The Cholesterol and Fat Scam

[mycorrhiza]

Could we get some scientific studies supporting your claims? If you're going to challenge years of research, then you better have something better than a TV show to support your stance.

Many of the studies that support a high intake in saturated fats and animal products are sponsored either by the meat and dairy industries or by people with economic interest in promoting low-carb diets. Here's a link showing which studies are funded by these. It's in Swedish, but all or most of the studies are in English.
Så påverkas köttdieterna av industrin. - Matens pris - Matens pris

 

[HonestJoe]

Here is a link to Part 1 of the Catalyst program on iView. I'm not sure if this is viewable outside Australia, perhaps someone can let me know.

I looks like it I could but I'm not really interested in getting detailed scientific information from the entertainment industry (after all, it's the same industry that was so influential in promoting what you're identifying as fraud).

But to check out some real scientific study, google the Framingham Study (from 1948 until now).

One of its conclusions is that people "have been misled by the greatest scientific deception of our times, the notion that consumption of animal fat causes heart disease".

I couldn't find that quote on their website. It obviously needs a whole load of context before it's even considered.

I'll write up more of the detail later.

Please do. I'd like to see direct links to primary research backing up you accusation of widespread intentional fraud within the scientific community. Alternatively, an acknowledgement that it's not quite as dramatic as the tabloid media you've been caught up in have made out but probably a more conventional case of recent research coming to an unexpected conclusion in the context of previous research requiring some calm, careful and considered re-evaluation.

Please don't take this as an attack or an automatic denial of your position. I'm only interested in confirmed facts, where ever they take us. I've no personal interest in any of this obsession over exactly what we eat. I've always managed my health with eating pretty much anything I fancy in moderation, taking a bit of regular exercise and looking both ways before crossing the road.

 

[apophenia]

I am still posting from a phone because my PC died.

When I get to a real keyboard I will post details and links for anyone who is interested in this. There are plenty of studies out there which refute the claims and methods of Ancel Keys. It was Keys who first propagated the disinformation which led to the current common beliefs and the biggest selling medication of all time.

 

[mycorrhiza]

I am still posting from a phone because my PC died.

When I get to a real keyboard I will post details and links for anyone who is interested in this. There are plenty of studies out there which refute the claims and methods of Ancel Keys. It was Keys who first propagated the disinformation which led to the current common beliefs and the biggest selling medication of all time.

It sounds more like a conspiracy theory (just like when it comes to GMO, artificial sweeteners or fluoridated water). Didn't the studies go through peer review? Didn't anyone try to check if the facts were correct? Did everyone just hide the truth to sell medication?

I expect your sources to be from major peer-reviewed scientific journals with high impact factor and not small non-peer reviewed journals trying to promote certain diets.

 

[mycorrhiza]

You cannot buy raw, full fat milk in Australia unless it is sold as "bath milk".
Milk from the cow is not pasteurized or homogenized. It is a living product that goes "off" quite quickly if not consumed within a couple of days. The superheated milk you buy in supermarkets is dead. There is not a living organism in it, so it lasts for weeks in the fridge. We need those living organisms in our digestive system to remain healthy. You cannot absorb what little goodness there is in food if your gut is starved of good bacteria. This is why we are all so unhealthy.

It's because raw milk isn't always fit for human consumption since in addition to the good bacteria there's also a lot of bad bacteria. In most cases, you can drink it without problems, but the risks are just to high for commercial use.

I don't know about Australia, but in Sweden products with only good bacteria added are very popular. We're #2 in dairy consumption (our neighbour Finland is #1), so you can trust us .

 

[Falvlun]

No, you provided a guess as to why cholesterol is found at the site.

Provide a link to any conclusive scientific evidence of causality, and then you can say that you " explained precisely how cholesterol contributes to artherosclerosis".

Scientic-sounding guesses are not science.

This part was not a guess. This is the mechanism by which cholesterol causes atherosclerosis, as taught by the ASCP (American Society for Clinical Pathology).

