7 ms·

This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cho

by petilon 10y ago

This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administration generally has not required drug companies to prove that cholesterol medicines actually reduce heart attacks before approval. See: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/business/17drug.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/business/17drug.html Meanwhile drug companies are making billions selling cholesterol lowering medicines called statins. But lowering cholesterol using drugs is not useful. Read more about that here: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-04-15/heart-disease-not-about-cholesterol-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-04-15/heart-dis... Not only that, these statins are dangerous drugs. Its side effects include loss of short term memory, for example. Read more about that here: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-not-dementia-its-your-heart-medication/ https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-not-dementia-...

djsumdog 10y ago
I agree with you. This article also mentions they're focusing on fats/saturated fats; which is also a terrible focus. The real danger is not fat, even saturated/trans-fats, but starches and sugar. The increase in these types of carbohydrates in products like baby formula is actually leading to obesity in infants! Excess sugar can stress arteries and damage them. Cholesterol is carried to these artier by lipids (LDLs and HDLs, which are not actually cholesterol, but proteins that carry it through your bloodstream). If you eat a lot of sugar, cholesterol can build up between the walls of arteries as they fix the damage. They can eventually break down the wall, releasing plaque into the bloodstream and potentially causing heart complications. I highly recommend Dr. Lustig's video (UCTV) to learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM A few years back I switched to a keto normal fat/very low carb (excluding fiber) diet. I've lost weight, gained energy and have felt a lot better. Of course this isn't for everyone. Some people have a body type that lends itself to higher carb intake (I knew a runner who'd eat 30 bananas a week) and as always do your research, consult with your doctor, dietitian, etc. before drastic changes in your diet. It's a common myth that Adkins died of his own diet. He didn't, and Reuters rededicated their column implying that he did. I honestly wonder if the obesity epidemic would have gone down today if the world didn't dismiss his ideas, or the ideas of many nutritionist for decades before him that made similar claims about the dangers of sugar.
- baron816 10y ago
  It's also a myth that runners need a high carb diet. I was a competitive distance runner for many years with a high carb diet and I'm confident that my performance suffered because of it. You're cells become much more efficient at using energy as you train, so you really don't need to eat that many calories at all. I was running 80+ miles per week, with a not above average calorie intake (for Americans), and my weight was stable.
  - argonaut 10y ago
    There's a certain irony in calling something a myth based on your personal anecdote.
    - ageofwant 10y ago
      Personal anecdotes are considerably more valuable to the individual that generalized truths. Every human body is unique and while trends and generalizations matter, they do not matter as much as empirical observed facts. Much more so in the context of personal health.
      - argonaut 10y ago
        > Personal anecdotes > observed facts These are not the same thing.
      - Fnoord 10y ago
        You're forgetting all the biases (& fallacies) which may or may not have affected the experience or the memory leading to the anecdote. These biases (& fallacies) are detectable or the lack of them is verifiable, with the scientific method. I'm not denying an anecdote is not valuable to the individual. It is, for the individual who made the anecdote; not the rest of us, not the readers. I'm also will admit I, too, use anecdotal evidence. But that does not mean one has strong evidence when they do; they don't, and neither do I.
        10y ago
adevine 10y ago
I don't understand your point about statins. The Bloomberg article you linked said statins were very effective in preventing heart attacks, just not necessarily due to their cholesterol-lowering effect. If that's the case, statins would still seem to be warranted in a lot of people.
- petilon 10y ago
  For people who do not already have heart disease, statins have no apparent benefit. For people who have had a heart attack, statins are indeed useful. Not because of its cholesterol lowering effect, but due to its ability to dial back inflammation in arteries. For more on this here's yet another Bloomberg article on statins: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-01-16/do-cholesterol-drugs-do-any-good https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-01-16/do-choles... So you are right, statins are indeed useful in a lot of people: people who have already had a heart attack. But that's not who statins are being marketed to. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/08well.html?fta=y http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/08well.html?fta=y
  - DanBC 10y ago
    Any argument you're trying to make is weakened when you use bloomberg or NYT as citations. Why don't people link to the actual studies?
  - ejstronge 10y ago
    I would appreciate a citation where statins are reported to have no benefit in people who have not had a heart attack (termed 'primary prevention'). It's true that the evidence is not overwhelming (ref. 1) but I am not aware of studies that show no benefit. [1] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2584032 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/258403...
tkyjonathan 10y ago
Your comment reminds me of a thread I read in the Primal Diet's forum. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum/the-primal-blueprint-forum-discussion/primal-blueprint-nutrition/103039-had-heart-attack-on-sunday-22nd?t=117283 http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum/the-primal-bluepr... Quite a few of them are having heart attacks: "So my first heart attack, 8 years after a stroke, was unexpected. My heart is determined to kill me. I've had at least 4 attacks, the last one keeping me in hospital 6 days" Yet they still all stay on that diet, because of some convincing bloggers with no credentials as doctors or researchers and some conspiracy theories.
- tekromancr 10y ago
  That thread is fucking scary.
  - brianwawok 10y ago
    It's about equal to doctors telling me to eat low sat fat and low cholesterol in 2016. The difference is doctors went to school for this and still are wrong.
    - evidence_first 10y ago
      Except it's not. The reason we have these publications is that medicine is continually reevaluating its recommendations. Your statement is about as unreasonable as saying 'we don't need computers since sometimes computers stop working'. Also, if you've ever spoken to a doctor about this, few would disagree that nutrition is an area where we still need more research. Finally, ask yourself: in the absence of evidence, is a diet that avoids fats/cholesterol (which, a priori, are associated with heart vessel disease[1]) such a silly idea? Now, we know more, and are changing recommendations accordingly. 1. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/atherosclerosis https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/athero... 1b. (in case you don't trust a governmental source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis
      - 10y ago
ggrothendieck 10y ago
The ACALM study found an association between high cholesterol and sharply reduced risk of death from 4 cancers. The numbers were large -- 22%, 43%, 47% and 30% lower risk of death. This may be due to wide-spread use of statins among those with high cholesterol. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160708123619.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160708123619.h...
dosomeresearch 10y ago
The link between LDL-C and CHD is widely accepted because there is strong evidence for it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780009 "SUMMARY: The naturally randomized genetic evidence suggests that LDL-C has a causal and cumulative effect on the risk of CHD, and that the clinical benefit of exposure to lower LDL-C is determined by the absolute magnitude of exposure to lower LDL-C independent of the mechanism by which LDL-C is lowered."

