Dr. Jonny Bowden: "The Great Cholesterol Myth"

[aronia]

Dr. Jonny Bowden "The Great Cholesterol Myth"

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=YGOpjPNtjes

[raregem]

Great information. Interesting how -once again- we are manipulated to believe incomplete (omission of facts that matter) or fraudulent info by the very people who are supposed to help protect from harm.
I do not have extra weight so I cannot do legitimate testing. I am interested to know how people here are affected by this and their success or struggle using this knowledge shared today.

[aronia]

Thank you very much

[Latti]

Thank you for the video. It's the best presentations on the subject that I've seen!

I got off statin about four (4) yeas ago and challenged my doctor to show me any study that proved that lower cholesterol reduced heart failure. I'm going to share it with family members.

My daughter is a Pharmacist and she has been highly propagandized by the drug companies, but she has finally realized the false claims about cholesterol.

[AutumnW]

Latti,

Be careful here. My husband went of statins, as well and had a massive heart attack that killed him a few years later. There are inaccuracies about cholesterol, for sure and statins are harmful but it is still good to keep cholesterol within normal range, eat right and above all, eliminate sugar, because sugar is probably a bigger culprit. It might turn out that it is the combination of sugar, high cholesterol and stress that kills.

[aronia]

We have got cholesterol completely wrong

http://www.zoeharcombe.com/the-knowl...pletely-wrong/

BACKUP LINK

Here are six things that we need to know about cholesterol:

i) It is virtually impossible to explain how vital cholesterol is to the human body. If you had no cholesterol in your body you would be dead. No cells, no bone structure, no muscles, no hormones, no sex, no reproductive system, no digestion, no brain function, no memory, no nerve endings, no movement, no human life – nothing without cholesterol. It is utterly vital and we die instantly without it.

ii) Cholesterol is so vital to the body that our bodies make it. The body cannot risk leaving it to chance that we would get it externally from food or some other external factor – that’s how critical it is.

iii) There is no such thing as good cholesterol and bad cholesterol. Cholesterol is cholesterol. The chemical formula for cholesterol is C27H46O. There is no good version or bad version of this formula.HDL is not even cholesterol, let alone good. LDL is not even cholesterol, let alone bad. HDL stands for High Density Lipoprotein. LDL stands for Low Density Lipoprotein. (There are three other lipoproteins, by the way, chylomicrons, VLDL and IDL).

Fat and cholesterol are not water soluble so they need to be carried around the body in something to do their vital work. The carriers of such substances are called lipoproteins. We can think of lipoproteins as tiny ‘taxi cabs’ travelling round the blood stream acting as transporters. So, lipoproteins are carriers of cholesterol – oh – and triglyceride and phospholipids and protein. All lipoproteins carry all of these substances – just in different proportions. LDL would more accurately be called the carrier of fresh cholesterol and HDL would more accurately be called the carrier of recycled cholesterol.

iv) The standard blood cholesterol test does not measure LDL – it estimates it. The fasting blood cholesterol test can only measure total cholesterol and HDL. There are two other unknowns in a four variable equation – LDL and VLDL. The estimation is refined further using the Friedewald equation (named after William Friedewald, who developed it).

Total cholesterol = LDL + HDL + Triglycerides/5 (Ref 1) (More detail here.) http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2012/08/c...ually-measure/

As any mathematician will tell you, one equation, with four variables, only two of which can be measured, is a fat lot of good. We need at least one more equation or known variable, to avoid circular references. This also means that:
– All other things being equal, LDL will rise if a) total cholesterol rises and/or b) if HDL falls and/or if c) triglycerides fall.
– All other things being equal, LDL will fall if a) total cholesterol falls and/or b) if HDL rises and/or if c) triglycerides rise.

No wonder an inverse association is observed between LDL and HDL – it is by definition. More surprising is that a fall in triglycerides, which would be welcomed by doctors, would be accompanied by an automatic increase in LDL, all other things being equal, which would not be welcomed by doctors. And you thought that this was scientific.

v) Statins stop the body from producing the cholesterol that it is designed to produce. They literally stop one of our fundamental body processes from being able to function. The intelligent view on statins is that in the very limited arena where they appear to have some ‘benefit’ (men over 50 who have already had a heart attack), they ‘work’ by having anti-inflammatory properties and that the fact that they lower cholesterol (by stopping the body from being able to produce this vital substance) is a very unfortunate side effect. (Drug companies should work on developing something that has the anti-inflammatory benefit without this huge and damaging side effect – it’s called aspirin).

