From: Harvey Newstrom (mail@HarveyNewstrom.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 15:38:34 MDT
Brian Atkins wrote,
>
> Brian Atkins wrote:
> >
> > P.S. Here is a relevant book: "The Cholesterol Myths..."
> > http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0967089700/
> > I haven't ordered it, but it might be worth reviewing.
>
> Dr. Ravnskov appears to be another non-obvious-crackpot who also backs
> the idea that saturated fats have gotten an irrationally bad rap.
> Credentials:
>
> http://www.ravnskov.nu/uffe.htm
>
> companion site to that book:
>
> http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
Number 1 starts out true. But then he says there is no such thing as good
cholesterol or bad cholesterol. He talks as if there is only one type of
cholesterol. He ignores the differences between HDL and LDLs.
Number 2 is not a logical argument. Just because "many" people with normal
blood cholesterol still become atherosclerotic, does not contradict the
statement that most people with high blood cholesterol do become
atherosclerotic.
Number 3 is a non-sequitur. Just because dietary cholesterol does not
directly control serum cholesterol does not imply that other dietary factors
are also useless in controlling serum cholesterol. His statement that the
body produces its own cholesterol far beyond the amount you eat is a clue
that it must be created out of some substance other than dietary
cholesterol.
Number 4 is just plain false. Hundreds if not thousands of studies have
been performed that show a statistical link between animal fat and
cholesterol consumption and atherosclerosis or heart attacks. Just because
twenty of them failed to show this is hardly a refutation of all the rest.
(It is perfectly possible that these studies were all wrong or flawed, but
to claim there is no evidence is misleading. There is evidence, and he
needs to refute it if he can.)
Number 5 is unproven. It is not clear that the only way to lower
cholesterol is with drugs. I think diet, exercise and nutrients can help
too. It is hard to prove a negative, this statement seems to ignore a lot
of evidence. He especially ignores exercise as a possible
cholesterol-lowering activity.
Number 6 seems to contradict number 5. He stated in 5 that no drugs improve
mortality, but then he concedes that new statin drugs to prevent
cardio-vascular disease. He also points out that these cause cancer in
rodents, but this is a non-sequitur pot-shot. He is trying to talk people
out of using these drugs, but this is tangential to whether they help
prevent heart problems.
Number 7 is just conspiracy rambling. He adds no more information, but says
it is all a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden.
Number 8 is more conspiracy theory with no added facts.
But none of these directly discuss cholesterol or saturated fats in the
diet. He gives no statement that cholesterol or saturated fats are good for
you to eat. All his stuff seems to be against the idea that dietary
cholesterol causes serum cholesterol or heat attacks. This is true. These
were older theories that were replaced with the newer idea that there are
different kinds of fats and cholesterol, and some are good while others are
bad, and raising/lowering total fat or cholesterol is inconclusive. In
other words, I don't see any of these theories being much related to the
question of whether saturated fat is good or required. I agree with these
theories, but disagree with the latter question.
-- Harvey Newstrom, CISSP, IAM, GSEC, IBMCP <www.HarveyNewstrom.com> <www.Newstaff.com>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 15:51:20 MDT