Is the cholesterol theory totally false!?

It has been known that saturated fat is not unhealthy and is in fact neccesary for a healthy diet. About a third of your caloric intake should come from fat.

Edit: i would also point out that antioxidants are essential as well but you hardly need to worry about it as, unless you are malnourished, you will have more than enough. Same with vitamins supplements which were created in the mid 1930s to help with malnourishment... Nowadays though you dont need to worry much.

Most people need unique diets depending on their size, gender and other factors but generally you need a third of your calories from fat, a third from protein and a third from carbohydrates.

Originally posted by Bosse de Nage
Tim Noakes: heart disease theory 'has failed'
http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/heart-disease-theory-an-error-noakes-1.1384290

Tim Noakes called a 'cholesterol denialist'
http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-812-1741,76665.asp

I agree with Tim Noakes assertion that the heart disease theory is an error and I agree with most of what he says but, if he did actually say ( and I am aware of the common corruption of putting words into peoples mouths ) we should switch to a high fat high protein diet then I would be forced to agree with those doctors who say he has gone too far. This is because the standard cholesterol theory being wrong does not necessarily imply ( and certainly does not equate with ) that a diet higher in fat and protein would be better for us! To jump to the assumption that a high fat high protein diet is better for us would be just as unscientific and irrational as jumping to the assumptions that lead to the standard cholesterol theory!

Rather revealing in http://www.iol.co.za/lifestyle/heart-disease-theory-an-error-noakes-1.1384290 is the case against statins with evidence that clearly contradicts the cholesterol theory:
“...
Prof Patrick Commerford et al’s letter (“Noakes goes too far”, September 14) states that “Noakes’s questioning of the value of cholesterol-lowering agents, or statins, was at best unwise and could be harmful to patients”. Here is an alternative position:
As doctors in the 1990s we learned that atherosclerosis was caused by high cholesterol and that statin tablets reduced cholesterol and so protected us from heart attacks. It was easy – “you are what you eat”.
The first shock to this theory came in a meta-analysis in 2000 when Mike Pignone et al showed that although statin tablets reduced heart attacks they did not cut overall mortality. So you might not die of a heart attack, but you wouldn’t live any longer.
The second shock was when Jeppeson et al showed in 2001 that half |of all heart attacks happen to people with normal cholesterol.
This meant something else was |going on besides high cholesterol to cause heart attacks.
The answer came initially from a study by Paul Ridker in 1998 showing that men with inflammation in their arteries were at much higher risk of heart attacks than other men.
This meant that inflammation was more important than raised cholesterol in developing a heart attack.
But if inflammation was causing heart attacks, why were statin tablets that lowered cholesterol so useful?
The JUPITER study gave us the answer by showing that a statin tablet would both reduce inflammation and cholesterol. This means that if the arterial wall is not inflamed then cholesterol will tend not to stick to it.
So if it is inflammation and not absolute cholesterol levels that we are fighting, then wouldn’t it be more prudent to use an anti-inflammatory to prevent heart attacks?
In 2006, Pignone got back into the ring to show that for the average person who was at moderate-to-low risk for a heart attack, Aspirin was more effective and more cost-effective than statin tablets at reducing heart attacks. ...”

I was rather annoyed by the remark said against Tim Noakes beliefs ( actually, not quite 'beliefs' but 'disbeliefs' ) in
http://www.health24.com/medical/Condition_centres/777-792-812-1741,76665.asp which was:

"Having survived 'Aids Denialism' we do not need to be exposed to 'Cholesterol Denialism',"

We have EVIDENCE of Aids! We do not have evidence for the standard cholesterol theory! So you cannot compare 'Aids Denialism' with 'Cholesterol Denialism' -somebody should tell those doctors that.

Originally posted by tomtom232
It has been known that saturated fat is not unhealthy and is in fact neccesary for a healthy diet. About a third of your caloric intake should come from fat.

Edit: i would also point out that antioxidants are essential as well but you hardly need to worry about it as, unless you are malnourished, you will have more than enough. Same with vitamins suppl ...[text shortened]... you need a third of your calories from fat, a third from protein and a third from carbohydrates.

What this thread reminds me of is a recent BBC documentary, which set out very convincingly that there was a political history to the debate about heart attacks and obesity. The linking of obesity to fatty diets was perfectly feasible, but it was just a theory. The thing is that there were always alternative views. So the decision which ones to adopt and promote, and which ones to silence and ignore, was not driven by any concern for public health, let alone the quality of scientific evidence, and was driven instead by cynical commercial interests. For example, selling low fat options became a massive source of income for the food industry without the slightest evidence of their health benefits - indeed, quite the opposite. Many self styled low fat processed foods are extremely fattening because low fat does not mean non fattening! Let's not mention this to the consumers.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01jxzv8

Around the world, obesity levels are rising. More people are now overweight than undernourished. Two thirds of British adults are overweight and one in four of us is classified as obese. In the first of this three-part series, Jacques Peretti traces those responsible for revolutionising our eating habits, to find out how decisions made in America 40 years ago influence the way we eat now.

