News
Top blogs
Podcast
Topics
EventsHeadlines all over the world: the fear of fat was a mistake from the beginning
Butter, healthy again
The advice from the 1980’s about avoiding butter lacked evidence. The entire Western world received dietary guidelines that had never been shown to do any good.
This may be old news for the regular reader here, but now the knowledge is spreading faster and faster around the world.
A new scientific review shows that the advice completely lacked evidence of any benefit when it was first introduced. This hit the big headlines around the world yesterday:
- The Telegraph: Guidelines to avoid fat should never have been introduced
- TIME: Where Dietary-Fat Guidelines Went Wrong
- Times LIVE: ‘We’ve been sold a big fat lie’
- Reuters: The fat fight: Study fuels row over UK, U.S. diet guidelines
- The Verge: Low-fat diet advice was based on undercooked science
- Daily Record: Butter isn’t bad for you after all: Scots researchers claim advice on fatty foods was flawed
- Mashable: Butter and cheese may not be so bad for you after all, study says
- Mail Online: What irony. By scaring us off butter they’ve made us fatter – and more unhealthy writes JOHN NAISH
- The Herald: It’s official (38 years on): links between saturated fat and health have no scientific basis, say Scots researchers
- Tech Times: Forget Low Fat: Butter, Other Fatty Food Not Bad For You, Says New Study
- NHS: 1980s fat guidelines ‘lacked evidence,’ study argues
The old fear of fat is dying out. Those who are still afraid of natural fat today haven’t yet managed to update their knowledge. Unfortunately, this includes quite a few older experts who govern our official dietary guidelines.
Getting over the fear of fat is absolutely necessary to return to honest, real food, which is needed to get away from calorie obsession and starvation dieting. It’s necessary to turn round the epidemics of obesity and diabetes and other related disorders. It is necessary and it can’t wait.
Fortunately, repeated headlines like these show that the Food Revolution continues, all around the world.
Previously
The Beginning and End of the Fear of Fat
The Fear of Fat Goes Into Free Fall
Big Fat Surprise Among the Best Books of the Year
Saturated Fat and Butter: From Enemy to Friend
Dramatically Improved Heart Health in Sweden!
WSJ: The Last Anti-Fat Crusaders
TIME: Eat Butter. Scientists Labeled Fat the Enemy. Why They Were Wrong.
The Daily Express online in the UK recently had two articles on statins on the same day. One was how statins were a total scam and were bad for most people, the other was how statins will save everyone. People have just completely disengaged and I can't really blame them.
"Feds May Finally Ditch Cholesterol Warning"
http://reason.com/blog/2015/02/10/cholesterol-warning-may-be-ditched
which is also being reported by the Washington Post.
We're seeing this week a flurry of "the emperor has no clothes, and never did" journal and news articles. I'm expecting Consensus Medicine™ to launch coordinated denials (and they need to, as they have murdered millions, and have a lot to answer for).
This is going to cause many eyes to glaze over, but it's a process that is necessary.
Denise Minger explained in her blog.
http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/12/22/the-truth-about-ancel-keys-weve-all-...
Ancel didn’t buy it. In his 1952 paper
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/5/1/115.full.pdf
“Human atherosclerosis and the diet” (PDF)
, he writes that “from these animal experiments only, the most reasonable conclusion would be that the cholesterol content of human diets is unimportant in human atherosclerosis.” Likewise, in some of his metabolic ward studies, Keys found that altering dietary cholesterol in the context of a normal diet had only minor effects on blood cholesterol, concluding that “attention to this factor alone accomplishes little.”
And in his paper
“The relationship of the diet to the development of atherosclerosis in man,”
Keys is pretty clear about his views:
The evidence—both from experiments and from field surveys—indicates that the cholesterol content, per se, of all natural diets has no significant effect on either the serum cholesterol level or the development of atherosclerosis in man."
If it takes them more than 63 years to understand the effect of dietary cholesterol on total cholesterol and change the advice they give, it's not going to be in my lifetime that they recognize particularly for OLDER people
higher LDL-C level is associated with lower risk of all-cause mortality.
http://www.atherosclerosis-journal.com/article/S0021-9150%2815%290003...
