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 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.