Seeing how I misspelled it and it is more commonly called the cholesterol hypothesis I agree the best way forward would be to delete the article. Apologies to any mods/admins for the extra work! -- Starquin 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the AfD discussion, this is a nonneutral term. It's used by one side in the debate to convey a particular POV. We can still have an article about it, but, like other such articles (e.g., Chickenhawk (politics)), this one must make clear that the term proceeds from a particular orientation. I've rewritten it along those lines. JamesMLane t c 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Lipid hypothesis" is a term used in peer-reviewed scientific literature describing a hypothesis proposed by Virchow in 1856. As such, it is a perfectly valid scientific term and the article could have a section on the development of the hypothesis from a science history perspective. As scientific hypotheses go, they make testable predictions that can be proven or disproven by studies. Therefore, the article should contain a section on studies that have been done to address this question. In the case of the lipid hypothesis, controversial discussion started in the 1970s and 1980s that questioned the interpretation of data that some scientists consider to be solid proof of the lipid hypothesis. This could be worked into a controversy section. It appears that the term was "hijacked" into this discussion by people arguing that the "proof" for the hypothesis is flawed and unscientific and therefore it is still nothing but a theory, but that doesn't change the validity of the term itself.
What this article needs is solid, scientific references from peer-reviewed publications. There are scientific papers that question the lipid hypothesis, but from what I can tell right now, they appear to be mostly single-author review papers written by one person in the scientific community whose main point of argument is that other scientists and NIH are working unscientifically and misinterpreting the data. As such, I feel the controversy section should not be the main part of the article as it does not reflect "mainstream" view. The critical articles are counter-balanced by a number of reviews detailing proof for the lipid hypothesis, which should be part of the article as well, if not its main body.
Looking over the article history, I have to agree that apparently this article was originally created on Wikipedia to support a certain POV. I do believe though that it could be worked into a neutral and informative article about a 150-year-old scientific hypothesis that became a controversial topic towards the end of the 20th century. The article should aim at allowing readers to understand the data produced in studies based on predictions made by the hypothesis and form an educated opinion about its conflicting interpretations. - tameeria 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What are the reasons for the NPOV tag? Currently the intro IS POV, in that it doesn't state that the "lipid hypothesis" is accepted by scientific consensus and only a small number of scientists hold a dissenting view. Please see WP:WEIGHT, which this article is violating by presenting the "lipid hypothesis" and its detractors as if they had somewhere near equal footing in the scientific community. They don't. The article needs to make clear the relative acceptance of the "lipid hypothesis" vs its alternatives, particularly in the lead, which User:Bezapt has removed. MastCell Talk 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No. The article doesn't dismiss the views of the minority - it presents them in the context of their acceptance by the scientific community, per WP:WEIGHT - or at least it should. You're essentially describing core Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:RS derisively as "appeal to authority". Citing papers from 16 years ago using the phrase "lipid hypothesis" only proves my point - this term used to be widely used (say, 16 years ago), but as the "hypothesis" is now considered proven, the term is loaded and used primarily by the minority who dispute it. Arguing that there's some kind of equivalence to Christopher Columbus or the Wright Brothers is off-topic - this is about how Wikipedia presents the topic, and it needs to be based on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. Citing the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons pretty much proves conclusively that the idea in question is fringe and outside the mainstream - you may want to look beyond the vanilla title at what that particular journal actually represents, and why it's not indexed on MEDLINE or anywhere else. MastCell Talk 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see that the PubMed sources appear to be inconsistent and lacking in original data. Part of this may be because "lipid hypothesis" as a search term preferentially pulls up reviews from the two opposing sides in the argument. As a matter of fact, all the articles after the 1996 introduction of the Diabetes Atherosclerosis Intervention Study that the PubMed search brings up are review articles (and one interview). (The non-review of 1999 is regarding the lipid hypothesis of osteoporosis, and the 2007 paper deals with the lipid hypothesis of cold tolerance. Both are thus off-topic in this context.) Of course, they will place different weights and emphases on consensus and interpretation of results, thus the apparent inconsistency. Going backwards, the first articles with actual data date from 1987 (Effects of fenofibrate on plasma lipoproteins in hypercholesterolemia and combined hyperlipidemia) and 1986 (In vivo effect of a high-cholesterol diet on the endothelial integrity of rat aorta). Why is that and where is the data that has been generated since then? It appears to me that all primary sources containing data on the topic published since the late 80s consistently avoided using the term "lipid hypothesis" and it has since then only been used by those who argue about it. - tameeria 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent work. I think the tag could be removed, from my perspective, but the article needs to continue to be watched closely. MastCell Talk 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, is unbalanced about the article? The consensus view is presented as the consensus view (with references to back up its wide acceptance), and the THINCS view is presented as that of a small but vocal minority, which it is. It looks like it follows WP:WEIGHT pretty closely. I think adding a bunch of outdated primary sources from the 70's and 80's only confuses the general reader, gives undue weight to the cholesterol "skeptics" (as their ideas are much more marginal now than in the 70's/80's), and violates WP:RS and its injunction to avoid outdated primary sources and use secondary sources (e.g. NIH consensus conference, review articles) where possible. MastCell Talk 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
