Busting the Cholesterol Myths
by Vin Miller
How would you feel if you were told to take a potentially life threatening medication with nasty side effects for the rest of your life only to find out that the recommendation was based on dishonest research and corporate greed? Brace yourself because that’s just what I’m about to tell you in regards to cholesterol!
Cholesterol and Heart Disease
Although there are many different forms of heart disease, atherosclerosis is the one that typically inspires most concern. It’s characterized by hardened arteries that restrict the flow of blood to the heart and is caused by the scar tissue created through the repair of cellular damage within the arterial lining. The scar tissue associated with atherosclerosis is susceptible to rupturing and can cause a blood clot that may further restrict, or even completely block, the flow of blood to the heart.
The materials that accumulate in the artery wall in response to cell damage are collectively referred to as plaque. As one of these materials, cholesterol earned it’s bad reputation simply by being at the scene of the crime.
It’s now widely accepted and agreed upon that the build up of plaque happens within the artery wall rather than at it’s surface and is a direct result of cellular damage. However, much of the general population still believes that plaque build up is caused by high levels of saturated fat and cholesterol circulating in the blood that simply cling to the arterial lining and accumulate.
Cholesterol is Essential to Good Health
The membrane of a cell is highly important not only because of the physical protection that it provides, but also because it influences the cell’s function by regulating interaction with hormones, neurotransmitters and other influential substances, and also by controlling the transfer of nutrients. Cholesterol is a key component of the cell membrane, and as such, is an important factor in the health and integrity of the trillions of cells that your body is made of.
Cholesterol is required to produce important sex and corticosteroid hormones. It’s a precursor to vitamin D as well which is also a hormone and is of equal importance. These hormones effect human function in nearly every way imaginable and low levels of cholesterol will result in hormonal deficiencies and imbalances that can leave you susceptible to major disease.
Cholesterol coats nerve fibers and is an essential part of synapse development. As such, cholesterol is essential to proper nervous system and brain function. In fact, low levels of cholesterol are associated with memory disorders such as dementia and Alzheimer’s disease.
These are just some of the more significant reasons why cholesterol is so important. For a more thorough description, you can read Cholesterol: Friend or Foe? by Natasha Campbell-McBride, MD.
The Myth of Good and Bad Cholesterol
Cholesterol is typically measured in three different ways: total cholesterol, LDL cholesterol and HDL cholesterol. However, LDL and HDL are not actually cholesterol. They are the lipoproteins that carry cholesterol through the blood. LDL is a low density lipoprotein that carries cholesterol from the liver to tissue while HDL is a high density lipoprotein that carries cholesterol away from tissue and back to the liver to be metabolized and reused.
LDL is regarded as “bad” because it brings cholesterol to arteries and HDL is regarded as “good” because it carries cholesterol away from arteries. If excess transport of cholesterol to arteries is undesirable, then don’t you think the body would eliminate cholesterol rather than returning it to the liver to be recycled? Obviously, the body considers it to be a precious resource.
The amount of cholesterol being transported throughout the body is simply an indication of how much need there is for it. A high level of LDL indicates an excessive amount of cellular damage that needs to be repaired and is very unlikely to mean that the liver is malfunctioning and producing far more cholesterol than what’s needed. Besides, if this were the case, it would completely contradict the efficiency of cholesterol being returned to the liver for reuse.
High Cholesterol Doesn’t Cause Heart Disease
Much of the general population still believes that atherosclerosis is caused by cholesterol and saturated fat sticking to artery walls simply because of high concentrations in the blood. However, it is now widely accepted in the scientific community that atherosclerosis is instead caused by cell damage and inflammation that occur within the arterial lining.
When cellular damage occurs, the immune system is activated to repair it, and inflammation results. During this process, repair materials can accumulate, scar tissue can form, and the immune substances can even cause additional damage. When this happens within the arterial lining, the artery becomes restricted and less elastic. As cellular damage continues to occur, these effects accumulate and are likely to eventually result in atherosclerosis.
Some of the factors that cause cellular damage and inflammation in the lining of arteries include stress, high blood sugar levels, high blood pressure, exposure to toxic chemicals, lack of quality nutrition, and infection. As you can hopefully see, all of these factors are heavily influenced by lifestyle.
