American college of cardiology says saturated fat is ok!

Mbaker said:

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.

Click to expand...

Dark Horse said:

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​

Click to expand...

Dark Horse said:

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​

Click to expand...

Oldvatr said:

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

Click to expand...

Dark Horse said:

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.

Click to expand...

Oldvatr said:

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.

Click to expand...