25 replies to this topic

[oehaut]

It looks like Anthony Colpo is back to writting, which is a nice thing to me.

He just posted a short-interesting article on his web site.

Research Updates
Anthony Colpo,
Jan 18, 2010.

Saturated Fat Is Not Associated With Cardiovascular Disease

A couple of weeks back I shared with readers a WHO and FAO-sanctioned review showing that saturated fat and total fat intake were not associated with cardiovascular disease. Hot on the heels of that report comes a similar paper, appearing in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, also concluding that saturated fat shows no association with heart disease or stroke.

Researchers from Harvard Univerity and the Children’s Hospital Oakland Research Institute pooled the data from twenty-one prospective epidemiologic studies examining the association of dietary saturated fat with coronary heart disease (CHD), stroke, and cardiovascular disease (CVD; CHD inclusive of stroke) risk.

During 5–23 years' follow-up of 347,747 subjects, 11,006 developed CHD or stroke. Intake of saturated fat was not associated with an increased risk of CHD, stroke, or CVD. The pooled relative risk estimates that compared extreme quantiles of saturated fat intake were 1.07 for CHD, 0.81 for stroke, and 1.00 for CVD. In other words, those who ate the highest amounts of saturated fat had no greater risk of CVD than those who ate the lowest. Consideration of age, sex, and study quality did not change the results[6].

Those of you tempted to dismiss these findings as the work of pro-meat/dairy/egg industry shills or fringe-dwelling skeptics should note that one of the authors, Dr. Ronald Krauss, has worked at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), has been a Senior Advisor to the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP), and is actively involved with the American Heart Association (AHA), having served as Chairman of the Nutrition Committee. He is founder and Chair of the AHA Council on Nutrition, Physical Activity, and Metabolism. The NHLBI, NCEP and AHA have all been key players in gaining global acceptance for the pseudo-scientific absurdity that constitutes the lipid hypothesis of heart disease.

Swedish Farmers Live Longer on Dairy Fat and Veggies

Last year, a study published in the International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health reported on CHD mortality and morbidity among 1,752 Swedish rural males. During 12-years' follow-up, 88 died during follow-up, 335 were hospitalized or died due to CVD and 138 were hospitalized or died due to CHD.

When the dietary records of the men were analyzed, the crude unadjusted data showed that consumption of cream and full-fat milk and daily consumption of fruit and vegetables were associated with a lower risk of CHD. When the data was adjusted for confounding factors the only statistically significant dietary factor associated with reduced CHD was the combination of daily fruit and vegetable intake and high dairy fat consumption (relative risk = 0.39). Choosing wholemeal bread or eating fish at least twice a week showed no association with CHD. Farmers developed less coronary heart disease than non-farmers[7].

Japanese with High Cholesterol Live Longer

The Japanese have long been cited in support of the lipid hypothesis, but there is an abundance of research involving Japanese participants showing this hypothesis is in fact complete nonsense. The latest of such studies appeared in the Journal of Lipid Nutrition[8].

Japanese citizens over the age of 40 qualify for free annual health check-ups. The Fukui Study was based on data collected by the Public Health Center of Fukui from such check ups between 1986 and 1990 of residents of Fukui City in Japan. Researchers stratified 22,971 participants into groups according to their cholesterol levels.

Compared with those in the 240-259 mg/dl category, those in the 160-169 mg/dl (both sexes) and the 140-159 mg/dl (women) groups suffered significantly higher all-cause mortality.

Next, the researchers conducted a meta-analysis of five large Japanese studies (including the Fukui Study) with a combined total of over 170,000 subjects to examine cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality.

Participants with cholesterol levels between 160-199 mg/dL were chosen as the reference group. The meta-analysis revealed that the relative risk in the <160 mg/dL group was significantly higher than in the reference group [RR = 1.71], and that the relative risks in the 200-239 mg/dL and >240 mg/dL groups were significantly lower than in the reference group [RRs of 0.83 and 0.78, respectively].

The authors suggest that "Japanese subjects with cholesterol levels >240 mg/dL (>6.22 mmol/L) should not be regarded as hypercholesterolemic or dyslipidemic except when having some genetic disorders like familial hypercholesterolemia because they are in the safest ranges in terms of all-cause mortality".

