I think the first thing I saw on this topic was a youtube lecture I stumbled on that had a cardiologist discussing how in the many years he practiced, and after seeing hundreds of patients, he saw no correlation between a patient's cholesterol level and cardiovascular disease. He then goes on to question the sacred lipid hypothesis. This was all very eye-opening to me, but I was still skeptical, so I started googling it. The next thing I find is this documentary, which further cemented the idea that fats aren't as bad as I have been led to believe. Before I knew it, I was reading a lot of literature on it, and I was introduced to Gary Taubes. I started reading Mark's Daily Apple, and other blogs, that covered even more advanced topics, like the problems with dairy, lectins (anti-nutrients found in high-concentrations in grains/wheat and legumes) and fructose.
But, I still wasn't convinced. I decided to test this on myself, an experiment if you will. I adopted a paleo diet in lieu of a high-carb/low-fat diet, similar to what Mark Scisson offers in his book "The Primal Blueprint". I've always exercised (I lifted weights long before this diet), but always struggled to lose fat. I figured it was just my body type. I was a 270 pound, 6-foot man. My blood pressure was fairly high, at around 155/90. Just after 6 months of eating a low-carb/paleo diet, I lost 50 pounds, and gained a substantial amount of muscle-mass (with no changes to my exercise routine). My blood pressure dropped to a healthy 118/70. My energy has gone way up, and I'm no longer always hungry.
So now, I am very convinced. It's really perplexing when the advice of what seems to be the majority of health-care professionals fails to do what the advice of a niche group of advocates has accomplished for my body and mind. I'm never one to be easily bought by "alternative" medicine, but from the looks of it, at least this advice has some sound (albeit often ignored) scientific backing.
Now I'm trying to get my father off of his blood pressure and cholesterol meds with this new found knowledge. If I can benefit, it's logical that he should too.
reply
share
Bzine
11 years ago
I somehow doubt that this story is true. If it is you are endangering your father's heath and should visit an actual cardiologist and take their advice.
reply
share
benjamin-n-burns
11 years ago
You don't have to believe it, and I don't need you to. Your can baselessly disregard whatever you please-- your ignorance is your own. But the evidence speaks for itself, and so does the scientific literature (if you actually take the time to read scientific journals on this topic). And this worked great for us-- which we certainly appreciate, even if you don't. Besides, if you're happy with your health and what doctors tell you, good for you and all the power to you. But things weren't working for us, and we looked for other opinions and options. Believe it or not, not everyone can eat like you and get the same results. Some people can eat all the garbage they want and die heart-healthy. But we're not all built the same. And it's clear what the doctors were telling us wasn't working. So, we did the experiments ourselves. And the results have thus far been that saturated fats weren't making our health worse, but better. It was carbohydrates that was making us sick and fat (with the biggest culprits being wheat, potatoes and sugar).
I get yearly health check ups, and they've been more than happy with my blood work since my diet change. Our health care professionals have been encouraging as well with comments like, "I don't know why it's working for you, but keep doing what you're doing". As for my father, he's already seen doctors-- it's the reason he's on medication in the first place. But medication has already taken a toll on his health. I think the side effects of such pills have hurt his health more than any potential diet change ever could. Have you ever read the side effects of statins, for example? Some of which my father experienced (rhabdomyolysis, specifically). I'm pretty sure those will kill you faster than what they're allegedly trying to protect you from. So I'd appreciate it if you'd not accuse me of trying to kill my father-- the doctors were doing that better than I ever could.
And besides, I'm approaching this from an evidence-based and empirical stand point. We do what works, and disregard what doesn't. And we're doing this with care-- he gets blood work done and keeps in contact with his doctor.
And guess what, my father's health has improved since adopting a diet change. He lost weight and his blood pressure and cholesterol dropped-- something that his medication never did for him. Also, the pain, muscle spasms and stiffness he was getting are gone, after he discontinued his medication. I don't know if he'll be able to recover from the damage his medication incurred on him, but at least he's improving in other regards. So I'll disregard your useless advice, thanks.
reply
share
Bzine
11 years ago
I'm not seeing anything here except anecdotal testimony from an anonymous source on the internet.
I would encourage anyone here to seek out the advice of a medical professional. Your health is too important to waste on conspiracy theories.
reply
share
benjamin-n-burns
11 years ago
I'm not here to do research for you. There is plenty of scientific literature on this topic-- it's not a "conspiracy theory". Again, you're welcome to your closed-minded attitude, but if you have any intellectual integrity, you'll pick up a book or a journal before being dismissive. I took advantage of my university's subscription service for a lot of my own research, but there's plenty of freely accessible studies if you actually care enough to look. This is it's own field after-all.
