Jump to content

HelgeK

Medlem
  • Posts

    93
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    5

HelgeK last won the day on October 8

HelgeK had the most liked content!

Recent Profile Visitors

544 profile views

HelgeK's Achievements

(2/7)

125

Reputation

  1. Tim Noakes visar att kolesterolet INTE uppfyller kraven för att vara den verkliga orsaken till hjärt- och kärlsjukdom .
  2. Jag startade en tråd om KOLESTEROLHYPOTESEN: https://forum.kostdoktorn.se/topic/20322-tvivlet-på-kolesterolhypotesen-ökar/?tab=comments
  3. I Sverige har vi en av de mest kända Statin motståndarna Docent Uffe Ravnskov,och man kan läsa en av hans böcker gratis. Läs hans brev här: http://www.ravnskov.nu/svcholesterol/ Se också: http://thincs.columbuspublishing.co.uk
  4. Högt intag av mejerifett gav inte sämre hjärt-kärlhälsa 13 oktober, 2021 av Annika Dahlqvist 38 kommentarer Uppsala Universitet: Högt intag av mejerifett gav inte sämre hjärt-kärlhälsa . En svensk studie. 4000 försökspersoner. De med högt intag av mejerifett – mätt med fettsyror i blodet, hade lägre risk för hjärtkärlsjukdom än de som hade intagit mindre av mejerifett. Försökspersonerna följdes i 16 år för att se hur det gick med deras hjärtkärlhälsa. Detta stämmer med många andra motsvarande studier. En amerikansk . Do Not Expect Experts to Change Their Attitudes About Saturated Fat: There have been lots of studies demonstrating that the old dietary dogma was flawed and yet the AHA has not changed its stand on cholesterol and saturated fat in foods. The Sydney Diet Heart Study ran between 1966 and 1973 in Australia. The results weren’t published for 40 years (BMJ, Feb. 5, 2013). The researchers in this experiment assigned high-risk men to use either margarine or butter during that time. Men using safflower oil margarine were 60 percent more likely to die over the years of the study. The absolute risk of death from heart disease went from 10 percent on the butter-rich diet to 16.3 percent on the margarine-based diet. Another trial pitting butter against margarine ran about the same time. The Minnesota Coronary Experiment involved more than 9,000 patients in mental institutions and a nursing home. The researchers had total control over the subjects’ diets. The test diets included one high in saturated fat and the other high in polyunsaturated fats from corn oil. Like the Sydney Diet Heart Study, the results were not what the investigators expected. Perhaps that explains why the data were not published until much later (Atherosclerosis, Jan-Feb. 1989). Patients on the corn oil diet had less cholesterol in their blood, but they were just as likely to die from heart disease. But Wait…There’s More: A study published in the medical journal, Annals of Internal Medicine (March 18, 2014), had nutrition experts and physicians shaking their heads in disbelief. The authors reviewed 72 studies involving over 600,000 volunteers. These studies represented the best research at that time. They examined the relationship between diet and heart disease. The conclusion: there is no convincing evidence that a diet containing saturated fat leads to heart disease. That seems like heresy of the highest order. The researchers also noted that polyunsaturated fats low in cholesterol such as corn or safflower oil do not appear to protect people from heart attacks. This too contradicts the nutritional principles that have reigned in the U.S. for decades. The only culprits that stood out in this mass of data were trans fats. The researchers found a clear link between consumption of foods high in trans fats and heart disease. Americans were once encouraged to consume margarine and shortening made of hydrogenated vegetable oil loaded with trans fats on the understanding that these low-cholesterol solid fats would be better for the heart than butter or lard. Such advice now seems to have been based more on belief than evidence. What About Saturated Fat in Meat? Here are more analyses published in the highly regarded Annals of Internal Medicine (Oct. 1, 2019). Get the straight and skinny on this research in our overview at this link. The French never bought the American prohibition on saturated fat. They were loathe to give up their