Dr. Uffe Ravnskov: Fat and Cholesterol Are Good For You

When I first began doing research for Fat Head, my friend Tom Monahan (also the film’s composer) suggested I read Dr. Uffe Ravnskov’s book The Cholesterol Myths.  So I did.  To call the book an eye-opener would be an understatement.  I highlighted so many paragraphs, the ink started bleeding through.

I knew from my own experience that something wasn’t quite right with the Lipid Hypothesis — my own cholesterol had dropped when I gave up my vegetarian diet and started eating more meat and dairy products, for example — but until I read Dr. Ravnskov’s book, I didn’t realize how much utter trash posing as science was involved in proposing and supporting the notion that saturated fat and cholesterol cause heart disease. 

When The Cholesterol Myths was published in 1991, the experts treated it like any other threat to conventional wisdom:  they ignored it or mocked it, without ever bothering to actually dispute the arguments presented in it.  Editors of medical journals simply asked the established health authorities if Ravnskov was correct; when the authorities said no, the editors wrote him off as a lone kook.  In Finland the experts actually burned the book on live TV.  I suppose Ravnskov should be grateful that putting heretics on a rack is frowned upon in modern societies.

I was able to buy The Cholesterol Myths at the cover price from Amazon a few years ago and listed it on our Recommended Reading page as soon as this site went up.  I didn’t realize it has since gone out of print.  Yes, you can still buy the book … if you’re willing to pony up $44.72 for a used copy, or between $185.00 and $653.28 for a new one.  That’s the bad news.

The good news is that Dr. Ravnskov has written a new book titled Fat and Cholesterol Are Good For You, and you can order it from Amazon for about $26.  The really good news is that because The Cholesterol Myths is out of print, he’s included many of the same chapters in this book (shortened and simplified, according to his foreword), along with quite a bit of new information.

As in his previous book, Dr. Ravnskov describes what cholesterol actually is and takes us on a tour of the “science” that identified it as the villain in heart disease.  Using two of my favorite tools — logic and math — he simply shreds the Lipid Hypothesis, often using the proponents’ own data against them.  In fact, that was one of the major revelations for me when I read The Cholesterol Myths:  not just that the Lipid Hypothesis is wrong, but how much manipulation and flat-out dishonesty have gone into supporting it, from Ancel Keys on down.  The lipophobes fell in love with their theory and simply aren’t willing to let it go.  How else do you explain the theory’s longevity when Dr. Ravnskov — and anyone else who cares to look — can dig up the facts he cites in this book:

Thirty years after the start of the Framingham project, the researchers again asked themselves what had happened.  This time, a few more of those with high cholesterol had died.  I use the word “few” for a reason:  On average, one percent of all men with high cholesterol had died during the 30 follow-up years. 

Now to the interesting point.  For men above age 47, their cholesterol made no difference.  Those who had high cholesterol at age 48 lived just as long or longer as those with low cholesterol … I have never met any supporter of the cholesterol campaign who has ever raised an eyebrow when confronted with this astounding fact. 

[Marmot] demonstrated that is was not the food that raised the cholesterol of the Japanese immigrants, nor high cholesterol that increased their risk of heart disease.  He found that if they maintained their cultural traditions, they were proteted against heart attacks, even though their cholesterol increased as much as in Japanese immigrants who adoped a Western Lifestyle and died from heart attacks almost as often as native-born Americans … immigrants who became accustomed to the American way of life but preferred lean Japanese food had coronary disease twice as often at those who maintained Japanese traditions but preferred high-fat American food.  Thus, instead of supporting the diet-heart hypothesis, the Japanese study in fact showed that high-fat food is better than low-fat.

In the elderly, high cholesterol even seems to be protective.  This was the surprising finding of Dr. Harlan Krumholz and his co-workers at Yale.  They followed about 1000 elderly men and women living in the Bronx, NY.  During a four year period, about twice as many of those with low cholesterol had a heart attack or died from one, compared to those with the highest cholesterol.