Contradicting Evidence
In 1953, determined to identify intake of saturated animal fats as the cause of heart disease, Ancel Keys published a chart showing that the number of deaths caused by heart disease increases sharply along with an increase in fat intake.
While the research used to create this chart included data for 22 countries, Keys only used data for 6 of them and conveniently excluded the 16 other countries that didn’t support his theory. Many of the excluded countries showed either low incidence of heart disease despite a high fat intake or a high incidence of heart disease with a low fat intake.
In the early 1960s, Professor George Mann of Vanderbilt University visited the Masai tribe of Kenya to solidify Key’s theory, but instead, he found evidence that strongly contradicted it. The diet of this tribe consisted entirely of milk, blood and meat. They ate no vegetables whatsoever and consumed excessive amounts of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. In direct contrast to Key’s theory, they had no incidence of heart disease and their cholesterol levels were 50% lower than those of Americans! The Eskimos are a great example of this paradox as well.
Another interesting contradiction is that much of the modern research on cholesterol, when analyzed closely, actually shows that most people who die from heart disease have cholesterol levels that are lower than average. However, due to the corporate influence and dishonesty that has plagued modern research, this data is still presented in a way to support the idea that cholesterol causes heart disease.
Although I won’t go into all of it here, there is plenty of analysis on modern heart disease research that dispels many of the cholesterol myths that we’ve come to accept as common knowledge. For a more in depth discussion, refer to the two books listed at the bottom of this article.
The Irony of the Healthy Heart Diet
Because saturated fat and dietary cholesterol are said to cause heart disease, we’re told to consume as little of these nutrients as possible. As portrayed by the American food pyramid, we’re told to eat large amounts of grains such as bread and pasta instead.
Given the importance of saturated fat and cholesterol in maintaining proper cell function, it’s counterintuitive to restrict them from your diet. Even worse, the suggested alternative is downright dangerous and plays a significant role in the high incidence of poor health in modern society.
While some of us do much better than others on a high carbohydrate diet, nobody does well on the excessive amount of processed and starchy carbohydrates such as bread and pasta that are such a major part of the modern diet. These foods cause drastic fluctuations in blood sugar levels which are not only a major risk factor for diabetes, but also damage arteries and cause the inflammation that leads to atherosclerosis.
In addition to eating a large amount of grains, we’re also told to replace saturated fats with the polyunsaturated fats found in vegetable oils. This is a problem because nearly all vegetable oils are high in omega-6 fatty acids and contain free radicals, both of which promote the inflammation associated with atherosclerosis.
Who’s to Blame?
Although most of the information we receive about cholesterol is through mainstream media, much of it originates from the pharmaceutical industry, and they’ve been quite successful at leading us to believe that the majority of the population is at risk for heart disease. This has gotten so out of hand that cholesterol lowering medication is even being prescribed to children!
Based on the shocking number of people currently taking cholesterol medication and the drug ads that downplay the benefits of a healthy lifestyle, it seems as if a large percentage of the population is genetically dysfunctional and is producing too much cholesterol. It also suggests that nature has made a major mistake. Do you honestly believe that such a significant flaw exists in our evolution? More likely, this is just another case of greedy corporations disregarding the inherent intelligence of nature.
Cholesterol medication is a $29 billion dollar industry that is keeping many families fed, putting many kids through college, and is providing many executives with big houses and fancy cars. As such, there is tremendous incentive for the pharmaceutical industry to have you believe that your cholesterol level puts you at risk for heart disease. Citing cholesterol as the root cause of heart disease is like blaming a fire truck for starting a fire, but despite the power of this logic, there’s little hope of it generating even a fraction of the revenue that cholesterol medication generates.
Is Cholesterol Medication the Right Choice?
The pharmaceutical industry has significant influence on politics, medical schools and doctors. As such, many of the doctors that prescribe you cholesterol lowering medication are products of this influence. Current guidelines suggest that anyone with a total cholesterol level above 200 mg/dl, or about 5 mmol/L, is at risk for heart disease and should be on medication. Based on more recent recommendations, some doctors are even prescribing medication for anything above 185 mg/dl or 4.8 mmol/L.
