The cholesterol and calorie hypotheses are both dead
 

http://www.pharmaceutical-journal.c...le?clearcache=1


The cholesterol and calorie hypotheses are both dead — it is time to focus on the real culprit: insulin resistance

By Dr Lustig, Malhotra and Demasi

Great article Janet!
I am going to forward this to several people who would really benefit. I've tried explaining it to a few, especially wish I had a study like this to forward and here it is!
Thank you

Excellent summary of today's health plague caused by food consumption leading to an alarming number of people having Metabolic Syndrome including Insulin Resistance. Exacerbated by misguided dietary recommendations and the inability to reach agreement on the true root cause of this plague, it has taken a painfully long time to recognize the path out of this dilemma. Here's hoping this article contributes to starting down that path.

Interesting article.

They certainly left something quite obvious.

Statins *INCREASE* insulin resistance.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/752209

Somebody should tell them

:)

But would they listen? Statin-worship is endemic.

We are currently in an environment of conflicting information presented by "expert credentialed health experts" every day. I listen to Doctor Radio on Sirius XM (yeah, it's both really good and maddening), and this week's nutrition show with Samantha Heller, a highly credentialed, registered nutrition "expert" who appears on many network TV programs and has written books, is still touting the danger of saturated fat dogma with her listeners to the degree where it's frightening. Her website:

http://www.hellerhealth.com/Samanth...t_Samantha.html

She confidently states she has referenced studies to back up her knowledge; yet, there should be no contention from her point of view, since her views are correct and based on solid science. Her guest this week was Dr. Keith Ayoob another "credentialed" nutrition expert:
http://cuttothechasenutrition.com/

A caller asked about which spread was the best alternative to butter, and the fun began. Stay away from saturated fats and go with spreads that contain safe PUFAs such as Smart Balance and I Can't Believe It's Not Butter, but consider putting olive oil or canola oil on your toast as well. The demon here and the reason for recommendations to stay away from using a lot of butter is saturated fat. Why? Well, hey, we need to keep LDLs low and cholesterol low and minimize our intake of saturated fats to promote heart health. Here's a link with an alternative viewpoint:
http://www.thehealthyhomeeconomist....-smart-balance/

As the call was ending, the caller mentioned he's been using coconut oil for his cooking. All hell broke loose, and Heller's response was, "my dear man, you must understand the recent issues with coconut oil having more saturated fat than butter! There have been no studies confirming the health benefits of coconut oil." You get the drift.

And this is what we're dealing with in today's nutrition discussions and the messages that are constantly chanted through media sources. These "experts" are so confident that their message is fact, that it's going to take a long time for the general population to be comfortable with recent and past studies that refute this information. Recent studies indicate that LDL is a very poor heart health marker and does not correlate with heart attacks and other heart related issues. There is a recent Ivor Cummins presentation that very thoroughly addresses these issues and findings:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qRCA08oblQ

The fact is that there are many who are not experiencing Metabolic Syndrome and who are not Insulin Resistant who can eat more flexibly than those who are experiencing or are on the road to developing these conditions. Unfortunately, it takes time before symptoms present themselves, and for many it's very late in the game and damage has been done over the years. Yet, these well-meaning folks glibly spout this misinformation truly thinking they are leading many to nutritional nirvana.

That's the real problem -- the enormous gap between action and result. If I hadn't read the whole Atkins book when I started, the 2-3 weeks of tiredness and cravings would have convinced me "this is wrong."

Now I know to up the fat and salt and I would have adapted much more quickly.

I can't listen to this nutritional ignorance. It makes me too angry. People suffer and die early due to the advice these experts spout. Listening to them spout off is like walking through the looking glass. I feel like shouting "off with their heads"

Jean

Unfortunately, you're totally missing the point.

It is not about "someone should tell them"... they, the massive corporate medical business, purposely ignore the facts that encroach on their massive profits. Medscape or webmd are just marketing/sales/propaganda tools of this corrupt criminal big business.

It has been known for many years that statins cause diabetes. The physiological mechanisms of how statins cause diabetes are also well understood, such as by their impairment of oxidative cell metabolism, the increase in inflammation and cell destruction, the lowering of cholesterol and sex hormone production, the promotion of pancreatic injury, etc. - rather thoroughly explained in this scholarly well referenced article on how statins and a cholesterol-lowering popular diet pill promote diabetes if you search online for "Do Garcinia Cambogia Side Effects Boost Diabetes?" - look at Figure 7 to see how irrational it is to block the production of cholesterol!

Yet despite of the existence of that scientific knowledge, the medical business and the public health authorities keep ignoring it and, for example, continue to recommend statins to diabetics and make claims that they have a low risk profile despite that they are also significantly linked to cancer and higher mortality (just look at the propaganda put out by the Mayo clinic on statin drugs: "the risk of life-threatening side effects from statins is very low").

And because of such medical propaganda, few people are aware that the medical claims of benefits of statins are mostly based on junk studies conducted by people with vested interests (read Dr. Uffe Ravnskov's work). And, logically, it's mostly the corporate medical business and other people with similar vested interests tied to it (eg, mouthpieces, hacks) who promote the alleged value of these highly lucrative products.

Also, older people with HIGH cholesterol live longer than those with low cholesterol levels (see above mentioned article for numerous scientific study references confirming this).

Because the cholesterol-heart disease theory, or rather medical dogma, is wrong, the use of statins is also wrong by logical extension.

So the real truth is that statins have almost no real benefit in the very vast majority of users. They do more harm than good (read Uffe Ravnskov's "The Cholesterol Myths" and Malcolm Kendrick's "The Great Cholesterol Con"). It's one of many "scientific" scams of the criminal mainstream medical business.

Ooops. I meant someone should tell the article's authors.

Clinical Pharmacist14 JUL 2017By Maryanne Demasi, Robert H, Lustig , Aseem Malhotra

They said:
- Insulin Resistance is important.
- Statins are bad.

but somehow forgot to mention that statins increase insulin resistance ... exactly what you dont want. To my ears, mentioning that simple fact really completes their article. YMMV.

FWIW, I read Medscape daily. I know they wont listen. Haha.

Mostly agree, but even low carbing and keto sometimes plateau for so long that you have to cut calories. If you want to lose weight that is. Even Atkins said that. But thinking it is as simple as (any)calories in/(any)calories out is faulty thinking.

I've noticed recently on Canadian TV that whenever an "expert" and one of their patients is discussing their diet, the first thing out of their mouths is "it's not low carb", as if that is a contractual requirement of appearing on TV. Then they go on to describe what they eat and show their breakfast, lunch & dinner and it does appear to be under 50g carbs/day, which most people would classify as low carb.

I am loud and proud about being low carb if the subject comes up, and you should see their faces when I say that I've been doing it for fourteen years.

They were crucial years, too; my blood pressure and blood sugar were creeping up and my joints were starting to hurt. I shudder to think where I would be now were it not for Dr. Atkins... and all you lovely people here. <3

I've been low-carbing for 15 years. At 70 years-old, I'm the only male in my family history to have lived this long. If I was still eating low-fat, I'm sure that I would have died from complication of diabetes, like most of my family members have.

I feel great and have lots of energy. More energy now than 15 years ago when I was a committed low-fatter. I'm also 40 pounds lighter.

There are a number of us oldsters here who've been low carbing for a long time. I am 68 and have been low carbing for about 15 years. I take no prescription medication and have cleared up numerous health issues. I am much healthier than I was when I started this journey despite the additional 15 years of age. I am also 120 pounds lighter.

Jean