The Cholesterol and Fat Scam

[Falvlun]

I can not find any evidence that cholesterol causes artherosclerosis.

Based on my reading, LDL particles are able to enter the artery wall as a result of damage to that wall.

LDL particles do not cause the damage.

The information which I am finding says that the actual cause of that damage is not understood.

So LDL-C is present at the site of arterial damage, but has not been shown to cause the damage.

This is why I mentioned the finding that veins are not subject to this damage - unless they are used surgically to replace arteries. So that is a good indicator that the cause of the inflammation and arterial wall damage is more likely hydrodynamics.

Did you read any of the studies that I posted?

 

[Falvlun]

from - The Cholesterol Myth: Part 2: Dietary Fats and Heart Disease

The Framingham study, which is the most comprehensive study ever undertaken into this subject, demonstrates that the people with the highest levels of cholesterol lived longest.

People who ate the most cholesterol and fat weighed less and were the most active.

According to Dr J Bowden - "The study did show a positive correlation of serum cholesterol and heart disease in younger people, but this disappears as we age. By about 47, cholesterol appears to be highly protective."

Please note folks - this information is coming from Harvard University Medical School, and the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA).

This study indicated that they did not find a relationship between serum and dietary levels of cholesterol. (Your position)

It said nothing about the causes of atherosclerosis.

High-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol and Risk of Ischemic Stroke Mortality

Yeah, I know, this is about HDL-C. I'm just posting various reports of interest.

This study, regarding the anti-atherosclerosing effect of HDL did not mention the cause of atherosclerosis, or anything regarding the effect of dietary cholesterol on serum cholesterol.

Although, I am still interested in how you square the idea that high HDL greatly reduces risk of heart disease when its function is to remove cholesterol from tissues if you don't believe that cholesterol is a major factor in heart disease.

EPIDEMIOLOGIC STUDIES OF CORONARY HEART DISEASE AND STROKE IN JAPANESE MEN LIVING IN JAPAN, HAWAII AND CALIFORNIA

This article does not support your position that dietary and plasma cholesterol are not correlated:

The study provided a good opportunity for such an effort because dietary intake patterns varied remarkably among the three cohorts although their genetic background is essentially the same. Serum cholesterol showed a positive regression with dietary intake of saturated fat, animal protein, and dietary cholesterol.

It says the opposite, actually.

Here is one of many similar statements about the cause of atherosclerosis -

What Is Atherosclerosis? What Causes Atherosclerosis?

Note, it does not say that LDL-C causes the damage - it says that the damage (cause unspecified) allows LDL to accumulate.

This is the only source you provided that supports your claim that LDL does not cause the damage but merely accumulates after damage occurs.

Note the source. It's not a study or a known medical site. It's simply some online medical blog, essentially.

You are seriously going to take the word of this one website over the many peer reviewed sources I provided, and then sit there and claim that you "could not find any evidence that cholesterol causes atherosclerosis"?

That's pretty poor research.

 

[JayJayDee]

That's not how science works.

Ask any scientist, (who wants to present something that goes against the ingrained view,) how science works.

It takes time to confirm things and you probably wont have full support in the beginning. If scientists weren't extremely critical, too much false information would get through the system.

Or people might do something to rock the boat, and that is frowned upon. They and their findings will be discredited very quickly. It takes courage and great perseverance to fight the system.

Where do all these amazing "breakthroughs" go once they have been announced in the news media? We never see them again. It's as if we get fed just enough to make us believe that cures are actually being sought....when they are not. Treatments make money....cures don't.

I'm not aware of any essential nutritional substances that are alive. Bacteria don't really count as nutrition.

Vegetation is alive...or it should be. Bacteria is a large part of soil health, and also the health of the human gut. It has been said that 'you are what you eat' but it's more truthful to say 'you are what you absorb' and in today's world, our compromised digestive system doesn't absorb nearly enough from food that has little of its true nutritional value left by the time you consume it. Look at how much medication is taken by the masses, not to maintain real health, but to maintain a growing bottom line for the pharmaceutical industry, whilst barely keeping you alive in some cases. Look at how much money is made from chemotherapy alone?

Nutritional substances are affected by early harvest and cold storage. Nothing we buy from supermarkets is truly "fresh".

The same goes for organic agriculture. Bad soil is a problem for most large scale agriculture, both conventional and organic. Many GMO plants produce very specific pesticides that are only harmful to certain pests and can thus be used with less pesticides, yet the same people who are against pesticide use are often against GMO. Most vegetables and fruits are fully fit for consumption even if they've been conventionally grown. It's not artificial fertilizers that are the problem, it's overfertilization. The same happens with natural fertilizers. We need to put more care into our agriculture. It might take more effort to grow crops sustainably, but it's worth it!

I agree. If we don't go back to true organic farming and start with the bio-diversity of the soil, go back to non-GM seeds, unpolluted water and air....the human condition will continue to go in the direction it already is. This is not the dark ages. We have the means and the technology to do better....but profit comes before anything else.

Milk was never a health potion.

Cow's milk isn't the only milk consumed in the world. In its raw state, milk is very nutritious. Heat treat it and homogenise it and it becomes a junk food.

Products with high amount of sugar have always been appreciated by humans since they have been rare historically. It's no surprise that people buy them. We're not fooled into buying soda, it's just something that tastes good and people appreciate.

Really? You do realize that stevia has been used for centuries in S America as a natural sweetener and it actually has health advantages by stabilizing blood glucose levels. They could easily replace cane sugar with a much healthier product, but the last I heard, only Japan had embraced it as a replacement in their diet soda drinks. Artificial sweeteners are chemicals which have been linked to cancer. It is produced by chemists, not nature.

