Can anybody direct me to studies that have shown a positive correlation between high cholesterol (or even LDLs) and heart disease? Thanks.
Seems to be a controversial area....here is the latest on this
http://www.msn.com/en-gb/health/diet/qanda-saturated-fat-your-health-and-what-the-experts-say/ar-BBAn43x?li=BBoPH6F&ocid=mailsignout
I think the most important sentence in the report might be: "He said: The whole evidence base in nutritional epidemiology is actually difficult because it is hard to do good studies."
I read this in The Guardian this morning, and I remember the report saying the opposite two years ago. One huge problem with sort of reporting is that it comes down to taking sides and actual science gets lost in the middle. Sattar saying, "It is clear cut" is just ridiculous.
The Guardian quoted someone as saying that reports such as this should not be published because 'it confuses the public' - suggesting it's better to do something possibly unhealthy rather than be confused? How idiotic!
To assess the science properly, we'd have to be told the methodology. This rarely or never happens in these reports. (And I'm meaning here both this report and the reports of the study in 2015.) But there is so much evidence against low-fat, high-carb eating that any new study has to address this. If saturated fat is so bad for us, how come we survived until we were told to change from it in the 1950s? What is the scientific explanation for all the previous studies over the years that has shown it is good for us? And (I accept this is anecdotal, but there's a lot of anecdotes) what about all the people who have reversed high cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes 2, through a ketogenic diet? If we are to believe health professionals who state that sat. fat is bad then surely it's not unreasonable to expect this type of explanation?
In other branches of science, if there is this much confusion with studies showing different results, there is pressure to find the truth. In nutrition there is pressure to shut up and go away!
I think the most important sentence in the report might be: "He said: The whole evidence base in nutritional epidemiology is actually difficult because it is hard to do good studies."
I read this in The Guardian this morning, and I remember the report saying the opposite two years ago. One huge problem with sort of reporting is that it comes down to taking sides and actual science gets lost in the middle. Sattar saying, "It is clear cut" is just ridiculous.
The Guardian quoted someone as saying that reports such as this should not be published because 'it confuses the public' - suggesting it's better to do something possibly unhealthy rather than be confused? How idiotic!To assess the science properly, we'd have to be told the methodology. This rarely or never happens in these reports. (And I'm meaning here both this report and the reports of the study in 2015.) But there is so much evidence against low-fat, high-carb eating that any new study has to address this. If saturated fat is so bad for us, how come we survived until we were told to change from it in the 1950s? What is the scientific explanation for all the previous studies over the years that has shown it is good for us? And (I accept this is anecdotal, but there's a lot of anecdotes) what about all the people who have reversed high cholesterol, high blood pressure and diabetes 2, through a ketogenic diet? If we are to believe health professionals who state that sat. fat is bad then surely it's not unreasonable to expect this type of explanation?
In other branches of science, if there is this much confusion with studies showing different results, there is pressure to find the truth. In nutrition there is pressure to shut up and go away!
Re. your question here (highlighted in bold) - when you say 'we survived' on what do you base this? OK so not everyone died from eating saturated fats but heart disease took its toll on many and continues to do so! Do you have a way of comparing deaths back then and now? Granted it's a complex area i.e. not all deaths due to heart disease can be attributed to diet (e.g. there are other factors like smoking and stress). I don't ever recall being told that saturated fat was good for us - just that red meat was.
So you put no store/credence to what health professionals say then (which includes dietitians)? Odd.
Can anybody direct me to studies that have shown a positive correlation between high cholesterol (or even LDLs) and heart disease? Thanks.
There is good evidence of a correlation between heart disease and high BLOOD levels of cholesterol and the whole lipid profile. The controversy is over the role of fat in the diet. In fact most people now accept that sugar intake is much more important that fat intake..so all those low fat products with extra sugar are very bad for you!
Re. your question here (highlighted in bold) - when you say 'we survived' on what do you base this? OK so not everyone died from eating saturated fats but heart disease took its toll on many and continues to do so! Do you have a way of comparing deaths back then and now? Granted it's a complex area i.e. not all deaths due to heart disease can be attributed to diet (e.g. there are other factors like smoking and stress). I don't ever recall being told that saturated fat was good for us - just that red meat was.
So you put no store/credence to what health professionals say then (which includes dietitians)? Odd.
When I say we survived, I mean that as hunter-gatherers we flourished (as modern hunter-gatherers do still) without heart disease, without cancers, without obesity.
And I put store/credence to what science shows. Health professionals simply repeat what they have been taught. This may or may not agree with the science. Why is this odd?
There is good evidence of a correlation between heart disease and high BLOOD levels of cholesterol and the whole lipid profile. The controversy is over the role of fat in the diet. In fact most people now accept that sugar intake is much more important that fat intake..so all those low fat products with extra sugar are very bad for you!
And the studies are?
When I say we survived, I mean that as hunter-gatherers we flourished (as modern hunter-gatherers do still) without heart disease, without cancers, without obesity.
And I put store/credence to what science shows. Health professionals simply repeat what they have been taught. This may or may not agree with the science. Why is this odd?
Health professionals are hardly mavericks, i.e. they tow the official line which would be what the current, accepted knowledge is i.e. obviously science based. Do you know otherwise then?
Health professionals are hardly mavericks, i.e. they tow the official line which would be what the current, accepted knowledge is i.e. obviously science based. Do you know otherwise then?
Yes, they toe the official line. What makes you say that this is 'obviously' science based?
Yes, they toe the official line. What makes you say that this is 'obviously' science based?
Because science is mainstream i.e. taken on board.
Because science is mainstream i.e. taken on board.
I don't understand what you are saying here. I asked what made you think that it was obvious that the official line was science based.
I don't understand what you are saying here. I asked what made you think that it was obvious that the official line was science based.
Since when has science been held as an alternative to the norm?
I'm assuming you mean 'norm' as in 'usual'? What have the two to do with each other? I'm afraid you are confusing me (which, I admit, is not always difficult).
I'm assuming you mean 'norm' as in 'usual'? What have the two to do with each other? I'm afraid you are confusing me (which, I admit, is not always difficult).
Norm/mainstream/conventionally accepted....is this so hard to grasp?
Okay, conventionally accepted. This isn't the same as science. All kinds of things are conventionally accepted without being supported by science. The 'fat is bad for you' hypothesis is one of them.
The meaning of 'norm' isn't hard to grasp. But I asked why you thought the official line was 'obviously' science based and you replied with the comment that science was mainstream. This isn't an answer to my question, it is simply a re-iteration of your position. I still don't know why you think it.
After all, I know you don't take the medical profession's word on everything - for example, you have argued against the use of statins on these pages on previous occasions.