Dietary Cholesterol Concerns Reversed After 40 Years

[HFWR]

Some good reading on this topic here...

 

[clifp]

Just want to chime in that this has been an interesting discussion. I have a passing knowledge of some of the debate. Still it is all very confusing. I guess I will trying the cut out sugar for two weeks, once I get rid of all of the obvious source in my house.

 

[unclemick]

Scientists! They say they want to help us, but what they really want to do is Take Over The World!

View attachment 21089

heh heh heh - nah. ER is way better.

 

[Katsmeow]

I'd say, though, that if someone recommends more of one or less of the other macronutrient, they are implicitly stating that "a calorie is NOT a calorie". Right? If they all were the same, it wouldn't matter if they got 100 calories from white flour, whole wheat flour, or olive oil. I know if I ate the flour, I'd be clamoring for a Snickers bar in an hour and a half, and if I had the olive oil, I'd not even think about eating, much less be ravenous.

I think it depends on the context. I've thought about this a lot. In my spare time, I have a weight loss blog since I've been working on weight loss (52 pounds gone, 9.4 left to go).

A calorie is a calorie (by and large) in terms of weight loss. If you eat fewer calories than you burn you will lose weight. Eat more and you gain.

If I eat 20g of carbs a day and I burn 1800 calories, will I lose weight? The answer to that is that it depends. If I eat 20g of carbs a day and eat 3000 calories, then I'm not losing weight. If I eat 20g of carbs a day and eat 1200 calories, then I'm losing weight.

If I eat 200g of carbs of day and I burn 1800 calories...it works out the same way.

Now it is possible -- and I think actually true -- that for many people if they eat 200g of carbs a day that they are hungrier and may be more likely to eat closer to 3000 calories a day than 1200 calories a day. I don't think that is true for everyone. Personally, my appetite doesn't vary with my carb intake (and I've recorded what I've eaten each and every day for over 500 days and I would have noticed if it did).

There is another context other than weight loss in which I might recommend one of more macronutrient than another and that is for reasons of health and nutrition apart from weight loss.

I tend to think it is more important thought to look at things like what kind of carbs, what kind of fat, and so on. Not all carbs are the same. Not all fats are the same.

For me, in checking my blood sugar, I find that refined carbs tend to make it rise much more than vegetables and more than whole grains. That doesn't mean that a calorie isn't a calorie in terms of weight loss. Some calories are better for you than others.

 

[TromboneAl]

Another interesting ramification of this is that they should now remove the cholesterol listing from the nutrition facts labels.

 

[RonBoyd]

And to add more confusion to the mix: What weight is one trying to lose anyway? One of the healthiest groups of individuals are also the "heaviest" -- Sumo Wrestlers.

There is a big difference between visceral fat an subcutaneous fat.

Google "waist to weight ratio vs body mass index," for instance.

or

Health Correlator: Waist-to-weight ratios in pictures: The John Stone transformation

 

[Chuckanut]

We don't eat isolated calories. We eat food that contains calories. The food has various effects on our body including hormones that are involved in managing our appetite and weight.

We would never put unleaded gas in a rocket headed to space even if it contained exactly the same amount of energy as rocket fuel. The rocket has different needs than my old jalopy.

 

[sengsational]

I wonder if this means that someday, every neighborhood will have a Bob's Fecal Transplant Store.

LOL! Not going to happen in the US since the FDA has classified poop as an "experimental drug", requiring special permission to use. The world is indeed coming to an end when crap is regulated

 

[robertf57]

And to add more confusion to the mix: What weight is one trying to lose anyway? One of the healthiest groups of individuals are also the "heaviest" -- Sumo Wrestlers.

Huh? Average sumo wrestler live 15 yeasr less than his non Sumo couterpart. What Is the Average Life Expectancy of a Sumo Wrestler? - Quora

 

[d0ug]

The only reason they changed the cholesterol eating is that they finally got exposed.
In 2012 the FDA told doctors to get their patents off statin because they cause 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer].
Then in 2014 time magazine cover story on the history of cholesterol scam which showed that the American Heart Association received 1.7 million dollars donation to promote Crisco over saturated fat. Also they had no scientific study to support their actions. The only thing they had was a fraudulent study done by Dr. Keys. They would never address people like the Inuit [Eskimos] living with a diet of 90% saturated fat and have the lowest rate of heart problems in the world.

