Fat Ascertainment: Why Saturated Fat Doesn't Cause Heart Disease

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/145afe5a5534.jpg[/atsimg]

The Diet-Heart Hypothesis, also known as the Lipid Hypothesis, is typically described as follows:

...If...
A: Saturated Fat consumption
=
B: Increased serum cholesterol levels
...and...
B: Increased serum cholesterol levels
=
C: Atherosclerosis (Heart Disease)
...then...
A: Saturated Fat consumption
=
C: Atherosclerosis (Heart Disease)

If A=B and B=C then A=C ... otherwise known as fellacious reasoning.
Scientists have been studying the relationship between dietary saturated fat, and in some cases dietary cholesterol, serum cholesterol and Heart Disease for over 50 years. Most assume that the conclusion thus far is unmistakably clear. However, this isn't the case.

The hypothesis that Saturated Fat, through it's effects on serum cholesterol, causes heart disease is factually and theoretically flawed.

It started over 50 years ago when a young scientist name Ancel Keys was hell bent on proving his theory. So hell bent, in fact, that his own confirmation bias blinded him. It led to cherry picking data. Eventually, it led to politics and then to public health policy and, finally, to the general acceptance of a bogus theory.
We've seen observational studies published left and right that, even if demonstrating strong correlations, prove nothing.

Instead of posting information from the American Heart Association, American Dietetic Association, Food and Drug Administration, United States Department of Agriculture or any other public health agency--most of which rely heavily on a significant prevalence of industry support--I'll simply let the data speak for itself.

Remember, correlation does not equal causation. For this reason, observational studies will never provide anything other than a hypothesis to test using controlled, blinded studies. However, since it's nearly impossible to quarantine any large number of individuals in a hospital for 20 years under close dietary supervision, we'll have to rely on the best form of epidemiology.... longitudinal studies:

A longitudinal study is a correlational research study that involves repeated observations of the same items over long periods of time — often many decades. It is a type of observational study.

The unsupportive data:

A Longitudinal Study of Coronary Heart Disease

Diet and heart: a postscript

Saturated fat was unrelated to heart attack risk

Dietary intake and the risk of coronary heart disease in Japanese men living
in Hawaii

Relationship of dietary intake to subsequent coronary heart disease incidence: The Puerto Rico Heart Health Program

Diet, Serum Cholesterol, and Death from Coronary Heart Disease — The Western Electric Study

Diet and 20-y mortality in two rural population groups of middle-aged men in Italy

Men who died of CHD ate significantly less saturated fat than men who didn't.

Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States

The abstract in the study above is misleading. Scroll down to table 2 and you'll see that when other risk factors are included the correlation vanishes.

Dietary Fat
Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women

Once again, after viewing table 3 you'll notice that the association disappears when poly/mono-unsaturated fats are factored.

Dietary fat intake and early mortality patterns – data from The Malmö Diet and Cancer Study

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/d2668c0307ea.png[/atsimg]

Total animal fat consumption is extremely indicative of saturated fat consumption.(NHANES)

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/72b39bd817b5.jpg[/atsimg]

Over the past 50 years, or more, we've decreased total fat and saturated fat calorie consumption while increasing polyunsaturated fat consumption. (NHANES)

That's 9 studies and two graphs from NHANES data that show no association between saturated fat intake and heart disease risk. There are plenty more. I mean, if saturated fat is the devil, like we're told, then why do the best studies we have demostrate no detectable effects?

Supportive Data:

Ten-year incidence of coronary heart disease in the Honolulu Heart Program. Relationship to nutrient intake.

Diet and 20-year mortality from coronary heart disease. The Ireland-Boston Diet-Heart Study.

Overall, these results tend to support the hypothesis that diet is related, albeit weakly, to the development of coronary heart disease.

Relationship between dietary intake and coronary heart disease mortality: lipid research clinics prevalence follow-up study.

