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!

"The science of saturatedaga fat: A big fat surprise about nutrition?

When Ronald M Krauss decided, in 2000, to review all the evidence purporting to show that saturated fats cause heart disease, he knew that he was putting his professional career at risk. Krauss is one of the top nutrition experts in the United States, director of atherosclerosis research at Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute and adjunct professor of nutritional studies at the University of San Francisco at Berkley. But challenging one of his field’s most sacrosanct beliefs – that the fats in meat, cheese and butter are bad for health – was a near-heretical act.

A few years earlier, when a colleague of Krauss’s had merely tried to speak about his positive findings regarding the high-fat Atkins diet, he was met with jeers and derision. One member of the audience yelled “I am absolutely disgusted that the [government] would waste my money on a study on the Atkins diet” – to the applause of many.

Challenging any of the conventional wisdom on dietary fat has long been a form of professional suicide for nutrition experts. And saturated fats, especially, are the third rail. But Krauss persevered and concluded in 2010, after reviewing all the scientific literature, that saturated fats could not be said to cause heart disease. In March, another group of scientists, including faculty from Cambridge and Harvard, came to the same conclusion after conducting a similar “meta-analysis”. These were stunning results. It seemed that saturated fat, our principal dietary culprit for decades, had been unfairly convicted.

Yet the truth is there never has been solid evidence that these fats cause disease. We only believe this to be true because nutrition policy was derailed over the past half-century by personal ambition, bad science, politics, and bias.
...
Our dietary guidance has followed Keys’s view for 50 years now. Despite half-a-billion pounds spent trying to prove his hypothesis, the evidence of its health benefits has never been produced. Meanwhile, rates of obesity and diabetes are rising and heart disease remains a leading cause of death. It’s worth wondering if our working hypothesis about diet and health is not working. And if alternative ideas are to be considered, nutrition science must, like any science, provide an open, civil and unbiased climate for genuine debate."

www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and-families/features/the-science-of-saturated-fat-a-big-fat-surprise-about-nutrition-9692121.html

Oops! They got it wrong again

It is no surprise to anyone who understands the game or to the avergae Daily Mail reader, they already know the game.

In 40 years' time, the climate change heretics will be proved right too. Oops, they got it wrong again

Is it a coincidence that they are wrong so often, or is it part of the game?

"Everyone Was Wrong: Saturated Fat Is Good For You

Poor old saturated fat. For over forty years now, it’s been spoken of only in hushed tones, dissed as nothing but artery clogging, obesity-causing poison. This “common sense fact” has become so widely accepted that a lot of people who want to improve their diet start by purchasing skim milk, ditching their egg yolks, and beginning a life free of steak, pork, and butter.

It’s time to bring bacon back to breakfast. After all, saturated fat is good for you.
...
But that’s only part of the story, because there are also two kinds of LDL cholesterol: big, floaty particles (type A) and small, dense ones (type B). When someone reduces their consumption of saturated fat and their LDL cholesterol “drops,” they’re only lowering their type A particles. But it’s the type B particles that are more closely linked in heart disease, and they’re generally controlled by carbohydrate consumption ? . So the best way to cut out harmful types of cholesterol and reduce the risk of heart disease could be to follow a diet that’s low in carbs, rather than fat"

greatist.com/health/saturated-fat-healthy

"Christiane Northrup, MD Headshot

Now Saturated Fat Is Good for You?

A recent article in the British Medical Journal (BMJ) puts to rest a decades-old myth: Saturated fat is NOT bad for the heart. [1] This is news I've long suspected! And we now have science to support it. Fat is not the enemy when it comes to cardiovascular disease, weight gain, brain health, and so many other issues. It turns out that sugar in all its many guises is the real culprit for making you fat. What it also means is that because sugar causes inflammation throughout the body, it increases your risk of cardiovascular disease -- and just about everything else!

We've all been sold a bill of goods about so-called healthy low-fat foods like cookies and muffins. When you begin to read labels, you'll quickly see how much sugar is added to just about everything, especially to low-fat foods. When the fat is removed, so is the flavor. To make it more palatable, sugar, sugar substitutes, and salt are added in its place. And as you continue to read labels, I think you'll be surprised by how much sugar is also in so-called healthy foods, like yogurt, tomato sauce, many fruit juices -- even some salad dressings.