 

[Winemaker]

Wait until the global cooling, no,acid rain, no, global warming, no, climate change theory gets debunked. It's going to be a cool day, no, burning day, no, hot day, no, hot and cold day in hell on earth.

 

[RonBoyd]

One more:

Saturated fat & CHD in Europe

... for all 192 countries in the world, for men and women, for CVD deaths and all-cause mortality, the HIGHER the cholesterol levels, the LOWER the death rate; the LOWER the cholesterol levels, the HIGHER the death rate. The Pearson correlation coefficient gets higher as we move from male CVD deaths to female CVD deaths to male all deaths to female all deaths.

This blog repeats the exercise of examining the association between heart disease (this time CHD) and an accused causal agent (this time saturated fat).

 

[audreyh1]

Interesting experience at the docs today. He thought my LDL cholesterol was a bit "high" because it came in at 107. Of course it was the limit set on the lab report that marked it as H, and claimed <100 mg/dl as the OK range.

But < 100 is the range for someone already being treated for heart disease or otherwise having high risk factors.

< 130 is an appropriate range for someone like me. And even <160 is an acceptable range for someone with otherwise low risk factors.

I was quite pleased with the results, because it was an improvement over a measurement from 3 years ago, especially the total cholesterol at 183. HDL was 51.

Just one of those annoying niggly things. The lab reports have to put a range, and in this case they select one of the most conservative.

This doc is not a cardiologist. And he said he wasn't inclined to be "aggressive" about treating it because people with thyroid issues tend to have somewhat elevated LDL. And I'm sitting there thinking - I don't think that's particularly high.......

 

[d0ug]

Here is a blog I wrote a wait back that gives you some idea about cholesterol
The doctors were told by their education that cholesterol was the cause of clogged arteries. This was backed up by the American Heart Association who took a 1.7 million bribe in the early 1900s to recommend Crisco as a substitute for saturated fat. This was based on work done by Dr. Ansell Keys who done a falsified study which was the seven country study later called the Mediterranean diet. Dr. Ansell Keys who was on the board of Proctor and Gamble and also a part of the American Heart Association. In his study he ignored all countries and groups that had the opposed facts like the American Eskimos whos diet is 75% saturated fat and have the lowest heart problems of anyone in the world and lowest cancer others are Maasai 66%. Rendille 63% and Tokelau 60% all have very low heart problems.
50% of people with heart attacks have low or what they call normal cholesterol. The Eskimos have cholesterol level of 350 to 500.
In 1971a paper published in Denmark showed that vegans had worst clogged arteries than meat eaters.
One question is never asked why it is only in arteries not veins you only hear about [FONT=&quot]arteriosclerosis not veiniosclerosis. The body is intelligent and a hole in an artery is life threatening but in most veins it is not. When you have damage in the artery and the walls get weaken the body needs a band aid and it uses what it has is cholesterol. Just in the last few months the FDA has admitted that the problem is damaged to the artery wall and that cholesterol is not the cause. With tunnel vision it is easy to blame the band aid for the cut as every time you see a band aid there is a cut.[/FONT]
What is Crisco? Well it was made as a submarine diesel lubricant made by a German chemist later sold to Proctor and Gamble to make candles and soap.
There is the same amount of cholesterol in the veins as in the arteries but the veins don’t get plugged with cholesterol this is a fact ignored.
What has this paranoia with cholesterol done fist what they used to replace lard, butter was margarine and oils all oxidise and become free radicals and trans fats who are now recognise as the problem with heart disease by the FDA in 2015 they are banning trans fats.
The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors.
Is there any cholesterol deficiency diseases? Let us check what cholesterol does in the body
All sex hormones are made from cholesterol has there been an increase in erectile dysfunction or menopause problems?
The myelin of the brain affected by Alzheimer is 100% cholesterol if you do not have t you can fix anything.
Cholesterol in the skin exposed to sun light becomes vitamin D which they now claim there is a deficiency and it is a powerful part of the immune system. Also needed for many functions in the body.
Cholesterol is a large clumsy molecule and is hard to digest so in the best of times if anyone has a digestive problem they might not be getting enough.

 

[ERD50]

Here is a blog I wrote a wait back that gives you some idea about cholesterol ...

Well, there was a lot there, and I suppose some of it has some truth to it. But, do you have any credible sources for any of this?
It reminded me of this post:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/silver-bullet-61789.html#post1203820

Really, the following ought to be pretty easy to confirm/deny:

The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors.