Brie, Camembert, paté, boeuf bourguignon and chocolate soufflé. Cardiologists were puzzled by the “French paradox.” Despite such foods rich in saturated fat, French heart attack rates have been considerably lower than those in the U.S. If there is a moral to this ongoing diet controversy, it is that high-fat dairy products do not appear to be as dangerous as doctors once thought. Despite the latest study and all the others that have gone before it, we do not expect the AHA or nutrition experts to change their thinking. In recent years we have seen the pillars of dietary dogma collapsing. Here is a list: Eggs: Before, cholesterol-laden yolks were thought to clog your arteries and lead to heart disease. Now, eggs are considered an excellent source of high-quality protein. Coconuts and avocados: Before, these foods were off limits because of high saturated fat content. Now, they are considered OK with potential health benefits. Nuts: Before, these were high fat treats, thought to raise cholesterol, heart attack risk and cause weight gain. Now, nuts are known to contain good fats and data prove people who eat nuts lower their risk of heart attacks! Shrimp: Before, shrimp were believed to be sinful, high in cholesterol and dangerous for those at risk of heart disease. Now, they are considered a good source of protein and raise good HDL cholesterol. Butter: Before, butter was a no-no because it is high in sat fat and cholesterol. Now, butter is better than margarine made from trans fats. Salt: Before, salt was bad, raising blood pressure and causing heart disease. Now, data indicate that there is a sweet spot. Going too low on sodium increases the risk of death! Coffee: Before, people were told to lay off the java because it raises blood pressure and harms the heart. Now, coffee is a known source of dietary antioxidants. It helps prevent diabetes and may partially protect against neurological diseases like Parkinson’s and dementia. Chocolate: Before, chocolate was frowned upon as fattening and bad for the skin. It was also viewed as contributing to indigestion and reflux by relaxing the lower esophageal sphincter. Chocolate was featured on many lists of foods that people prone to migraine should avoid. Now, chocolate with more cocoa flavanols than sugar is known to relax blood vessels and lower blood pressure. It may help maintain good cognitive function and reduce the risks of stroke and heart attack. While some individuals may find that chocolate triggers reflux or a migraine, most people handle it without difficulty. Whole Milk, Cream & High-Fat Yogurt: Before, high-fat dairy foods were believed to contribute to heart disease and obesity. Now, studies show that both kids and adults who consume high-fat dairy are actually skinnier than those who consume skim milk and low-fat dairy products. The new research (above) shows that saturated fat found in high-fat dairy does not cause heart disease. The Bottom Line on Saturated Fat: What are we to make of all the food confusion? If there is a take-home message from all this, it is that evidence trumps belief. For decades “experts” have made assumptions about various foods. Because egg yolks contained cholesterol, they decided that eggs caused heart disease, without any data to support that hypothesis. When research actually revealed that eggs do not cause heart disease, there has been a begrudging retreat from the hard line advice to shun eggs. But old ideas die hard. There are still many health professionals who caution against eating foods like avocados, nuts and shrimp, despite data to the contrary. What About Dairy Products? We suspect that the evidence that full-fat dairy products don’t raise cholesterol in high-risk patients will be challenging for most health professionals to accept. After all, it contradicts everything we have been told about a heart-healthy diet for more than 50 years. Accepting the new data (American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, Sept. 2021) and the analysis of 72 studies involving more than 600,000 people would mean that our thought leaders and policy makers got it wrong. In such scenarios, many people would prefer to shoot the messengers and pretend that the data do not exist. The