At a workshop held at the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, researchers looked at every single study about the risk of having high or low cholesterol and came to the same conclusion:  Mortality was higher for women with low cholesterol than for women with high cholesterol. 

[In Finland] one-half of about 1200 more or less overweight male business executives with high cholesterol and high blood pressure were advised about smoking, exercise, weight reduction and diet; the other half were used as a control group.  If cholesterol or blood pressure in the control group did not become normal, they were also treated with various blood pressure and cholesterol-lowering drugs.  The experimenters were quite happy with the effects of their efforts on risk factors.  But the improved risk factors did not lead to better end results:  In the group that exercised, reduced their weight, ate less animal fat and more vegetable oil and quit smoking, there were twice as many heart attacks as in the control group.

Another finding that should cause some discomfort among proponents is that whereas high cholesterol is a risk factor in American men, it is not for men living in Canada.  This conclusion was reached by Dr. Gilles Dagenais and his team in Quebec after having followed almost 5000 healthy middle-aged for 12 years.  They explained away their results by assuming that more than 12 years were needed to see the harmful effects of high cholesterol.

Ah yes, explaining away the results we don’t like.  As I learned from Dr. Ravnskov’s first book, it’s taken a lot “explaining” to keep this bogus theory alive.  It’s also taken a lot of badly designed studies:  comparing cholesterol levels and heart-disease rates without adjusting the data for smokers versus non-smokers (smoking raises your cholesterol), or without adjusting for age differences (cholesterol tends to go up as we age, and most heart attacks occur among the elderly).  As Dr. Ravnskov explains, when you properly adjust the data, the only conclusion you can reach from some of these studies is that smoking is a bad idea … but we already knew that.

I’m not going to say this book is a simple read, because it isn’t.  It’s not as scientifically dense as Good Calories, Bad Calories, but Dr. Ravnskov shreds the Lipid Hypothesis by applying critical thinking to the studies that claimed to support it, and he invites his readers to think critically as well.  He explains — clearly — the scientific method that scientists are supposed to embrace, and walks us through clinical-research concepts such as randomizing a study population, limiting the variables, double-blinding, and distinguishing between an association and a cause. 

(As you may recall, in a recent post I borrowed his chart showing an association between high tax rates and heart disease.  Have any of the health authorities suggested lowering taxes to reduce heart disease?  Should we oppose the new health-care taxes on the grounds that more people will suffer heart attacks?)

As a kid who liked science, I assumed scientific research was a wide-open quest for truth, with the best theories bubbling up to the top.  I know better now, thanks in part to reading Dr. Ravnskov’s works.  In addition to the manipulation of data he spells out, there’s a huge amount of selection bias in the health and nutrition field.  Badly-designed studies that support the Lipid Hypothesis are 10 to 20 times more likely to cited in journals and academic papers than well-designed studies that dispute it. 

Dr. Ravnskov’s letters and papers critical of the Lipid Hypothesis have been turned down by medical journals over and over, often with some ridiculous explanations.  (I’m on the email list for THINCS, the International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics, and I’ve read quite a few other letters from members that were sent to medical journals but never published.) 

Why the bias?  I’m sure you can guess.  Follow the money.

Large, well-controlled studies are expensive, so much of the funding comes from pharmaceutical companies that sell statins.  They run the studies, they gather the results, and they crunch the numbers.  If they don’t like the numbers, they crunch them again.  As Dr. Ravnskov discovered, they’ll even divide subjects into “subgroups” after the fact to produce statistics they like.  And of course, they also provide a lot of revenue for the major medical journals.

The other 800-pound gorillas of funding for heart-disease research are two organizations that fully support the Lipid Hypothesis:  the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute and the American Heart Association.  As Dr. Ravnskov says, “Researchers critical of the diet-heart idea have little chance of obtaining financial support.” Or as Dr. Mary Eades put it to me:  “They live by their grants.  No grants, no work, no job.”

To give you an idea of just how militantly these organizations protect the Lipid Hypothesis, consider this fact from the Framingham Study:  After 30 years, the data showed that those whose cholesterol dropped as they aged ran a greater risk of dying than those whose cholesterol increased.  Specifically, for each 1% drop in cholesterol, there was an 11% increase in total and coronary mortality.

