This doesn't go far enough. That there is a link between high cholesterol and heart disease is only a hypotheses, not a scientifically proven fact. Lowering cholesterol does not necessarily lower heart disease. Read more here:
<a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/opinion/27taubes.html</a><p>Because the link between excessive LDL cholesterol and cardiovascular disease has been so widely accepted, the Food and Drug Administration generally has not required drug companies to prove that cholesterol medicines actually reduce heart attacks before approval.
See: <a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/business/17drug.html" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/business/17drug.html</a><p>Meanwhile drug companies are making billions selling cholesterol lowering medicines called statins.
But lowering cholesterol using drugs is not useful. Read more about that here: <a href="https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-04-15/heart-disease-not-about-cholesterol-businessweek-business-news-stock-market-and-financial-advice" rel="nofollow">https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2008-04-15/heart-dis...</a><p>Not only that, these statins are dangerous drugs. Its side effects include loss of short term memory, for example. Read more about that here: <a href="https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-not-dementia-its-your-heart-medication/" rel="nofollow">https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/its-not-dementia-...</a>
Wouldn't it be nice if there were more government warnings and less restrictions / regulations?<p>Imagine if the FDA, instead of blocking new drugs for 10 years and $1B, it simply withheld its endorsement until satisfied by the clinical trials. Consumers could then take the government's recommendations into consideration when making a decision and drugs could get to market much faster.<p>The history of medical reversals -- and in this case, nutrition reversal -- shows that the government isn't magic.<p>A whole raft of restrictions could be converted to warnings and recommendations, freeing up industry to innovate and consumers to take a little more responsibility for themselves.<p>Imagine the history of the past few decades if the state had outlawed any foods with more than X% cholesterol. Or trans-fats. Or any of the other food fads over that time. It would have been terrible, especially now that the recommendation is reversed. The whole time, consumers were allowed to factor government warnings into their decisions, but food producers weren't breaking the law by selling foods with (X+1)% cholesterol.
The sugar industry has a history of lobbying public attention away from sugar and towards cholesterol. It has even enlisted places like Harvard School of Public Health on this task:<p><a href="http://time.com/4485710/sugar-industry-heart-disease-research/" rel="nofollow">http://time.com/4485710/sugar-industry-heart-disease-researc...</a><p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co...</a>
For those who are curious, the 2015-2020 Dietary Guidelines is available here <a href="https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-2020_Dietary_Guidelines.pdf" rel="nofollow">https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/resources/2015-202...</a> (PDF)<p>Unfortunately it does not highlight the danger of sugar & processed food. Someone can follows these dietary guidelines and still be able to have a high intake of sugar, HCFS, processed food and all sorts of food chemicals (emulsifiers etc.), all prevalent in the american food industry, and get cardiovascular disease.<p>We are not going to reverse the obesity epidemic anytime soon!
There is so much that 'everybody knows' about nutrition that is pure bullshit peddled by farmers, agribusiness and processed food companies.<p>Just one example-- that fat causes heart disease. Pure nonsense pushed by the soda and sugar industry.<p><a href="https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-conspiracy-robert-lustig-john-yudkin" rel="nofollow">https://www.theguardian.com/society/2016/apr/07/the-sugar-co...</a><p>Just eat a balanced diet, don't overeat, and don't eat too much processed food and red meat, and you'll probably be fine.
<<< The new view on cholesterol in food does not reverse warnings about high levels of “bad” cholesterol in the blood, which have been linked to heart disease. Moreover, some experts warned that people with particular health problems, such as diabetes, should continue to avoid cholesterol-rich diets.<p><<<The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter.<p>Here is my paraphrased takeaway:<p>Cholesterol you see in your blood results is still bad. Whole milk, butter, and fatty meats is still bad. Foods like eggs, shrimp, and lobster might be good.<p>I don't think this changes any of my mental models. The foods that I always thought of as "probably not great" are still classified as such, according to this article.
The full dietary guidelines being discussed appear to be here: <a href="https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/" rel="nofollow">https://health.gov/dietaryguidelines/2015/guidelines/</a>
Youtube is where most people get their dietary advice now. The most influential diet advice is coming from young attractive healthy looking people. Whatever they're eating seems to be working. Obviously most of these people won the genetic lottery, but they've also nurtured their body correctly with food and exercise.<p>This seems like a much better approach in convincing people what to eat anyway. Look at the results and imitate healthy people if you want to look and stay healthy.
> <i>The greater danger in this regard, these experts believe, lies not in products such as eggs, shrimp or lobster, which are high in cholesterol, but in too many servings of foods heavy with saturated fats, such as fatty meats, whole milk, and butter.</i><p>Translation: the lobbyists for various polyunsaturated "edible plastics" are currently in the lead.
