Cost of Food & Obesity Amongst Poorer People

wotsthat

WISHIWASRICH wrote: »

Oh my! My kids have been completely indoctrinated with the good cholesterol - bad cholesterol stuff in biology and chemistry at GCSE and A Level. I always thought it was based on good research!!!

What's changed your mind? A couple of comments from people (you don't know) on an internet forum and a link to a sub £2 kindle book on the subject?

I've bought the book and am 20 or so pages in. So far I'm unimpressed with the tabloid scoop style of writing and the fact we've got nowhere near any evidence to support the cholesterol myth.

My understanding before this thread was that high cholesterol had been linked to heart disease. It doesn't follow that cholesterol causes heart disease or that zero cholesterol would therefore be a good thing.

CLAPTON

posh*spice wrote: »

It's a good book. I'm about 13% of the way in....

(Oh look who turned up again! My friend just posted this link on her FB wall.

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/05/we-die-instantly-without-cholesterol-so-why-do-we-try-to-stop-the-body-making-it/ )

I don't really have a view on the cholesterol controversy but it seems that the 'pro cholesterol ' group write total rubbish not dis-similar to the 'anti'.

posh*spice

wotsthat wrote: »

My understanding before this thread was that high cholesterol had been linked to heart disease. It doesn't follow that cholesterol causes heart disease or that zero cholesterol would therefore be a good thing.

I think that's the point of the book! If cholestrol doesn't cause heart disease why prescribe statins? Why prescribe statins to people who don't have heart disease just because they have "raised" cholestrol levels? And why even suggest that everyone should take statins? Why is the NHS spending £2 billion on statins? Why is the NHS wasting money on cholestrol testing? (And god knows how much the Americans waste on this.)

Why are statins being prescribed, and sold OTC, like sweets when there has to be serious concerns about their side effects?

Why can't the medical profession move on to a new hypothesis to find out what really causes heart disease?

(I've read 69%)

posh*spice

wotsthat wrote: »

I've bought the book and am 20 or so pages in. So far I'm unimpressed with the tabloid scoop style of writing and the fact we've got nowhere near any evidence to support the cholesterol myth.

Being 69% in I think that is grossly unfair. This book is packed full of evidence - but the guy is trying to make the material accessible to a wide audience - personally I think he's doing a great job.

I don't really understand your problem (other than the fact that you have only read 20 pages )

posh*spice

CLAPTON wrote: »

I don't really have a view on the cholesterol controversy but it seems that the 'pro cholesterol ' group write total rubbish not dis-similar to the 'anti'.

It matters because if you go into a hosptial you don't want to be prescribed a drug that might harm you.

It matters because 2 billion of pounds worth of tax payers money is spent on statins every year. (According to the link posted by rugged toast the americans spent $33 billion on statins in 2007 alone). That money could be spent on other areas of the NHS or just saved.

It matters because if science is going to help people with heart disease they should understand what causes heart disease.

It matters because to quote from Rugged Toast's link

"Dietary saturated fats were not associated with heart disease even after adjusting for other risk factors. Buried deep in the massive number of reports produced from the study is a quote from the investigators saying " ... there is, in short, no suggestion of any relationship between diet and the subsequent development of coronary heart disease in the study group."

Yet, he points out, "in clinical trials, researchers have been unable to generate compelling evidence that saturated fat in the diet causes heart disease.

Nevertheless, in the 1950s, the theory that saturated fat and cholesterol from animal sources raise cholesterol levels in the blood, leading to deposits of cholesterol and fatty material in the arteries that, in turn, leads to fatal heart disease took off. It was called the Lipid theory, and before long food manufacturers would recognize just how much money there was to be made by promoting it.

I'm sure this is what they teach in schools as gospel?

Will this change what you eat? Probably not? In the end most saturated fat is high in calories and is probably best avoided for that reason as being overweight is linked to heart disease? (Although there was a study recently which showed that the link was actually exercise http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19474239)

CLAPTON

posh*spice wrote: »

It matters because if you go into a hosptial you don't want to be prescribed a drug that might harm you.

It matters because 2 billion of pounds worth of tax payers money is spent on statins every year. (According to the link posted by rugged toast the americans spent $33 billion on statins in 2007 alone). That money could be spent on other areas of the NHS or just saved.

It matters because if science is going to help people with heart disease they should understand what causes heart disease.

It matters because to quote from Rugged Toast's link
I'm sure this is what they teach in schools as gospel?

