A Headline You Will Never See: 60 Year Old Man Dies of Cholesterol

Cholesterol scam: Disinformation slowly unraveling among health professionals

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035033_cholesterol_disinformation_fats.html#ixzz1n7iFu2ir

(NaturalNews) The idea of cholesterol creating cardiac problems has caused obsessive cholesterol count blood testing for decades. Another outcome of this scare was obsessively avoiding fat, especially saturated fats.

The food industry responded with low and no fat foods from milk to cottage cheese and more. Processed foods promoted their low or no fat contents as though they were the healthiest foods in the freezer.

Healthy fats such as coconut oil and palm oil were spurned and replaced by very unhealthy trans-fat, processed and heated cooking oils. Relatively healthy whole butters were replaced by plastic margarines.

However, this myth of cholesterol dangers lurking in saturated fats waiting to clog your arteries and cause you to die of cardiac arrest is beginning to unravel.

Unraveling the myth of cholesterol

A meta-analysis of properly performed previous studies on heart health and saturated fats concluded there was no association between cardiac issues and saturated fats. This was published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN) on January 13th, 2010. (1)

Meta-analysis is a statistical method of proving or disproving varied epidemiological studies within a set topic. The AJCN meta-analysis covered studies involving 350,000 subjects who were followed for 5 to 23 years.

The trend set by the saturated fat high cholesterol disinformation a few decades ago has resulted in many Americans eating less fat and showing lower blood cholesterol levels. Yet, heart disease rates have continued to rise along with diabetes, pre-diabetes and obesity. (1)

Dr. William Davis explains in his article "A Headline You Will Never See: 60 Year Old Man Dies of Cholesterol" that cholesterol doesn't kill "any more than a bad paint job on your car could cause a fatal car accident." (1)

He explains the cause of most heart attacks and coronary problems is atherosclerotic plaque in the coronary arteries, which can build up and rupture or clog the arteries. He goes on to describe other factors that can cause plaque ruptures, including inflammatory pneumonia.

Though there can be some cholesterol in the plaque, cholesterol itself is waxy and pliable. Cholesterol is important for brain cells, nerves and other cellular structural components. Calcium deposits (calcification) in artery interiors are much worse components of plaque. It belongs in your bones and not in your arteries. Vitamin K2 helps transport calcium out of your blood and into your bones.

Dr. Davis recommends avoiding cholesterol panels for heart health concerns and opting for a measure of coronary atherosclerotic plaque.

The scam continues despite overwhelming contradictory evidence

Despite more and more published journals and doctors proving coronary heart disease (CHD) is not caused by high saturated fat diets and cholesterol, the myth persists. Many peoplewith low cholesterol have died of CHD while in their 40s, while many with high cholesterol never have CHD issues.

Several studies of heart attack cadavers have also revealed the disinformation of cholesterol dangers. Yet the common advice from cardiologists upon seeing high cholesterol is to get an angiogram,adiagnostic testwhichis expensive and not so safe. Then there are those pricey drugs meantto lower cholesterol while wreaking havoc on overall health. (2)

Cholesterol is vital for many functions. For example, it helps convert sunlight into vitamin D3. If you're not getting enough with your food, the liver is forced to manufacture it. Low cholesterol has been linked to higher stroke risks.

Oxidized cholesterol from hydrogenated and refined polyunsaturated cooking oils and margarine can lead to complications that result in CHD. This comes not only directly from the oils themselves, but indirectly from the oxidation process those oils initiate. (3)

These toxic oils and butter substitutes were created to replace thewholesome saturated fats that should be consumed.

