Cost of Food & Obesity Amongst Poorer People

posh*spice

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

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.

It doesn't seem in the slightest bit contradictory to me.

~Chameleon~ wrote: »

Abstract
The perceived relationship between dietary cholesterol, plasma cholesterol and atherosclerosis is based on three lines of evidence:
1)animal feeding studies,
2)epidemiological surveys,
3)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.

1)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.

2)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.

3)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.

Which is all we need to know. No evidence.

I mean !!!!!! would you reallllllly put a statin in your mouth based on this evidence!!!

posh*spice

wotsthat wrote: »

I don't have a strong view

Well you should The government is wasting to $2 billion of our hard money on statins - posters moan about much less on this board

wotsthat

posh*spice wrote: »

I mean !!!!!! would you reallllllly put a statin in your mouth based on this evidence!!!

That's not evidence. You've presented the conclusions (of someone I don't know) based on their interpretation of studies that aren't referenced and I haven't seen.

posh*spice wrote: »

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.

That doesn't seem too controversial. It might say to you that there's no evidence but can you see that it implies that for some of the population dietary cholesterol does make a contribution to atherosclerosis and therefore changes in diet or treatment with statins may be beneficial?

If I turn up at the doctors with atherosclerosis and statins are prescribed yes I'd likely take them.

I'm not saying you're wrong just that the evidence put forward wouldn't be sufficient for me to arrive at such a firmly held belief.

nicko33

wotsthat wrote: »

If I turn up at the doctors with atherosclerosis and statins are prescribed yes I'd likely take them.

You'd like to know the cause of the atherosclerosis first though wouldn't you?

wotsthat

nicko33 wrote: »

You'd like to know the cause of the atherosclerosis first though wouldn't you?

If I turn up with a brain tumour then give me the 'cure' any day the inquest into the cause (so to speak) can wait!

If I've got atherosclerosis then I'd expect a sensible discussion to take place with my doctor. If he said it's lifestyle related and long term I could control it myself but needed a short term intervention then fair enough.

I consider myself a healthy cynic so you can be sure that I'd be seeking a second opinion from 'Dr. Google' but at some point you have to make a decision about who you are going to trust.

Reminds me a little of the MMR scandal. It's an issue for health care providers because people preferred to listen to the Daily Mail rather than their GP's. The resulting drop in immunisations led to a direct increase in deaths from measles. The media hungry researcher at the centre of the scandal has been proven to be a fraud but a google search will demonstrate the unfounded worry that remains.

mrcow

wotsthat wrote: »

Reminds me a little of the MMR scandal. It's an issue for health care providers because people preferred to listen to the Daily Mail rather than their GP's. The resulting drop in immunisations led to a direct increase in deaths from measles. The media hungry researcher at the centre of the scandal has been proven to be a fraud but a google search will demonstrate the unfounded worry that remains.

Well precisely, it's a joke.

These are a couple of the peer reviewed studies that are taught in schools (originially published in Nature , 2000)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2826222/

and the Framingham study:

http://www.framinghamheartstudy.org/participants/othernews.html

posh*spice

wotsthat wrote: »

I'm not saying you're wrong just that the evidence put forward wouldn't be sufficient for me to arrive at such a firmly held belief.

Finished the book....you wouldn't get me anywhere near a statin...:D Well ...maybe ....if I'd suffered a heart attack and there was nothing else available...but only maybe..

I suppose I'm just shocked 'cos I always thought that the medical profession knew for sure that dietary saturaturated fat caused atherosclerosis and now I've learnt that they don't even know that for sure and that's sort of shocking for me...because it seems simple to me, how can you treat something if you don't know what causes it in the first place?

Hey Ho!

posh*spice

wotsthat wrote: »

Reminds me a little of the MMR scandal. It's an issue for health care providers because people preferred to listen to the Daily Mail rather than their GP's. The resulting drop in immunisations led to a direct increase in deaths from measles. The media hungry researcher at the centre of the scandal has been proven to be a fraud but a google search will demonstrate the unfounded worry that remains.

I had my kids immunised. I did it at the peak of the fear and when the issue was totally clouded in controversy.

I did it because the science behind immunisation is proven.

I have a fear of medicine and doctors. It's very rational. In my school and in my year group there were a large number of thalidomide children who had no arms. I also have a close friend who's mum took thalidomide but she was one of the lucky ones.

I do believe that doctors are capable of prescibing things that are damaging, especially when there are large amounts of money involved.

Generali

I don't know anything about cholesterol but I do know that an old boss who had been to Harvard Medical School laughed at me when I told him I didn't know my cholesterol levels.

For him it was like checking tyre pressures.

cotleigh

I have known for 30 years broadly what food is healthy and what is not.

Most people know what they should be eating more of and less of, even if they don't actually do it. In the same way that they know that smoking is bad for them, and that they should probably walk to the shops and not drive.

Diet fads and theories that single out one substance come and go.

My mum was always telling us to "eat our greens", have an apple instead of a Mars bar, etc etc. Bran flakes not Frosties. Water not sugary fizzy drinks. Fresh food not processed junk. Etc. This was 30 years ago +.

I can't believe that anyone today genuinely does not know that if they stuff themselves on pizzas, chips and sweets every day, they will get fat.

So, it's their choice.

It's still progress from the days when being poor meant being half-starved all the time, and to be overweight meant you were well-off.