Sanitarium "One Square Meal"

[Picaro]

I'm not aware of too many people who have pursued a doctorate for purely philanthropic reasons…..they expect to reap reward for their field of study.
Why should holders of doctorates and masters degrees not be entitled to seek an income stream. I'm not too familiar with the particular people on the catalyst program, but there are many others beside them, who all would have a steadier and more lucrative income stream if they had shut up and towed the line. We are talking heart surgeons, biological chemists, neurologists and scientists from many related fields trying to find better answers for health maintenance and recovery.

Mainstream medicine is awesome for trauma and emergency, and if needed theres no folk I'd rather have treating me. But I don''t believe they have the game sewn up for health maintenance or recovery.

[Picaro]

For those with an open mind on the subject he has written a few books that are well worth a read. And can we perhaps, give him the benefit of the doubt, assume they are not just full of lies and pseudo-science to sell books.

Proper scientists and researchers primarily write for peer reviewed journals, academic review articles and professional reference texts. Those who venture into the popular book list, especially repeatedly, invariably know what spinning is and its value in the commercial space. As for those who specialise in it, say no more.

Earlier today, I skimmed through several of these academic articles trying to ascertain whether statins regulate cholesterol or low density lipoproteins…..well I still don't know, because the writers use either one interchangeably or, if in doubt they use the term LDL lipoprotein cholesterol. It's going to be one or the other, and I'd still like to know.

[photohiker]

Here's some science that everyone seems to be craving...

Lowering cholesterol concentrations and mortality: a quantitative review of primary prevention trials.
Description: 24,847 male patients studied for impact of cholesterol reduction
Conclusion: The failure of cholesterol lowering to affect overall survival justifies a more cautious appraisal of the probable benefits of reducing cholesterol concentrations in the general population.

Interesting study Landsailor. Total mortality remained the same between those with treatment and those not, but the treatment group copped it in the neck from other causes. Perhaps they didn't like the treatment! In the results section: "Mortality from coronary heart disease tended to be lower in men receiving interventions to reduce cholesterol concentrations compared with mortality in control subjects (p = 0.06), although total mortality was not affected by treatment." Also, of note, this trial predates the common use of Statins for cholesterol reduction as far as I can tell.

The Nurse's Health Study
Description: Very famous study where approximately 200,000 nurses were followed up over multiple decades to get statistics on lifestyle factors affecting illness.
Conclusion: With regard to coronary heart disease and diet, Mediterranean-type diet reduces risk of incident CHD and stroke. Fish intake reduces risk of stroke. Nut and wholegrain consumption reduces risk of CHD. Refined carbohydrates and trans fats increase risk.
Note: based on their findings standard recommended dietary guidelines (low fat, high carbohydrate) actually increases risk.
In the list of significant findings nowhere is cholesterol mentioned as a factor for any illness whatsoever (really).
It beggars belief that cholesterol would not have been monitored as part of the research.

The reason cholesterol was not included is that this is a questionaire based study, not a clinical study.

The section on obesity with regards to CHD is also somewhat relevant, as is the section on exercise.

Cholesterol lowering trials in coronary heart disease: frequency of citation and outcome.
Description: Attempt to measure bias by examing pro and anti-cholesterol citations in experiments.
Conclusion:Lowering serum cholesterol concentrations does not reduce mortality and is unlikely to prevent coronary heart disease. Claims of the opposite are based on preferential citation of supportive trials.

Interesting meta analysis of studies. I'll see you on this one and raise you :

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8639010
"CONCLUSIONS: The effect of cholesterol-lowering interventions at least in the secondary prevention of coronary heart disease can be considered as established, but the transferability of such results to real-life patients remains the critical, unanswered question."

Low-Fat Dietary Pattern and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease
Description: Randomized controlled trial of 48 835 postmenopausal women aged 50 to 79 years, of diverse backgrounds and ethnicities, who participated in the Women's Health Initiative Dietary Modification Trial.
Conclusion:Over a mean of 8.1 years, a dietary intervention that reduced total fat intake and increased intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains did not significantly reduce the risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD in postmenopausal women and achieved only modest effects on CVD risk factors, suggesting that more focused diet and lifestyle interventions may be needed to improve risk factors and reduce CVD risk.

Ha. If you read the paper, the comparison group outperformed the design: "After a mean of 8.1 years of follow up, the observed incidence rate for major CHD (MI/CHD death, 3.6 per 1000 person-years) in the comparison group was 30% lower than projected in the design."

