In part one of my discussion of fats, I talked about the lipid hypothesis, how it is rarely referred to as a hypothesis and why we should be sceptical of it. I also briefly introduced the “vocal minority” of scientists and clinical practioners who do not accept it as a working model.
This post is a collection of the writings of the vocal minority.
***
So who are the vocal minority?
Here are some of the more famous ones:
#1: Barry Groves
Barry gives some great history to why most people today ended up believing that dietary fat is somehow bad for them. He tells some shocking stories about poor scientific process too, so be warned!
-
Introducing cholesterol – Barry explains that, post-war, foods containing lots of saturated fat were considered to be very healthy. So what changed? Well, in 1950 an American doctor, John Gofman, hypothesised that blood cholesterol was to blame for coronary heart disease (“CHD”). This was supported in 1951 when pathologists were sent to Korea to learn about war wounds. To their surprise they discovered unexpected evidence of coronary heart disease: deposits of fibrous, fatty material sticking to the artery walls.
-
Introducing dietary fats – Barry explains that, after John Gofman came Ancel Keys and his “Seven Countries” study in 1953. Another American doctor, Keys compared the death rates from CHD and the amounts of fats eaten in those countries to demonstrate that heart disease mortality was higher in the countries that consumed more fat than it was in those countries that consumed less. What nobody tells you, of course, is that at that time, data from many more countries were available but Keys ignored the data from those that did not support his hypothesis. Barry goes on to talk about the famous Framingham study, which was set up in 1948 and is still ongoing. After 62 years, it has still not found any evidence of the connection between dietary fat intake and CHD. Barry covers many more studies, just check out the link.
***
#2: Malcolm Kendrick
Malcolm’s easy to understand and straightforward explanations are great for cutting through the false claims of the lipid hypothesis crowd. Read on and see what I mean…
-
What causes heart disease? - in this simple primer, Malcolm explains the processes that lead to CHD. His style is simple and very clear. Malcolm breaks down the processes as follows: plaques in arteries develop for two reasons (1) endothelial (or artery wall) damage, and (2) blood clots. Factors that cause endothelial damage include: high blood glucose, high levels of insulin, smoking, high levels of cortisol, high triglycerides, high levels of homocysteine and a lack of certain vitamins, including B and C. Factors that cause blood clots are similar, because damage to the artery wall often causes clots. Things that lead to these problems include: obesity, smoking, lack of exercise, depression and stress. Malcolm recommends that we therefore: (1) Don’t smoke, (2) Take exercise, (3) Lose weight, (4) Relax when we eat and eat slowly, (5) If we feel ‘trapped’ in our lives, change something, and (6) Don’t disrupt our social networks, or create a good social network.
- Do you know what a fat is? – in this article, Malcolm explains something that most people don’t understand. He begins with an amusing discussion of fats and trans-fats (as in margerine) and then he drops his bombshell, noting that: “within the context of heart disease, the only real connection between fats and cholesterol is that, as they are both insoluble in water, they both have to be transported around inside lipoproteins. You don’t make cholesterol from saturated fats, or any other sort of fat, or vice-versa.” Wow. (If you are curious about how cholesterol is synthesised by the body, you can find out here).
***
#3: Glyn Wainwright
-
The wonder of cholesterol - Glyn pulls no punches in his hard-hitting approach to the dangerous myth that is the lipid hypothesis. He notes: “there has never been a scientific study that has been able to demonstrate a causal link between cholesterol and heart disease. The reality is that cholesterol in its natural form cannot be harmful. Cholesterol is irrelevant to atherosclerosis. Far from being harmful, cholesterol ranks highly among the most important biochemicals in our bodies.” That seems pretty definitive to me. But Glyn has more to say, he asserts that: “blaming Cholesterol for heart disease is like blaming ambulances for motorway crashes. Statistically you get an association between accidents and the appearance of ambulances but there is no causal link. Likewise many factors statistically associated with heart disease are not causes of heart disease.” Confusing association and causation is a fairly elementary error but it seems that we have blundered straight into it.
***
#4: Duane Graveline
Duane is now retired and you can read the sadness between the lines of his writing as he contemplates the ignorance that is causing so much ill-health and so many deaths as a result of poor medication and misguided treatments.
-
Cholesterol – friend or foe? - in this passionately-argued article, Duane sets out all of the positive benefits that cholesterol brings to a healthy body and why it is insane to try and limit the amount of cholesterol that we synthesis, as statins do.
-
The great cholesterol scam – Duane notes how even scientists who go to great lengths to make themselves heard are being ignored by institutions and governments all over the world when they draw attention to the fact that the lipid hypothesis has no evidence. He notes that the reason for this silencing is probably partly due to the financial interests of the pharmaceutical industries, which make good returns from statins. He recalls that, on 23 September 2004, 35 prominent physicians, epidemiologists and other scientists wrote to the heads of the National Institutes of Health, the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the National Cholesterol Education Program to urge an independent review of the scientific studies on which the new cholesterol guidelines were based. They charged complete lack of objectivity of the originators of these new guidelines because 8 of the 9authors had direct financial ties to the pharmaceutical industry.
***
#5: Michael Eades
Let’s not forget my favourite lipid hypothesis sceptic, Michael Eades:
-
The lipid hypothesis - Michael sets out the basis of the lipid hypothesis in this post and makes some strong criticisms. For example, he notes that just one scientifically verified fact disproves the whole house of cards: only about half the people who have heart attacks have elevated cholesterol levels. Boom. Is that the sound of playing cards I hear floating around in the wind?
-
An epilogue to the cholesterol story - if you are interested in some of the history behind how we came to believe that cholesterol was bad for us then this review of the 1984 Time Magazine article that stirred up the public awareness is absolutely fascinating. The public health guidelines were released in 1977 but, as always, few people took any notice. When the Time Magazine hit the shelves, people started listening. Truly horrifying stuff.
***
Well, I’m done. I get angry just reading this stuff now. I hope you find it challenging reading.