Proportional hazards analyses controlling for total energy intake indicated that increasing percentages of energy intake as total fat (RR 1.04, 95% CI = 1.01-1.08), saturated fat (RR 1.11, CI = 1.04-1.18), and monounsaturated fat (RR 1.08, CI = 1.01-1.16) were significant risk factors for CHD mortality among 30 to 59 year olds. The increasing percentage of energy intake from carbohydrate had a significant protective effect (RR 0.96, CI = 0.94-0.99)

The Combination of High Fruit and Vegetable and Low Saturated Fat Intakes Is More Protective against Mortality in Aging Men than Is Either Alone: The Baltimore Longitudinal Study of Aging

Out of about 23 studies, only 4 support the hypothesis. Pretty weak, huh? Why aren't people who consume large amounts of saturted fat croaking of heart attacks left and right?

If you think I'm simply cherry picking the data...rest assured, I'm not the only one who's noticed this trend. There have been a few reviews that have come to the same conclusion...

The Corroborative Data

The questionable role of saturated and polyunsaturated fatty acids in cardiovascular disease.

A fat diet, rich in saturated fatty acids (SFA) and low in polyunsaturated fatty acids (PUFA), is said to be an important cause of atherosclerosis and cardiovascular diseases (CVD). The evidence for this hypothesis was sought by reviewing studies of the direct link between dietary fats and atherosclerotic vascular disease in human beings. The review included ecological, dynamic population, cross-sectional, cohort, and case-control studies, as well as controlled, randomized trials of the effect of fat reduction alone.
The harmful effect of dietary SFA and the protective effect of dietary PUFA on atherosclerosis and CVD are questioned.

A systematic review of the evidence supporting a causal link between dietary factors and coronary heart disease.

METHODS: We conducted a systematic search of MEDLINE for prospective cohort studies or randomized trials investigating dietary exposures in relation to CHD. We used the Bradford Hill guidelines to derive a causation score based on 4 criteria (strength, consistency, temporality, and coherence) for each dietary exposure in cohort studies and examined for consistency with the findings of randomized trials.
CONCLUSIONS: The evidence supports a valid association of a limited number of dietary factors and dietary patterns with CHD. Future evaluation of dietary patterns, including their nutrient and food components, in cohort studies and randomized trials is recommended.

What part of this hypothesis is wrong? Why the disconnect? The first part of the diet heart hypothesis says that saturated fat raises serum cholesterol/LDL, which is "A" in the equation above. The general consensus is part "A" is fact. Part "B" is that increasing total serum cholesterol/LDL increases heart disease risk.
Looking at Americans alone, part "B" may be true...but when we factor in the rest of the world...not so much.



Part "A" has been called in to question as well. It's been pointed out by some that Dr. Ancel Keys, the largest proponent of the diet-heart hypothesis 50 years ago, was the first to demonstrate the cholesterol raising effects of saturated fat through his short term feeding studies in the 1950's.

Now, this is where you ask yourself the question...Why are we told to avoid saturated fat when, clearly, the evidence supporting such a recommendation is severely lacking?

Who's responsible? Is it the prevalence of Industry support (big pharma, big food); is it consequence of politics dipping its pen into science (public health policy); or is it simply that a few scientists made honest mistakes, initiated by confirmation bias, and the idea just stuck, dogma?



[edit on 26-8-2010 by DevolutionEvolvd]

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


EXCELLENT work. S&F.

Transfat is another story though, right?

...and maybe the changing composition of 'fat' or perhaps some pesky little hitchhikers?

BUT - in the end - seems the data get skewed to "prove" people make themselves sick...

Not true and not really fair, is it?


Ie., see: Corporate Liability Defense Strategy Now Public Health Policy?


[edit on 26-8-2010 by soficrow]

reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd


I love your threads man,keep up the good work!!