And how did people do before soap? They were often sick since hygiene standards were low. The soaps produced by small businesses make you just as dry as the ones produced by big businesses, so it's really about the product and not who makes it.

Do you believe that these days, with the knowledge we have now, that a product could not be developed that did not interfere with the skin's natural oils and bacteria? If they developed such a product, we all know that the cost would be prohibitive to low income earners. It's always about the money. Health foods are also about the money. It's the commercial system that is the problem. They are never satisfied with 'enough' profit, they always want more...greed drives this world and it's headed for an enormous crash. We can all feel it coming. :sad:

Maybe one in a thousand is true, but most are still nothing but weird ideas dreamt up by people who want the world to be a more exciting place or want someone to blame for their problems.

You know what propaganda is...right? Do people know propaganda when they hear it? Not usually.....people want to trust their leaders, but they are becoming increasingly aware that their trust is misplaced.

So what do you suggest we do? Do nothing but pray?

What do you believe prayer is? Some 'magic' incantation that will make everything instantly better?

Those who do not believe in a Creator God who had a purpose in connection with everything he made (not even humans create without purpose) find the events in human history difficult to understand. But his purpose never changed, even though humans chose a rebellious course.

If you are a parent, you know the best way to teach your children is by experience. You can tell them things till you are blue in the face, but allowing them to reap the consequences of their own actions will teach them more than any words you ever use. God is such a parent. Tough love is not a bad tool.

The only thing we can do is try to make a difference as prayers haven't worked at all so far.

On the contrary, prayers are working just fine. Human beings told God in the beginning that they could take care of themselves without him. All that the Bible says would happen in connection with this course, has taken place. The problem with unbelievers is that they imagine that God is restricted to earth time. Universal time has no such restriction. God will carry out his purpose in his own way and time.

The times in which we live match those that the Bible calls "the last days" of the present world order. Things have come full circle; man has been given every opportunity to prove that independence from his Maker has made the world a better place but in fact, it has taken 'mother earth' and many of her creatures to the edge of extinction.

Stressful times in an age that should have eliminated the situations that cause stress, have taken many people to the brink of despair. The powerful wealthy 'few' now dictate life for the powerless 'many'. The chasm between rich and poor is growing wider as critical economic times force more and more people into poverty and hopelessness.

Appealing to a higher power rather than to the people who dedicate their lives to environmental issues pacifies the people. If God is going to fix it, then why bother to do anything?

Understanding how God has conducted this object lesson lets us see that nothing any human does will "fix" anything. There may be the odd band-aid but no lasting solutions. There are always the dedicated people who try to buck the system, but it is too powerful. The Bible explains why.

When the time comes for God to re-establish his rightful rulership over this earth, he will rectify all damage done for the sake of greed.
In the meantime, we can be part of the problem, or we can be telling others about the only one powerful enough to implement a permanent solution.

You are free to disbelieve if you wish....we all are.

 

[yokomodoful]

You clearly didn't read the studies I posted.

There is no correlation between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol, according to the studies I have seen.

You are ignoring the biggest single study ever undertaken, the Framingham study, which began in 1948 and continues even now. And many other studies.

Please post some links to the studies which prove a correlation between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol.

Please post links to studies which show a correlation of dietary cholesterol and heart disease.

I do not claim to be an expert, but I have not seen any credible evidence that such correlations exist. I have no problem with being proved wrong btw. But so far, I have only seen evidence that the claimed correlations are false.

As I mentioned in a previous post eating dietary cholesterol suppresses your liver's production of cholesterol, so really saturated fat is the bigger enemy. Most foods that are high in saturated fat are also high in cholesterol with a few exceptions like eggs and shrimp are high in cholesterol, but not very high in saturated fat. Saturated fats intake should not be replaced with refined carbohydrates as these can contribute to metabolic syndrome and dyslipidemia. That is why the saturated fats should be replaced with mono and polyunsaturated fats. Lowering saturated fat intake in this manner has been proven to lower blood LDL and reduce cardiovascular risk.

Damage to the intima of coronary arteries are very common. Evidence of this damage has been found 'fatty streaks' (the beginning of of atherosclerosis) in autopsies of 18 year olds who died in the Vietnam War. It might not cause a heart attack until you are 65, but you will not know if you have these fatty streaks until then. In the meantime your high levels of LDL cholesterol in your bloodstream is providing the building material that proliferates into the wall of your coronary artery over the years. Yes if the intima of your arteries are not damaged and are allowing the blood lipids to flow smoothly and freely through your bloodstream, you can have high cholesterol and not have CAD, but you will not know until possibly it is too late. That is why high cholesterol remains one of the risk factors for atherosclerosis. If low risk for heart disease LDL should be less than 130. If at risk LDL less than 100. If known CAD, LDL less than 70. BTW, we are born with an LDL of around 50. Here are some studies which show correlations between saturated fat intake, blood LDL levels, and risk for coronary artery disease.

Review Saturated fat, carbohydrate, and cardiovascular disease.
Siri-Tarino PW, Sun Q, Hu FB, Krauss RM
Am J Clin Nutr. 2010 Mar; 91(3):502-9.

Review Lipoprotein subfractions and cardiovascular disease risk.
Krauss RM
Curr Opin Lipidol. 2010 Aug; 21(4):305-11

Review Dietary fatty acids and the regulation of plasma low density lipoprotein cholesterol concentrations.
Dietschy JM
J Nutr. 1998 Feb; 128(2 Suppl):444S-448S

Saturated fatty acids and LDL receptor modulation in humans and monkeys.
Hayes KC, Khosla P, Hajri T, Pronczuk A
Prostaglandins Leukot Essent Fatty Acids. 1997 Oct; 57(4-5):411-8.