Still with me?  Good.  Now here’s how the NHLBI and AHA reported the findings:

The results of the Framingham study indicate that a 1% drop of cholesterol corresponds to a 2% reduction in CHD risk.

That must’ve been some very interesting number-crunching.

As you might expect, Dr. Ravnskov is highly critical of statins.  He notes that they do appear to reduce heart disease (very slightly) in a small fraction of the population — middle-aged men who have existing heart disease — but cites some interesting statistics to suggest that they also produce cancer.  And data from the pharmaceutical companies’ own research indicates that they don’t do diddly for people who don’t have heart disease but are merely “afflicted” with high cholesterol. 

Think about that for a moment.  Millions of people are prescribed statins simply because their cholesterol is above some magic threshold:  200, or 220.  Doctors aren’t treating heart disease; they’re treating a cholesterol score.  And in the process, they’re prescribing a drug that can also produce muscle weakness, memory problems, susceptibility to infections, sexual dysfunction and perhaps cancer.

It’s infections that Dr. Ravnskov covers in the last part of the book.  Far from being the villain we’ve been led to believe, Dr. Ravnskov believes LDL fights infections.  A century ago, when infections killed more people than heart disease, people with high cholesterol — even those with the genetic disorder that leads to very high cholesterol — lived the longest on average.  In fact, Dr. Ravnskov proposes a new hypothesis (which he fully admits is just a hypothesis) for heart disease in this book:  plaques begin as the result of microbial infections.

Briefly as I can summarize it, the theory goes like this:  LDL is part of the immune system and attacks infections. If the structure of the LDL is changed after attacking a microbe, it will in turn be treated as a foreign substance and swallowed up and oxidized by macrophages — white blood cells within tissues — producing the inflammation that’s common in heart disease.  If the immune system works well, the infection is destroyed and HDL carries away the oxidized LDL.

However, if the immune system is weak, too many of the oxidized LDL particles clump together and become stuck in the capillaries that feed the coronary arteries.  Part of the arterial wall dies, and something like a boil is formed — what Dr. Ravnskov calls a vulnerable plaque.  If the plaque bursts, a clot can obstruct the artery.  Now you’ve got a heart attack on your hands.

Again, it’s just a theory, although Ravnskov cites a lot of evidence to support it.  Up to half of all heart-attack victims, for example, have recently had an infection of some kind.  Either way, it makes a lot more sense than the notion that our bodies are stupid and produce so much cholesterol, it ends up clogging our arteries.

If you’re interested in the science — good and bad — behind fats, cholesterol and heart disease, I urge you to get a copy of this book.  (No, I’m not getting a commission.)  Better yet, buy a copy for yourself and another one for your doctor.  Perhaps you can prevent a few needless prescriptions for Lipitor.

Dr. Ravnskov has generously agreed to answer some questions in an upcoming post.  I’ve already got several of my own, but if you’d like ask a few as well, put them in a comment with @Ravnskov at the beginning.  I’ll select from those without publishing them.

If you enjoy my posts, please consider a small donation to the Fat Head Kids GoFundMe campaign.

23 thoughts on “Dr. Uffe Ravnskov: Fat and Cholesterol Are Good For You

  1. Steve Parker, M.D.

    Thanks for taking the time to do this review.

    The tide is turning on the popularity of the Diet-Heart Hypothesis of the last 40 years. But it will probably take another generation to complete the cycle.


    I’m afraid you’re right, Steve. But at least I can teach my kids not to believe this nonsense.

  2. Forty2

    Interesting that my local library has a copy of _The Cholesterol Myths_ but not the newer one. I’ve requested it.

    Let’s hope they get it.

  3. Ellen

    Great review, Tom. I have both of his books and they are great reference sources. I think his hypothesis about atherosclerosis is a strong one, and the more research I do, the more I think infection and inflammation are at the root of most all disease processes.

    I think he may be onto something as well. I hope someday people look back and consider something like the Galileo of this field.

