Recommended Viewing-ABC 2nyt 8pm re:Saturated Fats

Remove this Banner Ad

nicky said:
Bloody hell, i'm watching media watch now and it has got my blood boiling. Firstly, it's annoying that paul barry is undermining the credibility of the 3 american doctors on the basis that they've written a book about cholesterol. How is it wrong to write a book about something you believe.
Click to expand...

And as i pointed out Barry gave Dr Norman Swan a big tick for his views on Radio National, yet the Doc Swan interviewed Peter Clifton (that was also totally one sided) is also a best selling author with three CSIRO diet books.

Strange Media Watch failed to mention that:rolleyes:
 
Bazzar said:
And as i pointed out Barry gave Dr Norman Swan a big tick for his views on Radio National, yet the Doc Swan interviewed Peter Clifton (that was also totally one sided) is also a best selling author with three CSIRO diet books.

Strange Media Watch failed to mention that:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

Yes, I noticed that too.

I'm just completely mad about this because i've always liked media watch and this just shows me that the show is compromised. That was unbalanced, scathing and taking cheap shots in order to undermine the opinions expressed in the documentary. It appears glaringly obvious that that episode of media watch was commissioned by organisations with contrary position to the catalyst doco.

I liked media watch because i thought it was neutral, not a mouth piece for conflicted organisations like the heart foundation.

Disgraceful episode - i hope there's a backlash.

People have posted the media watch episode on fb like as if "oh wow, catalyst was wrong, case closed" - and sadly, that episode of media watch will be the end of the debate for a lot of people.

i was so happy when that doco aired because i want this information to get into mainstream, for the simple reason that i want mainstream people to have easy access to the best diet and nutrtion information.

Media watch have been able to completely undermine the content in the doco with equally shoddy journalism and cheap shots, and they've gotten away with it because they're usually credible.... grrrrr. :thumbsdown:
 
Bazzar said:
I already told you to go to BMJ and read Dr Aseem Malhotra, interventional cardiology specialist registrar, Croydon University Hospital, London and read the peer reviews, and what of Dr John Abramson, Harvard Medical School lecturer and expert in pharmaceutical litigation? And the Swedish government? Professor Karen Phelps not good enough for you?

And just a few more



Controversy Over Statins for Older Patients
By JUDITH GRAHAM
http://newoldage.blogs.nytimes.com/...ver-statins-for-older-patients/?src=recg&_r=0

Statins may raise risk for cataracts
Ryan Jaslow /CBS News/ September 20, 2013, 4:56 PM
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-204_162-57603971/

Statin Drugs May Increase Risk Of Diabetes
Friday 24 May 2013 - 11am PST
http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/261021.php

Statins often prescribed without good evidence
Published March 12, 2013Reuters
http://www.foxnews.com/health/2013/03/12/statins-often-prescribed-without-good-evidence/

Merck Settles Suits Over Cholesterol Drug
By KATIE THOMASPublished: February 14, 2013
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/15/b...vestor-suits-over-cholesterol-drug.html?_r=1&

UPDATE 1-Abbott's cholesterol drug may not lower heart risks: FDA
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/09/abbott-idUSL4E7M939U20111109

Cholesterol drugs may worsen asthma
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-500368_162-57319262/study-cholesterol-drugs-may-worsen-asthma/

Are statins overprescribed for low-risk patients?
http://www.boston.com/lifestyle/hea...statins_overprescribed_for_low_risk_patients/

Statins May Raise Risk of Recurrence in Some Stroke Patients
Tuesday January 11, 2011
http://news.nurse.com/article/20110111/NATIONAL02/101170014/-1/frontpage#.UoHQdSei_ec

And a Meta Analysis
Expiry of patent protection on statins: effects on pharmaceutical expenditure in Australia.

is an interesting look at the money spent on Statins.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20528715
Click to expand...

The only recognised research body there is the NCBI and their extract was on the cost of statins not there efficacy.

Of the other largely journal pieces, no one is suggesting statins don’t have side effects. All drugs do. In some people more so than others. You only have to look at CMI reports to know that. It’s a question of balancing the benefits against the costs.

It’s even the case with aspirin. Is it better to reduce the chance of stroke by taking it given it might add to the chance of macular degeneration in later life for a few who take it daily? Costs and benefits.

And of course over prescribing occurs with all medications. Happens in complementary medicine too.

The crux of the topic was the efficacy of statins. Not all that other stuff you have drawn into the conversation which is known.

Proper evidenced based research is what you get from world recognised research places like The Cochrane Collaboration. An example is the following extract from longitudinal studies on the efficacy of statins, published in May this year.

