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!

Tha's what i thoght as well as the natural limit in eating natural food. No one is going to eat 6 oranges in a row, but anyone can quite easily drink a carton of orange juice if they have got the bug and that is way too much sugar in one go.

claig

If you are interested, there's a thread on AIBU at the moment. About Davina Mcoll and her sugar free diet.

www.mumsnet.com/Talk/am_i_being_unreasonable/2290291-Davinas-5-Weeks-to-Sugar-Free-is-a-total-con-and-most-people-cant-afford-real-maple-syrup?msgid=54727400

Thanks, will have a read of it.

So climate change is also a 'line' Claig? An "angle" promoted presumably taken by an elite, metropolitan cabal of Europe-loving lefties?

No the European-loving lefties have no power whatsoever, they are merely puppets of the plutocratic elite. The cabal is the plutocrats and they spread the message that meat is bad "for the planet", the metropolitan lefties from Oxbridge are just the parrots who spread the word.

You have to understand what the game of the plutocrats is, not the metropolitan elite because they only serve them.

"Eating less meat essential to curb climate change, says report

Global livestock industry produces more greenhouse gas emissions than transport but fear of a consumer backlash is preventing action, says Chatham House report"

www.theguardian.com/environment/2014/dec/03/eating-less-meat-curb-climate-change

Chatham House is not a bunch of lefties, it is an international affairs think tank. It thinks for the elite, not the metropolitan one, the real one.

Methane......

Cows fart

Seriously.

Ah, so that's the hierarchy explained. I'm clear now.. How about some links?

Orlando, cows' farts is one of the key planks in the elite's arguent of why the planet is "doomed" and why we should cut back on meat consumption. You have to remember the key rule - if the metropolitan elite say something is bad, more than often it is actually good. They say meat is bad and they want its consumption reduced.

This has long been known by the Daily Mail reader

"Britain gives millions in 'climate aid' to tackle flatulent Colombian cows... plus £31m to Turkish wind farms and funding for talks with Kenyan 'rain-makers'"

www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2245300/Britain-gives-millions-climate-aid-tackle-flatulent-Colombian-cows--plus-31m-Turkish-wind-farms-funding-talks-Kenyan-rain-makers.html

'How about some links?'

There's a Daily Mail link in the post above.

I was so enjoying keeping this on food and cholesterol.

Can we stick to that?

You could do a thread in AIBU.

AIBU to think climate change is all a scheme by the metropolitan elite?

This thread has made me think more about my diet. I had a banana today

'I had a banana today'

High in potassium. Makes you sleepy, slows you down.

No point doing a thread on that in AIBU, because all I will get is YANBU.

We need potassium. It's quite good for us.

Plus the body can deal with it in the kidneys.

No point doing a thread on that in AIBU, because all I will get is YANBU
Surely not

'Surely not'

They know all about the metropolitan elite on AIBU, believe me. I learnt most of what I know on the topic from AIBU.

Liquorice..

We once had a patient who loved liquorice. Unfortunately liquorice affects potassium levels.

Then there was the patient who like carrots. Her plasma was orange and her skin turned orange.

Yes, I have heard that liquorice is not too good for you. I'd have to google to find out exactly why.

"Can eating too much black liquorice be bad for you?

Yes, particularly if you’re 40 or older, eating 57g (2 ounces) of black liquorice a day for at least two weeks could give you an irregular heart rhythm (arrhythmia).

Black liquorice contains the compound glycyrrhizin, which is the sweetening compound taken from liquorice root. Glycyrrhizin can cause potassium levels in the body to fall. When that happens, some people experience abnormal heart rhythms, as well as high blood pressure, oedema (swelling), lethargy, and heart failure. Potassium levels usually go back to normal with no permanent health problems when you stop eating black liquorice."

www.nhs.uk/chq/Pages/Can-eating-black-liquorice-be-bad-for-you.aspx?CategoryID=51&SubCategoryID=215

That's the one.

I've seen some unusual patients.
Have you heard of people who can't stop drinking water?

Yes people have died from drinking too much water. Leads to brain swelling.