NOTE TO JAPAN: Along with muffin tops, Snoop Dogg clothing and Big Brother, cholesterol lowering is one trend from the West you should definitely ignore. It's a wank.

References

1. Siri-Tarino PW, et al. Meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies evaluating the association of saturated fat with cardiovascular disease. American Journal of Clinical Nutrition. Published ahead of print January 13, 2010. DOI: 10.3945/ajcn.2009.27725.

2. Holmberg S, et al. Food Choices and Coronary Heart Disease: A Population Based Cohort Study of Rural Swedish Men with 12 Years of Follow-up. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2009; 6: 2626-2638.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....ph-06-02626.pdf

3. Kirihara Y, et al. The Relationship between Total Blood Cholesterol Levels and All-cause Mortality in Fukui City, and Meta-analysis of This Relationship in Japan. Journal of Lipid Nutrition, 2008; 17 (1): 67-78.
http://www.jstage.js.../_pdf/-char/ja/



The result from the Japanese study are interesting. Does anybody know if such other meta-analysis have been done and if it reflect a general tendancy? What could be confounding factors here?

What are the optimal cholesterol level?

[DukeNukem]

No surprises here. My cholesterol is 225, in the middle of what I consider the sweet spot (220-230). The reason it's so high is that my HDL is roughly 100. Still, it's not the total cholesterol that matters, it's the type of lipoproteins. I think it's merely a coincidence that when people eat a healthy diet that raises HDL and reduces small-particle LDL, that the total cholesterol number averages above 220.

[Jay]

No surprises here. My cholesterol is 225, in the middle of what I consider the sweet spot (220-230). The reason it's so high is that my HDL is roughly 100. Still, it's not the total cholesterol that matters, it's the type of lipoproteins. I think it's merely a coincidence that when people eat a healthy diet that raises HDL and reduces small-particle LDL, that the total cholesterol number averages above 220.

Impressive! What do you attribute the high HLD to? Genetics? Coconut oil?

[DukeNukem]

No surprises here. My cholesterol is 225, in the middle of what I consider the sweet spot (220-230). The reason it's so high is that my HDL is roughly 100. Still, it's not the total cholesterol that matters, it's the type of lipoproteins. I think it's merely a coincidence that when people eat a healthy diet that raises HDL and reduces small-particle LDL, that the total cholesterol number averages above 220.

Impressive! What do you attribute the high HLD to? Genetics? Coconut oil?

I had been in the 70's (HDL) for years until about two years ago I really ramped up my saturated fat intake, going for more red meat versus chicken (which is actually quite high in polyunsaturated fatty acids), and eating a LOT more coconut oil and high fat coconut milk--the later I use as the base for all of more protein shakes (one can coconut milk, 100 grams whey protein, a handful of blueberries, 5 grams creatine, 5 grams BCAAs, half gram ascorbyl palmitate, about 10 almonds, and 10 grams of shredded coconut). I also eliminated gluten grains at the same time, which I think also helped.

I do not think genetics has much to do with it. My father, btw, had a heart attack ten years ago. But, he switched his diet, takes 20 supps daily, and has been off ALL meds for 5+ years, and at 73 yrs old, is highly active and in great health, to the point that it baffles his cardiologist that my father can reverse his going-downhill condition so dramatically.

[Mind]

Another current Imminst discussion looking for similar data about saturated fat and CVD. The evidence continues to build that saturated fat is not the "poison" we were taught for so many years.

Also, children who drink full fat milk weight less. Just think how many people are drinking skim milk thinking it will keep them thin and help them avoid CVD.

[Ron]

(one can coconut milk, 100 grams whey protein, a handful of blueberries, 5 grams creatine, 5 grams BCAAs, half gram ascorbyl palmitate, about 10 almonds, and 10 grams of shredded coconut).

Really, 100 grams? This is one serving?

[kismet]

As often stated, the Japanese study is worthless. Show me the same data with LDL/HDL ratios or non-HDL Chol/HDL ratios... I mean there must be such data, right? Only such data could refute the "Lipid hypothesis", now, couldn't it?

And this article has written AGENDA all over it, all over it, why would any good scientist or informed layman not even mention the above facts? Not even consider them? Not even consider this thought and *then* refute it. No, just take cheap shots at the "lipid hypothesis" the way people conceived it in the 80s.

I wouldn't mind some brave maverick refuting the "great cholesterol con", but why is there no conclusive or strong evidence presented if the idea is BS?