Mattson FH, Grundy SM. Comparison of effects of dietary saturated, monounsaturated, and polyunsaturated fatty acids on plasma lipids and lipoproteins in man. J Lipid Res. 1985;26:194–202. [PubMed]

Review LDL cholesteryl oleate as a predictor for atherosclerosis: evidence from human and animal studies on dietary fat.
Degirolamo C, Shelness GS, Rudel LL
J Lipid Res. 2009 Apr; 50 Suppl():S434-9.

Micha R, Mozaffarian D: Saturated fat and cardiometabolic risk factors, coronary heart disease, stroke, and diabetes: a fresh look at the evidence. Lipids 2010 Mar 31.

Effect of dietary fatty acids on serum lipids and lipoproteins. A meta-analysis of 27 trials.
Mensink RP, Katan MB
Arterioscler Thromb. 1992 Aug; 12(8):911-9.

Review Effects on coronary heart disease of increasing polyunsaturated fat in place of saturated fat: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.
Mozaffarian D, Micha R, Wallace S
PLoS Med. 2010 Mar 23; 7(3):e1000252

 

[yokomodoful]

Here is a link derived from the often quoted Framingham Heart study to determine 30 year risk of cardiovascular disease. Notice cholesterol plays a fairly large role.

Heart Failure Framingham Heart Study

 

[apophenia]

This study indicated that they did not find a relationship between serum and dietary levels of cholesterol. (Your position)

It said nothing about the causes of atherosclerosis.

That's right. Note the thread title. I am discussing related topics - cholesterol and saturated fats, and atherosclerosis is being discussed as it is generally considered to be an outcome of dietary cholesterol.

Surely you don't expect every article to address all three ?

Although, I am still interested in how you square the idea that high HDL greatly reduces risk of heart disease when its function is to remove cholesterol from tissues if you don't believe that cholesterol is a major factor in heart disease.

Strange response. So you are saying that if cholesterol is protective, it must also be damaging ?

The protective effect of cholesterol (established) and its alleged causation of atherosclerosis (not established) are two different things.

This article does not support your position that dietary and plasma cholesterol are not correlated:
The study provided a good opportunity for such an effort because dietary intake patterns varied remarkably among the three cohorts although their genetic background is essentially the same. Serum cholesterol showed a positive regression with dietary intake of saturated fat, animal protein, and dietary cholesterol.

It says the opposite, actually.

Read it again.

This is the only source you provided that supports your claim that LDL does not cause the damage but merely accumulates after damage occurs.

There were, as I said, multiple souces saying this. I just posted one as an example. I can post more.

Note the source. It's not a study or a known medical site. It's simply some online medical blog, essentially.

OK - so find a scientific study which proves your hypothesis and post it !

You are seriously going to take the word of this one website over the many peer reviewed sources I provided, and then sit there and claim that you "could not find any evidence that cholesterol causes atherosclerosis"?

That's pretty poor research.

And as I have already pointed out, what you posted is a hypothesis, as far as I can tell. If those references are related to actual science which proves the causality of LDL and atherosclerosis, please provide a link to that science.

All you have provided is some names and a hypothesis, and the magic phrase 'peer reviewed'. I note that those peers doing the reviewing seem intent on ignoring the Framingham study, and many others, and also ignoring the JAMA.

And all the article says about LDL-atherosclerosis is "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."

Once again, this is a best guess, based on the fact that LDL-C is found at the site. No indication is given regarding the cause of the real problem - inflammation.

And you seem to be ignoring the vital clue - veins do not develop atherosclerosis, unless they are used to surgically replace arteries. This is hugely significant information. What do you think it suggests ?

 

[apophenia]

I think this is as far as this thread can go, unless someone can provide real science showing that LDL-C is the cause of atherosclerosis. The links provided by Falvlun do not show that. They show that LDL-C accumulates at the site of inflammation, and have nothing to say about the cause of the inflammation.

And there is no science supporting the assertion that dietary cholesterol increases serum cholesterol.

Put those facts together. There is no reason to assume that LDL_C causes atherosclerosis (the sources cite inflammation as the cause), nor any value in reducing dietary cholesterol.

So unless someone has information indicating that LDL-C causes the inflammation which leads to atherosclerosis, the conventional wisdom is BS.

However, the second part of the documentary ( which only psychoslice bothered to watch) is on tonight. If there is further valuable information, I will post it.

 

[yokomodoful]

I think this is as far as this thread can go, unless someone can provide real science showing that LDL-C is the cause of atherosclerosis. The links provided by Falvlun do not show that. They show that LDL-C accumulates at the site of inflammation, and have nothing to say about the cause of the inflammation.

And there is no science supporting the assertion that dietary cholesterol increases serum cholesterol.

Put those facts together. There is no reason to assume that LDL_C causes atherosclerosis (the sources cite inflammation as the cause), nor any value in reducing dietary cholesterol.

So unless someone has information indicating that LDL-C causes the inflammation which leads to atherosclerosis, the conventional wisdom is BS.

However, the second part of the documentary ( which only psychoslice bothered to watch) is on tonight. If there is further valuable information, I will post it.

Did you read my two posts above?

 

[apophenia]

Here is a link derived from the often quoted Framingham Heart study to determine 30 year risk of cardiovascular disease. Notice cholesterol plays a fairly large role.

Heart Failure Framingham Heart Study

Sorry yokomodoful, I didn't see your posts this morning ( you were posting while I was editing I think).

I will get back to you, I am out of time right now.

One thing though - all those references without links are possibly very hard to follow up. Can you repost with links perhaps ?

 

[Falvlun]

I think this is as far as this thread can go, unless someone can provide real science showing that LDL-C is the cause of atherosclerosis. The links provided by Falvlun do not show that. They show that LDL-C accumulates at the site of inflammation, and have nothing to say about the cause of the inflammation.

My links said nothing of the sort.

