The food
industry shifted away from saturated fat and cholesterol to improve
public health, and the medical industry has massively promoted the use
of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs for the same reason. Despite that,
the rate of heart disease deaths has steadily risen
Research has found that the more LDL (so-called “bad”) cholesterol is lowered, the greater the risk of heart attacks and strokes
The Minnesota
Coronary Experiment, published in 2016, found replacing saturated fat
with vegetable oil increased mortality and cardiovascular events, even
though total cholesterol was lowered by 13.8%. For each 30 mg/dL
reduction in serum cholesterol, the death risk rose by 22%
Since the
commercialization of statin drugs in the late ‘80s, total sales have
reached nearly $1 trillion. Lipitor is the most profitable drug in the
history of medicine. Yet these drugs have done nothing to derail the
rising trend of heart disease
While there are
studies claiming to show statins lower your risk of heart attack, many
involve misleading plays on statistics. Statins also have many serious
side effects
The lecturer in the featured video,
Maryanne Demasi, Ph.D., produced the 2014 Australian Catalyst
documentary, "Heart of the Matter: Dietary Villains," which exposed the
cholesterol/saturated fat myths behind the statin fad and the financial
links which lurk underneath.
The documentary was so thorough that vested interests actually convinced ABC TV to rescind the two-part series.1
The Australian Heart Foundation, the three largest statin makers
(Pfizer, AstraZeneca and Merck Sharp & Dohme) and Medicines
Australia, Australia's drug lobby group, complained2 and got the documentary expunged from ABC TV.
Cholesterol and saturated fat have been the villains of heart
disease for the past four decades, despite the many studies showing
neither has an adverse effect on heart health.
The entire food industry shifted away from saturated fat and
cholesterol, ostensibly to improve public health, and the medical
industry has massively promoted the use of cholesterol-lowering statin
drugs for the same reason. Despite all of that, the rate of heart
disease deaths continues to be high.3 That really should tell us something.
Statins Are a Colossal Waste of Money
Since the release of Demasi's documentary, the evidence against the
cholesterol theory and statins has only grown. As noted in an August 4,
2020, op-ed by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, a general practitioner with the
British National Health Service:4
"New research shows that the most widely prescribed type of drug
in the history of medicine is a waste of money. One major study found
that the more 'bad' cholesterol was lowered, the greater the risk of
heart attacks and strokes.
In the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, almost every other
medical condition has been shoved onto the sidelines. However, in the
UK last year, heart attacks and strokes (CVD) killed well over 100,000
people — which is at least twice as many as have died from COVID-19.
CVD will kill just as many this year, which makes it
significantly more important than COVID-19, even if no one is paying
much attention to it right now."
According to a scientific review5
published online August 4, 2020, in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine,
lowering LDL is not going to lower your risk of heart disease and
stroke. "Decades of research has failed to show any consistent benefit
for this approach," the authors note.
Since the commercialization of statin drugs in the late '80s (lovastatin being the first one, gaining approval in 19876), total sales have reached nearly $1 trillion.7,8
Lipitor — which is just one of several brand name statin drugs — was
named the most profitable drug in the history of medicine.9,10 Yet these drugs have done nothing to derail the rising trend of heart disease.
Lowering Cholesterol Does Not Show a Beneficial Impact
According to a press release announcing the BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine review, the analysis found that:11
"… over three quarters of all the trials reported no positive
impact on the risk of death and nearly half reported no positive impact
on risk of future cardiovascular disease.
And the amount of LDL cholesterol reduction achieved didn't
correspond to the size of the resulting benefits, with even very small
changes in LDL cholesterol sometimes associated with larger reductions
in risk of death or cardiovascular 'events,' and vice versa. Thirteen
of the clinical trials met the LDL cholesterol reduction target, but
only one reported a positive impact on risk of death …"
In their paper,12
the study authors argue that since dozens of randomized controlled
trials looking at LDL-cholesterol reduction "have failed to demonstrate a
consistent benefit, we should question the validity of this theory."
They also cite the Minnesota Coronary Experiment,13
a double-blind randomized controlled trial involving 9,423 subjects
that sought to determine whether replacing saturated fat with omega-6
rich vegetable oil (corn oil and margarine) would reduce the death rate
from heart disease by lowering cholesterol.