EDIT:
Let me show you may great pub med skills and give some balance (took ~90 seconds, which I am sure Colpo could afford to sacrifice when writing an article):

Maybe one should address this little meta-analysis of 900 000 cases from 61 prospective studies?

Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1829-39.
Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.
Prospective Studies Collaboration et al.

Information was obtained from 61 prospective observational studies, mostly in western Europe or North America, consisting of almost 900,000 adults without previous disease and with baseline measurements of total cholesterol and blood pressure. During nearly 12 million person years at risk between the ages of 40 and 89 years, there were more than 55,000 vascular deaths (34,000 ischaemic heart disease [IHD], 12,000 stroke, 10,000 other). Information about HDL cholesterol was available for 150,000 participants, among whom there were 5000 vascular deaths (3000 IHD, 1000 stroke, 1000 other). Reported associations are with usual cholesterol levels (ie, corrected for the regression dilution bias). FINDINGS: 1 mmol/L lower total cholesterol was associated with about a half (hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.42-0.48]), a third (0.66 [0.65-0.68]), and a sixth (0.83 [0.81-0.85]) lower IHD mortality in both sexes at ages 40-49, 50-69, and 70-89 years, respectively, throughout the main range of cholesterol in most developed countries, with no apparent threshold. The proportional risk reduction decreased with increasing blood pressure, since the absolute effects of cholesterol and blood pressure were approximately additive. Of various simple indices involving HDL cholesterol, the ratio total/HDL cholesterol was the strongest predictor of IHD mortality (40% more informative than non-HDL cholesterol and more than twice as informative as total cholesterol). Total cholesterol was weakly positively related to ischaemic and total stroke mortality in early middle age (40-59 years), but this finding could be largely or wholly accounted for by the association of cholesterol with blood pressure. Moreover, a positive relation was seen only in middle age and only in those with below-average blood pressure; at older ages (70-89 years) and, particularly, for those with systolic blood pressure over about 145 mm Hg, total cholesterol was negatively related to haemorrhagic and total stroke mortality. The results for other vascular mortality were intermediate between those for IHD and stroke.

AFAIK IHD is the major CV-cause of death? The stroke data is not a convincing argument then.

Interestingly, in an analysis of RCTs...

BMJ. 2009 Feb 16;338:b92. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b92.
Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
Briel et al.
"The change in the quotient of low density lipoprotein cholesterol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol did not explain more of the variability in any of the outcomes than did the change in low density lipoprotein cholesterol alone."
...??

Edited by kismet, 18 January 2010 - 08:35 PM.

[DukeNukem]

(one can coconut milk, 100 grams whey protein, a handful of blueberries, 5 grams creatine, 5 grams BCAAs, half gram ascorbyl palmitate, about 10 almonds, and 10 grams of shredded coconut).

Really, 100 grams? This is one serving?

I should have made clear: This makes 3 servings.

[nameless]

(one can coconut milk, 100 grams whey protein, a handful of blueberries, 5 grams creatine, 5 grams BCAAs, half gram ascorbyl palmitate, about 10 almonds, and 10 grams of shredded coconut).

Really, 100 grams? This is one serving?

I should have made clear: This makes 3 servings.

You eat one serving a day, I assume?

Edited by nameless, 18 January 2010 - 09:03 PM.

[DukeNukem]

(one can coconut milk, 100 grams whey protein, a handful of blueberries, 5 grams creatine, 5 grams BCAAs, half gram ascorbyl palmitate, about 10 almonds, and 10 grams of shredded coconut).

Really, 100 grams? This is one serving?

I should have made clear: This makes 3 servings.

You eat one serving a day, I assume?

Mostly. But sometimes two.

[oehaut]

As often stated, the Japanese study is worthless. Show me the same data with LDL/HDL ratios or non-HDL Chol/HDL ratios... I mean there must be such data, right? Only such data could refute the "Lipid hypothesis", now, couldn't it?

And this article has written AGENDA all over it, all over it, why would any good scientist or informed layman not even mention the above facts? Not even consider them? Not even consider this thought and *then* refute it. No, just take cheap shots at the "lipid hypothesis" the way people conceived it in the 80s.

I wouldn't mind some brave maverick refuting the "great cholesterol con", but why is there no conclusive or strong evidence presented if the idea is BS?