Sources for this article include:

(1) http://www.sott.net

(2) http://www.opednews.com

(3) http://www.treelight.com/health/healing/Cholesterol.html

About the author:
Paul Fassa is dedicated to warning others about the current corruption of food and medicine and guiding others toward a direction for better health with no restrictions on health freedom. You can visit his blog at http://healthmaven.blogspot.com


Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/035033_cholesterol_disinformation_fats.html#ixzz1n7i8Tdlx

Read the article here > http://www.naturalnews.com/035033_cholesterol_disinformation_fats.html

Saturated Fat Consumption Still isn't Associated with Cardiovascular Disease

Stephan Guyenet on Saturated Fat

=======================================================
Saturated Fat Consumption Still isn't Associated with Cardiovascular Disease



The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition just published the results of a major Japanese study on saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease (1). Investigators measured dietary habits, then followed 58,453 men and women for 14.1 years. They found that people who ate the most saturated fat had the same heart attack risk as those who ate the least*. Furthermore, people who ate the most saturated fat had a lower risk of stroke than those who ate the least. It's notable that stroke is a larger public health threat in Japan than heart attacks.


This is broadly consistent with the rest of the observational studies examining saturated fat intake and cardiovascular disease risk. A recent review paper by Dr. Ronald Krauss's group summed up what is obvious to any unbiased person who is familiar with the literature, that saturated fat consumption doesn't associate with heart attack risk (2). In a series of editorials, some of his colleagues attempted to discredit and intimidate him after its publication (3, 4). No meta-analysis is perfect, but their criticisms were largely unfounded (5, 6).


*Actually, people who ate the most saturated fat had a lower risk but it wasn't statistically significant.

Saturated Fat Is Not Associated With Cardiovascular Disease

Anthony Colpo always has very well researched articles. I owe him a lot.

=====================================================
Saturated Fat Is Not Associated With Cardiovascular Disease



Anthony Colpo


This article originally appeared at AnthonyColpo.com, January 18, 2010.


A couple of weeks back I shared with readers a WHO and FAO-sanctioned review showing that saturated fat and total fat intake were not associated with cardiovascular disease. Hot on the heels of that report comes a similar paper, appearing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also concluding that saturated fat shows no association with heart disease or stroke.


Researchers from Harvard Univerity and the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute pooled the data from twenty-one prospective epidemiologic studies examining the association of dietary saturated fat with coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) risk.


During 5–23 years’ follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 for CHD, 0.81 for stroke, and 1.00 for CVD. In other words, those who ate the highest amounts of saturated fat had no greater risk of CVD than those who ate the lowest. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results[6].


Those of you tempted to dismiss these findings as the work of pro-meat/dairy/egg industry shills or fringe-dwelling skeptics should note that one of the authors, Dr. Ronald Krauss, has worked at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), has been a Senior Advisor to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), and is actively involved with the American Heart Association (AHA), having served as Chairman of the Nutrition Committee. He is founder and Chair of the AHA Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. The NHLBI, NCEP and AHA have all been key players in gaining global acceptance for the pseudo-scientific absurdity that constitutes the lipid hypothesis of heart disease.


Swedish Farmers Live Longer on Dairy Fat and Veggies


Last year, a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health reported on CHD mortality and morbidity among 1,752 Swedish rural males. During 12-years’ follow-up, 88 died during follow-up, 335 were hospitalized or died due to CVD and 138 were hospitalized or died due to CHD.


When the dietary records of the men were analyzed, the crude unadjusted data showed that consumption of cream and full-fat milk and daily consumption of fruit and vegetables were associated with a lower risk of CHD. When the data was adjusted for confounding factors the only statistically significant dietary factor associated with reduced CHD was the combination of daily fruit and vegetable intake and high dairy fat consumption (relative risk = 0.39). Choosing wholemeal bread or eating fish at least twice a week showed no association with CHD. Farmers developed less coronary heart disease than non-farmers[7].


Japanese with High Cholesterol Live Longer


The Japanese have long been cited in support of the lipid hypothesis, but there is an abundance of research involving Japanese participants showing this hypothesis is in fact complete nonsense. The latest of such studies appeared in the Journal of Lipid Nutrition[8].


Japanese citizens over the age of 40 qualify for free annual health check-ups. The Fukui Study was based on data collected by the Public Health Center of Fukui from such check ups between 1986 and 1990 of residents of Fukui City in Japan. Researchers stratified 22,971 participants into groups according to their cholesterol levels.


Compared with those in the 240-259 mg/dl category, those in the 160-169 mg/dl (both sexes) and the 140-159 mg/dl (women) groups suffered significantly higher all-cause mortality.