To quote your last paragraph-----------------------------------------------------

Who's responsible? Is it the prevalence of Industry support (big pharma, big food); is it consequence of politics dipping its pen into science (public health policy); or is it simply that a few scientists made honest mistakes, initiated by confirmation bias, and the idea just stuck, dogma?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Its all of the above...its prevelance of industry support (or lobbiests) that eventually hits the political market.
Not sure whats going on in the science dept tho,how some of the things allowed these days is legal boggles my mind.


1.What do you think of Monsanto and do you think they got their FDA approval rating fair and square?

2.Is it fact or fiction that even on a diet you can still eat eggs and bacon every morning?

Those are alot of links to go thru so if the answer is already there then forgive me.

Thanks again for the thread.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by DrumsRfun]

Originally posted by DrumsRfun



1.What do you think of Monsanto and do you think they got their FDA approval rating fair and square?

No. Most of the studies in support of Monsanto are funded BY Monsanto, or have direct influence on the data.

2.Is it fact or fiction that even on a diet you can still eat eggs and bacon every morning?

If it's worth anything, I usually eat bacon and eggs about 5 days a week. There's definitely no problem with eggs. The bacon...well, that can be argued.

Thanks for the kind words.

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

EXCELLENT work. S&F.

Transfat is another story though, right?

Thanks...and absolutely, that's a whole different animal. What's unfortunate is the number of "experts" that lump Saturated fats with Trans-fats.

...and maybe the changing composition of 'fat' or perhaps some pesky little hitchhikers?

Are you refering to rancidity/oxidation?

BUT - in the end - seems the data get skewed to "prove" people make themselves sick...

Not true and not really fair, is it?

What's not fair is human nature: It's almost impossible to be completely objective without bias.....as a researcher.

The findings do point towards the meat/pork fat diet as being higher in heart attack deaths as the highest number of deaths per capita by country goes to several Northern European nations and the lowest being in the Mediterranean countries such as Portugal,Spain,France,Italy and Greece with the lowest consumption of meat in their diet and the lowest number of deaths by heart attack being found in Japan.


#1) Slovakia 216 per 100,000. people
#2) Hungary
#3) Ireland
#4) Czech Republic
#5) Finland
#6) New Zealand
#7) United Kingdom
#8) Iceland
#9) Norway
#10) Australia
#11)Sweden
#12)Austria
#13)United States 106.5 per 100,000. people
#14)Germany
#15)Denmark
#16)Canada
#17)Poland
#18)Netherlands
#19)Luxembourg
#20)Greece
#21)Italy
#22)Belgium
#23)Portugal
#24)Spain
#25)France
#26)Japan 30 per 100,000. people

The net average was 102.9 per 100,000. people

Interesting in that one aspect of commonality amongst the Mediterranean is the consumption of Red Wine for a nutrient found in skins of the grapes used in making red wine has been proven to have a lot to do with this.

Jesus juice anyone ?





Here's the article and graph....

www.nationmaster.com...

Your post make sense. When I go back to my childhood and remember some of the people who's life was nothing but to eat whole lamb a week or so and they were all healthy. Living in USA for over 40 years eating and dieting got me confused because I tried to watch my diet. I am non smoker and non drinker and yet any weight I gained, I couldn't lose regardless of how much I exercise or reduced my food intake. So I knew something else is wrong here. Dr. Price had done tests on chlorine in our drinking water. According to him, if we don't have chlorine in our water cholesterol will not harm us. I also read many articles about pesticides. This also takes me back to my childhood remembering people how healthy they were. In fact, it was around 1960 when our Government adopted American Agriculture system. Even since the health of the population has been declining. To me, all these irresponsible medical reports or flaws are responsible for the confusion of scientists whether or not the Medical Cartel are taking advantage of it or not. This is why some time they ban the salt and some time saturated Fat in restaurants not knowing if they are harming or doing some thing good for humanity. I am an Engineer and trouble shooting of complex machinery has been part of my life. I have been good at it because I always listened to the people close to those equipment and machinery. I wish these scientists dedicate their life and trouble shoot the real health problems even if it is one step at a time.