LDL particles and cholesterol play a critical role in atherogenesis. LDL particles are small enough to enter the intima, the innermost lining of the arterial wall. High levels of LDL particles translate into a dose-related increase in transport of the LDL-C component into the intima. The cells in the arterial wall have no ability to metabolize cholesterol. In addition, LDL-C may become trapped by binding with proteoglycans, making LDL-C more susceptible to the processes involved in the formation of plaque.
Oxidation, a primary process involved in plaque formation, stimulates inflammation, which attracts monocytes into the arterial wall. The monocytes differentiate into macrophages and scavenge the modifi ed LDL. As time passes, the LDL-macrophagecomplex transforms into foam cells, leading to plaque formation.1,3,4

See the 1, 3, and 4, at the end of the quote? That denotes the following sources:

1. Brunzell JD, Davidson M, Furberg CD,
et al. Lipoprotein management in patients
with cardiometabolic risk: consensus
conference report for the American Diabetes
Association and the American College of
Cardiology Foundation. J Am Coll Cardiol.
2008;51(15):1512-1524.

3. National Cholesterol Education Program
(NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection,
Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood
Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment
Panel III). Third Report of the National
Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)
Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and
Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in
Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final
report. Circulation. 2002;106:3143-3421.

4. Nordestgaard BG, Benn M, Schnohr P,
et al. Nonfasting triglycerides and risk
of myocardial infarction, ischemic heart
disease, and death in men and women.
JAMA. 2007;298:299-308.

 

[Falvlun]

The role of dietary fat and cholesterol in atherosclerosis and lipoprotein metabolism. Medical Staff Conference. University of California, San Francisco. West J Med. 134:34-42, Jan 1981.

The first page reviews the controversy regarding whether cholesterol does affect a person's heart health (page 34). The following two pages (pages 35-36) review the mass amounts of studies showing the link between high consumption of fats and cholesterol with increased risk of heart disease. Pages 36 -42 go through various animal studies, and it's comparison and relevance to humans. It also explains the connection between cholesterol and atherosclerosis.

I'd suggest reading this study-- it's not too long-- for anyone actually interested in getting a basic background.

Here is a more recent study, which clearly presents the role of LDL in atherosclerosis. The role of HDL-cholesterol in preventing atherosclerotic disease

LDLs (the main cholesterol carrier in blood) are cholesterol-rich and triglyceride-poor when compared with VLDLs. LDLs deliver cholesterol to peripheral tissues, where it contributes to the synthesis and maintenance of cell membranes. Most extrahepatic cells (with the exception of those synthesizing steroid hormones) are unable to metabolize cholesterol, which would therefore accumulate if supply exceeded demand. HDLs are the principal means by which excess cholesterol is removed from extrahepatic cells

From the section: Pathophysiology of atherogenesis

Atherosclerosis is an inflammatory disorder that may be initiated by several factors. One of the most important factor is LDLs. LDLs enter the artery wall from plasma. They may also return to the plasma. However, if the plasma level of LDLs exceeds a threshold, they enter the artery faster than they can be removed and thus accumulate. When they accumulate, they become modified, including being oxidized.

I suggest reading the rest of this section, as it continues to explain precisely how LDL contributes to atherosclerosis.

This study is a bit technical: Atherosclerosis: Evolving Vascular Biology and Clinical Implications: HDL Cholesterol and Protective Factors in Atherosclerosis. It's about how HDL offers an anti-atherosclerosis benefit... because it's function is to remove cholesterol from tissue and to the liver for disposal. If cholesterol plays no part in athersclerosis, then how could HDL have it's positive effect?

 

[Riverwolf]

You are basing your opinion on hearsay Falvlun.

You're the one getting it from a freaking television show.

 

[DallasApple]

and dairy industries or by people with economic interest in promoting low-carb diets.

No one said anything about "dairy" being good for adult humans. At least I didn't.