EDIT:
Let me show you may great pub med skills and give some balance (took ~90 seconds, which I am sure Colpo could afford to sacrifice when writing an article):

Maybe one should address this little meta-analysis of 900 000 cases from 61 prospective studies?

Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1829-39.
Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.
Prospective Studies Collaboration et al.

Information was obtained from 61 prospective observational studies, mostly in western Europe or North America, consisting of almost 900,000 adults without previous disease and with baseline measurements of total cholesterol and blood pressure. During nearly 12 million person years at risk between the ages of 40 and 89 years, there were more than 55,000 vascular deaths (34,000 ischaemic heart disease [IHD], 12,000 stroke, 10,000 other). Information about HDL cholesterol was available for 150,000 participants, among whom there were 5000 vascular deaths (3000 IHD, 1000 stroke, 1000 other). Reported associations are with usual cholesterol levels (ie, corrected for the regression dilution bias). FINDINGS: 1 mmol/L lower total cholesterol was associated with about a half (hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.42-0.48]), a third (0.66 [0.65-0.68]), and a sixth (0.83 [0.81-0.85]) lower IHD mortality in both sexes at ages 40-49, 50-69, and 70-89 years, respectively, throughout the main range of cholesterol in most developed countries, with no apparent threshold. The proportional risk reduction decreased with increasing blood pressure, since the absolute effects of cholesterol and blood pressure were approximately additive. Of various simple indices involving HDL cholesterol, the ratio total/HDL cholesterol was the strongest predictor of IHD mortality (40% more informative than non-HDL cholesterol and more than twice as informative as total cholesterol). Total cholesterol was weakly positively related to ischaemic and total stroke mortality in early middle age (40-59 years), but this finding could be largely or wholly accounted for by the association of cholesterol with blood pressure. Moreover, a positive relation was seen only in middle age and only in those with below-average blood pressure; at older ages (70-89 years) and, particularly, for those with systolic blood pressure over about 145 mm Hg, total cholesterol was negatively related to haemorrhagic and total stroke mortality. The results for other vascular mortality were intermediate between those for IHD and stroke.

AFAIK IHD is the major CV-cause of death? The stroke data is not a convincing argument then.

Interestingly, in an analysis of RCTs...

BMJ. 2009 Feb 16;338:b92. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b92.
Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
Briel et al.
"The change in the quotient of low density lipoprotein cholesterol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol did not explain more of the variability in any of the outcomes than did the change in low density lipoprotein cholesterol alone."
...??

Thanks, kismet, for your input.

I'm not sure he holds an angenda tho. He really seems to go with the evidence. He used to be pro low-carb, but he's one of the first along with Lyle McDonald that i've seen no longer arguing for low-carb, because the evidence clearly indicate it's not a must. (lower carbs certainly is, but not low-carb per se)

I'm gonna try to email him and see what he has to say about these studies you just pointed out.

Wouldn't it be irresponsible for the author of the Japense study to conclude that individual with 250mg/dl should not be regarded as dyslipidemic and not put on statin if their paper was useless? I'm not sure I understand why this paper prove nothing? They looked at total mortality no? Lower cholesterol = more chance of mortality. Why do we need the specific ratio?

[health_nutty]

I'm not sure I understand why this paper prove nothing? They looked at total mortality no? Lower cholesterol = more chance of mortality. Why do we need the specific ratio?

We know that low HDL is a CVD risk so just looking at total cholesterol is not as interesting than if we had all the data.

[oehaut]

I'm not sure I understand why this paper prove nothing? They looked at total mortality no? Lower cholesterol = more chance of mortality. Why do we need the specific ratio?

We know that low HDL is a CVD risk so just looking at total cholesterol is not as interesting than if we had all the data.

Ok, right.

Well, if the real important ratio is HDL/trig (i read somewhere that Apo-A/Apo-B might be even better - not sure about it tho) why do everybody care that much about LDL and try to lower it by any possible mean?

I'm just trying to reconcile what kismet said here. If total cholesterol is worthless (or at least not as good as HDL/trig) shouldnt dietary/pharmaceutical intervention aim at lowering trig and increasing HDL.... not lowering LDL?

But actually the last paper post by kismet found that HDL doesn't seem to be correlated much with CVD, whereas LDL was the main factor. How does that reconcile with the paper from the Japanese people? If low LDL is a good things and the level of HDL don't do much, how come in this meta-analysis low total C (which most likely mean low LDL and low HDL) equal more mortality?