So, got a link to this 'notice'?

What is Crisco? Well it was made as a submarine diesel lubricant made by a German chemist ...

Well, pretty much any 'natural' oil/fat also has lubricating properties, that in and of itself doesn't mean we should not consume it.

If you really want people to listen, try some real info rather than a long winded, un-referenced sermon. I'd like to learn, but I need some back up.


-ERD50

 

[d0ug]

Well, there was a lot there, and I suppose some of it has some truth to it. But, do you have any credible sources for any of this?
It reminded me of this post:

http://www.early-retirement.org/forums/f38/silver-bullet-61789.html#post1203820

Really, the following ought to be pretty easy to confirm/deny:



So, got a link to this 'notice'?



Well, pretty much any 'natural' oil/fat also has lubricating properties, that in and of itself doesn't mean we should not consume it.

If you really want people to listen, try some real info rather than a long winded, un-referenced sermon. I'd like to learn, but I need some back up.


-ERD50

Here is the notices sent out by the FDA

FDA Expands Advice on Statin Risks
FDA announces safety changes in labeling for some cholesterol-lowering drugs

Any oil when exposed to oxygen becomes oxidized and now dangerous also when heated becomes a trans fat both of these cause free radical damage in the arteries which now the FDA is going to ban trans fats.

The FDA takes step to remove artificial trans fats in processed foods
FDA announces plan to ban trans fat from food supply - CBS News

 

[donheff]

Here is the notices sent out by the FDA

FDA Expands Advice on Statin Risks
FDA announces safety changes in labeling for some cholesterol-lowering drugs

I follow this stuff fairly closely (albeit I can never remember the details). But above you say there is a 53% increase in diabetes and a 100% increase in dementia. A quick read through the the article you first quoted indicates that the FDA is alerting to "some" cognitive impairment and "people...may have increased risk.. of type 2 diabetes." These are real concerns and contributed to my decision to discontinue statins a few years ago. But they don't match your alarmist rhetoric. I am not going to bother digging around to see if anything else you cited actually supports the hyperbole. If it does, please extract some details for us so we will be enlightened.

 

[ERD50]

I follow this stuff fairly closely (albeit I can never remember the details). But above you say there is a 53% increase in diabetes and a 100% increase in dementia. A quick read through the the article you first quoted indicates that the FDA is alerting to "some" cognitive impairment and "people...may have increased risk.. of type 2 diabetes." These are real concerns and contributed to my decision to discontinue statins a few years ago. But they don't match your alarmist rhetoric. I am not going to bother digging around to see if anything else you cited actually supports the hyperbole. If it does, please extract some details for us so we will be enlightened.

Thanks for the summary, saved me some time!

... The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors.
...

So d0ug, specifically, where in that notice does it report a "52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer]"? Maybe Don and I missed it?

And since the report also says this:

What should patients do if they fear that statin use could be clouding their thinking? “Talk to your health care professional,” Egan says. “Don’t stop taking the medication; the consequences to your heart could be far greater.”

and this:

“Clearly we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs this small increased risk,”

then your claim that ' this was ignored by most doctors' is twisted. Ignoring it would have meant they stopped prescribing it, but that is not what you claim.

Again, there may be real concerns here, but hyperbole and distortion is no way to sort things out. You are not doing yourself or anyone any favors, IMO.


-ERD50

 

[HFWR]

On my phone, so too difficult to look up references, but increased risk of diabetes is known. Also, it appears that the secondary effect of reducing inflammation is the primary benefit of taking a statin, not the cholesterol-lowering effect.

 

[razztazz]

“Clearly we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs this small increased risk,”

BS. The risk is always 100% for somebody. Group aggregate output data cannot be used to diagnose and treat an individual. They used to tech that in medical school. If you are experiencing these side effects it is absolutely absurd to continue taking them especially if you are like me ie perfectly healthy but your doctor insists on treating "risk" all the while increasing your risk of death or disability by doctor. The actual medical facts are the risk of side effects may very well be greater than any implied risk of a future heart attack. A risk your doctor knows and wants to know nothing about. If you are being degraded by side effects the risk is already 100%. A medical certainty. The heart attack? If your doctor says he knows when you'll have one or if you'll have one he's lying unless you are already in a very bad way. In which case the statins are a roll of the dice and a hail mary pass. Almost ALL statins are not prescribed to such people. They are prescribed for people with no discernible medical issues except the perceived and quite lucrative "illness" of "high"(whatever the hell that is) cholesterol.