For starters, the phrase "small but vocal minority" is not neutral point of view. It's not intending to inform people about true dissent in the medical community, but to make it sound like those "fringe" folks (another non-neutral term) are wacko crackpots. Those who edit this article need to take a look at The Skinny on Fats. Here's a teaser: "These "experts" assure us that the lipid hypothesis is backed by incontrovertible scientific proof. Most people would be surprised to learn that there is, in fact, very little evidence to support the contention that a diet low in cholesterol and saturated fat actually reduces death from heart disease or in any way increases one's life span." This article has 73 references and is CLEARLY much more than unscientific opinion by uninformed "vocal fringe crackpot theorists." Second, peer review is tricky--it is a social phenomenon, not a scientific one. Peer review cannot detect fraud, nor can it catch errors of belief which the reviewers share with the researchers. And it is uniquely powerful in keeping out "fringe beliefs" whether they are that way because they're truly crackpot ones or whether they are good science but unpopular and not with the current fad of "medical consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.201.56 ( talk) 07:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears this section was orginally copied straight from the palm oil article. There was some confusion about "palmitic oil." (Palm oil or palmitic acid? The two are not identical, palm oil is a mix containing palmitic acid. I looked up the WHO report and it says palmitic acid, not oil.) I tried to verify the sources and rewrote the section based on PubMed references, but I couldn't find a copy of the Vessby paper and it is not on PubMed. Can anyone verify it? - tameeria 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This section (aplm oil) feels really out of place and breaks the flow of the argument. How about simply deleting it? Uffish 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Under the section "Lipid hypothesis of cold tolerance" the word "freeze' is double quoted. Why ? Does the author not accurately understand the melting/freezing point of fats and the variation wrt degree of de-saturation ? This is not some special use of the term freeze, and does not deserve the special interpretation implied by the quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.175.101 ( talk) 06:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The article looks like Virchow proposed the defintion of the lipid hypothesis. Glossing over the google books excerpt this is very far from truth, in fact he may have been criticising other researchers for their undifferentiated approach to "atheromatöser Process".. whatever that may have been in the 1860ies. Richiez ( talk) 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this articles which could be used to sketch the early history?
Richiez ( talk) 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
To the list of people who disagree with the lipid hypothesis should be added Mary Enig who is hardly a quack, having been the voice who warned of the problems of trans-fats 40 years or so before the rest of the nation caught up. Mary Enig has documented some pretty horrifying shenanigans by the AHA to force through an apparent consensus for the hypothesis where none existed. A short summary of her views can be found at http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-oiling-of-america with lecture of the same content available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.52.46 ( talk) 03:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
How relevant is a 'dated' scientific consensus. Its of no consequence that in 1978 there was scientific consensus about this hypothesis being probably correct if the hypothesis was falsified long after that time. Like with any hypothesis, its falsifyability is essential to it being a good hypothesis. This particular hypothesis appears to have been falsified this in multiple what appear to be solid and statistically sound scientific experiments. While in any other branch of science a single counter experiment would be sufficient to consider the hypothesis false, in medical science this (for reasons I do not understand) isn't sufficient. In order to proof the claim of consensus, a post-falsification experiment poll might be of consequence. Without a more recent poll, the claim of consensus is an empty one. I would propose this article be stripped of all (apparently unfounded and/or outdated) claims of consensus unless a more recent source of such consensus is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.70.45.2 ( talk) 13:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not fully sure, but many publications that claim falsification of the hypothesis seem to bring up the funding argument. Shouldn't this article hold a short statement of the kind regarding the ecconomic size of the statins market, and the role of statin vendors in the funding of accademic research. This could possibly balance the current overselling of the 'hypothesis is proven' POV in the article. IMO the article should not take sides with the 'hypothesis is proven' POV neither with the 'hypothesis is falsified' POV, and assume both sides to be equally important. Providing a reference regarding the controversy surounding research funding might somewhat ballance the currently rather dismisive tone of the article regarding the 'hypothesis is falsified' POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 ( talk) 08:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe there are 4 rather than 2 POVs regarding this hypothesis, and the article should reflect this:
I think all 4 views should be presented and be treated as equal without being dismisive about any one of the 4. There are significant long term experiments and other arguments and valid scientific reasonings for each one of these 4 POVs, and there are significant groups of scientists, medical professionals and nutritional experts in each \ of the 4 camps to make it clear that the jury is still out on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 ( talk) 08:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of this section? The sources fails MEDRS (first one is not peer reviewed, is way too old; second fails as a primary study), and what does this have to with the lipid hypothesis? That there are other risk factors doesn't have any direct correlation as to the validity of the lipid hypothesis. If this isn't meant to be a commentary about the validity of the lipid hypothesis, this material is off topic, as it is not meant to be a general discussion of atherosclerosis. Yobol ( talk) 16:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the point of this section? That there are other mechanisms besides lipid lowering for statins doesn't mean that the lipid lowering effects of statins are not also important. Yobol ( talk) 16:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yobol asks what these issues have to do with the lipid hypothesis. This is a good question, and thanks also for removing the overciting - I'd normally leave all the refs in after a big edit, but only temporarily. In fact the refs could do with a bit more pruning.