Is there an known threshold after which lowering cholesterol brings no more benefits?

Edited by oehaut, 19 January 2010 - 06:21 PM.

[nameless]

I just glanced over the studies mentioned here, so may have missed it, but did the Japanese studies mentioned also include any analysis at all of HDL levels?

Perhaps some of the conflicting results could be influenced by the populations studied?

Meaning:

Could the Japanese diet result in generally higher HDL levels than US people? So in a population with high cholesterol, it could primarily be due to HDL. Those with low total cholesterol levels would also reflect low HDL (compared to the high total cholesterol people in same population). So that would result in low total cholesterol levels actually increasing mortality, because it was primarily due to low HDL.

But in the US, a high total cholesterol may reflect (on average), a much higher LDL value, smaller lipoproteins and low HDL.

Without a breakdown of lipoproteins, HDL, etc, I'm not sure how one can differentiate what is causing what, exactly. But could the different populations studied be a reason for the conflicting sort of results?

[kismet]

Yes, the second study is most puzzling. No threshold effect as per statin trials FWIW, no threshold effect as per the op. cit. meta-analysis, which is likely a better benchmark than a few Japanese cohorts. I still need to read the full. It could be indeed a Japanese pecularity that prevented the data from reaching significance.

[RickSantos]

As often stated, the Japanese study is worthless. Show me the same data with LDL/HDL ratios or non-HDL Chol/HDL ratios... I mean there must be such data, right? Only such data could refute the "Lipid hypothesis", now, couldn't it?

And this article has written AGENDA all over it, all over it, why would any good scientist or informed layman not even mention the above facts? Not even consider them? Not even consider this thought and *then* refute it. No, just take cheap shots at the "lipid hypothesis" the way people conceived it in the 80s.

I wouldn't mind some brave maverick refuting the "great cholesterol con", but why is there no conclusive or strong evidence presented if the idea is BS?

EDIT:
Let me show you may great pub med skills and give some balance (took ~90 seconds, which I am sure Colpo could afford to sacrifice when writing an article):

Maybe one should address this little meta-analysis of 900 000 cases from 61 prospective studies?

Lancet. 2007 Dec 1;370(9602):1829-39.
Blood cholesterol and vascular mortality by age, sex, and blood pressure: a meta-analysis of individual data from 61 prospective studies with 55,000 vascular deaths.
Prospective Studies Collaboration et al.

Information was obtained from 61 prospective observational studies, mostly in western Europe or North America, consisting of almost 900,000 adults without previous disease and with baseline measurements of total cholesterol and blood pressure. During nearly 12 million person years at risk between the ages of 40 and 89 years, there were more than 55,000 vascular deaths (34,000 ischaemic heart disease [IHD], 12,000 stroke, 10,000 other). Information about HDL cholesterol was available for 150,000 participants, among whom there were 5000 vascular deaths (3000 IHD, 1000 stroke, 1000 other). Reported associations are with usual cholesterol levels (ie, corrected for the regression dilution bias). FINDINGS: 1 mmol/L lower total cholesterol was associated with about a half (hazard ratio 0.44 [95% CI 0.42-0.48]), a third (0.66 [0.65-0.68]), and a sixth (0.83 [0.81-0.85]) lower IHD mortality in both sexes at ages 40-49, 50-69, and 70-89 years, respectively, throughout the main range of cholesterol in most developed countries, with no apparent threshold. The proportional risk reduction decreased with increasing blood pressure, since the absolute effects of cholesterol and blood pressure were approximately additive. Of various simple indices involving HDL cholesterol, the ratio total/HDL cholesterol was the strongest predictor of IHD mortality (40% more informative than non-HDL cholesterol and more than twice as informative as total cholesterol). Total cholesterol was weakly positively related to ischaemic and total stroke mortality in early middle age (40-59 years), but this finding could be largely or wholly accounted for by the association of cholesterol with blood pressure. Moreover, a positive relation was seen only in middle age and only in those with below-average blood pressure; at older ages (70-89 years) and, particularly, for those with systolic blood pressure over about 145 mm Hg, total cholesterol was negatively related to haemorrhagic and total stroke mortality. The results for other vascular mortality were intermediate between those for IHD and stroke.

