The "dietary fat/cholesterol causes heart disease" myth
 

The theory that dietary fat and/or cholesterol causes heart disease was based on completely fudged data and then the data fudger got on the board of the American Heart Association. After that, armies of researchers kept on looking for supporting data and throwing away contradictory data. This went on for >40 years. Incredible.

What is so shocking about all this isn't that one guy falsified data; it's that for decades the mainstream research establishment never corrected the mistake. Armies of researchers kept looking for supporting evidence and dismissed evidence that falsified the initial hypothesis. And then the gov't put its weight behind the theory. The rest is history... of the bad "eat low fat" advice, and the resulting increasing rates of obesity, diabetes, heart disease, high blood pressure, and possibly cancer.

The fudger was Ancel Keys, the study was the "7 countries study", which showed a direct correlation between % of fat calories, and heart disease rates. The fudge? He hid the data from 15 other countries which didn't show the correlation.

Some of the details of the sham are discussed here:
314: Chris Masterjohn On The Health Benefits Of Cholesterol | The Livin La Vida Low-Carb Show

A shorter article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/09/sc...pagewanted=all

My coworkers tell me I'm killing myself with a high fat diet.

Down 130lbs and still making huge gains in the gym while running 6 minute miles at over 200lbs, lol.

The "lipid hypothesis" is the biggest load of horseshit and it sucks to see so many people struggling with weight when they are being told that low calorie, low fat is the way to do it. Getting sucked into these "diet" plans of awful, pre-made food that's all filler, super low calorie, but jacked in sodium and horrible carbs. They eventually starve themselves from a huge calorie restriction/deficit and proceed to burn muscle at an alarming rate and either put it all back on or end up looking like pudding.

There are 2 distinct but related, old hypotheses:

- The "blood lipid" hypothesis: blood lipid causes atherosclerosis and heart disease

- The "dietary fat" hypothesis: dietary fat and/or cholesterol causes heart disease

Both are false.

Love fat.

Enjoyed reading this thread while eating my breakfast of eggs, bacon, and coffee with coconut oil.

LOLz. When I get up in the morning, I look forward to having a nice cup of said bulletproof coffee.

Steak and eggs this morning. Yum.

have been ignoring fat content for years and have the great cholesterol numbers to prove it. I never eat low fat anything unless forced.

ok not ignoring trans fats, just avoiding those.

As far as cholesterol causing X Y Z, can't an autopsy show if there's crap in your arteries and determine what it is?

This is why you can't leave science to private enterprise.

The bulletproof coffee thing sounds like complete nonsense. The key nonsense being avoiding "toxins" or "detoxing" which has no basis in science at all.

The guy seems to be trading off the same rap of another nonsense guru, that being Timothy Ferriss.

LULWUT?

You think toxins are imaginary?

Not sure if serious. The whole detoxing thing is complete nonsense. Detox diets, colon cleansing all of a piece.

That's not what I asked.

You said avoiding toxins has no basis in science. I'm asking if you believe toxins exist or not. Are there things that, if ingested or absorbed by the body, are detrimental to one's health?

No, that's not what I said, I said avoiding "toxins" as in the things that these guys label as such that aren't really anything like real toxins. It's a scare tactic that has no basis in science.

Is it just a coincidence that this guy has labeled normal coffee as having "toxins" and sells a line of coffee that does not have these "toxins?"

Are mycotoxins real or imaginary?

All of these pseudoscience gurus attach some factual element to their nonsense, because it sounds better when they peddle their wares.

The first answer here sums up my thoughts about this guy and what he is peddling.

food safety - Are fungal toxins a significant problem in coffee, and if so, can they be avoided? - Seasoned Advice

I'm sure this will not convince you at all as you obviously have a significant defense mechanism built up around the mycotoxin topic.

Not really; for what it's worth, I don't buy his coffee (though I do buy very freshly roasted beans from a source I trust).

Mostly I just find the overly-reductionistic approach common to those stuck in a 1950's health and nutrition mindset to be generally irritating.

But it's funny that you essentially missed the reason Jason linked to that post -- it has nothing to do with toxicity or detoxing.

The fact that he adds oil and butter to the coffee? I got that, but the site is still nonsense.

I'm going to start adding lard and bacon grease to my tea in the morning.

You're welcome to disregard information based on sources if you want.

I prefer to do my own research and find out what works and what doesn't. He popularized bulletproof coffee; if I took your reductionistic 1950's science approach, I would have missed out.

grass fed butter.

Do these fall into the Toxin Free Zone? I see a couple here that i feel would be a welcome flavor enhancement to my morning perk-me-up.

http://ep.yimg.com/ca/I/buyinprivate_2272_511442074

I see. And your research tells you that mycotoxins are some sort of actual credible problem with coffee?

What exactly is a "reductionistic 1950's science approach" exactly?

I'm not sure. I can believe that mycotoxins are detrimental to my health. The history of health and safety regulations makes it pretty clear that what is currently considered "safe levels" may not "safe" in the future. Fortunately, avoiding mycotoxins in coffee dovetails nicely with buying freshly-roasted, safely-processed coffee that happens to be delicious. Avoiding (possibly) detrimental mycotoxins is just a potential bonus.

