The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

                  Homepage                                                                              Discussions


Will it ever end?!  

Stephen Byrnes
Peter Langsjoen

Christian Allan
Malcolm Kendrick
Fred and Alice Ottoboni
Uffe Ravnskov
Fred and Alice Ottoboni
Charles McGee
Stephen Byrnes

January 29, 2002: 

Stephen Byrnes

More kaka from the schlockmeisters..............

Am J Clin Nutr 2002;75 191-212
Lipoproteins, nutrition, and heart disease1,2,3,4,5,6    Ernst J Schaefer1

1 From the Lipid Metabolism Laboratory, Jean Mayer US Department of
Agriculture Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University,
and the Lipid and Heart Disease Prevention Program, New England Medical
Center, Boston.

This article reviews the current status of our knowledge of lipoproteins,
nutrition, and coronary heart disease (CHD). Special emphasis is placed on
CHD risk assessment, dietary intervention studies, diet-gene interactions,
and current dietary guidelines and the contributions of my laboratory to
these areas. CHD remains a major cause of death and disability, and risk
factors include age, sex, hypertension, smoking, diabetes, elevated serum
LDL cholesterol, and low HDL cholesterol. Emerging independent risk factors
include elevated serum concentrations of lipoprotein(a), remnant
lipoproteins, and homocysteine. The cornerstone of CHD prevention is
lifestyle modification. Dietary intervention studies support the concepts
that restricting saturated fat and cholesterol and increasing the intake of
essential fatty acids, especially n - 3 fatty acids, reduces CHD risk. The
variability in LDL-cholesterol response to diet is large, related in part to
APOE and APOA4 genotype. The use of antioxidants in intervention studies has
not been shown to reduce CHD risk. Compliance with dietary recommendations
remains a major problem, and directly altering the food supply may be the
most effective way to ensure compliance. The available data indicate that
the recommendation to use fats, oils, and sugars sparingly for CHD
prevention should be modified to a recommendation to use animal, dairy, and
hydrogenated fats; tropical oils; egg yolks; and sugars sparingly and to
increase the use of vegetables, fruit, and whole grains.

Back to top

From: Langsjoen Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 5:29 AM Subject: Will it ever end?!

Dear Skeptics,

This is worse than garbage.  To propose manipulating the food supply and
thereby thwarting natural protective good sense (here arrogantly described
as non-compliance) is offensive and in contradiction to available evidence.
 These types of comments should be packaged (at least among us skeptics)
and sold as therapy for low blood pressure.


Back to top

From: Allan, Christian Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 3:33 PM 
RE: "worse than garbage"  

Dear Skeptics:

I think it is about time to point out that epidemiology is not too useful
for predicting environmental contributions to non-infectious disease. All to
often direct human studies contradict the epidemiological prediction. In my
opinion one of the main issues surrounding the low Fat/Heart health
hypothesis is the use of Epidemiology as direct proof, versus its use as a
suggestion that needs to be tested in direct human studies. Only in
instances where there is one specific factor that can be followed can
epidemiology be trusted. I am not suggesting that Epidemiology is a poor or
unnecessary science, but that it is used properly. This whole heart disease
and fat issue seems to have started with the Seven Countries Study. With
that said, I am not a trained Epidemiologist, so perhaps someone can
enlighten me as to how we trust this approach to disease that appears on the
surface to be flawed in many ways. (Too many variables to control, reliance
on information from individuals recorded over time, etc.)

Thanks for your input,


  Back to top

From: Malcolm Kendrick Sent: Tuesday, January 29, 2002 9:55 AM 
Re: Will it ever end?!


It will end when someone manages to provide an alternative, more complete
hypothesis. However rotten the diet-heart hypothesis may be, there is not a
breath of wind out there to topple it.

If you are interested in reviewing it, I have been developing an alternative
hypothesis for the last twenty years. It lacks the superficial simplicity of
the diet-heart hypothesis, and it requires a complete re-thinking of the
fundamental process of plaque formation (repeated thrombotic events over
areas of damaged endothelium - including cross-linking of oxidised LDL, VLDL
and lipoprotein (a) within the clot itself, yes, these factors do play a
part in CHD - as part of a pro-coagulant effect).

It also requires an understanding of the HPA-axis, sympathetic and
parasympathetic nervous system activity, the impact of cortisol and growth
hormone on visceral adipocytes, and the mechanism of action of insulin on
Glut-4 receptors, LDL-receptors and the creation of HDL - all within the
post-prandial period.

Which is all a fancy way of saying that if you eat when you are stressed,
either physically, or mentally, you will develop atherosclerotic plaques. A
simple hypothesis, but it has taken twenty years of research to chase down
all of the loose ends.

Anyway if you, or anyone else out there, is interested in reading this
stuff, please let me know. I am looking for people to try and pull it apart.



  Back to top

Fred and Alice Ottoboni

Dear Skeptics:

Regarding:  Special article in AJ Clin Nutr, Lipoproteins, nutrition, and
heart disease, 123456.  Note the likely primary source of the funding for
this research project  -- the US Department of Agriculture.

