Re: Experiences with Atkins diet

From: Brian Atkins (brian@posthuman.com)
Date: Thu May 01 2003 - 19:16:41 MDT

  • Next message: Brian Atkins: "Re: Experiences with Atkins diet"

    Harvey Newstrom wrote:
    > 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.

    Actually, he goes on and spends the majority of the page discussing HDL
    and LDL.

    >
    > 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.

    Yes it is badly worded on the homepage, but the subpage goes into plenty
    of details.

    >
    > 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.

    Again, the subpage does a better job if you read it.

    >
    > 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.)

    Dr. Ravnskov loves to get emails. Drop him a line and prove him wrong. I
    want to also see this evidence. He makes a claim at the bottom of that
    subpage:

    "The crucial test is the controlled, randomised trial. Eight such trials
    using diet as the only treatment has been performed (76), but neither
    the number of fatal or non-fatal heart attacks was reduced significantly
    in any of these trials, not even if the results were added in a
    meta-analysis. A recent, small trial, which included the addition of
    alfa-linolenic acid to the diet, was succesful (77), but in that trial
    the serum cholesterol concentration was unaltered by the diet leaving us
    with more questions than answers."

    >
    > 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.

    Yes I am confused here because the title of the subpage is "5.
    Cholesterol-lowering may shorten your life"

    >
    > Number 6 seems to contradict number 5. He stated in 5 that no drugs improve

    Read more carefully.. he says no drugs which are cholesterol-lowering
    ONLY. At the bottom of the #5 subpage he mentions statins.

    > 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.

    I think if you read carefully, he is attacking the idea that cholesterol
    (LDL or otherwise) is the "important thing to watch for" when it comes
    to heart disease. And that because of this erroneous status it is now
    used as an excuse to place many people on these drugs (which DO have
    serious side effects... one of them was already pulled off the market in
    2001 for 100+ deaths) who actually might not need to be medicated if
    other factors such as their homocystein levels were tested, and if the
    medical establishment would come around to the idea that cholesterol may
    only be a symptom at most, not a cause.

    >
    > Number 7 is just conspiracy rambling. He adds no more information, but says
    > it is all a conspiracy to keep the truth hidden.

    I think if you really study the history of this scientific area, there
    are indeed many (sadly typical) examples of politics getting in the way
    of the science. The guy that first discovered the homocystein link back
    in the 70s lost his job because of politics (he claims). The government
    and associated scientists pushed the prudent diet/food pyramid and
    associated "healthy"/"unhealthy" cholesterol levels onto the public with
    extremely poor backing evidence. See the articles from Gary Taubes for
    instance: http://nasw.org/mem-maint/awards/The%20soft%20science.pdf

    >
    > Number 8 is more conspiracy theory with no added facts.

    Did you read the subpage? It appears to have facts. He even published a
    paper on it in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 1995;48:713-719.

    >
    > 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.

    This work of his is clearly aimed at demolishing the lipid hypothesis,
    including the updated versions of it. It is not aimed at proving a new
    hypothesis that eating saturated fat is the best thing to eat, or
    anything else. I hope he does however progress on to helping to figure
    out what the true causes of CVD are and how to reduce your chances of
    being afflicted.

    -- 
    Brian Atkins
    Singularity Institute for Artificial Intelligence
    http://www.singinst.org/
    


    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu May 01 2003 - 19:28:43 MDT