My sources, all peer reviewed scientific studies, clearly state that atherosclerosis is caused by the accumulation of LDL and IDL (cholesterol) within arterial walls. The inflammation is a result of the oxidation of cholesterol:

When the level of LDLs is high, they accumulate in the artery wall where they are oxidized and taken up by foam cells in a process that leads to the development and progression of atherosclerosis.

from HERE

You also keep erroneously referring to my peer reviewed sources as my personal guesses or hypothesis. Again, this makes me assume you have not actually read my sources. Please see posts 46 and 47.

 

[Falvlun]

That's right. Note the thread title. I am discussing related topics - cholesterol and saturated fats, and atherosclerosis is being discussed as it is generally considered to be an outcome of dietary cholesterol.

Surely you don't expect every article to address all three ?

You claimed to have provided sources backing up your claim that LDL does not cause atherosclerosis. I was merely verifying whether you had or not. The answer is a resounding No.

The role of HDL-cholesterol in preventing atherosclerotic diseaseStrange response. So you are saying that if cholesterol is protective, it must also be damaging ?The protective effect of cholesterol (established) and its alleged causation of atherosclerosis (not established) are two different things.

I have given a couple of sources describing the role of HDL. The purpose of HDL is to transport cholesterol from tissues to the liver for disposal.

Given that the function of HDL is to remove cholesterol from tissue, and it is well documented that HDL reduces the risk of heart disease, then it follows that it is the removal of cholesterol that is reducing the risk.

Read it again.

It appears you are unaware of what "positive regression" means.

From the study of correlation we learn that when the slope of the regression line is positive (meaning that the value of b is positive) the value of y increases as the value of x increases. This is called a positive correlation. When the slope of the regression line is negative (meaning that the value of b is negative) the value of y decreases as x increases. The strength of these relationships is given by the correlation coefficient (r) which can be calculated.

Source

There were, as I said, multiple souces saying this. I just posted one as an example. I can post more.

Please do. You keep on claiming all these sources, but so far, the pickings have been slim.

OK - so find a scientific study which proves your hypothesis and post it !

And as I have already pointed out, what you posted is a hypothesis, as far as I can tell. If those references are related to actual science which proves the causality of LDL and atherosclerosis, please provide a link to that science.

I have. And it's not a hypothesis. The mechanism by which cholesterol causes atherosclerosis is well-documented and known.

All you have provided is some names and a hypothesis, and the magic phrase 'peer reviewed'. I note that those peers doing the reviewing seem intent on ignoring the Framingham study, and many others, and also ignoring the JAMA.

You are mixing things up.

The Framingham study is about the effects of dietary cholesterol upon serum cholesterol.

I am not arguing about that.

Even if our dietary intake of cholesterol has no affect on development of heart disease, this does not mean that cholesterol does not cause atherosclerosis. Remember, our body makes cholesterol. We don't need to eat it to have it.

And all the article says about LDL-atherosclerosis is "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."

Once again, this is a best guess, based on the fact that LDL-C is found at the site. No indication is given regarding the cause of the real problem - inflammation.

This is a rather telling misreading on your part.

It clearly states that it is an inflammatory disorder that is initiated by several factors. It then clearly states that one of the most important factors (that initiates the inflammatory disorder, per the previous sentence) is LDLs.

And you seem to be ignoring the vital clue - veins do not develop atherosclerosis, unless they are used to surgically replace arteries. This is hugely significant information. What do you think it suggests ?

I don't know why you find this so vital, nor do I know what you think it suggests. Nor do I know if it's true-- seeing as you have failed to provide reputable sources. Tomorrow I can look into it.

 

[yokomodoful]

You claimed to have provided sources backing up your claim that LDL does not cause atherosclerosis. I was merely verifying whether you had or not. The answer is a resounding No.




I have given a couple of sources describing the role of HDL. The purpose of HDL is to transport cholesterol from tissues to the liver for disposal.

Given that the function of HDL is to remove cholesterol from tissue, and it is well documented that HDL reduces the risk of heart disease, then it follows that it is the removal of cholesterol that is reducing the risk.


It appears you are unaware of what "positive regression" means.

Source


Please do. You keep on claiming all these sources, but so far, the pickings have been slim.



I have. And it's not a hypothesis. The mechanism by which cholesterol causes atherosclerosis is well-documented and known.


You are mixing things up.

The Framingham study is about the effects of dietary cholesterol upon serum cholesterol.

I am not arguing about that.

Even if our dietary intake of cholesterol has no affect on development of heart disease, this does not mean that cholesterol does not cause atherosclerosis. Remember, our body makes cholesterol. We don't need to eat it to have it.

This is a rather telling misreading on your part.

It clearly states that it is an inflammatory disorder that is initiated by several factors. It then clearly states that one of the most important factors (that initiates the inflammatory disorder, per the previous sentence) is LDLs.


I don't know why you find this so vital, nor do I know what you think it suggests. Nor do I know if it's true-- seeing as you have failed to provide reputable sources. Tomorrow I can look into it.

Both of you Falvlun and Apophenia bring up valid truths about the Athererosclerotic proccess. Inflamation does play a key role and hypertension, genetics, diabetes, age, smoking, sedentary lifestyle may play a bigger factor initially. However once the damage has been done to the intima, LDL in your body also play a large role and contribute to the inflamation and plaque formation. Saturated fat intake increases blood lipids including LDL cholesterol (this is a fact not a hypothesis). Intake of dietary chol. (in moderation) as I mentioned before may not increase your LDL due to supression of your livers production of chol. How atherosclerosis occurs, while we have much evidence, we are still only seeing snapshots in time where only a video would provide definitive proof. This process may start when you are a teenager and take 20 to 70 years to develop.