An honest analysis of the heart disease research shows some populations to have a low incidence of heart disease with cholesterol levels averaging around 250 mg/dl. Another revealing piece of evidence that can be found from a close look at the research is that in many cases, low cholesterol levels can be more dangerous than high levels, particularly in the elderly, and particularly when the low cholesterol levels are a result of medication.
The pharmaceutical industry is literally turning millions of healthy people into patients and customers with their questionable guidelines. If you’re one of these people, take responsibility and do something about it!
With a good understanding of cholesterol’s role in the human body, it should be quite clear that high levels are much more of a symptom than a cause. As such, taking cholesterol medication is merely chasing the symptoms, which is a temporary solution at best, and is completely neglecting the lifestyle factors that are causing the cellular damage and inflammation in the arteries.
Statins, the most popular type of medication prescribed for lowering blood cholesterol, are often quite dangerous and create more risk than they reduce. The reasons why this medication is so dangerous are discussed thoroughly in the two books listed below.
Further Reading
Because this is a highly controversial topic, I don’t expect you to be accepting of this information the first time you read it. Most people need to be exposed to multiple sources of an opinion before opening their mind to it. As such, I recommend the following three resources to help you get a better and deeper understanding of the issues surrounding modern cholesterol beliefs.
The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD addresses 9 common myths regarding cholesterol and delves deep into the flawed and manipulated research that “supports” each one.
$29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol by Justin Smith is an excellent resource that tells you everything you need to know about cholesterol, the dietary factors that influence it, the questionable intentions of the pharmaceutical industry, and like Dr Ravnskov’s book, also analyzes much of the “supporting” research.
The work of Dr. Weston A. Price, which is thoroughly depicted in his book Nutrition and Physical Degeneration, provides undeniable evidence that primitive cultures who regularly consumed significant amounts of animal fat and cholesterol enjoyed exceptional health and suffered from very little disease.
Post this on Twitter
Post this on Facebook
Support this on StumbleUpon
Email this to friends
Leave a comment
Having met and spent time talking to Dr. Ravnskov at a conference we both spoke at, I can say the man hit it right on the head with his book. Cholesterol being a driving force behind the increase in cardiovascular disease is truly a myth. Great post.
Great to see the truth about fats and cholesterol. One day, this will be mainstream information. Thanks Vin, for an excellent and fearless article.
Thanks for the support guys! I’m glad you enjoyed the article.
I just had a NMR test, one that I really had no desire to take. My Dr. says I am a stroke waiting to happen. I am a vegetarian and eat no cholesterol foods except for a few eggs (home raised) per week.
The last time my cholesterol went up I started to eat bacon and eggs every day for about 2 months(not the best way out). The outcome was my cholesterol went down more than 50 points in that 2 month period. I am nervous now because he said it was so bad. Am I just falling for the old hype or am I in trouble?
Should I start to eat good quality meats and dairy to stop the liver from produceing too much due to a lack of it in my diet?
Thank you
Hi Rosmarie,
I’m sorry to hear about your prognosis of having a high risk for a stroke. Because I’m not a doctor and don’t know more about your particular situation, I can’t say for sure what your risk truly is.
I suggest that you read the books I listed in the article and search for a doctor that is open to what they discuss. The website for $29 Billion Reasons to Lie About Cholesterol has a letter for doctors that you can use to bring this information to the attention of your current doctor.
As I suggested in the article, high cholesterol is usually an indication of your body’s need to repair cellular damage that is often caused by unhealthy lifestyle habits. As you continue to work with a doctor regarding your risk for stroke, I think it would be a good idea for you to also focus on the 6 foundational factors of a healthy lifestyle. Doing so may even normalize your cholesterol levels by itself.
It’s interesting that you’re a vegetarian and your cholesterol dropped after adding bacon and eggs to your diet. Perhaps you’re not eating properly for your Metabolic Type which could be contributing to your elevated cholesterol levels as well.
One thing that you should mention because it is a common but an overlooked one, is the connection between high cholesterol, specifically (LDL) and triglycerides and hypothyroidism. This is so unbelievably common imo.
