Government Guidelines on Low-fat Diet Were Not Supported by Science

Buy Lab Tests Online

Vince

Super Moderator
- Health Impact News - http://healthimpactnews.com- Study: Government Guidelines on Low-fat Diet Were Not Supported by Science

Posted By Admin On February 18, 2015 @ 10:56 am In Real Food Nutrition | Comments Disabled High fat dairy products have been a part of traditional diets around the world for thousands of years, but declared “unhealthy” by the USDA in the 1970s after the McGovern Report.

Brian Shilhavy
Health Impact News Editor
The British Medical Journal (BMJ) has published a new meta-analysis looking at randomised controlled trials (RCTs) that were available to US and UK regulatory committees that adopted low-fat dietary guidelines in the 1970s and 1980s to supposedly reduce coronary heart disease (CHD). The study was published in their online OpenHeart Journal . Zoë Harcombe is the lead author of the study.
The authors state that to date, no analysis of the evidence base for recommending a low-fat diet to reduce heart disease has ever been studied. So the authors conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of the RCTs that were published prior to 1983, which examined the relationship between dietary fat, serum cholesterol and the development of coronary heart disease.
After analyzing multiple studies that included 2467 males, the authors found “no differences in all-cause mortality and non-significant differences in CHD mortality, resulting from the dietary interventions.”
They therefore concluded that:
Dietary recommendations were introduced for 220 million US and 56 million UK citizens by 1983, in the absence of supporting evidence from RCTs.
Here is a video clip showing actual statements made by scientists to then governor George McGovern in a Congressional hearing where they stated the exact same thing, that the science did not support the theory of a low-fat diet preventing heart disease:


How Many Lives Have Been Ruined by the Low-fat Theory of Heart Disease?

Time Magazine cover story in 2014. Scientists were wrong about saturated fats. They don’t cause heart disease after all.

Time Magazine, which led the charge against saturated fats and cholesterol in support of the “lipid theory” of heart disease in the 1970s and 1980s, did an about face last year (2014) and admitted they were wrong.
As we reported here at Health Impact News last year, this sudden change in press coverage over saturated fats seems to have been brought about by consumer demand, as big food manufacturers finally threw in the towel and admitted defeat in the war pitting margarine against butter: butter won. Butter consumption is at an all-time high now, as consumers wised up before mainstream media told them it was OK to start eating butter again.
Time Magazine ran a cover story that read: “Ending the War on Fat.”
So if there was never any solid science to back the lipid theory of heart disease, how did it get started in the first place?
While the answer to that question has been answered numerous times for decades in the alternative media, Time.com was one of the first in the mainstream media to report it in 2014:
The war against fat was started by one man: Much of what we think we know about the supposed dangers of high fat intake comes from a single research project by a charismatic Minnesota pathologist named Ancel Keys. His Seven Countries Study compared the health and diet of nearly 13,000 middle-aged men in the U.S., Japan and Europe, and ostensibly found that populations that consumed large amounts of saturated fats in meat and dairy had high levels of heart disease, while those who eat more grains, fish, nuts and vegetables did not. The influential Keys relentlessly advocated the theory that fat caused heart disease, persuading the AHA in 1961 to issue the country’s first-ever guidelines targeting saturated fat—and he wasn’t shy about shouting down any researcher who questioned his data.
Yet it turns out there was a lot to question. Keys chose the countries most likely to confirm his hypothesis, while excluding nations like France—where the diet is rich in fat but heart disease is rare—that might have challenged it. “When researchers went back and analyzed some of the data from the Seven Countries study, they found that what best correlated with heart disease was no saturated fat intake but sugar,” says Teicholz. (Source.)
Even more damaging than publishing faulty dietary guidelines, something the USDA continues to do through the present now in 2015, was using the lipid theory of heart disease proposed by Keys to develop new cholesterol-lowering drugs called “statins.” They became the best-selling class of drugs in the history of pharmaceuticals.
In 2011, Paul John Scott wrote an editorial for the Star Tribune criticizing the University of Minnesota research of Ancel Keys. In a very astute commentary he clearly showed just why the mainstream media and Big Pharma were not so eager to criticize the junk science of Ancel Keys, and why even today this anti-saturated fat myth will continue to be official USDA dietary dogma:
In fact, one could argue that Minnesota-based research has its fingerprints on the most damaging wrong turn ever taken in how we think about cardiovascular illness, a mistake that continues to cost our nation in sickness and in dollars, and one for which health authorities remain too embarrassed, confused, blinded by ideology or loyalty to tribe to concede.
We told the world that heart disease is caused by elevated cholesterol and that reducing saturated fat in the diet reduces this risk. That led the country to embrace the lowering of cholesterol with medications.
All of those assumptions have proven themselves to be either overstated, oversimplified or wrong, and that has led us astray. Would it be too much for the leading cardiologists in our community to admit as much?
“It was also nearly 60 years ago,” as Dr. Daniel J. Garry extolled on these pages (“Treating heart disease at the U: A story of steady innovations,” April 14), “that University of Minnesota scientists — Dr. Ancel Keys along with Drs. Francisco Grande and Joseph Anderson — defined the relationship between dietary fat and serum cholesterol, which linked cholesterol to heart disease.”
Garry went on to praise the creation of cholesterol-lowering drugs that stemmed from Keys’ work.
Keys constructed his hypothesis after studying the diets and heart disease in countries across the globe.
But his research left out nations with data that did not match the hypothesis, and even within the data he published, populations existed in which diet and heart disease were wildly out of synch with his model.
By 1970, an English researcher named John Yudkin would argue that sugar in the diet was the cause of heart disease in wealthy nations, but Keys, sensing that his theory was suddenly vulnerable to reconsideration, aggressively led the charge to have that research discredited.
Today, the low-fat advice that ensued from Keys’ research is seen as having had a blowback. It caused a rise in our consumption of refined carbohydrates and added sugars, thereby causing metabolic syndrome characterized by a rise in triglycerides and a lowering of HDL, or good cholesterol.
Statins lower LDL, or “bad cholesterol,” and thanks to Keys, the lowering of LDL has become “the primary focus of preventive medicine in the United States,” in the words of Dr. John Abramson, author of “Overdosed America.” (Source.)
Don’t expect Big Pharma and the USDA dietary guidelines to change anytime soon. They have much more to lose in the market place than just slumping sales of margarine due to consumer demand for butter. No, what is at stake here is a multi-billion dollar industry of lowering people’s cholesterol levels through medication.
So until Americans wake up and realize that statin drugs are one of biggest scams in the history of health care, the cholesterol anti-saturated fat myth will persist. Butter is healthy (if comes from milk of healthy cows), and adding healthy saturated fats back into the diet (including coconut oil) is a positive step in the right direction.
But until consumers start “saying no to drugs” – statin drugs – the nation’s health will continue to suffer. The cholesterol drug war rages on.

