Monday, October 18, 2010

Utter Madness! 75% Of All Heart Attack Victims Have Normal Cholesterol!

Yet again, more evidence mounts that cholesterol is not the cause of heart disease. If we but accept all this proof, it becomes clear taking cholesterol-lowering medication is a colossal waste of time, money and human suffering from side effects produced by statin medications.

The latest evidence is a new study in the American Heart Journal published in January, 2009. This new study tested the cholesterol of heart attack patients admitted to 500 hospitals. The disturbing new findings reveal:

· 75% of those patients had LDL-cholesterol levels below the current guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) of 130 milligrams.

· 50% had LDL-cholesterol levels below 100 milligrams.

· 17% had LDL-cholesterol levels below 70 milligrams, which is the new, more stringent guidelines.

How Much Lower Must We Go Before Admitting There Is No Correlation Between Lowering Cholesterol And Heart Attack Risk?

One would think the overwhelming evidence that lowering cholesterol levels fails to prevent heart disease would be sufficient for a new focus. One would also think a scientist would be willing to re-examine a theory when the evidence against that theory is decidedly inaccurate.

Instead, the response from the American Heart Association sponsored researchers is to lower acceptable cholesterol levels even more resulting in countless people beginning statin medications unnecessarily.

This demonstrates once again the powerful success marketers of cholesterol-lowering medications have achieved. Their influence upon Physicians, government agencies and professional bodies leaves no one daring to question the cholesterol theory without fearing ridicule and risking professional suicide.

I am left with the utmost sadness their influence leaves intelligent and caring Physicians no longer giving needed thought to what really causes heart disease or how to prevent it. Instead, they have become convinced that cholesterol-lowering drugs are the answer despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.

Let’s use this study to our best advantage by stimulating an open-mindedness with questions and dialog about the cholesterol theory. Let’s get to the real cause and get serious about preventing unnecessary disease and death. Let’s re-examine the validity of the old science and examine the overwhelming evidence in today’s science. The latter provides the answer.

Wednesday, March 10, 2010

Saturated Fats Not Linked to Heart Disease Study Says


Reducing dietary saturated fat has generally been thought to improve cardiovascular health and protect against heart attacks and strokes. This assumption is based on the belief that dietary saturated fat promotes cardiovascular disease. A new meta-analysis study published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition says this isn’t so. Despite the commonly held belief, saturated fat does not promote heart disease.


The idea that fat, particularly saturated fat, consumption was linked to heart disease was instigated by Dr. Alan Keys. The theory was bolstered in Keys’ Seven Countries Study published in 1970. Using data from seven countries (United States, Japan, Italy, Greece, the Netherlands, Finland, and Yugoslavia), Keys showed that the countries that had the highest saturated fat consumption also had the highest number of deaths from heart attacks. This study was used as the standard upon which the medical profession and government health agencies justified their campaign against saturated fat.


Key’s study, however, had several flaws. One of which was assuming high saturated fat consumption was directly related to heart disease deaths. Researchers pointed out that there were other factors within these countries that also paralleled the high heart disease rate. One researcher, Dr. John Yudkin, showed that sugar consumption was also high in these countries and fit the pattern just as well as saturated fat. Dr. Yudkin suggested that it was more likely high sugar consumption that was the cause of heart disease and not saturated fat. Indeed, when food consumption data from a number of other countries were analyzed, sugar consumption proved to be a far better indicator of heart disease risk than saturated fat.


Over the years, many studies that have sought to prove Key’s hypothesis. Results were mixed. Some seemed to support it, while others did not. However, the majority of the medical community, along with the pharmaceutical industry (which profited greatly from the saturated fat-heart disease idea) supported the theory. Those studies that supported Key’s theory received national press and were used as justification to establish government policies on health, while those that did not support the theory were ignored.


The evidence in favor of Key’s theory was no greater than the evidence that contradicted it. In fact, there was a substantial amount of evidence that challenged the theory. Some of the studies used relatively few participants, while others used much larger numbers. Obviously, the results of a study involving 50,000 test subjects carried more weight than one involving only 1,000. One large study using 50,000 participants would produce more reliable results than 10 small studies with a total combined number of 10,000 participants. So the total number of studies is not the issue, the number of people in the studies is of more value. If all the subjects in these different studies were combined and evaluated what would the final outcome be? Would it prove Key’s theory or disprove it


Researchers at the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute in California and Harvard School of Public Health got together to find out. They analyze all the previous studies with data for dietary saturated fat intakes and risk of cardiovascular disease. Twenty-one studies were identified that fit their criteria. This meta-analysis study included data on nearly 350,000 subjects. The focus of the researchers was to determine if there was sufficient evidence linking saturated fat consumption to cardiovascular disease. Their results said “no.” Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease. Those people who ate the greatest amount of saturated fat where no more likely to suffer a heart attack or stroke than those who ate the least. It didn’t matter how much saturated fat one ate, the incidence of heart disease was not affected. This study demonstrates that the combined data from all available studies disprove Key’s hypothesis.


Reference

Siri-Tarino, P.W., et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition 2010;91:535-546.