 

[mycorrhiza]

Ask any scientist, (who wants to present something that goes against the ingrained view,) how science works.

They'll give you the same answer as any scientist. Scientists aren't afraid of new information and they aren't afraid of being wrong. If scientists stopped being open to new information, then all progress would stop and thus it would render their jobs unnecessary. It's any scientist's dream to make a big discovery that revolutionizes the way we view the world!

Or people might do something to rock the boat, and that is frowned upon. They and their findings will be discredited very quickly. It takes courage and great perseverance to fight the system.

That most definitely isn't frowned upon! While new interpretations and new information is viewed very critically, it's also embraced if it's correct. There are many processes in the scientific world trying to prevent bias.

Where do all these amazing "breakthroughs" go once they have been announced in the news media? We never see them again. It's as if we get fed just enough to make us believe that cures are actually being sought....when they are not. Treatments make money....cures don't.

Media tend to twist everything. If a single study has shown that a certain substance has gives a 15% decrease in a certain type of cancerous cells in vitro then newspapers might report it as "Cure for cancer found!", which it is far from. Newspapers and other media also report on a lot of pseudoscience that hasn't been established by scientific methods. Treatments are often also cures.

Vegetation is alive...or it should be. Bacteria is a large part of soil health, and also the health of the human gut. It has been said that 'you are what you eat' but it's more truthful to say 'you are what you absorb' and in today's world, our compromised digestive system doesn't absorb nearly enough from food that has little of its true nutritional value left by the time you consume it. Look at how much medication is taken by the masses, not to maintain real health, but to maintain a growing bottom line for the pharmaceutical industry, whilst barely keeping you alive in some cases. Look at how much money is made from chemotherapy alone?

Nutritional substances are affected by early harvest and cold storage. Nothing we buy from supermarkets is truly "fresh".

It doesn't matter if the plant is alive or dead as long as the nutritional substances are stable. Vitamin C is always vitamin C, no matter if it's found in a dead plant, a living plant or synthesized in a lab.

I agree. If we don't go back to true organic farming and start with the bio-diversity of the soil, go back to non-GM seeds, unpolluted water and air....the human condition will continue to go in the direction it already is. This is not the dark ages. We have the means and the technology to do better....but profit comes before anything else.

Why non-GM seeds? GMO is part of the technology we posess that might improve our environment.

Cow's milk isn't the only milk consumed in the world. In its raw state, milk is very nutritious. Heat treat it and homogenise it and it becomes a junk food.

Much of the nutrition remains. Milk isn't junk food.

Really? You do realize that stevia has been used for centuries in S America as a natural sweetener and it actually has health advantages by stabilizing blood glucose levels. They could easily replace cane sugar with a much healthier product, but the last I heard, only Japan had embraced it as a replacement in their diet soda drinks. Artificial sweeteners are chemicals which have been linked to cancer. It is produced by chemists, not nature.

Stevia has been as much "linked to cancer" as artificial sweeteners have. Take aspartame for example. People constantly claim that it's dangerous, but if we look at how extremely fast it's digested and what the metabolites are (two common amino acids and smaller amounts of methanol than those found in fruit juice) then we see that it's harmless. Most studies have found no connection with cancer.

Diet soda might be healthier than regular soda, but it also tastes much worse. Regular cane or beet sugar is really the most tasty sweetener. We don't use HFCS in Sweden, so our soda tastes great!

It doesn't matter if something is natural or artificial as that says nothing about it's safety. Eating raw button mushrooms is potentially dangerous (due to a carcinogenic substance), yet they are perfectly natural and considered edible.

Do you believe that these days, with the knowledge we have now, that a product could not be developed that did not interfere with the skin's natural oils and bacteria? If they developed such a product, we all know that the cost would be prohibitive to low income earners. It's always about the money. Health foods are also about the money. It's the commercial system that is the problem. They are never satisfied with 'enough' profit, they always want more...greed drives this world and it's headed for an enormous crash. We can all feel it coming. :sad:

It's quite difficult to produce such a product, because even rubbing your hand will interfere with the oils and bacteria. Being out in the cold interferes with the natural oils on your skin and makes you dry, yet it's fully natural .

You know what propaganda is...right? Do people know propaganda when they hear it? Not usually.....people want to trust their leaders, but they are becoming increasingly aware that their trust is misplaced.

There's a difference between not following through with what you promised during the election and trying to kill or harm the population. Politicians, scientists, businessmen, doctors, etc are people too and very few of them are evil.

What do you believe prayer is? Some 'magic' incantation that will make everything instantly better?

Those who do not believe in a Creator God who had a purpose in connection with everything he made (not even humans create without purpose) find the events in human history difficult to understand. But his purpose never changed, even though humans chose a rebellious course.

If you are a parent, you know the best way to teach your children is by experience. You can tell them things till you are blue in the face, but allowing them to reap the consequences of their own actions will teach them more than any words you ever use. God is such a parent. Tough love is not a bad tool.

On the contrary, prayers are working just fine. Human beings told God in the beginning that they could take care of themselves without him. All that the Bible says would happen in connection with this course, has taken place. The problem with unbelievers is that they imagine that God is restricted to earth time. Universal time has no such restriction. God will carry out his purpose in his own way and time.

The times in which we live match those that the Bible calls "the last days" of the present world order. Things have come full circle; man has been given every opportunity to prove that independence from his Maker has made the world a better place but in fact, it has taken 'mother earth' and many of her creatures to the edge of extinction.

People have believe we were living in "the last days" ever since the times of Jesus and even before that. I'm really not seeing anything that points towards these days being the last. You're less likely to die from violence than ever before in history, more and more diseases are curable, natural disasters aren't more prevalent than before, etc.

