A recent meta-analysis with almost 347,747 subjects assessed the correlation between saturated fat consumption and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Conclusion: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CVD. More data are needed to elucidate whether CVD risks are likely to be influenced by the specific nutrients used to replace saturated fat. Gee, wonder what those nutrients could be…vegetable oil anyone. (Wise Traditions Spring 2010;11(1):15) (Amer J Clin Nutr)

Take note of the lack of fan fare for studies going against established dogma like the lipid hypothesis. Did you see this study’s results in magazines or TV? The mainstream media deems studies like this to be politically incorrect. None-the-less,the lipid hypothesis is simply archaic and untenable.

Saturated fat found mainly in animal products has been vilified by physicians, the media, and the edible oil industry for over 60 years, despite mounds of evidence to the contrary. A meta-analysis of 21 prospective epidemiologic studies that had a total of 347,747 participants, showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular disease or stroke.

Saturated fats have been nourishing societies around the world for thousands of years. If animal fats (saturated fats) are so dangerous, and vegetable oils (polyunsaturated fat) are so healthy, why are we so unhealthy as a nation? The scientific data of the past and present does not support the assertion that saturated fats cause heart disease. As a matter of fact, people who have had a heart attack haven?t eaten any more saturated fat than other people, and the degree of atherosclerosis at autopsy is unrelated to diet.Ravnskov, Uffe. ?The cholesterol Myths: Myth number 4?

Coronary heart disease is associated with diet. Nutritional recommendations are frequently provided, but few long term studies on the effect of food choices on heart disease are available. We followed coronary heart disease morbidity and mortality in a cohort of 1752 rural men participating in a prospective observational study. Dietary choices were assessed at baseline with a food questionnaire. 138 men were hospitalized or deceased owing to coronary heart disease during the 12 year follow-up. Daily intake of fruit and vegetables was associated with a lower risk of coronary heart disease when combined with a high dairy fat consumption, but not when combined with a low dairy fat consumption. Consuming wholemeal bread or eating fish at least twice a week showed no association with the outcome.

Food Choices and Coronary Heart Disease: A Population Based Cohort Study of Rural Swedish Men with 12 Years of Follow-up

Australian researchers found people mourning a loss of a loved one can die of a broken heart. In fact, the researchers found mourning the loss of a loved one increases your risk of having a heart attack 600%.

Grieving people are at significantly higher risk of heart problems, according to a Heart Foundation study of the physical changes suffered immediately after a profound loss, lead researcher Thomas Buckley said on Tuesday.

“We found higher blood pressure, increased heart rate and changes to immune system and clotting that would increase the risk of heart attack,” Buckley said.

Half of the 160 people studied were mourning the loss of a partner or child, and their risk of heart attack increased six-fold, he said. The risk, which was evident in people as young as 30, reduced after six months and leveled out after two years.

A sudden flood of stress hormones is believed to be behind the grief-induced heartache, a condition that earlier studies have found is more likely to affect women.

Newsmax.com Health Alerts

It?s been estimated that healthcare, or more accurately insurance, costs each American $8000.00 per year. The health-care we receive in the US is the best in the world by a long shot. It?s our insurance industry that our government has helped create through worthless regulation that needs reform. A majority of Americans agree in poll after poll, insurance reform is needed, but they do not want government run ?healthcare?. They are smart enough to understand what a disaster that would be. Every ?social program? from Medicare to social security is literally bankrupt. There are other answers.

Why don?t we hear anyone talking about is lifestyle and disease prevention as the key to affordable insurance? Because, it?s not PC to talk about the financial burden the unhealthy lifestyles many Americans put on the rest of the population. Although Americans have free will and choose their lifestyles, 100% of the blame is not theirs. A large portion of it belongs to the American Medical Association, American Dietetic Association, the pharmaceutical industry, the food industry, the edible oil industry and our government. The recommendations, treatments and products these organizations have bombarded society with using billions of dollars over the years wreak havoc even on the healthy. The end result, 100?s of billions of dollars wasted annually on treating highly preventable diseases.

The CDC reports that obesity related diseases have reached almost $150 billion. The cost of treating obesity has doubled over a decade due to increasing prevalence. According to the American Heart Association and the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI)t he cost of cardiovascular diseases and stroke in the United States in 2009 is estimated to be $475.3 billion. This figure includes both direct and indirect costs. Direct costs include the cost of physicians and other professionals, hospital and nursing home services, the cost of medications, home health care and other medical durables. Indirect costs include lost productivity that results from illness and death. The American Cancer Society estimates total costs of cancer to be $228.1 billion. Those with diabetes in 2002 had more than double the healthcare costs than those without. This includes both direct and indirect costs.

It?s glaringly obvious that the medical, pharmaceutical and insurance industries need to move from being treatment oriented to disease prevention. Unfortunately moving from allopathic medicine to holistic medicine is about as likely as winning the lottery; these industries make a fraction of the money in disease prevention as they do in treating disease. There is just not a lot of money to be made in healthy lifestyles.