One in 500 people have familial hypercholesterolemia and may have a problem clearing cholesterol in their body (rather like type 1 diabetics who can’t return their blood glucose levels to normal). For anyone else to be actively trying to lower their vital and life affirming cholesterol levels is deeply troubling.

vi) “Cholesterol in food has no impact on cholesterol in the blood and we’ve known that all along.” Ancel Keys.

Ancel Keys, the same man who did the brilliant Minnesota starvation experiment, spent the 1950’s trying to show that cholesterol in food was associated with cholesterol in the blood. He concluded unequivocally that there was not even an association, let alone a causation. He never deviated from this view.

Cholesterol is only found in animal foods (it is a vital substance for every living creature). Hence the only foods that Keys could add to human diets, to test the impact of cholesterol, were animal foods. Given that he concluded that eating animal foods had no impact on blood cholesterol levels, it follows that animal foods per se have no impact on blood cholesterol levels (not that high cholesterol is a problem – quite the contrary – but that’s another story).
http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2010/11/c...hat-you-think/

There is no need, whatsoever, to avoid liver, red meat, other meat, fish, eggs, dairy products etc for any cholesterol that they may contain, or for any other reason.

The body makes cholesterol. I worry about a number of things, but I don’t worry that my body is trying to kill me.

UPDATE: Following numerous blog comments from people “worried about cholesterol”, I’ve written this post. http://www.zoeharcombe.com/2015/03/w...andor-statins/



Ref 1: EH Mangiapane, AM Salter, Diet, Lipoproteins and Coronary Heart Disease: A Biochemical Perspective, Nottingham University Press, (1999). (See reference 159 The Obesity Epidemic) http://www.theobesityepidemic.org/references/chapter-8/

[JChombre]

This is a very long post but a lot of material had to be covered...

I am extremely surprised and disappointed by Jonny Bowden presentation. I am speechless and find it difficult to believe that in the 21st century, someone who claims to be a doctor in science believes that cholesterol/lipids (fats) do not contribute to coronary heart disease (CHD), and that carbohydrates (sugars) are the only thing that we need to worry about. I worked in this field for quite a long time, and left to pursuit other research interests... I know that Jonny Bowden is flatly wrong because there are tons of published peer-reviewed solid scientific data that show that cholesterol/lipids (fats) contribute to CHD.

In fact, The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (The LRC-CPPT Study) established the “two-for-one rule of thumb”: for each 1% reduction in total cholesterol level, there is a corresponding 2% reduction in CHD risk.

Jonny Bowden presentation is designed to sell his books in the non-scientific community, and to do that he has to convince this population that cholesterol/lipids (fats) play no role in the development of coronary heart diseases (CHD); and that carbohydrates (sugars) are what we have to worry about.

If after listening to his presentation, you have concluded that you no longer need your anti-cholesterol/lipid therapy, then I would like you to reconsider because in 50% of the cases, sudden death is the first symptom of coronary heart disease (CHD) in people affected by this condition.

Coronary heart diseases (CHD) includes the following conditions: sudden death, angina pectoris (angina chest pain), myocardial infraction (MI, heart attack), stroke and heart failure.

Jonny Bowden seems to be a nice person but I am not sure about his scientific or his intellectual integrity. In his presentation, he failed to present a single clinical trial that supports his claim that carbohydrates (sugars), not cholesterol/lipids (fats), are the demons that we need to worry about. In addition, he completely ignored all the published studies that have clearly demonstrated that cholesterol/lipids (fats) are a major risk factor for coronary heart disease (CHD).

And when he used The Seven Countries Study, an excellent epidemiological study that shows a positive relationship between cholesterol/lipids (fats) and CHD; he showed the results of this study with the additional 15 countries that did not meet the criterion needed to be included in the study. With this change, he was able to conclude that there was no correlation between cholesterol/lipids (fats) and coronary heart disease (CHD). This is grossly unethical and totally unacceptable.

However, Jonny is right when he asks us to worry about the carbohydrates (sugars) in our diets. But we should also worry about proteins and especially about lipids (fats). Indeed, all three macronutrients (proteins, lipids, carbohydrates) can be converted to acetyl-CoA, a high energy compound that can be used to synthesize anyone of these three macronutrients if they are deficient in the body.

