Slashdot Mirror
US Gov't To Withdraw Food Warnings About Dietary Cholesterol
An anonymous reader writes: The Washington Post reports on news from the U.S.'s top nutrition advisory panel, which plans to stop warning consumers about the amount of dietary cholesterol in foods. The government has been issuing these warnings for over 40 years, and they reaffirmed that decision as recently as five years ago. "[T]he finding, which may offer a measure of relief to breakfast diners who prefer eggs, follows an evolution of thinking among many nutritionists who now believe that for a healthy adult cholesterol intake may not significantly impact the level of cholesterol in the blood or increase the risk of heart disease. The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats. ... But the change on dietary cholesterol also shows how the complexity of nutrition science and the lack of definitive research can contribute to confusion for Americans who, while seeking guidance on what to eat, often find themselves afloat in conflicting advice."
My wife reads about this stuff all the time, and the evidence is starting to point to the food pyramid being upside down!
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt40...
http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst...
46137
The greater danger, according to this line of thought, lies in foods heavy with trans fats and saturated fats
Oh, for Pete's sake - they have a chance to fix a 40 year old error and are replacing it with a 20 year old error.
Yes, trans fats are the nasty but saturated fat is fine for you - that's been proven time and again over the past decade.
The big problem for cardiac disease and cancer is sugar (specifically free fructose). It gets metabolized by the liver into triglycerides which make the blood vessels 'sticky' and promote the growth of atherlosclerotic plaque, and cancer eats it as a premium fuel.
All of my blood panels are markedly improved after making the switch myself. My combined cardiovascular risk score is down by about 50% in less than a year.
The "greater danger" is relying on the government to tell you what's good to eat. There are always competing interests and your health isn't more important than the corn lobby.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Even in this case, it should be pointed out that for about one in three adults, levels of dietary cholesterol do have a significant effect on the levels of cholesterol in the blood. But even for them, the effect is half as much as the effect of saturated fat intake on blood cholesterol.
There's all sorts of potential health info one could write on a package. Every additional bit you add takes attention off every other that's already there. Mandating listing cholesterol when it's not as major of an issue as other information on there, like saturated fat, trans fat, salt, etc is probably not justified.
As for the GP, anyone who lumps all fats together as if they're one substance is an idiot. Different fats need to be treated differently. If you think eating mainly saturated and trans fats comprises a healthy diet and will lead to a long lifespan, you're flatly in contradiction to the overwhelming body of research. But if you eat a lot of monounsaturated and omega 3 fats**, this could well be true (though there's lots of niggling details - for example, mono is probably great if you're heart-risk prone but not if you're breast cancer prone). And even these sorts of categories are still broad generalizations; each is comprised of many different individual fat molecules, and each one may carry its own benefits and risks.
Note on omega 3s... this means as a general rule uncooked omega-3 rich foods. Omega-3s are heat-unstable, they break down under cooking (not to mention it ruins the flavor). They should ideally be stored refrigerated as well. There have been some studies that certain herbs, such as rosemary, can help heat-stabilize omega-3s - but its a limited effect. Also, as mentioned above, not all omega-3s are identical. For example, the EPA and DHA from oily fish or krill are believed to be more effective than the APA from plants, which the body has to convert at low efficiency. But the usually bad taste of the former has discouraged use, while most omega-3 rich plant oils (flax, walnut, hemp, etc) are quite flavorful (really, I have no clue why they're not used more often in salad dressings and the like just for that reason alone). Also, you aren't just what you eat, but also what what you eat eats. For example, eggs from hens fed green plants and omega-3 rich feeds generally are several times higher in omega-3s than hens fed a standard grain feed. The same applies to levels in meats.
"That girl is a witch!" "Yeah, but she's our witch. So cut her the hell down!"
calorific intake is too simplistic. Gut bacteria greatly effects HOW the food we eat is metabolised. Some of the energy is consumed by bacteria, and some shoots out the backside. There was a recent case of a normal weight woman getting a fecal transplant from an obese donor, and now this woman has become obese but not changed her diet and lifestyle.
46137
Most MDs aren't biochemists. The extent of their understanding of things like cholesterol's role in the body depends entirely on whether they were paying attention in class that day. They almost certainly know the good cholesterol-bad cholesterol thing, but they may not know, or may not know well, that HDL and LDL aren't cholesterol at all, or that the latest research shows dietary cholesterol usually has very little effect on either. Several studies have shown that the average MD doesn't learn much past about five years post med school. For many that's while they're still doing their residencies.
To go with your computer stuff simile, while there's a guy in the back who actually knows the difference between a north bridge and a south bridge, the guy you're talking to in the showroom may or may not have just memorized the specs.