/sci/ - Science & Math

low cholesterol is associated with higher rates of heart disease so cholesterol is actually protective

>>15776810
>A high TC to high-density lipoprotein (HDL) ratio is the best predictor of cardiovascular risk (hence this calculation, not LDL, is used in recognised cardiovascular risk calculators such as that from Framingham). A high TC to HDL ratio is also a surrogate marker for insulin resistance (ie, chronically elevated serum insulin at the root of heart disease, type 2 diabetes and obesity).
https://bjsm.bmj.com/content/51/15/1111

dietary cholesterol causes nothing, it's quickly broken down into fatty acids

>>15776810
Better question, do sterols from plants cause sunburn because they can't be converted to vit d?

You need three things to cause heart disease: inflammation, brittle arteries and something likely to clog them.
Take one or two out and you reduce the chances to go nnnnngh.jpg.

>>15776810
I've eaten 2 eggs a day for 3 years and when the doc draws blood for the annual physical all my metrics are perfect.

>>15776920

>>15776849
faggot

>>15776920
I've eaten 6 eggs a day for 1 year and my gallbladder was fucked.

>>15776977
>I'm a weak bitch with genetic defects
yeah we know

>>15776983
No, I used eggs as source of protein. Egg is a mix of protein and lipids, which is not a healthy pair when eaten as protein meal. I do not consider egg for good standalone product. Too much lipids for protein meal. For fat meal I prefer butter. Yolk is fine for washing hair, mayonnaise (not a fan) or cakes.

>>15776991
yeah you're definitely a weak bitch

>>15776999
and you're definitely rude, but not me
enjoy your eggs

>>15777013
i will. have fun with your gallbladder lmao

One of those egg council creeps got to /sci/ too, huh

>>15776810
Atherosclerosis, is an autoimmune disease.

Simple as.

>>15776810
nope, viruses do

>>15776810
no zogslop and lack of sun does. also fluoride.

DEY SEE ME ROLLAN
DEY HATAN

>>15776810
no, dietary cholesterol does not meaningfully affect serum cholesterol. the real issue is most westerners suffer from chronic inflammation

>>15776810
Was it cooked on a gas stove?

>>15777187
This but unironically.
Eat good food and get out into the fucking sun niggas. It's not difficult, but it's expensive (by design). Just do what you can with what you have.

>>15776810
He is a dangerous guy who just wants your money.

>>15776810
ox-LDL does yes

>>15776875
Actually that's wrong what you need is calcification of the heart, any factors causing calcification are therefore implicated

>>15776964
if he ate eggs would it be cannibalism?

>>15776810
excess of anything is bad as far as your diet goes
water can kill you, eat everything in moderation

>>15776849

>>15776964

>>15779294
>when you ARE the violin plot

>>15776810
Only complete idiots believe that. The problem are vaccines.

>>15776849
that only comes from confounded observational studies that are explained by reverse causality
>>15776855
that ratio becomes useless when you control for ApoB

>Conclusions and relevance: Triglyceride-lowering LPL variants and LDL-C-lowering LDLR variants were associated with similar lower risk of CHD per unit difference in ApoB. Therefore, the clinical benefit of lowering triglyceride and LDL-C levels may be proportional to the absolute change in ApoB.
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/30694319/

>>15776810
>cholesterol
no
>does LDL-C cause heart disease
Trick question. Oxidized LDL-C does. Healthy LDL-C does not.

>>15779527
Wtf is up with the CoI statement?

>>15776810
ask me again in two weeks

>>15776810
No, only LDL particle number does. Doesn't matter if it's ox-ldl or not, all ApoB particles are atherosclerotic. LDL increases with an increased intake of saturated fatty acids, which are almost always found with cholesterol in foods
Keep your saturated fatty acid intake under 10% of your total calories (Ideally under 7%, but that's too much for most people)

fat clogs your arteries

No, read the book.

>>15779625
Provide data to back your statement up because there is no correlation between saturated fat intake and increased risk of heart disease or mortality
and to meat your calorie intake rates you'd either be consuming a lot of carbs or seed oils

>>15780034
>Provide data to back your statement up because there is no correlation between saturated fat intake and increased risk of heart disease or mortality
Clinical studies carried out in metabolic wards found a clear association between serum LDL and saturated fatty acid intake. Metabolic ward studies where they do dietary replacements while keeping macros the same are the best standard of evidence that exists in nutrition
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/

>>15780034
I hate that filter thing so much. Sorry, can't post the 2nd part as text for some reason. Here is the article title:
In-depth Mendelian randomization analysis of causal factors for coronary artery disease

>>15780034
>and to meat your calorie intake rates you'd either be consuming a lot of carbs or seed oils
No, you can eat as much unsaturated fats as you want as long as the saturated fat intake is under control
Refined carbs are just as bad as saturated fat, so swapping these 2 leads to no reduction in risk
The recommended saturated fat intakes aren't mine, they are from the AHA guidelines
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6213099/
Sorry for breaking up the post, I was fidgeting with it for like 15 minutes cause the filter kept blocking it

>>15780154
just put a space or something after every hyphen

yes and no

>>15781413
Seems there's a lot more work to do on studying how eating eggs affects our health. Some studies show positive benefits, others show negative benefits. I wonder what the lifestyles were like of the people in both studies.

