TBH, I'm finding this all quite scary now. I have my beliefs and I live and "eat" by them, but how can it be that a whole nation - several nations can be so wrong?? yes, I know theres money involved and "vested interests", but this is the 21st century and this is playing with peoples lives. You only have to look around malls, the streets, public places, on this forum, to see how many people are being disfigured and disabled (obesity IS a form of both isnt it - sorry) by the governments advice - or am I missing something?? If its proved they're wrong and it feels quite close now, how on earth are they going to compensate our countries people who have tried and failed???

Jo xxx

At one point there was such a push for women to take hormone drugs as menopause began. I hate taking anything, and always refused. I had no real symptoms, why take them? The doctor tried to say I still needed it to protect my heart. Thank goodness I resisted, as it later became suspected that the hormone drugs were linked to heart issues in women. But as the pharma market lost that drug (their biggest seller, apparently), statins took over. Then the doctor was all of a sudden astounded by my cholesterol, which was suddenly "too high", and gosh darn, I MUST take statins to lower it. This I also refused. BTW, the "ideal" cholesterol level keeps getting lowered....to allow more people to take the statins, in my opinion!

I felt horrible until I found Atkins and started to eat that way. I refuse to believe that eating in a way that made me feel horrible was better for me. Eating natural foods including fats (but no trans fats) agrees with me 1000%. I have high cholesterol, but so what? My HDL is phenomenally high, my Tri's are generally quite low, and my LDL, while frighteningly high according to my doctor, consists of the fluffy particle type. There is no heart disease in my family, and many of us have high cholesterol numbers (relatively high). My grandmother lived to 99, my mom is healthy at 92. I'm not going to worry about it and I'm not succumbing to marketing pressure. I've dealt with enough other issues in which doctors are woefully ignorant (celiac disease, as one example) that I remain quite skeptical about the general medical hoardes. My GP freely admits that what he learned since medical school generally came from pharmaceutical reps, all of which are pushing the statins like crazy, by the way.

Jo, off the subject of this thread, but I just read your success story and you are SUCH an inspiration and a true success because you found out what to do (Atkins) and you took charge of yourself, set a goal, and exceeded it. Better yet, you don't appear to battle the carb demons any more and you have maintained your loss for a lot of years now....that's the real story of success!
Carole

Thanks for the link. I watched it. It was great. As was Part I and also Demasi's program on sugar a few months back. The doctor suggesting muscle pains from statins were just in patients heads and not real was horrible. Demasi's bit comparing statins with ketchup was funny and sad.

But do I think it will make any difference? I don't see how the whole scientific establishment and culture can be turned around to see that our problems are not caused by saturated fat and high cholesterol. There's just too much vested in the status quo and it makes too much money to give it up no matter how much proof there is to the contrary.

I just don't think the "incalculable damage" as Taubes says, will ever be redressed.

We each need to stop listening to "experts" and figure out what works by experimentation, not theory or authority.

Do you think that whole nations, and several of them, can't be wrong? Or maybe I should say, did you think that widely held beliefs must be true because otherwise they wouldn't be widely held.

I can think of several examples from history where whole societies believed in something that either turned out really bad, or wasn't true, or the whole rest of the world thought the opposite.

Also in the history of medicine there are examples of society-wide "general practice" that have turned out to be ill-advised, ignorant and enforced by doctor group standards. Like childbirth doctors and hand-washing. Or pellagra in the US South in the 20s. Or thalidomide.

I don't think we can blame the ignorant for what they don't know. Doctors have defined themselves as delivering medical treatment. Hence why would they learn about something that was not that. Of course the assumption is that health comes out of it, but basically they deliver drugs and procedures.

Doctors are the ones who set the curriculum in med school. It's not like good doctors wish someone told them. The good doctors keep learning for themselves.

QFT. Ironically, as people gradually do this more often, it will do two things:

• Discredit the medical profession for nutrition advice, which is what they're afraid of if they do an about face
• Allow to the medical profession gradually to follow the public's lead

Dr. Atkins started his diet-related treatment plan because of research he had been discussing with a doctor friend.

Dr. Davis suggested cutting out grains because of the blood sugar lowering possibilities suggested by glycemic index research.

It's not like the research isn't out there. In fact, I bet a team could look at the raw data and pull together more and better conclusions than the ones that got us eating low fat and high carb.

It's getting people to look at the evidence and listen to ideas that's the problem.

This quote is restoring some of my faith in the scientific community :

Looks like the Heart Foundation decided to double-down in their stance:

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/n...rt-disease.aspx

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/n...medication.aspx

Bloody idiots, in my opinion, but there you go. Those very firm statements are going to bite them in the arse in a few years time.

I feel like I'm seeing this "new" message (the wait, we got it all wrong about saturated fat message) more and more in the media lately, and when I talk to general people (friends, acquaintances, my hairdresser - no really) more and more people seem to already know the "new" message. It's really changed even from just a few years ago, and it gives me hope, even though I'm a jaded cynic.

That PR on statins basically says what the HF spokesperson did...if the patient has diagnosed heart disease or has had a heart attack..statins may reduce the risk of another (by what means not stated). A doctor in the Cholesterol Clarity interviews also said if the patient is an overweight man, who refuses to give up smoking, doesn't exercise, etc. Then a statin might help. The other risk factors are important. But that still leaves millions of normal weight with TC of 200-260 (many women in their 60s I know) on statins. The HF Press release really didn't address them, but Catalyst did. The press releases are interesting for what they did not tackle. By putting it out, they are are going to have to provide that huge evidence base. I agree the message on good fats is more common ....my hairdresser and her 20 something office manager and her young friends are doing Paleo...coconut oil all around

http://www.heartfoundation.org.au/S...anols-PS-LR.pdf

Their page on plant sterols is interesting. They recommend these based on nothing except for their ability to reduce ldl cholesterol.



If long-term safety studies are absent, I think it's safe to say that long-term effectiveness studies are as well.

Disgusting that these people are taken so seriously by the public and by medical professionals in general, really.

This reminds me of the insulin fiasco. Stephen Guyunet has pointed out that certain insulin "mimics" have a slimming effect. So insulin can't be the fattening hormone, right? But an insulin mimic is simply defined as something that lowers blood glucose--or allows the body to control blood glucose with less insulin. This could happen by increasing the fat cell's appetite for glucose--and make us fatter, as many diabetes drugs do. Or it could cause greater uptake and use of glucose by muscle--or improved storage of glucose as glycogen, so that after a meal, the body gets back to burning fat sooner. Even if lowering cholesterol is desirable, how we lower it would still matter.

Dr Eades review of Part 2 on statins:

Statins: Not for everyone...Maybe not for anyone.

http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/...e-maybe-anyone/

Mine too. He had bypass surgery 18 years ago and has been on statins ever since. His argument for keeping the statins is 2-fold: 1- many of his relatives died fairly young from heart disease and 2- he's still alive.

Being that I'm the head cook, I'm getting some healthy fats in him. He actually ate the chicken skin the other night!

And he's very nice about not leading me into temptaion by buying bread. He eats my flax bread which is made with coconut oil. And doesn't complain.

Gosh - well done! Mine turns his nose up at my "weird" bread (his description) and sticks to his cornflakes with milk for breakfast though he does use sweetener instead of sugar.

Though at nearly 82 years old and with stents and a 3 year old pacemaker he isn't doing so badly, I suppose.

Tell him congrats on keeping alive! Mine is 78 and still going strong. So far his heart is still doing well. Which is good as he has stated that he won't undergo heart surgery again. Even tho he was a young and vigorous 60 at the time, recovery was difficult.