Rosemarie, you need to remember cholesterol tends to be naturally high in females due to the fact our body needs it to process hormones on top of that the use of statins to lower cholesterol has not been shown to benefit women whatsover ever and only a small group of men.
Not eating cholesterol won’t do jack, simply because our body will just make more of it. Also high cholesterol can be caused by hypothyroidism (have you checked out your thyroid?) which is extremely common plus as a double whammy for you being vegetarian, you’re most likely consuming a lot of goitrogens which are found in some fruit, vegetables, beans and grains. Goitrogens block absorption of iodine which is essential for thyroid health. In fact a high fibre diet can interfere with the absorption of many important nutrients needed by the thyroid and if you reduce fat too much this can be made even worse again as fat is needed to help absorb fat soluble vitamins as well as important minerals.
A good home test to see if you may have a thyroid issue is to simply do the basal temperature test, make sure to do it over a couple of cycles placing particular importance of your temperatures during menstruation as ovulation can temporarily bump your temp up.
Thank you Sherrie for the additional information!
Yes, hypothyroidism is certainly a common cause of high cholesterol. Thyroid hormone is believed to play a role in the uptake of LDL by cells, and when this process is impaired due to low thyroid hormone levels, the levels of LDL in the blood increase.
Another thing worth noting is that hypothyroidism is often caused by adrenal fatigue. In other words, the same lifestyle factors that lead to adrenal fatigue can also result in hypothyroidism. This is important to consider when faced with the prospect of relying on hormone replacement for the rest of your life, especially if the hormones you choose are synthetic instead of bio-identical.
In regard to taking your temperature, it’s a good idea to have a thermometer by your bed and to take it before getting up so that your movement from getting up and moving around doesn’t affect it.
My doctor has been treating me for adrenal fatigue for about 5 or so months now, hes trialing me on natural progesterone cream now as I haven’t been responding. Re temperatures, sometimes I find mine actually drop after getting up.
Hi Sherrie,
Be careful with the progesterone cream. Sometimes the progesterone will just collect in tissue instead of being utilized and can lead to toxicity. Ask your doctor about using drops instead. You can get them from BioHealth Diagnostics which also happens to be an excellent lab.
Hi Vin,
I didn’t know what topic to post this under. I get so frustrated when I see articles such as this http://www.naturalnews.com/026692_meat_cancer_red_meat.html
I eat mostly grass fed beef, bison when I can get it and lamb from New Zealand (Whole Foods Market).
Who are we supposed to believe when we see this screaming vegetarian agenda?
Hi Sharona,
There’s plenty of conflicting information in regard to health and I agree that it’s frustrating. This is why it’s so important for each of us to take responsibility for our own health and do the best we can to educate ourselves so that we can make informed decisions. Based on that, the best person to believe is yourself!
There are several angles to the position against red meat. Two of the most popular are acidity and saturated fat. Personally, I prefer a simple perspective. We’ve evolved on red meat for millions of years. Numerous studies of cultures still living a primitive lifestyle show that many of them consume a lot of red meat and are extremely healthy well into old age. These cultures have little or no incidence of heart disease or cancer. Even in America, the incidence of heart disease and cancer was much lower just a century ago than it is today and Americans likely ate much more red meat back then than we do now. Based on this, it just doesn’t make any sense to me that red meat is a health risk. I personally think that it’s a healthy choice and I eat it frequently. My health is better than ever.
One thing to consider in regard to studies like the one referenced in the article that you linked to is that there may be many other factors involved. For example, because conventional wisdom tells us that red meat is bad, people who are concerned for their health but haven’t thoroughly educated themselves on the issue are likely to avoid it. As such, most of the people who eat red meat are probably not very health conscious and likely engage in a number of unhealthy activities and eating habits that can contribute to the effects that red meat is being blamed for.
If you’re not already aware of the Weston A Price Foundation, I suggest that you check out their website. Here’s a great article from their site about the Myths and Truths About Beef.
The biggest argument that I get from people is that folks didn’t live as long as we do now.
They didn’t find cancer or heart problems because they died of other causes before that stuff could hit.