I can tell you without a doubt, it's the sugar that so many of us struggle with, not the fat."

www.huffingtonpost.com/christiane-northrup/saturated-fat_b_4914235.html

What is going om?

Have heads rolled? Have questions been asked on the floor of the House? Or have promotions and Lordships been awarded along with pecuniary rewards?

Cui bono? It's not the people.

This might help you understand things a bit clearer.

www.nhs.uk/news/2014/03march/pages/saturated-fats-and-heart-disease-link-unproven.aspx

A question of balance and moderation.

We've all been sold a bill of goods about so-called healthy low-fat foods like cookies and muffins

If you think cookies and muffins are healthy because they are low fat, you don't understand food nutrition.

Low fat does not equal healthy. Because in that case, they have sugar in.

'If you think cookies and muffins are healthy because they are low fat, you don't understand food nutrition.

Low fat does not equal healthy. Because in that case, they have sugar in.'

That is exactly what the doctor said in that article. The advice has been to use low fat (which incidentally is stuffed with sugar which Big Government is talking about taxing us for rather than the companies who make the stuff we are advised is good for us).

"5) Healthy brain

You will likely be astounded to learn that your brain is mainly made of fat and cholesterol. Though many people are now familiar with the importance of the highly unsaturated essential fatty acids found in cold-water fish (EPA and DHA) for normal brain and nerve function, the lion’s share of the fatty acids in the brain are actually saturated. A diet that skimps on healthy saturated fats robs your brain of the raw materials it needs to function optimally.

6. Proper nerve signaling

Certain saturated fats, particularly those found in butter, lard, coconut oil, and palm oil, function directly as signaling messengers that influence the metabolism, including such critical jobs as the appropriate release of insulin. And just any old fat won’t do. Without the correct signals to tell the organs and glands what to do, the job doesn’t get done or gets done improperly.

7. Strong immune system

Saturated fats found in butter and coconut oil (myristic acid and lauric acid) play key roles in immune health. Loss of sufficient saturated fatty acids in the white blood cells hampers their ability to recognize and destroy foreign invaders, such as viruses, bacteria, and fungi. Human breast milk is quite rich in myristic and lauric acid, which have potent germ-killing ability. But the importance of the fats lives on beyond infancy; we need dietary replenishment of them throughout adulthood, middle age, and into seniority to keep the immune system vigilant against the development of cancerous cells as well as infectious invaders."

fourhourworkweek.com/2009/06/06/saturated-fat/

"Two doctors, one looking for a cure for allergies, and the other looking to help patients with colitis and Crohn’s disease, stumbled upon a rapid cure for belly fat. Both also helped their patients see improvement with the problems they set out to fix, and both noted that overweight patients lost a lot of weight in the process. News of their new way to treat obesity spread and soon both were overwhelmed with new patients looking for help in weight loss. They both wrote books (published in the 60’s and 70’s) about their methods.

How did they do it?

Both had their clients follow an all-meat diet. This was before the negative hype about fat, and these doctors even had patients with heart disease follow an all-meat diet with good results."

wellnessmama.com/1265/saturated-fat/

It's almost as if we have been deliberately given the wrong advice, as if someone on high is having a laugh, playing a game.

It's almost as if we have been deliberately given the wrong advice, as if someone on high is having a laugh, playing a game

What advice do you think you have been given?

You do know the body makes saturated fats all by itself?

So if your diet contains the essential building blocks, it can synthesise them naturally.

So even if you have a diet low in saturated fats, your body can make them for the essential roles you mentioned.

You do also know what happens to fats when they are metabolised?

www.cliffsnotes.com/sciences/biology/biochemistry-ii/lipid-biosynthesis/fatty-acid-biosynthesis

The important question is the regulation of this process.

The advice has been to use low fat (which incidentally is stuffed with sugar which Big Government is talking about taxing us for rather than the companies who make the stuff we are advised is good for us)

No. Low fat does not equal stuffed with sugar.