  4. Amy Dungan

    Thanks for the heads up on this book Tom. I’ll have to get a copy for myself soon. Something that always stands out me when talking on this subject is that those with lower cholesterol have higher death rates. Last time my cholesterol was checked (way too long ago actually) my cholesterol was 149, with my HDL being 52. Obviously I should have it all checked again soon, but have always wondered if I should be working towards raising my cholesterol.

    That sounds like a good question for Dr. Ravnskov.

  5. tro

    Hi Tom! Dr Ravnskov is Danish, not Finnish, isn’t he?

    Great review, one more book to read list.

    My bad. He’s from Denmark but now lives in Sweden. I fixed it.

  6. Tomas Johansson

    Hello Tom and thanks for the post.

    Nice one again but a few things I think I should mention:
    a) Dr. Ravnskov is from Sweden NOT Finland (think you said it in the documentary too), but the bood did burn in Finland though.
    and b) this:
    “Dr. Ravnskov proposes a new hypothesis (which he fully admits is just a hypothesis)”
    and later it became this:
    “Again, it’s just a theory, although Ravnskov cites a lot of evidence to support it.”
    So is it a hypothesis or a theory?

    Otherwise a warm greeting from Finland, where the winter is slowly turning to spring and the government is trying to force new taxes on fat. Perhaps I should move to Sweden soon.

    Oh! and I recall Jimmy Moore did an interwiev with Ravnskov recently.


    You’re correct, he’s originally from Denmark but now lives in Sweden. I’ll fix it, and thanks for the catch. Hypothesis, theory … pretty much interchangeable.

  7. Marc

    I couldn’t turn people on to GCBC, possibly too intimidating for people only mildly interested. I will order dr Ravnskov book…sadly, none of the people I love and care about will take my advice to read it.
    My parents think I’m nuts. One of my closest friends (only 35) was just put on meds for high cholesterol, and now just eats chicken ;-(
    My sister (47, highly educated and intelligent) does not want to find out on her own…..just trusts her md and is now in mild depression because of recent news about irregular heart beat, high blood pressure and cholesterol inching upward…

    Timely, I just wrote a post a few days ago, called Don’t Fear the Fat
    (link in case anyone wants to read http://feelgoodeating.blogspot.com/2010/03/dont-fear-fat.html)
    An older friend and my dad both called me later in the day to argue about it.
    Its frustrating…thank you Tom for your continued work to educate.


    A lot people hold doctors in a kind of awe that simply isn’t deserved and assume they know everything about health and disease. Yes, there are great ones out there — I’d happily send anyone in my family to Dr. William Davis or Dr. Mary Vernon — but too many doctors are glorified pill-pushers.

  8. Sylvie O

    Hi Tom.

    Thanks for a very well written review. I will try to get my hands on a copy of that book.

    I’ve also recently read Malcolm Kendrick’s Cholesterol Con, and his theory is that stress is a major factor (if not the cause) of heart attacks. Ravnskov is on to something very interesting with infection/inflammation.

    Maybe it’s a bit of both?



    Indeed, I don’t see the two ideas as mutually exclusive. When we are stressed, we are also more prone to infections.

  9. Ailu

    I’m afraid it’s going to be a long, long time before we see any changes. This just in: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/8580899.stm

    Same old garbage. They selected some studies and analyzed the data, wrote their conclusions. Ravnskov wrote about clinical trials in which replacing saturated fats with polyunsaturated fats did diddly, or made thing worse. Going on the black-swan idea (one black swan means the hypothesis that all swans are white isn’t true, even if you find 100 white swans), this study doesn’t impress me. And I’m very suspicious of any study that concludes corn oil is good for us.

  10. Debbie

    I’ve long wanted to read Dr. Ravnskov’s book ‘The Cholesterol Myths’. But I could not find it in the library, or online at a price I was willing to pay. So I was quite thrilled when this new one came out and I have already placed my order with amazon. My moratorium on buying new books (to make it easier to pack up when I sell my house and have to move) has not been going well lately. 🙂

    Amazon gets a lot of my disposable income as well. Hazard of being a book freak. If you read this one, you can skip his first book without missing much.

