Dr. Aseem Malhotra is an advisor to The National Obesity Forum, who happen to be funded by British Meat Nutrition Education Services, pharmaceutical companies (GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, Abbott Labs), weight loss businesses (LighterLife UK, Slim Fast Foods Ltd), and many others interested in keeping people confused National Obesity Forum - Our Partners The real financial benefits are going to those who sell products (drugs and diets) to treat the problems caused by the very foods they happen to recommend.
-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
New Guidelines: Cholesterol Should Be On Everyone's Radar, Beginning Early In Life
- Thread starter Mito
- Start date
Dr. Aseem Malhotra is an advisor to The National Obesity Forum, who happen to be funded by British Meat Nutrition Education Services, pharmaceutical companies (GlaxoSmithKline, Sanofi-Aventis, Roche, Abbott Labs), weight loss businesses (LighterLife UK, Slim Fast Foods Ltd), and many others interested in keeping people confused National Obesity Forum - Our Partners The real financial benefits are going to those who sell products (drugs and diets) to treat the problems caused by the very foods they happen to recommend.
A fallacious appeal to authority is, one where the authority has no legitimate expertise pertaining to the topic at hand. So no fallacy here. He is right about many of the opposing views coming from random bloggers, not that he hasn't addressed various doctors in the past. Then, if you watch his stuff he attacks people's arguments and not them.
The second paper I cited states: ''There are strong, consistent, and graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and the mass occurrence of CVD. The relationships are accepted as causal.''
There is also plenty of evidence which supports statin use in patients after a heart attack[1], post stroke[2] and in those with angina and elevated cholesterol[3]. For patients with known coronary heart disease, improvements have been shown not only for future cardiovascular events, but also for all-cause mortality[4]. A number of randomised controlled trials have shown benefit in reducing cardiovascular events[5-7]. In another paper the group analysed data from 27 randomised controlled trials (134,537 pts in total). They found that, for every 18 mg/dl that statins lowered cholesterol, patients benefited from a 21% reduction in vascular events[8].
Refs:
1 NEJM - Error
2 NEJM - Error
3 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(94)90566-5/fulltext
4 Statin Therapy in the Prevention of Recurrent Cardiovascular Events
5 NEJM - Error
6 https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/fullarticle/187569
7 https://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa0807646
8 https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(12)60367-5/fulltext
tankasnowgod
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
Agree, the problematic foods are, and always have been, iron "fortified" grains, and the poly-unsaturated oils. I am not familiar with The National Obesity Forum, as it is a UK org, but it looks no different to me than The American Heart Association. Neither sells a product, they sell an "agenda," while taking money from various levels of government, donations from corporations, and (in the case of the AMA), selling "Heart Checks" to various manufacturers to display on their products.
Queequeg
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
You’re confusing an appeal to a false authority with an appeal to a real authority, both however are fallacious arguments in a strictly logical sense as they are not proof of anything; one is an uninformed opinion and one is an informed opinion.
“One of the great commandments of science is, "Mistrust arguments from authority." ... Too many such arguments have proved too painfully wrong. Authorities must prove their contentions like everybody else. “ Carl Sagan
As for the validity of the lipid hypothesis, I would suggest you read studies on both sides and then make up your own mind. With billions of dollars at stake, it's obvious that there will be plenty of studies that demonize cholesterol and show that Statins work.. that of course doesn’t mean that they do. It’s been shown that most clinical studies can’t be replicated, especially those funded by the drug companies. Also remember that the same people promoting the lipid hypothesis are the same ones promoting PUFAs.
Since we are on the RPF, here is another appeal to authority.
Cholesterol, longevity, intelligence, and health.
"The correspondence between heart disease and consumption of saturated fat and cholesterol is little more than advertising copy. If people were looking for the actual causes of heart disease, they would consider the factors that changed in the US during the time that heart disease mortality was increasing. Both increases in harmful factors, and decreases in protective factors would have to be considered. "
"Many participants in the cholesterol-lowering cult believe that they have succeeded in hijacking our science culture, but when the patents on another generation of their drugs have expired, the cult could begin to fade away." RP
Last edited:
Glassy
Member
I’m mildly curious about my cholesterol levels but at 39 years old have never had them checked even though a test would be close to free in my country. I am much more curious to know more about my hormone levels because I can influence them and I see a more direct relationship between them and my health/wellbeing. If I get my cholesterol checked and the levels are abnormal, I then need to decide if there is a problem that’s worth treating. The standard drugs for lower cholesterol are effective at lowering cholesterol but not for extending life or promoting wellness. Why measure something that is at best an indicator of poor health and not just make the best lifestyle choices you can?