It's the same nonsense that moves people to promote silly ideas like "heart healthy whole grains" and "calories in, calories out" and so on.

Hm, so because I don't accept this bulletproof coffee guy's completely unfounded claims about the negative effects of mycotoxins in coffee I'm a reductionist.

You feel that there is more to this than what science can tell us or perhaps what it has told us up to now? I can see how you might look at things that way, but it certainly opens you up for a lot of open ended and/or misleading claims.

Is that what I said?

Seems to be implied by this. What other criteria are you using to label me a reductionist other than my rejection of this guy's claims?

Oh, that's not what I was saying. I was just pointing out that I would have missed out on bulletproof coffee if I had followed your quick judgement based on his website.

As far as my criteria for labeling you a 1950's science reductionist, I actually only have one criterion: you seem that way. Mostly based on the attitude, the quick and sweeping judgments, the frequent references to "based on science" without actually communicating any scientific information.

It's a typical and widespread response to any research (particularly in the health and nutrition fields) that falls outside of the canon of "scientific knowledge" from 1950. Thus the persistence of nonsense like heart-healthy grains, CICO, etc.

Ah, I see. So, you use the same sort of specious criteria for making judgments that you put credence in, makes total sense.

Only for judging people!

I love how you're on me for not providing any scientific information, when I'm not the one making the specious claims. The burden of proof is on those making the claims. It's amusing.

It's typical though for true believers to discredit the source of the information that defies their beliefs.

Actually, I engaged you in direct dialogue when you made the claim that avoiding toxins had no basis in science. I found that fairly specious.

As I stated, I quoted toxins, because it's a frequent keyword in just about any pseudoscience claim. The word has lost any meaning in that context. People imply that colon cleansing removes toxins. What toxins? How does it remove them? You've already admitted that this mycotoxin claim is not even proven and you only avoid this because it MIGHT be proven and because you think the coffee you get tastes better.

How is that even close to better than what you claim to be my reductionist 1950s viewpoint?

Time for this:

It has long been known...
I haven't bothered to look up the reference.

It is thought that...
I think so.

It is generally thought that...
A couple of other people think so, too.

It is not unreasonable to assume...
If you believe this, you'll believe anything.

Of great theoretical importance...
I find it interesting.

Of great practical importance...
I can get some good mileage out of it.

Typical results are shown.
The best results are shown.

Three samples were chosen for further study.
The others didn't make sense, so we ignored them.

The second sample was not used.
I dropped it on the floor.

Results obtained with the second sample must be interpreted with caution.
I dropped it on the floor but managed to scoop most of it up.

Correct within an order of magnitude.
Incorrect.

Much additional work will be required.
This paper isn't very good, but neither is anyone else's.

These investigations yielded highly rewarding results.
My grant will be renewed.

This research was supported by a grant from...
I wonder if the taxpayers know they're paying for this?

A line of best fit was drawn using least-squares regression.
I drew it by hand.

A non-linear relationship was found.
I drew it by hand and I didn't use a ruler.

Stringent controls were implemented.
My advisor was watching.

I thank X for assistance with the experiments and Y for useful discussions on the interpretation of the data.
X did the experiment and Y explained it to me.

Is conflating one topic with another part of the scientific method?

I might be changing my mind; I'm not sure if you're really a 1950's science reductionist or if you're just a poor communicator.

Since when did you become an expert on the scientific method? You're the one that doesn't drink certain types of coffee because it might someday be proven that it's toxic and all because a blogger pointed out that coffee has some level of mycotoxin on it.

Definitely leaning toward the "poor communicator" theory now.

What I actually said earlier in this thread is that I buy my coffee because it's delicious. If avoiding coffee that tastes like hot dirt also helps avoid midichlorians, then so be it.

Mark, if the bulletproof coffee guy is correct about butter, it is purely by accident.

If there are any actual studies about the levels of mycotoxins in brewed coffee I would love to see them. Until then, I will continue to assume it is the same snake oil as everything else advertized as "toxin free" like those "toxin removing foot pads."

In fact 2 minutes of googling shows me that mold will lower the grade of a coffee anyway. So if you aren't drinking store-brand coffee you probably aren't getting any mold either.

I see, so the implication is that your open minded approach to information analysis led you to coffee that tastes better and a recipe that adds butter and oil to coffee.

Good for you then.

And yet despite the fact that you admit that there is no real evidence of toxic effects from mycotoxin in coffee you chose to believe that my real point in my original post was that environmental toxins don't exist rather than his claims of harmful effects from them are unfounded.

Oh no, you've misunderstood, Mark isn't saying that he believes the toxins are harmful, he just drinks toxin free coffee because it tastes better and it's just a bonus if it happens to be toxin free.

Only, he doesn't believe the toxins are harmful. Really.

:giggle:

p.s. How dare you equate one claim of toxins with another. How is that good science?

