This is pure quackery. The cholesterol -> heart disease framework was developed by the Framingham studies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Heart_Study) that showed a strong correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks and strokes. Now correlation does not equal causation but decades of subsequent studies have shown that cardiac event rates drop linearly with decrease in LDL (a form of cholesterol) (http://www.nature.com/nrcardio/journal/v8/n12/fig_tab/nrcard...). It has culminated so far in the JUPITER trial (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/JUPITER_trial) where people with "normal" LDL levels and no history of heart disease were able to decrease their heart attack risk with statins by driving their LDL even lower. The whole inflammation stuff came into play because JUPITER also looked at an inflammatory marker called CRP. Now, that angle is still controversial but could play a role. However, it does not invalidate the dozens of studies linking cholesterol to heart disease. Plus there is nothing linking this guy's quack theories on nutrition to inflammation/CRP or ultimately to heart attacks.
I'm surprised that it made it this high on HN. Maybe people just love feeling that "freakanomics" feeling of mental superiority that they're willing to swallow any alternative hypothesis that challenges the norm. Maybe people just don't trust medical science.
Maybe people just love feeling that "freakanomics" feeling of mental superiority that they're willing to swallow any alternative hypothesis that challenges the norm. Maybe people just don't trust medical science.
I hope it's the case.
It was fat, then it was cholesterol, then it was LDL, now it's pattern B LDL that shows a correlation. The ratio of HDL/LDL still factors in as well as triglyceride levels. The jury is still out there as to whether that specific type of LDL is what causes damage or is a sign of damage being caused.
To act as if we can say "cut out all cholesterol because it's bad for you" is wrongheaded. We know there is a correlation with these factors as we measure them in the blood. We can't say with a high degree of certainty that eating a certain way will cause a certain effect on people. But when people are taking in over 20% of their caloric intake as saturated fat and showing incredibly healthy cardiovascular health readings, you've got to wonder if the common wisdom is something we should be comfortable with.
I'm surprised that it made it this high on HN. Maybe people just love feeling that "freakanomics" feeling of mental superiority that they're willing to swallow any alternative hypothesis that challenges the norm. Maybe people just don't trust medical science.