Let’s use the example of a person who ingests no protein at all because he is on an extreme low-protein diet. However, his body still needs to make new proteins to replace those broken down in his muscles. To do that, he uses the lipids (fats) and carbohydrates (sugars) ingested from food, to make acetyl-CoA. The later high-energy compound is then used to make the proteins that his diet is not providing but that are needed to maintain his muscle mass and other metabolic processes in his body. The body can also use acetyl-CoA to make lipids (fats) and carbohydrates (sugars) when these macronutrients are not provided adequately by diets.

Consequently, a person who goes on a diet to lose weight needs to eat not only a low-carbohydrates (sugar) diet as suggested by Jonny Bowden, but also a low-protein and a low-lipid (fat) diet. IMHO, to be on a single diet low in lipid-carbohydrate-protein at the same time, one needs to reduce the size of the meals ingested. This will automatically lower the dietary intake of lipid, protein and carbohydrate at the same time.

Then, if one needs to reduce a specific macronutrient in ingested food or in the body, then it is better to reduce the amount of lipids (fats). There are two reasons that lead to this conclusion.

Firstly, lipids (fats) are used to store the excess energy from ingested food, in the body. When we eat too much food, the excess amount of energy from the ingested food (contained in proteins, lipids and carbohydrates) that the body cannot use, is transferred into the high-energy compound acetyl-CoA, and then converted into lipids (fats) that are stored in the body. That is why when we eat too much, our body weight increases as we add more lipids (fats) to our body.

Lipids (fats) are better suited to store excess food energy than carbohydrates (sugars) or proteins because they can store more energy than the other two macronutrients. While 1 gram of lipids (fats) stores 9 calories, 1 gram of carbohydrates (sugars) or proteins stores only 4 calories. Therefore, it is more efficient to lose weight by reducing the amount of lipids (fats) stored in the body than by using carbohydrates (sugars) or proteins because more energy/weight is burned with 1 gram of lipids (9 calories) than 1 gram of carbohydrates or proteins (4 calories).

Secondly, if one needs to reduce a specific macronutrient in ingested food or in the body, then it is better to reduce the amount of lipids (fats). The published scientific data has clearly established a positive relationship between cholesterol/lipids (fats) and the development of coronary heart diseases (CHD).

As mentioned earlier, The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (The LRC-CPPT Study) established the “two-for-one rule of thumb”: for each 1% reduction in total cholesterol level, there is a corresponding 2% reduction in CHD risk.

Underneath, I am providing a limited compilation of epidemiological, genetic, primary and secondary prevention data that show conclusively that lipids (fats) cause coronary heart diseases; and by reducing blood lipids (fats), we reduce the risk of developing coronary heart diseases defined as: sudden death, angina pectoris (angina chest pain), myocardial infraction (MI, heart attack), stroke and heart failure

Epidemiological Evidence

Epidemiological studies have shown a strong relationship between blood lipid levels and coronary heart diseases (CHD).

The objective of the Framingham Heart Study, that opened in 1948 and is still running today, was to identify the major factors that contribute to coronary heart disease. These factors are: high blood pressure, high blood cholesterol, smoking, obesity, diabetes, and physical inactivity.

• Framingham Heart Study. https://www.framinghamheartstudy.org...hs/history.php.

• The Multiple Risk Factor Intervention Trial (MR-FIT) http://jaha.ahajournals.org/content/1/5/e003640.

• The Seven Countries Study. http://sph.umn.edu/site/docs/epi/SPH...es%20Study.pdf.

Genetic Evidence

Familial hypercholesterolemia (FH) is a genetic disorder that affects lipid metabolism. People affected by FH do not absorb or partially absorb cholesterol in the liver. As result, they have extremely high level of serum cholesterol levels and premature CHD.

Primary Prevention

Primary prevention studies are conducted on persons who do not have coronary heart disease (CHD: sudden death, angina pectoris, myocardial infraction, stroke and heart failure). These studies showed that lowering LDL cholesterol decreased the risk of developing CHD.

The Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (The LRC-CPPT Study) established the “two-for-one rule of thumb”: for each 1% reduction in total cholesterol level, there is a corresponding 2% reduction in CHD risk.

• Lipid Research Clinics Coronary Primary Prevention Trial (The LRC-CPPT Study) (cholestyramine) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/6361299.

• The World Health Organization (WHO) Cooperative Trial (clofibrate) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/317255.

• Helsinki Heart Study (gemfibrozil) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/labs/articles/3313041/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16606810.

• Air Force/Texas Coronary Atherosclerosis Prevention Study (lovastatin) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11348605

• West of Scotland Coronary Prevention Study (pravastatin) http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056...2001#t=article.

