Should all children be screened for high cholesterol?

This is disgraceful. Just disgraceful.

• Should all children be screened for high cholesterol? - latimes.com

  • High cholesterol is common enough in children these days that all of them should be screened for the condition, say the authors of a new study examining the rates of high cholesterol in children.
    
    Currently, the American Academy of Pediatrics recommends screening children and teens who have a family history of premature heart disease or high cholesterol or those children who already have risk factors for heart disease, such as obesity, high blood pressure or who smoke or have diabetes. For these children, screening should start after age 2 and before age 10.
  • Screening all children for cholesterol, rather than just those with a family history, will uncover many more cases of the condition that can be treated early to prevent heart disease later in life, the authors said.

Posted from Diigo.

The slam-dunking of "The China Study"

Thanks to Richard at Free the Animal for the tip-off, I have just completed reading the most incredibly well written, well-balanced and systematical analysis of a nutrition study - ever!

Written by Denise Minger, (an ex-vegan who apparently enjoys number-crunching in her spare time) this is an absolute must read! Her writing style is very engaging and often entertaining. Just out of her own curiosity, she took the source data that T. Colin Campbell used for his book "The China Study", cut the data herself and made her own un-biassed deductions, and in the process effectively ripped Mr Cambpell a new one.

Most importantly, she has produced possibly the most important document relating to nutrition in recent times (possibly rivalling Gary Taube's seminal New York Times article "What if it's all been a big fat lie?"). She dismantles the entire "China Study" with one arm behind her back and reduces T. Colin Cambpell to a blubbering and jibbering mess.

It's a hard slog, but well worth the read. Here are my favourite snippets:

• http://rawfoodsos.com/2010/07/07/the-china-study-fact-or-fallac

  • Notice Campbell cites a chain of three variables: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol associates with animal protein, and therefore we infer that animal protein associates with cancer. Or from another angle: Cancer associates with cholesterol, cholesterol negatively associates with plant protein, and therefore we infer plant protein protects against cancer.

    But when we actually track down the direct correlation between animal protein and cancer, there is no statistically significant positive trend. None.

  • the only way Campbell could indict animal protein is by throwing a third variable—cholesterol—into the mix.
  • In other words, it looks like animal foods have virtually no effect—whether positive or negative—on the occurrence of liver cancer in hepatitis-B infected areas.
  • In the high-risk groups, the correlation between total cholesterol and liver cancer drops from +37 to +8. Still slightly positive, but not exactly damning.
  • Campbell’s implication that green vegetables are associated with less cardiovascular disease is misleading.
  • Since only frequency and not actual quantity of greens seems protective of heart disease and stroke, it’s safe to say that greens probably aren’t the true protective factor.
  • Check that out! Fish protein looks weakly protective all-around; non-fish animal protein is neutral for coronary heart disease/heart attacks and stroke but associates positively with hypertensive heart disease (related to high blood pressure); and plant protein actually correlates fairly strongly with heart attacks and coronary heart disease.

  • If you’re wondering about the connection between animal protein and hypertensive heart disease, by the way, it’s actually hiked up solely by the dairy variable. Here are the individual correlations between specific animal foods and hypertensive heart disease:

    Milk and dairy products intake: +30** Egg intake: -28 Meat intake: -4 Fish intake: -14

  • In addition to greater rates of hepatitis B infection, higher-cholesterol areas had additional risk factors for liver cancer, such beer consumption, which also inflated the trend. Despite Campbell’s claims, cholesterol itself does not appear to significantly heighten cancer rates in at-risk populations.

  • Perhaps more troubling than the distorted facts in “The China Study” are the details Campbell leaves out.

    Why does Campbell indict animal foods in cardiovascular disease (correlation of +1 for animal protein and -11 for fish protein), yet fail to mention that wheat flour has a correlation of +67 with heart attacks and coronary heart disease, and plant protein correlates at +25 with these conditions?

    Speaking of wheat, why doesn’t Campbell also note the astronomical correlations wheat flour has with various diseases: +46 with cervix cancer, +54 with hypertensive heart disease, +47 with stroke, +41 with diseases of the blood and blood-forming organs, and the aforementioned +67 with myocardial infarction and coronary heart disease? (None of these correlations appear to be tangled with any risk-heightening variables, either.)