Originally posted by DevolutionEvolvd

Originally posted by soficrow
reply to post by DevolutionEvolvd

 

...and maybe the changing composition of 'fat' or perhaps some pesky little hitchhikers?

Are you refering to rancidity/oxidation?

Nope. Prions. What else?

Lipids (fats), especially cholesterol, play a role in conformational diseases - by helping infectious prions 'infect' normal proteins. The mainstream research focuses on PrP, and Creutzfeldt-Jakob disease, Kuru and Gerstmann-Sträussler-Scheinker syndrome, but the lipid-prion process clearly applies to most (if not all) conformational and protein misfolding diseases.

Here's a quick look at 2 research tracks: a. recognizing that a huge number of apparently different diseases start with misfolded proteins (prions); b. fats/cholesterol are involved in the infectious process - 'converting' normal proteins to misfolded ones.

A large and diverse number of diseases are now recognized as `conformational diseases'

A huge variety of previously unrelated diseases, such as prion diseases, diabetes and cancer, share the pathological feature of aggregated misfolded protein deposits.

Cholesterol, lipid rafts, and disease

Lipid rafts are dynamic assemblies of proteins and lipids (fats) … we give some examples of how rafts contribute to our understanding of the pathogenesis of different diseases. …Rafts are small platforms, composed of sphingolipids and cholesterol in the outer exoplasmic leaflet, connected to phospholipids and cholesterol in the inner cytoplasmic leaflet of the lipid bilayer. …How lipid rafts promote abnormal prion conversion is not clear.

Glypican-1 Mediates Both Prion Protein Lipid Raft Association and Disease Isoform Formation

The prion diseases are unique in that their infectious nature is not dependent on nucleic acid but is instead attributed to a misfolded protein, the prion protein. This misfolded prion protein is capable of inducing the misfolding of the normal form of the prion protein that is present on the surface of neurons and other cells in the body. However, the site in the cell at which this misfolding occurs and whether other proteins are involved remains controversial. We have addressed these questions by investigating how the normal form of the prion protein is targeted to specialised domains on the plasma membrane termed cholesterol-rich lipid (fat) rafts.

The prion protein and lipid rafts

Lipid rafts appear to be involved in the conformational conversion of PrPC to PrPSc, possibly by providing a favourable environment for this process to occur and enabling disease progression.

lipid-prion interactions

BUT - in the end - seems the data get skewed to "prove" people make themselves sick...

Not true and not really fair, is it?

What's not fair is human nature: It's almost impossible to be completely objective without bias.....as a researcher.

Especially not if your funding comes from 'special interests.'

In this case, seems clear that the 'special interests' want to obscure the truth and blame the victims.

Why?
a. To avoid liability;
b. 'cuz even though they created the situation, they have no idea how to fix it.




[edit on 26-8-2010 by soficrow]

Good informative thread.

People have eaten animal fat for thousands of years and never had the diseases we have today. Animal fat is good for you and it doesn’t quickly break down into dangerous toxins when heated to high temperatures. In fact the advice we get today from the “experts” regarding which “fats” to consume (GMO industrial seed oils of canola, soy, corn) is a major contributor to heart disease and all sorts of allergies. And when these GMO industrial oils (omega 6) are heated to high temperatures they become toxic. All this “advice” results in the sale of more drugs for more sick people.

Take the way they measure cholesterol. Over the years they’ve been lowering the “normal” limit for cholesterol. In many cases, which I’ve experienced personally, they don’t even take into account the HDL/LDL cholesterol ratio. If the HDL/LDL ratio is optimal you can have much higher cholesterol levels and it’s actually good for your heart. But instead the doctor will try to put you on dangerous statin drugs for the rest of your life.

