My girlfriend getting too thin?

[sogood]

You know, some people just want to believe in the super-natural and pseudo-science. Too bad and very sad.

[ball bearing]

It will be interesting to see how this debate develops over the next few years. Medical reversals are embarrassing and are done only after much hand wringing.

[winstonw]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

[casual_cyclist]

Further criticism of the public hysteria created by the Catalyst program, including ABC's own Media Watch.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/c ... 2xfxy.html" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Media Watch's expose is pretty powerful. Wow!
http://www.abc.net.au/mediawatch/transc ... 888657.htm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Interesing that Media Watch dragged out "ABC’s Health expert Dr Norman Swan [who] also came out firing, saying Catalyst’s program would kill people ... because it would make them stop taking their medicines." Apparently Dr Swan is upset that the program didn't make claims that are backed up by medical research.

Now, Dr Swan is going around saying he is particularly concerned about the effect this program [Catalyst] may have on Indigenous Australians, who are especially likely to suffer from high cholesterol. But are Indigenous Australians especially likely to suffer from high cholesterol? Where is the evidence?

I have been trying to find studies to support this claim but I have not run into any so far. One study found that Australian Aboriginals do not have high total cholesterol compared to the general population: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3354392/. Another study found that CVD risk factors for Australian Aboriginals are: hyperglycaemia, dyslipidaemia, hypertension, albuminuria and smoking http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22345691. Note that hypercholesterolaemia is not included as a risk factor as would be indicated by Dr Swan's claims. Dyslipidaemia is actually low HDL cholesterol and I'm not sure that statins would increase HDL?

Another study supports these findings, concluding that Australian Aboriginals have a lower prevalence of abnormal total cholesterol and a higher prevalence of abnormal HDL, smoking, diabetes, and hypertension. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12894956

Now, I'm not saying that Indigenous Australians are or are not especially likely to suffer from high cholesterol. I would not have a clue if they are or if they are not. All I'm saying is that I hope Dr Swan isn't making claims that are not supported by medical research because that would be wrong

[ball bearing]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

Anyone interested should watch the doco Forks Over Knives.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ijukNzlUg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[casual_cyclist]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

You mean Catalyst surely. Quantum was awesome!

[casual_cyclist]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

Anyone interested should watch the doco Forks Over Knives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ijukNzlUg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seen it. I support lifestyle change to improve health and decrease the risk of CVD but as far as the documentary goes...

You know, some people just want to believe in the super-natural and pseudo-science. Too bad and very sad.

I found some of the information presented in the Forks Over Knives documentary to be nonsense. I did however find the presentation and format to be very compelling.

[casual_cyclist]

I believe Media Watch investigated based in part on a complaint by Bill Shrapnel. http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121

It's a pretty strongly worded piece and an interesting read. While I agree with his assessment of the "experts", I don't agree with his conclusion that "The Catalyst programs look like a marketing initiative by the Malaysian palm oil industry."

His follow up post on the media watch article is also interesting: http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1201

[ball bearing]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

Anyone interested should watch the doco Forks Over Knives.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O7ijukNzlUg" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Seen it. I support lifestyle change to improve health and decrease the risk of CVD but as far as the documentary goes...

You know, some people just want to believe in the super-natural and pseudo-science. Too bad and very sad.

I found some of the information presented in the Forks Over Knives documentary to be nonsense. I did however find the presentation and format to be very compelling.

I rarely fine anything to be 100% agreeable. The message is what is important. Clinton looks as though he has been renewed, considering his age. It cannot be denied that Drs Campbell and Esselstyn are well qualified. They have copped much scorn from their colleagues.

[casual_cyclist]

regarding Forks Over Knives

I rarely fine anything to be 100% agreeable. The message is what is important. Clinton looks as though he has been renewed, considering his age. It cannot be denied that Drs Campbell and Esselstyn are well qualified. They have copped much scorn from their colleagues.

It was certainly worth watching. If you take the message as being "eat better", especially more plants, then it's fine. However, if you take the message a bit more literally... that you "need" a green smoothie every morning to be healthy, then I have a problem with that.

Campbell is qualified but not always 100% when it comes to his research. This assessment of Campbells low protein rats and cancer study is hilarious. Apparently, they didn't get cancer because they didn't live long enough to develop tumours. I'm not sure I want to follow a lifestyle where I don't live long enough to die from cancer

http://rawfoodsos.com/2011/09/22/forks- ... -critique/

[sogood]

Wow, a hornet's nest got disturbed by the new SMH and Media Watch reports! LOL

[winstonw]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

You mean Catalyst surely. Quantum was awesome!

yep sorry....meant catalyst....on my 3rd wine after a draining day. (lots of anti-oxidants)

[ldrcycles]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

You mean Catalyst surely. Quantum was awesome!