  11. Griff


    I understand that the common belief about hypotheses and theory is that they are interchangeable, but in science, they are not. A hypothesis is a proposed answer to a research question. A theory is the same answer, with empirical support. Hypotheses and theories are not interchangeable, although they are related. I, too, would like to know whether Dr. Ravnskov is touting a hypothesis (unsupported by data) or a theory (supported by data). I’d bet it’s the second, but the answer does matter.

    Otherwise, fantastic post. I’ll look for his book and add it to my arsenal.

    I didn’t realize there was such a clear distinction. Ravnskov refers to the microbial infection idea as a hypothesis. He cites some interesting evidence, but perhaps since none of it was designed specifically to test the idea, we’re still in hypothesis territory.

  12. Felix

    You have to love the title of that book. I have the cholesterol myths in German with an introduction by brilliant Food Chemist and “healthy eating”-critic Udo Pollmer (His last book is called “If you live healthy, it’s your own fault” 🙂 ). I’m a big fan of them both.

    Whenever I am asked to pick only one question, I usually tend to pick a very challenging one. Or one which is bothering me personally. This one is both. So I think this time my question to Dr. Ravnskov would be this: “How would you explain the success of Dr. Ornish’s very-low-fat program in actually removing plaques in the arteries?”
    Why it’s bothering me is this: I understand that it’s a lifestyle-program including giving up smoking and starting meditation, which is the common answer I hear to this question. But this rather raises the even harder question if diet is important to this at all. If high-fat all by itself is helpful (and low-fat thus comparatively harmful), how come the intervention actually *removed* existing plaques. The only possible explaination I can find is that diet hardly matters or is at least way less influential than things like smoking or (my bet) stress levels. Then sleeping and relaxing would be the best prevention. And maybe eating more fat is simply correllated with a more life-affirming and relaxed attitude.
    It’s stuff like this that harrasses me when I try to relax. 🙂

    That’s an excellent question. I’ll pass it on.

  13. Joseph Putnoki

    Check out the following website of another respected, brave and quality thoracic surgeon and be educated, forewarned and forearmed.

    The information is synergistic with Dr. Uffe’s. There are a few more gems like him and Dr Lundell.

    The website is: thecholesterollie.com.

    Be well!


    I’ve heard him on Jimmy Moore’s show as well. One of the few doctors who’s actually done the research.

  14. Katie

    The message is slowly seeping out: http://www.slate.com/id/2248754

    This article from Slate is pretty good, although unfortunately it does reference the recent junk “study” from PLoS Medicine purporting through a meta-analysis of carefully selected earlier studies to show that replacing sat fat with polyunsaturated fats reduces heart disease risk. Plenty of other bloggers (like Stephan at WholeHealthSource) have already taken that one apart.

    I particularly love the last paragraph…Follow the money, indeed!

    It’s a heck of a good start, though.

  15. Gary Springer

    Hi Tom,

    Thanks for doing this reveiw!!

    You mentioned “follow the money”. You haven’t even scratched the surface the influence of money has over the “cholesterol is bad” myth. The whole story is about money, nothing else.

    The real money is the hundreds of billions of dollars saved every year by making people afraid to eat foods that contain saturated fat and need to be refrigerated. When you eat less saturated fat, you need to eat more of something else.

    That something else is most often grain, the most cheaply produced and most cheaply stored food of all. But, modern grains are almost pure carbohydrates(sugar). Then they mix in hydrogenated vegetable oil with most grain products and “Bingo” lots of heart disease.

    This story is about money, something CPA’s with audit experience know more about than doctors. I’m a CPA who has studied this saga for decades along with nutrition and nutritional cures. You can take a look at my book called “They’re Making You Fat and Sick, It’s Big Business and Big Money” by visiting my site at http://www.PerfectHealthInstitute.com

    Thanks again and best Wishes!!

