Jump to content
IndiaDivine.org

A CHOLESTEROL SKEPTIC CHALLENGES JANE BRODY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Rate this topic


Guest guest

Recommended Posts

A CHOLESTEROL SKEPTIC CHALLENGES JANE BRODY OF THE NEW YORK TIMES

Unfortunately, the Times did not see fit to publish the letter, and so here it

is

 

http://www.thincs.org/unpublic.Joel4.htm

 

 

This is a contribution from a member of THINCS,

The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics

Home

 

The following letter was sent to the editor of New York Times 19. July, 2003. No

answer.

The New York Times

Letters to the Editor

 

By FAX: 212 556 3622

 

Dear Editor:

You should be aware that Jane E. Brody in Cholesterol: When It’s Good, It’s

Very, Very Good, NYT, Tuesday, 15 Jul 03, pF7, wrote quite a number of

non-facts. For example, our digestive systems do not resemble those of cows and

deer. Cows have multiple stomachs and chew cud; they eat all day long because

the nutritional value of their plant foods is so poor.

 

LDL, called " bad cholesterol " is absolutely vital as the carrier of cholesterol

to build membranes and maintain brain function. In people with cardiovascular

disease (CVD), low levels of total cholesterol (TC), LDL, and triglyceride (TG)

in serum, as well as low HDL, are serious risk factors, contrary to Brody

(Horwich TB, et al. Low Serum Total Cholesterol Is Associated With Marked

Increase in Mortality In Advanced Heart Failure. J Cardiac Failure

2002;8(4):216-224.)

 

Not only is more HDL correlated with fewer heart attacks, but more TC is as

well. A result of the Framingham study was that mortality increased by 11 % for

each 1 % reduction in TC (Krumholz HM, et al. Lack of association between

cholesterol and coronary heart disease mortality and morbidity and all-cause

mortality in persons older than 70 years. J Am Med Assoc 1994;272:1335-40). The

" surge " in HDL level by 1 mg/dL for every 7 lbs lost would require losing 70-140

lbs to achieve a serious increase in HDL.

 

The old dogma that all calories are alike was hauled out, implying that merely

replacing fat with carbohydrate of equal calories was not a benefit. This was

actually a tout for a low-fat diet. In 1956 Prof. Alan Kekwick and Gaston Pawan,

MD, at Middlesex Hospital, London, England, conducted tests of 4 1,000 kcal/day

diets: 90% fat (by fuel values), 90% protein, 90% carbohydrate, and a normal

mixed diet. Subjects on the high-fat diet lost much more weight than any of the

others. Several subjects on the high-carb diet actually gained weight, even at

only 1000 kcal/day! Even at 2,600 kcal/day of very low-carb diet, subjects lost

weight (Groves B, Eat Fat Get Thin, 1999, p21-2).

 

There is no evidence that saturated fats are bad for health, and plenty of

evidence that saturated fats prevent both CVD, stroke and cancer (Ottoboni A and

F, The Modern Nutritional Diseases, 2002, pp36-7). Instead a high-carb diet was

touted, despite overwhelming evidence the such a diet will cause obesity and

diabetes, leading to CVD and stroke (Ottoboni A and F, The Modern Nutritional

Diseases, 2002, all).

 

Recommending 1-2 drinks per day of alcoholic beverages to prevent CVD would be

acceptable if the cost were not more cancer and stroke; there is hardly any

difference in all-cause mortality between low and moderate drinkers (Theobald H,

et al. The Effects of Alcohol Consumption on Mortality and Morbidity: A 26-Year

Follow-Up Study. J Stud Alcohol 2001;62:783-9).

 

Many people cannot exercise, so only a low-carb (high fat, high protein) diet

will improve health for most of them. The only prospective, randomized study of

exercise after heart attack found no effect of exercise on all-cause death and a

slight benefit of exercise on cardiovascular mortality for the first few years,

disappearing at 5 years (Dorn J, et al. Results of a multicenter randomized

clinical trial of exercise and long-term survival in myocardial infarction

patients: the National Exercise and Heart Disease Project (NEHDP). Circulation

1999 Oct 26;100(17):1764-9).

 

The recommendation for gemfibrozil is irresponsible, as heart attacks doubled in

trial patients who took it. No anticholesterol drugs reduce all-cause death

rates by a significant amount, and some trials of lovastatin showedincreased

death rates (Ravnskov U, The Cholesterol Myths, 2000, pp176ff).

 

From the standpoint of the reader, plagiarism is less of a problem than

misinformation, which is more likely to lead to litigation for the NYT.

 

Sincerely, Joel M. Kauffman, PhD

 

 

More unpublished contributions

Home

 

 

 

NEW WEB MESSAGE BOARDS - JOIN HERE.

Alternative Medicine Message Boards.Info

http://alternative-medicine-message-boards.info

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...