Other possible mechanisms for the effects of statins are relevant because the fact that they work has been taken as proof of the lipid hypothesis - which it isn't necessarily. Just to make the point that there are other hypotheses, it may be worth making some brief comment about risk factors other than lipids; Cleave is a classic, to which I've added a much more recent citation.
I haven't seen the movie Fat Head (documentary), but it does seem to be some part of the popular presentation of the lipid hypothesis. I've left it out for the time being, but perhaps it justifies a See Also?
I look forward to your comments. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The "Widespread Section" is problematic.
1. The 1978 study questions are seriously flawed and ridiculous. "Do you think there is a connection between plasma cholesterol level and the development of coronary heart disease?" does not imply you think that coronory heart disease is caused by plasma cholesterol levels if you answer yes to the question, since it can also be the case that the scientists think that coronary heart disease causes a rise in plasma cholesterol levels, and not the other way around, or simply that there is no causal relation at all. Even opponents of the lipid hypothesis think that cholesterol levels have something to do with cardiovascular disease. "Do you think that our knowledge about diet and coronary heart disease is sufficient to recommend a moderate change in the diet for the population of an affluent society?" This question only implies that a change in diet should happen, not what change or what the aim of this change in diet is or whether that change even has anything to do with cholesterol. This is not proof of "widespread acceptance" in any way.
2. The 1984 study is about only 14 researchers thus very irrelevant. 14 researchers from thousands is not considered statistically relevant nor proof for something to be "widely accepted".
3. It should be noted that even if the lipid hypothesis were to be considered widely accepted 30-40 years ago, that is no indication that it is widely accepted today.
4. Since 1984 there have been a lot of scholars that have started to doubt the Lipid hypothesis. Robert Lustig, Uffe Ravnskov, Gary Taubes, etc. Ravnskov and Taubes won prizes for their research. Even a BMJ editor, Richard Smith thinks it's a load of bullshit. [1]
Since the sources of this subsection are either total crap or heavily outdated, I will remove it per WP:BOLD. And put the latest sentence, which seems to be better sourced, at the previous section since it goes there well. Feel free to disagree, but I ask you to rewrite the section instead of reverting my edit. 09I500 ( talk) 18:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Much of the dispute discussion seems to be based on outdated refs. Particularly egregious are instances of older papers used to support assertions that they contradicted newer ones. This is blatant wp:OR. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lipid hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lipid hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This article needs an update. Many of the sources are 1980s up until 2006. I will see if I can help, but needs an expert on the subject. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 11:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This paper here seems to suggest the contrary: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30404-2/pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.56.141 ( talk) 22:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There are six entries in the "External links" and five are for Steinberg D. If these links can't be incorporated into the article the list needs to be trimmed. Three or four links are more than enough and too many is link farming. 10:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
"An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis by most of the medical community.[3] A small number of "cholesterol skeptics" take a contrary position, falsely claiming that heart disease is not caused by cholesterol, and demonizing the cholesterol-lowering drugs statins.[4] "
Really, "falsely claiming", "demonizing"? It doesn't even list any example of who does this, when, how or anything. (source does though the accusations here does not match what the source says, and the source deals with one person - which is clearly not everyone who may hold this hypothesis to be flawed.) This is clearly a biased opinion-based claim, and an absolute blanket statement to boot. It does not conform to NPOV in the slightest and obviously do not belong. 81.228.169.227 ( talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Done Checked the source (which is reliable), what we have seems like a good summary.