Cirion
Member
High cholesterol is actually your body keeping you alive in a state of stress. So yes, in an unhealthy state, high cholesterol is not unexpected. But actually it's keeping you alive, so if you artificially lower it via statins, it could very well cause more stress and possibly kill you.
Much like how dialysis is a horrible idea for most people, because water retention and salt retention is... you guessed it... a way of keeping you alive during times of stress. Take out the salt, you can die (Nate hatch talks about this). Thus, while most unhealthy people have high sodium levels, the high sodium keeps them alive, and is necessary. Sodium is good for you.
All the medical community can do is think linearly, so I trust almost no Dr.'s any more.
More people who have high sodium levels die than those who have lower. Sodium is bad, better stop eating salt!
More people who have high cholesterol levels die than those who have lower. Cholesterol is bad, better stop eating eggs and better start taking a statin!
I feel like 99% of Dr.'s are just completely brain-dead and have zero critical thinking.
You see where I'm going with this. Never mind that the human body is the most complex machine ever built, even compared to the space shuttle. You can't reduce the body to such linear thinking.
Much like how dialysis is a horrible idea for most people, because water retention and salt retention is... you guessed it... a way of keeping you alive during times of stress. Take out the salt, you can die (Nate hatch talks about this). Thus, while most unhealthy people have high sodium levels, the high sodium keeps them alive, and is necessary. Sodium is good for you.
All the medical community can do is think linearly, so I trust almost no Dr.'s any more.
More people who have high sodium levels die than those who have lower. Sodium is bad, better stop eating salt!
More people who have high cholesterol levels die than those who have lower. Cholesterol is bad, better stop eating eggs and better start taking a statin!
I feel like 99% of Dr.'s are just completely brain-dead and have zero critical thinking.
You see where I'm going with this. Never mind that the human body is the most complex machine ever built, even compared to the space shuttle. You can't reduce the body to such linear thinking.
tankasnowgod
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
I want to address the statement I bolded.
First..... who "accepted" that any relationship between Saturated Fat and Blood Chlosterterol levels are in any way causal? Thanks to the passive voice, I can only assume that it is the authors of this study who accepted this, since is was the authors who deleted the subject of that sentence. I have no idea why they would "accept" such an idea, since there has never been any proof what so ever that Saturated Fat intake or blood cholesterol levels cause CVD. The only RCT to ever even suggest causality was the Finnish Mental Hospital trial, and since it used a "crossover" design for a very long term disease, their results are highly questionable.
Second..... depending on what epidemiological study you look at, you might find a relationship between SFA and BCL and CVD....... or, you might not. If you look at, far and away, the biggest epidemiological study, the MONItor trends in CArdiovascular diseases project, you find no such association. Considering it monitored over 10 million people, it is larger than all the other epidemiological studies combined.
So, a more accurate way to write that statement would be-
"There are some graded relationships between saturated fat intake, blood cholesterol levels, and mass occurrence of CVD in some studies, but there is no such association in others. Regardless of this, the authors of this study decided to accept this relationship, when it occurs, as causal."
Anyways, statin trials were they reduce cardiovascular events by 20% while not in any way reducing all cause mortality are never going to convince me to take an expensive drug with side effects that include diabetes, muscle neuropathy, transient global amnesia, and Alzheimer's Disease, especially when there is a cheap (free to me) method to slash cardiovascular, stroke, AND all cause mortality risks by 50% (or more) with only minor, transient side effects. Of course, I'm talking about Iron Reduction, as shown in the FeAST trial
https://static1.squarespace.com/sta...ntrolled_reduction_of_body_iron_stores_on.pdf
OP
Mito
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,554
Thanks for posting that, it matches well with Masterjohn’s explanation.
“Importantly, linoleic acid concentrations in both serum cholesteryl esters and phospholipid fatty acids are in fact higher in patients with CAD compared with those without CAD coronary artery disease.”