They’re also doing the same scam for blood pressure. It used to be that normal blood pressure was 1 plus your age. So if you were 20 years old 120 over 80 was normal. But today if your 40 years old with 140 over 80 the doctor wants to put you on drugs for the rest of your life that force you down to the “normal” 120 over 80.

In short all this disinfo is to get people sick and on drugs for the rest of their shortened lives… a total racket.


[edit on 26-8-2010 by soleprobe]

Note to the previous post:

When I speak of animal fat I don't mean animal fat coming from Canadian/US factory beef and other meats that have been banned in Europe, Asia and other countries because they're laced with cancer causing hormones and chemicals.

Originally posted by nh_ee

Interesting in that one aspect of commonality amongst the Mediterranean is the consumption of Red Wine for a nutrient found in skins of the grapes used in making red wine has been proven to have a lot to do with this.

Honestly, it's not that interesting anymore. You're referring to the often cited french paradox. And, for the record, it's not a paradox at all. It's way of explaining away conflicting data.

The french consume high amounts of saturated fat. So when researchers realized they had relatively low incidence of heart disease, it was stunning, to say the least. The paradox, that red wine somehow reduces the risk of heart disease, was a fabrication. And there are plenty of other "paradoxes" that followed suit.

Oh...and the amount of resveratrol found in red wine is insignificant.

reply to post by soficrow


I knew you were getting at prions.

You made a good point.

b. 'cuz even though they created the situation, they have no idea how to fix it.

So...instead of doing something proactive to fix it, they're simply parroting the same mantra over and over again, knowing damn well it's not what it's touted to be.

While I agree that there is conflicting data regarding saturated fat and the progression to coronary artery disease, I feel there are several fairly major misconceptions occurring here, mostly due to lack of precision and specialized knowledge. Before I tackle any of the OP, let me just preface it with a few clarifying statements.

(1) Most coronary artery disease is atheroosclerotic, but most athersclerotic disease is not coronary. These two wrods/phrases seem to be thrown about interchangeably, but it's important to note that atherosclerosis is common in other parts of the body, and the disease process is much different in those places. For example, atherosclerotic plaques have a tendency to build up on the bifurcations of the aorta at the level of the iliac arteries and renal artiers. In both of these places, hypertension (which we DO know saturated fat plays a role in) is the main culprit.

(2) While saturated fat may not be the trigger mechanism for atherosclerosis development, it DOES contribute to hypertension, which is the leading cause of ALL cardiovascular disease. When you have chronic hypertension, you can damage the intima of your vessels (the layer of cells closest to the blood). When this layer is damaged or weakened, this releases factors into the blood that promote platelet aggregation, leukocyte migration/inflammation, and cholesterol ester deposition. This causes further injury and fibrosis, eventually producing a plaque. So, while saturated fat may not be the SOLE culprit, it's role in hypertension definitely makes it suspicious.


Now, on to the data!

A Longitudinal Study of Coronary Heart Disease

This study is form the early 1960s and, while this doesn't invalidate it, it certainly makes it worth analyzing a bit closer for problems. The main thing I've noticed is that they don't associate chronic cough and shortness of breath with coronary artery disease, which would bring their statistics down. These two symptoms, while maybe not correlated to CAD in 1963, are now recognized as hallmark signs of previous myocardial infarcation and left-sided heart failure, both of which can occur with CAD.

Diet and heart: a postscript

This study is a bit newer (1977), but still fairly old. While the difference in men who ate larger amounts of saturated fats versus those who didn't wasn't deemed "significant", this was judged on a self-reporting bias. It would be interesting to see the same study performed today with a catheter-based analysis of coronary blockage related to such diets.

Again, I'm not denying this data, just giving my opinion of it's value based on the type of study.