Alexbrn (
talk)
06:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is incredibly uninformative. It lacks basic details surrounding the science, and deliberately works to minimize detractors while neglecting to include broader, much more pertinent criticism. As such, I've tagged the article for a full rewrite. — C M B J 02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical of the sourcing on the lede, specifically in regards to the statement that "An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis by most of the medical community." I don't deal with medical articles often but it feels like putting such a statement in wikivoice would require a bit more than 3 citations. Deku link ( talk) 02:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't undesrtand the first sentence! What's that even mean? When an hypothesis become a theory? It is clear in Wikipedia that science doesn't care no more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.209.83.194 ( talk) 07:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Bdell555:, @ Alexbrn:, @ Zefr:, @ PaleoNeonate:, @ Deku link:,
Content about the Canadian Cardiovascular Society has recently been added [7] in the "dissenting views" section which is sourced to their 2021 guidelines. We can get full access to their 2021 guidelines [8], I highlight the following from the guidelines of which part was added to the article:
"Previous versions of these guidelines have used LDL-C as the primary laboratory measurement for considering initiation of statin treatment and as a treatment target in low, intermediate and high-risk individuals. Beginning with the 2012 Guidelines, it has been recommended that non-HDL-C and ApoB could be used as alternate targets to LDL-C in any individual with triglyceride level > 1.5 mmol/L. The rationale for this is that above this level of triglyceride, some cholesterol in LDL particles is replaced by triglyceride, which promotes production of more atherogenic small dense LDL particles, and makes the amount of cholesterol in LDL-C an unreliable reflection of LDL particle number. In addition, other particles, such as remnants of chylomicrons and very low density lipoprotein (VLDL), as well as Lp(a), all accumulate in the artery wall and contribute to atherogenesis, whereas HDL-C does not. Therefore, estimation of the concentration of all atherogenic particles requires a broader focus than a measurement of LDL-C. Both non-HDL-C (indirectly) and ApoB (directly) provide a more accurate assessment of the total concentration of atherogenic particles than LDL-C. Non-HDL-C and ApoB are, for this reason, both better predictors of CV event risk and benefit of lipid lowering therapy when compared to LDL-C. Based on these previous recommendations, non-HDL-C is now routinely reported across Canada at no additional cost, based on the simple calculation of total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol."
The above content does not challenge the lipid hypothesis, they are merely calling for advanced lipoprotein testing that goes beyond LDL-C. They say that Apolipoprotein B (apoB) may be more useful than LDL-C in coronary heart disease (CHD) because it captures greater information about atherogenic particles. ApoB is the main protein found in low-density lipoproteins (LDL). The same lifestyle measures that lower LDL cholesterol will lower ApoB. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) is basically just an alternative LDL measure that gives us more detail.
This debate has been around for a few years now [9] but even ApoB advocates admit that LDL-C is still an accurate predictor for CVD in many cases (up to 85%). I don't know about other countries but in the UK LP(a) is not routinely measured in general medical practice. [10], there are various reasons for this. Advanced Lipoprotein Tests are not routinely used in clinics [11] they are impractical in some cases. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I do not oppose mention of apoB, there is even another review here [12] but I am not convinced this challenges the lipid hypothesis and we now have this content in the "dissenting views" section directly below a bunch of quacks who work for the THINCS group. It seems random topics are being thrown together in that section. That section is very badly organized but I agree the article does need fixing but this is not the way to do it. What do other users suggest? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Saturated_Fat,_shifting_consensus,_Cardiovascular_disease_(CVD)_,_and_general_health. Please feel free to participate. Thank you! FrederickZoltair ( talk) 00:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
So you are telling me, that scientists haven't found exact mechanism that would trigger cholesterol to build up and plaque the arteries, yet they somehow believe that just its high levels somehow lead to cardiovascular disease? On what basis? On just correlation? Correlation is not causation. The article doesn't explain about exact mechanism, so either my assumption is right, or this segment is missing.
These sources have been on the cholesterol article for some time and it would need more arguments than "quackery sources" to blanket remove the entire paragraph. Altanner1991 ( talk) 01:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it should be made more clear that Keys put forward the lipid hypothesis in order to protect sugar from coming into the spotlight. He was a sugar industry man. SCIdude ( talk) 11:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)
Seeing how I misspelled it and it is more commonly called the cholesterol hypothesis I agree the best way forward would be to delete the article. Apologies to any mods/admins for the extra work! -- Starquin 13:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
According to the AfD discussion, this is a nonneutral term. It's used by one side in the debate to convey a particular POV. We can still have an article about it, but, like other such articles (e.g., Chickenhawk (politics)), this one must make clear that the term proceeds from a particular orientation. I've rewritten it along those lines. JamesMLane t c 10:55, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
"Lipid hypothesis" is a term used in peer-reviewed scientific literature describing a hypothesis proposed by Virchow in 1856. As such, it is a perfectly valid scientific term and the article could have a section on the development of the hypothesis from a science history perspective. As scientific hypotheses go, they make testable predictions that can be proven or disproven by studies. Therefore, the article should contain a section on studies that have been done to address this question. In the case of the lipid hypothesis, controversial discussion started in the 1970s and 1980s that questioned the interpretation of data that some scientists consider to be solid proof of the lipid hypothesis. This could be worked into a controversy section. It appears that the term was "hijacked" into this discussion by people arguing that the "proof" for the hypothesis is flawed and unscientific and therefore it is still nothing but a theory, but that doesn't change the validity of the term itself.