research is likely to disappear without a trace and some nutrition experts will pretend it never saw the light of day. Real Food: What should you do? We follow the advice of Robert Lustig, MD, author of the book Fat Chance: Beating the Odds Against Sugar, Processed Food, Obesity, and Disease and Michael Pollen, author of In Defense of Food, An Eater’s Manifesto. They make it very clear: “EAT REAL FOOD!” If it comes in a package with a long list of unpronounceable chemical ingredients, think twice or three times! Grandmothers instinctively knew that food grown in the garden and prepared with love was better than anything produced in a factory. Joe’s mother always believed butter was better than margarine and it turns out she was right. Your Opinion: What do you think? We would love to get your response to this essay. How do you deal with the food flip-flops of the last several years regarding nuts, chocolate, coffee and coconut? What do you make of the saturated fat controversy? Share your comments below. View Comments(90)
  5. Det hâr resonemanget är ovetenskapligt. Det finns inget som säger att medelvärdena är bättre än andra värden. T.ex undersökningarna som har visat att de som lever längst är de som har högst LDL kolesterol. Jag tror inte att du Petter vill tvångs sänka deras värden så att de dör tidigare !?
  6. En bra artikel, som förklarar mycket om kolesterol, och även om statiner: https://www.westonaprice.org/health-topics/modern-diseases/dangers-of-statin-drugs-what-you-havent-been-told-about-popular-cholesterol-lowering-medicines/#:~:text=The fact that some studies have shown that,but because they block the creation of mevalonate.
  7. Från Dr Aseem Malhotras twitter flöde: "Exercise is COMPLETELY USELESS in preventing heart disease if your diet is wrong & 80% of UK adults have a bad diet"
  8. Det är bra att komma ihåg från var kolesterolhypotesen kom. Se: https://sugarscience.ucsf.edu/sugar-papers-reveal-industry-role-in-shifting-focus.html#.YW1Kky1ypQI SUGARSCIENCE BLOG Sugar Papers Reveal Industry Role in Shifting Focus from Heart Disease to Saturated Fat By Sugar Editor It all started with a secret PR campaign dating back to the 1970s. For forty years, the Sugar Association, key trade group for sugar producers, deflected all threats to its multi-billion dollar empire, while sweetening the world’s food supply. As obesity, diabetes, and heart disease rates skyrocket, doctors are now treating the first generation of children suffering from fatty liver disease. The sugar industry is once again under siege. When the doors closed at the Great Western Sugar Company in Colorado in 1976, someone forgot to sweep the floor. Gathering dust in the archives were 1500 pages of internal documents exposing how the Sugar Industry used Tobacco-style tactics to dismiss troubling health claims against their products. Denver dentist turned postdoctoral scholar at the UCSF School of Medicine, Cristin Kearns, knew she’d stumbled on something big: the industry’s secret playbook. Her story is vividly captured in the Canadian documentary, Sugarcoated, now available on Netflix. Along with her mentors, Stan Glantz and Laura Schmidt, Kearns has produced another powerful peer-reviewed paper on sugar industry tactics. It reveals that the sugar industry began working closely with nutrition scientists in the mid-1960s to single out fat and cholesterol as the dietary causes of coronary heart disease and to downplay evidence that sucrose consumption was also a risk factor. This analysis appears September 12, 2016, in JAMA Internal Medicine. The internal industry documents showed that a sugar industry trade organization recognized as early as 1954 that if Americans adopted low-fat diets, then per-capita consumption of sucrose would increase by more than one-third. The trade organization represented 30 international members. Meanwhile, evidence linking sugar consumption to high blood cholesterol and triglyceride levels – both thought to be risk factors for coronary heart disease – began to emerge in the scientific literature and popular press. After a 1965 spike in media attention to the heart disease risks of sucrose, the sugar industry commissioned Project 226, a literature review