Secondary Prevention

Secondary prevention studies are conducted on people who have coronary heart disease (CHD). These studies showed that the use of cholesterol reducing agents decrease morbidity and/or mortality.

• Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (simvastatin) http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/r...4s-statins.pdf.

• Coronary Drug Project (niacin and clofibrate) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/3782631.

• Cholesterol Lowering Atherosclerosis Study (niacin and colestipol) https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8115891.

[Bubu]

blood circulating system is no different than a cooling water circulating system. The main components are pump (heart) and tubes (veins). Cholesterol is an integral part of the blood. Its suppose to go freely into the veins. Blood pressure rises when veins are clog similarly in a water system pressure rise when tubes are clog. We can imagine that if the veins hole becomes small or if the veins harden then there is a good chance that cholesterol will be caught up somewhere in the blood tubes. I am a mechanic and I knew that when rubber hose became inflamed with prolonged soaking with brake fluids or fuel the holes becomes smaller. This is also true with the veins. What can cause the veins to get inflamed or harden? I can only think of chemicals. The veins became inflamed so the cholesterol gets trap in it. Is it correct to blame the cholesterol instead of the inflamed veins? a heart attack is same as the water pump getting burned due to extreme stress in pumping water through a clog water line.
cholesterol will clog veins only if the veins are inflamed or stiff. cholesterol is normal inflamed veins aren't. " if it aint broke dont fix it" but then thats what mainstream medicine did and is doing

[Olaf]

Posted by JChombre (here)

• Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (simvastatin) http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/r...4s-statins.pdf.

I just googled the that study to see, what critics say about the study design.
So I found a statement of a German physician, who analyzed the study to understand better, what the medicals do that he is prescribing in his office.

In 5 years mortality has been reduced in this study by 1.8 percent.

However, the study raises many questions that begin with patient recruitment.

Patient recruitment

A good 63,000 out of approximately 130,000 registered patients followed an invitation for a pre-selection in one of the 69 study centers. In this case, all participants left the study, which had significant concomitant diseases, whose further adherence was questionable or who did not wish to participate in the study.

There were 32,145 patients who received placebo for four weeks and six weeks simvastatin. After this first contact, a further 11,609 patients accepted, so that 20,536 patients were finally included in the study. This approach is questionable, because all of the patients with side effects from the study were excluded by the first contact with simvastatin, and the authors therefore erroneously came to the conclusion that the side effects in the placebo and simvastatin collectives up to the second comma are almost identical. In addition, the study was thus blinded and was therefore prone to unequal treatment.

Accompanying medication

The cardioprotective medication of the 20,536 patients included was incomplete, at the beginning of the study, for example, only 57% of all patients with peripheral occlusive disease had acetylsalicylic acid or an anticoagulant [2] and only 31% of the 5,400 patients with type II diabetes mellitus metformin [ 4]. There is, however, no statement on the uniform distribution of metformin at the beginning of the study. This is unsatisfactory because metformin is known to be the only antidiabetic with a secured macrovascular benefit.

For the relativization of the sparse accompanying medication, the HPS authors referred to the subgroup analyzes, which showed a proportional benefit of the simvastatin group with and without respective accompanying medication. This almost parallel utility across all subgroups makes me suspicious because it contradicts my understanding of complex therapies. To illustrate my skepticism, I refer to Figure 8 in [2] with the perlline-like distribution of the odds ratio at the 0.8 line for all subgroups in favor of simvastatin.

The study states that the use of the accompanying medication remained the same for the entire duration of the study ("..."). However, specific figures are not mentioned. This sparse therapy is neither desirable for the individual patient, nor is it convincing for me that the physician (and the study center) should have caused any improvement in therapy over the entire duration of the study. I also assume that simvastatin patients and placebo groups differed widely from improved companion medication. The placebo group showed a much poorer treatment adherence and a higher concentration. In the sense of the intention to treat analysis, however, the villagers were included in the results calculation, because the center of the study informed the general practitioners about the reached endpoints.

I therefore propose a different interpretation of the study than the authors: The subgroup analyzes show a proportional and approximately parallel benefit of the intervention arm because the simvastatin group was somewhat better placed and better looked after. The blindness at the beginning of the study helped.

[Bubu]

I forgot to mention that high pressure can also be the cause of scale (plaque) buildup in the tubes. however I tend to favor inflammation because I was able to cure many people with high blood pressure with the combination of quitch grass and turmeric. The same concoction I used to treat many people with gout and/or arthritis. which means that the concoction is anti inflammatory.

[JChombre]

Posted by Olaf (here)

Posted by JChombre (here)

• Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (simvastatin) http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/r...4s-statins.pdf.