 

[DallasApple]

The first page reviews the controversy regarding whether cholesterol does affect a person's heart health (page 34). The following two pages (pages 35-36) review the mass amounts of studies showing the link between high consumption of fats and cholesterol with increased risk of heart disease. Pages 36 -42 go through various animal studies, and it's comparison and relevance to humans. It also explains the connection between cholesterol and atherosclerosis.

Have they shown the "correlation" between no fat consumption and heart disease in comparison?

Affecting your health? LOL!! everything we eat "affects " our health" ..

You don't think eating carbs (no fat) affects your health?

 

[Falvlun]

Have they shown the "correlation" between no fat consumption and heart disease in comparison?

Affecting your health? LOL!! everything we eat "affects " our health" ..

You don't think eating carbs (no fat) affects your health?

Carbs, fat, and cholesterol are all different things, nutritionally. It seems like you may be equating them.

I am unable to copy things from that particular source (the first one), but if you read page 35, it shows the results of various studies in which a diet of high cholesterol has an increased risk of heart disease, as opposed to diets low in cholesteral.

 

[methylatedghosts]

Here's an interesting short article I read in the newspaper the other day: Eat fat to get thin

 

[JayJayDee]

It's because raw milk isn't always fit for human consumption since in addition to the good bacteria there's also a lot of bad bacteria. In most cases, you can drink it without problems, but the risks are just to high for commercial use.

I don't know about Australia, but in Sweden products with only good bacteria added are very popular. We're #2 in dairy consumption (our neighbour Finland is #1), so you can trust us .

In the commercial world...I trust no one. Money speaks louder than truth. Men and their "expert" opinions can be bought or pressured by peers.

When you sell commodities that resemble a natural product, but are almost completely 'de-natured' any wonder you have to add 'good bacteria' to give the body something to work with.

How much real nutrition is found in today's "fresh" produce? How many cold storage produce items have very much "natural" goodness in them when they are months or even years old? How much goodness can there be in fruits or vegetables that picked green and then artificially ripened? We are designed to eat fresh, organically grown food ripened on the bush. It should be rich in minerals that boost our immune system. What about basic foods that are made with genetic modified seeds. Wheat for example....many today have wheat and dairy allergies because of interference by man. (For commercial purposes)
Tell me how many of us get to eat "good" food? Maybe only those who can afford "organic" produce. More exploitation?

The body's response to this situation is seen in hospitals and cemeteries all over the world. Heart disease and cancer (the two most prolific killers in the western world) is the direct result of poor nutrition, leading to weakened immune systems. Add to that a sedentary and stressful lifestyle and you have a recipe for ill health and early death.
Cholesterol is only the tip of the iceberg.

Vitamin D deficiency is also linked to cancer, especially skin cancer. In Australia, we are encouraged to cover up from the sun and use lots of sunscreen, which may prevent sunburn, but it also leads to vitamin D deficiency.

The worst thing that was ever invented is soap. When we strip the natural oils from our skin, we hinder the absorption of vitamin D, which is produced by the sun's interaction with the natural oils in our skin. How many people have to use "moisturisers" because their skin is dry? That means more $$$$$ for those who have something to sell you. Who creates all these products? One powerful industry.

When we use detergent to wash our hair, we strip it of natural oils as well. What do we need to counteract this problem? We buy another product that costs more money...."conditioner". Can you not see what is happening?

Create the problem with one product and then provide a solution for more money with another. It's called commercialism and it requires knowledge of human behavior and how to exploit it....it's very corrupt. How many people are even aware of it?

We are so far removed from the way we were meant to live, that most people have no idea how the world system we 'survive' in each day is actually killing us an inch at a time, orchestrated to rob us of our health so that a few people can enrich themselves and provide what we need to try to keep living. They paint themselves as our saviours but they have created the problem to get rich off the solution.

Are we part of the problem or are we seeking the solution?