"In conclusion, this long-term dietary intervention in postmenopausal women, intended to reduce fat intake and increase intake of vegetables, fruits, and grains, achieved an 8.2% of energy decrease in total fat intake but only a 2.9% of energy decrease in saturated fat intake and only modest increases in intakes of vegetables, fruits, and grains. The intervention did not reduce risk of CHD or stroke. To achieve a significant public health impact on CVD events, a greater magnitude of change in multiple macronutrients and micronutrients and other behaviors that influence CVD risk factors may be necessary."

So subject compliance played a part as well...

These papers were clearly chosen to support an opinion regarding cholesterol results, but upon reading, it ain't as clear as suggested. Even so, I think it is great to have access to research because even if we have a firm personal opinion on the subject, we are exposed to a broad range of research regardless if we are only looking to support our own view.

[GPSGuided]

I'm not aware of too many people who have pursued a doctorate for purely philanthropic reasons…..they expect to reap reward for their field of study.
Why should holders of doctorates and masters degrees not be entitled to seek an income stream...

People grow up and make an honest living are respected. People who grow up to cheat and deceive for a living are disrespected.

[wayno]

I'm not aware of too many people who have pursued a doctorate for purely philanthropic reasons…..they expect to reap reward for their field of study.
Why should holders of doctorates and masters degrees not be entitled to seek an income stream...

People grow up and make an honest living are respected. People who grow up to cheat and deceive for a living are disrespected.

people who grow up and are perceived to make and honest living are respected. People who grow up and are perceived to cheat and deceive are disrespected.

[LandSailor]

Proper scientists and researchers primarily write for peer reviewed journals, academic review articles and professional reference texts. Those who venture into the popular book list, especially repeatedly, invariably know what spinning is and its value in the commercial space. As for those who specialise in it, say no more.

I think thats an unreasonably dismissive attitude for someone who hasnt read a single page of his books.

If you had read his books you'd know that he repeatedly refers to peer-reviewed science and various other studies.
You'll be aware there is the profession of science-communicator.
They of course play the vital role distilling quite complex subjects into an easy to digest form for us mortals.

Good Calories, Bad Calories

Why we get fat

They both cover the same material but are written for different audiences. After writing the first book "Good Calories, Bad Calories" targeted at medical professionals he was repeatedly asked to provide something similar but more appropriate for the lay person. So he wrote "Why we get fat" for that audience.

You may not agree with what he says but he does make some very interesting and thoughtful points.

[GPSGuided]

Earlier today, I skimmed through several of these academic articles trying to ascertain whether statins regulate cholesterol or low density lipoproteins…..well I still don't know, because the writers use either one interchangeably or, if in doubt they use the term LDL lipoprotein cholesterol. It's going to be one or the other, and I'd still like to know.

You are absolutely correct!

The standard of science in most field of study in 2013 are highly specialised and interpretation of study results are also highly specialised. It takes years of study in a particular field to gain the necessary knowledge base to be able to interpret study results with the correct perspective. As such, we need to depend on experts to interpret the body of knowledge out there and advise accordingly. In the health field, we have government agencies and professional bodies as well academic bodies to provide these services. Popular authors are "fun" reads but take their words with a grain of salt. Also remember, popular books are popular because it interest book buyers, not subjected to the same peer review process as academic journal articles. I know where I'd take my knowledge from and hope others do too.

[GPSGuided]

If you had read his books you'd know that he repeatedly refers to peer-reviewed science and various other studies.
...
You may not agree with what he says but he does make some very interesting and thoughtful points.

2 words, peer review!

Acceptance of a theory is through peer review and hard evidence. No amount of lay people's opinion on a highly specialised subjects mean very much. But to make it on the best sellers list, peer's opinion is not the priority.

If the points are truly interesting and thoughtful, trust me in this day of highly competitive research environment, there'd be plenty of research studies and evidence to back or discredit them. Lay people often have quite a different take on the definitions of "interesting" and "thoughtful".

[LandSailor]

If you had read his books you'd know that he repeatedly refers to peer-reviewed science and various other studies.
...
You may not agree with what he says but he does make some very interesting and thoughtful points.

2 words, peer review!

Acceptance of a theory is through peer review and hard evidence. No amount of lay people's opinion on a highly specialised subjects mean very much. But to make it on the best sellers list, peer's opinion is not the priority.

If the points are truly interesting and thoughtful, trust me in this day of highly competitive research environment, there'd be plenty of research studies and evidence to back or discredit them. Lay people often have quite a different take on the definitions of "interesting" and "thoughtful".

I dont mean to be rude but there is no point in having this discussion if you havent even read his books. We are discussing nothing more than your assumptions and speculation.

[GPSGuided]

I dont mean to be rude but there is no point in having this discussion if you havent even read his books. We are discussing nothing more than your assumptions and speculation.