“In summary, numerous lines of evidence show that the omega-6 polyunsaturated fat linoleic acid promotes oxidative stress, oxidised LDL, chronic low-grade inflamation and atherosclerosis, and is likely a major dietaryculprit for causing CHD, especially when consumed in the form of industrial seed oils commonly referred to as ‘vegetable oils’.”
It would be great if there was a widely available way to test for the type of fatty acid concentratrations in the phospholipids of LDL particles. I suspect it would be much more predictive of CVD than just LDL particle number and ratios like TC/HDL.
Hugh Johnson
Member
On a positive note, families that listen to doctors will soon be taken out by natural selection. Maybe we can have some sanity then.
OP
Mito
Member
- Joined
- Dec 10, 2016
- Messages
- 2,554
LDL particles move in and out of the subendothelial space all the time. It seems logical that the more LDL particles there are in the blood the more LDL particles move in and out of the subendothelial space. It also seems logical that high blood pressure would force more LDL particles through the endothelial layer into the subendothelial space. Not all LDL particles are going to oxidize inside the subendothelial space, but if they do, then monocytes will be called into to subendothelial space to take care of the oxidized LDLs. This starts the process of creating the macrophages and foam cells which eventually lead to endothelial damage (requiring collagen for repair like you said) and more inflammation in the subendothelial space. Inflammation then makes the endothelial layer more permeable so more LDL particles can get inside.
The key seems to be whether or not the LDLs oxidize once inside the subendothelial space. Obviously one factor on whether or not they oxidize is how much PUFA in the phospholipids of the LDL. Another factor is how oxidizing of an environment is the subendothelial space? Things like antioxidant status or probably high free iron would impact it. If the LDL moves in and out of the subendothelial space quickly it’s less likely to oxidize. There are several things that impact how quickly the LDLs move in and out.
DaveFoster
Member
I said something like this before on the forum: an ironic justice that people who hate life and destroy society have no children, which saves their fellow man in the long-run.
That looks like a risk to me.
Cholesterol and saturated fat are not the culprits, not the cause of heart disease. Even the AMA has come around to the view that cholesterol is okay. One of Peat's main points is that PUFAs are damaging, not saturated fats. The above excellent Matthias Rath video says that atherosclerotic lesions result from lack of micronutrients--vitamin C, mainly--causing inability to maintain and repair collagen structures.
great video, thanks! Dr. Rath doesn't say "lack of collagen" that I noticed. He does say that more vitamin C is needed to help with collagen repair and that lysine and niacin will help. I'd add glycine, since more available glycine in the system will make it less likely the body will be using toxic glyphosate to form faulty collagen structures.
I've read this thread with interest. Based on this article by Ray Cholesterol, longevity, intelligence, and health. and just thinking about why heart disease is so prevalent, my present intuition is that heart disease is caused by inflammation and the primary source for that is PUFA.
Statins do not make sense to me anymore and Ray does not hold them in high esteem. It seems that cholesterol is a healthy substance even though elevated levels and particle sizes my indicate an underlying inflammatory issue. Genetic arguments do not make sense to me either other than some people may be able to consume higher amounts of inflammatory substances (due to some type of genetic protective factor?) without necessarily suffering the severe health consequences as much as someone else. For instance, we've all heard of outlier cases where some person lived to be 100 years old yet smoked 3 packs of cigarettes a day. For most of us, smoking leads to cancer.
I watched Dr. Rath's video in the quoted material above and he along with the late Linus Pauling are advocating a different approach where the focus is on lipoprotein A rather than LDL. They've conducted some impressive science and it is convincing that there may be a link between vitamin C and heart disease.
My question and reason for writing this is the Pauling/Rath therapy requires massive if not ridiculous amounts of vitamin C. I still wonder if the fundamental question is being asked by either the Statin people or the Pauling people. Why would statin therapy or massive vitamin C therapy be necessary in the first place - assuming people are getting normal amounts of healthy vitamins/nutrients in their diet to begin with? What is it that is making some of us very sick and why would such therapies even be necessary if we understood the underlying causes? That is a rhetorical question and I believe the answer lies in the inflammatory substances, like PUFA and others, that many of us have been consuming for much of our lives.
