American college of cardiology says saturated fat is ok!

[Dark Horse]

Listened to a few YouTubers regarding this, such as Ken Berry. Ultimately this is still annoying as it plays into the hands of those who like to "frame" and or "start from here", whilst ignoring the in front of you and lived evidence. Even the best studies in my view do not trump current and past history. The "framing" allows those with an agenda to wave a bit of paper if the "evidence" goes in their direction.

I prefer evidence from living societies who have eaten and continue to eat saturated fat in a clean environment (by clean I mean no sugars, grains or modern oils); without going through the list, the evidence is crystal clear here. Then we can look at past evidence such as Western A Price, South Pacific Islanders, etc. We can look at the Women's Health Initiative, if we must look at more recent studies or the Minnesota Health Trial. For me the best evidence in modern times is comparing clinical end points (dead people), saturated fats raise cholesterol - do more people die with closer to so called normal cholesterol or not.

(Google search "do more people die with normal cholesterol")

View attachment 42349

View attachment 42350

If I had to get on a plane made with similar science to the above, I would make sure my funeral plans were sorted. This level of (not) science is laughable, except that millions have been affected by the practical repercussions.

The British Heart Foundation are critical of the paper published in the BMJ:- https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...ntial for your,disease,heart attack andstroke.

The paper cited by Science Daily was calling for the definition of 'normal' cholesterol levels to be lower:-

"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator.was suggesting that the range for 'normal' cholesterol levels needed to be revised downwards" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112130653.htm​

 

[Oldvatr]

The British Heart Foundation are critical of the paper published in the BMJ:- https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/cholesterol-and-statins#:~:text=Cholesterol is essential for your,disease,heart attack andstroke.

The paper cited by Science Daily was calling for the definition of 'normal' cholesterol levels to be lower:-

"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator.was suggesting that the range for 'normal' cholesterol levels needed to be revised downwards" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112130653.htm​

BHF is in collaboration with the Rapeseed manufacturers, Also partnered with Tesco.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...on/sugar-salt-and-fat/saturated-fat-animation

Edit to add a comment: We should be mindful that organizations like AHA and BHF are charitable organizations whose primary function is to raise funding for research and support for patients. They do not have a scientific or experts team doing their own scientific research and rely on current NHS and government science advice. As we know, neither government has changed its stance on this topic..

It is similar to DUK (the other one) and that organization has an interesting corporate partnership program too
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/get_involved/corporate/acknowledgements

 

[Oldvatr]

The British Heart Foundation are critical of the paper published in the BMJ:- https://www.bhf.org.uk/informationsupport/heart-matters-magazine/news/behind-the-headlines/cholesterol-and-statins#:~:text=Cholesterol is essential for your,disease,heart attack andstroke.

The paper cited by Science Daily was calling for the definition of 'normal' cholesterol levels to be lower:-

"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator.was suggesting that the range for 'normal' cholesterol levels needed to be revised downwards" https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112130653.htm​

The problem with these studies is that they start with a fixed assumption that risk of heart attack is directly proportional to the LDL blood plasma level. If that is true, then when they find that most of the victims in the study actually had lower than expected LDL levels then this proves to them that the recommended levels must be lowered even further.

There is a corollary to that in that the original fixed premise could be wrong. Instead of questioning the premise, they instead call for the national guidelines to be lowered. This is not what scientists should be doing.

The recent reports that have been published show that the fixed paradigm and holy mantra concerning cholesterol is indeed needing revision. The study itself discusses the need to increase HDL i.e. improve the ratio instead, but that was dropped in favour of the LDL hypothesis. But that is what the recent advances in endocrinology are now confirming. The Sciencedaily guys had the answer in their report, but chose to ignore it.

 

[Dark Horse]

BHF is in collaboration with the Rapeseed manufacturers, Also partnered with Tesco.

https://www.bhf.org.uk/informations...on/sugar-salt-and-fat/saturated-fat-animation

Edit to add a comment: We should be mindful that organizations like AHA and BHF are charitable organizations whose primary function is to raise funding for research and support for patients. They do not have a scientific or experts team doing their own scientific research and rely on current NHS and government science advice. As we know, neither government has changed its stance on this topic..

It is similar to DUK (the other one) and that organization has an interesting corporate partnership program too
https://www.diabetes.org.uk/get_involved/corporate/acknowledgements

There is a review of both the media headlines and the original paper which discusses some of the difficulties in overturning established views here:-
https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-l...s looked at the,opposite to what was expected.

 

[Oldvatr]

There is a review of both the media headlines and the original paper which discusses some of the difficulties in overturning established views here:-
https://www.nhs.uk/news/heart-and-lungs/study-says-theres-no-link-between-cholesterol-and-heart-disease/#:~:text=28 studies looked at the,opposite to what was expected.

This critique has absolutely no references listed, critiques a single english only report just in the same way as the criticisms they aim at the BMJ study that did at least list their references. It is a case of the kettle calling the pot black IMHO.

Remember that the LDL hypothesis stems from the Ancel Keys 7 nations study that also cherry picked his data sets, and so their stance on LDL seems to be totally dependent on the trials conducted by drug companies to justify statin use. The post mortem studies that measure actual LDL levels and history of actual CVE deaths, compared to those of blunt force trauma patients, do not get aired although they provide evidence that heart disease and atherosclerosis is not plasma LDL dependent.

The meta study I saw that had the temerity to query the paradigm over LDL was actually a metastudy of RCT trial data that had been used to justify statin use. They were not cohort studies as implied in the critique. Cohort studies are epidemiological crystal ball gazing based on self monitored food survey sheet data so are notoriously unreliable but yet they get used to reinforce the no sat fat, no animal meat, arguments.

So scientists and drug companies use RCT methods, nutritionists use cohort studies. We seem to have lost the ability to recognise the difference and nowadays use both to prove a point or two.

Finally the critique singles out the use of english only reports. English is the prime language of science. The secure archives such as Cochrane, UCLA, PUBMED NIH, NIM, EU all hold papers published in the english language. The journal houses and open acces media are not so restrained, but even Elsevier and PLOSONE insist on english. Most media outlets such as New Scientist, Lancet and Nature use english. What is the big deal?

 

[GHughes]

Before anyone gets excited about this, please take some time to look at the authors and their funding, and then ask yourself if the study is truly independent and valid. There is nothing in this abstract that describes what methodology they used to form their conclusion from, and it seems to be smoke and mirrors.

Edit to add: I am suspicious of anyone publishing a headline report then hiding it behind a paywall, If it is valid science, then why is it not in the public domain? NIH/ NCBI/ Cochrane?

And it has a glossy video too? My hackles are raised. My BS detector is alarming.

 

[GHughes]

The info about fats ...

/newsinhealth.nih.gov/2019/03/skinny-fat

Esp this paragraph...

Recent studies suggest that some full-fat dairy products, such as yogurt, may actually have benefits for the heart, Krauss says.