And just because someone is a "professional" doesn't always mean they know what's best for you. If a doctor wants to prescribe you something, it's good to do your own research and actually understand the whys, whats and hows before taking or doing anything, instead of blindly following his/her advice. This isn't a religion-- medicine is an applied science. Inquiry and scrutiny should be encouraged. Thus, there should always be active discussion with any health care professional. It's not always a bad idea to get more than one opinion as well, especially if you're dealing with potentially serious repercussions or something controversial.
Health is too important to risk leaving it in the wrong hands.
reply
share
Bzine
11 years ago
Once again, I'm not seeing anything here except anecdotal testimony from an anonymous source on the internet.
You also seem to be going to pains to misinterpret what I have written. That makes your story less believable.
I would encourage anyone here to seek out the advice of a medical professional. Your health is too important to waste on conspiracy theories.
reply
share
benjamin-n-burns
11 years ago
Once again, I'm not here to do research for you. But it's obvious you're not interested in reading into this topic. Your ignorance is clear because you keep calling something a "conspiracy theory" which is testable, has scientific research (and is still an actively researched topic), and has many supporting health professionals. It's dismissive and naive. It's ignorance. This isn't aliens or Sasquatch. This isn't a religion. It is and has been scientifically approached. It can be scrutinized and assessed. And so can the lipid hypothesis. Nothing is sacred in science. So, go read real evidence.
And I never said my testimony was scientific proof, which is what you seem to keep implying with your "anecdotal" comment. It's also not meant to be-- it's merely a point I made that you need to learn to read the medical literature instead of believing what you're spoon fed. I'm not asking you to take my word for it. I'm asking you to learn to read the science at the source and judge for yourself, instead of letting someone else spoon-fed it to you.
And again, I don't care if you don't believe it or if you find it "unbelievable". If you don't want to try educating yourself, frankly, I don't know why you're even here. We have nothing to discuss if that's the case. My message wasn't directed at closed-minded people such as yourself.
reply
share
Bzine
11 years ago
I'm here because you are giving out really bad medical advice encouraging people not to take their proscribed heart medication and eat high fat diets associated in mainstream medical literature with heart disease.
You're not offering any proof other that a totally unverifiable testimonial and assertions that low carb research is "scientific" without any responsibility to show the research that lead to that conclusion.
Really folks talk to your DOCTORS not one of these Weston Price sock puppets.
reply
share
benjamin-n-burns
11 years ago
It's bad advice to encourage people to be ignorant like you. I'm telling people to do the reading themselves. I'm highlighting active discussions with health care professionals, and not blind faith. You're an idiot if you think it's bad or harmful to play it smart. As far as I can tell, you're against being educated and reading the actual science on this topic. I keep telling you, I'm not here to do the research for you, and for some reason you keep asking for it. Do you know how to google? Do you even know what a peer-reviewed journal is? Hell, do you even know what Google is? Learn to read, for Christ's sake. Aren't you an adult? Do you need your hand-held?
Okay, I'll throw you a bone, but only because you're really having trouble wrapping your head around opening a journal and enlightening yourself.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/
http://jcem.endojournals.org/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/
To anyone who's actually reading besides Bzine:
Yes, talk to your doctor. And make sure they're aware of the studies and science that's currently putting the lipid hypothesis in doubt. Your doctor should know how to read a medical journal, even if Bzine doesn't. Like I said, the best thing you can do for your health is to look for, and at, the evidence. If you're a critical thinker and capable of reading (unlike Bzine), go to the source. Don't trust anyone who is practicing on assumptions instead of scientifically verified claims.
reply
share
Bzine
11 years ago
Sorry, seeing lots of anger and insults here but still no proof of your claims.
And the first story I saw on the first link supports the lipid hypothesis.
You seem awfully angry about my suggestion that people consult their doctors rather than take your anonymous testimony on face value, and I think the reason is that you know your claims are not generally accepted within the medical community.
Caveat emptor, especially if you have heart issues.
reply
share
benjamin-n-burns
11 years ago
Holy cow, you actually tried looking up a study? I'm so happy, you're finally growing up! I'm so proud of you. Now, do you know what a meta analysis is? I know you don't so I'll explain. It takes all the data from multiple studies, especially those that seem to vary in conclusion, to determine if there's any correlation. Now see if you can find some for yourself with one between saturated fat and heart disease! Go on now, learn to educate yourself!
Here, just for fun, I'll start!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2824152/
And I'm not angry. Just because I think you're incompetent doesn't mean I can't laugh with or about you. Also, I don't have any issue with people consulting their doctors. Apparently you still can't read-- it's blind adherence to medical advice I take issue with. Especially when we're dealing with dangerous drugs that don't do anything.