In studying the heart healthy diet situation, we find it curious that the
Lipid Metabolism Laboratory is located in the U S Department of Agriculture.
Such a laboratory should be in a health agency, not the agricultural agency
of government.

The known mission of the Department of Agriculture in the United States is
to promote agriculture and the sale of agricultural products.  It is not
intended to be a neutral agency.

American political history over the last half century makes clear that the
grain, soybean, and sugar industries receive the bulk of the monetary
subsidies given to agricultural producers by government.  The reason these
three groups get all this money is because these groups have tremendous
political muscle via their ability to provide money for lobbyists and
political election campaigns.

Thus, there is a reason why the Agriculture Department has a human nutrition
research center -- to ensure that such a center is not in a neutral
government department where a high carbohydrate, high soybean diet might be
found to be unhealthy.

The prescription drug industry plays the same game:  They get big subsidies
for research from government.  Government agencies help them.  An example is
The New Cholesterol Guidelines.  They were ostensibly written by government,
but actually written by a committee loaded with experts from the drug
industry.  Thus, the good offices of government were use to give credibility
and official status to a drug marketing campaign.  This is paying off big

In return, lots of money from the drug industry goes to lobbyists and
political campaigns.  Last year, as an example, this industry alone had one
lobbyist for every two representatives in Congress.

What we are witnessing with the heart healthy diet and the cholesterol
situation are political problems, not a scientific problems.  In our earlier
lives, we had a term for these kinds of situations:  "When you see water
running up hill, look for a pump."  In better English, this means when you
see a situation that does not make sense, it is not because new laws of
nature have been discovered or that those involved are stupid.  They are not
stupid people.  They have reasons for what they claim to be true.

We have a serious problem on our hands because we are dealing with people
who are both ruthless and expert in what they do.  This is their livelihood.
They have great power financially and via the mass media.  And they will
fight very hard to protect their livelihood.

Our view is that only the very few who shun the mass media and seek truth
from other sources will avoid being damaged by this very large scale
national folly.

Fred and Alice

  Back to top

From: Uffe Ravnskov Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 1:37 AM
  Subject: SV: Will it ever end?!

Dear Fred and Alice

You are probably right, but then, why are the meat, egg and dairy industries so silent?


Back to top

From: Fred and Alice Ottoboni Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 11:38 PM
  Subject: Re: Will it ever end?!

Dear Uffe:

 Good question.  The reason is the egg, milk, and meat industries are unable to spend 
anywhere near as much money for lobbying and political donations.

 The prescription drug industry is also able to spend enough money to get the special 
treatment that allows its members to sell ineffective drugs like the statins and to have 
the government pay most of the skyrocketing costs.
 This is political science.

 Fred and Alice

  Back to top

From: Chee Energy Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 2:31 AM

Dear Uffe:

 I have an answer to your question of how the meat, egg, and dairy industries responded to 
the cholesterol theory. Here is a little bit of history.

 In the 1960s in the USA the egg industry tried to fight the cholesterol theory and its 
attack on eggs by forming the National Commission on Egg Nutrition. An ad campaign
 was run stating correctly that eggs had never been proven to be harmful to eat. The 
president of the Am. Heart Ass'n complained to the Federal Trade Commission that 
this amounted to false advertising and the FTC brought charges against the Egg 
Commission. A full court trial was held in which the egg people lost. The trial judge 
believed testimony of experts committed to the cholesterol theory. The egg people 
stopped fighting and egg consumption fell 40%.

 When the cholesterol theory came along the dairy industry was just recovering from 
loss of sales related to strontium 90 being found in milk (the result of atmospheric 
testing of atomic weapons, milk being selected as the material to test). The industry 
response was quick. It began to separate most milk products creating 2%, 1%, and 
"non-fat" skimmed milk all of which could be advertised as being "low fat" and 
compliant with the theory.

 The meat industry did nothing. As proponents of low fat diets preached on and on 
about the dangers of red meat people were not about to give up eating meat because 
they liked it so much.


 C.McGee MD  

  Back to top

From: Dr. Stephen Byrnes Sent: Wednesday, January 30, 2002 3:12 AM 


I think the meat industry, or at least part of it, did do something in
response to the Lipid Hypothesis: it began to breed cattle with lower
amounts of fat in their bodies. Needless to say, it tastes terrible, but it
is heavily advertised with American Heart Association's stamp of approval.

However, since it is very difficult to get the fat out of beef, the breeding
solution was not taken up by many. The result was the formation of National
Beef Checkoff Board which requires each cattle farmer to pay a percentage of
his/her profits into a national pool of money. I believe the money is used
to offset supposed health damages from eating red meat. The Beef Industry
has been forced to become apologetic about its product as a result.

You can read about beef, and the Checkoff Board, in Sally Fallon's and Mary
Enig's article "Its the Beef," posted at in the
Myths/Truths section.


Back to top