Thirty years ago government scientists warned about cholesterol. They recommended people lower their cholesterol levels. Billions were wasted on cholesterol-reducing drugs, dispensed ironically in an attempt to reduce medical cost.
Now the government is ponying up to what a few of us suspected; it is junk science.
From the Washington Post:
The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.
The group’s finding that cholesterol in the diet need no longer be considered a “nutrient of concern” stands in contrast to the committee’s findings five years ago, the last time it convened. During those proceedings, as in previous years, the panel deemed the issue of excess cholesterol in the American diet a public health concern.
The finding follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that, for healthy adults, eating foods high in cholesterol may not significantly affect the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease.
The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter.
The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets.
While Americans may be accustomed to conflicting dietary advice, the change on cholesterol comes from the influential Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee, the group that provides the scientific basis for the “Dietary Guidelines.” That federal publication has broad effects on the American diet, helping to determine the content of school lunches, affecting how food manufacturers advertise their wares, and serving as the foundation for reams of diet advice.
The panel laid out the cholesterol decision in December, at its last meeting before it writes a report that will serve as the basis for the next version of the guidelines. A video of the meeting was later posted online and a person with direct knowledge of the proceedings said the cholesterol finding would make it to the group’s final report, which is due within weeks.Does this mean cholesterol is safe? No. It means the government could not prove it is a danger. And of course, the bureaucracy is bitterly clinging to its religion of bad cholesterol.
Frankly, we know so little about nutrition that we would be better off without the federal Dietary Guidelines Advisory Committee. Ignore this agency's advice.
The science is SETTLED! or WAS.
ReplyDeleteI have read researchers wanting to challenge the conventional wisdom were met with derision and contempt and often had grant money withheld. Sound familiar?
ReplyDeleteWell, at least the government-funded science on g̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶c̶o̶o̶l̶i̶n̶g̶ g̶l̶o̶b̶a̶l̶ ̶w̶a̶r̶m̶i̶n̶g̶ climate change is settled.
ReplyDeleteAs someone else noted, if the science is settled, then why do we need to spend any more money on research?
DeleteIIRC, quite a long time ago The Atlantic magazine published an extensive "expose" on how the dire warnings about cholesterol came about. One of the article's main points was that the war on cholesterol originated with a small, relatively obscure Federal agency that was using it to improve its visibility and increase its annual budget. As for saturated fats, I've seen reports from clinical trials that indicate there's no more harm from saturated fats than ordinary fats as long as they (the saturated fats) are not at levels exceeding 8X or 9X what you'd get in an ordinary balanced diet. In fact, in an appendix to one report, it was claimed that the individuals who are most at risk from saturated fats are breast fed babies, whose nutrition comes almost exclusively from mother's milk, which naturally contains some saturated fat. By comparison, few adults eat such a limited range of foods, and saturated fats should not become a major concern for the typical balanced diet of an adult.
ReplyDeleteWhat? The research was inaccurate?
ReplyDeleteDDT was not available for comment...
"Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets."
ReplyDeleteYet, this same gummint still recommends a carb-heavy diet.
The diabetic guidelines are focused on a higher risk of heart disease for diabetics, but rather than approach the mistaken idea of high-carbohydrates, they focus on the results rather than the cause.
Sheesh.
And the scientists were actually finding cholesterol was bad with scientific measurements and statistics. The global warming nuts are just feeding fake data into computer models they programmed to show the results they want to see. It's so far removed from science it is pathetic. What a scam.
ReplyDeleteSo called Medicine; or was it Big Ag, gave an Entire Nation Obesity; Tooth Decay; IBS and Diabetes. Not Bad. Whole new industries will try and sell Americans pills and glucose meters. Just throw the "healthy whole wheat" garbage into the trash where it belongs.
ReplyDelete