GPSGuided wrote:LandSailor wrote: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.
LandSailor wrote: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.
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.
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.
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.
Picaro wrote: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...
GPSGuided wrote:Picaro wrote: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.
GPSGuided wrote: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.
Picaro wrote: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.
LandSailor wrote: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.
GPSGuided wrote:LandSailor wrote: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 wrote: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 wrote:LandSailor wrote: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.
photohiker wrote: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.
photohiker wrote:LandSailor wrote: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.
LandSailor wrote: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.
GPSGuided wrote:LandSailor wrote: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.
GPSGuided wrote: 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.
geoskid wrote:Good idea, do you think it will help? I don't.
MrWalker wrote:Taking a drug that blocks cholesterol production (e.g. statins) does not make sense unless your cholesterol levels are extremely high.
geoskid wrote:GPSGuided wrote: 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.
MrWalker wrote: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.
GPSGuided wrote: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.
LandSailor wrote:MrWalker wrote: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.
Picaro wrote: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.
wayno wrote:when the yolk gets hard boiled the cholesterol is changed into oxycholesterol which can damage body tissues like artery walls.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 14 guests