Forum menu
When we were discussing cholesterol last week, someone posted a link to [url= http://www.amazon.co.uk/Great-Cholesterol-Con-Malcolm-Kendrick/dp/1844546101/ref=sr_1_1/275-6432716-6480612?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1254387008&sr=1-1 ]the Amazon page[/url] where you could read some of this book, which intrigued me enough to buy it. In the book the author systematically dismantles the arguments supporting the cholesterol/heart disease theory. As a start he points out that your liver has to create 5 times as much cholesterol every day as you get from eating normal foodstuffs, as it plays a vital part in cell membranes, synapses and numerous other systems in the body, and eating cholesterol does not change the level in the bloodstream as the liver adjusts to compensate. He writes very entertainingly for another 200 odd pages before suggesting, rather unremarkably, that it is stress and the disturbance it causes to the sympathetic/parasympathetic system in the body which leads to heart disease (and coincidentally raises cholesterol levels), and goes on to say that doctors don't like this idea because it's hard to measure and not accessible to medication (and hence drug revenue) as stress can only be averted by lifestyle changes. He's also very scathing about statins (cholestrol reducing drugs), which cost the NHS more than a £billion a year, yet only confer quite small increases in lifespan (less heart attacks but more other causes), and only for men who've already had heart problems, while entailing numerous side effects.
It's also a damn good read 🙂
[url= http://www.thincs.org/ ]similar stuff? - not sure I'd call it a damned good read though[/url]
There's a load of stuff about this on the internet - some with the same basis as UFOs, some with some scientific basis.
This is one of the better sites
[url= http://www.spacedoc.net/statin_adverse_effects.htm ]spacedoc.net[/url]
I suffered from simvastatin side effects for nearly two years until I stopped taking them (against my doctor's wishes at the time), so I'm rather cynical about their benefits.
see also 'calories' - completely useless energy measurement designed succesfully to make the diet industry very rich indeed.
The most interesting part was that, in general, raised cholesterol levels are associated with longer life, and people with low levels usually have short lifespans ie indigenous people. My level of 4 may indicate imminent demise 🙁
completely useless energy measurement
well a kilocalorie IS an exact measure of energy = 4,200 Joules
where a joule is 1 Watt for one second or one Newton of force applied for one metre...
I seem to remember a comment at uni that my tutor made about people who significantly lower their cholesterol being more likely to die 'violently' (eg suicide or through a fight-related death) - to do with decreases in serotonin levels and consequent lowering of mood and increasing aggresion.
Personally, having seen the side effects my old dear has from them (GI disturbance and not being able to leave the house some days as she has to spend it in the loo), I would be very much reluctant to take them myself - but some of the newer ones seem to have less nasty side effects than say simvastatin, but there seems to be a reluctance to precribe these due to increased costs
I'm reading this while running a conference for a large pharma company who are talking about their heart drugs. Keep taking the medicine everyone it pays for my cycling.
Yes, I'm not arguing that it can't be tied to a constant but it's used to describe bio energy usage, which can't.
well a kilocalorie IS an exact measure of energy = 4,200 Joules
where a joule is 1 Watt for one second or one Newton of force applied for one metre...
Yes, but in 'dietary terms' it's a measure of energy released from combusting foods to inorganic carbon (aka ash) in a bomb calorimeter - not really relevant to the processes used by your body to obtain energy from foodstuffs.
Interesting prog last night about separated twins backs some of this up, seems there is a big genetic component.
With one pair of brothers the one in England who liked a pint or three, smoked heavily and liked his five fruit and veg a day fermented in bottles had a major heart attack in his fifties. The identical twin had emigrated to NZ and did all sorts of energetic outdoor stuff, didn't smoke and watched his diet. After his brother's attack he went for a check and it turned out he was heading for the same problem they got him into the theatre just in time.
Some of it obviously is just luck.
Calories are a perfectly good scientific unit - the problem is the way the diet industry uses them to push its products.
Glad you liked it Simon.
Malcolm was at University with me and was a very original thinker who enjoyed a good argument. When you find someone who enjoys a good argument it's worth remembering that they may just be arguing for the sake of it.
I don't know if you can relate to that Simon 🙂
not really relevant to the processes used by your body to obtain energy from foodstuffs.
uh, you cannot escape thermodynamics or conservation of energy - food and oxygen go, in heat and CO2 come out (and poo). Our muscles convert about 20% of the food energy into output power, the rest is heat. The exact mechanism of conversion doesn't change the amount of energy involved.
Yes, but in 'dietary terms' it's a measure of energy released from combusting foods to inorganic carbon (aka ash) in a bomb calorimeter - not really relevant to the processes used by your body to obtain energy from foodstuffs.
