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!

so in summary claig you agree with the Daily Mail if it's reporting something you agree with but if it's saying something different then you look to the readers comments for confirmation that you were right after all?

Any chance of getting the actual data from the horse's mouth?

It's rarely the case that what scientists write in their papers is anything like what journalists do.

Kewcumber, yes, because the Daily Mail is part of the Establishment spin machine. It is not allowed to deviate too much. Its readers know that, but they also know that it deviates more from the metropolitan message than any other paper or BBC channel is allowed to do.

But the point is that the suggestion is everyone over 60 might be advised to get statins - 100% - sounds awful to me. Why medicate yourself?

My link about cholesterol to the Dr Lustig article I think it was is worth reading.

It is not allowed to deviate too much

The Establishment eh....

The DM comments section. I have once been the most green arrowed on there and also the most read arrowed once.I was very proud of that achievement

It's all very well banging on about the Daily Mail thinks or what anyone else thinks... but this is the actual NICE guidelines for high cholesterol. You will see that it is VERY comprehensive, covers a wide range of risks of cardio vascular disease not just high cholesterol, covers a wide range of options including advice on the amount of exercise that can make a difference and what kind of healthy diet can help. It recommends that statins are only offered if lifestyle modifications aren't effective.

It covers the side effects and how to minimise them and what alternatives can be used and it specifically covers monitoring and advice about adverse side effects. It specifically goes into some depth about muscle pain and weakness and recommends creatine kinase levels if muscle pain is reported etc etc etc.

It really is very comprehensive.

It would be a better public service to ensure that this document is widely distributed so people can have informed discussions with their GP about the possible benefits of taking a statin rather than persisting in reposting links to the Daily Mail.

"People" might be talking about every over 60 taking statins but the reality is that the NICE guidelines are not due for review until Sept 2016 at the earliest.

Sorry missed out the link www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg181

I agree - always go to the source data and yes look at NICS guidelines.
However the new research that high Ch. may be no problem for women and that one reason we all got fat and ill is because the state said eat loads of carbs and low fat is absolute crucial and people should be careful of eating fake non healthy junk food products which are processed even if they are called a health bar and instead just eat real food even if it's the fat from pork and eggs. Much better for you that junk.

I think the Times has changed their statins article from when I read it www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/health/news/article4458822.ece or may be I read a different one in there.

A large study in the United States showed that women taking the cholesterol-lowering drugs were 22 per cent less likely to die of any cancer, 40 per cent less likely to die of breast and ovarian cancers and 55 per cent less likely to die of bone cancer. A separate study found that men with prostate cancer who were taking statins and the diabetes drug metformin were 43 per cent less likely to die of their disease.

Neither study can prove that statins have a direct effect on cancer. Scientists called for urgent trials.

“We’re very excited by these results,” said Ange Wang of the Stanford University School of Medicine, who led the first study. “If this effect were real, it would be a very promising and simple intervention that would help patients.”

About seven million people in Britain are thought to be taking statins to cut their risk of heart disease. The drugs lower cholesterol, which helps cancer cells to spread around the body and is the raw material for hormones that drive cancer growth. "

From the NICE guidleines:

Cardioprotective diet

1.2.1 Advise people at high risk of or with CVD to eat a diet in which total fat intake is 30% or less of total energy intake, saturated fats are 7% or less of total energy intake, intake of dietary cholesterol is less than 300 mg/day and where possible saturated fats are replaced by mono?unsaturated and polyunsaturated fats. Further information and advice can be found at NHS Choices. [new 2014]

1.2.2 For people at high risk of or with CVD:

Tell them that reducing their saturated fat intake from animal sources also reduces their mono?unsaturated fat levels.

Advise them to replace their saturated and mono?unsaturated fat intake with olive oil, rapeseed oil or spreads based on these oils.

Advise them to use olive oil, rapeseed oil or spreads based on these oils in food preparation.

Further information and advice on healthy cooking methods can be found at NHS Choices. [new 2014]

1.2.3 Advise people at high risk of or with CVD to do all of the following:

choose wholegrain varieties of starchy food

reduce their intake of sugar and food products containing refined sugars including fructose

eat at least 5 portions of fruit and vegetables per day

eat at least 2 portions of fish per week, including a portion of oily fish

eat at least 4 to 5 portions of unsalted nuts, seeds and legumes per week.

I don;t think there's a lot wrong with that advice is there? I mean you can quibble about whether saturates fats are that bad and if they should reassess the evidence on saturated vs unsaturated fats. But basically saying that you should keep your fat intake below 30% and eat plenty of fruit and veg and wholegrain foods and include fish and seeds and nuts in your diet seems about right to me. Exactly what problem do people have with this advice?

I think I quoted the US guidelines - which are similar pages ago

I mean you can quibble about whether saturates fats are that bad and if they should reassess the evidence on saturated vs unsaturated fats

Indeed !!!

Good advice. Needs red wine though!!!

Always worth going to the source data - well worth it for many studies.

I love More or Less on Radio 4. They pick apart statistics in the news and always look at the source. Some source data is unreliable and even misinterpreted

Claig's alter ego's now actually ask each other questions? .

The only question I ask is "What on earth are you on about?"
All the rest is answers.

Sometimes things you read in the papers or hear on the news are not what actually happened.

I know, I know. Papers have an agenda.

But health reporting is important. The Daily Express seems obsessed with reporting any health story on its front page. They often contradict previous stories.

Most of that is fine although I personally think 60% good fats (not junk fats) can be quite a healthy diet for people so obviously that is very at odds with NICE guidelines.

Kewcumber

A GP wanted to give me them. My regular GP wouldn't hear of it but one of them wanted me to go on them if it was still 5.9 the next time I re-tested. Oh she also said she was thinking about sending me to a cardiologist I am a size 10 with perfect blood pressure and no other risk factors. I think it is her bug bear or something because my GP looked like this when I told him.

I don't read the DM. I didn't make the assumptions based on the DM, but what the GP actually told me.

She was obviously just a crap GP. My other GP plugged in all my details like they all should do. She just acted like I was a heart attack waiting to happen.

Claig you do realise that after all the ridiculous hysteria surrounding the Liverpool care pathway and its unfortunate demise , every NHS trust in the country still has a 'pathway' for end of life care , as they bloody well should.

OrlandoWoolf You clearly have the patience of a saint

frumpet

I've been told that a lot on here