Interesting, for those who enjoy reading (which I guess are probably quite a lot) I'd recommend the big fat surprise[1], a very interesting book about this, which goes way beyond this article.<p>[1]: <a href="http://thebigfatsurprise.com/" rel="nofollow">http://thebigfatsurprise.com/</a>
I use to look around in a <i>naive</i> way and take my conclusions:<p>- Grandfather, 89, ate everything <i>moderately</i> during his life, mostly organic. He evites fat and bread and walks every day. Low energy person.<p>- Grandmother, passed at 82, cancer. Same diet as my grandfather. Much less exercise though.<p>- Grandmother, 92, ate <i>a lot</i> until 50's, mostly organic, obese. Since then barely eats, mostly vegetables and yogurt. Right weight and good health. No exercise.<p>- Grandfather, passed at 71. Ate more fat than anyone I know. Death by heart attack or stroke. Very energetic person with a lot of exercise.<p>Can you see a pattern? I can't.
I recommend Peter Attia's (currently unfinished) series, "The straight dope on cholesterol". He's a surgeon interested in health and fitness. <a href="http://eatingacademy.com/?s=cholesterol" rel="nofollow">http://eatingacademy.com/?s=cholesterol</a>
Current reference intake is 300 mg <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macronutrients" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dietary_Reference_Intake#Macro...</a>
My surgeon friend told me medical studies are like the bible. You can find a paper that says something is bad for you and another that says it is good for you. So just believe the one that makes you happier.
Sounds like US is endorsing <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Paradox" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Paradox</a>
The USG is frankly incompetent when it comes to this matter. I guess it's happy news that they're not creating more chaos but yay? Hollow victory
For those of you who still believe it's OK or even good to eat a lot of saturated fats, if you look at the studies it's not much of a controversy:" Whether saturated fat is a risk factor for cardiovascular disease (CVD) is a question with numerous controversial views.[1] Although most in the mainstream heart-health, government, and medical communities hold that saturated fat is a risk factor for CVD, some hold contrary beliefs." <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascular_disease_controversy" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saturated_fat_and_cardiovascul...</a><p>Anecdotally, I've read 50% of people who go on Keto see a huge 2-3x increase in triglycerides and LDL-P (Particle count as measured by NMR) - the #1 risk factor for cardiovascular disease. More LDL particles bouncing around in your arteries = bad. People with a condition that makes them break down more LDL have much less artheroscleriosis:
<a href="http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa054013" rel="nofollow">http://www.nejm.org/doi/pdf/10.1056/NEJMoa054013</a>
People with a condition that makes them have more LDL particles get more artheroscleriosis: <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_hypercholesterolemia" rel="nofollow">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Familial_hypercholesterolemia</a>
Read Peter Attila's exposition that goes in detail (eating cholesterol is fine though): <a href="http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-part-i" rel="nofollow">http://eatingacademy.com/nutrition/the-straight-dope-on-chol...</a>
Keto could work, but it's a hyper-pro level high-risk diet requiring frequent blood work and still avoiding saturated fats keeping them primarily monounsaturated which makes it very hard to follow. Plus it sucks for weightlifting..<p>Surprisingly, very low fat diets might be great for you, it might not be the absolute macronutrient composition that matters, but rather the specifics of the nutrients (GI, fiber, other nutrients etc) and your genetic makeup: <a href="https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-call-for-some-evolution-of-thought-part-1/" rel="nofollow">https://deniseminger.com/2015/10/06/in-defense-of-low-fat-a-...</a>
Scary correlations about saturated fats and neurodegenerative disease therein too.<p>Personally I'm sticking with a "balanced" ~10/45/45 carbs from protein, low GI carb/monounsaturated fat vegan diet - not wanting to risk side effects of any extreme (although I'm having to ensure adequate calcium, K2, D, B12 and DHA and EPA intake - If I didn't find it unethical to eat fish a pescetarian variety would likely be easier/healthier/less gassy). Tip for you vegetarians/vegans: look up low FODMAP foods; foodstuffs low in carbs indigestible in the small intestine which tend to produce more gas.
Hmmm this was just on the homepage then quickly removed.. top of the page then boom gone? Any reason why this is?<p>Also I've been on statins since 37 after feeling my heart race and not being able to catch my breathe after being with girlfriend at the time. That was some scary stuff and after the statin and change of diet I no longer have those type of bouts anymore. So maybe it's my change in diet (cut out 75% fried food and sugar intake is 50% less) and the statin combined and or maybe the statin is just a placebo and my change is diet helped eliminate those heart racing attacks?<p>I had a lot of those attacks from 37 to about 39...im now 41 and haven't dealt with any such attacks unless I eat a say Five Guys or In and Out.
Just eat in moderation and try to maintain healthy weight.<p>The last time I checked, average woman in the U.S. is 5'4" but weighs 165lbs; average man clocks in at nearly 200lbs. We can do better.