Relationship of dietary intake to subsequent coronary heart disease incidence: The Puerto Rico Heart Health Program

Diet, Serum Cholesterol, and Death from Coronary Heart Disease — The Western Electric Study

Diet and 20-y mortality in two rural population groups of middle-aged men in Italy

These three studies collectively point out what I was describing above: it's not that saturated fats are the SOLE culprit, but they seem to play a role, along with dietary cholesterol. Most disease (especially heart disease) is multifactorial, so no one single factor is going to be the main cause.

Dietary fat and risk of coronary heart disease in men: cohort follow up study in the United States

The abstract in the study above is misleading. Scroll down to table 2 and you'll see that when other risk factors are included the correlation vanishes.

Actually, tabel 2 makes a fairly compelling case that both saturated fat and cholesterol are associated with fatal coronary heart disease. If you look at the p values, they are shown to be significant in both age and multivariate corrected analysis, with the p values being less than 0.05 in both cases. Looks like a pretty solid analysis to me, unless I'm missing something (which is totally possible, as I just skimmed through the data due to time constraints). Please point out what I'm missing, if there's a bit of data you were specifically pointing toward.

Dietary Fat
Intake and the Risk of Coronary Heart Disease in Women

This article shows that replacing saturated fats was beneficial (even moreso than total fat reduction). That seems like a pretty good argument for the saturated fat/coronary disease link, to me.

Again, the table you linked to in this study showed a very strong, positive correlation between higher saturated fat intake and increased risk of coronary artery disease. If you look at the lines labeled "RR" (relative risk) and "Intake" on the portion for saturated fat, you'll see that as the intake of saturated fat increases, so does the relative risk of CAD. In fact, of all the variables examined, it showed the highest relative risk at the higher end of intake percent.

Dietary fat intake and early mortality patterns – data from The Malmö Diet and Cancer Study

Quite honestly, I'm not sure what to make of this study. None of the data they collected for any variable, not just saturated fat, was shown to be statistically significant, which to me indicates either an error in analysis or a lack of power. Also, they didn't seem to probe any further than "alive" or "dead". Why not look at angina incidence? MI incidence?

That's 9 studies and two graphs from NHANES data that show no association between saturated fat intake and heart disease risk. There are plenty more. I mean, if saturated fat is the devil, like we're told, then why do the best studies we have demostrate no detectable effects?

I don't think that's what most of the data and the charts show at all, as you can see above. There's a considerable amount of data in the above studies that link saturated fat intake to CAD, especially when combined with an overall higher fat intake. Again, diseas eis multifactorial, so I'm not placing the sole blame on saturated fat, but it's not something we should ignore, either.

Why aren't people who consume large amounts of saturted fat croaking of heart attacks left and right?

Because heart disease is multifactorial, not mono-factorial. Saturated fat may contribute, but so do smoking, weight, activity level, genetic predisposition, and congenital heart disorders. If you eat a huge amount of saturated fat, but don't smoke or have genetic predispositions, you'll naturally have a lower risk than someone who eats nasty foods and smokes three packs a day, and whose father and grandfather died of CAD. These are the sorts of things these studies don't take into consideration due to impracticality, but generally acknowledge.

The general consensus is part "A" is fact. Part "B" is that increasing total serum cholesterol/LDL increases heart disease risk.

I don't think that this is the general concensus at all, honestly. I've never heard a physician explicitly tell a patient (and I certainly never have) to cut out/down saturated fats in their diet. The advice is typically eat more fruits, veggies, and whole grains, rather than fatty meats and salty foods. Sodium and high fat/low carb diets have shown a positive relation to CAD.

Now, this is where you ask yourself the question...Why are we told to avoid saturated fat when, clearly, the evidence supporting such a recommendation is severely lacking

I don't think you've shown a severe lack of evidence here at all. Several of the studies you posted as reducing the strength of the saturated fat - coronary disease link actually strengthened it, showing a statistically significant link between incidence of heart disease and higher percent saturated fat intake.

Who's responsible? Is it the prevalence of Industry support (big pharma, big food); is it consequence of politics dipping its pen into science (public health policy); or is it simply that a few scientists made honest mistakes, initiated by confirmation bias, and the idea just stuck, dogma?

There's no real profit to be made in saturated fats versus unsaturated, so I doubt "big food" is involved, nor is there any money to be made by Pharma. As long as CAD exists (and it always has and always will), Pharma will continue to make money off of nitrates, anti-hypertensies and ACe inhibitors. Why would they care about the cause, honestly? Even if we knew for certain that food X causes ALL heart disease, most people would still eat it if the food was cheap and tasty.

As for the "scientific mistake" and confirmation bias, I think the studies you posted above show pretty clearly that despite the type and length of analysis, there is certainly a significant link between CAD and saturated fat.

Despite our disagreement, wonderful thread! I can tell you put a considerable amount of work into it, and I can NEVER fault someone who is willing to put the research into their posts.

Star and flag from me =)

(EDIT: Fixed a few typos and bungled quotes)

[edit on 8/26/2010 by VneZonyDostupa]

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
There's no real profit to be made in saturated fats versus unsaturated, so I doubt "big food" is involved, nor is there any money to be made by Pharma

Just by skimming through your post and catching the above statement I don't have to read the rest regardless of the "amount of work" you put into it.

Originally posted by soleprobe

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
There's no real profit to be made in saturated fats versus unsaturated, so I doubt "big food" is involved, nor is there any money to be made by Pharma

Just by skimming through your post and catching the above statement I don't have to read the rest regardless of the "amount of work" you put into it.

No worries. We are all close-minded to some degree. I suppose you just like to be blunt about it.

If you don't mind, can you show me the difference in profit margin when using saturated versus unsaturated fats? You seem to be pretty certain that saturated fats are the big money-maker, so surely you have some data to support this...right?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
You seem to be pretty certain that saturated fats are the big money-maker, so surely you have some data to support this...right?

The big money maker is sick people resulting from people who have a sick spirit.

reply to post by soleprobe


People will still develop CAD regardless of whether you tell them it is caused by saturated fat, cholesterol, water, air, or simply existing. People don't tend to like diet and exercise, as it requires effort on their part.

As for the "sick spirit" portion, I'm not sure what to make of that. Personally, I'm an atheist, so the idea of having a "sick spirit" smacks of New Age feel-goodery to me.

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
reply to post by soleprobe

 

People will still develop CAD regardless of whether you tell them it is caused by saturated fat, cholesterol, water, air, or simply existing. People don't tend to like diet and exercise, as it requires effort on their part.

... I'm an atheist, ...

If people continue to follow the advice of the medical industrial complex regarding diet they certainly will develop CAD and a host of other diseases even if they exercise. The trillion dollar medical industrial complex is in the business of disease creation and treatment.

As for you being an atheist I’m not surprised.

Originally posted by soleprobe
If people continue to follow the advice of the medical industrial complex regarding diet they certainly will develop CAD and a host of other diseases even if they exercise. The trillion dollar medical industrial complex is in the business of disease creation and treatment.

Really? You think following the advice of "eat mostly fruits and vegetables with minor contributions from whole grain carbs and lean meats" is going to cause disease?

Well, gosh, what diet SHOULD we be pushing? And can you provide some sources to back up your claims? I've yet to see any research, evidence, or...well, ANYTHING in any of your posts, apart from personal attacks, that is.

As for you being an atheist I’m not surprised.

I would hope you aren't surprised. A thorough and knowledgeable understanding of science and the world around us tends to do away with the need for triablism, ritualism, and mysticism. Why can't we marvel at the beauty and intricacy of our species and planet without having to ascribe it to magic?

Originally posted by VneZonyDostupa
You think following the advice of "eat mostly fruits and vegetables with minor contributions from whole grain carbs and lean meats" is going to cause disease?

Pesticide treated GMO fruits, veggies, whole grains along with lean meats treated with hormones, antibiotics and chemicals can cause disease.