No offence taken nor given. This is what a good forum is about, one that people can discuss a matter frankly while giving due respect to the rules of a good debate.

This is a bushwalking forum, hardly the place to get into depth on a specialised health science subject. For those, one attends medical conferences of the appropriate sub-specialty. The only thing that's relevant on a general forum is to discuss and acknowledge the basis by which knowledge is admitted amongst a sea of opinions.

[LandSailor]

I dont mean to be rude but there is no point in having this discussion if you havent even read his books. We are discussing nothing more than your assumptions and speculation.

No offence taken nor given. This is what a good forum is about, one that people can discuss a matter frankly while giving due respect to the rules of a good debate.

This is a bushwalking forum, hardly the place to get into depth on a specialised health science subject. For those, one attends medical conferences of the appropriate sub-specialty. The only thing that's relevant on a general forum is to discuss and acknowledge the basis by which knowledge is admitted amongst a sea of opinions.

Hmmmm...ok. Not completely sure what your attempting to say but you'll appreciate its a bit frustrating on my part, arguing the merits of a book with someone who literally hasnt read a page yet is fully prepared to argue how bad it is.

[LandSailor]

These papers were clearly chosen to support an opinion regarding cholesterol results, but upon reading, it ain't as clear as suggested. Even so, I think it is great to have access to research because even if we have a firm personal opinion on the subject, we are exposed to a broad range of research regardless if we are only looking to support our own view.

They absolutely were selected to support a particular view on cholesterol. I knew full well that it is also entirely possible to pull out research to support the opposite case.
Nobody here is a nutritional scientist (to my knowledge) so we are only ever going to have a superficial understanding. I guess I was just trying to illustrate that some of the contrarian views on cholesterol are based on more than speculation.

Not science, but here's some further interesting anecdotal evidence :-

As well as the Australian cricket team, the LA Lakers are now on a high fat, low-carb diet. Turned the current nutritonal pyramid upside-down.
With billions of dollars at stake, its hard to imagine a sport where the health, physiology and on-court results is more closely monitored than the NBA.

And the diet for this 114 year old? 2 cholesterol-laden eggs a day since the age of 20.

There's also a whole lot of other stuff to do with nutrional anthropology. They measure the mineral content of pre-modern (but genetically identical) humans fossils from before the agricultural revolution and compare the mineral content with known carnivores and herbivores bones from the same period. So they can get a reasonable approximation of the pre-agricultural diet.
The paleo diet maybe considered a "fad" diet now but it was a 2 million year fad diet. Compare this to our radically different contemporary diet which has been around for only 10,000 years (Dont quote me on the exact years).


But apart from all these different aspects Im bringing up, what really has me questioning things is what appears to be the manifest failure of the current nutrional dogma on almost every conceivable measure.
We have record levels of obesity, diabetes, cardio-vascular disease. Dementia is on the rise.
And less than 10% of dieters are able to maintain there weight-loss for more than a couple of years (something like that, might even be less).

For any other field of human activity (sport, business whatever) would they continue with the same approach on such poor results?
Something is not quite right.

Finally, there is my own personal experience on a high-fat keto diet which Ive been on now for approximately 6 weeks.
If things continue on as they have so far, in another few weeks my weight will be its lowest in maybe 15 years.
And that has happened relatively easily, no real hunger pains, no lack of energy etc. You need to plan your food more and drink lots of water.
Im getting all my blood lipids tested next week ...will see how that goes.

Maybe the upshot of the Catalyst controversy is that more research will be done which would be a great outcome.
I would be very interested to know what the nutritional guidelines end up being 50 years from now.
It would not surprise me at all if they are quite different from what we are seeing now.

[MrWalker]

Here's some science that everyone seems to be craving...

Lowering cholesterol concentrations and mortality: a quantitative review of primary prevention trials.
Description: 24,847 male patients studied for impact of cholesterol reduction
Conclusion: The failure of cholesterol lowering to affect overall survival justifies a more cautious appraisal of the probable benefits of reducing cholesterol concentrations in the general population.

Interesting study Landsailor. Total mortality remained the same between those with treatment and those not, but the treatment group copped it in the neck from other causes. Perhaps they didn't like the treatment! In the results section: "Mortality from coronary heart disease tended to be lower in men receiving interventions to reduce cholesterol concentrations compared with mortality in control subjects (p = 0.06), although total mortality was not affected by treatment." Also, of note, this trial predates the common use of Statins for cholesterol reduction as far as I can tell.