Peretti travels to America to investigate the story of high-fructose corn syrup. The sweetener was championed in the US in the 1970s by Richard Nixon's agriculture secretary Earl Butz to make use of the excess corn grown by farmers. Cheaper and sweeter than sugar, it soon found its way into almost all processed foods and soft drinks. HFCS is not only sweeter than sugar, it also interferes with leptin, the hormone that controls appetite, so once you start eating or drinking it, you don't know when to stop.

Endocrinologist Robert Lustig was one of the first to recognise the dangers of HFCS but his findings were discredited at the time. Meanwhile a US Congress report blamed fat, not sugar, for the disturbing rise in cardio-vascular disease and the food industry responded with ranges of 'low fat', 'heart healthy' products in which the fat was removed - but the substitute was yet more sugar.

Meanwhile, in 1970s Britain, food manufacturers used advertising campaigns to promote the idea of snacking between meals. Outside the home, fast food chains offered clean, bright premises with tempting burgers cooked and served with a very un-British zeal and efficiency. Twenty years after the arrival of McDonalds, the number of fast food outlets in Britain had quadrupled.

There are many other common health myths.
one of them is the myth that Omega-3 helps prevent heart disease:


http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/omega-3-hype-is-a-myth-study-shows-1.1381955#.UJd_xYZHe_I

"....Omega-3 hype is a myth, study shows

September 13 2012 at 09:00am
By Reuters

Comment on this story

Frederik Joelving

New York

Omega-3 fatty acids, found in oily fish such as sardines and salmon and once touted as a way of staving off heart disease and stroke, don’t help after all, according to a Greek study.

Based on a review and analysis of previous clinical trials including more than 68 000 people, Greek researchers said the fatty acids have no impact on overall death rates, deaths from heart disease, or strokes and heart attacks.

This was true whether they were obtained from supplements such as pills, or from fish in the diet, said the researchers, led by Mosef Elisef at the University Hospital of Ioannina.

“Overall, omega-3 supplementation was not associated with a lower risk of all-cause mortality, cardiac death, sudden death, myocardial infarction or stroke based on relative and absolute measures of association,” Elisef and his team wrote.

A decade ago, medical evidence suggested that boosting omega-3s with food or supplements had a strong protective effect. Scientists cited improvements in levels of triglycerides – a type of fat in the blood – as well as blood pressure levels and heart rhythm disturbances. But since then, the picture has grown clouded. Earlier this year, a group of Korean researchers found that omega-3 supplements had no effect on heart disease or death based on 20 000 people in previous trials.

The current study pooled results of 18 clinical trials that assigned participants randomly to take either omega-3 supplements, or not. It also includes two trials in which people got dietary counselling to increase their consumption of omega-3 foods.

Researchers also considered whether growing use of statins and other medications could explain why later studies failed to support earlier findings. But, Elisef and his team said that wasn’t the case.

Because people who eat a lot of fish have been found to have less heart disease, researchers figured that perhaps putting the “active ingredients” in a pill could provide similar benefits, said Alice Lichtenstein, director of the Cardiovascular Nutrition Laboratory at Tufts University in Boston. “What we have learned… is you can’t think about individual nutrients in isolation,” she added.

People who eat fish often may be replacing things like steak, hamburgers or quiche, making for a healthier diet.

Instead of supplements, Lichtenstein recommended eating fish at least twice a week, having a diet rich in whole grains and vegetables, getting lots of physical activity, and not smoking. – Reuters
..."



here is another Omega-3 myth:
http://blog.healthkismet.com/the-omega6omega3-fa-ratio-is-a-myth





but here is a link suggesting that even the Omega-3 brain-boosting power hype is just a myth:
http://www.wired.com/medtech/health/magazine/16-05/gs_myths

"...A test of mice found that an omega-3-rich diet had no impact on cognitive function. And cold-water fish that are high in omega-3s are also likely to have elevated levels of methylmercury and PCBs, both known neurotoxins. It would be great if fish really were brain food. Unfortunately, we've got to throw this one back...."

So is the Omega-3 brain-boosting power hype just a myth? -not so sure about this one because there are links claiming there is real evidence of a real cognitive benefit so perhaps this is an isolated fact in an ocean of Omega-3 myths?
There is one key bit of evidence that suggests to me that the Omega-3 brain-boosting power theory may well be just a myth which is, before all this hype, when few veterinarians took Omega-3 supplements or before Omega-3 was added to processed food, statistics showed no difference between the average IQ of vegetarians and meat eaters and yet most vegetarians used to eat very little Omega-3 and, according to the theory, should have been 'Omega-3 deficient' and mentally impaired compared to meat eaters as a result of this! there is no evidence that vegetarians suffered any kind of mental impairment as a result of having very little Omiga-3. How on earth do the health experts that believe the Omega-3 brain-boosting power theory explain this? I would really like to know their take on this.

Originally posted by humy
There are many other common health myths.
one of them is the myth that Omega-3 helps prevent heart disease:


http://www.iol.co.za/the-star/omega-3-hype-is-a-myth-study-shows-1.1381955#.UJd_xYZHe_I

"....Omega-3 hype is a myth, study shows

September 13 2012 at 09:00am
By Reuters

Comment on this story

Frederik Joelving

New York

Omega-3 fatt ...[text shortened]... brain-boosting power theory explain this? I would really like to know their take on this.

sorry, misprint:
I said "veterinarians" when I meant "vegetarians".
The spell checker and corrector is not too smart.