What this article needs is solid, scientific references from peer-reviewed publications. There are scientific papers that question the lipid hypothesis, but from what I can tell right now, they appear to be mostly single-author review papers written by one person in the scientific community whose main point of argument is that other scientists and NIH are working unscientifically and misinterpreting the data. As such, I feel the controversy section should not be the main part of the article as it does not reflect "mainstream" view. The critical articles are counter-balanced by a number of reviews detailing proof for the lipid hypothesis, which should be part of the article as well, if not its main body.
Looking over the article history, I have to agree that apparently this article was originally created on Wikipedia to support a certain POV. I do believe though that it could be worked into a neutral and informative article about a 150-year-old scientific hypothesis that became a controversial topic towards the end of the 20th century. The article should aim at allowing readers to understand the data produced in studies based on predictions made by the hypothesis and form an educated opinion about its conflicting interpretations. - tameeria 16:57, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
What are the reasons for the NPOV tag? Currently the intro IS POV, in that it doesn't state that the "lipid hypothesis" is accepted by scientific consensus and only a small number of scientists hold a dissenting view. Please see WP:WEIGHT, which this article is violating by presenting the "lipid hypothesis" and its detractors as if they had somewhere near equal footing in the scientific community. They don't. The article needs to make clear the relative acceptance of the "lipid hypothesis" vs its alternatives, particularly in the lead, which User:Bezapt has removed. MastCell Talk 15:48, 15 April 2007 (UTC)
No. The article doesn't dismiss the views of the minority - it presents them in the context of their acceptance by the scientific community, per WP:WEIGHT - or at least it should. You're essentially describing core Wikipedia policies like WP:V and WP:RS derisively as "appeal to authority". Citing papers from 16 years ago using the phrase "lipid hypothesis" only proves my point - this term used to be widely used (say, 16 years ago), but as the "hypothesis" is now considered proven, the term is loaded and used primarily by the minority who dispute it. Arguing that there's some kind of equivalence to Christopher Columbus or the Wright Brothers is off-topic - this is about how Wikipedia presents the topic, and it needs to be based on WP:V, WP:RS, and WP:WEIGHT. Citing the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons pretty much proves conclusively that the idea in question is fringe and outside the mainstream - you may want to look beyond the vanilla title at what that particular journal actually represents, and why it's not indexed on MEDLINE or anywhere else. MastCell Talk 03:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I can see that the PubMed sources appear to be inconsistent and lacking in original data. Part of this may be because "lipid hypothesis" as a search term preferentially pulls up reviews from the two opposing sides in the argument. As a matter of fact, all the articles after the 1996 introduction of the Diabetes Atherosclerosis Intervention Study that the PubMed search brings up are review articles (and one interview). (The non-review of 1999 is regarding the lipid hypothesis of osteoporosis, and the 2007 paper deals with the lipid hypothesis of cold tolerance. Both are thus off-topic in this context.) Of course, they will place different weights and emphases on consensus and interpretation of results, thus the apparent inconsistency. Going backwards, the first articles with actual data date from 1987 (Effects of fenofibrate on plasma lipoproteins in hypercholesterolemia and combined hyperlipidemia) and 1986 (In vivo effect of a high-cholesterol diet on the endothelial integrity of rat aorta). Why is that and where is the data that has been generated since then? It appears to me that all primary sources containing data on the topic published since the late 80s consistently avoided using the term "lipid hypothesis" and it has since then only been used by those who argue about it. - tameeria 20:52, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the excellent work. I think the tag could be removed, from my perspective, but the article needs to continue to be watched closely. MastCell Talk 18:21, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
What, exactly, is unbalanced about the article? The consensus view is presented as the consensus view (with references to back up its wide acceptance), and the THINCS view is presented as that of a small but vocal minority, which it is. It looks like it follows WP:WEIGHT pretty closely. I think adding a bunch of outdated primary sources from the 70's and 80's only confuses the general reader, gives undue weight to the cholesterol "skeptics" (as their ideas are much more marginal now than in the 70's/80's), and violates WP:RS and its injunction to avoid outdated primary sources and use secondary sources (e.g. NIH consensus conference, review articles) where possible. MastCell Talk 18:17, 20 April 2007 (UTC)
For starters, the phrase "small but vocal minority" is not neutral point of view. It's not intending to inform people about true dissent in the medical community, but to make it sound like those "fringe" folks (another non-neutral term) are wacko crackpots. Those who edit this article need to take a look at The Skinny on Fats. Here's a teaser: "These "experts" assure us that the lipid hypothesis is backed by incontrovertible scientific proof. Most people would be surprised to learn that there is, in fact, very little evidence to support the contention that a diet low in cholesterol and saturated fat actually reduces death from heart disease or in any way increases one's life span." This article has 73 references and is CLEARLY much more than unscientific opinion by uninformed "vocal fringe crackpot theorists." Second, peer review is tricky--it is a social phenomenon, not a scientific one. Peer review cannot detect fraud, nor can it catch errors of belief which the reviewers share with the researchers. And it is uniquely powerful in keeping out "fringe beliefs" whether they are that way because they're truly crackpot ones or whether they are good science but unpopular and not with the current fad of "medical consensus." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.213.201.56 ( talk) 07:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