Next, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of five large Japanese studies (including the Fukui Study) with a combined total of over 170,000 subjects to examine cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality.


Participants with cholesterol levels between 160-199 mg/dL were chosen as the reference group. The meta-analysis revealed that the relative risk in the <160 mg/dL group was significantly higher than in the reference group [RR = 1.71], and that the relative risks in the 200-239 mg/dL and >240 mg/dL groups were significantly lower than in the reference group [RRs of 0.83 and 0.78, respectively].


The authors suggest that “Japanese subjects with cholesterol levels >240 mg/dL (>6.22 mmol/L) should not be regarded as hypercholesterolemic or dyslipidemic except when having some genetic disorders like familial hypercholesterolemia because they are in the safest ranges in terms of all-cause mortality”.


NOTE TO JAPAN: Along with muffin tops, Snoop Dogg clothing and Big Brother, cholesterol lowering is one trend from the West you should definitely ignore.


References


1. Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Published ahead of print January 13, 2010. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725.


2. Holmberg S, et al. Food Choices and Coronary Heart Disease: A Population Based Cohort Study of Rural Swedish Men with 12 Years of Follow-up. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2009; 6: 2626-2638.


http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2790097/pdf/ijerph-06-02626.pdf


3. Kirihara Y, et al. The Relationship between Total Blood Cholesterol Levels and All-cause Mortality in Fukui City, and Meta-analysis of This Relationship in Japan. Journal of Lipid Nutrition, 2008; 17 (1): 67-78.


http://www.jstage.jst.go.jp/article/jln/17/1/67/_pdf/-char/ja/

Saturated Fat and Heart Disease

Dwight C. Lundell M.D. has an article at SpaceDoc that reaffirms an important yet under reported fact:

'There never has been any direct evidence that saturated fat caused heart disease or even a mechanism whereby heart disease would happen.'



===================================================

Saturated Fat and Heart Disease


by Dwight C. Lundell M.D.

Does the thought of a steak, bacon and eggs, or real milk make you cringe thinking you're instantly clogging up your arteries? How many times have you seen physicians and nutritionists write "artery clogging saturated fats"? For the last 40 years the dietary instructions from governments and other authoritative bodies have told us to avoid all animal fats.

Americans took the message seriously and complied. Average fat consumption decreased, average blood cholesterol levels decreased but their rate of heart disease has continued to rise; the cost of its treatment has continued to rise. Now, in 2011 we have 24 MILLION people diagnosed with diabetes and another 65 million with pre-diabetes and an epidemic of obesity now afflicting over 65% of the population.


The evidence continues to mount that there's no benefit and probable harm from a low fat diet. Two recent examples, the Women's Health Initiative which studied 48,835 women demonstrating no benefit from a low fat diet in terms of heart disease or breast cancer. (Ref 1 ).


The Nurses' Health Study which has followed 90,000 female health professionals, once again demonstrated no reduction in heart disease or cancer, from a low-fat diet. ( Ref 2 ).


Even the famous Framingham study now admits there is no association between dietary fat and heart disease and indeed the association of elevated cholesterol and heart disease is limited to a small segment of the study population. ( Ref 3 ).


The January 2009 American Heart Journal reported that of the 137,000 people admitted to over 500 hospitals in the United States with heart attack, nearly 75% had "normal" LDL cholesterol levels, that is below 130 ( see cholesterol converter for mg / dL to mmol / L conversion ).


The evidence against saturated fat has always been circumstantial. That is, saturated fat was said to elevate blood cholesterol and elevated blood cholesterol was said to cause heart disease therefore saturated fat would cause heart disease. There never has been any direct evidence that saturated fat caused heart disease or even a mechanism whereby heart disease would happen.


Although there are more than a dozen types of saturated fat, humans predominantly consume three; stearic acid, palmitic acid, and lauric acid. These three fats make up 95% of the saturated fat in a piece of prime rib, a slice of bacon, a piece of chicken skin, and nearly 70% of that in butter and whole milk.


