It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
The nation’s top nutrition advisory panel has decided to drop its caution about eating cholesterol-laden food, a move that could undo almost 40 years of government warnings about its consumption.
Yet many have viewed the evidence against cholesterol as weak, at best. As late as 2013, a task force arranged by the American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association looked at the dietary cholesterol studies. The group found that there was “insufficient evidence” to make a recommendation. Many of the studies that had been done, the task force said, were too broad to single out cholesterol. “Looking back at the literature, we just couldn’t see the kind of science that would support dietary restrictions,” said Robert Eckel, the co-chair of the task force and a medical professor at the University of Colorado.
“So we’re not making a [cholesterol] recommendation?” panel member Miriam Nelson, a Tufts University professor, said at the meeting as if trying to absorb the thought. “Okay ... Bummer.”
“Almost every single nutrient imaginable has peer reviewed publications associating it with almost any outcome,” John P.A. Ioannidis, a professor of medicine and statistics at Stanford and one of the harshest critics of nutritional science, has written. “In this literature of epidemic proportions, how many results are correct?”
But even before the paper was published, other scientists began pointing out errors, says first author Rajiv Chowdhury, an epidemiologist at the University of Cambridge in the United Kingdom. For instance, the authors took one study on omega-3 fats, one type of unsaturated fats, to show a slightly negative effect while, in fact, it had shown a strong positive effect. The correction means that the meta-analysis now says people who report eating lots of this particular fat have significantly less heart disease; previously, it said there was no significant effect. Critics also pointed out two important studies on omega-6 fatty acids that the authors had missed. The errors "demonstrate shoddy research and make one wonder whether there are more that haven't been detected," writes Jim Mann, a researcher at the University of Otago, Dunedin, in New Zealand, writes in an e-mail. "If I had been the referee I would have recommended rejection." Mann and others say the paper has other problems, too. For instance, it does not address what people who reduced their intake of saturated fats consumed instead. A 2009 review concluded that replacing saturated fats with carbohydrates had no benefit, while replacing them with polyunsaturated fats reduced the risk of heart disease. Several scientists say that should have been mentioned in the new paper.
originally posted by: greencmp
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
Gee wiz, I wonder what other popular opinions based upon 'consensus science' (apparently something other than science) are unsupportable by evidence?
"A year from now, ten, they'll swing back to the belief that they can make people... better. And I do not hold to that. So no more running; I aim to misbehave." - Malcolm Reynolds
originally posted by: hopenotfeariswhatweneed
Did you miss the memo ...Smoking is good for you
originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: TiredofControlFreaks
They didn't actually "demand obedience".
Sure a doctor wrote you a prescription for Crestor.
You didn't have to take it.
originally posted by: skunkape23
Proper cholesterol levels correlate with hormonal balance.
I don't skimp on the egg yolks or the animal fat.
Just don't over do it.
My blood cholesterol levels are fine and I am fairly lean.
I'm not sure if I could carry on in life without copious amounts of butter.