It appears this section was orginally copied straight from the palm oil article. There was some confusion about "palmitic oil." (Palm oil or palmitic acid? The two are not identical, palm oil is a mix containing palmitic acid. I looked up the WHO report and it says palmitic acid, not oil.) I tried to verify the sources and rewrote the section based on PubMed references, but I couldn't find a copy of the Vessby paper and it is not on PubMed. Can anyone verify it? - tameeria 23:20, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
This section (aplm oil) feels really out of place and breaks the flow of the argument. How about simply deleting it? Uffish 13:14, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Under the section "Lipid hypothesis of cold tolerance" the word "freeze' is double quoted. Why ? Does the author not accurately understand the melting/freezing point of fats and the variation wrt degree of de-saturation ? This is not some special use of the term freeze, and does not deserve the special interpretation implied by the quotes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.89.175.101 ( talk) 06:21, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
The article looks like Virchow proposed the defintion of the lipid hypothesis. Glossing over the google books excerpt this is very far from truth, in fact he may have been criticising other researchers for their undifferentiated approach to "atheromatöser Process".. whatever that may have been in the 1860ies. Richiez ( talk) 22:52, 5 August 2011 (UTC)
I found this articles which could be used to sketch the early history?
Richiez ( talk) 22:47, 8 August 2011 (UTC)
To the list of people who disagree with the lipid hypothesis should be added Mary Enig who is hardly a quack, having been the voice who warned of the problems of trans-fats 40 years or so before the rest of the nation caught up. Mary Enig has documented some pretty horrifying shenanigans by the AHA to force through an apparent consensus for the hypothesis where none existed. A short summary of her views can be found at http://www.westonaprice.org/know-your-fats/the-oiling-of-america with lecture of the same content available at www.youtube.com/watch?v=fvKdYUCUca8 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.142.52.46 ( talk) 03:50, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
How relevant is a 'dated' scientific consensus. Its of no consequence that in 1978 there was scientific consensus about this hypothesis being probably correct if the hypothesis was falsified long after that time. Like with any hypothesis, its falsifyability is essential to it being a good hypothesis. This particular hypothesis appears to have been falsified this in multiple what appear to be solid and statistically sound scientific experiments. While in any other branch of science a single counter experiment would be sufficient to consider the hypothesis false, in medical science this (for reasons I do not understand) isn't sufficient. In order to proof the claim of consensus, a post-falsification experiment poll might be of consequence. Without a more recent poll, the claim of consensus is an empty one. I would propose this article be stripped of all (apparently unfounded and/or outdated) claims of consensus unless a more recent source of such consensus is provided. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.70.45.2 ( talk) 13:05, 1 April 2014 (UTC)
I'm not fully sure, but many publications that claim falsification of the hypothesis seem to bring up the funding argument. Shouldn't this article hold a short statement of the kind regarding the ecconomic size of the statins market, and the role of statin vendors in the funding of accademic research. This could possibly balance the current overselling of the 'hypothesis is proven' POV in the article. IMO the article should not take sides with the 'hypothesis is proven' POV neither with the 'hypothesis is falsified' POV, and assume both sides to be equally important. Providing a reference regarding the controversy surounding research funding might somewhat ballance the currently rather dismisive tone of the article regarding the 'hypothesis is falsified' POV. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 ( talk) 08:47, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
I believe there are 4 rather than 2 POVs regarding this hypothesis, and the article should reflect this:
I think all 4 views should be presented and be treated as equal without being dismisive about any one of the 4. There are significant long term experiments and other arguments and valid scientific reasonings for each one of these 4 POVs, and there are significant groups of scientists, medical professionals and nutritional experts in each \ of the 4 camps to make it clear that the jury is still out on this issue. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:980:4962:1:5604:A6FF:FEF1:6202 ( talk) 08:59, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
What is the point of this section? The sources fails MEDRS (first one is not peer reviewed, is way too old; second fails as a primary study), and what does this have to with the lipid hypothesis? That there are other risk factors doesn't have any direct correlation as to the validity of the lipid hypothesis. If this isn't meant to be a commentary about the validity of the lipid hypothesis, this material is off topic, as it is not meant to be a general discussion of atherosclerosis. Yobol ( talk) 16:42, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
What exactly is the point of this section? That there are other mechanisms besides lipid lowering for statins doesn't mean that the lipid lowering effects of statins are not also important. Yobol ( talk) 16:44, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Yobol asks what these issues have to do with the lipid hypothesis. This is a good question, and thanks also for removing the overciting - I'd normally leave all the refs in after a big edit, but only temporarily. In fact the refs could do with a bit more pruning.