AFAIK IHD is the major CV-cause of death? The stroke data is not a convincing argument then.

Interestingly, in an analysis of RCTs...

BMJ. 2009 Feb 16;338:b92. doi: 10.1136/bmj.b92.
Association between change in high density lipoprotein cholesterol and cardiovascular disease morbidity and mortality: systematic review and meta-regression analysis.
Briel et al.
"The change in the quotient of low density lipoprotein cholesterol and high density lipoprotein cholesterol did not explain more of the variability in any of the outcomes than did the change in low density lipoprotein cholesterol alone."
...??

The Cholesterol Theory of heart disease is over. I could not be happier. All of that other crap is just an EXTENSION of it.

Anthony Colpo adresses the 18 clinical dietary intervention studies to date, and the 26 prospective. Saturate dfat and cholesterol do NOT cause herat disease. NON statin cholesterol lowering is a FAILURE. Statins exert at least 11 other effects besides cholesterol lowering. These effects are how they work, but they are dangerous, overhyped and only help a SMALL percentage of mankind.

I AM GLAD ANTHONY IS WRITING AGAIN. I HOPE HE IS IN TOP FORM IN 2010. He made a HUGE impact in my life.

Edited by RickSantos, 21 January 2010 - 07:53 PM.

[kismet]

You are in the wrong thread, this one is about serum levels. Please, provide evidence to back your assertions.

Edited by kismet, 21 January 2010 - 07:59 PM.

[oehaut]

The Cholesterol Theory of heart disease is over. I could not be happier. All of that other crap is just an EXTENSION of it.

Anthony Colpo adresses the 18 clinical dietary intervention studies to date, and the 26 prospective. Saturate dfat and cholesterol do NOT cause herat disease. NON statin cholesterol lowering is a FAILURE. Statins exert at least 11 other effects besides cholesterol lowering. These effects are how they work, but they are dangerous, overhyped and only help a SMALL percentage of mankind.

I AM GLAD ANTHONY IS WRITING AGAIN. I HOPE HE IS IN TOP FORM IN 2010. He made a HUGE impact in my life.

Being skeptic applies to both side. I'm really influenced too by Colpo's book and articles (and I really like his work), but that doesn't mean we must go blind and stop thinking. I don't think the issue is settle yet and as such you should keep and open mind and be ready to consider new/other evidences.

Just my opinion tho.

Edited by oehaut, 21 January 2010 - 08:55 PM.

[magnelectro]

It really depends on if you are looking at total mortality or CVD mortality. In this study [1], cholesterol vs all-cause mortality is a U-shaped curve with both extremely low and high cholesterol levels associated with greater mortality risk. If you look at CVD risk alone the relationship is a straight positive slope (low TC, low CVD mortality). The problem with TC levels under 160 is that cholesterol is inversely associated with nearly every other cause of death besides CVD. So, if you have low cholesterol you won't get heart disease but you are more likely to die from everything else. (see figure)

The reason the Japanese in the highest cholesterol bracket have lower all-cause mortality could be due to the lower incidence of CVD death relative to other causes in Japan. Alternatively, it could be due to genetics or as kismet might argue sampling error. But CVD aside there are clear protective effects of higher cholesterol levels.

I have low cholesterol and I'm looking for suggestions for how to raise it (especially HDL). Or is that just stupid?

1. Report of the Conference on Low Blood Cholesterol: Mortality Associations. Circulation. 1992 Sep;86(3):1046-60.

Attached Files

•  Fig.1_2.jpg   201.12KB   19 downloads

Edited by magnelectro, 21 January 2010 - 11:22 PM.

[RickSantos]

You are in the wrong thread, this one is about serum levels. Please, provide evidence to back your assertions.

Read Colpo's book THEN you will have your evidence. Major reduction in SERUM in SERUM LDL and TOTAL cholesterol did NOT AT ALL LOWER CAD.

The issue IS settled. The cholesterol theory is WRONG - time to move on.

Edited by RickSantos, 22 January 2010 - 01:44 PM.

[RickSantos]

You are in the wrong thread, this one is about serum levels. Please, provide evidence to back your assertions.

Remember Anthony addresses ALL of this in his book. Do you THINK the NON statin Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial was supportive of SERUM cholesterol lowering?