It didn't. Mortality and cardiovascular events increased even though
total cholesterol was lowered by 13.8%. For each 30 mg/dL reduction in
serum cholesterol, the death risk rose by 22%. In conclusion, the
Evidence-Based Medicine study authors note that:14
"In most fields of science the existence of contradictory
evidence usually leads to a paradigm shift or modification of the
theory in question, but in this case the contradictory evidence has
been largely ignored, simply because it doesn't fit the prevailing
paradigm."
Deception Through Statistics
If lowering cholesterol doesn't reduce mortality or cardiovascular
events, there's little reason to use them, considering they come with a
long list of adverse side effects. Sure, there are studies claiming to
show benefit, but many involve misleading plays on statistics.
One common statistic used to promote statins is that they lower your risk of heart attack by about 36%.15 This statistic is derived from a 2008 study16
in the European Heart Journal. One of the authors on this study is
Rory Collins, who heads up the CTT Collaboration (Cholesterol Treatment
Trialists' Collaboration), a group of doctors and scientists who
analyze study data17 and report their findings to regulators and policymakers.
Table 4 in this study shows the rate of heart attack in the placebo
group was 3.1% while the statin group's rate was 2% — a 36% reduction
in relative risk. However, the absolute risk reduction — the actual
difference between the two groups, i.e., 3.1% minus 2% — is only 1.1%,
which really isn't very impressive.
In other words, in the real world, if you take a statin, your chance
of a heart attack is only 1.1% lower than if you're not taking it. At
the end of the day, what really matters is what your risk of death is
the absolute risk. The study, however, only stresses the relative risk
(36%), not the absolute risk (1.1%).
As noted in the review18
"How Statistical Deception Created the Appearance That Statins Are Safe
and Effective in Primary and Secondary Prevention of Cardiovascular
Disease," it's very easy to confuse and mislead people with relative
risks.
You can learn more about absolute and relative risk in my 2015 interview with David Diamond, Ph.D., who co-wrote that paper. Research questioning the veracity of oft-cited statin trials is also reviewed in "Statins' Flawed Studies and Flawed Advertising."
Statins Sabotage Your Health
A stunning review of statin trials published in 2015 found that in primary prevention trials, the median postponement of death in those taking statins was a mere 3.2 days. While potentially extending life span by 3.2 days, those taking statins are also at increased risk for:
Diabetes (if taken for more than two years, your risk for diabetes triples)
Dementia, neurodegenerative diseases and psychiatric problems such as depression, anxiety and aggression
Oftentimes statins do not have any immediate side effects, and they
are quite effective, capable of lowering cholesterol levels by 50
points or more. This is often viewed as evidence that your health is
improving. Side effects that develop over time are frequently
misinterpreted as brand-new, separate health problems.
Crimes Against Humanity
The harm perpetuated by the promotion of the low-fat, low-cholesterol
myth is so significant, it could easily be described as a crime
against humanity. Ancel Keys' 1963 "Seven Countries Study" was
instrumental in creating the saturated fat myth.19,20
He claimed to have found a correlation between total cholesterol
concentration and heart disease, but in reality this was the result of
cherry picking data. When data from 16 excluded countries are added
back in, the association between saturated fat consumption and
mortality vanishes.
In fact, the full data set suggests that those who eat the most
saturated animal fat tend to have a lower incidence of heart disease,
which is precisely what other, more recent studies have concluded.
Procter & Gamble Co.21 (the maker of Crisco22),
the American Heart Association and the Center for Science in the
Public Interest (CSPI) all promoted the fallacy for decades, despite
mounting evidence that Keys had gotten it all wrong.
The AHA was issuing stern warnings against butter, steak and coconut oil as recently as 2017.23
That same year, Procter & Gamble partnered with University
Hospitals Harrington Heart & Vascular Institute to promote heart
health by lowering cholesterol.24 CSPI was also instrumental in driving heart disease
skyward with its wildly successful pro-trans fat campaign. It was
largely the result of CSPI's campaign that fast-food restaurants replace
beef tallow, palm oil and coconut oil with partially hydrogenated
vegetable oils, which are high in synthetic trans fats linked to heart
disease and other chronic diseases.
As late as 1988, CSPI praised trans fats, saying "there is little
good evidence that trans fats cause any more harm than other fats" and
that "much of the anxiety over trans fats stems from their reputation
as 'unnatural.'"25
CSPI and AHA Omit Their Role in Heart Disease Epidemic
Today, you'll have to dig deep to unearth CSPI's devastating public
health campaign. In an act of deception, they erased it from their
history to make people believe they've been doing the right thing all
along. Their historical timeline26
of trans fat starts at 1993 — the year CSPI decided to change course
and start supporting the elimination of the same trans fat they'd spent
years promoting.