Stressful times in an age that should have eliminated the situations that cause stress, have taken many people to the brink of despair. The powerful wealthy 'few' now dictate life for the powerless 'many'. The chasm between rich and poor is growing wider as critical economic times force more and more people into poverty and hopelessness.

The gap between the poor and the wealthy is much smaller than when we lived under absolute monarchy. It has grown a little the last few years as social democracy has gone out of style, but it's still better than it was 200 years ago.

Understanding how God has conducted this object lesson lets us see that nothing any human does will "fix" anything. There may be the odd band-aid but no lasting solutions. There are always the dedicated people who try to buck the system, but it is too powerful. The Bible explains why.

When the time comes for God to re-establish his rightful rulership over this earth, he will rectify all damage done for the sake of greed.
In the meantime, we can be part of the problem, or we can be telling others about the only one powerful enough to implement a permanent solution.

You are free to disbelieve if you wish....we all are.

Your solution is to tell people about God?

 

[JayJayDee]

Your solution is to tell people about God?

Yes it is. Men of power do not have the will to change the system because it suits them. Greed will always rule as long as this system is permitted to continue.

But the Bible says we will eventually have 'one world government' under the auspices of the UN, that will be given authority by the nations to control every activity on this planet. In order to do that, it will need to fool people into giving it that authority by promising them something it cannot deliver...."peace and security". (Have you heard of Agenda 21? This is the UN's strategy for the 21st century.)

Peace and security is the one thing we all long for and as we see it disappearing in every nation. When a solution is offered promising that the world will be a better place under this new arrangement, how many will rejoice at the prospect and give the nod of approval? But it will cost cost so much more than they think. All the hard won freedoms that have been achieved over decades, will be sacrificed.

You obviously don't believe that this can happen.....but just wait, we are being groomed for it right now even at a local level. But when it is implemented, it will be nothing like it was proposed to be. Rather than the "peace and security" it promises, the changes it will implement will instead lead to the greatest tribulation in all of man's history. (Matt 24:21)

This is what the Bible prophesies for the future....ready or not.

It is obvious that we see the world through completely different lenses.

 

[JayJayDee]

found a interesting article about the program your talking about thought i share.
Professor urges ABC to pull Catalyst episode on cholesterol drugs, says it could result in deaths - Yahoo!7

The second episode was as good as the first. I'm glad they didn't succeed in getting the program pulled. Well worth considering the evidence, even with the mandatory disclaimer at the beginning and end of the program.

This is a wake up call if ever there was one. 'Big Pharma' is getting rich at our expense. We need to educate ourselves.

I was amazed at how much money is paid out in fines each year by drug companies falsifying and covering up research data. Disgusting!

Everyone should watch this program. :yes:

 

[Penumbra]

If you get five nutrition experts in a room, you'll probably have six different opinions on how to eat right. So sources are always available for anyone's view.

I've spent a lot of time looking at studies and articles on eating patterns, and have experimented myself with several ways of eating for years at a time. Generally, the more convincing arguments I've seen come from the camp that that says fears of saturated fat and cholesterol are overblown, as the OP states, and in my experience this is true.

Cholesterol
-Dietary cholesterol is usually a smaller source of body cholesterol than what the body makes itself. Like most of what the body does, it tends to do a good job of balancing cholesterol when there isn't some harsh stimulus disrupting it. When you eat more cholesterol, the body makes less cholesterol, and when you eat less cholesterol, the body makes more cholesterol. Populations that avoid processed foods but that eat a lot of cholesterol and saturated fat don't really have cholesterol, fat, or heart problems.

-Cholesterol is correlated with heart disease but not necessarily causal. But as previously described, the body generally balances cholesterol well anyway. From what I've read, cholesterol apparently coats artery walls when there is inflammation, which if that's the case, means that the inflammation is what to look at first. No inflammation: no coating of cholesterol. In that model, cholesterol is being used by the body to fix the problem but getting the blame for the problem because it builds up in excess. Like blaming a cut on a band-aid because band-aids are often found where cuts are found.

Saturated Fat
-The traditional diets of Inuit people consists of like 99% animal parts. Tons of very high-fat animals, including foods where they literally eat big chunks of saturated animal fat. Here's an article on it. Heart disease and diabetes rates for them are much lower than in the United States and other countries, although they're increasing because they're eating more processed foods and less of their traditional diet. The combination of an active lifestyle and a high-fat high-cholesterol diet was/is very protective on their cardiovascular system.

-The "French Paradox" is named such because of the apparent contradiction that French people statistically consume a lot of saturated fat but have some of the lowest rates of heart disease and obesity in the developed world.

Inflammation
-Foods that cause chronic low-level inflammation (bad for health) are things like unhealthy processed oils ("vegetable" oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, etc), corn products (in basically everything processed), sugar, food high in omega 6 fatty acids, gluten in some people that are sensitive to it (and some argue for everyone else too, not sure about that), and other food products rather than food. Foods that are understood to reduce inflation are foods high in omega 3 fatty acids, foods that are high in vitamins and minerals (antioxidants), and various whole natural foods in general.

-Foods that are advertised as low fat and no cholesterol often have a lot of something else. Like more sugar, or more salt, and various processed things. If you eat low fat, it means you're eating more of something else, usually carbs.



My diet consists of nuts, gluten-free grain-like things (quinoa, buckwheat, amaranth) fruits, vegetables, some rice (for veggie stir fry), some sprouted beans (lentils, mung beans, etc), certain oils like coconut oil (high in saturated fat) and olive oil, and some whole grain pasta (sometimes wheat-based with gluten, sometimes rice-based with no gluten), tomato sauce, and extra dark chocolate (which includes saturated fat) and some red wine from time to time. It's mostly dairy-free, though during times when I've used milk, I always use whole milk or soy (non-dairy) milk. For a long time I was vegetarian and at one point I was vegan. For a while now I have added back in some wild caught fatty fish and Amish-raised chicken (including the fatty chicken skin) as a small part of the diet. Basically the main "rules" of my diet are that almost all the food must be whole foods with a simple number of recognizable ingredients rather than processed food products. Plus absolutely no factory farm animals. Other than that, it's balanced well between protein, carbs, and fat.

