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!

[easterlywinds]

I'm also not sure it's fair to blame the food industry for 'contributing to heart disease by lowering saturated fat levels in food and replacing with sugar'. Food industry wants to make a profit. If people don't buy the low fat/high sugar foods then they wouldn't produce them. I remember a couple of years ago you could buy ready meals that contained healthy products such as salmon and veg which could be easily steamed in the microwave. The company producing these stopped producing them because they weren't selling. We have to take responsibility for our own diets and life styles.

[claig]

I would argue that microwaves aren't healthy. People don't have time to read all the labels and they do assume that food is OK if sold in large supermarkets etc. and which has been appoved by our Food Standards Agency etc. I think the government should have tougher regulations about what food processors are allowed to put into our food. People tend to buy what is on the shelves, the reponsibility for what is on there should be the government's and the food processors'.

[noddyholder]

My cardiac team have advocated a lowish carb diet for years

[ItsRainingInBaltimore]

This is not really news Claig - some of us have known this for 15 years or so, it's exactly what was said by Robert Atkins of the Atkins diet fame. He as denounced for being a quack (among notable others such as Gary Taubes and Leslie Kenton) and it wasn't until after he died that all this so-called 'new scientific evidence' started to hit the headlines. The big food conglomerates invested an awful lot of time and money in trying to discredit him people like him.

[claig]

ItsRainingInBaltimore, you're right.
The question is why do governments, who are supposed to serve us, not give out the best information on healthy food and diet?

[MarshaBrady]

The companies that sell sugar in whatever form have a lot of money to throw at keeping it current and in front of us, so we keep buying it.

[easterlywinds]

I wouldn't want the government to tell me what I should eat. I prefer to choose whether the latest media-reported food news is true or not. I choose to believe that using microwaves to steam food is not harmful because ther is little peer-reviewed evidence to suggest otherwise (although I am wary of using plates dishes in a microwave). A few years ago there were reports about the combination of frying in fat and high temperatures causing acrylamides (carcinogens) to form in food. Should we expect the government to jump on the bandwagon and ban these foods. Should this happen every time there is a food scare. Research is continually evolving our ideas of foodstuffs that are good and bad for us. I feel it's up to an individual to decide which foods they will eat and whether they want to choose a high fat/low fat, high carb/low carb, processed/unprocessed diet.
I think the government should only get involved when it comes to using chemicals that have been shown to be harmful e.g. Certain food colourings.

[claig]

'I wouldn't want the government to tell me what I should eat.'

I want the government to be responsible for public health. Steve Hilton, Cameron's guru, was just on The Daily Politics saying that some of our food in supermarkets is "toxic". Government subsidises "toxic food" says Cameron's guru, Hilton.

I had a microwave when they were first invented, but dropped it very quickly. Google it and don't trust Big Government spinners on it.

'A few years ago there were reports about the combination of frying in fat and high temperatures causing acrylamides (carcinogens) to form in food. Should we expect the government to jump on the bandwagon and ban these foods.'

Nobecause education is sufficient. Frying chips at high temperature does not mean we should ban potatoes.

'Should this happen every time there is a food scare.'

No but the E numbers, the artificial sweeteners, the trans-fats, the corn syrup etc should be controlled and regulated and banned as additives. They're not like potatoes.

'I feel it's up to an individual to decide which foods they will eat and whether they want to choose a high fat/low fat, high carb/low carb, processed/unprocessed diet. '

I'm UKIP, libertarian anti nanny state and anti big government, but on public health and drug policy, I think the government has a duty to protect public health, not by taxing food that the public buys, but by ordering food processors not to put crap into the food in the first place.

[Charis1]

No but the E numbers

people are so silly about e numbers. it is just a catalogue number, that is all. Find a natural ingredient in a piece of fruit, and it is "Good". Give the same ingredient a catalogue number for ease of reference, and it is "Bad"


It is the SAME THING for goodness sake!

[claig]

"His concerns are backed up by scientific evidence. Dr Neil Ward, a senior lecturer in analytical chemistry at the University of Surrey, has carried out four independent studies evaluating the impact of food additives on hyperactive children, in particular the colourings E102, E110, E123.


'All of our studies have confirmed that additives do have a detrimental effect on the behaviour of hyperactive children,' says Dr Ward.


'We have also found that a lot of so called "ordinary children are very sensitive to additives and artificial chemical in their diet, so it's a very widespread problem.


'And we have discovered links between additives and an increased incidence of eczema, asthma and allergies in selected groups of children who consume high levels of additives and artificial chemicals in their diet.'
...
They also allow the consumer to buy a much wider and more varied choice of foods. However, considerable controversy has arisen over the past ten years as growing scientific evidence suggests an association with the potential health threats of some E-numbers.


For example, some are known to be carcinogenic or toxic, while others - as Dr Ward and Gordon Walker will testify - may cause hyperactivity in children, and contribute to allergies, asthma and migraines.


www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-89404/Just-dangerous-E-numbers.html

[OrlandoWoolf]

So - Claig - what do you understand by sugar?

There's no denying that a diet of processed food high in additives and lacking fruit and veg is bad for you.