Beyond 2000 was better than either of them .

[casual_cyclist]

I think the embarrassing thing is Quantum ignoring the only diet studies shown to reverse artherosclerosis and diabetes II.
Bill Clinton had better advisors!

You mean Catalyst surely. Quantum was awesome!

Beyond 2000 was better than either of them .

Towards 2000 and Beyond 2000 were both amazing! I wonder what ever happened to the awesome inventions they were developing?

[casual_cyclist]

Wow, a hornet's nest got disturbed by the new SMH and Media Watch reports! LOL

And don't forget the blog post by Bill Shrapnel. http://scepticalnutritionist.com.au/?p=1121 That has stirred up some interest too. I think it's good. It would concern me greatly if Catalyst, SMH and Media Watch presented those stories and there wasn't a stir.

[casual_cyclist]

Wow, a hornet's nest got disturbed by the new SMH and Media Watch reports! LOL

Oh, I am bitterly disappointed to find out this whole this is a re-run... or is that a re-make because the original was a foreign language version?

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2013/11/11 ... sh-begins/

[wombatK]

You know, some people just want to believe in the super-natural and pseudo-science. Too bad and very sad.

So what do you make of the just released revised guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology
New Guidelines Redefine Use of Statins
To my non-medical eye, it appears to advocate less emphasis/fixation on cholesterol levels. While it's not clear to me whether the online calculator
now provided will make much difference in prescription rates, it at least acknowledges there are other vital factors that ought to be worked on
(eg smoking). So, as Catalyst claimed, it would seem cholesterol level is not the villain it once was.

Surprisingly, level of exercise is not a factor in the new guidelines. Is that really the state of the science ? That exercise activity has no
bearing on coronary vascular disease or its future course ?

If that's so, lots more of us better get interested in the debate - in case we're going to end up with CVD too in spite of our cycling
fitness.

Disclaimer: I'm not suggesting anyone should give up taking statins on the basis of this, or the Catalyst Program.

[sogood]

So what do you make of the just released revised guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology...

I think the major issue here is being rational and any decision be based on proper science. The case presented by Catalyst was sensationalistic with gross bias, leading many to hysterical decisions. As said many times previously, these highly complex medical science issues are way beyond what a lay person can interpret by reading a few articles, let alone poorly source articles. Legitimate interpretation can only be attained through expertise in the field and years of clinical experiences. As such, I will accept the guidance of learned colleagues in the field and associated advisory groups. Amongst the interviewed participants, Dr Sullivan is one such who I have great respect for, both clinically and ethically. I take his guidance. In any case, out of my years in the clinical field, I was never under the impression that cholesterol was the sole key factor in the development of atherosclerosis and associated disease entities. Other factors like hypertension, smoking, diabetes and genetics are given equal weight in our management decisions. However, it's also obvious to me that the cholesterol story was one that was trumpeted by popular media, a classic media technique of driving one sensationalistic message and the population swallowed along with a skewed perception on cholesterol. Who to blame? Gaining medical "knowledge" through commercial mass media has always been a dangerous practice, but practiced by many, unfortunately.

[casual_cyclist]

So what do you make of the just released revised guidelines from the American Heart Association and the American College of Cardiology...

I think the major issue here is being rational and any decision be based on proper science.

I agree. Unfortunately the evidence indicates that people at low risk are being prescribed statins.

... a recent analysis of Australian data found that over-treatment of people at low risk is more common than under-treatment of people at high risk.
This is problematic but it doesn’t reflect a problem with the statins. Rather, it shows that people may not be appropriately informed about who benefits from taking this medicine.

This is unfortunate and it would be preferable that any decision to prescribe statins be rational and based on proper science.
http://theconversation.com/worried-abou ... know-19877
There is a risk calculator for people who are interested: http://www.cvdcheck.org.au/

The case presented by Catalyst was sensationalistic with gross bias, leading many to hysterical decisions.

I agree 100% that the "case" presented by Catalyst was sensationalistic, one sided, with gross bias and presented by people who appeared to very much have a vested interest in the outcome. However, I can't agree that led "many to hysterical decisions" because there is no credible evidence to support that claim.