Statins have also been shown to reduce the risk of a first event in otherwise healthy individuals at high risk of CVD (primary prevention) but information on possible hazards has not been reported fully. The aim of this updated systematic review is to assess the effects, both in terms of benefits and harms of statins, for the primary prevention of CVD. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE and EMBASE until 2011. We found 18 randomised controlled trials with 19 trial arms (56,934 patients) dating from 1994 to 2008. All were randomised control trials comparing statins with usual care or placebo. The mean age of the participants was 57 years (range 28 - 97 years), 60.3% were men, and of the eight trials that reported on ethnicity, 85.9 % were Caucasian. Duration of treatment was a minimum one year and with follow-up of a minimum of six months. All-cause mortality and fatal and non-fatal CVD events were reduced with the use of statins as was the need for revascularisation
Click to expand...

Baker IDI, Florey, WEHI. are the names of a few other bodies who are well credentialed in peer reviewed evidenced based research on efficacy. And they cover side effects in their studies.

I really don’t wish to go further down this track because my criticism of the ABC program was on the low level standard of journalism including passing off an internet qualified PHD character as a doctor. The use of a doctor unqualified in the field. The use of two others with a gross conflicts of interest who had been endeavouring to flog their own concoctions. Throw in the lack of balance and you have pseudo journalism.

I have no fixed view on statins. Only that the peer reviewed research to date from recognised bodies suggests they are effective in aiding the reduction of cholesterol and the chance of adverse cardiac events.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

nicky said:
To be frank, the content in that show did not shine a light on anything the majority of us (in this thread) didn't already know.
Click to expand...
* Believe

I don't think the debate has been settled either way - I am surprised at the anger and vitriol some people receive for merely voicing the belief that the case isn't closed and advocate for more research.
 
nicky said:
What a fantastic reply. It was very dignified given the pathetic attacks she received from mediawatch etc.
Click to expand...
This caught my attention
For example, Catalyst has been criticised for relying on the on-screen testimony of a few "fringe dwellers". Over 3 years of research, I spoke to some of Australia’s most well known and distinguished cardiologists, along with dozens of other sources. Sadly, many of those interviewed did not want to comment on the record, or were concerned that it would jeopardise their funding opportunities.
Click to expand...

Also in Thursdays HUN their was a small article saying that since that episode the AMA estimates 4 out of every 10 GPs in Australia are now questioning Statin use. Thats a huge number.

Its like they just took them for granted as thats what was taught in Med school, but since catylist have been doing their own research and are now seeing the light.
 
Mofra said:
Not so much physical health, but worth reading for the possible link between excess grain consumption & mental health

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/he...oying-our-brains/story-fneuzkvr-1226762490985
Click to expand...
David Perlmutter is good value. He was on Dr Oz and had 2 brains sliced in half, one healthy and one that had advanced alzheimers, the alzheimers one had a massive hole in the middle where it had shrunk and he was convinced it was because of the excess sugar produced from carbs/grains.

Here is the vid

http://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-oz-positive-lchf-alzheimers
 
Bazzar said:
David Perlmutter is good value. He was on Dr Oz and had 2 brains sliced in half, one healthy and one that had advanced alzheimers, the alzheimers one had a massive hole in the middle where it had shrunk and he was convinced it was because of the excess sugar produced from carbs/grains.

Here is the vid

http://www.dietdoctor.com/dr-oz-positive-lchf-alzheimers
Click to expand...

Yeah Bazzar if you're interested in linkages to wheat/gluten and mental health there's a youtube i posted very early on in the thread "Diet and Nutrition". It's a lecture by Russel Baylock (neurosurgeon and author) on "nutrition and brain function". It's quite fascinating (albeit dry) :)


 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Oh yer on the subject of statins, anyone else see the massive full page ad by the AMA stating:
"STATINS trust your doctor's advice"
*some stuff about medical evidence saying its all good.. then followed by instructions for patients to not change or stop taking their meds without doctor's approval first"

Or did that only appear in the Weekend West?
 
Ess_don said:
Oh yer on the subject of statins, anyone else see the massive full page ad by the AMA stating:
"STATINS trust your doctor's advice"
*some stuff about medical evidence saying its all good.. then followed by instructions for patients to not change or stop taking their meds without doctor's approval first"

Or did that only appear in the Weekend West?
Click to expand...
Must have just been in the West. Do you have a link?

They also said on Thursday that 4 out of 10 Doctors are questioning them. Big conflict for the AMA.
 
Bazzar said:
This caught my attention


Also in Thursdays HUN their was a small article saying that since that episode the AMA estimates 4 out of every 10 GPs in Australia are now questioning Statin use. Thats a huge number.