But food science is complex stuff - that's why messages like high fat /high cholesterol are relatively simple messages to get across.

Things like HDL / LDL ratio,complex carbs, unprocessed food, fish oils, low animal fats etc. All starts to get complicated.

[OrlandoWoolf]

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

From your OP.

Do you think diet affects HDL / LDL cholesterol ratios, affects LDL oxidation, alters the composition of the lipoproteins and causes plaques to form?

[OrlandoWoolf]

Some light reading for you on LDL oxidation and atherosclerosis.

cardiovascres.oxfordjournals.org/content/68/3/353

[claig]

Yes diet affects all those.

"But over time, various studies have linked trans fat—produced when hydrogen is added to vegetable oil to make it more solid—to heart disease. A 2002 report by the National Academy of Science's Institute of Medicine found a direct correlation between intake of trans fat and increased levels of low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol, commonly referred to as "bad" cholesterol, and, therefore, increased risk of heart disease."

www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm372915.htm

I believe in avoidng the trans-fat crap, ignoring the official messages about not eating eggs and butter and meat etc and avoiding the sweeteners and soy etc

[claig]

They now put soy in nearly all our bread, you can't escape it. You are best off to bake your own. What are the government doing to provide some choice and diversity of bread?

[OrlandoWoolf]

meat

Animal fats, Not brilliant for you. Saturated fats. Not brilliant

Trans fat - avoid it.

www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/fats-full-story/

Fats are complicated.

[claig]

I regularly see shoppers spending their valuable time scrutinising labels on bread and staple foods to see what they have put into them this week ithout a peep from anyone in government. What is going on? Then they are talking about wanting to tax us for buying foods that contain sugar as if it is our fault rather than the food processors who stuff products full of them.

Steve Hilton, guru extraordinaire, formerly known as "Cameron's Brain", has said that government subsidises toxic food found in supermarkets. What is going on?

[JoanHickson]

The older I get the less I listen to these guidelines. Experience has taught me to do my own thing as the parrots often are shame faced when exposed they are taking crap.

[OrlandoWoolf]

Then they are talking about wanting to tax us for buying foods that contain sugar

What do you understand by sugar? You do understand the difference between added sugar,natural sugar, complex carbohydrates etc?

[claig]

I think "parrots" is a brilliant anaology. They spout what they are told from the top, the guidelines right from on high in the Ministry of Truth, often without knowing why or what is going on.

"He’d been a GP for a quarter of a century and had written ‘tens of thousands of statin prescriptions’.

Then two years ago, Dr Kailash Chand, too, started taking the cholesterol-lowering pills to protect his heart.

As Dr Chand, who is the deputy chairman of the British Medical Association — the doctors’ union — explains: ‘I was in my late 50s and I’m Asian, so I ticked various boxes for being at raised risk of heart disease. It seemed the sensible thing to do.’

Within two weeks, however, Dr Chand, who is now 60, began experiencing pains in his back and legs unlike anything he’d suffered before.
...
I didn’t even consider statins,’ he says. ‘I was wondering instead about things like too much travelling or bad posture when sitting.

'I did various checks, like a liver function test, X-rays and an MRI scan. All came back clear.

‘So last year I thought it was worth seeing what would happen if I stopped taking the drug.

'Within two to three weeks my back and legs began to feel a lot better and my sleep improved.

‘For me that was the litmus test that showed that the statin was the cause of the problem.’

//www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-2582958/Statins-Millions-healthy-Britons-set-prescribed-GPs-say-wont-statins.html

[claig]

'What do you understand by sugar? You do understand the difference between added sugar,natural sugar, complex carbohydrates etc?'

In that instance, I was talking about the "sugar" that they are talking about taxing us for in food.

' A sugar tax may have to be introduced to curb obesity rates, the chief medical officer for England has said. '

www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-26442420

It wouldn't surprise me if they want to tax us on as wide a definition of "sugar" as possible.

[OrlandoWoolf]

That's the added sugar you find in foods like cakes etc. Sugar that's easily absorbed and metabolised. Not part of a "natural" diet. Sugar is bad for you. Especially in the quantities people eat.

Dietary fat is complicated. Too much animal fat is bad for you. Don't replace it with sugar (but why would you?). Trans fats -bad for you.

Rather than relying on drugs like statins, look at what you eat. Alter the balance.

[JoanHickson]

I have major issues with the training given to these Parrots , who work in positions of power and trust.

[claig]

Yes, it is all about balance, everything in moderation (apart from trans-fats, high fructose corn syrup, soy, artificial sweeteners etc which you should avoid in my opinion). If your diet just consists of goose fat on toast, then you will be heading for trouble.

But if you ignore the official advice on eggs, meat, butter etc, I think you'll be doing fine.

[OrlandoWoolf]

But if you ignore the official advice on eggs, meat, butter etc, I think you'll be doing fine

Butter - high in saturated fats. Animal based product
Meat - saturated fats.
Eggs - saturated fats - but a low amount

The question is - how much to take. Plus what's the rest of your diet like and are the "replacements" better or worse.