Calorie Counter

You are currently viewing the message boards in:

Study that shows eating cholesterol lowing diets causes more deaths.

GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,623Member Member Posts: 7,623Member Member
https://washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/this-study-40-years-ago-could-have-reshaped-the-american-diet-but-it-was-never-fully-published/?postshare=9991460508518896&tid=ss_tw

'The higher rate of mortality for patients on the special diet was most apparent among patients older than 64.' The (special diet) is the current Standard American Diet of today to lower cholesterol.

https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/04/MCEgraf.png&w=1484

Why did it take 40 years for this study to become known in the medical community?


Replies

  • Barbs2222Barbs2222 Posts: 431Member Member Posts: 431Member Member
    Because "they" never want you to collect your social security.
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    Barbs2222 wrote: »
    Because "they" never want you to collect your social security.

    I guess "they" would rather spend it all on medicare and medicaid.
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,623Member Member Posts: 7,623Member Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    Are you alleging there is a vast carb-wing conspiracy to suppress the Truth?

    @bpetrosky I just asked, "Why did it take 40 years for this study to become known in the medical community?" Do you wish to debate the reason it took the factual info from the study 40 years to become known?
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,623Member Member Posts: 7,623Member Member
    @FunkyTobias we understand there was a rebuttal. The question on the floor is "Why did it take 40 years for this study to become known in the medical community?" Are you interested in debating the question or prefer to pass?
  • FunkyTobiasFunkyTobias Posts: 1,776Member Member Posts: 1,776Member Member
    Perhaps because it was a piece of *kitten* that couldn't pass peer review.
  • GaleHawkinsGaleHawkins Posts: 7,623Member Member Posts: 7,623Member Member
    Perhaps because it was a piece of *kitten* that couldn't pass peer review.


    Funky you bring up a good point how many people can die over non-sense peer reviews. Because of a group of peers that were politically correct (at that point in time but not so much today as you can read) wanted to suppress the fact that the cholesterol lowering diet lead to increased death rates in people my age.

    About Sylvan Lee Weinberg, MD, MACC, FESC the author of the below article:

    Dr. Weinberg is Journal Editor-in-Chief for the Heart Institute of Dayton and Clinical Professor of Medicine at the Wright State University School of Medicine. He is a native of Nashville, Tennessee and a graduate of Northwestern University College of Liberal Arts and Medical School. His internship, medical residency, and fellowship in cardiology occurred at the Michael Reese Hospital in Chicago. Dr. Weinberg founded the first coronary care unit in Ohio at the Good Samaritan Hospital in Dayton where he was Director and Chairman of Cardiology, 1966-1999. He directed the Wright State University fellowship program from 1980-1989 and headed a cardiology group practice, until he retired from practice at the end of 1999.

    A past president of The American College of Cardiology and The American College of Chest Physicians, Dr. Weinberg was Editor-in-Chief of Accel, The American College of Cardiology’s international journal on tape of contemporary cardiovascular medicine and surgery from 1985-2000. He is the founding editor of the American Heart Hospital Journal, 2002-present. A founding Co-editor of Heart & Lung from 1972-1985, and founding editor of Dayton Medicine, 1980-present, he has served as an associate editor of the AMA Archives of Internal Medicine, the ACC Review Journal and on a number of editorial boards, including the Journal of the American College of Cardiology, CHEST, Clinical Cardiology, and Heart (formerly The British Heart Journal). He has published widely in medical literature and made more than 230 invited appearances in North America and on five continents overseas.

    Content Updated: November 19, 2014

    Funky read Dr. Weinberg's 2004 review of some of his heart doctor peers:

    "The low-fat “diet–heart hypothesis” has been controversial for nearly 100 years. The low-fat–high-carbohydrate diet, promulgated vigorously by the National Cholesterol Education Program, National Institutes of Health, and American Heart Association since the Lipid Research Clinics-Primary Prevention Program in 1984, and earlier by the U.S. Department of Agriculture food pyramid, may well have played an unintended role in the current epidemics of obesity, lipid abnormalities, type II diabetes, and metabolic syndromes. This diet can no longer be defended by appeal to the authority of prestigious medical organizations or by rejecting clinical experience and a growing medical literature suggesting that the much-maligned low-carbohydrate–high-protein diet may have a salutary effect on the epidemics in question......

    A balanced appraisal of the diet–heart hypothesis must recognize the unintended and unanticipated role that the LF-HCarb diet may well have played in the current epidemic of obesity, abnormal lipid patterns, type II diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome. Defense of the LF-HCarb diet, because it conforms to current traditional dietary recommendations, by appealing to the authority of its prestigious medical and institutional sponsors or by ignoring an increasingly critical medical literature, is no longer tenable. The categoric rejection of experience anMd an increasingly favorable medical literature, though still not conclusive, which suggests that the much-maligned LCarb-HP diet may have a favorable impact on obesity, lipid patterns, type II diabetes, and the metabolic syndrome, is also no longer tenable."