by petilon 10y ago

djsumdog 10y ago

I agree with you. This article also mentions they're focusing on fats/saturated fats; which is also a terrible focus. The real danger is not fat, even saturated/trans-fats, but starches and sugar. The increase in these types of carbohydrates in products like baby formula is actually leading to obesity in infants! Excess sugar can stress arteries and damage them. Cholesterol is carried to these artier by lipids (LDLs and HDLs, which are not actually cholesterol, but proteins that carry it through your bloodstream). If you eat a lot of sugar, cholesterol can build up between the walls of arteries as they fix the damage. They can eventually break down the wall, releasing plaque into the bloodstream and potentially causing heart complications. I highly recommend Dr. Lustig's video (UCTV) to learn more: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dBnniua6-oM A few years back I switched to a keto normal fat/very low carb (excluding fiber) diet. I've lost weight, gained energy and have felt a lot better. Of course this isn't for everyone. Some people have a body type that lends itself to higher carb intake (I knew a runner who'd eat 30 bananas a week) and as always do your research, consult with your doctor, dietitian, etc. before drastic changes in your diet. It's a common myth that Adkins died of his own diet. He didn't, and Reuters rededicated their column implying that he did. I honestly wonder if the obesity epidemic would have gone down today if the world didn't dismiss his ideas, or the ideas of many nutritionist for decades before him that made similar claims about the dangers of sugar.