I eat a lot of eggs but I exercise frequently and I'm thin and healthy. I wonder if my exercise is negating the negative affect of eggs or what.

>>15780154
just split the third 66027 part onto a newline
https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-660
27-4

for some reason that's usually the part that flips the spam filter


>no mention of whether the ldl was oxcidized

junk paper

>>15780158
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6213099/
>The American Heart Association (AHA) dietary guidelines recommend 30–35% of energy intake (%E) be from total fat

>Substantial efforts are needed to encourage low-SFA and low-TFA food preparation at home, with strong public health policies to decrease SFA and TFA in restaurants and prepared foods.

junk paper
Give me something of actual substance proving saturated fat is bad and not just burned as a fuel source

>>15781522
>junk paper
There is no quality evidence that suggests that ox-ldl is the culprit in the first place. Just a bunch of mechanistic speculation.
Meanwhile, mendelian randomization points to every ApoB particle being atherosclerotic. Why else would people with genetic hypolipidemia be basically immune to atherosclerosis? Are they somehow immune to oxidation too?
>>15781529
>Give me something of actual substance proving saturated fat is bad and not just burned as a fuel source
I did in the post before it. Substitution studies that remove saturated fat in metabolic wards see reductions in LDL levels. And the post before it demonstrates why LDL is bad

>>15777154
You got it all wrong. Its not like that.

>>15780034
anon is right

saturated fat causes heart disease

it raises your ldl which is progressive for atherosclerotic disease cvd

Eggs are one of ZOGs greatest fears and enemies, because they can be raised inexpensively at home by most people. If the goyims start to remove themselves from the goyslop market by eating home raise eggs then it becomes that much more difficult for ZOG to poison them and control them. Eggs raised at home generate absolutely no tax revenue whatsoever.

>>15776977
Your gallbladder was nothing to do with the eggs.
Probably one of the trichomonas parasites.

>>15781531
All you have is junk though.

People with higher cholestrol live longer and experience reduced heart attack rates according to long term studies.

Again you're claiming evidence for ldl being harmful when it isn't then mixing in the obvious dangerous effect of plants reducing chilestrol availability. But this doesn't demonstrate any causality or even correlation with disease

find something not junk

>>15782412
No that's retarded, at least bother to update your references from Ancel Key's debunked cross country study

>>15783204
>People with higher cholestrol live longer and experience reduced heart attack rates according to long term studies.
Every study that found a correlation between low cholesterol and mortality/cvd was observational, so they didn't account for underlying catabolic conditions. This is known as the cholesterol paradox, and it was debunked long go
Underlying catabolic conditions are associated with low cholesterol because they crash your metabolism, not because low cholesterol is bad. They obviously have higher mortality too
If you screen for underlying catabolic conditions, this becomes very obvious:
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/01.CIR.92.9.2396
And if you give people statins to lower their ldl levels, their mortality and heart disease risk go down, which contradicts your claim, here's a meta-analysis of several randomized clinical trial:
https://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(10)61350-5/fulltext
>Again you're claiming evidence for ldl being harmful when it isn't then mixing in the obvious dangerous effect of plants reducing cholesterol availability.
What plants??? I linked a Mendelian randomization study that looks into the effect of genetic cholesterol levels (the spectrum from hypolipidemia to hyperlipidemia). It shows pretty conclusively that ldl cholesterol levels are a causal association for heart disease. Plants weren't mentioned even once
>But this doesn't demonstrate any causality or even correlation with disease
Mendelian randomization is a causal inference analysis, look it up
>update your references from Ancel Key's
All observational studies are junk and shouldn't be used for anything due to the lack of controls. No one in this thread mentioned them except you though. Stop getting your science from YouTubers or bloggers, they're the only ones obsessed with a dead dude from 60 years ago. Cardiology has moved past him long ago

>>15779595
As long as it is regulated.

>>15783235
Before I go through this, a quick question. Why does LDL go up when you fast?

>>15783373
If you fast for long enough, you switch to ketosis and start metabolizing your own triglyceride stores. Some of those TGs will be carrying saturated fatty acids, which increase ldl
Once you start refeeding and ketosis ends, your body will resume normal glucose metabolism and LDL levels will go below baseline for a while then stabilize again, ending this temporary fluctuation.
Overall, if your weight is static (i.e. you're not in a calorie deficit), the area under the curve for ldl will remain the same (assuming your diet composition is consistent)

>>15779595
Wow those people posing as independent scientists are on the take from every big corporation in the medical industry.
So they're just paid corporate shills dishonestly posing as impartial scientists to make money.
Professional thespians

>>15779625
What about the theory that ldl has some healing effect and isn't causative but attaches to damaged areas?