Will this change what you eat? Probably not? In the end most saturated fat is high in calories and is probably best avoided for that reason as being overweight is linked to heart disease? (Although there was a study recently which showed that the link was actually exercise http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-19474239)

I have not studied the evidence on either side of the argument although I am generally against drugs or medical interventions unless very well established and am very well aware of the corrupt drug companies (I'm sure you read Ben Goldacre's stuff).

However the argument should be discussed in scientific terms and the not as a load of rhetorical fake science.

nicko33

more on cholesterol here
http://eatingacademy.com/category/cholesterol-2

wotsthat

posh*spice wrote: »

I think that's the point of the book! If cholestrol doesn't cause heart disease why prescribe statins? Why prescribe statins to people who don't have heart disease just because they have "raised" cholestrol levels? And why even suggest that everyone should take statins? Why is the NHS spending £2 billion on statins? Why is the NHS wasting money on cholestrol testing? (And god knows how much the Americans waste on this.)

I'm a little further into the book now. Some evidence is starting to emerge - so far the author has identified some bad science which therefore proves his science is good.

High cholesterol is linked to heart disease (that appears to be fairly well agreed). As I said it doesn't follow that high cholesterol is causal but there must be studies showing mortality rates of people with high cholesterol are reduced when statins are used?

I suspect that the reason this type of debate emerges is because reducing cholesterol in people with high cholesterol improves outcomes whilst the other side are coming at it from a different angle because cholesterol is a natural material essential for life so don't see why it should be reduced. The blog you linked to basically said "OMG! Why would you want to reduce cholesterol? If you didn't have any cholesterol you'd die!"

I don't have a strong view but if I did I'd definitely be looking further than random blogs, kindle books and drug company marketing.

~Chameleon~

The problem with reading blogs and books etc is you only get the author's biased slant on a subject. I've quoted the abstract from a relevant and interesting paper here which explains why evidence can be so contradictory. You can read the full paper online if you have any sort of academic access to journals etc.

McNamara, DJ, Dietary cholesterol and atherosclerosis
Biochimica et Biophysica Acta (BBA) - Molecular and Cell Biology of Lipids, Volume 1529, Issues 1–3, 15 December 2000, Pages 310-320

Abstract
The perceived relationship between dietary cholesterol, plasma cholesterol and atherosclerosis is based on three lines of evidence: animal feeding studies, epidemiological surveys, and clinical trials. Over the past quarter century studies investigating the relationship between dietary cholesterol and atherosclerosis have raised questions regarding the contribution of dietary cholesterol to heart disease risk and the validity of dietary cholesterol restrictions based on these lines of evidence. Animal feeding studies have shown that for most species large doses of cholesterol are necessary to induce hypercholesterolemia and atherosclerosis, while for other species even small cholesterol intakes induce hypercholesterolemia. The species-to-species variability in the plasma cholesterol response to dietary cholesterol, and the distinctly different plasma lipoprotein profiles of most animal models make extrapolation of the data from animal feeding studies to human health extremely complicated and difficult to interpret. Epidemiological surveys often report positive relationships between cholesterol intakes and cardiovascular disease based on simple regression analyses; however, when multiple regression analyses account for the colinearity of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat calories, there is a null relationship between dietary cholesterol and coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality. An additional complication of epidemiological survey data is that dietary patterns high in animal products are often low in grains, fruits and vegetables which can contribute to increased risk of atherosclerosis. Clinical feeding studies show that a 100 mg/day change in dietary cholesterol will on average change the plasma total cholesterol level by 2.2–2.5 mg/dl, with a 1.9 mg/dl change in low density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol and a 0.4 mg/dl change in high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol. Data indicate that dietary cholesterol has little effect on the plasma LDL:HDL ratio. Analysis of the available epidemiological and clinical data indicates that for the general population, dietary cholesterol makes no significant contribution to atherosclerosis and risk of cardiovascular disease.

posh*spice

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm a little further into the book now. Some evidence is starting to emerge - so far the author has identified some bad science which therefore proves his science is good.

I don't think he's presenting any science as his own - he's just saying "the emperor has no clothes"

wotsthat wrote: »

High cholesterol is linked to heart disease (that appears to be fairly well agreed). As I said it doesn't follow that high cholesterol is causal but there must be studies showing mortality rates of people with high cholesterol are reduced when statins are used?

Read on...there isn't....

wotsthat wrote: »

I suspect that the reason this type of debate emerges is because reducing cholesterol in people with high cholesterol improves outcomes whilst the other side are coming at it from a different angle because cholesterol is a natural material essential for life so don't see why it should be reduced.

No it's arisen because the science behind the diet-cholesterol-heart disease hypothesis is poor. Because statins aren't stopping heart disease and because some doctors are now worried that statins are actually damaging their patients health.