That comment in the article is just doctors circling the wagons the way cops circle the wagons after shooting the wrong person then insisting they somehow felt threatened.

 

[RonBoyd]

Also, it appears that the secondary effect of reducing inflammation is the primary benefit of taking a statin, not the cholesterol-lowering effect.

Not directly related to this thread but still a well written article on the anti-inflammatory effects of Aspirin is Lowly Aspirin Versus NSAID Challengers - Ketopia.

Aspirin is Not Just an Analgesic Anymore

Aspirin is a unique medication. There is no other drug known that can do what aspirin does. As important as aspirin is in its fundamental role in modifying inflammatory eicosanoid pathways, perhaps of even greater consequence for the health and well being of present and future generations are the more recent discoveries of the hitherto unsuspected role of aspirin in resolution (the healing process) and the unanticipated existence of whole new classes of aspirin-triggered anti-inflammatory eicosanoids and docosanoids, also termed lipid mediators, that have been uncovered by the research into aspirin’s mechanism of action.(9)

“Inflammation is now widely appreciated in the pathogenesis of many human diseases. These extend from the well-known inflammatory diseases such as arthritis and periodontal disease to those not previously linked to aberrant inflammation that today include diseases affecting many individuals such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and Alzheimer’s disease”.(4)

9) Ottoboni A, Ottoboni F. The Modern Nutritional Diseases and How to Prevent Them,Second Ed. Fernley, NV: Vincente Books, 2013.

4) Serhan CN. Lipoxins and aspirin-triggered 15-epi-lipoxins are the first lipid mediators of endogenous anti-inflammatory and resolution. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes, and Essential Fatty Acids. 2005; 73 141-162.

Interesting observation:

Despite the tremendous investment in time and money in NSAID research through the decades, clinical experience has shown that no NSAID has been found that is more effective or safer to use than aspirin.(2) ... Interestingly, the excellent safety record of aspirin has done nothing to improve the acceptance of aspirin by the medical community. The decades have rolled by quietly with family and emergency room physicians routinely rolling their eyes when the word “aspirin” is mentioned.

2) Metcalf E. Aspirin: The Miracle Drug. New York, NY: Avery: a member of the Penguin Group, 2005.

 

[audreyh1]

The new guidelines (from Nov 2013) say that someone with 0 to 1 risk factors can have LDL level up to 160 and be considered fine.

My one risk factor is my age.

On top of that I have an excellent CRP (C-reactive Protein) result - meaning no inflammation.

So I guess next time this comes up I'll have to remind the doctor that I am in the low risk category.

One thing that does concern me about the latest guidelines, is that as we age into our late 60s, 100% of men and 97% of women are supposed to take statins regardless of their cholesterol levels or any other risk factor other than age. That seems extreme.

I prefer to keep my cholesterol levels at the high end of the healthy range for me, because I think it's protective as I age.

 

[braumeister]

Nobody is really sure what the obvious culprit in heart disease is, but it's pretty well known that your blood cholesterol level is not it. Unfortunately, well known is not the same as well accepted.

Half of all heart attacks and cases of cardiovascular disease occur in people with normal or even low levels of LDL.
-- BusinessWeek, 1/17/08

Half of all heart attacks occur in people with normal or even optimal cholesterol levels. A fascinating study published in the American Heart Journal (Jan. 2009) revealed that roughly half of the 140,000 patients hospitalized with a heart attack had LDL cholesterol levels around 100 at the time of admission, which is considered quite good. According to the lead researcher, Dr. Gregg Fonarow, “almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol…"

 

[HFWR]

Nobody is really sure what the obvious culprit in heart disease is, but it's pretty well known that your blood cholesterol level is not it. Unfortunately, well known is not the same as well accepted.

And yet a current TV ad in this area features a well-known university touting cholesterol-lowering drugs as one of their major achievements...

 

[ERD50]

“Clearly we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs this small increased risk,”

BS. The risk is always 100% for somebody. ... .

That may be true, but it still seems that the comment that dOug made is flat out wrong:

....
The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors. ...

The report does not seem to say that at all. Regardless of whether statins are good/bad/indifferent.

-ERD50