And yes, they are dangerous. And yes, they don't do what they're intended to do. Pretty well every search result for "statin" gives you hits on how much havoc they reep. Here, I'll let you read, since you're a reader now!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/?term=statins
And guess what, if you do a meta-analysis of statins and mortality rates, you also discover something interesting! They do diddly-squat! Here, I'll be kind and give a sample too!
http://cel.webofknowledge.com/InboundService.do?SID=4B7a%40mpHloDc%40P2a2ii&product=CEL&UT=000279245000007&SrcApp=literatum&Init=Yes&action=retrieve&Func=Frame&customersID=atyponcel&SrcAuth=atyponcel&IsProductCode=Yes&mode=FullRecord
But hey, they lower your cholesterol, right? They are good for that much. It's too bad that doesn't stop you from getting a heart attack. But see how much fun it can be to read?
reply
share
Bzine
11 years ago
Your first article seems particularly suspect:
In 2010, a meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies supported by the National Dairy Council including 348,000 subjects found no statistically significant relationship between cardiovascular disease and dietary saturated fat.[1][21] This study has been criticized for not using unadjusted data from the cohort studies, potentially biasing in the direction of the study's conclusion.[22] One of the authors of this study received funding from Unilever, a producer of margarine, ice cream, and mayonnaise products. Another author of this study received funding from the National Cattlemen's Beef Association.[23]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy#Systematic_reviews_in_reputable_medical_journals
Your next link just gives a list of writings about statins, some of which contradict your claims.
So you've basically gone from an unverifiable testimonial to a misleading report funded by the dairy and cattle industry. And yes revealing that your claims aren't really supported by external evidence seems to set you off into a rage.
It's a pretty strong indicator that one should be very cautious of anything associated with Taubes, Enig, Naughton, Jimmy Moore and their ilk.
Again I would urge heart patients look to reputable professionals.
reply
share
benjamin-n-burns
11 years ago
A rage? I think it's funny that you think I'm angry or that you even think you have an argument. It's hard to be angry when I'm delightfully amused at your buffoonery.
I love the hypocrisy of you accusing me of being a "conspiracy theorist", and then you don't even properly address the evidence, but quote wikipedia with your own conspiracy theory! That's pretty funny. I could make the same argument about funding bias against those who claim saturated fat is bad for you. How about we let the data speak for itself, yes? The great part too is that the summary table pretty clearly demonstrates the poor connection-- with a lot of them either having very poor or no correlation. No effect on mortality? Some seeing no connection? Did you even read the study I sent you? You can look at the data yourself, you know, instead of ignoring the evidence and looking for an opinion that agrees with your stance, or digging up some half-baked argument about funding bias (which I'm sure you can make about ANY study). Especially one from Wikipedia of all places, HAHA YES! You're so funny. Apparently you're still too incompetent to actually look for articles on a reputable site. You haven't demonstrated that the lipid hypothesis has any basis in reality. And we haven't even started looking into studies that compare low-carb to low-fat diets! Inuit paradox anyone? Those are pretty great studies.
And you clearly didn't go through those links, or do any reading past the header. You're showing your poor integrity if you didn't read any of the articles discussing the complex interactions of statins on the body. More than half of them on the site are negative, and the other half, while looking at it from a perspective unrelated to CVD, discuss the really shady behaviour these drugs can exhibit. But then again, you've made it pretty obvious that you're not interested in reading anything that contradicts your sacred position.
You also didn't say anything about the fact statins don't even do anything to reduce mortality. Why would we prescribe something well known to be hazardous (use wikipedia, since apparently that's your idea of 'research') that doesn't do what it's intended? That is, extend lives?
Again, I would urge any patient to not blindly follow the advice of any healthcare professional.
reply
share
11 years ago
[deleted]
benjamin-n-burns
11 years ago
Haha, sure it does. I'm laughing at you so hard it makes me angry! You're too funny, I like you.
It's too bad I've done better supporting of my position than you have though. Want to quote wikipedia some-more and give me more conspiracies, instead of discussing the actual content of a study? Haha, too rich!
reply
share
Bzine
11 years ago
Actually the criticism of the study doesn't come from me but from a letter in The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.
Peter Scarborough and Mike Rayner (Department of Public Health, Oxford University)
and Ineke van Dis (Netherlands Heart Foundation) wrote that:
"Adjustment for serum cholesterol concentrations will inevitably bias the estimates of effect of saturated fat intake toward the null hypothesis."
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/92/2/458.full
In other words, the authors of the article you wrote about fudged their statistics. They treated a one of the *symptoms* of a high fat diet like it was an irrelevant co-factor.
The Wikipedia page I originally linked to includes lots of links to peer reviewed studies that refute your claims.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/
Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy
reply
share