I keep hearing blurbs about how high cholestrol is a factor in Alzheimers. Yet, cholestrol is supposed to be good for our brains. It does get frustrating.
I am starting menopause and I’m not taking anything at all. NO bio identicals, no black cohosh, nothing. I am using the theory that older cultures (aborigines, etc.) never heard of a hormone cream or HRT and they seem to do just fine. Maybe I’m being naive, but I think it’s “not nice to fool Mother Nature”. I don’t see lions and tigers and bears taking hormones. Just something to think about.
Hi Sharona,
People tend to base that argument on average lifespan which is misleading due to the influence of things like accidents and infant mortality. If you look at any research done on primitive cultures, you will likely find that the members of these cultures who live into their 70s, 80s, and beyond, which isn’t all that uncommon, are much more healthy and vibrant than most people of the same age in modernized cultures.
Keep in mind that high levels of cholesterol are typically a sign of cell damage and it may very well be that any association between high cholesterol and Alzheimer’s disease is a result of a deeper underlying problem. Another thing to consider is that low cholesterol can cause memory and neurological issues which is one of the risks of taking cholesterol lowering medications, especially statins.
I completely agree with your perspective on nature and hormones. I also think that they can be very helpful in some situations. In my opinion, hormone supplementation is questionable for someone who is healthy or is trying to gain superficial benefits, but in contrast, it might give new life to someone who’s not doing well. Of course, this assumes that basic lifestyle habits have been addressed and ruled out.
There are many factors to consider in regard to hormone supplementation which makes it an excellent example of why it’s important for us to educate ourselves and take responsibility for our decisions.
Hi Vin Miller,
I thought you might be interested in knowing about a new hypothesis debunking the cholesterol myth. It is the acidity theory of atherosclerosis that is inside the response to injury concept. Emotional stress and high carbohydrate diets and other factors elevate blood lactic acid that result in a cascade of events leading to atherosclerosis. It is available from Infarct Combat Project.
Vin. I recently found your site and I agree with a lot of it. I also believe in functional exercise, natural non processed foods, but your stance on cholesterol goes against established medical practice and an abundance of studies. Most of the “Cholesterol Myth” information sites on the internet have about as much weight as 911 conspiracies.
Also note when you mention contradictions above: “The diet of this tribe consisted entirely of milk, blood and meat. They ate no vegetables whatsoever and consumed excessive amounts of dietary cholesterol and saturated fat. In direct contrast to Key’s theory, they had no incidence of heart disease and their cholesterol levels were 50% lower than those of Americans!”
This is not an indication that high cholesterol is good. As noted they have LOW cholesterol and no heart disease. If you can eat all the meat you want and have a half the cholesterol of the average American, go for it. Chances are you can’t.
I have no doubt that overeating and heavy processed foods contribute to both high cholesterol and heart disease and that many factors contribute to heart disease, but high cholesterol certainly has significant correlation.
Some things to also consider is that no advice fits everyone and response to dietary fats will be highly impacted by genetic makeup. People with Familial Hypercholesterolemia, have high cholesterol from a young age, can develop Atherosclerosis before puberty, and can have heart attack and death before 30! Pretty direct correlation in these cases.
When I was in my 20’s I loved meat/eggs/cheese and ate them freely, thinking being young, lean, fit from exercise(runner+lifting) made it a non issue. In my late 20’s I had my BP checked for the first time. Even after several followups it was shown to be around 150/90. Very high for a fit, lean person my age. I decided to start improving my diet.
In my thirties I cut down on meat/eggs/cheese, ate only whole grains, added more fruit/nuts/veg, and my BP returned to the healthy range(~120/70).
My next wakeup was recently around 40. I had never had my cholesterol checked and my diet was now much better and I thought levels should have followed.
I was getting an eye exam and the eye doc asked if I had my cholesterol checked, and said I better, because he could see cholesterol deposits in my eyes that he only sees in seniors. I got it checked and I am around 200(it must of been scary high in my twenties). So I will continue to adjust down the animal fats in my diet.
