VegMommy wrote:I know we've discussed this before and I'm pretty sure we won't ever agree, but I just can't let things like this go. I honestly and truly believe that everybody promoting one diet or another is doing it sincerely.
Isn't it possible for us to enjoy and believe in our diet without impugning those who promote something else?
VegMommy wrote:There's a difference between defending oneself and attacking others. There's also a big difference between believing others are wrong and believing others are deliberately misleading people.
Perhaps you are coming to such conclusions because you may have not read hundreds of papers related to the claims made by many of these cholesterol skeptics that you appear to be defending in these statements. Reading a limited number of interpretations of the scientific literature will likely convince one that such interpretations are relatively accurate as these interpretations are often well written and appear to be logical to the average person that has not extensively researched the topic at hand.
One example is the cholesterol skeptics interpretation of a 2010 meta-analysis of prospective cohort that concluded that saturated fat was not associated with coronary heart disease. The majority of these skeptics claimed that this meta-analysis was informative while failing to mention the fact that saturated fat was primarily compared to refined carbohydrates, that the meta-analysis over-adjusted for dietary and serum lipids, that the higher quality studies included in the meta-analysis were more likely to show a positive relationship with coronary heart disease, and the likelihood that participants with high serum cholesterol were likely to reduce intake of saturated fat and dietary cholesterol throughout the follow-up which was not accounted for in the majority of the studies. These limitations would have likely attenuated the findings of this meta-analysis towards null, and resembles the limitations of large studies published by employees tobacco industry in attempt to obscure the association between passive smoking and lung cancer and heart disease.
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.full
http://circ.ahajournals.org/content/122/9/876
http://www.no-smoke.org/document.php?id=333
Another important point that Dr. McDougall made in the July 2010 newsletter was how the authors of this meta-analysis, like virtually all of the cholesterol skeptics ignore virtually thousands of relevant animal experiments. As Jeremiah Stamler pointed out in the editorial to this meta-analysis:
“In fact, the decisive dietary modification for experimental atherogenesis, the sine qua non or materia peccans(Anitschkow's term), is cholesterol ingestion. This has been the prerequisite since the 1908–1912 breakthrough by Anitschkow et al (a centennial anniversary meriting celebration and discussion) in thousands of experiments in mammalian and avian species—herbivorous, carnivorous, and omnivorous—including nonhuman primates. To neglect this fact in a review about humans is to imply that the Darwinian foundation of biomedical research is invalid and/or that there is a body of substantial contrary evidence in humans. Neither is the case.”http://www.drmcdougall.com/misc/2010nl/jul/100700.htm
http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/91/3/497.fullAlso very importantly, using the data from the same studies included in the 2010 meta-analysis, Stamler calculated that saturated fat was associated with a 32% increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease.
Are you able to provide any plausible reasons as to why someone being sincere would not inform their readers about these limitations while claiming that this meta-analysis is informative? Do you agree with the cholesterol skeptics that it is not important to inform readers of Stamler’s finding that saturated fat was associated with an increased risk of fatal coronary heart disease, which in-turn suggests that people who read health blogs and books are not concerned whether they die or not?
Another important point is that evidence has accumulated from over 100 randomized controlled trials and large mendelian randomization studies finding that lowering LDL cholesterol significantly decreases the risk of coronary heart disease and all-cause mortality, independent of changes to HDL cholesterol and triglycerides, and non-lipid effects of specific drugs. To suggest that the cholesterol skeptics are being sincere means to suggest that these studies are flawed, and demands another plausible explanation as to why you believe this is the case.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2645847/
http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1379036Also importantly is the relevant data that the cholesterol skeptics ignore regarding population studies. This includes evidence of the poor cardiovascular health of the traditional Inuit, and also the nomadic Kirghiz plainsmen who live predominantly on large quantities of organic pasture raised animals foods who experience severe cardiovascular disease at young ages, resembling people who inherit very high cholesterol (Familial Hypercholesterolemia). For more information regarding studies on these populations as well as others, please see my the posts in the links below, and Plant Positive's video series.
http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2012/11/traditional-diets-in-asia-pacific-and.html
http://healthylongevity.blogspot.com/2012/08/forks-over-knives-and-healthy-longevity_17.html