THINK AGAIN

Out of 3,086 people

38 died of CAD in the control vs 30 in the treatment ( cholstyramine)

Total mortality was 71 controls vs 68 treatment

That is the actual data. There's plenty more in his book.

Many of Anthony Colpo awesome articles he used to write still can be viewed on lowcarb portal. Read it. The man is sup[erb in dispelling the cholesterol myth. He has a UNIQUE gift.

Edited by RickSantos, 22 January 2010 - 01:49 PM.

[RickSantos]

I really hope MANY people become aware of the masterpiece that is The Great Cholesterol Con. This is no regular book. The effort and detail Anthony went to is mind boggling.

He names names - Jerimiah Stamler, Ancel Keys Frederick Stare- if you ONLY KNEW the PURE DECPTION AND GREED that went into the cholesterol theory. This theory is a DARK DECEPTIVE PART of medical history. This will be required reading for medical students one day if thr word gets out about the book.

it is ridiculous that Gary Taubes gets on Larry King,. it is Anthony Colpo who should be on Howard Stern, Larry King etc. His book was THE ORIGINAL, NOT Taubes. Anthony was saying all this in 2006.

I know Dr. Ravnskov was technically the first, ( and it IS amazing) but even he will tell you Anthony's is even more detailed. I respect Dr. Ravnskov a lot.

Sp spread the word. You should email newspaper journalists about Anthony's book. I hope it hits mainstream. The book IS PROOF of the cholesterol sca,m You can take the references look them up. MOst of the cholesterol literature is reviews of reviews of reviews of reviews of reviews of reviews ALL written by promoters.

Anthyony Colpo actually DUG UP THE PRIMARY literature, read it CAREFULLY FULL TEXT ( no misleading abstracts or summaries) This took him AT LEAST 4 years to write that book.

It would be an absolute disgrace to have a book this good just be wasted, and not to get major mainstream attention. I won't let that happen. Spread the word!

Edited by RickSantos, 22 January 2010 - 02:04 PM.

[RickSantos]

I really hope MANY people become aware of the masterpiece that is The Great Cholesterol Con. This is no regular book. The effort and detail Anthony went to is mind boggling.

He names names - Jerimiah Stamler, Ancel Keys Frederick Stare- if you ONLY KNEW the PURE DECPTION AND GREED that went into the cholesterol theory. This theory is a DARK DECEPTIVE PART of medical history. This will be required reading for medical students one day if thr word gets out about the book.

it is ridiculous that Gary Taubes gets on Larry King,. it is Anthony Colpo who should be on Larry King etc. His book was THE ORIGINAL, NOT Taubes. Anthony was saying all this in 2006.

I know Dr. Ravnskov was technically the first, ( and his book IS amazing) but even he will tell you Anthony's is even more detailed. I respect Dr. Ravnskov a lot.

So spread the word. You should email newspaper journalists about Anthony's book. I hope it hits mainstream. The book IS PROOF of the cholesterol scam You can take the references look them up. MOst of the cholesterol literature is reviews of reviews of reviews of reviews of reviews of reviews ALL written by promoters of this flase theory.

Anthyony Colpo actually DUG UP THE PRIMARY literature, read it CAREFULLY FULL TEXT ( no misleading abstracts or summaries) This took him AT LEAST 4 years to write that book.

It would be an absolute disgrace to have a book this good just be wasted, and not to get major mainstream attention. I won't let that happen. Spread the word!

[kismet]

Stop double/tripple posting, this is now bordering on spam & stop using caps lock and provide said evidence. The only study you mention, but do not reference, is in broad agreement with the "lipid hypothesis".

Edited by kismet, 22 January 2010 - 03:29 PM.

[RickSantos]

Stop double/tripple posting, this is now bordering on spam & stop using caps lock and provide said evidence. The only study you mention, but do not reference, is in broad agreement with the "lipid hypothesis".

You did NOT read it then.

LRC-CPPT does NOT support the cholesterol theory. Read my thread again. Read ANTHONY COLPO'S old ARTICLES AGAIN on low carb portal and his newer articles on his own site . Read Colpo's book "The Great Cholesterol Con". Take the references. You will see what he says is true.

ALL THE EVIDENCE IS THERE.

How stupid are you?

Edited by RickSantos, 22 January 2010 - 09:05 PM.

[Logan]

I have to admit the OP's posts do smell of spam.

To the OP, you might want to refrain from calling people stupid.