    The peer reviewed source of the above Dr. Weinberg remarks is below.

    content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1133027#tab1

    @FunkyTobias going forward our MFP peers can peer review our posts as well as theirs and decide if they are positive or negative when peer reviewed in light to the MFP Mission Statement:

    "Our mission is to achieve a healthier world by empowering individuals to reach their personal health and fitness goals."

    Mission Statement source: https://myfitnesspal.desk.com/customer/portal/questions/14424909-mission-statement






  • 2snakeswoman2snakeswoman Posts: 653Member Member Posts: 653Member Member
    I feel like I've been hearing these conclusions for years; it's nothing new to me.
  • Gianfranco_RGianfranco_R Posts: 1,297Member Member Posts: 1,297Member Member
    https://washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2016/04/12/this-study-40-years-ago-could-have-reshaped-the-american-diet-but-it-was-never-fully-published/?postshare=9991460508518896&tid=ss_tw

    'The higher rate of mortality for patients on the special diet was most apparent among patients older than 64.' The (special diet) is the current Standard American Diet of today to lower cholesterol.

    https://img.washingtonpost.com/wp-apps/imrs.php?src=https://img.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/files/2016/04/MCEgraf.png&w=1484

    Why did it take 40 years for this study to become known in the medical community?


    In the paper, they try to answer to the question:
    "With today’s recognition of publication bias and requirements for trial registration and timely publication on completion of registered trials, the omission of key results of these two trials from the literature might seem difficult to understand. In the case of the MCE, the crude study results were clearly at odds with prevailing beliefs. One can speculate that the investigators and sponsors would have wanted to distinguish between a failed theory and a failed trial before publication. While robustly designed and carefully executed, the MCE had several unique features that complicated analysis and could have biased results. The MCE investigators might have been concerned that heavy censoring or the complicated health and social histories of study participants could have impacted results. In addition, the methods of adjusting survival time analyses for covariates were just emerging, and statistical software packages were not widely available, even at the time the Broste thesis was written. Failure to measure cholesterol concentrations for participants who left the hospital before one year could have introduced bias and would have reduced power for some analyses, and the heavy censoring might have further contributed to the possibility of type II errors. There would have been little or no scientific or clinical trial literature at the time to support findings that were so contrary to prevailing beliefs and public policy. And, finally, it is possible that medical journal reviewers would not have accepted study results for the reasons cited above."

    http://www.bmj.com/content/353/bmj.i1246
  • bpetroskybpetrosky Posts: 3,715Member Member Posts: 3,715Member Member
    bpetrosky wrote: »
    Are you alleging there is a vast carb-wing conspiracy to suppress the Truth?

    @bpetrosky I just asked, "Why did it take 40 years for this study to become known in the medical community?" Do you wish to debate the reason it took the factual info from the study 40 years to become known?

    There were several plausible reasons listed in the blog article about why the original article wasn't published, but they're all speculation. Since there is no proveable answer to the question of why the study wasn't published, picking one of the possibilities to debate is more about the debaters personal biases and worldview.

    Unfortunately, the headline of the blog article in the original link is click bait for people who look for evidence of conspiracy. Like almost every click bait headline, nothing promised is ever delivered except for increased pageviews.
  • Scamd83Scamd83 Posts: 808Member Member Posts: 808Member Member
    The Illuminati, Freemasons, Lizard People and the Rothschild's are in on this.
    edited April 2016
  • CrisseydaCrisseyda Posts: 532Member Member Posts: 532Member Member
    Most likely because it didn't support the prevailing agenda of the day: Ancel Key's war on fat, saturated fat, and cholesterol.

    This is an extremely common and dangerous problem. 1. Researchers who don't want to publish results that contradict their agenda. 2. Journals do not want to publish negative data. They like the freak articles that get attention. All published scientific data are affected by this bais. It's called "publication bias."

    In fact, drug companies, for example, will run numerous studies on the same drug and then throw out all the studies that don't support the drug's effectiveness, only publishing the ones that do... even if the majority of studies were negative! It's like flipping a coin 100 times and withholding 50 of those results... does that seem honest?

    This a not a conspiracy. It's a fact. It's legal. It's allowed. Many people have died because of it. And it's a shame.

    According to a systematic review discussed by Dr. Ben Goldacre (see link), around half of all trials disappear and positive findings are twice as likely to be published.

    "This is a cancer at the core of evidence-based medicine."


    https://www.ted.com/talks/ben_goldacre_what_doctors_don_t_know_about_the_drugs_they_prescribe?language=en#t-355186

    What's the answer? Because the "fixes" have not been enforced and haven't been enough.
    "We need to force people to publish all trials conducted in humans, including the older trials... and we need to tell everyone about this problem."
    edited April 2016
Sign In or Register to comment.