I have no doubt if I have cholesterol deposits in my eyes like a senior, I probably have similar arterial issues. I have massive regrets about my assumptions of invincibility while I freely ate animal fats in my 20’s. Note I don’t advocate medication. I have never taken any and I still eat meat pretty much every day. But in much more moderate amounts.
I don’t think you should blithely be handing out “cholesterol is good” message to a population that probably has double what a natural population would have.
A recent study to chew of those that believe cholesterol concerns are some kind of conspiracy.
Hi Peter, thank you for sharing your opinion and experience.
I can appreciate your concern about conspiracy theory, but this article is not based on such websites. It’s based on the work of a well respected Medical Doctor and PhD named Uffe Ravnskov. If you really want to get to the bottom of this issue and make an informed decision for yourself, I highly recommend reading his book The Cholesterol Myths.
In addition, conspiracy theories are generally not published in scientific journals. In January 2010, this research paper was published in The American Jounal of Clinical Nutrition concluding that “there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.”
No, it’s not an indication that high cholesterol is good, but it is a good indication that consuming saturated fat and cholesterol from natural sources aren’t the cause of heart disease as is currently promoted. This is also supported by the study referenced above.
Although I am only a single individual and my physiological markers don’t mean much alone, I eat a significant amount of meat that’s full of saturated fat and cholesterol. The last time it was measured, my total cholesterol was 119 which is somewhat of a concern for being too low.
Also, in the documentary Fat Head, Tom Naughton was actually able to reduce his total cholesterol by eating more meat and saturated fat. Although it was only by a small amount, according to mainstream belief, his cholesterol levels should have increased substantially.
Even a former director of the Framingham study, William Castelli MD, admitted in this research paper that “in Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol.” The Framingham Heart Study is one of the largest and most highly respected research projects on heart disease.
Certainly?
According to Ravnskov, data from some of Key’s work as well as data from this study and also this study from the WHO’s MONICA project present a number of contradictions challenging the idea that high cholesterol causes heart disease. This data shows countries with low cholesterol levels and a high mortality from heart disease as well as countries with high choleesterol levels and a low mortality from heart disease. Researchers who are motivated to support the diet-heart idea seem to ignore these contradictions.
Also according to Ravnskov, although the conclusion of this study suggests that heart disease is closely correlated with high cholesterol levels, the data shows that many of the participants who suffered heart attacks had normal or even lower than normal cholesterol levels. Data from another study that reevaluated this same population 30 years later showed very little correlation between cholesterol level and death from heart disease after the age of 47 which is when most heart attacks occur.
Yes, there absolutely is a strong correlation between the high cholesterol levels of those with familial hypercholesterolemia and heard disease, but these levels are much much higher than the “high” cholesterol we’re talking about, and the people with this disorder represent a small portion of the population.
This issue of familial hypercholesterolemia is thoroughly addressed by Ravnskov in his book, and in fact, some of the questionable research that supports a correlation between high cholesterol and heart disease misleadingly uses people with this disorder as test subjects.
Ravnskov cites this study in which 6 of 214 familial hypocholesterolemia patients died before the age of 40. This is certainly a much higher risk than in the average population, but is not as significant as it’s often made out to be. He also cites this study which found that out of a total of 412 familial hypercholesterolemia patients, those who lived in the 19th century had a lower mortality than the rest of the population. This suggests that it is more so a characteristic of common lifestyle changes in the 20th century that make hypocholesterolemia patients more susceptible to death from heart disease.
Just because your blood pressure was higher in your 20s than it is now doesn’t mean that the same relationship applies with your cholesterol. You’re assuming that the same factors that cause high blood pressure always cause high cholesterol as well, and in particular, you’re assuming this factor to be saturated fat and/or dietary cholesterol. There are many factors that contribute to high blood pressure, some of which you may have inadvertently addressed with your effort to improve your health.
I appreciate and respect your opinion, but I find your suggestion that I am promoting a message that lacks thought or consideration to be unfair. You have your opinion and I have mine. I’m sharing mine because I believe it’s based on important information, and most importantly, I have disclosed the material from which it’s based. My only intent is to provide information that may help people make their own decisions and I think I’ve done a very fair job of that. The only thing here that I consider to be blithe is your use of the word.
I don’t know what you mean by “natural population”, but if you’re referring to a traditional population that is virtually forced to follow healthy habits by being isolated from modern influences, than this would describe the populations studied by Dr. Weston A Price. Much of the information that I “blithely hand out” on this site is based on the healthy habits of these populations and their consumption of natural whole foods which in many cases happen to contain significant amounts of saturated fat and cholesterol.
Whether it be heart disease or the dementia discussed in this article, high cholesterol is a risk factor, and it’s important to realize that this is not the same thing as a cause. Accept for a moment that cholesterol levels in the 200s are normal. If this is the cause, this is where the largest percentage of the population will be, and would therefore be likely to also represent the largest percentage of people with dementia. I bet there’s also a correlation between dementia and gray hair, but this doesn’t mean that having gray hair causes it.
Almost all of your examples lead back to cases where eating of meat/saturated fat is not having negative impact on cholesterol profile(where are the cases showing high blood cholesterol is heart healthy). I won’t disagree that for some people won’t be affected by this kind of intake. I know a married couple that have been together 40 years they eat the same traditional for their generation high meat meals.
One has low cholesterol, one has very high. Neither are exercising. Genetics play a large role here.
Genetic factors will play too large role in determining the reaction to dietary intake to hand out blanket advice that meat and saturated fat should be eaten more and are beneficial for everyone.
If you are eating a paleolithic diet you can likely much better afford to extra saturated fats. If you blood pressure is unaffected and your cholesterol remains low, you are likely fine.
I fully agree on the negative affects of processes food, but I feel your saturated fat is good message is too easily take as it is a fine addition to any current diet for anyone, which I think will be disastrous for many.
If you researched this topic well, you can probably tell me the only dietary pattern actually documented as reversing arterial-sclerosis. Actual documented widening of arteries from a change in eating pattern. Do you think it was an increase in saturated fat intake?
Hi Peter,
I absolutely agree that genetics plays a factor and am a big proponent of the concept of nutritional individuality. Traditional Eskimos and Native American Indians, both known for vibrant health, consume significant amounts of protein and fat. Obviously, not everyone will thrive on this type of diet as they do.
I am by no means suggesting that everyone should follow this diet. However, I firmly believe that we all need at least some amount of animal fat in our diet to promote optimal health. I definitely don’t think everyone should eat significant amounts of saturated fat, but I do think the mainstream belief that saturated fat is a dietary villain is quite excessive.
I do not know what type of diet you’re referring to that has been shown to reverse arteriosclerosis, but I see where you’re probably going with this. Although atherosclerosis is only one form of arteriosclerosis, it’s often associated with heart disease and Ravnskov discusses it thoroughly and explains how the evidence associating it with cholesterol is weak.
According to Ravnskov, a study done in 1936 by Kurt Lande and Warren Sperry of the Department of Forensic Evidence at New York University provided early evidence that there was no correlation between blood cholesterol levels and the extent of atherosclerosis. This study was done on people who suffered violent deaths and the people who criticize it claim that cholesterol in the dead is not the same. However, this study addressed this issue by measuring regularly measuring the cholesterol of hospital bound veterans between the age of 60 to 70 and prior to their death. Like the previous study, no correlation was found. Another study determined that cholesterol measurements after death are valid, which supports the findings of Lande and Sperry, and also failed to find a correlation between blood cholesterol and the level of atherosclerosis. Additional studies support the same findings.
Although there is some research that claims to have found an association between serum cholesterol and the severity of atherosclerosis, Ravnskov points out that the correlation is either weak, or that the conclusion of a correlation existing doesn’t agree with the data.
It’s also worth noting that the Masai people studied by George Mann who consumed significant amounts of saturated fat, had low cholesterol levels, and rarely suffered from heart disease also had “extensive” amounts of atherosclerosis. However, it’s important to note that this atherosclerosis involved “very few complicated lesions.” I’m not attempting to suggest that artery hardening doesn’t play a role in heart disease, but it certainly seems that it’s not a considerable risk factor in it’s own right and that it has little to do with cholesterol.