The "research" commissioned by Merck Sharp & Dohme - a pharmaceutical company, was a survey of 150 doctors. The results of the survey are so ridiculous that they are laughable and meaningless. Supposedly, "40 per cent of patients asking about statins had already stopped taking them, and the remaining 60 per cent wanted to stop". According to the Doctors interviewed. So basically, the "evidence" collected is a bunch of anecdotes from selected doctors.
http://www.smh.com.au/national/health/c ... z2kaWvtvbk
From this we are supposed to conclude that a "huge number of patients going off their medication". http://blogs.abc.net.au/nsw/2013/11/cat ... facts.html

What? There is no evidence to reach that conclusion. I think they are focussing on the 40% of patients asking about statins rather than how many total patients are actually on statins and how many of those who have stopped. Without knowing the total number of patients on statins, how many of those that asked about statins and the number of those who actually stopped taking them, we don't know if "huge" numbers of people stopped taking stains or not. We also don't know how the 150 doctors were selected. Until a proper study is done, we don't know how many have stopped taking stains or why. Until then, I think it is irresponsible for people who purport to follow the evidence to claim that "huge numbers" of people stopped taking their medication. Without proper evidence, that claim is unsupported.

[casual_cyclist]

Surprisingly, level of exercise is not a factor in the new guidelines. Is that really the state of the science? That exercise activity has no
bearing on coronary vascular disease or its future course?

Don't get "hysterical" , exercise is still good for your heart. If you have a look at the Australian Government - Department of Health - Recommendations and Guidelines for Physical activity, the National Physical Activity Guidelines for Adults clearly states:

Regular physical activity can:
* help prevent heart disease, stroke and high blood pressure;
* reduce the risk of developing type II diabetes and some cancers;
* help build and maintain healthy bones, muscles and joints reducing the risk of injury; and
* promote psychological well-being.

http://www.health.gov.au/internet/main/ ... df-cnt.htm
It's interesting that "weight loss" isn't one of the "benefits" highlighted

[casual_cyclist]

Nothing like some good ol' hysteria from the medical industry to frighten people back onto there meds:

ABC's Catalyst program on cholesterol will kill people: Dr Norman Swan

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health ... 6753370639

[CXCommuter]

Durianrider your girlfriend needs some fattening up - I recommend eating lard

[casual_cyclist]

Durianrider your girlfriend needs some fattening up - I recommend eating lard

The fat people I see are not eating lard. They are eating a nice morning mega-muffin with a latte with 3, or soft drink or boost juice. If fat makes you fat, perhaps muffins give you muffin-tops

[casual_cyclist]

It's really easy to dismiss fringe "experts" with no real training. It's not so easy to dismiss a qualified heart surgeon with 25 years experience who has performed over 5,000 open-heart surgeries. Here's his view:

The only accepted therapy was prescribing medications to lower cholesterol and a diet that severely restricted fat intake. The latter of course we insisted would lower cholesterol and heart disease. Deviations from these recommendations were considered heresy and could quite possibly result in malpractice.

These recommendations are no longer scientifically or morally defensible. The discovery a few years ago that inflammation in the artery wall is the real cause of heart disease is slowly leading to a paradigm shift in how heart disease and other chronic ailments will be treated.

http://www.sott.net/article/242516-Hear ... rt-disease

Or perhaps he has no credibility at all?

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

[casual_cyclist]

The catalyst fallout continues: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/heart-dis ... 2xjmg.html

The author says:

There should be no doubt there is strong evidence that:
...
Replacing saturated fat with ''good'' unsaturated fat, in particular polyunsaturated fat, reduces the risk of heart disease;

Hmm... is there?

A recent updated meta-analysis of the Sydney Diet Heart Study says not.

Advice to substitute polyunsaturated fats for saturated fats is a key component of worldwide dietary guidelines for coronary heart disease risk reduction. However, clinical benefits of the most abundant polyunsaturated fatty acid, omega 6 linoleic acid, have not been established. In this cohort, substituting dietary linoleic acid in place of saturated fats increased the rates of death from all causes, coronary heart disease, and cardiovascular disease. An updated meta-analysis of linoleic acid intervention trials showed no evidence of cardiovascular benefit. These findings could have important implications for worldwide dietary advice to substitute omega 6 linoleic acid, or polyunsaturated fats in general, for saturated fats.

http://www.bmj.com/content/346/bmj.e8707