Similarly, the AHA conveniently omits saturated fat and cholesterol
from its history of "lifesaving" breakthroughs and achievements.27
It makes sense, though, considering the AHA's and CSPI's
recommendations to swap saturated fat for vegetable oils and synthetic
trans fat never resulted in anything but an epidemic of heart disease.
The idea that the harms of trans fats were unknown until the 1990s
is simply a lie. The late Dr. Fred Kummerow started publishing evidence
showing trans fat, not saturated fat, was the cause of heart disease
in 1957. He also linked trans fat to Type 2 diabetes. You can click on
this link to watch my interview with him. I traveled to his home in Urbana, Illinois, shortly before he passed away.
The Truth About Saturated Fat
In addition to the more recent studies mentioned earlier, many
others have also debunked the idea that cholesterol and/or saturated
fat impacts your risk of heart disease. For example:
• In a 1992 editorial published in the Archives of Internal Medicine,28 Dr. William Castelli, a former director of the Framingham Heart study, stated:
"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 opposite of what … Keys et al [said] …"
• A 2010 meta-analysis,29
which pooled data from 21 studies and included 347,747 adults, found
no difference in the risks of heart disease and stroke between people
with the lowest and highest intakes of saturated fat. • Another 2010 study30
published in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition found that a
reduction in saturated fat intake must be evaluated in the context of
replacement by other macronutrients, such as carbohydrates.
When you replace saturated fat with a higher carbohydrate intake,
particularly refined carbohydrate, you exacerbate insulin resistance
and obesity, increase triglycerides and small LDL particles, and reduce
beneficial HDL cholesterol. According to the authors, dietary efforts
to improve your cardiovascular disease risk should primarily emphasize
the limitation of refined carbohydrate intake, and weight reduction. • A 2014 meta-analysis31
of 76 studies by researchers at Cambridge University found no basis for
guidelines that advise low saturated fat consumption to lower your
cardiac risk, calling into question all of the standard nutritional
guidelines related to heart health. According to the authors:
"Current evidence does not clearly support cardiovascular
guidelines that encourage high consumption of polyunsaturated fatty
acids and low consumption of total saturated fats."
Will Saturated Fat Myth Soon Be Upended?
To learn more, be sure to listen to Dr. Paul Saladino's interview with Nina Teicholz, previously featured in "Why Chicken Is Killing You and Saturated Fat Is Your Friend."
Teicholz, a science journalist, adjunct professor at NYU's Wagner
Graduate School of Public Service and the executive director of The
Nutrition Coalition, is also the author of "The Big Fat Surprise:
Why Butter, Meat and Cheese Belong in a Healthy Diet," which reviews
the many myths surrounding saturated fat and cholesterol.
In the interview, Saladino and Teicholz review the history of the
demonization of saturated fat and cholesterol, starting with Keys, and
how the introduction of the first Dietary Guidelines for Americans in
1980 (which recommended limiting saturated fat and cholesterol)
coincided with a rapid rise in obesity and chronic diseases such as
heart disease.
Teicholz also reviews a paper32
in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, published online
June 17, 2020, which actually admits the long-standing nutritional
guideline to limit saturated fat has been incorrect. This is a rather
stunning admission, and a huge step forward. As noted in the abstract:
"The recommendation to limit dietary saturated fatty acid (SFA)
intake has persisted despite mounting evidence to the contrary. Most
recent meta-analyses of randomized trials and observational studies
found no beneficial effects of reducing SFA intake on cardiovascular
disease (CVD) and total mortality, and instead found protective effects
against stroke.
Although SFAs increase low-density lipoprotein
(LDL)-cholesterol, in most individuals, this is not due to increasing
levels of small, dense LDL particles, but rather larger LDL which are
much less strongly related to CVD risk.
It is also apparent that the health effects of foods cannot be
predicted by their content in any nutrient group, without considering
the overall macronutrient distribution.
Whole-fat dairy, unprocessed meat, eggs and dark chocolate are
SFA-rich foods with a complex matrix that are not associated with
increased risk of CVD. The totality of available evidence does not
support further limiting the intake of such foods."
No comments:
Post a Comment