I don't make any attempt to limit fat in any way, at least not the fats I consider healthy, but I do strictly limit added sugar and all processed oils and empty carbs. Basically, the idea of sticking to mostly whole foods just keeps things balanced naturally- not a ton of carbs, fat, or protein in disproportion. My blood tests are always excellent according to the doctor, with a healthy high HDL cholesterol level, low LDL cholesterol level, low triglycerides, and the dozens of other metrics are all in the healthy range. I'm currently attempting to gain weight and am finding it hard to do so- the diet is just naturally very filling.

 

[Falvlun]

-Cholesterol is correlated with heart disease but not necessarily causal. But as previously described, the body generally balances cholesterol well anyway. From what I've read, cholesterol apparently coats artery walls when there is inflammation, which if that's the case, means that the inflammation is what to look at first. No inflammation: no coating of cholesterol. In that model, cholesterol is being used by the body to fix the problem but getting the blame for the problem because it builds up in excess. Like blaming a cut on a band-aid because band-aids are often found where cuts are found.

Do you have any studies to support this claim?

I have found many studies saying that cholesterol is an initiating factor of the inflammation-- it causes it.

I have found no studies saying the opposite, and apophenia has failed to provide any.

But I'm interested if there is.

 

[Penumbra]

Do you have any studies to support this claim?

I have found many studies saying that cholesterol is an initiating factor of the inflammation-- it causes it.

I have found no studies saying the opposite, and apophenia has failed to provide any.

But I'm interested if there is.

Generally, any time you look up in a reputable source what the function of cholesterol is, one of the functions listed is protection of artery walls. For example:

• HDL cholesterol scavenges and removes LDL -- or "bad" -- cholesterol.
• HDL reduces, reuses, and recycles LDL cholesterol by transporting it to the liver where it can be reprocessed.
• HDL cholesterol acts as a maintenance crew for the inner walls of blood vessels (endothelium). Damage to the endothelium is the first step in the process of atherosclerosis, which causes heart attacks and strokes. HDL chemically scrubs the endothelium clean and keeps it healthy.

Source.

Now, I don't know which study showed that originally, but you can find that description of cholesterol everywhere.

I notice you didn't comment on the rest of what I wrote and linked to so far- Inuits with extremely high saturated fat and cholesterol in their diets and low cardiovascular problems, the French with rather high saturated fat and cholesterol and also low cardiovascular problems, the fact that most of the body's cholesterol is made by the body (seeing as how it's essential for every cell in the body) with a smaller portion from food, and that it is self-regulating under healthy conditions, etc. (That's what LDL and HDL do; LDL brings it to the cells and HDL takes it away).

It seems that doctors have often focused on the response, observing that there's high LDL and low HDL and therefore a cholesterol problem that drugs can fix. But based on healthy high cholesterol diets around the world, that seems to be blaming the response rather than the source of what's causing the body to do that- inflammation and other factors in diets of people in developed countries. Clearly if those few variables of high dietary saturated fat and cholesterol can be so separate from cardiovascular problems in those demographics, then to say those variables are causing it is not compelling.

Also, I'd recommend looking at some of the nutrition profiles of foods on nutritiondata.com. They get their data from the USDA.

Grass fed steak: high cholesterol, anti-inflammatory

A fried egg: high cholesterol, inflammatory

A baked potato: no cholesterol, inflammatory

Butter: high cholesterol, inflammatory

Sockeye salmon: high cholesterol, one of the most anti-inflammatory foods in existence

High fructose corn syrup: no cholesterol, inflammatory

Chicken thigh with skin: moderate cholesterol, inflammatory

Whole wheat bread: no cholesterol, inflammatory

Brown rice: no cholesterol, inflammatory

Buckwheat: no cholesterol, inflammatory

Corn: no cholesterol, inflammatory

Apple: no cholesterol, slightly inflammatory

Brown sugar: no cholesterol, inflammatory

Sweet potato: no cholesterol, strongly anti-inflammatory

Olive oil: 100% mix of unsaturated and saturated fat, no cholesterol, strongly anti-inflammatory

Roasted almonds: high unsaturated and saturated fat, no cholesterol, anti-inflammatory (Lots of nuts are high-fat, with unsaturated and saturated fat but no cholesterol, and are anti-inflammatory)

So the map of correlation is all over the place- high cholesterol foods that are inflammatory, no/low cholesterol foods that are inflammatory, high cholesterol foods that are anti-inflammatory or even extremely anti-inflammatory, and no cholesterol foods that are anti-inflammatory. You can do the same thing with saturated fat- examples that are inflammatory and examples that are very anti-inflammatory. And inflammation is of course only one variable in determining the nutritional qualities of a type of food.

One consistent thing is that most carbohydrate-heavy foods are inflammatory, with rare exceptions like sweet potatoes. Wheat, regular potato, rice, corn- all inflammatory. Sugar is a carbohydrate and is very inflammatory. Things that are marketed as low fat often compensate with more sugar, like low fat yogurt. And if people go out of their way to avoid fat, saturated fat, cholesterol, then they've got to eat something, like more carbohydrates.

 

[Falvlun]

Generally, any time you look up in a reputable source what the function of cholesterol is, one of the functions listed is protection of artery walls. For example:

Source.

Now, I don't know which study showed that originally, but you can find that description of cholesterol everywhere.

I am well aware. May I suggest you read some of my previous posts?