Nigella Lawson was an aquaholic

"Like Nigella, I'm an aquaholic - and it nearly killed me

By Joanne Jarvis

Yesterday, Nigella Lawson was revealed to be an ‘aquaholic’ — drinking so much water she may be endangering her health. And she is not alone. Joanne Jarvis, a 25-year-old PR manager from East London, regularly guzzles up to six litres of water a day..."

www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2016275/Like-Nigella-Im-aquaholic--nearly-killed-me.html

Saw this headline in the Daily Mail paper (on a newstand)

And thought of you

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3108313/Statins-slash-risk-death-cancer-slow-tumour-growth-50-reveal-major-studies.html

Haven't read it. But what do you think?

Jumping right to the end here. My cholesterol was high a year ago. 5.9

I refuse to get it tested again because I won't go on statins anyway. My weight and blood pressure is great. Also with health anxiety being tested makes me panic. I did a lot of research and decided a long time ago that fat was not bad and that in women higher cholesterol can be a good thing and the stats states that only 50% of people who have heart attacks have high chol and many places where they have higher levels of chol also have lower levels of heart attacks.

One GP is happy with my decision but another one acts like I might have a heart attack any day and wanted me to go on statins. I won't take the risks of statins for levels of 5.9 when I don't even think it is a killer anyway. I will carry on refusing tests and try to eat as healthy as I can.

Yes the story was front page of the Daily Mail and front page of the Daily Mirror. I don't think that is a coincidence, I think the message is intended to be publicised just as the message "obesity is the new smoking" is likely to be publicised in future. All papers and media basically have to spread the message.

But in my opinion the Mail knows that it is dealing with the Daily Mail reader and not a Guardian reader and therefore it knows that its readers are some of the most switched on readers around and that they can't be spun. Therefore the Mail always gives the message that it has to, but it always throws in an element of doubt in order to retain credibility with its switched on readership.

If you read the comments of Mail readers, most are somewhat sceptical. Here is part of one comment.

"I've come to the conclusion the the DM must surely being bankrolled by the biotech's. I'm waiting for the DM to tell me statins increase life to 700 years"

This is an example of the switched on readership I have been talking about, but this reader doesn't see the real subtlety of a Mail article where the Mail adds the followng to the article

"Despite the benefits of statins, a number of leading doctors and academics oppose prescribing them widely to healthy adults because of possible long-term side effects.

Recently a professor who had advocated widespread use of statins announced he was carrying out a review into their safety.

Sir Rory Collins of Oxford University is to examine the records of tens of thousands of patients to establish how many may have suffered side effects.

Six of the 12 experts who drew-up NHS guidance on the drugs have received funding from firms that manufacture statins."

www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-3108313/Statins-slash-risk-death-cancer-slow-tumour-growth-50-reveal-major-studies.html

The Mirror article is on the other hand much more on message and only adds the following

"The growing use of the tablets has caused controversy, with arguments raging over possible side effects such as terrible muscle pain."

www.mirror.co.uk/lifestyle/health/statins-slash-cancer-deaths-55-5811922

U2 exactly. The new research suggests for women at least we have been barking up the wrong tree on cholesterol for years and anything that gets that message out is good including this thread.

On statins - we yesterday's news was everyone over 60 should take them but they have major side effects for many and in my view why take anything if you don't have to? I don't even take headache pills except about once every 10 years and am just about never ill so I am not happy with increasing suggestions we should all take aspirin or statins every day once we are over 60. I think we will live to regret that message. Why medicate a whole population when things like taking a walk and eating natural foods and eating less does you more good? Obviously if you are 25 stone and eating donuts all day whilst never leaving your chair I suppose on balance a 10p statin a day might be wise.

My cholesterol was high a year ago. 5.9

I think you are assuming you will get statins prescribed on the basis of a Daily Mail article! My cholesterol was 6.1, I'm nearly 50, BMI >35 and when my GP typed all my details into the NHS checker it said I didn't need statins, mostly because my blood pressure was fine and I have no family history of heart disease.

Statins aren't prescribed solely on the basis of cholesterol levels which s presumably why your GP is happy.