Its a measurement of energy, a fundemental concept. I'm not sure how it's "no use". Thats like saying distance measurement is useless. Just because people struggle to relate the unit to their daily life doesn't make it useless. But that's why we have nutritional info split down into about 20 different components to describe the dietary properties, yet if you ask most people they'll say thats bewildering.
I don't know if you can relate to that Simon
indeed, but that doesn't mean I don't usually mean what I say, and when I don't it's usually obvious :o)
that they may just be arguing for the sake of it.
you mean like riding a bike just for the sake of it and not because it's the meaning of life or to make you fitter ? Or having sex but not to make babies ?
indeed, but that doesn't mean I don't usually mean what I say, and when I don't it's usually obvious :o)
Well you would say that wouldn't you 🙂
Well you would say that wouldn't you
I can categorically state that I never said that.
I generally don't use any butter or marge, so how can benecol be better for me? I'm really concerned 😉
Yes, but in 'dietary terms' it's a measure of energy released from combusting foods to inorganic carbon (aka ash) in a bomb calorimeter - not really relevant to the processes used by your body to obtain energy from foodstuffs.
yes, but.......
Run for an hour at 250watts (power output), expending 900kJ in usefull energy.
You may burn off 1000kcalories/4200kJ
So your combusting (fuel + oxygen -> CO2 + H2O + energy released, by whatever process you use gives the same energy) 6x more energy than you actualy use, this energy goes out as heat through your sweat and breath.
The body is hideously inefficient at converting the energy released in turning carbohydrates (sugar), hydrocarbons (fat) and protein into usefull energy. Nowt wrong with counting calories in with calories out.
ok, take a calorie. I'll have one as well. Lets start burning then. Ooh blimey I went a lot further on mine. How is that even remotely useful?
The body is hideously inefficient at converting the energy released in turning carbohydrates (sugar), hydrocarbons (fat) and protein into usefull energy.
20% ain't bad, bearing in mind the temperature never exceeds 37°C A perfect heat engine can only manage about 40% at feasible temperatures
The identical twin had emigrated to NZ and did all sorts of energetic outdoor stuff, didn't smoke and watched his diet. After his brother's attack he went for a check and it turned out he was heading for the same problem they got him into the theatre just in time.
The NZ twins condtion was most probably bought about by stress due to having to contend with New Zealand drivers, it almost gives me a heart attack just thinking about ventruting out in the car. 😯
How is that even remotely useful?
OK, I take your point - calorie counting is [b]fat[/b]uous 🙂 Just eat stuff you like and if you find yourself getting too big have less of it. The only downside to that I find these days is I'm always hungry, but then I'm a greedy bugger
The NZ twins condtion was most probably bought about by stress due to having to contend with New Zealand drivers
Kendric nominates moving to a significantly different locality as a major source of stress leading to heart disease. He suggests the forced migration of 500,000 people from Glasgow tenements to surrounding new towns pushed Scotland to the top of the heart disease rankings 🙁
ok, take a calorie. I'll have one as well. Lets start burning then. Ooh blimey I went a lot further on mine. How is that even remotely useful?
Same way any base unit is useful, just because your body is differently efficient from anyone else doesnt make the unit pointless. In fact quite the contrary, a base unit is NEEDED to differentiate the people. You should know how many cals YOU need to go so far, not have a unit that somehow magically relates the food content to how far you can go with it. Thats a backwards way of thinking. What you're proposing as a good idea is effectively like charging for petrol by the number of miles you can go on it, like a petrol pump that can identify your cars fuel use and predict your driving style and delivers "400 miles worth of fuel please". Totally backward?!
That's correct, I'm suggesting that defining calorific content is a pointless exercise because everyone is different. I'm not suggesting that we identify a metric that allows us to calculate our miles per mars bar either. I would say any attempt to baseline organic fuel usage is hampered by so many variables that it's completely pointless and should be completely dropped. Once we've thrown this dangerous and misleading parameter into the bin, we can get back to providing diets based on nutrition.
Calorific content details have been added to foods since the mid 1900's, and we've been getting fatter ever since. you can't argue with that!
There are some strong arguments that sugar (more specifically fructose) is a big contributor to metabolic syndrome.
[url=
long lecture here[/url]. It's a while since I watched it but basically we now eat much more fructose and much less fibre than we used to. Fructose is converted to fat in the liver and causes obesity / heart disease. He also talks about to concept of calories 'all being the same'.
[url= http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fructose#Health_effects ]Wikipedia[/url]
Very long lecture here
well, in the interest of balance, I watched half the lecture, but his rhetorical style is very wearing, asking "OK?" every other sentence, putting up charts and answering his questions about them before you have a chance to look, and as for "fructose is a poison" - really ? This is a very passive attitude to foodstuffs, like you have no choice but to eat them whatever their effects and no matter how big you get - and he also uncritically regurgitates the 'bad cholesterol' line...