baron816 10y ago
It's also a myth that runners need a high carb diet. I was a competitive distance runner for many years with a high carb diet and I'm confident that my performance suffered because of it. You're cells become much more efficient at using energy as you train, so you really don't need to eat that many calories at all. I was running 80+ miles per week, with a not above average calorie intake (for Americans), and my weight was stable.
- argonaut 10y ago
  There's a certain irony in calling something a myth based on your personal anecdote.
  - ageofwant 10y ago
    Personal anecdotes are considerably more valuable to the individual that generalized truths. Every human body is unique and while trends and generalizations matter, they do not matter as much as empirical observed facts. Much more so in the context of personal health.
    - argonaut 10y ago
      > Personal anecdotes > observed facts These are not the same thing.
    - Fnoord 10y ago
      You're forgetting all the biases (& fallacies) which may or may not have affected the experience or the memory leading to the anecdote. These biases (& fallacies) are detectable or the lack of them is verifiable, with the scientific method. I'm not denying an anecdote is not valuable to the individual. It is, for the individual who made the anecdote; not the rest of us, not the readers. I'm also will admit I, too, use anecdotal evidence. But that does not mean one has strong evidence when they do; they don't, and neither do I.
      - 10y ago

adevine 10y ago

I don't understand your point about statins. The Bloomberg article you linked said statins were very effective in preventing heart attacks, just not necessarily due to their cholesterol-lowering effect. If that's the case, statins would still seem to be warranted in a lot of people.

petilon 10y ago
For people who do not already have heart disease, statins have no apparent benefit. For people who have had a heart attack, statins are indeed useful. Not because of its cholesterol lowering effect, but due to its ability to dial back inflammation in arteries. For more on this here's yet another Bloomberg article on statins: https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-01-16/do-cholesterol-drugs-do-any-good https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-01-16/do-choles... So you are right, statins are indeed useful in a lot of people: people who have already had a heart attack. But that's not who statins are being marketed to. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/08well.html?fta=y http://www.nytimes.com/2008/07/08/health/08well.html?fta=y
- DanBC 10y ago
  Any argument you're trying to make is weakened when you use bloomberg or NYT as citations. Why don't people link to the actual studies?
- ejstronge 10y ago
  I would appreciate a citation where statins are reported to have no benefit in people who have not had a heart attack (termed 'primary prevention'). It's true that the evidence is not overwhelming (ref. 1) but I am not aware of studies that show no benefit. [1] http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/2584032 http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/258403...

tkyjonathan 10y ago

Your comment reminds me of a thread I read in the Primal Diet's forum. http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum/the-primal-blueprint-forum-discussion/primal-blueprint-nutrition/103039-had-heart-attack-on-sunday-22nd?t=117283 http://www.marksdailyapple.com/forum/forum/the-primal-bluepr... Quite a few of them are having heart attacks: "So my first heart attack, 8 years after a stroke, was unexpected. My heart is determined to kill me. I've had at least 4 attacks, the last one keeping me in hospital 6 days" Yet they still all stay on that diet, because of some convincing bloggers with no credentials as doctors or researchers and some conspiracy theories.

tekromancr 10y ago
That thread is fucking scary.
- brianwawok 10y ago
  It's about equal to doctors telling me to eat low sat fat and low cholesterol in 2016. The difference is doctors went to school for this and still are wrong.
  - evidence_first 10y ago
    Except it's not. The reason we have these publications is that medicine is continually reevaluating its recommendations. Your statement is about as unreasonable as saying 'we don't need computers since sometimes computers stop working'. Also, if you've ever spoken to a doctor about this, few would disagree that nutrition is an area where we still need more research. Finally, ask yourself: in the absence of evidence, is a diet that avoids fats/cholesterol (which, a priori, are associated with heart vessel disease[1]) such a silly idea? Now, we know more, and are changing recommendations accordingly. 1. https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/atherosclerosis https://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/health/health-topics/topics/athero... 1b. (in case you don't trust a governmental source) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis
    - 10y ago

ggrothendieck 10y ago

The ACALM study found an association between high cholesterol and sharply reduced risk of death from 4 cancers. The numbers were large -- 22%, 43%, 47% and 30% lower risk of death. This may be due to wide-spread use of statins among those with high cholesterol. https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160708123619.htm https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2016/07/160708123619.h...

dosomeresearch 10y ago

The link between LDL-C and CHD is widely accepted because there is strong evidence for it: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780009 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26780009 "SUMMARY: The naturally randomized genetic evidence suggests that LDL-C has a causal and cumulative effect on the risk of CHD, and that the clinical benefit of exposure to lower LDL-C is determined by the absolute magnitude of exposure to lower LDL-C independent of the mechanism by which LDL-C is lowered."