And as I suspect you know, association of LDL-C with anything is tenuous at best. LDL-C (the "C" standing for calculated) is based on an old and crude equation (Friedewald) that was itself based on questionable assumptions that fall apart for many people doing LCHF (and it doesn't account for some key adverse genotypes in any case).
When Consensus Medicine™ starts routinely looking at LDL-P (actual particles), then a small chance arises that they might have something useful to say. Right now, my lay opinion is that the only thing on a standard lipid panel that's meaningful is TG. Everything else is, at best, an indicator that real lipoprotein testing might be needed.
Anyhow.. its more complicated then LDL-P/C!
Rather its HDL thats importante.. in conjuction whit other markers.. like IR!
High HDL is almoste everytime good.. both LDL and Trg dosent matter that much then.
On the other side.. if one have low HDL.. then other markers is importante.. perticaly IR!
"It is well known that high levels of LDL-C, low levels of HDL-C and high levels of triglycerides (TG) are each by itself a major risk factor for developing CVD (4,5,6).
But what about lipid combinations. What if both LDL-C and HDL-C are high? Will high HDL-C wipe out the risk associated with high LDL-C? And what about TG? How do they affect the mixture?"
"Interestingly, low HDL-C alone or in combination with a high LDL-C and/or high TG was the category associated with the greatest risk of CVD.
When compared with HDL-C, LDL-C alone was associated with only a marginally increased risk of CVD. For example, the hazard ratio for the group with low HDL-C but normal LDL-C and normal TG was 1.93 while the group with high LDL-C but normal HDL-C and normal TG had a hazard ratio of 1.28.
In contrast to HDL-C or LDL-C alone, no increase in CVD risk was associated with high TG alone."
"The authors of the above paper cite two recent studies that suggest that HDL-C is a surrogate marker (8,9). This may imply that low HDL-C is not problematic in itself but is associated with some other factor that can increase risk. But, where is the missing link?
It is known that low HDL-C and high TG commonly occur together. In fact, the TG/HDL-ratio (10) is strongly associated with the incidence (11) and the extent (12) of coronary artery disease.
Low HDL-C and high TG are very often related to obesity and metabolic syndrome. These situations are characterised by the phenomenon we call insulin resistance."
http://www.docsopinion.com/2015/01/18/cholesterol-and-heart-disease-a...
here is a must read by Dr. Peter Attia:
http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-p...
Read all 9 parts and you will know 90% more than
your doctor about the issue.
Nope. Calculated.
http://www.wheatbellyblog.com/2013/11/a-grain-eaters-cholesterol-panel/
That and TC, as well as the common but unrelated PSA and TSH, are mostly-useless numbers that clueless MDs use to prescribe mostly-useless meds (or in the case of LDL-C, actually dangerous meds). Useful labs are available for all of these, but only if the client knows it, and digs their heels in about getting them.
And to that, if one want only one marker.. its APOb100!
It can predict a lot of bad things if its to high, FH, IR, MetSyndrome, Diabetes!
So it is the companions of markers and syndromes that predict if one is in harms way!
High HDL-C or APOa1 almoste everytime lower the risk ratio.. but not completely!
Cholesterole levels or lipoprotein levels are often markers for other things thats bad and affect your longevety/risk for CVD!
The problem is that people/doctors threat the symptomes, not the problem that caused it!
Its time to understand that different causes need different treatments!
I know, (I think?) cases that statins/fibrates are apropriate, its if one got FH, is a middleage male and have ridicilus high APOb!
It dont means that one feel good, but it probably give a better longevity?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Low-density_lipoprotein
They actualy measure Total cholesterole and the cholesterole in HDL, then they calculate LDL-C by Freidewalds formula!
LDL/HDL-C to separat frome LDL/HDL-P.. how is the particel numbers.. often labeld as APOb and APOa1!
I think its NMR that actualy counts LDL/HDL-P?
APOb/APOa1 counts the apolipoproteins thats only one in every lipoprotein.
Seems people have been saying this about fat and sugar for awhile.
Along with these headlines is the British Medical Journal == telling us now about the ties between the sugar industry and government.
