I was going to try to design a poll, but let's just get on with it. Do your own personal poll; discipline yourself to create an actual list of probable causality, in oder of most likely to least likely. If you think the causation is likely multiple factors, then place two or more categories next to each other, like 1, 2, 3. In other words: in order of priority, of likely cause.
The most certain vector for approximating the level of heart disease is a data point relatively easy to obtain: death from myocardial infarction ("heart attack"). It's well established that heart attacks are typically caused in first-order by heart disease (generally used to describe a number of related conditions). Naturally, everyone is thusly focussed on second-order causes: what causes heart disease?
Let's take in some statistical data. Myocardial infarction was almost non-existent in 1910 (heart attacks were unheard of). By 1930, deaths from MI had escalated to 3,000 per year. That would constitute a thousands of percentage increase, approaching infinite, the lower the actual number of deaths in 1910. It began to taper off in terms of percentage increase, so that by 1960, there were 500,000 deaths from MI per year. That's very important to understand, as health authorities proclaim that their low-fat diet prescriptions are lowering the rate of death from heart disease.
Now, here's the changes in consumption of various food groupings from 1910 to some point in the recent past, like a few years ago.
- Food category A: 100% increase
- Food category B: Moderate decline
- Food category C: 100% increase
- Food category D: 50% decrease
- Food category E: 70% decrease
- Food category F: 437% increase
- Food category G: 280% increase
- Food category H: 46% increase
Now, in what order would you assign most likely cause, A – H? I'll give you the actual food groups in a post tomorrow, as well as references.