Active Low-Carber Forums - Cholesterol Levels: Heart of the Matter, Dietary Villains

Page 1 of 5

Show 30 posts from this thread on one page

Active Low-Carber Forums (http://forum.lowcarber.org/index.php)

- LC Research/Media (http://forum.lowcarber.org/forumdisplay.php?f=4)

- - Cholesterol Levels: Heart of the Matter, Dietary Villains (http://forum.lowcarber.org/showthread.php?t=456227)

JEY100

Fri, Oct-25-13 02:50

Cholesterol Levels: Heart of the Matter, Dietary Villains

A half-hour major television network serious science show debunking the lipid hypothesis in Australia: Heart of the Matter, Dietary Villains

Quote:

The Heart of the Matter – ABC (Australia) Catalyst Series – 24th of October, 2013 Is the role of cholesterol in heart disease really one of the biggest myths in the history of medicine? For the last four decades we’ve been told that saturated fat clogs our arteries and high cholesterol causes heart disease. It has spawned a multi-billion dollar drug and food industry of “cholesterol free” products promising to lower our cholesterol and decrease our risk of heart disease. But what if it all isn’t true? What if it’s never been proven that saturated fat causes heart disease? In this special two part edition of Catalyst, Dr Maryanne Demasi investigates the science behind the claims that saturated fat causes heart disease by raising cholesterol.

http://vimeo.com/77730824

From Dr. Eades blog:

Quote:

Is cholesterol the villain it is made out to be by the medical authorities? Does too much cholesterol cause heart disease? Will it shorten your life? Should you avoid saturated fats to stay free from heart disease? The answers to these questions are not the ones most people would anticipate. The video below provides a different perspective.

About three months ago I got an email from a television producer in Australia informing me she was going to be in the US and would like to interview me. I consented, and the resultant TV show was just show last night in Oz.

It may be the first time a major television network devoted a serious show to debunking the lipid hypothesis. As readers of the blog are all too aware, most take the opposite approach. Let’s hope this one starts a trend. It would be nice to have an investigative reporter go after a lot of these mainstream lipid guys. As you will see, they look pretty uncomfortable under intensive questioning. Unlike those of us on this side of the debate, they’re not used to being questioned as to the validity of their views.

Enjoy!

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...ypothesis/5257/

Dr. Eades, Sinatra, Bowden and Gary Taubes featured.

teaser

Fri, Oct-25-13 05:56

About ten minutes into the video, a fellow from the National Heart Foundation in Australia makes the argument that dietary interventions are hard--that saturated fat clearly causes heart disease by raising cholesterol, but that it's almost impossible to prove this in a study because of poor long-term compliance. This is the second thread in several days in which an "expert" made this defense. How damning is that? If the best defense that the diet-heart hypothesis (saturated fat is the villain) defenders can come up with is that their position is true but unproven (and pretty much unprovable)--well, you wouldn't choose that as your defense if you had a better alternative, would you?

Even if he was right--what does he have? An intervention that it's impossible to get the general public to actually adhere to. Certainty that people can flap their butt cheeks and fly to the moon is pretty useless if you can't actually get anybody to try it.

Aradasky

Fri, Oct-25-13 09:08

Cholesterol levels: Are they really that important?

More from Dr. Mike

The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D.
Cholesterol levels: Are they really that important?
Posted: 24 Oct 2013 02:01 PM PDT
Is cholesterol the villain it is made out to be by the medical authorities? Does too much cholesterol cause heart disease? Will it shorten your life? Should you avoid saturated fats to stay free from heart disease? The answers to these questions are not the ones most people would anticipate. The video below provides a different perspective.

About three months ago I got an email from a television producer in Australia informing me she was going to be in the US and would like to interview me. I consented, and the resultant TV show was just show last night in Oz.

It may be the first time a major television network devoted a serious show to debunking the lipid hypothesis. As readers of the blog are all too aware, most take the opposite approach. Let’s hope this one starts a trend. It would be nice to have an investigative reporter go after a lot of these mainstream lipid guys. As you will see, they look pretty uncomfortable under intensive questioning. Unlike those of us on this side of the debate, they’re not used to being questioned as to the validity of their views.

Enjoy!

Click here to view the embedded video.

The post Cholesterol levels: Are they really that important? appeared first on The Blog of Michael R. Eades, M.D..

JEY100

Fri, Oct-25-13 16:36

:lol: He has the deer in the headlights look after some of her questions. Their Facebook page goes into classic crisis mode...Fat? Did we say fat? Let's talk about Salt. http://www.dietdoctor.com/heart-fou...is-mode-tv-show

Quote:

This is entertaining. Yesterday an Australian TV-show detailed how saturated fat has nothing to do with heart disease. Today the Australian Heart Foundation’s Facebook page is in damage control mode. While more and more Australians are getting obese the Heart Foundation is choosing to campaign against salt (of doubtful importance) and collecting industry money for recommending candy for breakfast. They are way behind the times. Perhaps you can help them wake up. The Heart Foundation on Facebook

Cleome

Fri, Oct-25-13 19:05

The Facebook comments are great!

JEY100

Sat, Oct-26-13 04:10

The official "Everything in Moderation" response has had multiple requests to see that evidence base...we're still waiting...

Quote:

A message from Lyn Roberts, Heart Foundation’s National CEO: “There has been some debate on our page this week on saturated fat and cholesterol and I wanted to reiterate that our recommendation remains quite simple: everything in moderation, except smoking.

I can assure you we take our role as Australia’s leading voice for heart health with great responsibility and are committed to providing information based on the best available evidence from across the world. We stand by the comprehensive evidence base on which we base our information for the public. Our guidelines are developed by the country’s best academics, researchers, health professionals and other experts external to our organisation to ensure transparency. The process ensures a robust position paper that reflects the conclusions of the strongest evidence available at the time.