I am not here to try to convince you or anyone else to use simvastatin or any other agent for coronary heart diseases (CHD). I am sure that the manufacturer of this drug can argue their case fairly well.

The challenge with CHD is that it does not hurt, you don’t feel this disease at all sometime for years.

Then, in 50% of the cases, the first time that someone experiences a symptom of this disease is when he/she drops dead without any warning.

Sadly, this is what happened to my eastside neighbor 10 years ago. He experienced "sudden death", a classic symptom of CHD.

True story.

A bon entendeur, salut !

[Akasha]

Posted by JChombre (here)

Posted by Olaf (here)

Posted by JChombre (here)

• Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (simvastatin) http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/r...4s-statins.pdf.

I am not here to try to convince you or anyone else to use simvastatin or any other agent for coronary heart diseases (CHD). I am sure that the manufacturer of this drug can argue their case fairly well.

The challenge with CHD is that it does not hurt, you don’t feel this disease at all sometime for years.

Then, in 50% of the cases, the first time that someone experiences a symptom of this disease is when he/she drops death without any warning.

Sadly, this is what happened to my eastside neighbor 10 years ago. He experienced "sudden death", a classic symptom of CHD.

True story.

A bon entendeur, salut !

Well said, JChombre. This is serious. Bob Harper was lucky. He could have just dropped dead from his cholesterol-induced heart attack.

Here's what Dr. Michael Greger of nutritionfacts.org said about Jonny Bowden and "The Cholesterol Myth":

What about the “cholesterol myth”?

I wrote about the cholesterol “skeptics” in my book Carbophobia (now available free, full text online).

I think the issue was best summarized in a medical journal editorial entitled Cholesterol Myth Club on Par with Flat Earth Society that read: “as mixed up as Flat Earth Society members obviously are, at least you can laugh their dumb idea off, and if you want to believe the Earth is flat, this view is not going to cause serious problems like… coronary artery disease.”

[Michelle Marie]

I first learned about the cholesterol/statin deception when I read the book Spontaneous Evolution
https://www.brucelipton.com/books/spontaneous-evolution
By Bruce Lipton and Stephen Baerman.

They also mentioned creating ranges for children's cholesterol levels to get them on the drugs.

I feel a lot healthier since I quit going to doctors altogether. It's part of the taking my mind back program. It's working quite well.

We were brought up to follow doctors orders which is totally disempowering.

The good news is that life is eternal, and the ugly truth that is emerging is setting us free by giving us the ability to make informed choices.

However, when governments break Universal Law of free will choice (through deception, manipulation, or false power perceptions) and try to enforce forced vaccinations, for example, clever people find ways to avoid that action. Some kids are going to California schools without vaccinations.

It seems we are on the verge of eliminating this tyranny. Many people share this intention.

Thanks for raising awareness with this thread!

Love and good health to all,
MM

[Bubu]

Posted by JChombre (here)

Posted by Olaf (here)

Posted by JChombre (here)

• Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (simvastatin) http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/r...4s-statins.pdf.

I am not here to try to convince you or anyone else to use simvastatin or any other agent for coronary heart diseases (CHD). I am sure that the manufacturer of this drug can argue their case fairly well.

The challenge with CHD is that it does not hurt, you don’t feel this disease at all sometime for years.

Then, in 50% of the cases, the first time that someone experiences a symptom of this disease is when he/she drops death without any warning.

Sadly, this is what happened to my eastside neighbor 10 years ago. He experienced "sudden death", a classic symptom of CHD.

True story.

A bon entendeur, salut !

people die its normal. But I'd rather live short than live long while being keep hostage by modern medicine, this seems to be the norm for a long time already. although I believe that not subscribing to all the modern lies will give one a nice and long life.

[JChombre]

Posted by Akasha (here)

Posted by JChombre (here)

Posted by Olaf (here)

Posted by JChombre (here)

• Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (simvastatin) http://www.thelancet.com/pb/assets/r...4s-statins.pdf.

I am not here to try to convince you or anyone else to use simvastatin or any other agent for coronary heart diseases (CHD). I am sure that the manufacturer of this drug can argue their case fairly well.

The challenge with CHD is that it does not hurt, you don’t feel this disease at all sometime for years.

Then, in 50% of the cases, the first time that someone experiences a symptom of this disease is when he/she drops death without any warning.

Sadly, this is what happened to my eastside neighbor 10 years ago. He experienced "sudden death", a classic symptom of CHD.

True story.