Other possible mechanisms for the effects of statins are relevant because the fact that they work has been taken as proof of the lipid hypothesis - which it isn't necessarily. Just to make the point that there are other hypotheses, it may be worth making some brief comment about risk factors other than lipids; Cleave is a classic, to which I've added a much more recent citation.
I haven't seen the movie Fat Head (documentary), but it does seem to be some part of the popular presentation of the lipid hypothesis. I've left it out for the time being, but perhaps it justifies a See Also?
I look forward to your comments. Richard Keatinge ( talk) 17:27, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
The "Widespread Section" is problematic.
1. The 1978 study questions are seriously flawed and ridiculous. "Do you think there is a connection between plasma cholesterol level and the development of coronary heart disease?" does not imply you think that coronory heart disease is caused by plasma cholesterol levels if you answer yes to the question, since it can also be the case that the scientists think that coronary heart disease causes a rise in plasma cholesterol levels, and not the other way around, or simply that there is no causal relation at all. Even opponents of the lipid hypothesis think that cholesterol levels have something to do with cardiovascular disease. "Do you think that our knowledge about diet and coronary heart disease is sufficient to recommend a moderate change in the diet for the population of an affluent society?" This question only implies that a change in diet should happen, not what change or what the aim of this change in diet is or whether that change even has anything to do with cholesterol. This is not proof of "widespread acceptance" in any way.
2. The 1984 study is about only 14 researchers thus very irrelevant. 14 researchers from thousands is not considered statistically relevant nor proof for something to be "widely accepted".
3. It should be noted that even if the lipid hypothesis were to be considered widely accepted 30-40 years ago, that is no indication that it is widely accepted today.
4. Since 1984 there have been a lot of scholars that have started to doubt the Lipid hypothesis. Robert Lustig, Uffe Ravnskov, Gary Taubes, etc. Ravnskov and Taubes won prizes for their research. Even a BMJ editor, Richard Smith thinks it's a load of bullshit. [1]
Since the sources of this subsection are either total crap or heavily outdated, I will remove it per WP:BOLD. And put the latest sentence, which seems to be better sourced, at the previous section since it goes there well. Feel free to disagree, but I ask you to rewrite the section instead of reverting my edit. 09I500 ( talk) 18:37, 20 December 2014 (UTC)
References
Much of the dispute discussion seems to be based on outdated refs. Particularly egregious are instances of older papers used to support assertions that they contradicted newer ones. This is blatant wp:OR. LeadSongDog come howl! 02:35, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lipid hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 16:00, 16 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Lipid hypothesis. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 00:09, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
This article needs an update. Many of the sources are 1980s up until 2006. I will see if I can help, but needs an expert on the subject. Skeptic from Britain ( talk) 11:12, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
This paper here seems to suggest the contrary: https://www.amjmed.com/article/S0002-9343(18)30404-2/pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.233.56.141 ( talk) 22:04, 15 April 2019 (UTC)
There are six entries in the "External links" and five are for Steinberg D. If these links can't be incorporated into the article the list needs to be trimmed. Three or four links are more than enough and too many is link farming. 10:10, 6 December 2018 (UTC)
"An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis by most of the medical community.[3] A small number of "cholesterol skeptics" take a contrary position, falsely claiming that heart disease is not caused by cholesterol, and demonizing the cholesterol-lowering drugs statins.[4] "
Really, "falsely claiming", "demonizing"? It doesn't even list any example of who does this, when, how or anything. (source does though the accusations here does not match what the source says, and the source deals with one person - which is clearly not everyone who may hold this hypothesis to be flawed.) This is clearly a biased opinion-based claim, and an absolute blanket statement to boot. It does not conform to NPOV in the slightest and obviously do not belong. 81.228.169.227 ( talk) 21:16, 16 June 2019 (UTC)
Done Checked the source (which is reliable), what we have seems like a good summary.