The Heart Foundation values the ongoing support of the community. We are committed to continuing to assist people with heart health information."

WereBear

Sat, Oct-26-13 07:27

Quote:

Glad to know heroin's okay then :)

The human habit of defensiveness seems to serve no useful purpose except as a way of saving one's hide in a punitive society. I find it's great to admit when I'm wrong; I dodge a lot of suffering that way.

Look at Ancel Keyes; I do believe he hung in there as long as he did to squish any opposition to the stuff which made him famous. Can you sue scientists for being bad scientists?

Can we sue doctors who didn't know any better? To me, the resistance to shifting with new evidence is what should get people all upset.

As we say in the US; it's always the cover-up that gets you.

Cleome

Sat, Oct-26-13 07:35

Australian Heart Foundation Response

The Aust. HF is getting well-deserved criticism for the requirements for its 'tick of approval'. Tick criteria

Quote:

Tick criteria
We make sure that every Tick product contains less of the bad stuff and more of the good stuff. So Tick foods have reduced levels of unhealthy saturated fat, trans fat, salt and kilojoules (energy); and more healthy nutrients like fibre, vegetables and calcium. We judge a food as whole, as it’s eaten, and not just according to one nutrient.

We are often asked why sugar is not a Tick criterion. What's interesting is that a seemingly high sugar content doesn't automatically make a food 'bad'. It’s important to look at the food as a whole, taking into account the other nutrients it contains.

Made up of mostly sugar and/or fat, a high kilojoule chocolate bar or soft drink is rightly considered an unhealthy food because it’s also low in nutrition. On the flip side a wholegrain breakfast cereal, yoghurt or piece of fresh or dried fruit can also be high in sugar but also very nutritious. To overcome this, we strictly monitor serve size and kilojoules (energy) in Tick products. By limiting kilojoules, the level of sugar in a food is automatically taken into account. Research continues to show that excessive energy intake is the major contributor to being overweight or obese.

The NHMRC (National Health and Medical Research Council) recently reviewed all available evidence to update the Australian dietary guidelines and concluded that sugar as an individual nutrient was only important in relation to dental caries.

...If we were to consider only sugars in a food, it would mean foods like breakfast cereals, yoghurts and even fresh and dried fruit would appear to be poor choices as they can be higher in sugars than other foods despite providing vital nutrients for good health.

In my neck of the woods ticks are very unhealthy. They carry Lyme disease ;-).

Cleome

Sat, Oct-26-13 07:42

Quote:

Originally Posted by WereBear

Glad to know heroin's okay then :).

I like this response in the Aust. HF Facebook comments:

Quote:

Cyndi O'Meara: If I hear somebody else say everything in moderation I'll scream. I wouldn't touch margarine, breakfast cereals, commercial yogurts, Lean Cuisine, Healthy Choice, modified milks, and all the other ridiculous food chemicals you put your tick on. My body is all I get I will treat it with the up most respect by feeding it what any evolutionary body needs. Real foods, not foods laced with additives, preservatives, flavourings, fortification with synthetic nutrients, man made and artificial sweeteners and the list goes on. As you probably know HF as a nutritionist, author and health advocate I haven't supported you for decades, since I graduated from Deakin University and University of Colorado. I refuse to donate to an association that is more about itself then that of the Australian people. Like I said previously become the hero and make the changes that are needed in order to turn the tide on the growing obesity, morbid obesity and heart disease rates that are hurting Australian families. Not only is their physical health being damaged but also their mental health. We have youth in a desperate situation because of the nutritional guidelines that you support. There is a plea from the people, listen to it and make the changes that you know will change the health of the Australian people.

RawNut

Sat, Oct-26-13 07:53

Speaking of moderation, there's a new study out suggesting that ApoE4 carriers shouldn't drink moderately or even lightly.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24049153

ojoj	Sat, Oct-26-13 08:22

....... and in answer to the obesity epidemic in the UK........http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-24668937

Jo xxx

RobLL

Sat, Oct-26-13 08:42

But do keep in mind that most people can eat far higher amounts of carbs and even wheat than others of us. And even the much maligned food pyramid suggested about 200 grams of carbs plus fruit. Far less than many of us were eating in the 60s, 70s, and 80s.

teaser

Sat, Oct-26-13 12:09

I don't know about most people, long-term, in this culture. I don't have a lot of friends who haven't ended up pot-bellied in middle age. When I was eighteen, I probably looked like somebody who could afford to eat lots of carbs--even as early as twenty-five, and I most decidedly did not.

Angeline

Sun, Oct-27-13 12:52

I really enjoyed the raw footage of the video interviews for this piece. I specially enjoyed Gary Taubes interview. Many people have trouble understanding how the authorities could have gotten it so horribly wrong and are doubtful for that reason. "Saturated fat is bad", and "cholesterol causes heart disease" have been proven beyond the shadow of doubt by now no ? Gary's paints a horrible, but very compelling picture of how it all went so wrong. Basically the health authorities have been trying to prove to the public that coins have only one side. It's easy to do if you discard all evidence that coins have a flip side.

I love short videos like that, because they are more compelling than dry text. The next time someone expresses astonishment that the prevailing theories could be wrong, you can point them to this video.

ojoj	Mon, Oct-28-13 06:11

.... and then theres this!!!!!!!!!! http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2013/s3878646.htm

As my hero, Dr. Malcolm Kendric says "If you cannot win the argument, bully your opponents into submission"

Jo xxx

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 18:52.

Page 1 of 5

Show 30 posts from this thread on one page