It is well established that stearic acid has no affect on cholesterol levels. In fact stearic acid is converted in the liver to oleic acid which is monounsaturated like olive oil and said to be healthy. Most scientists now consider stearic acid to be benign or potentially beneficial. Palmitic and lauric acid do raise LDL cholesterol levels, but they also raise HDL cholesterol levels, and therefore may be beneficial.


Still worried about clogging up your arteries? The question reflects how most people today have become conditioned to eliminate fat from their diet for fear of clogging their arteries. With doctors and medical establishments recommending the elimination of saturated fat, nutritionists and other authors repeating the phrase "artery clogging saturated fats" the media certainly follows and we have formed a deep ingrained belief that saturated fat is evil and unhealthy.


In March of 2009, researchers from the U.S. National Cancer Institute reported that those whose diets contained the highest proportion of red or processed meat had a higher overall risk of death and specifically a higher risk of cancer and heart disease than those who ate the least processed or red meat. ( Ref 4 ).


The press had a field day as the news circulated the wires quickly. Here are a few of the headlines:


"Eating red meat linked to early death, study finds"


"Study shows red meat consumption linked to higher risk of dying from cancer, heart disease"


"Death linked to too much red meat"


Dr. Michael R. Eades wrote a brilliant reply to the fault in this study and the media overreaction in a blog titled Meat and Mortality. ( Ref 5 ).


Here is a brief excerpt:


"At the same time that this paper appeared, showing increased red meat consumption to be tied to a slight increased risk of death (and showing that those subjects eating white meat had less risk), a couple of other papers came out in the online pre-publication section of the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition (AJCN), arguably the world's most prestigious nutritional scientific journal.


These two AJCN papers saw the light of day at around the same time as this highly-publicized study on meat and mortality, but demonstrated the opposite results. They got no press coverage whatsoever. Which proves what I've been saying all along: the press is biased against meat in general, and especially against red meat."


I completely agree with Dr. Eades about the media bias and am surprised by authors who should know better and continue to write "artery clogging saturated fats".


The most recent definitive study of all the competent studies regarding saturated fats and heart disease called a meta-analysis and published in the AJCN January 13, 2010 shows that over a 5 to 23 year follow-up of 347,747 subjects, there is no association between the intake of saturated fat and heart disease or stroke.( Ref 6 ).


The bottom line is that there is no connection between the intake of saturated fat and heart disease or stroke. But there is a connection between the currently recommended high carbohydrate diet and heart disease and stroke.


So enjoy bacon and eggs and forgo the oatmeal and bagels, your LDL will come down your HDL will go up, your weight will go down and your satisfaction with your diet will go up. The low fat diet is the worst dietary advice in the last 50 years and it is the proximate cause of our epidemics of heart disease, diabetes and obesity.


Accurate knowledge cannot come from reading abstracts of articles or reporters' interpretation of the abstract.


Dwight C. Lundell M.D.
http://www.thecureforheartdisease.net/
Chief Medical Consultant, Asantae Inc.
Chief Medical Consultant at www.realweight.com


Dr. Lundell's experience in Cardiovascular & Thoracic Surgery over the last 25 years includes certification by the American Board of Surgery, the American Board of Thoracic Surgery, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons.


Dr. Lundell was a pioneer in off-pump coronary artery bypass or "beating heart" surgery reducing surgical complications and recovery times.


He has served as Chief resident at the University of Arizona and Yale University Hospitals and later served as Chief of Staff and Chief of Surgery.


He was one of the founding partners of the Lutheran Heart Hospital which became the second largest Heart hospital in the U.S.


Ref 1. http://www.pcrm.org/health/prevmed/pdfs/modest_diet.pdf


Ref 2. http://www.channing.harvard.edu/nhs/


Ref 3. http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/


Ref 4. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19307518


Ref 5. http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/fast-food/meat-and-mortality/


Ref 6. http://www.ajcn.org/content/early/2010/01/13/ajcn.2009.27725.abstract

A good look at good health

Recently came across the Dr Briffa's web site which he calls "A good look at good health". I am finding it very interesting and am still perusing his many articles.

Whats different about his web site? In his own words - "The work of Dr John Briffa cuts through the hype and fear, bringing you useful, intelligent and practical health information..."

