This is from a friend and colleague in Belgium.
Public health nutrition and dietetics never recovered from this neo-puritan reform project of treating the human body as something that needed to be saved from itself. Harvard’s idea of a “healthy” diet remains, at bottom, little more than contempt for life.
"We are like books. Most people only see our cover, the minority only read the introduction, many people believe the reviews. Few will know the content."
Émile Zola
T
he world is facing a food crisis in late 2026 and well into 2027. Three key factors are responsible.
Nearly 300 million people suffer from severe food insecurity as a result of protracted conflicts, with Sudan the most notable example, and climate change.
The Russia-Ukraine and Middle East conflicts are disrupting flows of grain, fertiliser and energy which will impact on the production of crops of wheat, maize and rice in 2027.
The coming El Niño is likely to be the most severe in recorded history. The 2023-24 El Nino led to the worst Southern African drought in more than a century, with more than 60 million people requiring humanitarian assistance.
[to continue reading, here]
Story Imagine tracking almost 15 million adults for nearly nine years and counting every death from heart disease and stroke. That’s exactly what Korean researchers did with 14.9 million people who weren’t even taking cholesterol drugs. What they found doesn’t match the simple message that “the lower your LDL, the safer you are.” Instead, the risk formed a U-shape. People with very low LDL died more often from cardiovascular causes, people with very high LDL also died more often, and the sweet spot sat right in the middle.
For overall cardiovascular death the lowest risk landed between about 90 and 149 mg/dL. Below that range or well above it, deaths went up. The pattern changed depending on the exact problem. For heart attacks and blocked arteries the best zone was lower (around 70–114 mg/dL). For some types of brain bleeds the risk kept falling only when LDL stayed higher. In plain terms, driving LD as low as possible protected against one kind of death while raising the risk of others.
When the scientists looked only at the higher range (100 to 300 mg/dL) they still saw a clear rise in heart-attack deaths as LDL climbed. Each jump of about 40 mg/dL raised the chance of dying from ischemic heart disease by roughly 26 percent. But that rise was weaker in women and in older adults than in younger men. Even people in their late 70s and early 80s still showed some extra risk from higher LDL for heart attacks and ischemic strokes, yet the overall picture never became “lower is always safer.”
The study is huge, it followed real people instead of just guessing from lab tests, and it only looked at folks who were not already on statins. That makes the U-shape harder to wave away. Doctors still treat high LDL when people already have heart disease or several risk factors, because the top end of the curve is real. But the data also show that pushing every healthy adult toward rock-bottom LDL numbers is not free. Too low carried its own price in this massive population.
The takeaway is simple and uncomfortable: LDL cholesterol is not a one-way street. In nearly 15 million Koreans the safest zone for dying of cardiovascular disease was not the lowest number on the lab report. Both extremes cost lives. That single finding from one of the largest studies ever done keeps forcing the same awkward question—how low is actually low enough, and for whom?
= = =
Our comment:
see my latest book:
