Cholesterol Myths exposed? Or wackos?
Uffe Ravnskov's The Cholesterol Myths - Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol Cause Heart Disease (2000) is the bible of cholesterol contrarianism. (Henceforth, the author will be referred to as UR.) These contrarians call themselves skeptics but their goal is not to examine all the evidence and think critically about it in the large context of our medical knowledge. Their goal is to cherry pick data to support their contention that low cholesterol is bad for you and high cholesterol is positively good for you. A diet high in saturated fats is never unhealthy, in their opinion. Not everything they say is false. Much of it is true. But everything they say is taken out of context to support their contention.
Joel M. Kauffman, a cholesterol contrarian, exemplifies the claims and methods of these folks. He wrote in Skeptic [vol. 12, no. 2]: "Cholesterol is highly protective against cancer, infection and atherosclerosis" and "high TC [total cholesterol] and LDL levels are beneficial at all ages." These are extraordinary claims and could be deadly, if taken seriously. It is hoped that no reader of Skeptic will throw away his or her cholesterol-lowering medications after reading these claims. Kauffman's source for this claim is a paper by UR: "High Cholesterol May Protect Against Infections and Atherosclerosis." Kaufmann changes UR's "may protect" to "are beneficial" and adds "cancer" for good measure. This kind of looseness with the facts is something to look for when reading the cholesterol contrarian literature.
This is the first installment of a "review" of UR's book. I use scare quotes because I do not plan to point out the good and the bad in the book. I plan to focus only on the bad. Part 1 of this review will cover the foreword, the introduction, and chapter one. But first let me assert that I agree with the contrarians that there is not a strong body of peer-reviewed published research that shows that a person who eats a low-fat diet is guaranteed to have low cholesterol which will prevent that person from getting atherosclerosis which in turn will prevent that person from getting a heart attack. Nor is there strong evidence that a person who eats a high-fat diet is guaranteed to have high cholesterol and get atherosclerosis and die of a heart attack as a result.
all of this taken from The Skeptic's Dictionary:
http://www.skepdic.com
Joel M. Kauffman, a cholesterol contrarian, exemplifies the claims and methods of these folks. He wrote in Skeptic [vol. 12, no. 2]: "Cholesterol is highly protective against cancer, infection and atherosclerosis" and "high TC [total cholesterol] and LDL levels are beneficial at all ages." These are extraordinary claims and could be deadly, if taken seriously. It is hoped that no reader of Skeptic will throw away his or her cholesterol-lowering medications after reading these claims. Kauffman's source for this claim is a paper by UR: "High Cholesterol May Protect Against Infections and Atherosclerosis." Kaufmann changes UR's "may protect" to "are beneficial" and adds "cancer" for good measure. This kind of looseness with the facts is something to look for when reading the cholesterol contrarian literature.
This is the first installment of a "review" of UR's book. I use scare quotes because I do not plan to point out the good and the bad in the book. I plan to focus only on the bad. Part 1 of this review will cover the foreword, the introduction, and chapter one. But first let me assert that I agree with the contrarians that there is not a strong body of peer-reviewed published research that shows that a person who eats a low-fat diet is guaranteed to have low cholesterol which will prevent that person from getting atherosclerosis which in turn will prevent that person from getting a heart attack. Nor is there strong evidence that a person who eats a high-fat diet is guaranteed to have high cholesterol and get atherosclerosis and die of a heart attack as a result.
all of this taken from The Skeptic's Dictionary:
http://www.skepdic.com
posted by The Constant Skeptic at 9:11 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home