Can man be trusted to fix this situation? I don't believe so. I believe that it will take a power greater than man's greed to rectify what is now an endemic system that drives the whole world.

 

[JayJayDee]

Here's an interesting short article I read in the newspaper the other day: Eat fat to get thin

This is a very good article and bucks the "expert" opinions of those who follow the old party line that was based on a false premise in the first place.

When you deprive the body of good fats, it thinks it is starving and stores it. This puts on weight.

All the low fat diets have done is made people fatter! If low fat diets worked...we'd all be skinny. No one seems to twig to the reality that when you reduce fat, you reduce flavor. When you reduce flavor, no one wants to eat it. So you enhance the flavor by adding more sugar. Look at the calories, not the fat content if you want to lose weight. They count on your ignorance to sell you their rubbish.

Over-eating of carbs in an unbalanced diet leads to type two diabetes. This is not real diabetes at all...it is a lifestyle disease that tells you that your pancreas is overwhelmed and overworked trying to process all the extra sugars in a high carb, low protein diet.

People need to educate themselves. :yes:

 

[mycorrhiza]

In the commercial world...I trust no one. Money speaks louder than truth. Men and their "expert" opinions can be bought or pressured by peers.

While not trying to pull a "no true scotsman", most scientists who actually care about science can't be bought. So most people who are actually experts are saying what is correct according to current knowledge.

When you sell commodities that resemble a natural product, but are almost completely 'de-natured' any wonder you have to add 'good bacteria' to give the body something to work with.

How much real nutrition is found in today's "fresh" produce? How many cold storage produce items have very much "natural" goodness in them when they are months or even years old? How much goodness can there be in fruits or vegetables that picked green and then artificially ripened? We are designed to eat fresh, organically grown food ripened on the bush. It should be rich in minerals that boost our immune system. What about basic foods that are made with genetic modified seeds. Wheat for example....many today have wheat and dairy allergies because of interference by man. (For commercial purposes)

Many nutritional substances are stable and thus survive for a long time. Artificially ripening fruit will change the sugar-starch ratio just like actual ripening, but I don't think it changes much of the nutritional value outside of that. Which minerals are in the fruit depends both on the soil and the plant itself and doesn't change a lot between organic and conventional agriculture if you take those thing into consideration.

Dairy allergy is common in nearly all people on Earth, and that's partly due to our interference of keeping milk producing cattle . Depending om milk for nutrition has made the milk-drinking people develop the necessary process for processing lactose. In countries with low milk consumption you also see a high lactose intolerance. It's not due to unnatural chemicals or anything, just due to small scale evolution.

Tell me how many of us get to eat "good" food? Maybe only those who can afford "organic" produce. More exploitation?

I eat a mix of organic and conventional food since that's what I can afford. The nutritional value doesn't vary, just the environmental impact. If the plant requires a lot of pestices (like grapes, bellpeppers and potatoes) then I will buy it organic. If I could, I would buy GMO instead of conventional, but the EU has basically banned GMOs.

The body's response to this situation is seen in hospitals and cemeteries all over the world. Heart disease and cancer (the two most prolific killers in the western world) is the direct result of poor nutrition, leading to weakened immune systems. Add to that a sedentary and stressful lifestyle and you have a recipe for ill health and early death.
Cholesterol is only the tip of the iceberg.

Vitamin D deficiency is also linked to cancer, especially skin cancer. In Australia, we are encouraged to cover up from the sun and use lots of sunscreen, which may prevent sunburn, but it also leads to vitamin D deficiency.

For the "western" world fast food is to blame, really. You can eat healthy and still eat conventional or GMO. Covering up is good during the worst hours, but a low sun factor is enough during the regular hours. I had a vitamin D deficiency due to mostly staying inside and being a vegan, which gives you little vitamin D from the food (now I'm a vegetarian who goes outside more!).