Alexbrn (
talk)
06:47, 17 June 2019 (UTC)
This article is incredibly uninformative. It lacks basic details surrounding the science, and deliberately works to minimize detractors while neglecting to include broader, much more pertinent criticism. As such, I've tagged the article for a full rewrite. — C M B J 02:28, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
I'm a bit skeptical of the sourcing on the lede, specifically in regards to the statement that "An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis by most of the medical community." I don't deal with medical articles often but it feels like putting such a statement in wikivoice would require a bit more than 3 citations. Deku link ( talk) 02:43, 2 May 2021 (UTC)
I can't undesrtand the first sentence! What's that even mean? When an hypothesis become a theory? It is clear in Wikipedia that science doesn't care no more.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 181.209.83.194 ( talk) 07:31, 22 July 2021 (UTC)
@ Bdell555:, @ Alexbrn:, @ Zefr:, @ PaleoNeonate:, @ Deku link:,
Content about the Canadian Cardiovascular Society has recently been added [7] in the "dissenting views" section which is sourced to their 2021 guidelines. We can get full access to their 2021 guidelines [8], I highlight the following from the guidelines of which part was added to the article:
"Previous versions of these guidelines have used LDL-C as the primary laboratory measurement for considering initiation of statin treatment and as a treatment target in low, intermediate and high-risk individuals. Beginning with the 2012 Guidelines, it has been recommended that non-HDL-C and ApoB could be used as alternate targets to LDL-C in any individual with triglyceride level > 1.5 mmol/L. The rationale for this is that above this level of triglyceride, some cholesterol in LDL particles is replaced by triglyceride, which promotes production of more atherogenic small dense LDL particles, and makes the amount of cholesterol in LDL-C an unreliable reflection of LDL particle number. In addition, other particles, such as remnants of chylomicrons and very low density lipoprotein (VLDL), as well as Lp(a), all accumulate in the artery wall and contribute to atherogenesis, whereas HDL-C does not. Therefore, estimation of the concentration of all atherogenic particles requires a broader focus than a measurement of LDL-C. Both non-HDL-C (indirectly) and ApoB (directly) provide a more accurate assessment of the total concentration of atherogenic particles than LDL-C. Non-HDL-C and ApoB are, for this reason, both better predictors of CV event risk and benefit of lipid lowering therapy when compared to LDL-C. Based on these previous recommendations, non-HDL-C is now routinely reported across Canada at no additional cost, based on the simple calculation of total cholesterol minus HDL cholesterol."
The above content does not challenge the lipid hypothesis, they are merely calling for advanced lipoprotein testing that goes beyond LDL-C. They say that Apolipoprotein B (apoB) may be more useful than LDL-C in coronary heart disease (CHD) because it captures greater information about atherogenic particles. ApoB is the main protein found in low-density lipoproteins (LDL). The same lifestyle measures that lower LDL cholesterol will lower ApoB. Apolipoprotein B (ApoB) is basically just an alternative LDL measure that gives us more detail.
This debate has been around for a few years now [9] but even ApoB advocates admit that LDL-C is still an accurate predictor for CVD in many cases (up to 85%). I don't know about other countries but in the UK LP(a) is not routinely measured in general medical practice. [10], there are various reasons for this. Advanced Lipoprotein Tests are not routinely used in clinics [11] they are impractical in some cases. Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
I do not oppose mention of apoB, there is even another review here [12] but I am not convinced this challenges the lipid hypothesis and we now have this content in the "dissenting views" section directly below a bunch of quacks who work for the THINCS group. It seems random topics are being thrown together in that section. That section is very badly organized but I agree the article does need fixing but this is not the way to do it. What do other users suggest? Psychologist Guy ( talk) 23:44, 5 August 2021 (UTC)
/info/en/?search=Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Saturated_Fat,_shifting_consensus,_Cardiovascular_disease_(CVD)_,_and_general_health. Please feel free to participate. Thank you! FrederickZoltair ( talk) 00:53, 15 August 2021 (UTC)
So you are telling me, that scientists haven't found exact mechanism that would trigger cholesterol to build up and plaque the arteries, yet they somehow believe that just its high levels somehow lead to cardiovascular disease? On what basis? On just correlation? Correlation is not causation. The article doesn't explain about exact mechanism, so either my assumption is right, or this segment is missing.
These sources have been on the cholesterol article for some time and it would need more arguments than "quackery sources" to blanket remove the entire paragraph. Altanner1991 ( talk) 01:52, 8 April 2022 (UTC)
I think it should be made more clear that Keys put forward the lipid hypothesis in order to protect sugar from coming into the spotlight. He was a sugar industry man. SCIdude ( talk) 11:08, 26 September 2022 (UTC)