Concensus Science: Cholesterol

[MoonRiver]

Another example of how consensus science and especially government science is so often wrong.

A draft1 of the 2015 edition of Dietary Guidelines for Americans,2 created by the Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, now states that “cholesterol is not considered a nutrient of concern for overconsumption.”

Steve Nissen, chairman of cardiovascular medicine at the Cleveland Clinic, told USA Today:5 “It’s the right decision. We got the dietary guidelines wrong. They’ve been wrong for decades.”

mercola

[Darren]

There was a doctor that while at Harvard was margianlized long ago because he made that statement. He was studying children that age very fast and die young. They all had extremely high levels of homocystene in the blood. Autopsy revealed that they had the blocked arteries of adults normally much older with heart disease.

We now know that inflammation is the killer and high levels of homocystene and C reactive protein are the trouble makers. Not cholesterol.

[chickenista]

The human body knows how to process natural fats and natural cholesterol.
Think butter, milk fat, the fat on your ribs etc..

We got into trouble when we began using poly unsaturated fats and hydrogenated fats etc.. like margarine.
The things that they said were healthy.
The heart disease rate exploded in accordance with the ads for 'I can't believe it's not butter' etc..
Unless you have a certain physical disorder, the human body doesn't take up cholesterol to store. Dietary cholesterol has no bearing on internal cholesterol levels.

[Darren]

There was a study of Irish families that involved siblings. They compared the long term health of those that remained in Ireland to those that immigrated to this country. Those that immigrated developed more heart disease even though the diet stayed the same.

The difference was the level of physical activity. The ones that still were active physically (staid in Ireland) didn't have the problems with heart disease.

[Shrek]

Originally Posted by MoonRiver

Another example of how consensus science and especially government science is so often wrong.




mercola

Reminds me of the movie Sleeper where Woody Allen's character is reanimated centuries into the future and seeing all the doctors smoking is surprised when they scoff at his concerns about smoking and say the medical profession in the 20th century had it all wrong. Nicotine was actually a healthy natural vitamin similar to vitamin C.

[MJsLady]

I discovered by my own research years ago that the USRDA is only enough to prevent things like scurvy and rickets and is not nearly what we need to remain healthy and protect against things like flu and such.

[suitcase_sally]

I think modern medicine is using the population for trials.

[where I want to]

I think it is the result of excess grant giving at all levels of society, especially government. There will certainly be no next year's grant if a researcher hands back the results of spending a half million dollars and that result says nothing can be determined.

[haley1]

I believe in the future there will be many things changed from what the medical field/government/ drug companies tell us now. I would bet they know of some such things already but won’t say since it would open them up to many lawsuits from their past lies

[poppy]

Originally Posted by Darren

There was a doctor that while at Harvard was margianlized long ago because he made that statement. He was studying children that age very fast and die young. They all had extremely high levels of homocystene in the blood. Autopsy revealed that they had the blocked arteries of adults normally much older with heart disease.

We now know that inflammation is the killer and high levels of homocystene and C reactive protein are the trouble makers. Not cholesterol.

Yep, but don't look for your doctor to take you off Cholesterol meds. Instead, they'll probably just add a pill to counteract the cholesterol med.

[Ozarks Tom]

In my imagination it goes something like this:
Big Phrama Scientist - hey, we've come up with what we call a statin drug!
Big Pharma CEO - what's it do?
Scientist - It reduces cholesterol in the body.
CEO - Is cholesterol a problem?
Scientist - no, but we can make it for a penny a pill and sell it for a dollar.
CEO - get our PR team in here immediately!

[sammyd]

Originally Posted by poppy

Yep, but don't look for your doctor to take you off Cholesterol meds. Instead, they'll probably just add a pill to counteract the cholesterol med.

This report has nothing to do with meds. It is about cholesterol in your diet.

[willow_girl]

Cholesterol?

May we all live long enough to see the day when it's once again taboo.

[Oxankle]

Sheesh; I'm probably close to the oldest person here and I've been scarfing down butter and pork fat since I was a toddler. I think the Irish had it right; stay active, work hard.

[nchobbyfarm]

There was a older doctor in my hometown that was a one stop shop, general, surgeon and psychiatrist. I asked him about cholesterol after first seeing these new drugs hit the market. His reply,I'm not even sure what a cholesterol is! He lived into his nineties and smoked well into his eighties and ate what he dang well liked. I think I will live like he did except I did quit smoking a while back. But that was out of budget concerns with the cost of cigarettes instead of health.

[ErinP]

Originally Posted by Oxankle

Sheesh; I'm probably close to the oldest person here and I've been scarfing down butter and pork fat since I was a toddler. I think the Irish had it right; stay active, work hard.

Tangent alert:
I read a snippet from a home health nurse at the turn of the century who noted that Irish immigrants in tenements tended toward fat.
Too many potatoes (high carb diet).

[partndn]

There is a topic that comes up in the forum often, always turns nasty, and with the argument of "where's your science? where are the studies? and what credible medical pro's say or agree with this? prove it prove it prove it.. blah blah blah" The scientific side is never satisfied with any supported source of opposition.

I ain't gonna type it here. But most of yall will get it.

Findings like the o.p. that seem to be accepted by the general public without too much resistance are what I await on the other subject I'm referring to.

Science evolves and changes its proofs sometimes, eventually telling us all our gut was right way back in the first place. In the mean time, bazookagajillion dollars will be spent and made at the expense of the truth of common sense.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by willow_girl

Cholesterol?

May we all live long enough to see the day when it's once again taboo.

While there is healthy debate over exactly how to manage cholesterol, I think that there is no realistic debate that artery goo is a bad thing and that cholesterol plays a part. I suspect some people are trying to make this finding into something that it isn't.

[no really]

According to what I've read it is the inflammation that causes the goo to stick. Cholesterol drugs don't reduce inflammation.

[Nevada]

Originally Posted by no really

According to what I've read it is the inflammation that causes the goo to stick. Cholesterol drugs don't reduce inflammation.

Yes, but the more goo you have the more will stick. We can't control inflammation from free radicals, but we can control how much goo in on our blood serum.