5 ms·

World Renowned Heart Surgeon Speaks Out On What Really Causes Heart Disease

14 points by oracuk 13y ago

nodata 13y ago
tl;dr cholesterol is not the problem, things that inflame the arteries, e.g. high processed carbs and over consumption of certain oils
th0br0 13y ago
Dwight C. Lundell, M.D. lost medical license in 2008. Since that time he has been promoting books that clash with established scientific knowledge of heart disease prevention and treatment. His book, The Great Cholesterol Lie, invites people to "forget about everything you have been told about low-fat diets, saturated fats, cholesterol and the causes of heart disease." http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html
- coldcode 13y ago
  Sigh. People read the original article and think the guy is amazing. I doubt most people would even find the second.
  - wyclif 13y ago
    Why is quack doctor content on HN?
    - DanBC 13y ago
      There's a weird amount of pure quackery on HN.
- grannyg00se 13y ago
  That's a nice ad hominem collection there. Not one point I could find about his actual claims. He didn't file his taxes properly? Bad patient review history? These things are not relevant to the scientific claims he puts forth.
  - bradleyland 13y ago
    Ad hominem isn't always a bad thing. The fact that someone lost their medical license is good information when evaluating professional credibility. Professional credibility is absolutely important when evaluating someone's claims.
ceautery 13y ago
That reads too much like baloney.
grannyg00se 13y ago
Another slam against overconsumption of sugar and processed foods. This guy may not have the best reputation but the advice doesn't seem all that bad.
skylan_q 13y ago
I'm glad that there will be that 1% or so of people who pick up this article and have it change their minds. :) That dietary cholesterol necessarily causes heart damage is taken as a matter of faith. :(
NAFV_P 13y ago
"Well,smokers perhaps, but at least they made that choice willfully." He knows very little about smoking.
pgcudahy 13y ago
This is pure quackery. The cholesterol -> heart disease framework was developed by the Framingham studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study) that showed a strong correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks and strokes. Now correlation does not equal causation but decades of subsequent studies have shown that cardiac event rates drop linearly with decrease in LDL (a form of cholesterol) (http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v8/n12/fig_tab/nrcardio.2011.158_F1.html http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v8/n12/fig_tab/nrcard...). It has culminated so far in the JUPITER trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUPITER_trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUPITER_trial) where people with "normal" LDL levels and no history of heart disease were able to decrease their heart attack risk with statins by driving their LDL even lower. The whole inflammation stuff came into play because JUPITER also looked at an inflammatory marker called CRP. Now, that angle is still controversial but could play a role. However, it does not invalidate the dozens of studies linking cholesterol to heart disease. Plus there is nothing linking this guy's quack theories on nutrition to inflammation/CRP or ultimately to heart attacks. I'm surprised that it made it this high on HN. Maybe people just love feeling that "freakanomics" feeling of mental superiority that they're willing to swallow any alternative hypothesis that challenges the norm. Maybe people just don't trust medical science.
- skylan_q 13y ago
  Maybe people just love feeling that "freakanomics" feeling of mental superiority that they're willing to swallow any alternative hypothesis that challenges the norm. Maybe people just don't trust medical science. I hope it's the case. It was fat, then it was cholesterol, then it was LDL, now it's pattern B LDL that shows a correlation. The ratio of HDL/LDL still factors in as well as triglyceride levels. The jury is still out there as to whether that specific type of LDL is what causes damage or is a sign of damage being caused. To act as if we can say "cut out all cholesterol because it's bad for you" is wrongheaded. We know there is a correlation with these factors as we measure them in the blood. We can't say with a high degree of certainty that eating a certain way will cause a certain effect on people. But when people are taking in over 20% of their caloric intake as saturated fat and showing incredibly healthy cardiovascular health readings, you've got to wonder if the common wisdom is something we should be comfortable with.
oracuk 13y ago
In hindsight I wish I had done more than just read this article before I submitted it. A lesson learnt.

14 points by oracuk 13y ago

tl;dr cholesterol is not the problem, things that inflame the arteries, e.g. high processed carbs and over consumption of certain oils

th0br0 13y ago

Dwight C. Lundell, M.D. lost medical license in 2008. Since that time he has been promoting books that clash with established scientific knowledge of heart disease prevention and treatment. His book, The Great Cholesterol Lie, invites people to "forget about everything you have been told about low-fat diets, saturated fats, cholesterol and the causes of heart disease." http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

coldcode 13y ago
Sigh. People read the original article and think the guy is amazing. I doubt most people would even find the second.
- wyclif 13y ago
  Why is quack doctor content on HN?
  - DanBC 13y ago
    There's a weird amount of pure quackery on HN.
grannyg00se 13y ago
That's a nice ad hominem collection there. Not one point I could find about his actual claims. He didn't file his taxes properly? Bad patient review history? These things are not relevant to the scientific claims he puts forth.
- bradleyland 13y ago
  Ad hominem isn't always a bad thing. The fact that someone lost their medical license is good information when evaluating professional credibility. Professional credibility is absolutely important when evaluating someone's claims.

ceautery 13y ago

That reads too much like baloney.

grannyg00se 13y ago

Another slam against overconsumption of sugar and processed foods. This guy may not have the best reputation but the advice doesn't seem all that bad.

skylan_q 13y ago

I'm glad that there will be that 1% or so of people who pick up this article and have it change their minds. :) That dietary cholesterol necessarily causes heart damage is taken as a matter of faith. :(

NAFV_P 13y ago

"Well,smokers perhaps, but at least they made that choice willfully." He knows very little about smoking.

pgcudahy 13y ago

This is pure quackery. The cholesterol -> heart disease framework was developed by the Framingham studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study) that showed a strong correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks and strokes. Now correlation does not equal causation but decades of subsequent studies have shown that cardiac event rates drop linearly with decrease in LDL (a form of cholesterol) (http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v8/n12/fig_tab/nrcardio.2011.158_F1.html http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v8/n12/fig_tab/nrcard...). It has culminated so far in the JUPITER trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUPITER_trial http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUPITER_trial) where people with "normal" LDL levels and no history of heart disease were able to decrease their heart attack risk with statins by driving their LDL even lower. The whole inflammation stuff came into play because JUPITER also looked at an inflammatory marker called CRP. Now, that angle is still controversial but could play a role. However, it does not invalidate the dozens of studies linking cholesterol to heart disease. Plus there is nothing linking this guy's quack theories on nutrition to inflammation/CRP or ultimately to heart attacks. I'm surprised that it made it this high on HN. Maybe people just love feeling that "freakanomics" feeling of mental superiority that they're willing to swallow any alternative hypothesis that challenges the norm. Maybe people just don't trust medical science.

skylan_q 13y ago
Maybe people just love feeling that "freakanomics" feeling of mental superiority that they're willing to swallow any alternative hypothesis that challenges the norm. Maybe people just don't trust medical science. I hope it's the case. It was fat, then it was cholesterol, then it was LDL, now it's pattern B LDL that shows a correlation. The ratio of HDL/LDL still factors in as well as triglyceride levels. The jury is still out there as to whether that specific type of LDL is what causes damage or is a sign of damage being caused. To act as if we can say "cut out all cholesterol because it's bad for you" is wrongheaded. We know there is a correlation with these factors as we measure them in the blood. We can't say with a high degree of certainty that eating a certain way will cause a certain effect on people. But when people are taking in over 20% of their caloric intake as saturated fat and showing incredibly healthy cardiovascular health readings, you've got to wonder if the common wisdom is something we should be comfortable with.

oracuk 13y ago

In hindsight I wish I had done more than just read this article before I submitted it. A lesson learnt.