    Dr. Al Sears told me (it’s on the bonus tracks) that buying grain by the bag is literally cheaper per pound than buying dirt. I’ll check out your site.

  16. Laurie

    I just finished inhaling ‘Fat and Cholesterol are Good for You’ The emperor has no clothes on in the ‘saturated fat and cholesterol causes heart disease’ empire.
    One of the most fascinating sections was about LDL (the ‘BAD’ boogey man cholesterol). If I get this, heart disease and plaque are caused by a damaged immune system (damaged from high-carb, leaky gut, wheat sugar vegetable oils diet) and microbial infection and the aforementioned damaged immune system trying to inadequately combat those infections. The oxidized LDL is found in plaques, but it doesn’t come from the blood flowing within the arteries (where its tested from in a blood test), it comes from ‘underneath’ in the capillaries to the arteries which feed the arteries and immuno- protect the arteries. With a weakened immune system and constant infection assault from leaky gut and molecular mimicry induced auto-immunity and decreased LDL antibiotic, anti-viral effects ( LDL being one of the body’s immune defense class of molecules), ‘vulnerable’ plaque is created. ‘Vulnerable’ plaque is different and more damaging than the stable ‘fibrous’ plaques that appear normal and health promoting and what are probably seen to increase in scans of arteries with age. None of the x-ray tests can distinguish between these two types of plaque, so call in the troops and claim all plaque = disease, all cholesterol in the diet causes the disease, lowering cholesterol in the diet doesn’t work to lower cholesterol tested in the blood so better drug it down with LIPITOR. And be on the lipitor for the rest of your life.
    I’m so angry.

    My dad was on Lipitor for 20 years and still ended up with blocked arteries. I believe the Lipitor hastened his mental decline too, so I’m with you on the anger.

  17. Laurie

    Tom, I first encountered the concept that heart disease might be caused by microbial infection and a weakened immune system in James Le Fanu’s “The Rise and Fall of Modern Medicine”. Then in “The Other Brain” by R. Douglas Fields I read that Alzheimer’s might result from a damaged immune system….. and chronic infection and resultant inflammation. Then Uffe Ravenskov’s new book and more intriguing hypotheses along these lines and the first I’d heard about LDL as an anti-microbial. I’ve mentioned before that I teach biochemistry— and immunology labs. I’m guessing that these effects are pretty subtle and humans are very well adapted to subsisting in a variety of environments and on lots of different substrates, but I’m interested in thriving, not just existing and living out the rest of my life with parts falling off, mental decline, diabetes and cancer risks. I just ordered “Survival of the Fattest” on Doc Eades recommendation. We’ll see what additional nuggets of wisdom I glean. I’m a voracious reader and if what I learn only turns out to be of benefit to my immediate family and friends, then so be it.

    The more I learn, the more I realize how little we actually know. If it turns out LDL is anti-microbial and the medical world embraces that knowledge, it’s going to turn a lot of theories upside-down.

  18. Gary Springer

    Hi Laurie,

    Thank you! It’s always a pleasure to read posts by educators who are looking beyond their formal education for understanding of health and nutrition, a RARE pleasure.

    But, I think it is quite obvious the medical world will not embrace any science that shows LDL has a positive influence upon health.

    The “cholesterol is bad” myth has now been running for sixty years. Not only was there no science to support the myth from the beginning, but also, with the passing years, more and more cholesterol has been classified as “good cholesterol”. Even though more and more cholesterol has been determined to be beneficial, the “safe” blood cholesterol levels keep dropping. Right, read that again. It’s completely backward.

    Science, knowledge and logic obviously have nothing to do with the “cholesterol is bad” myth. Because the lipid theory of heart disease was created for financial and economic reasons, no matter how high the scientific studies pile up that discredit the lipid theory of heart disease, it will persist for financial reasons. (The statin drug market is only a small part of the incentive to keep these myths alive. Statins are a spin-off business of saturated fat fear)

    Can you imagine the difficult spot the World Health Organization would be in if they had to tell people that grain was substandard food? They’re having big enough problems feeding the world with large amounts of cheaply and efficiently produced grain even though people think these are nutritious foods. Can you imagine what would happen for the demand of meat, dairy and eggs if cholesterol was vindicated? Can you imagine the WHO explaining that some nations simply cannot afford to eat anything but efficiently produced grain, even though meat is more healthful and more conducive for the proper development of the brain?

