Uffe Ravnskov, one of the more outspoken opponents of the lipid hypothesis, gave an interview: High Cholesterol Is Good. Quote:
The cholesterol campaign is based on the false idea that [human consumption of] animal food and high cholesterol causes atherosclerosis and heart disease. It’s a mistake because high cholesterol is not dangerous to health; it is beneficial. For instance, high cholesterol protects against cancer and infectious diseases. Today millions of healthy people all over the world are taking medicine that may create muscle weakness, bad memory, bad temper, impotency, painful legs and cancer. But most doctors do not know it because they have been mislead by the drug industry and their researchers.Next, let's look at a couple of papers.
Total cholesterol and risk of mortality in the oldest old.: "INTERPRETATION: In people older than 85 years, high total cholesterol concentrations are associated with longevity owing to lower mortality from cancer and infection. The effects of cholesterol-lowering therapy have yet to be assessed." [Emphasis added.]
Lack of Association Between Cholesterol and Coronary Heart Disease Mortality and Morbidity and All-Cause Mortality in Persons Older Than 70 Years: "Conclusions. —Our findings do not support the hypothesis that hypercholesterolemia or low HDL-C are important risk factors for all-cause mortality, coronary heart disease mortality, or hospitalization for myocardial infarction or unstable angina in this cohort of persons older than 70 years."
So, if they find either no association or a negative correlation between high cholesterol levels and heart disease in those older than 70 years, there's nothing that would lead us to think that there's an association in younger people either. My money is on Ravnskov: high cholesterol levels are good for you.
Here is a paper (peer-reviewed!) by Ravnskov and McCully, the latter of whom is known for recognizing the link between homocysteine levels in the blood and coronary artery disease, which hypothesizes that infections cause a chain of events leading to heart disease. Here is an article by McCully for laymen on the same idea, which will be familiar to those who have read about Paul Ewald and Greg Cochran's hypothesis.
Alas, while many of the sharper minds that cruise the blogosphere have cottoned on to the nonsense that is the lipid hypothesis of heart disease, it's still the reigning wisdom among medical practitioners. If a cholesterol test comes back "abnormal", doctors will reach for the statins, and patients will continue with the same practices that got them into trouble in the first place.
Have there been any studies looking strictly at carbs and heart disease?
ReplyDeleteI'm wondering what you think of atkinsexposed.org
ReplyDeleteThe problem for Atkins (and his sheepdog), though, is that the National Academy of Sciences, the most prestigious scientific body in the United States, agrees with the AMA and the ADA in opposing the Atkins Diet.[13] So does the American Cancer Society;[14] and the American Heart Association;[15] and the Cleveland Clinic;[16] and Johns Hopkins;[17] and the American Kidney Fund;[18] and the American College of Sports Medicine;[19] and the National Institutes of Health.[20]
In fact there does not seem to be a single major governmental or nonprofit medical, nutrition, or science-based organization in the world that supports the Atkins Diet.[21] As a 2004 medical journal review concluded, the Atkins Diet "runs counter to all the current evidence-based dietary recommendations."[22]
A 2003 review of Atkins "theories" in the Journal of the American College of Nutrition concluded: "When properly evaluated, the theories and arguments of popular low carbohydrate diet books... rely on poorly controlled, non-peer-reviewed studies, anecdotes and non-science rhetoric. This review illustrates the complexity of nutrition misinformation perpetrated by some popular press diet books. A closer look at the science behind the claims made for [these books] reveals nothing more than a modern twist on an antique food fad."[23]
also:
The most comprehensive report on diet and cancer in history was published in 1997. It took over four years to complete, reviewing 4500 studies from thousands of researchers across the globe--a landmark scientific consensus document written by the top cancer researchers in the world. After all that work, what was their number one recommendation? "Choose a diet that is predominantly plant based, rich in a variety of fruits, vegetables, nuts, and beans with minimally processed starchy foods."[491] In other words, essentially the opposite of the Atkins Diet.
Yes, a fair number.
ReplyDeleteAssociation of hemoglobin A1c with cardiovascular disease and mortality in adults: the European prospective investigation into cancer in Norfolk.
PMID: 15381514
"The risk for cardiovascular disease and total mortality associated with hemoglobin A1c concentrations increased continuously through the sample distribution." HbA1c is directly proportional to blood sugar levels, which in turn are highly influenced by refined carb consumption.
Atherogenic lipoprotein phenotype and diet-gene interactions. PMID: 11160558
"Moreover, with progressive reduction of dietary fat and isocaloric substitution of carbohydrate, an increasing number of subjects with pattern A convert to the pattern B phenotype." (B phenotype: bad.)
Basically, high blood sugar and high insulin levels, which normally are caused by intake of refined carbs, cause atherosclerosis. The above cited studies are just a sample.