Oh - and cholesterol is completely separate to low fat diets. Completely separate.

HDL / LDL ratios are very important. Of course, it's more complex than that but low LDL is probably a good thing. That LDL level is regulated by your whole diet.

Somethings are low fat naturally I stick with those I think reduced fat is the problem The reducing either involves a process which may be dodgy or adding something like sugar to improve the taste and so defeat the 'healthy' objective.

Many flavours are found in fat. Reduce the fat and the flavour changes.

I get so confused about saturated fat.
First we are told it's bad for you, the NHS continue to say it's bad for us, schools continue to teach pupils that it's bad for us.
Yet recent news says that the "saturated fat is bad for you" line is a load of bollocks.
Many Drs advocate a LCHF diet, show graphs and figures that back up their findings, show graphs and figures that show where Ancal Keyes et al had it wrong.
Many people find that following a LCHF diet improves their diabetes, so much so that they can come of drugs that they would normally be on for the rest of their life along the normal deterioration of health. All this whilst eating saturated fats.

Orlando, I get what you're saying, but it's more in the line of NHS advice which tbh I'm starting to distrust, particularly when their change4life campaign is so dire and partnered with Nestlè

And then (on top of the fat debate) we have certain drs and nutritionists saying that actually fruit isn't good for us (too much fructose) and vegetables don't give us that many vitamins and minerals and aren't as beneficial as we are told. I have read in several places that the 5-a-day thing was a marketing ploy by Californian farmers after an excellent year leaving them with a glut of produce.

All very confusing!

There was a great article on the BBC a while back about how the myth about cholesterol being bad for you got started. I've looked for it and can't find it now (including going through my facebook feed and email as I know I posted it and emailed it to some people).

However, it basically said the guy that started the whole thing was a pathologist who had a lot of politically powerful friends, he analysed lots of data but only reported the results that supported his theory about cholesterol (as a pathologist he's noticed the fatty build up in the arteries) but ignored the results for the effects of sugar which were even more significant. And because he got in a position of power he was able to fill other positions with his supporters and his views which took over very quickly.

Afterwards, because he and his friends were so powerful and the 'fat/cholesterol is bad for you' message became the establishment view, even when others were having problems replicating his results and were finding problems with sugar, he was able to get them dismissed as crazies.

And they reckon that his determination to demonise fat and cholesterol has, in hindsight, been one of the most significant reasons that obesity has reached the levels it has done today because lots of the fat that got removed from foods got replaced by sugar so we were eating even more of it and without the modifying influences of fat around. Talk about one man's hubris being the downfall of the health of the western world!

Ignore what the state says and eat unprocessed good foods and you won't go wrong. Now that might be 100% veg/vegan or 100% meat/fish or a mixture but what all those have in common is avoiding processed junk. If the product has ingredients on it then try to avoid it.

I have got some Chinese nutrition books that I used to read a long time ago. I love the old Tao philosophy etc, and it did mention in them that the Chinese don't eat too much fruit. The old Chinese wisdom usually has things about right wih the balance of yin and yang foods etc.

Does anyone know if that is right about the Chinese and fruit eating?

Claig, I'll ask again, what have you done to enhance human understanding? What research?

'I'll ask again, what have you done to enhance human understanding? What research?'

I have spent hour upon hour studying the Daily Mail health and science sections.

Traditionally, people would only eat fruit in season so it was never something we had much of so it makes sense that if that were so for about 200,000 years+ that might well be wise to follow now. However fruit is going to be better than junk foods so for many people they are taking decisions like pack of digestives or 2 bananas.

Nicholas Ridley had an article about cholesterol in the Times this week along similar lines. It has been a good few years since most people who research these things have known that demonising all fats made us sicker and fatter than we have ever been but it will take generations to convince people.

In fact the best thing most people could do for their health is eat a lot less and just eat twice a day and try to make that food not junk food.

have spent hour upon hour studying the Daily Mail health and science sections

Biochemistry degree, M.Sc.Clinical Biochemistry, 9 years working in clinical biochemisry labs analysing blood samples, urine and faeces for signs of disease.