The paper also says "there was a significant increase in deaths not related to illness (deaths from accidents, suicide, or violence) in groups receiving treatment to lower cholesterol concentrations relative to controls".
This is a common finding in large scale cholesterol lowering studies. Cholesterol is essential for brain function and those with normal levels who lower cholesterol become depressed and/or aggressive. The increased suicide rates are due to depression and the increased deaths by violence are due to aggression. Other large scale studies (besides this one with 24,847 subjects) have shown significantly increased rates of murder suffered by those on cholesterol lowering diets.

For the scientifically rigorous experts out there I do not have medical qualifications, but I have published papers (in international journals) on cholesterol metabolism and I know that it is produced in all cells in the body because it is essential for cell function. Taking a drug that blocks cholesterol production (e.g. statins) does not make sense unless your cholesterol levels are extremely high.

[GPSGuided]

Hmmmm...ok. Not completely sure what your attempting to say but you'll appreciate its a bit frustrating on my part, arguing the merits of a book with someone who literally hasnt read a page yet is fully prepared to argue how bad it is.

Merit as a book of entertainment and make believe... I am not interested. Merit as a scientific compendium... First it doesn't pass go and secondly this is not the place for it.

[LandSailor]

Hmmmm...ok. Not completely sure what your attempting to say but you'll appreciate its a bit frustrating on my part, arguing the merits of a book with someone who literally hasnt read a page yet is fully prepared to argue how bad it is.

Merit as a book of entertainment and make believe... I am not interested. Merit as a scientific compendium... First it doesn't pass go and secondly this is not the place for it.

Can you be more specific? What are the main points, evidence, arguments in his book that "doesn't pass go"? And given that we now have 16 pages of discussion so far, why is it suddenly only now not the place for it?

[geoskid]

The only thing that's relevant on a general forum is to discuss and acknowledge the basis by which knowledge is admitted amongst a sea of opinions.

Good idea, do you think it will help? I don't.
The vast majority of people don't care whether what they think/believe has any basis in reality.
Evidence? Talk to 'em about anything deeper than the weather, ask them how they arrived at their belief/ what they think they know.

Wayno - checked out your mates wabsite. Hair analysis? Homeopathy? A quote that is supposedly from a 2 time Nobel Prize winner that is clearly BS? Check it out folks.
I'm sure he has no problem finding people to peddling his wares to, people are like that, but he has to sleep in his bed.

Bushwalking is the only thing that is common to everyone here.

[GPSGuided]

Good idea, do you think it will help? I don't.

One can only lead a horse to water... Beyond, it's one's fortune in life.

[photohiker]

Taking a drug that blocks cholesterol production (e.g. statins) does not make sense unless your cholesterol levels are extremely high.

Um... Isn't that and prior heart events the prime reason in Australia? I don't know many people on Statins, but the two I do know both had Cholesterol over 10.

I understand and agree with the noise about routine statins for people without prior heart events and moderate levels, but I think this is largely a US problem although it could happen here.

[GPSGuided]

US has a population that's around to 14x of our and it'd be easy to find individual cases and combine to a larger number for exaggeration. Not as if Catalyst balanced their US "experts" with US experts. Just sensationalistic and irresponsible journalism... 'nuff said.

[wayno]

The only thing that's relevant on a general forum is to discuss and acknowledge the basis by which knowledge is admitted amongst a sea of opinions.

Good idea, do you think it will help? I don't.
The vast majority of people don't care whether what they think/believe has any basis in reality.
Evidence? Talk to 'em about anything deeper than the weather, ask them how they arrived at their belief/ what they think they know.

Wayno - checked out your mates wabsite. Hair analysis? Homeopathy? A quote that is supposedly from a 2 time Nobel Prize winner that is clearly BS? Check it out folks.
I'm sure he has no problem finding people to peddling his wares to, people are like that, but he has to sleep in his bed.

Bushwalking is the only thing that is common to everyone here.

as i've said, i know gary moller, he has terated me and relieved me of twenty years of chronic fatirgue where all other conventional medical people i went to failed, and i stand by him even if he has misquoted on his page

[LandSailor]

The paper also says "there was a significant increase in deaths not related to illness (deaths from accidents, suicide, or violence) in groups receiving treatment to lower cholesterol concentrations relative to controls".
This is a common finding in large scale cholesterol lowering studies. Cholesterol is essential for brain function and those with normal levels who lower cholesterol become depressed and/or aggressive. The increased suicide rates are due to depression and the increased deaths by violence are due to aggression. Other large scale studies (besides this one with 24,847 subjects) have shown significantly increased rates of murder suffered by those on cholesterol lowering diets.

Yeah I think this is basically what the people on Catalyst were saying. Ultimately the negative side effects of statins equalled the benefits so no overall improvement in mortality numbers.