Yes, LDL and HDL are both forms of cholesterol. The function of LDL is to bring cholesterol to various tissues. The function of HDL is to remove cholesterol from tissue to the liver for disposal.

The link between a high (healthy) level of HDL and lowered risk of heart-disease is well known.

Since the function of HDL is to remove cholesterol from tissue for disposal, then it appears that removing cholesterol reduces the risk of heart disease.

I notice you didn't comment on the rest of what I wrote and linked to so far.

This is because I am not arguing about that stuff.

From what I can make out, there are three claims being made:
1. Dietary cholesterol has no effect upon serum levels of cholestrol.
2. Amount of dietary cholesterol has no effect upon a person's risk for developing heart disease.
3. Cholesterol plays no role in the development of atherosclerosis.

I am not arguing 1 or 2. As mentioned in previous posts, I find it likely that these diets restricting cholesterol are over-blown and faddish. It also appears that there is respectable research indicating that the link between dietary consumption of cholesterol and heart disease is not perfectly correlated. I also have no doubt that statins are over-prescribed.

I am, however, arguing against Claim 3. The role of cholesterol (LDL) in the development of atherosclerosis is well-documented. Various studies indicate that cholesterol causes inflammation, which starts the plaque forming processes. And, regardless of whether cholesterol actually initiates the inflammation, LDL is a prime component in plaque formation, due to the fact that it becomes oxidized when it enters the arterial cell walls, which increases the inflammation, thereby attracting more stuff to come to that spot (including more LDL), creating the plaque.

 

[yokomodoful]

If you get five nutrition experts in a room, you'll probably have six different opinions on how to eat right. So sources are always available for anyone's view.

I've spent a lot of time looking at studies and articles on eating patterns, and have experimented myself with several ways of eating for years at a time. Generally, the more convincing arguments I've seen come from the camp that that says fears of saturated fat and cholesterol are overblown, as the OP states, and in my experience this is true.

Cholesterol
-Dietary cholesterol is usually a smaller source of body cholesterol than what the body makes itself. Like most of what the body does, it tends to do a good job of balancing cholesterol when there isn't some harsh stimulus disrupting it. When you eat more cholesterol, the body makes less cholesterol, and when you eat less cholesterol, the body makes more cholesterol. Populations that avoid processed foods but that eat a lot of cholesterol and saturated fat don't really have cholesterol, fat, or heart problems.

-Cholesterol is correlated with heart disease but not necessarily causal. But as previously described, the body generally balances cholesterol well anyway. From what I've read, cholesterol apparently coats artery walls when there is inflammation, which if that's the case, means that the inflammation is what to look at first. No inflammation: no coating of cholesterol. In that model, cholesterol is being used by the body to fix the problem but getting the blame for the problem because it builds up in excess. Like blaming a cut on a band-aid because band-aids are often found where cuts are found.

Saturated Fat
-The traditional diets of Inuit people consists of like 99% animal parts. Tons of very high-fat animals, including foods where they literally eat big chunks of saturated animal fat. Here's an article on it. Heart disease and diabetes rates for them are much lower than in the United States and other countries, although they're increasing because they're eating more processed foods and less of their traditional diet. The combination of an active lifestyle and a high-fat high-cholesterol diet was/is very protective on their cardiovascular system.

-The "French Paradox" is named such because of the apparent contradiction that French people statistically consume a lot of saturated fat but have some of the lowest rates of heart disease and obesity in the developed world.

Inflammation
-Foods that cause chronic low-level inflammation (bad for health) are things like unhealthy processed oils ("vegetable" oil, sunflower oil, safflower oil, etc), corn products (in basically everything processed), sugar, food high in omega 6 fatty acids, gluten in some people that are sensitive to it (and some argue for everyone else too, not sure about that), and other food products rather than food. Foods that are understood to reduce inflation are foods high in omega 3 fatty acids, foods that are high in vitamins and minerals (antioxidants), and various whole natural foods in general.

-Foods that are advertised as low fat and no cholesterol often have a lot of something else. Like more sugar, or more salt, and various processed things. If you eat low fat, it means you're eating more of something else, usually carbs.



My diet consists of nuts, gluten-free grain-like things (quinoa, buckwheat, amaranth) fruits, vegetables, some rice (for veggie stir fry), some sprouted beans (lentils, mung beans, etc), certain oils like coconut oil (high in saturated fat) and olive oil, and some whole grain pasta (sometimes wheat-based with gluten, sometimes rice-based with no gluten), tomato sauce, and extra dark chocolate (which includes saturated fat) and some red wine from time to time. It's mostly dairy-free, though during times when I've used milk, I always use whole milk or soy (non-dairy) milk. For a long time I was vegetarian and at one point I was vegan. For a while now I have added back in some wild caught fatty fish and Amish-raised chicken (including the fatty chicken skin) as a small part of the diet. Basically the main "rules" of my diet are that almost all the food must be whole foods with a simple number of recognizable ingredients rather than processed food products. Plus absolutely no factory farm animals. Other than that, it's balanced well between protein, carbs, and fat.

I don't make any attempt to limit fat in any way, at least not the fats I consider healthy, but I do strictly limit added sugar and all processed oils and empty carbs. Basically, the idea of sticking to mostly whole foods just keeps things balanced naturally- not a ton of carbs, fat, or protein in disproportion. My blood tests are always excellent according to the doctor, with a healthy high HDL cholesterol level, low LDL cholesterol level, low triglycerides, and the dozens of other metrics are all in the healthy range. I'm currently attempting to gain weight and am finding it hard to do so- the diet is just naturally very filling.

The life expentancy of the Inuit people is 66.7 years. Their rate of heart disease is less because they are already dead when most people have their first evidence of heart disease. BTW the diet that you eat is considered low in saturated fat and heart healthy.