One I that I found I'll post here because it is of particular interest to me (the reason I post anything to my blog), and does cut through the hype and fear we usually hear or read is titled "Does eating meat really increase our risk of colon cancer? follows. Thanks in advance Dr. Briffa. Full credit given.

=========================================================
- Dr Briffa’s Blog - http://www.drbriffa.com -
Does eating meat really increase our risk of colon cancer?
Posted By Dr John Briffa On March 18, 2009 @ 3:51 pm In Healthy Eating, Unhealthy Eating! 3 Comments

I generally rate meat (including red meat) as a food for those who choose to eat it. However, I appreciate that not all health professionals share my enthusiasm for this food: often, individuals will remind us to eat ‘lean’ meat to avoid consuming so-called saturated fat that ‘causes’ heart disease. Except, the evidence doesn’t really support this stance: most epidemiological studies do not support a link between saturated fat and heart disease, and there really is a distinct dearth of evidence suggesting that cutting back on saturated fat is beneficial to the heart (or has broad benefits for health for that matter).

The other common criticism levelled against meat is that it causes bowel cancer. Indeed there have been some studies that appear to show a link between meat-eating and an increased risk of this condition. However, such studies are epidemiological in nature, and therefore cannot be used to prove that it’s the meat that is a genuine problem in this regard.

Imagine for a moment that meat does NOT cause colon cancer. The any apparent association between meat and colon cancer might be down to, say, the fact that individuals who eat a lot of meat might also be more likely to exhibit more in the way of unhealthy behaviours such as cigarette smoking or a sedentary lifestyle. Also, focusing just on the diet for a moment, those eating more meat may end up eating less of other foods that might have a preventive role, such as fruits and vegetables. In other words, it may not be the presence of meat, but the absence of other foods, that causes the apparent link between meat and colon cancer.

Because of these factors, we need to be somewhat wary, I think, about concluding that meat causes colon cancer. And it should also be borne in mind that there is plenty of evidence that does not support an association. For example, a review of the available literature published in the European Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that of 44 relevant studies, most (31) found no apparent association between red meat intake and colon cancer risk [1].

All this might be worth bearing in mind when one considers the results of a study published on-line in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [2]. This study looked at the risk of cancer in individuals categorised as meat eaters, fish eaters (those who don’t eat meat but do eat fish), vegetarians (no animal foods other than eggs and/or dairy products) and vegans (no animal products).

Compared to those eating meat, vegetarians and vegans turned out to have an increased risk of colorectal (cancer in the colon or rectum). Risk in these people was 39 per cent higher than in meat eaters. They also compared risk of colorectal cancer in individuals classed as vegetarian (vegetarian and vegans) with non-vegetarians (eaters of meat and/or fish). Here, vegetarians had a 49 per cent increased risk of colorectal cancer.

The authors describe these findings as ‘surprising’, and suggest that the explanation for them might be partly due to chance or other dietary differences between the groups. However, you want to explain it, the findings of this study most certainly do not support the notion that meat-eating puts people in mortal terror of cancers in the large bowel.

And neither do the results of a study, also published on-line recently in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition [3]. This review of several studies found no statistically significant association between either animal fat or animal protein intake and risk of colorectal cancer. It should be pointed out that this study received funding from the Cattlemen’s Beef Board and National Pork Board.

It seems from the science as it stands that there is good reason to challenge the commonly-held belief that eating meat increases the risk of bowel cancer.

References:
1. Truswell AS. Meat consumption and cancer of the large bowel. Eur J Clin Nut 2002;(suppl 1):S19-S24
2. Key TJ, et al. Cancer incidence in vegetarians: results from the European Prospective Investigation into Cancer and Nutrition (EPIC-Oxford). 2009;89(suppl):1S-7S
3. Alexander DD, et al. Meta-analysis of animal fat or animal protein and colorectal cancer. Am J Clin Nutr 2009;89:1-8
Article from Dr Briffa’s Blog: http://www.drbriffa.com
URL to article: http://www.drbriffa.com/blog/2009/03/18/does-eating-meat-really-increase-our-risk-of-colon-cancer/Copyright 2008 Dr John Briffa