See Also:Statin Drug Scandal: Cholesterol-lowering Drug Researchers Start Backtracking [SUP][8][/SUP]

Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You!
What REALLY Causes Heart Disease
by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD






Article printed from Health Impact News: http://healthimpactnews.com
URL to article: http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/st...n-low-fat-diet-were-not-supported-by-science/





Click here to print. Copyright © 2014 Sophia Media Network. All rights reserved.
 
Defy Medical TRT clinic doctor

croaker24

New Member
Healthimpactnews.com????? Look at this:

We publish articles in this category from the senior editor of Health Impact News, Brian Shilhavy, that look at the ancient cultures in the Bible and how they viewed health. We also feature writers and articles from the Discovery Institute and other places that view science from an Intelligent Design perspective. - See more at: http://healthimpactnews.com/about-health-impact-news/#sthash.qw7krTpD.dpuf

The same folks pushing anti-science idiocy such as Intelligent Design and we're supposed to take them seriously??? I sure as hell don't think so.

You do realize that a low-carb/higher-fat diet could HARM some people who do not have the right genome for such a diet. Consider for example, those with the wrong ApoE genotype - those with e4/e4 or e4/e3 - a higher fat diet could do some damage. The Cleveland Clinic states that statins often does not work well for these people - and a very low-fat diet is sometimes the only choice that they have because their genotype does not allow them to clear out this fat efficiently. I think I'm going to trust the Cleveland Clinic a little more than some Intelligent Design wahoos.
 

Vince

Super Moderator
ABSTRACT Apolipoprotein E (apoE) plays an important role in lipid metabolism. Its epsilon4 allele has been consistently associated with lipoprotein disorders but its connection to myocardial infarction (MI) is controversial. Because epsilon4 frequency decreases with age we thought that the contradictory results in different studies could be due to the wide age range of the subjects included. To test our hypothesis, ApoE genotyping was performed in 474 MI cases and an analysis was performed by percentiles of age. The frequencies of epsilon3epsilon4 genotype and epsilon4 allele in the MI group as a whole (subjects aged 31 to 92) were not significantly different from those in our area general population. However, significant differences were observed when comparing by group of age. The frequencies decreased as age increased. The epsilon3epsilon4 and epsilon4 frequencies were significantly higher in MI subjects aged 31 to 56 than in subjects over 74. The epsilon3epsilon4 genotype prevalence in an age and sex matched control group of subjects aged 31 to 56 was significantly lower than in the 31-56 year-old MI group. In conclusion, our data shows different epsilon3epsilon4 and epsilon4 frequencies depending on the age range of the subjects with MI, being significantly higher in the middle-aged group. This finding may help explain the discrepancies between studies analyzing association between apoE genotype and MI, and emphasizes the idea of considering apoE genotype for prevention at early age.
ɛ3ɛ4 Genotype as Risk Factor of Myocardial Infarction in Middle-Aged People in Spain - ResearchGate. Available from: http://www.researchgate.net/publica...ial_Infarction_in_Middle-Aged_People_in_Spain [accessed Aug 22, 2015].
 