written by researchers at the Harvard University School of Public Health Nutrition Department, which was published in the highly respected New England Journal of Medicine (NEJM) in 1967. It concluded there was “no doubt” that the only dietary intervention required to prevent coronary heart disease was to reduce dietary cholesterol and substitute polyunsaturated fat for saturated fat in the American diet. “The literature review helped shape not only public opinion on what causes heart problems but also the scientific community’s view of how to evaluate dietary risk factors for heart disease,” said lead author Cristin Kearns, DDS, MBA, who discovered the industry documents. The UCSF researchers analyzed more than 340 documents, totaling 1,582 pages of text, between the sugar industry and two individuals: Roger Adams, then a professor of organic chemistry who served on scientific advisory boards for the sugar industry; and D. Mark Hegsted, one of the Harvard researchers who produced the literature review. To conduct the literature review, the sugar industry paid the Harvard scientists the equivalent of $50,000 in 2016 dollars, then set the review’s objective, contributed articles to be included, and received drafts. Yet the industry’s funding and role were not disclosed in the final NEJM publication. The literature review heavily criticized studies linking sucrose to heart disease, while ignoring limitations of studies investigating dietary fats. The review argued that blood cholesterol levels were the only significant risk factor for coronary heart disease, which made the high sucrose content of the American diet seem less hazardous than if blood triglycerides were also considered to be a risk factor. The authors emphasized that this analysis demonstrates the importance of having scientific reviews written by people without conflicts of interest, as well as the need for financial disclosure in nutrition science. “As the saying goes, he who pays the piper calls the tune,” said senior author Stanton A. Glantz, PhD, UCSF professor of medicine and director of the UCSF Center for Tobacco Control Research and Education. “There are all kinds of ways that you can subtly manipulate the outcome of a study, which industry is very well practiced at.” Co-author Laura Schmidt, PhD, who is also principal investigator on the UCSF-led SugarScience initiative and Professor of Health Policy at the Philip R. Lee Institute for Health Policy Studies, noted that after decades of focusing on saturated fat as the dietary culprit in heart disease, the science is building around sugar’s role, but health policy has only just begun to catch up. “There is now a considerable body of evidence linking added sugars to hypertension and cardiovascular disease, which is the No. 1 cause of premature death in the developed world,” Schmidt said. “Yet, health policy documents are still inconsistent in citing heart disease risk as a health consequence of added sugars consumption.” Read more: JAMA Internal Medicine: Author Interview CNN Video: Sugar raises heart concerns STAT: Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research VOX: How the sugar industry has distorted health science for more than 50 years Bloomberg: How Big Sugar Enlisted Harvard Scientists to Influence How We Eat—in 1965 Business Insider: The sugar industry funded one of the biggest misconceptions in modern nutrition TIME: How the Sugar Lobby Skewed Health Research TIME: Interview with Dr. Cristin Kerns Associated Press: Study details sugar industry attempt to shape science Food Politics: Sugar industry funding of research, 1967 style (with many lessons for today) The Guardian: Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease STAT: Sugar industry secretly paid for favorable Harvard research VOX: How the sugar industry has distorted health science for more than 50 years Bloomberg: How Big Sugar Enlisted Harvard Scientists to Influence How We Eat—in 1965 Business Insider: The sugar industry funded one of the biggest misconceptions in modern nutrition The Guardian: Sugar lobby paid scientists to blur sugar's role in heart disease New York Times: How the Sugar Industry Shifted Blame to Fat San Francisco Chronicle: UCSF-led study