A bon entendeur, salut !

Well said, JChombre. This is serious. Bob Harper was lucky. He could have just dropped dead from his cholesterol-induced heart attack.

Here's what Dr. Michael Greger of nutritionfacts.org said about Jonny Bowden and "The Cholesterol Myth":

What about the “cholesterol myth”?

I wrote about the cholesterol “skeptics” in my book Carbophobia (now available free, full text online).

I think the issue was best summarized in a medical journal editorial entitled Cholesterol Myth Club on Par with Flat Earth Society that read: “as mixed up as Flat Earth Society members obviously are, at least you can laugh their dumb idea off, and if you want to believe the Earth is flat, this view is not going to cause serious problems like… coronary artery disease.”

Thank you. I watched part of Dr. Greger's video. Funny guy! I like his presentation style, and I intend to watch the rest of his video later on.

As far as coronary heart disease (CHD) is concerned, it is the number 1 cause of death in the US. And I warned my eastside neighbor twice about what might happen to him if he didn't take care of himself. Unfortunately, he did not...

After that, two other people that I knew died under the same circumstances. So this is a little bit personal for me...

It is very disturbing for me to listen to Jonny Bowden because he is cleverly presenting some twisted, inaccurate information that some people are using to make medical decisions that may negatively affect their lives. And he is doing this to sell his books.

I can say emphatically that he has no personal integrity, and certainly no scientific or intellectual credibility.

Jonny Bowden is a despicable individual who is using his advanced training in science to shamefully take advantage of unsuspecting people, and probably lead a few of them to their graves.

All this so that he can make money! I am highly trained in science, and I know that this is wrong; and this really makes me mad!

However, people can do whatever they want to do with their lives. And if someone who has CHD decides not to do anything about it for whatever reasons, then that's perfectly fine. After all, it is his/her life not mine.

[happyuk]

Posted by AutumnW (here)
Latti,

Be careful here. My husband went of statins, as well and had a massive heart attack that killed him a few years later. There are inaccuracies about cholesterol, for sure and statins are harmful but it is still good to keep cholesterol within normal range, eat right and above all, eliminate sugar, because sugar is probably a bigger culprit. It might turn out that it is the combination of sugar, high cholesterol and stress that kills.

I agree. Especially when I read about the Weston A Price research into primitive cultures. They all had vastly different diets depending on what part of the globe they came from - native Americans, Arab tribes. Aboriginals etc some ate meat others didn't etc but what they all had in common wad the absence of sugar.

[Cardillac]

@happyuk

according to Weston A. Price the food source with by far the highest cholesterol level is...

mothers' breast milk-

if mother nature is not right, why would mother nature provide new-borns with high cholesterol levels?

Larry

[Akasha]

Posted by Cardillac (here)
@happyuk

according to Weston A. Price the food source with by far the highest cholesterol level is...

mothers' breast milk-

if mother nature is not right, why would mother nature provide new-borns with high cholesterol levels?

Larry

Mother nature certainly is right. For a baby, cholesterol is a fat critical to brain development, hence the reason human breast milk has so much of it.

However, Mother nature also imposes a finite weaning period on humans, and for good reason.

[happyuk]

Posted by Cardillac (here)
@happyuk

according to Weston A. Price the food source with by far the highest cholesterol level is...

mothers' breast milk-

if mother nature is not right, why would mother nature provide new-borns with high cholesterol levels?

Larry

Absolutely. 25% of the body's cholesterol is found in the brain. We absolutely need cholesterol. I gave up on that low-fat faddist nonsense 2 decades ago, turned off by many of its adherents being joyless uptight tight-arses. I didn't die.

[Akasha]

Posted by happyuk (here)

Posted by Cardillac (here)
@happyuk

according to Weston A. Price the food source with by far the highest cholesterol level is...

mothers' breast milk-

if mother nature is not right, why would mother nature provide new-borns with high cholesterol levels?

Larry

Absolutely. 25% of the body's cholesterol is found in the brain. We absolutely need cholesterol. I gave up on that low-fat faddist nonsense 2 decades ago, turned off by many of its adherents being joyless uptight tight-arses. I didn't die.

True, we absolutely do need cholesterol and, as it happens, the human liver makes all the body needs......

.....and regarding your last comment about not dying (yet), no doubt Bob Harper felt equally confident of his dietary choices until he almost did die of a heart attack at the grand old age of 51.....but hey, that's a whopping three years older than you so don't sweat it.

Source: https://youtube.com/watch?v=RsyuJ2dT62c