  • Campbell extrapolates this research beyond its logical scope: He concludes that all forms of animal protein have similar cancer-promoting properties in humans, and we’re therefore better off as vegans. This claim rests on several unproven assumptions:

    1. The casein-cancer mechanism behaves the same way in humans as in lab rats.
    2. Casein promotes cancer not just when isolated, but also when occurring in its natural food form (in a matrix of other milk substances like whey, bioactive peptides, conjugated linoleic acid, minerals, and vitamins, some of which appear to have anti-cancer properties).
    3. There are no differences between casein and other types of animal protein that could impose different effects on cancer growth/tumorigenesis.
  • The rats in Campbell’s research consumed casein as their only protein source, the equivalent of someone eating zero plant protein for life. An unlikely scenario, to be sure.
  • Also, it seems Campbell never mentions an obvious implication of a casein-cancer connection in humans: breast milk, which contains high levels of casein. Should women stop breastfeeding to reduce their children’s exposure to casein? Did nature really muck it up that much? Are children who are weaned later in life at increased risk for cancer, due to a longer exposure time the casein in their mothers’ milk? It does seem strange that casein, a substance universally consumed by young mammals, is so hazardous for health—especially since it’s designed for a time in life when the immune system is still fragile and developing.
  • In sum, “The China Study” is a compelling collection of carefully chosen data. Unfortunately for both health seekers and the scientific community, Campbell appears to exclude relevant information when it indicts plant foods as causative of disease, or when it shows potential benefits for animal products. This presents readers with a strongly misleading interpretation of the original China Study data, as well as a slanted perspective of nutritional research from other arenas (including some that Campbell himself conducted).
  • It’s no surprise “The China Study” has been so widely embraced within the vegan and vegetarian community: It says point-blank what any vegan wants to hear—that there’s scientific rationale for avoiding all animal foods.

Posted from Diigo.

If only we can get this type of sanity in mainstream nutrition.

Forget the food pyramids - bring on the Healthy 4 Life guidelines! If only...(sigh)...

• http://www.westonaprice.org/abcs-of-nutrition/1950-comments-on-the-usda-dietary-guidelines.html

  Weston A Price recommendations on the 2010 Dietary Guidelines

  • The Weston A. Price Foundation strongly urges the USDA Dietary Guidelines committee to scrap the food pyramid and replace it with the following Healthy 4 Life guidelines, based on four groups of whole foods.
  • Every day, eat high quality, whole foods to provide an abundance of nutrients, chosen from each of the following four groups:
  • 1. Animal foods: meat and organ meats, poultry, and eggs from pastured animals; fish and shellfish; whole raw cheese, milk and other dairy products from pastured animals; and broth made from animal bones.
  • 2. Grains, legumes and nuts: whole-grain baked goods, breakfast porridges, whole grain rice; beans and lentils; peanuts, cashews and nuts, properly prepared to improve digestibility.
  • 3. Fruits and Vegetables: preferably fresh or frozen, preferably locally grown, either raw, cooked or in soups and stews, and also as lacto-fermented condiments.
  • 4. Fats and Oils: unrefined saturated and monounsaturated fats including butter, lard, tallow and other animal fats; palm oil and coconut oil; olive oil; cod liver oil for vitamins A and D.
  • Avoid: foods containing refined sweeteners such as candies, sodas, cookies, cakes etc.; white flour products such as pasta and white bread; processed foods; modern soy foods; polyunsaturated and partially hydrogenated vegetable oils and fried foods.

Posted from Diigo.

Vitamin D Test Results

Well, just got my Vitamin D test results from Grassrootshealth. I'm incredibly surprised. Result came back at 33ng/ml. I was certain I would be much lower than that, given it's in the middle of winter here in Australia. Mrs S got her results as well. Her's is 22ng/ml.

An interesting obervation: Mrs S has so far had two colds in the last two months (donated to her by our dear 4 year old), while I've dodged them totally so far (touch wood!). Lower Vitamin D level?? Hmmm.

This one makes you think about pushing your Vitamin D levels too high

I'm currently looking at optimising my Vitamin D levels by doing the spot test from GrassrootsHealth. I've done the test and sent it off but now waiting for the results. I'm a bit skeptical about taking my levels too high. I think Chris Masterjohn has a good outlook on this.

Are Some People Pushing Their Vitamin D Levels Too High?

• Has science proven that the minimal acceptable blood level of vitamin D, in the form of 25(OH)D, is above 50 ng/mL (125 nmol/L)? No. If you’ve been trying to maintain your levels this high because you thought this was the case, I’m sorry to break the news. There is, on the contrary, good evidence that 25(OH)D levels should be at least 30-35 ng/mL (75-88 nmol/L). Much higher levels may be better, or they could start causing harm, especially in the absence of adequate vitamins A and K₂.
• Once we leave the land of 30-35 ng/mL, however, we enter the land of speculation.

Posted from Diigo.