Too late to issue an apology to sugar warners like John Yudkin (8 August 1910 – 12 July 1995) was a British physiologist and nutritionist, and the founding Professor of the Department of Nutrition at Queen Elizabeth College, London. He gained an international reputation with his recommendation of a low-carbohydrate diet for those wishing to lose weight, and with his warnings that excessive consumption of sugar (sucrose) was dangerous to health.?
Yudkin's '’Pure, White and Deadly'’, published in 1972, was written for a lay readership. Its intention was to summarise the evidence that the over-consumption of sugar was leading to a greatly increased incidence of coronary thrombosis, and that in addition it was certainly involved in dental caries, probably involved in obesity, diabetes and liver disease, and possibly involved in gout, dyspepsia and some cancers. The book drew on many studies from Yudkin's own Department and also on much other biochemical and epidemiological research in the UK and elsewhere. '’Pure, White and Deadly'’ was extremely successful. It appeared as '’Sweet and Dangerous'’ in the USA, and was translated into Finnish, German, Hungarian, Italian, Japanese and Swedish. A revised and expanded edition was published in 1986. The last paragraph of Chapter 1 begins 'I hope that when you have read this book I shall have convinced you that sugar is really dangerous.' The message was naturally extremely unwelcome to the sugar industry and to the manufacturers of processed foods who used (and use) sugar in large quantities in their products, and these firms employed a number of methods to impede Yudkin's work. The final Chapter of '’Pure, White and Deadly'’ lists several examples of attempts to interfere with the funding of his research and to prevent its publication. It also gives examples of the rancorous language and personal smears that the American epidemiologist Ancel Keys, who had proposed that saturated fat was the primary cause of heart disease, employed to dismiss the evidence that sugar was the true culprit. The efforts of the food industry to discredit the case against sugar were largely successful, and by the time of Yudkin's death in 1995 his warnings were, for the most part, no longer being taken seriously.
In the 12 months since I started this lifestyle , I've lost 8 kg and kept it off , my cholesterol level went from 7,1 to 4,8. I weight train and cycle off road. I'm 181 cm and weigh 77 kg. Oh yes. And I'm 45 years old.
I haven't had a day off sick in over a year.
I think I'll keep eating this way.
Thanks.
Cereal Killers Movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt4008352/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1
https://www.yekra.com/cereal-killers-2?utm_source=yek_member&utm...
"Eighty percent of cases of pancreatitis are caused by alcohol or gallstones. Gallstones are the single most common cause of acute pancreatitis.[1] Alcohol is the single most common cause of chronic pancreatitis.[2][3][4][5][6]
Some medications are commonly associated with pancreatitis, most commonly corticosteroids such as prednisolone, but also including the HIV drugs didanosine and pentamidine, diuretics, the anticonvulsant valproic acid, the chemotherapeutic agents L-asparaginase and azathioprine, estrogen by way of increased blood triglycerides,[7] and antihyperglycemic agents like metformin,[8] vildagliptin,[9] and sitagliptin.[10] It may be noted here that the drugs which are used to treat conditions which are themselves associated with increased events of pancreatitis may also be incidentally linked to pancreatitis. Examples include statins in dyslipidemia and gliptins in diabetes. According to the Food and Drug Administration's MedWatch Surveillance System and Published Reports Atypical, atypical antipsychotics such as clozapine, risperidone, and olanzapine can also be responsible for causing pancreatitis.[11]
Other common causes include trauma, mumps, autoimmune disease, high blood calcium, hypothermia, and endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP). Pancreas divisum is a common congenital malformation of the pancreas that may underlie some recurrent cases. Diabetes mellitus type 2 is associated with a 2.8-fold higher risk.[12]
Less common causes include pancreatic cancer, pancreatic duct stones,[13] vasculitis (inflammation of the small blood vessels in the pancreas), coxsackievirus infection, and porphyria—particularly acute intermittent porphyria and erythropoietic protoporphyria.