details sugar industry’s attempt to shape science CNN: How the sugar industry sweetened research in its favor UPI: Research reveals role of sugar industry in heart disease studies International Business Times: What Causes Heart Disease? Sugar Industry Funded Research To Prove It Didn't Contribute to Heart Disease Live Science: Sugar Industry Tried to Bias Heart Research, Study Says Daily Mail: Revealed: How the sugar industry paid prestigious Harvard researchers to say fat (NOT sugar) caused heart disease Helio: Sugar industry sponsored research to downplay sugar's role in heart disease Statiner sänker kolesterolet, men det minskar inte förekomsten av hjärt- och kärlsjukdom: (DuBroff and de Lorgeril, 2021) Moreover, the only two dietary RCTs that reduced both mortality and CHD events did not lower serum cholesterol levels. These two trials were the Lyon Diet Heart Study where the intervention was a Mediterranean diet, and the Diet And Reinfarction Trial (DART) where the intervention was the addition of fish to the control diet (Lorgeril et al., 1999; Burr et al., 1989).
  9. Tvivlet på att kolesterolhypotesen ökar efter utvecklingen i USA. Se diagrammet. Samtidigt som kolesterol nivåerna gått ner, så har antalet hjärtinfarkter ökat. Tvärtemot vad kolesterol hypotesen säger. Heart Disease: The forgotten pandemic 5 October 2021|Statins, drugs trials Robert DuBroff MD, Maryanne Demasi PhD Läs artikeln: https://maryannedemasi.com/blog/f/heart-disease-the-forgotten-pandemic
  10. Det här är Janssonf22000senaste , sista (?) senaste inlägg . Han skriver bland annat .: "Jag har beslutat mig för att (just nu) fasa ut min Keto-LCHF mot en traditionell medelhavskost. Detta innebär inte att jag kommer att lägga LCHF på hyllan för alltid, men att jag vill veta var min "basnivå" ligger när det gäller LDL, så att jag kan känna trygghet i att kunna "vända om" ifall det stiger för högt när jag experimenterar mer med LCHF." I hans första inlägg skrev han:"Jag är en 37-årig kille som är ganska smal (183cm, 63kg). Jag försöker motionera och styrketränar lite hemma, men skulle inte kalla mig stark. Jag har nu ätit en strikt LCHF i ca 6 månader och mina tidigare problem med divertiklar har blivit mycket bättre och jag upplever också att "hjärndimman/tröttheten", som jag alltid fått på arbetsluncherna, har blivit mycket mindre. Jag äter rött kött och mejeriprodukter regelbundet. Jag äter 3 ägg till varje lunch. Jag gjorde Werlabs Hälsokontroll XL Plus nyligen och mina resultat upplever jag vara problematiska." I slutet på hans sista(?)inlägg skriver han: " så tycker jag fortfarande det känns långt ifrån helt säkert att fortsätta denna väg. Hade mitt totala kolesterol legat på runt en "6:a" så hade jag upplevt situationen annorlunda. " Jag kom in sent i tråden . Men hade jag hittat tråden tidigare, så hade jag skrivit, att han borde börja träna på en styrkelyft klubb, eller Gym. Han borde också öka protein intaget. träna tillsammans med andra är inspirerande. Man kan få bra tips . Så det kan underlätta en viktökning i muskler, om man i stället ökar kolhydraterna är det en viss risk att de lagras som fett. Jag håller helt med Katerina och Cedrulla , i tveksamheten till att överskatta betydelsen av enstaka LDL värden, och eftersom de som lever längst brukar ha höga kolesterol värden, så behöver det nog oftast inte vara,så bråttom att ändra dem. Janson skall övergå till medelshavskost . Det finns skrämmande många definitioner på det. Aseem Malhotras bok om Pioppi dieten skulle jag rekommendera för han verkar vara mycket vettig, och kunnig om kost m.m.
  11. Men är det inte så det är med hela teorin att mättat fet är farligt och orsakar hjärt och kärlsjukdom? Det är en teori som sockerindustrin lät skapa för att avleda kritiken mot socker, för att sockret skapade just hjärt och kärlsjudomar. Så teorin skapades för att sockerindustrin skulle kunna fortsätta att tjäna pengar på att sälja socker trots att socker är skadligt för folkhälsan. De som skapade teorin visste att socker var ohälsosamt men de fick betalt för att förleda folk att tro att det var mättat fett som var farligt, och när de märkte att mättat fett höjde kolesterolet, och då låg det väl nära till hands att hävda att kolesterol var