cancer is not supported by the majority of the WCRF’s own data from the 2007 study
...
Despite the advice to avoid red meat, the report itself concludes that ‘there is limited evidence…suggesting that red meat is a cause of oesophageal cancer’. Or, again, ‘there is limited, inconsistent evidence…that grilled or barbecued animal foods are causes of stomach cancer’.

If the evidence is so limited and inconsistent, how can the advice to entire populations to reduce red meat consumption or avoid it entirely be so dogmatic?"

www.spiked-online.com/newsite/article/6297#.VWuKCKLbKic

Cancer is increasing and there are lots of environmental causes - diesel, possibly GM food, possibly additives in our food, possibly smart meter radiation etc etc and many other things. We are told that obesity is what is causing the majority of it. I don't believe it.

Here's Dr Mercola

"Evidence Is Mounting That Standard Nutritional Guidelines for Heart Health Are Wrong

Another nail has been driven into the coffin of the low-fat diet. Three articles have recently appeared in prominent medical journals elucidating the fallacy of the saturated fat myth.

For nearly four decades, you've been urged to replace your dietary saturated fats with carbohydrates and omega-6 polyunsaturated fats in order to improve your metabolic profile and lower your cardiovascular risk.

Yet scientific evidence clearly shows that this advice has raised your heart attack risk, as well as your chance of developing a number of other life-threatening chronic diseases.

Studies have consistently failed to support any significant association between saturated fat intake and cardiovascular risk. In fact, saturated fat has been found to be cardioprotective if you are consuming the right kind.

Still, the government continues its mission to vilify cholesterol, largely fueled by the pharmaceutical industry for which statins have been among the most profitable drugs ever made.

Never mind what the research actually says about what's beneficial for your health. The real culprit behind cardiovascular disease is not saturated fat, but rather excess dietary sugar, and omega-6 fats, mostly from vegetable oils.

Interventional Cardiology Specialist Registrar in London Aseem Malhotra wrote an excellent scientific review in the British Medical Journal about what is known to date about saturated fat intake and heart disease, explaining how recent studies have not supported any significant association between saturated fat and cardiovascular risk.1

Malhotra reports that two-thirds of people admitted to hospitals with acute myocardial infarction have completely normal cholesterol levels. He also mentions a recently published randomly controlled trial that was stopped early after it showed that, in high risk people, the Mediterranean diet achieved a 30 percent improvement over a low-fat diet in terms of cardiovascular events. He concludes:

"The greatest improvements in morbidity and mortality have been due not to personal responsibility but rather to public health. It is time to bust the myth of the role of saturated fat in heart disease and wind back the harms of dietary advice that have contributed to obesity."

articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2014/04/16/saturated-fat-heart-health.aspx

claig

It is impossible to debate with you. You've got too many links,too much stuff going on.

I could pick up on each of your comments. Loads to say. But there's too much going on and I can't be bothered to unpick your points. It's like someone standing on the streets saying "There's this, then there's that, someone says this". Each of those points can be unpicked and scientificallly debated. I've already aluded to some of them in this thread.

You're intense. It is impossible to debate with someone who just throws loads of quotes and articles on a range of different areas.

But...there is a load of scientific misunderstanding in all your posts.

I could explain why for each one. If you were to post any of those separately in AIBU, you would have people (experts) on MN telling you why it was scientific bollox.

But you've posted so so many that I just haven't got the time or the energy to explain each one to you. Can you see how overwhelming you are?

How is life under the tin foil?

The bottom line is that it is taking far far too long from the UK and US state to tell people clearly that high good fats are not a health risk and to change that very carb heavy "healthy eating" pyramid in the light of latest research. Anyone who helps to get those changes through quicker will do a lot of good for public health.