In fact the best thing most people could do for their health is eat a lot less and just eat twice a day and try to make that food not junk food

Sums it up.

But look at the food people buy and you'll see that people don't stick to that.

The new area is faecal bacteria in the intestine. Fascinating area of research and how they affect health.

"I have spent hour upon hour studying the Daily Mail health and science sections."

This is possibly the funniest sentence I have ever read on Mumsnet.

claig: have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? You do understand, don't you, that someone with an M.Sc. in clinical biochemistry and nine years experience of working in clinical biochemistry labs unquestionably knows about more science than you do?

Or do you, in your heart of hearts, believe that reading the health section of a trashy national newspaper that specialises in sensationalist and exaggerated reporting makes you more of an expert?

Diets are so so complicated and there is so much we are learning all the time about mechanisms.

The key thing to understand is that everything is interlinked. Everything. There's a lot of regulation in the body, certain processes are increased / decreased depending on levels, rates of absorption, synthesis etc all fluctuate. The body synthesises a lot of stuff, metabolises it, stores it and uses it. All the vitamins,minerals, micronutrients,all play a role. Bacteria are the new "thing".

This all has an effect on the levels and types of biochemicals in the system. Researching this is a nightmare as there is so much going on. Look at a biochemical pathway and it's complicated. It's nothing compared to the whole holistic system.

Certain foods may be better for you. Some types of food not so good. Is it the olive oil, the fish oils or the vegetables that are protective? What role does genetics play? Is red wine good or bad for you?

Then someone comes up with a fad. They base it on pseudoscience but give it a name and a theory. People buy into it. Companies like Holland and Barrett with all the supplements are part of it. Papers like simple news stories. Look at the Daily Express and its health headlines.

The simple thing is - it's complicated. Really really complicated. But a complicated health message doesn't work. People need clear guidance.

"A little bit of what you fancy, don't over indulge, don't snack on crap,avoid processed food, don't smoke, do some exercise"

(But I do love KFC )

'have you heard of the Dunning-Kruger effect? '

Of course I have, that's Freddy Krueger's cousin.

'You do understand, don't you, that someone with an M.Sc. in clinical biochemistry and nine years experience of working in clinical biochemistry labs unquestionably knows about more science than you do? '

I understand that a person with qualifications like that would know more about valencies than me, but not about politics and the game.

This is Ancel Keyes who started the whole cholesterol/heart disease thing off. He was a bright guy, but he got it wrong. He shold have taken time out and studied the Daily Mail.

"At the University of California, Berkeley, Keys initially studied chemistry, but was dissatisfied and took some time off to work as an oiler aboard the S.S. President Wilson (1st), which traveled to China.[4] He then returned to Berkeley, switched majors, and graduated with a B.A. in economics and political science (1925) and M.S. in zoology (1928).[4] For a brief time, he took up a job as a management trainee at Woolworth's, but returned to his studies at Scripps Institution of Oceanography in La Jolla on a fellowship. In 1930 he received his Ph.D. in oceanography and biology.[4] He was then awarded a National Research Council fellowship that took him to Copenhagen, Denmark to study under August Krogh at the Zoophysiological Laboratory for two years.[4][5] During his studies with Krogh, he studied fish physiology and contributed numerous papers on the subject.[5] Once his fellowship ended, he went to Cambridge but took some time off to teach at Harvard University, after which he returned to Cambridge and earned a second Ph.D. in physiology (1936).[4]"

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ancel_Keys

Here is an interesting article for anyone who doesn't believe the official line from the Ministry of Truth

"By removing these carbohydrates from the diet—harbingers of inflammation, the true source of problems that plague our brains and hearts—and increasing the amount of fat and cholesterol we consume, we can not only protect our most valuable organ, but also potentially, undo years of damage. Cholesterol, for example, long vilified by the media and medical community, actually promotes neurogenesis (the birth of new brain cells) and communication between neurons, to the degree that studies have shown that higher levels of serum cholesterol correlates to more robust cognitive prowess."

www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-optimalist/201310/your-healthy-diet-could-be-quietly-killing-your-brain

I think claig was joking