Yes. Well, kind of. I didn't expect that you'd really argue against the existence of toxins. What I expected (and I appear to be correct) is that you rather overstated your case in your attempt to discredit Mr. Bulletproof Midichlorian and then had to backtrack and claim that I should have somehow divined from the larger context that what you wrote below isn't really what you meant.

So call it 50/50 now. Half reductionist, half poor communicator.

I see. So, rather than accept the clarification of my point at face value (even after you basically invited said clarification) and admit that I'm right and that the word toxins is often used as a scare tactic, you'll just act oblivious to that, keep harping on my original sentence and point out how there are toxins in this case even though said toxins have no real toxic effect like the fellow claims, which is the central fallacy in the whole site.

Who exactly is the poor communicator here? :giggle:

Actually, I do believe mycotoxins are harmful. I think the science is pretty solid on that. Whether the level of mycotoxins on most coffee constitutes any danger at all hasn't been determined. But I'm open-minded, and new research is being done every day. And as I said before, the "safe" levels of harmful substances varies from one year to the next, so I wouldn't be surprised if scientific consensus changed at some point.

In the meantime, I get to drink really tasty coffee brewed from freshly-roasted high-quality beans from my local roaster, so it's not exactly a bother.

You are. (I thought we already covered this?)

I use Kerrygold butter. Unsalted for my coffee. Fuckin' delish.

And I still use Trader Joe's Italian Roast because it's tasty, and I'm too lazy thus far to find something fresher.

Dammit, I posted a link because it is a tasty healthy RECIPE, not because of its mycotoxin claims.

Will you lay off it already? Nobody here is saying that guy's special coffee is better or has fewer toxins.

What I *did* notice is that the coffee+butter+coconut oil combo seems to give me a buzz over and beyond just the caffeine content - I've had to reduce the amount of coffee, and the buzz seems to last me til 3 PM.

Let's discuss the bullshit diet/lipid hypothesis.

Fine with me.

The bigger question is, how did the research community get it so wrong for so long?

I think it's because too few understand Karl Popper's teachings.
Karl Popper - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Many researchers and the vast majority of people do not understand the logical relationship between evidence and theory. Evidence properly used is always falsifying, never confirmatory. "Supporting evidence points in all directions at once, and therefore points usefully in no direction."

That is, after one has come up with a hypothesis that has some confirming evidence, one should design experiments that try to falsify the hypothesis. If evidence appears that falsifies the hypothesis, then one should go back and reject or refine the hypothesis.

Instead, it is a human tendency to try to "prove" a hypothesis correct. Confirmation bias sets in, and people end up rejecting data that would have falsified the hypothesis. In the case of the diet/lipid hypothesis, this went on for decades.

In this interview, Gary Taubes discusses Karl Popper's method, and the confirmation bias, in the history of nutrition research:
Taubes on Fat, Sugar and Scientific Discovery | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

LOLz if you listen to the first interview I linked,
314: Chris Masterjohn On The Health Benefits Of Cholesterol | The Livin La Vida Low-Carb Show
you will understand that

a) what would have been a fairly simple error grew legs when the government's resources got behind it ("eat low fat" campaign, and the Dep't of Agri's Food Pyramid with starch/grains at the base)

b) gov't research groups and gov't grant money decision makers are NOT unbiased:

At this point, can anyone imagine the Dep't of Agriculture withdrawing their POS food pyramid with a statement "We are sorry for giving bad advice for 40 years and all the deaths and heart attacks it caused"? Or the AHA doing the same?

Blame me for the derailment, Jason. I just thought it was funny.

I thought it was funny too until Harv kept harping on it after you clarified your position.

You should also avoid refined industrial seed and vegetable oils. e.g. Soybean, Canola, Corn, Safflower, Sunflower oil et al...
Use butter for sauteeing veggies and frying eggs, and coconut oil, lard, ghee, duck fat or tallow for high temperature frying.
Olive oil or black currant seed oil for salads.

Maybe food scientists forgot this, but there were a LOT of physicists who were extremely disappointed when they could not find any holes in the recent Higgs Boson discoveries. Being right doesn't teach you nearly as much as being wrong.

Re: high energy physics

Gary Taubes, one of the guys who has written books on the myth of the diet/lipid hypothesis, has written an earlier book on the same dynamic happening in the high energy physics world:


The book ended up being an exposé. There was one character in particular who was key... just like Ancel Keys was in nutrition.

Taubes calls it a "misinformation cascade" leading to a false consensus:
Diet and Fat: A Severe Case of Mistaken Consensus

Re-reading it I'm not sure why I bit so hard on your line and took the whole thing as far as it went.

Ah well.

Allow me to refine my earlier hypothesis:

Profit motive.

TSE and FM are profit motivated too, but they don't lie and cheat.
Police departments aren't "profit motivated" but they sure do lie and cheat.

Or do they?

A) I'm not sure that's accurate.

B) Not everyone motivated by profit is corrupt. That doesn't mean the profit motive doesn't corrupt some.

Calling bullshit on this one. Why do you think they are all against legalizing drugs? They would lose a shit ton of money and wouldn't be able to seize everyones car anymore.