    No, the “choleterol is bad” myth and its equally dangerous sister the “saturated fat is bad” myth are both here to stay, no matter how much scientific evidence you pile up to discredit these myths. It’s all about money and economics.

    All you have to do is look at the timing of the fabrication of these myths and the history of the man who fabricated them, Ancel Keys, an economist turned nutritionist who worked with the US defence department in designing K rations, a nutritionally bankrupt but economical food supply for soldiers. Immediately after WWII, when the majority of the population would for the first time be able to eat the diet of kings, Ancel Keys then “theorized” and was awarded huge grants to convince us that the diet of kings would give us heart disease. At the same time, all funding for opposing theories was cut off. Now, why was there a pressing need for energy conservation and food production efficiency immediately after WWII? The answer is in my book and you should go Dah?? when you consider it.

    Can you see how many trillions of dollars in energy costs that have been saved over the decades by cutting the demand for foods that need to be refrigerated?(meat, dairy and eggs).

    Nutrition and healthfulness are irrelevent factors in the decision to promote saturated fat and cholesterol fear! Completely irrelivent! An economist and a CPA are more properly trained than scientists to understand why the science is ignored. Piles and piles of additional scientific studies that show the same old thing over and over, the piling up of more studies that show cholesterol and saturated fat are healthful substances will not overturn conventional medicine’s condemnation of these substances. You can bank on it!

  19. haig

    Have a look at this site run by physicians and skeptics (who I admire and agree with for the most part) criticize Ravsnkov, THINC, and other ‘deniers’. They pretty much call you guys crackpots. They also criticize the Weston A. Price foundation for being biased and pushing pseudoscience. The relevant posts are the following:


    I’ve been following a paleo-style high-fat/low-carb diet and know that I lose weight and perform/feel better so anecdotally I agree with you. Also, I’ve read Taubes and many of the blogs/books you recommend and find myself agreeing for the most part.

    What I don’t get is why these doctors, who are on the whole smart and objective, denounce these ideas as unscientific or simply crazy?

    I wish I could explain it. In “The Structure of Scientific Revolutions,” by Thomas Kuhn, he describes how paradigms are formed and then guide all the thinking and the research. Eventually new information may force a paradigm shift, but usually only after years of denial and bitter resistance by those who believed in the first paradigm. They simply do not want their world-view altered, especially if they’re on public record defending the original paradigm.

  20. clifton

    Following on from the inflammation hypothesis, systemic enzymes can clean up arterial inflammation like nothing else. Well worth researching this topic of the systemic enzymes, it is true “that you don’t know what you don’t know”! I would recommend the biomediclabs.com website as a starting point as they have testimonials that give you an idea of their effectiveness. Results are miraculous and life-changing for those who have been helped.

    I love Dr Ravnskov, ever since some good soul placed a copy of The Cholesterol Myths in the library which I was fortunate enough to come upon.

    Look at http://www.westonaprice.org/ also for good cholesterol positive info.

  21. CJ

    Ah, how I love the fight in you! Watched your movie 2010 and so thankful. My husband and I are similar to you and your wife. I stay thin and he tries everything well not anymore. He lost his extra weight eating fat and watching carb intake. Now our two daughters 10 and 15 had their blood checked at the doctor as part of a checkup. No fasting and their numbers were 200 and 400! Now our doctor wants a more intense check on both of them with fasting. This is a wonderful doctor but can’t get past the fact that their chloresteral levels were checked without fasting, that the numbers we were given don’t include any other information (and she doesn’t have it). We asked about hdl ldl and triglycerides and she had nothing. Just take them to the lab and we will figure it all out. No thanks. What next? Put young girls on chloresteral Meds?

    That’s exactly what some docs want to do. I’d insist on a fasting test.

Comments are closed.