Vince

Super Moderator
I do know some people who are apo-e 3/4, I don't know anyone who is apo-e 4/4. The ones I know are told to start with a high fat diet, stay away from carbs and make adjustments from there.

Estimated Genotype Frequency:
2/2 (~1-2%), 2/3 (~15%), 2/4 (~1-2%),
3/3 (~55%), 3/4 (~25%), 4/4 (~1-2%)
 

Vince

Super Moderator
Personally I would never tell anyone to take a statin "it's a personal choice"

ApoE genotype is 3/3. Apolipoprotein E2 and E3 patients respond well to statin drugs, such as atorvastatin, pravastatin, or lovastatin
Omega-3 fatty acid supplementation has been shown to benefit apoE2 and apoE3 patients. If the patient also has insulin resistance, a
low carbohydrate or Mediterranean diet may be appropriate. Therapy should be individualized.
 

croaker24

New Member
I would take a statin only as a last recourse - or any drug or supplement for that matter; and endeavor to make all lifestyle changes that I could to avoid doing so - in fact, I *am* doing so now. Nothing is truly safe, without side effects; not vitamins and supplements, certainly not any prescription or OTC drugs - I should know as I got bit majorly by one antibiotic that was not long after pulled off the market to be used for only special circumstances; lost my sense of smell due to nasal steroids for bad allergies - and the ENT never told me that this was a potential side effect, and may have my T crashed due to PPIs that I did not need.

But statins have been around for a while, are actually one of the better drugs, and has helped many people and saved lives - but are not appropriate for everyone. Yes they have potential side effects. A lot of alt med types love jumping on them with fallacious sweeping statements or Big Pharm conspiracies theories; but for some, there's no other options. For them - lifestyle changes won't do squat.

My previous and current PCPs, a cardiologist and a endocrinologist that I know all discussed how they hate prescribing meds of any kind but the vast majority of their patients just do not have the discipline to make lifestyle changes. My PCP as a rule inquires about diet, exercise, and stress; has papers for his patients on the Mediterranean Diet, and so forth; but he said most people just don't care. I saw a recent survey that stated less than 10% of americans are getting the minimum recommended fruits/veggies daily.

I think people like you and I, Vince, are the rare exception, not the rule - where we try and make lifestyle changes via exercise, diet, and so on; and perhaps lucky enough that our genetics may not get in the way.

I do not like Big Pharm one whit - but many of those drugs are necessary for various reasons. Don't blame the Pharms or doctors, blame the people who simply will not see what lifestyle prevention can do for them. I look around my job in own department - about 15 people - and I can see only about 5 of us who bring their lunch daily, rather than eat fast food junk, only 4 of us who get the minimum fruits/veggies; and then only 3 of us exercising adequately; but none close to what I do.

I suspect this is typical - hence all these people taking drugs that they do not want.
 

Vince

Super Moderator
I believe that statins have anti-inflammatory properties but does not stop the growth of plaque. It causes plaque to become stable, soft plaque ruptures and causes massive heart attacks. I would quess stable plaque causes angina and then they would stent instead of bypass.

In the US the average age for a first heart attack in men is 65.
 

Vince

Super Moderator
my dad had his first heart attack at age 60 and my mom age 70 and both had bypass surgery. Both of my parents are alive today but my dad has had at least 12 heart attacks. After his first heart attack he completely changed his lifestyle, ate lots of fruits and vegetables and healty grains, walked 5 miles everyday and continues living a healthy lifestyle but it doesn't stop his coronary artery disease.
 
Buy Lab Tests Online

Sponsors

bodybuilder test discounted labs
Defy Medical TRT clinic
nelson vergel coaching for men
Discounted Labs
TRT in UK Balance my hormones
Testosterone books nelson vergel
Register on ExcelMale.com
Trimix HCG Offer Excelmale
Thumos USA men's mentoring and coaching
Testosterone TRT HRT Doctor Near Me
how to save your marriage

Online statistics

Members online
3
Guests online
7
Total visitors
10

Latest posts

Top