And perhaps why Dr Aseem Molhatra, a cardiologist from the UK made the point "eight million Britons take statins yet there has been no major impact on heart disease trends".

US has a population that's around to 14x of our and it'd be easy to find individual cases and combine to a larger number for exaggeration.

"The results disagree with what I think so they must have cherry-picked their data". You could make this kind of generic statement supporting/rejecting any research.
Without evidence its just empty rhetoric. Do you have evidence for this? Im assuming not.

Still agree with you about Catalyst though, they could have done a better job.

[Picaro]

Maybe Catalyst has done a very good job.

What is it….maybe a month now and people are talking and thinking through the issues…well some are thinking, its a trait only evident in a certain cross section of the species. If you abdicate responsibility for your own health and well being to any third party, it will probably end badly.

[photohiker]

The paper also says "there was a significant increase in deaths not related to illness (deaths from accidents, suicide, or violence) in groups receiving treatment to lower cholesterol concentrations relative to controls".
This is a common finding in large scale cholesterol lowering studies. Cholesterol is essential for brain function and those with normal levels who lower cholesterol become depressed and/or aggressive. The increased suicide rates are due to depression and the increased deaths by violence are due to aggression. Other large scale studies (besides this one with 24,847 subjects) have shown significantly increased rates of murder suffered by those on cholesterol lowering diets.

Yeah I think this is basically what the people on Catalyst were saying. Ultimately the negative side effects of statins equalled the benefits so no overall improvement in mortality numbers.

My understanding of the thrust of the Catalyst show was that cholesterol is not a problem associated with heart disease, and that statins are bad, bad, bad and have no effect on CHD.

The paper referred to above was written before Statins were in use for cholesterol control. You would need to quote newer research to show that statins increase mortality in similar measures to that described in the 1990 paper.

[LandSailor]

This debate has taken so many twists and turns Ive lost track. I think I was referring to one of the people interviewed who stated something along the lines (paraphrasing)..that statins dont actually increase life expectancy.

Maybe a good time to actually rewatch the original programs now methinks. I have seen it suggested in many different different places that cholesterol has been unjustly demonized.

I did see an argument made somewhere else that the real issue is some form of interaction (oxidising or something?) between glucose and cholesterol. And it is this that causes all the metabolic syndrome diseases.
So a high fat diet its harmless as long as its low carb to minimise glucose interaction. And if you have a high-carb diet (like most people) then you need to reduce fat/cholesterol for the same effect.
This is an interesting argument as it supports both points of view on cholesterol. Yes reducing cholesterol by diet/statins may reduce CHD on a high carb diet but cholesterol itself is harmless in isolation.

[LandSailor]

Maybe Catalyst has done a very good job.

What is it….maybe a month now and people are talking and thinking through the issues…well some are thinking, its a trait only evident in a certain cross section of the species. If you abdicate responsibility for your own health and well being to any third party, it will probably end badly.

Agree! If the topic has generated this much heat on a bushwalking forum, I can only imagine the impact within the medical establishment. The controversy may really be a "catalyst" for more research on the issue.

[wayno]

i'd say the programme tried to show that high cholesterol isnt a predictor of arteries clogging... if you eat enough cholesterol especially in fried food and hard boiled eggs the cholesterol has been damaged and that causes a chain reaction in your body dmaging body tissues such as artery walls increasing the likeihood of fat sticking to your artery walls. but as the programme tried to show. there were studies that showed high cholesterol often didnt lead to clogged arteries and heart disease especially in older people..
i wouldnt advocate a high cholesterol or fat diet,, its not as simple as trying to say that cholesterol is good or bad.... it can be good and it can be bad depending on the circumstances.
what the programme also tried to show was that statins werent just lowering cholesterol but inhibiting the body forming other natural biochemicals like CoQ10 which is essential to good health and vitality... statins take a pretty broad spectrum approach to lowering cholesterol

[wayno]

landsailor you imght be thinking about when carbohydrate is fried it can form acrylamides which is claimed to cause cancer

https://www.caring4cancer.com/go/cancer ... cancer.htm

[neilmny]

Whats the issue with hard boiled eggs Wayno? Whole eggs are advocated by the Heart Foundation as
good food (2 per week) but they must be whole eggs as a whole eggs has the correct balance.
Yolks on there own are the no no.

[wayno]

when the yolk gets hard boiled the cholesterol is changed into oxycholesterol which can damage body tissues like artery walls.

[neilmny]

when the yolk gets hard boiled the cholesterol is changed into oxycholesterol which can damage body tissues like artery walls.

Can you point me to the source of this information?