To 2nd commenter: read Gary Taubes, he dealt with that nonsense thoroughly. Basically, I believe that all those medical groups mentioned are completely wrong.
ReplyDeleteDepending on the body's regulation of cholesterol levels and the reasons behind it, it would be entirely possible for high serum cholesterol to be associated with some sort of increased chance of morbidity *without* it being a cause of same. In fact this was basically my understanding: one of the reasons they started in on this was because there was an association. It's just that attacking the cholesterol is like treating an infection by giving the patient drugs to lower their white blood cell count directly; it's mistaking the symptom for the actual problem.
ReplyDeleteIn very old people it wouldn't surprise me if a higher baseline cholesterol were a sign of functioning bodily defense and repair mechanisms.
I can't thank you enough for opening my eyes to the lipid hypothesis garbage and kudos for having such an open-mind after being a vegetarian for many years.
ReplyDeleteI truly believe getting the word out on the nutritional and health nonsense is just as important as our political stuff (though I'm admittedly more interested in the latter).
It is instructive to note that the obesity rate in America began its dramatic increase just after the US government first decided to issue dietary recommendations - which were "eat less fat and cholesterol, and more carbohydrates" (see chart here).
ReplyDeleteIt is also instructive to note that functional lifespan is actually decreasing in America (discussed here).
As far as why no governmental organization supports low-carb diets: the US government spends billions of dollars each year paying giant agribusinesses to overproduce corn, soy, and wheat - so greatly that we're forced by law to turn corn into ethanol and put it in our cars, at a net energy loss!
That's a lot of corn, soy, and wheat that needs to get eaten. Therefore, government dietary recommendations emphasize the consumption of corn, soy, and wheat.
JS
Perhaps modern scientist are more prone to defending commonly held opinions than ever because there is now far more money in science, and most of that money is political. You get what you pay for.
ReplyDeleteRocking the boat is not a good career move in government science, and brilliant people always rock somebodies boat. More like blow it up. I can't think of an exception, although there must be one.
I’d like to bring a few threads and themes together. I recall a question asked on this website not too far back regarding something to the effect (i.e., paraphrasing): What has been the greatest ‘scientific’ fraud of recent memory? I answered that it was arguably Freudian psychology, but clearly there seem to be a host of medical and quasi-scientific frauds that mistake the effect for the cause. For example, this one where the presence of lipids in people with heart disease encourages the lesser thinkers out there to jump to the conclusion that these were the cause when they seem to be anything but the cause. Let’s take another cause and effect screw up of huge proportions, anthropomorphic global warming (“AGW”), it has been pointed out by what I would call real scientists that CO2 levels increase a temperatures increase (i.e., they are not the cause, but an effect of actual temperature increases). For example, the CO2 levels in an Amazonian jungle tend to be higher than Antarctica not because of the vast numbers of cars in the jungles of the Amazon, but because it’s typically warmer there. Talk about your basic mistakes (although it is often that supporters have something to gain by holding such positions, e.g., funding). It seems that many people just don’t get the “everything in moderation idea” and/or the hormesis idea (i.e., at least some traces of what is normally considered to be poisonous is actually good for you – yeah, I’m the guy that brought that one top your attention too). No, most humans seem pre-programmed to buy into the typically false notion that if something is considered “good” for you then 100% of that is even better, or, conversely, that if something is typically poisonous for you then 0% exposure is even better; while, empirically, nether is true. Again, “all in moderation” and never just believe that 0% exposure to anything is necessarily good. Repeat after me: “Long live fat, radiation, and CO2.”
ReplyDeleteThe Lipid Hypothesis came from the Framingham Study, which was a criminal fraud.
ReplyDeleteMcCully advises intake of vitamin D. Oh dear.
ReplyDeleteHigh fat means more bile acids and bile acids can turn into cancer promoting substances
'Plasma vitamin D and mortality in older men: a community-based prospective cohort study' says "Activation of VDR by these bile acids or vitamin D induces expression in vivo of CYP3A, a cytochrome P450 en- zyme that detoxifies secondary bile acids in the liver and intestine (37). Secondary bile acids are formed in the intestine but enter the bile after enterohepatic circulation (19, 34). In contrast, high concentrations of vitamin D suppress the farnesoid X receptor that detoxifies carcinogenic bile acids (12, 20, 21), suggesting a mechanism for increased cancer risk with high vitamin D concentrations"
As I read it high vitamin D levels (which suppress farnesoid X) may be particularly risky for those on high fat diets.
An attempt at warning about about D supplementation in comments at a blog HERE if anyone is interested.
I first read about the paleo diet on your blog and have adhered to it for the last 8 months or so. I lost 15 kg and my cholesterol has gone down. My HDL has gone up and triglycerides way down. If my cholesterol had not improved on this diet I would probably not continue it. On the other hand, maybe I shouldn't be paying any attention to my cholesterol.