farligt.Syfte var det samma hela tiden, att tjäna pengar,och leda bort intresset från sockrets skadeverkningar. Så Peter när du klagar på att statin industrin vill sälja statiner till folk som har värden " fast de ligger långt innanför referensintervallen". Men du missar poängen, mättat Fett är inte farligt, och kolesterol är inte heller farligt! Det är en viktig del av kroppens försvar.Se t. ex. :https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o_QdNX9etCg&t=1747s Du borde fundera på vad sambandet som visas i diagramet, som visar utvecklingen av kolesterol i USA och utvecklingen av hjärt- och kärl-sjukdom. Det diagrammet visar, att medans kolesterolet gått ned kraftigt, så har hjärt och kärlsjukdomar gått upp mycket !! Det är tvärtemot vad kolesterol hypotesen förutspår. Det visar att kolesterol hypotesen,inte stämmer med verkligheten. Då är det nödvändigt att förkasta den felaktiga teorin, och om sambanden inte är orsaks samband, utan tillfälligheter , så är det meningslöst att spekulera om tillfälligheterna (Det är lika meningsfullt som att spå i kaffesump)., utan man bör satsa på en teori som förklarar vad som orsakar hjärt och kärlsjukdomar , och där har andra kommit längre, och t.ex.professor Robert Lustig har gjort mer och kommit betydligt längre än kolersterolhypotesens försvarare, som jag tyvärr bara tjänar förtagen som säljer Statiner, och de tjänar mycket pengar. Medans de som sänker sitt kolesterol med hjälp av statiner, och får hjärt och kärlsjukdomar i ökad utsträckning inte tjänar på statinerna,utan det är bara företagen som säljer statinerna, som tjänar på dem. Medans patienterna är FÖRLORARNA. Se även : https://blog.emptyq.net/a?ID=00004-50dabc29-64ea-465f-8e11-2b2513dab971
  12. De undersökningar som visar att de som lever längst är de som har högst ldl-kolesterol. Se t. ex.: "Men för drygt två år sedan publicerade vi i samarbete med 13 internationella experter en artikel i British Medical Journal där vi pekade på 19 studier som visade att människor över 60 år med högt ”ont” LDL-kolesterol lever längst. Vår artikel omtalades med förvåning i mer än 100 tidningar över hela världen, men ingen har hittills kunnat peka på en studie som visade det motsatta. Mer än 95 procent av dem som dör av en hjärtinfarkt är äldre än 60 år så orsaken måste vara något annat än högt LDL-kolesterol. Danska forskare har till exempel visat att kolesterolsänkning med statiner endast kan förlänga livet med några få dagar, och inget experiment har lyckats förlänga livet för kvinnor eller friska människor." Från: https://www.hd.se/2018-10-06/ont-kolesterol-ar-i-sjalva-verket-gott Även:http://www.ravnskov.nu/2016/06/14/2501/ https://www.bmj.com/content/371/bmj.m4266/rr-0 OM JAG INTE MINNS FEL SÅ ÄR SAMBANDET TRIGLYCERIDER OCH HJÄRT-OCH KÄRLSJUKDOM STARKARE ÄN DE MELLAN KOLESTEROL OCH HJÄRT OCH KÄRLSJUKDOM.
  13. Mer info som är bra att känna till: https://www.lewrockwell.com/2020/08/joseph-mercola/new-research-confirms-statins-are-colossal-waste-of-money/
  14. jansson22000 påstår att hen har för högt kolesterol. Men det grundar sig på gränsvärden som är satt av läkemedelsindustrin.Varför inte fundera om referens värdena är korrekta, om det skall vara folkhälsa som skall styra hur ,man skall se på kolesterol. Här är en video med en diskusion mellan två välkända. läkare inom lågkolhydrat förespråkarna om varför synen på kolesterol är så felaktig, som den är idag.:
  15. De här uppgifterna är inte konstiga! Redan på 1970-talet sänkte Den stora Minnesota studien kolesterolet i behandlingsgrupen genom att byta ut mättat fet mot värmebehandlade omega- 6 fetter. Det ledde till att dödligheten blev större hos de som fick omega6. fetter, än hos dem som åt mer mättat fett, även om de inte meddelade det i studien, utan de redovisade bara att kolesterolet hade sänkts i behandlingsgruppen,vilket de hävdade ,att det var bra,vilket dödligheten talar emot, så det är väl en möjlig anledning till att de dolde uppgifterna om dödligheten. Det blev känt först när några forskare gick igenom det gamla materialet 2016, och publicerade även siffrorna på dödligheten i behandlings- gruppen och kontrollgruppen.Se: https://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
×
×
  • Create New...