Opinions, and I know there are a lot here ;)

Options
KathyMBragg
KathyMBragg Posts: 48 Member
edited April 2015 in Health and Weight Loss
I'm not sure about the validity of the source but I'd like to know what you think of the article.
Sorry I don't know how to post pics

http://healthimpactnews.com/2015/new-dietary-guidelines-reverse-flawed-recommendations-on-cholesterol/

Replies

  • sandryc79
    sandryc79 Posts: 250 Member
    Options
    I agree with the "it's about time". We have known for a long time there is no evidence consuming cholesterol is what increases cholesterol. Poor eggs got an undeserved bad rap when they are really very healthy for us.
  • uvi5
    uvi5 Posts: 710 Member
    Options
    sandryc79 wrote: »
    I agree with the "it's about time". We have known for a long time there is no evidence consuming cholesterol is what increases cholesterol. Poor eggs got an undeserved bad rap when they are really very healthy for us.

    I know, right! I eat loads of eggs and my cholesterol levels are just fine :smiley:
  • cwolfman13
    cwolfman13 Posts: 41,867 Member
    Options
    The guidelines are starting to catch up with actual science...the notion that dietary cholesterol increases LDL blood serum levels was debunked years ago...guidelines are just finally catching up.

    Also, the U.S. is one of the only countries that even tracks dietary cholesterol...everyone else caught on a long time ago...we're slow.
  • DeguelloTex
    DeguelloTex Posts: 6,652 Member
    Options
    Dietary cholesterol and fat seem to have gotten a pretty bad deal for a while now.
  • Psychgrrl
    Psychgrrl Posts: 3,177 Member
    Options
    There are other media sources reporting this as well:
    I've seen other sources reporting dietary cholesterol is less of a concern than previously thought as it seems to contribute to high serum cholesterol and heart disease to a much lesser degree than determined before.

    People with high cholesterol still shouldn't take this as a license to eat without talking to their doctor. And red meat is also high in saturated fat, which does contribute to heart disease.

    I've been eating eggs daily for years, though I don't get much dietary cholesterol elsewhere. My cholesterol is very low, but I am very mindful as I have a family history of high cholesterol, high blood pressure and heart disease.
  • rushfive
    rushfive Posts: 603 Member
    Options
    How do you lower your cholesterol?
    My doctor has said mind is hereditary, but I feel sick when taking the c. lower pills.
    My weight was just into the overweight now it is in the normal zone.
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    edited April 2015
    Options
    The article was fine on cholesterol until it went to crazy town on fructose and cited Lustig.
  • lemurcat12
    lemurcat12 Posts: 30,886 Member
    Options
    The part on cholesterol seems okay, although it's a bit more complicated and there are far better sources for just about anything than Mercola. The rest of the article discredits it as a source, IMO.
  • KathyMBragg
    KathyMBragg Posts: 48 Member
    Options
    mamapeach910 wrote: »
    The article was fine on cholesterol until it went to crazy town on fructose and cited Lustig.
    That's what confused me. Is it talking about high fructose corn syrup, fructose in fruit, reg sugar??? The sentence about babyfood is really scary though.
  • crazyjerseygirl
    crazyjerseygirl Posts: 1,252 Member
    Options
    Science advances, if it's true changes should be made to reflect the best science we have.

    I also agree with mamapeach, you can't say oh, btw cholesterol isn't evil after all BUT SUGAR WILL KILL YOU RAWR!!!
  • PeachyCarol
    PeachyCarol Posts: 8,029 Member
    Options
    lemurcat12 wrote: »
    The part on cholesterol seems okay, although it's a bit more complicated and there are far better sources for just about anything than Mercola. The rest of the article discredits it as a source, IMO.

    I was scanning. I missed the Mercola bit! OMG, Mercola and Lustig in the same piece! It's a woo-lovers dream article!

  • ninerbuff
    ninerbuff Posts: 48,708 Member
    Options
    Nothing I already knew, but the sentionalism is what of course is catching attention. Especially on Lustig's part.

    A.C.E. Certified Personal and Group Fitness Trainer
    IDEA Fitness member
    Kickboxing Certified Instructor
    Been in fitness for 30 years and have studied kinesiology and nutrition
    9285851.png
  • sandryc79
    sandryc79 Posts: 250 Member
    Options
    KathyMBragg wrote: »
    mamapeach910 wrote: »
    The article was fine on cholesterol until it went to crazy town on fructose and cited Lustig.
    That's what confused me. Is it talking about high fructose corn syrup, fructose in fruit, reg sugar??? The sentence about babyfood is really scary though.

    I do agree with that. It seemed to start off delivering the very well supported scientific news and then branches into some much more controversial theorys. That can be pretty confusing so it isn't a great source.
  • maxit
    maxit Posts: 880 Member
    Options
    Every couple of decades emerging science suggests that stuff you thought you knew as fact is wrong. So keep an open mind, and remember that for the most part, conclusions may be applicable to "average" populations but there are always going to be outliers for whom "average" results do not apply.
  • jgnatca
    jgnatca Posts: 14,464 Member
    Options
    I'd like to see more about the link between stress, cortisol and cholesterol levels.

Categories