There is an inherited form that results in the activation of trypsinogen within the pancreas, leading to autodigestion. Involved genes may include Trypsin 1, which codes for trypsinogen, SPINK1, which codes for a trypsin inhibitor, or cystic fibrosis transmembrane conductance regulator.[14]
The mnemonic GETSMASHED is often used to remember the common causes of Pancreatitis: G - Gall stones E - Ethanol T - Trauma S - Steroids M - Mumps A - Autoimmune Pancreatitis S - Scorpion sting H - Hyperlipidaemia, Hypothermia, Hyperparathyroidism E - Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography D - Drugs commonly azathioprine, valproic acid
Infectious causes[edit]
A number of infectious agents have been recognized as causes of pancreatitis including:[15]
Viruses
Coxsackie virus
Cytomegalovirus
Hepatitis B
Herpes simplex virus
Mumps
Varicella-zoster virus
Bacteria
Legionella
Leptospira
Mycoplasma
Salmonella
Fungi
Aspergillus
Parasites
Ascaris
Cryptosporidium
Toxoplasma"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pancreatitis
You got pancreatitis.. but I think you should look otherwhere for causes!
"...high fat diets work for some people, but for others, it can be dangerous or even deadly."
That helps exactly nobody.
The backlash begins: Marion Nestle 2/13/15 wrote http://www.foodpolitics.com/2015/02/whats-up-with-the-cholesterol-gui...
You'd think someone who wrote a book called "Food Politics" would have a clue!
You ain't seen nothin' yet. Moneyed interests and discredited authorities abound.
If we are lucky, what the general public will principally learn from the emerging shifts in advice and discordance on data is: government advice on pretty much any topic is not to be trusted, and I need to do my own homework.
Alas, what they are more likely to conclude is: sigh, yet another flip-flop, I guess no dietary advice matters, so hand me another Twinkie.
These are hereditary defects in heme synthesis that can be symptomless in some people until they go into ketosis. Carbohydrate relieves the symptoms, which can be very similar to what you describe.
We will see more cases of porphyria exposed as LCHF becomes more popular. Doctors in EDs might not be good at spotting it.
I think it very likely that you have acute intermittent porphyria, and that this is the cause of your pancreatitis.
Acute intermittent porphyria presenting as acute pancreatitis and posterior reversible encephalopathy syndrome.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18975524
Acute intermittent porphyria with relapsing acute pancreatitis and unconjugated hyperbilirubinemia without overt hemolysis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/950100
A case of acute intermittent porphyria with acute pancreatitis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1826102
The glucose effect in acute porphyrias
http://www.porphyriafoundation.com/about-porphyria/diet-and-nutrition...
I want to repeat that we ARE going to be seeing more cases where low-carb eating brings on acute porphyrias in those people who do not know they have this condition, and LCHF doctors and dietitians should be aware of the symptoms.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acute_intermittent_porphyria
Based on the eitiology and pathology of acute porphyrias, the optimal diet would seem to be something like the Perfect Health Diet - a moderate amount of low GI starch, spread through the day, and regular meals containing red meat.
"It's hilarious - to get vitamins and minerals we eat food. To get protein we eat it. To get water we drink it. YOu can't pour bacon grease down the sink or it will get clogged. But for some reason people think when you consume cholesterol it doesn't affect the body. It just disappears!"
These idiots are completely out of touch with the concept of homeostasis, in addition to other realities, like the fact my arteries are not cold iron pipes. Guess what darlin'? If you don't consume enough cholesterol, your body will make its own. In fact, if you look at how many long term, carb-addicted vegans become obese, you have to assume the body, bereft of a dietary source of needed lipids, decides to store a giant safety raft of them around its midsection.
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199103283241306
There are 2 interesting details regarding this case report:
1. After consuming more cholesterol from these eggs than the overall need of his body, the gentleman's digestive system just scrapped the extra load of cholesterol. So, least surprisingly, only the amount needed was absorbed.
2. No one less than Ancel Keys himself commented on the paper (see the Correspondence link to the right):
That's what the NHS source cited above (i.e. the last source on the list presented in the article) concludes so the NHS is not really embracing LCHF - quite the opposite (and they emphasise this many times in their news article). I think the way and the context in which the NHS source was referenced may mislead readers of Dr. Andreas Eenfeldt's article and make them incorrectly assume that the NHS endorses the LCHF diet while it does the opposite.
I think it would be more appropriate if Dr. Eenfeldt made an attempt to refute all the anti-LCHF points made by the NHS. I am sure I am not the only one who would consider that a very interesting read indeed.