ReplyDeleteCoronary artery disease is a multifactorial disease whereby even according to conventional wisdom, cholesterol levels are only one of several risk factors. If someone with high cholesterol has reached old age without dying of a heart attack, it is most likely that his overall risk is so low, it would be pointless to lower his cholesterol. This could be one reason, selection bias, whereby cholesterol studies for the elderly have a different implications than cholesterol studies for the young.
I think that doctors are practically required to recommend cholesterol-lowering drugs. If tests come back showing high LDL, and the doctor does nothing, he can probably be held liable if a heart attack does occur. He's only covering his own behind. At this point, it is up to patients to be well informed. My doctor recommended such medications, and I refused.
ReplyDeleteFraming ... ham?
ReplyDeleteSerendipitous pun!
Ah, Tod, the one-man campaign against vitamin D. Have you ever seen this study:
ReplyDelete"Vitamin D and calcium supplementation reduces cancer risk: results of a randomized trial."
"When analysis was confined to cancers diagnosed after the first 12 mo, RR for the Ca + D group fell to 0.232 (CI: 0.09, 0.60; P < 0.005) but did not change significantly for the Ca-only group."
In layman's terms, that means that those who took a vitamin D supplement cut their cancer rate by almost ***80%***.
PMID: 17556697
No one will pay attention to me (nor should they). However, please note the December 2010 report of a 14-member expert committee convened by the Institute of Medicine which, after examining nearly 1,000 publications said "This review found that information about the health benefits [of vitamin D] beyond bone health were from studies that provided often mixed and inconclusive results and could not be considered reliable"
ReplyDeleteThe following may seem like cheap shots but the health of the vitamin D supplementation enthusiasts is a legitimate issue IMO.
"Frank C. Garland, 60, the University of California at San Diego epidemiologist who, with his brother Cedric, was the first to demonstrate that vitamin D deficiencies play a role in cancer and other diseases, died Aug. 17 at UCSD Thornton Hospital. He had cancer of the esophageal junction"
Robert P Heaney was one of the authors of that study you've just cited. take a look at him, does he look healthy to you ?
Kurt G. Harris MD said..[...] "So I now get sunlight to less than the MED when I can get it, but I think D3 supplements are for people in nursing homes or solitary confinement".
About vitamin D from the sun I think this study suggests that an exposure of one minute to a ultraviolet-B dose gives just as much vitamin D as 20 minutes Vitamin D production depends on ultraviolet-B dose but not on dose rate: A randomized controlled trial.
If it does mean what I think then it rather suggests that normal exposure to the sun will be more than adequate to supply the body's need for vitamin D.
Hence if the system of vitamin D regulation, like all the other systems in the body, is optimized to keep us in the best of health, till the age when reproductive fitness is no longer an issue at least (Cochran's argument, "evolution optimizes function.") then we would expect vitamin D supplementation to be superfluous at best.
The Cochrane Collaboration found that D supplements increased the incidence of kidney stones. Montaigne was a sufferer, he thought that the agonizing pain gave one the opportunity to show fortitude.
Cochran and Harpending have a book - The 10,000 Year Explosion. It's good (although they are clueless about the amount of vitamin D in meat) It covers the genetic adaptations to agriculture (such as adaptations for glucose control and resistance to infection) and how they quickly spread though the population.
ReplyDeleteSo current Europeans are probably decendants of those who had genetic adaptions to a carb based diet (even though high carb may not be the best one for preventing heart attacks ect). I would not expect there to be a huge difference between the health of Europeans following high carb or high fat diets that supply the same number of calories.
does he look healthy to you ?
ReplyDeleteYes, he looks fairly healthy. A tiny bit fatigued, but that can be due to plenty of things.
hey are D supplements good or bad after all? I'm trying to get my wife to take them since she hates sunbathing.
ReplyDeletehttp://www.hulu.com/watch/196879/fat-head
ReplyDeletehttp://www.fathead-movie.com/
"if they find either no association or a negative correlation between high cholesterol levels and heart disease in those older than 70 years, there's nothing that would lead us to think that there's an association in younger people either."
ReplyDeleteI'm sympathetic towards HBD and Paleo Dieting but i'm sceptical about this one. A friend of mine suffers from genetic hypercholesterolemia, his father died at age 40 from heart disease and several other family members had heart problems at a young age. While somewhat anecdotal, this is enough evidence for me that there is a relationship between cholesterol and clogging of the arteries.
@Robert
ReplyDeleteThere is not doubt that high cholesterol and clogging of the arteries are related, after all it's cholesterol that *clogs* the arteries. However, that is not the same thing as saying cholesterol *causes* the clogs. It may simply be an effect.