The worst thing that was ever invented is soap. When we strip the natural oils from our skin, we hinder the absorption of vitamin D, which is produced by the sun's interaction with the natural oils in our skin. How many people have to use "moisturisers" because their skin is dry? That means more $$$$$ for those who have something to sell you. Who creates all these products? One powerful industry.

When we use detergent to wash our hair, we strip it of natural oils as well. What do we need to counteract this problem? We buy another product that costs more money...."conditioner". Can you not see what is happening?

Soap is good since it kills bacteria and washes away dirt. Sadly, most products used to clean the skin tend to make you dry. I do use moisturising cream, but I get dried out quite easily, even without soap. My shampoo is 100% organic and natural, though, so I don't need to use conditioner, despite having long hair. At least here it's many small businesses that make hygiene products.

Create the problem with one product and then provide a solution for more money with another. It's called commercialism and it requires knowledge of human behavior and how to exploit it....it's very corrupt. How many people are even aware of it?

We are so far removed from the way we were meant to live, that most people have no idea how the world system we 'survive' in each day is actually killing us an inch at a time, orchestrated to rob us of our health so that a few people can enrich themselves and provide what we need to try to keep living. They paint themselves as our saviours but they have created the problem to get rich off the solution.

Too conspiracy-ish for me. We're making a choice in a market that provides us with many options. If you skip meat you can afford to buy more organic products even on a low budget! (Not that I'm pro-capitalism, because capitalism is the #1 enemy of our environment)

Are we part of the problem or are we seeking the solution?

Can man be trusted to fix this situation? I don't believe so. I believe that it will take a power greater than man's greed to rectify what is now an endemic system that drives the whole world.

Oh I do believe man can fix it! If man cannot fix it, then man will die out and thus fix the problems by disappearing. So we either fix the problem or the problem will "fix" us.

 

[apophenia]

While not trying to pull a "no true scotsman", most scientists who actually care about science can't be bought. So most people who are actually experts are saying what is correct according to current knowledge.

Have you looked at the 'science' of Ancel Keys ? His 'Seven Countries' study was the basis of the claims about fat causing heart disease. Have a look at it. He cherrypicked 7 countries out of 22 to get the graph he wanted. This was exposed long ago, yet this claim is still regarded as true.

By choosing different countries, an entirely different conclusion can be drawn.

What happened to peer review ? It was ignored.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Have you looked at the 'science' of Ancel Keys ? His 'Seven Countries' study was the basis of the claims about fat causing heart disease. Have a look at it. He cherrypicked 7 countries out of 22 to get the graph he wanted. This was exposed long ago, yet this claim is still regarded as true.

By choosing different countries, an entirely different conclusion can be drawn.

What happened to peer review ? It was ignored.

I haven't read his study. When is it from?

I doubt that the whole field ignored the peer review process. If his work was published when peer-review was the standard process in scientific journals, then it would hardly pass if it wasn't scientific.

 

[apophenia]

I haven't read his study. When is it from?

I doubt that the whole field ignored the peer review process. If his work was published when peer-review was the standard process in scientific journals, then it would hardly pass if it wasn't scientific.

It would take you 15 minutes to verify what I have said.

I will shortly post a list of scientific studies which refute Keys. I thought it would be interesting to see how many 'scientific' minds called this 'conspiracy theory' without bothering to look.

 

[apophenia]

Here's an interesting short article I read in the newspaper the other day: Eat fat to get thin

I discovered this myself a few years ago while studying for certification as a personal trainer. Comparing 2000 calorie per day weight loss diets. Three diets were compared, with 90% carbs, 90% protein and 90% fat.

The fat diet had the best weight loss result.

 

[Falvlun]

I thought it would be interesting to see how many 'scientific' minds called this 'conspiracy theory' without bothering to look.

Just wanted to make it clear:
I'm calling conspiracy theory on your claim that cholesterol does not cause atherosclerosis.

I have not opined regarding the diet claims, as I suspect it's likely that people get caught up in fad diets, and that doctors over-prescribe pills for everything.