Re: Re: Merck wants to freak you out about plant cholesterol

[Guest guest]

On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Rodney wrote:It is gonna take MOUNTAINS of evidence before anyone will be able to convince me to consume any type of margarine, not matter what it is they claim to have put in it, nor how healthy they would have us believe it to be.I agree Rodney. In fact we should require a lot of evidence before making any significant changes to our eating patterns. Articles like http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=997688 & page=1 & CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312     or books like "The Cholesterol Myths" (Uffe Ravnskov) are good reminders of the potential error sources in all studies. Although peer-reviewed, published studies supply the best information we have for making informed decisions, none of us has the time or access to the data to thoroughly investigate each report. Consequently, we can't really determine how scientifically rigorous the data acquisition and analyses were in each study. Each paper's reviewers, although presumably knowledgeable the appropriate technical area, are also limited by time and data access.It seems to me that only a few concepts have overwhelming support scientifically (e.g., hazards of smoking, benefits of vaccinations, harmful effects of being overly sedantary, CR benefits in animals, etc.) and for the rest we have to make our best guesses but we should do so cautiously.Tom

[Guest guest]

On Aug 7, 2005, at 11:50 AM, Rodney wrote:It is gonna take MOUNTAINS of evidence before anyone will be able to convince me to consume any type of margarine, not matter what it is they claim to have put in it, nor how healthy they would have us believe it to be.I agree Rodney. In fact we should require a lot of evidence before making any significant changes to our eating patterns. Articles like http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/WhosCounting/story?id=997688 & page=1 & CMP=OTC-RSSFeeds0312     or books like "The Cholesterol Myths" (Uffe Ravnskov) are good reminders of the potential error sources in all studies. Although peer-reviewed, published studies supply the best information we have for making informed decisions, none of us has the time or access to the data to thoroughly investigate each report. Consequently, we can't really determine how scientifically rigorous the data acquisition and analyses were in each study. Each paper's reviewers, although presumably knowledgeable the appropriate technical area, are also limited by time and data access.It seems to me that only a few concepts have overwhelming support scientifically (e.g., hazards of smoking, benefits of vaccinations, harmful effects of being overly sedantary, CR benefits in animals, etc.) and for the rest we have to make our best guesses but we should do so cautiously.Tom

[Guest guest]

>>It seems to me that only a few concepts have overwhelming support

scientifically (e.g., hazards of smoking, benefits of vaccinations, harmful

effects of being overly sedantary, CR benefits in animals, etc.) and for the

rest we have to make our best guesses but we should do so cautiously.

I think we have a few more than those,

Atherosclerosis

Low cholesterol, mortality, and quality of life in old age during a 39-year

follow-up

<http://www.cardiosource.com/content/journalsbooks/journals/journal/article/#art\

icle-footnote-1>

Timo E. Strandberg, *,*, Arto Strandberg, Kirsi Rantanen, ? Kaisu Pitkälä, *

Tatu A. Miettinen, *

Objectives

We assessed the impact of serum cholesterol level in early midlife on total

mortality during up to 39 years of follow-up and on the quality of life (QoL) in

old age.

Background

Total effects of low serum cholesterol on health have been in dispute,

especially in elderly persons, and there are few data on the long-term effects

of low cholesterol on QoL.

Methods

The cohort consisted of 3,277 healthy businessmen age 30 to 45 years at baseline

(1960s). In addition to baseline, serum cholesterol values were available for

part of the cohort in 1974, 1986, and 2000. The QoL was assessed in 80.9% of

survivors (n = 1,820, mean age 73 years) with a RAND-36 (SF-36) QoL

questionnaire in 2000. Mortality up to 2002 (n = 1,173) was retrieved from

national registers.

Results

Cholesterol was clearly reduced in survivors during follow-up, except in the

lowest baseline serum cholesterol group. Baseline cholesterol predicted 39-year

total mortality in a graded manner (p < 0.0001), and a value ?5.0 mmol/l was

associated with a 25% reduction in total mortality. In old age, the physical

component summary score of RAND-36 was significantly (p = 0.02) higher (better)

in the lowest baseline cholesterol group; no difference was found in the mental

component summary score (p = 0.51).

Conclusions

Low serum cholesterol level in midlife predicted not only better survival but

also better physical function and QoL in old age, without adversely affecting

mental QoL.

[Guest guest]

>>It seems to me that only a few concepts have overwhelming support

scientifically (e.g., hazards of smoking, benefits of vaccinations, harmful

effects of being overly sedantary, CR benefits in animals, etc.) and for the

rest we have to make our best guesses but we should do so cautiously.

I think we have a few more than those,

Atherosclerosis

Low cholesterol, mortality, and quality of life in old age during a 39-year

follow-up

<http://www.cardiosource.com/content/journalsbooks/journals/journal/article/#art\

icle-footnote-1>

Timo E. Strandberg, *,*, Arto Strandberg, Kirsi Rantanen, ? Kaisu Pitkälä, *

Tatu A. Miettinen, *

Objectives

We assessed the impact of serum cholesterol level in early midlife on total

mortality during up to 39 years of follow-up and on the quality of life (QoL) in

old age.

Background

Total effects of low serum cholesterol on health have been in dispute,

especially in elderly persons, and there are few data on the long-term effects

of low cholesterol on QoL.

Methods

The cohort consisted of 3,277 healthy businessmen age 30 to 45 years at baseline

(1960s). In addition to baseline, serum cholesterol values were available for

part of the cohort in 1974, 1986, and 2000. The QoL was assessed in 80.9% of

survivors (n = 1,820, mean age 73 years) with a RAND-36 (SF-36) QoL

questionnaire in 2000. Mortality up to 2002 (n = 1,173) was retrieved from

national registers.

Results

Cholesterol was clearly reduced in survivors during follow-up, except in the

lowest baseline serum cholesterol group. Baseline cholesterol predicted 39-year

total mortality in a graded manner (p < 0.0001), and a value ?5.0 mmol/l was

associated with a 25% reduction in total mortality. In old age, the physical

component summary score of RAND-36 was significantly (p = 0.02) higher (better)

in the lowest baseline cholesterol group; no difference was found in the mental

component summary score (p = 0.51).

Conclusions

Low serum cholesterol level in midlife predicted not only better survival but

also better physical function and QoL in old age, without adversely affecting

mental QoL.

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Bad betters badder; neither betters both.

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Am I out to lunch here, or is it these sterols that they are now

> putting in those new, just as greasy as before, ' ' ' healthy ' ' '

> margarines???

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________________

[Guest guest]

Hi All,

Bad betters badder; neither betters both.

--- Rodney <perspect1111@...> wrote:

> Hi folks:

>

> Am I out to lunch here, or is it these sterols that they are now

> putting in those new, just as greasy as before, ' ' ' healthy ' ' '

> margarines???

Al Pater, PhD; email: old542000@...

__________________________________________________