Its like they just took them for granted as thats what was taught in Med school, but since catylist have been doing their own research and are now seeing the light.
Click to expand...

That part of her article caught my eye too.
 
Bazzar said:
Must have just been in the West. Do you have a link?

They also said on Thursday that 4 out of 10 Doctors are questioning them. Big conflict for the AMA.
Click to expand...


Nah sorry mate, just got the actual paper here.. Ill write out the exact quotes of the ad below:

*******AMA symbol*******
Western Australia

STATINS
trust your doctor's advice.

There is clear medical evidence that for many patients
STATINS can assist in reducing stroke and heart attack.
Patients should not change or stop taking their
medication without first talking to their doctor.

(All set on a blue background and white font)
 
SBS Truth about fat was a let down. As soon as gastric bypass surgery was mentioned I turned it off. Brief mention of Ghrelin, but not how it affects fat loss.
 
ablett said:
U guys watching SBS now,
The Truth about Fat.

Qld is an hour behind so I'll watch it then.
Click to expand...


I watched it again this morning, after seeing bits and pieces last night. First the title can be a bit misleading, you could think it is about dietary fat, but is about actually being overweight. The hormones are interesting, but no doubt a combination with eating to much of the wrong food. I wasn't a big fan of how the really pushed the surgery as an option and coincidently this article popped up in my needs feed;

http://www.dietdoctor.com/weight-loss-surgery-may-jeopardize-pregnancy
 
This is a repost of mine from last year in a GD thread on diets. Since then my diet has not changed and I continue to enjoy a healthy serving of 'junk food' on a daily basis. I do not believe there is any correlation between diet and cardiovascular disease, rather I speculate that bodyfat percentage would be a far superior indictor.


Simply put, what you eat has very little to do with your health provided you live an active lifestyle.

I've been eating takeaway daily for over 3 years now and have been having large Big Mac Meals for almost 4 months straight.

I have suffered no adverse health effects. In fact I dare say I would be healthier than 90% of people reading this, I go the gym 4 times a week as well as cycling a number of time per week. Provided you monitor your health and know your limits, what you eat has little bearing on your health. Although I'm willing to concede that eating junk food is not good for your skin.

Infact what were seeing now is people who are actually unhealthy but think there healthy because they think they eat healthy. You always hear slightly overweight people being unconcerned with there weight because they believe exercise moderatly and eating well is the sole determinator of eternal health. The best way to gauge your health is to do the mirror test, are you happy with how you look, if so then your probably healthy, if not then it might be worth getting a check-up.

Cholesterol: Lowest risk category of suffering from cardiovascular disease. Total cholesterol was at an exemplary level of 143 mg/dl. Equally as a good was the LDL count being 69 mg/dl, meaning I'm in the lowest possible bracket for heart disease. This is further verified by the coronary risk ratio being a mere 3.1, so in terms of cardiovascular health I'm 'virtually zero risk of suffering from heart disease'.

Some also seem to correlate junk food to diabetes, well I had my glucose levels measured and they are well within the normal range, so I'm not at all predisposed to diabetes. Furthermore had my electrolytes tested, all were comfortably within the normal range, meaning cells and organs can be considered to be at low risk of failure.

So to conclude it can be said that I'm the epitome of a healthy male. Your really going to struggle to find anyone with better blood results than that. I'm in no way concerned about my diet and this has been more than supported by the tests done, I seriously hope these results reconsider both yours and the medical communities perception of 'junk food' and indeed healthy living.

Thoughts/Feedback?
 
RU486 said:
Infact what were seeing now is people who are actually unhealthy but think there healthy because they think they eat healthy. You always hear slightly overweight people being unconcerned with there weight because they believe exercise moderatly and eating well is the sole determinator of eternal health. The best way to gauge your health is to do the mirror test, are you happy with how you look, if so then your probably healthy, if not then it might be worth getting a check-up.
Click to expand...
Flo-Jo died at age 38 and left a good looking corpse.
I wouldn't be relying solely on a mirror check personally.
 
estibador said:
How old are you?
Click to expand...

23

Mofra said:
Flo-Jo died at age 38 and left a good looking corpse.
I wouldn't be relying solely on a mirror check personally.
Click to expand...

'She died in her sleep as the result of an epileptic seizure' - Not really related is it. My blood tests further back up my mirror check theory, excess body fat is the single largest determinant of heart disease.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

tenderwarrior
Shilajit? Any personal experience, recommendations?
Replies
0
Views
391
tenderwarrior
tenderwarrior

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top