All that said, if you follow Ray's advice, there is some natural correlation, through natural substances to the Pauling/Rath therapy. For example, if you follow Ray's guidelines and consume say 100G of protein a day, you will get more than enough of either Lysine or Proline to satisfy that portion of the protocol. I looked at my protein consumption yesterday for example with four glasses of milk (32g protein), four tablespoons of Now Beef Gelatin (36g protein), and 24G of protein from a hamburger. According to my estimates, I had approximately 7.1g of Lysine and 9.3g of Proline which more that satisfies the protocol (if my calculations are correct).
Now the tricky part and my ultimate question. Ray says he consumes anywhere between a pint and a quart of OJ per day (other places he says even more) which would give him from about 250mg to 500mg or more of vitamin C per day. I had four glasses of OJ plus other fruit yesterday for about 550mg, for example. I've read many sources that say the industrialized/commercialized vitamin C in supplement form is often an overload to the system and much of it is excreted in the urine. Also, Ray talks about the supplement form as being possibly disruptive to our bowels. Thus, someone trying to take their 6g/day (or more) according to Pauling/Rath protocol - how much of it is actually bioavailable? My intuition tells me that 250mg to about 500mg a day from natural sources ought to be enough but would like others to chime in on this if possible. Is it possible 6g is the amount needed from supplements in order for our bodies to get the desired amount - assuming there is validity to the Pauling/Rath protocol?
tankasnowgod
Member
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2014
- Messages
- 8,131
I think you're post was quite good, but there is one thing I wanted to address...
If you look at the statistics when it comes to smokers and cancer, the vast majority will NOT develop cancer. Like, 90% of smokers. However, the risk of cancer, especially lung cancer, is significantly greater among smokers. It's ten times more prevalent. Regularly inhaling smoke is not healthy, especially since cigarettes contain a significant amount of tar and iron. Still, that means that 10% of smokers will get cancer as opposed to 1% of the population as a whole (at least what doctors identify as cancer). A dramatic increase..... but not most.
When thinking about it this way, it doesn't make the "outlier" cases you mention much of an outlier at all. It's almost more in line with the odds.
If you look at the statistics when it comes to smokers and cancer, the vast majority will NOT develop cancer. Like, 90% of smokers. However, the risk of cancer, especially lung cancer, is significantly greater among smokers. It's ten times more prevalent. Regularly inhaling smoke is not healthy, especially since cigarettes contain a significant amount of tar and iron. Still, that means that 10% of smokers will get cancer as opposed to 1% of the population as a whole (at least what doctors identify as cancer). A dramatic increase..... but not most.
When thinking about it this way, it doesn't make the "outlier" cases you mention much of an outlier at all. It's almost more in line with the odds.
Good stuff. Did not know that. I'd still rather be in the 1% club however even with those statistics.
Queequeg
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
We along with other primates lost the ability to synthesize Vitamin C millions of years ago due to a genetic mutation. This was actually selected for as primates/early humans were eating more than enough Vitamin C from their diets and self production would be wasteful. The problem for humans today is that we no longer eat Vitamin C in such mega doses so we are left in a chronic state of Vitamin C deficiency. While gorillas and chimps in the wild consume about 4-5 grams of vitamin C per day, the RDA for humans is 60 mg. Why would human's need for Vitamin C be so different from that of our closest ancestors?
ecstatichamster
Member
- Joined
- Nov 21, 2015
- Messages
- 10,537
I've heard this but I don't believe it. Something seems strange about this extrapolation. Nobody can easily get anywhere near those levels of C physiologically by just eating food.
Queequeg
Member
- Joined
- Sep 15, 2016
- Messages
- 1,191
Not with a human diet, but at one point in our evolutionary history we did. Perhaps initially when we started to change this diet we evolved methods to compensate such as recycling of vitamin C etc, but now with the modern diet of PUFAs and processed food this compensation is not enough and the protective effects of Vitamin C are needed more than any time in the past.
The Rath video presents some compelling evidence for the reversal of artherosclerosis by the Pauling Therapy (Vitamin C, Lysine, and proline). Also there are a ton of anecdotal stories of people's success with it online.
Here is an interesting article on primates in zoos coming down with heart disease.
SAVE THE GORILLAS
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