I could find only two documented examples of dietary changes actually reversing heart disease and both were essentially the same strategy.
Dean Ornish and Caldwell Esselstyn. Both (independently) took high risk cardiac patients (already had heart attacks, bypasses etc).
They fed them strict vegetable diets with essentially no additional fat sources and extremely limited dietary cholesterol. They even avoided nuts/olive oil. Something it would take a heart attack to have me consider.
Probably the most extreme low fat eating pattern ever attempted. The result in both cases was reversal in coronary arterial narrowing. As far as I can tell, this is the only reversal I am aware of.
I had heard of Ornish but this was the first time I heard of Esselstyn. Esselstyn is interesting. His stats are from a group of 17 with advanced CHD, with 49 cardiac events between them, average cholesterol of 246.
After the admittedly extreme dietary changes, cholesterol fell to 137, ZERO cardiac events in the next 12 years.
Let me know when a doctor advocating lots of “healthy” saturated fats puts a bunch of people with advanced CHD on such a diet and what that outcome is after a decade.
Hi Peter,
According to this review of Dr. Esselstyn’s book, it appears that you might be giving him too much credit. Same goes for Dr. Ornish and this review of his lifestyle heart trial.
I certainly can’t argue against vegetables being an excellent source of nutrition and a great promoter of natural healing, but contrary to what you seem to be suggesting, these characteristics give no indication of how good or bad it is for one to consume saturated fat. And because so many other variables were eliminated with these diets, it’s questionable to attribute any results solely to the elimination of saturated fat.
This stems from Ancel Keys and his disgracefully biased and selective studies. However, if one examines the fat intake data (total and saturated) taken from the EU-MONICA-WHO study report which you can check for yourself at the shown website. This analysis of fat intake and Coronary Heart Disease (CHD) was based on data taken from the European Cardiovascular Statistics for1998-1999 (http://www.ehnheart.org/files/statistics 2005).
The national data was tabulated (country, fat intake %age of diet and CHD rate) and then sorted on fat intake (total or saturated) and then plotted with fat% (total or saturated) on the x-axis. Unfortunately I cannot add the figures here but
Figure 1 is for total fat; Figure 2 is for saturated fat. The saturated Fat Multiple R = 0.584; Regression = “p” < 0.00001 This was a negative correlation – more fat lead to less CHD. Not a good correlation but far better than the 0.36 found for cholesterol and CHD.
The data was then regressed using Quattro Pro. The regression line was drawn using the results. Both analyses show that doubling the national fat intake reduces the national Coronary Heart Disease rate by half! This clearly demonstrates the basic error in Dr Ancel Key's work. While it does not PROVE that increased fat intake reduces Coronary Heart Disease rate it certainly shows that it does not increase Coronary Heart Disease. It is unfortunate that I cannot add the figures themselves but anyone with a decent spreadsheet can do it themselves
An automatic corollary of this is that INCREASING CARBOHYDRATE INTAKE IS CORRELATED WITH INCREASING Coronary Heart Disease RATE! (And probably diabetes)
It is an unfortunate fact these days that medical research involved with fat and cholesterol is dominated by big Agri/Pharma business. Studies leave out data that contradicts the "official" view or obfuscates it so that only the the most careful reading will find it. For example, the JUPITER trial says nothing about the 50% greater death rate in the treated group compared to the placebo group. Table 3 has to be read very, very carefully and one has to do the sums oneself to establish this fact. Oh yes! at this time at early termination it was not significant but extend the rate and it rapidly becomes highly significant. An DO NOT FORGET THAT STATINS ARE USED FOR DECADES.
No wonder the study was terminated early on the grounds of ethics and beneficial secondary NON-FATAL endpoints. The fate of BAYCOL (another statin) loomed!
Hi Mike, thanks for sharing your analysis!
I completely agree that the selective use of data by Ancel Keys presents a much different picture. Dr. Ravnskov discusses this in detail in his book.
I also agree that it’s a shame that research can be so influenced by business and politics. In regard to saturated fat, cholesterol, and heart disease, it makes me wonder how much this has set us back in terms of nutritional knowledge, how much it is costing in terms of health care, and how many lives it has negatively effected.