>>15782412
>saturated fat causes heart disease
It leterally doesn't otherwise it would be clear and repeated everywhere.
heart attack rates increased independent of saturated or total fat consumption

this argument over "is eggs good for you" has been ongoing since the 1970s
before that everyone knew eggs were good for you

>>15784363
There is no proof at all for that hypothesis. This was just another mechanistic speculation
There is also the issue of hyperlipidemia being associated with higher mortality and increased heart disease. Those who are born with a genetically high LDL level have astronomic rates of atherosclerosis without any other underlying issues. Those with hypolipidemia are the exact opposite. This wouldn't happen if ldl was just an innocent bystander.
This is why I linked a Mendelian randomization study. Isolating cause and effect by studying genetic outliers is a pretty strong causal inference analysis
>>15784369
This is not true. Any study that substitutes saturated fat with: poly-unsaturated fats, mono-unsaturated fats, complex carbs, or protein, finds a reduction in CVD issues
Studies that replace saturated fats with refined carbs will find absolutely no improvement because refined carbs are also atherosclerotic
And obviously, never look for data in observational studies, always look for randomized clinical trials
Here is an example:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8092457/
>reducing dietary saturated fat reduced the risk of combined cardiovascular events by 17%
>Meta‐regression suggested that greater reductions in saturated fat (reflected in greater reductions in serum cholesterol) resulted in greater reductions in risk of CVD events
The other issue to take note of is how much saturated fat is reduced. Reduced saturated fat intake from 20% to 15% isn't gonna do jackshit, both are very high intakes. Reducing it from 20% to 5% is gonna make a big improvement

>>15776810
Yes, but not the one you ingest.

>>15785062
so are eggs good for you or not?

>>15786233
Any animal-based product is ok for you as long as you avoid trans fats and keep saturated fats under 7% of your total calories
To use an extreme example: If you're eating 10 eggs per day but you're still keeping saturated fats under 7%, that's perfectly fine

>>15785062
This paper references the ancel keys countries study I mentioned earlier?

oddly they find no link between mortality risk and saturated fat intake yet they push PUFA? strange papers
What's up with the AHA who owns them that they push skim milk?

>>15786465
OK so they reviewed 12 studies from the 60s to the mid 2000s they found a marginal reduction in heart attacks or strokes but no effect on mortality but only in three out of the twelve papers while the other nine studies showed no significant effects?

Please say you aren't trying to rely on this paper for anything relevant to your health.

>>15776964

Did you know when he say he donate all his profit to charity it's the charity he is CEO of?

>>15786494
>oddly they find no link between mortality risk and saturated fat intake yet they push PUFA?
Because they see a reduction in cvd events
>What's up with the AHA who owns them that they push skim milk?
Is skim milk a conspiracy? I have no idea what you mean by this
>but only in three out of the twelve papers while the other nine studies showed no significant effects?
Reduction in cvd events was correlated to the extent of reduction in saturated fat intake. I mentioned this at the end of my previous post and it's mentioned many times throughout the study
See the subgrouping they did based on saturated fat intake after intervention. Those who didn't reduce it below 10% didn't see much of an improvement. But get it down to 7% and you see a huge improvement. Check picrel
>they found a marginal reduction in heart attacks or strokes
17% is pretty impressive for a diet-only intervention, especially considering that only 3 studies dipped below 10% saturated fat intake
>but no effect on mortality
Yes, dietary interventions are rarely impactful enough to affect mortality. You wouldn't expect to see a reduction in mortality without modern statins (or a huge enough dietary clinical trial I guess, but that would take silly amounts of funding)

chickens would've gone extinct if eggs were unhealthy
the chickens with the less healthy eggs have all long since gone extinct

>>15786704
The cochrane review is junk, the more I looked into its claims compared to what it actually did and its origins the worse it got.
lets just put it aside. while I get back to reading over the previous papers you linked and the ones I checked myself that are built on them

>>15776810
Nonono anon you have it all wrong. Here i will show you how to do it.

Is cholesterol good for you?

>>15776810
>Does cholesterol cause heart disease?
just don't eat processed food and exercise, otherwise you can eat pretty much anything you want, as long as it comes from the dirt or from an animal it's fine, if it has preservatives, aditives, sweetners, and all those chemicals we don't even know what the fuck they are, that's the problem, all those chemicals cause inflamation in the body, they damage your body and your body makes cholesterol to fix the damage, simple as, if you can't understand that eating eggs doesn't cause high blood cholesterol you are literally a massive brain dead faggot, correlation doesn't mean causation, 100% of people with high blood cholesterol drink water, therefor water causes cholesterol, that's the kind of "science" these vegan faggot doctors are putting out there...

>>15777613
>alternative medicine
I'm not totally sold on cholesterol causing heart disease, but anyone with "alternative medicine" in their bio is usually a hack

>>15788889
It's fucking wikipedia dude?
The guy who wrote this book >>15779884 was literally removed from wikipedia ( see https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-xCr3mvFCHM ).
There is a ridiculous amount of censorship around anyone challenging the hugely profitable current medical dogma.

It's like using rationalwiki or snopes probably the same people writing it all.

>>15789134
not even joking
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Malcolm_Kendrick

>>15789136
Wikipedia is a globohomo propaganda outlet rather that a source of genuine information, thats been widely known for quite a long time. Way back in the early days of 4chan there was an drive to get moot a page and the wikitwats kept on deleting it. It went on like that for about 5 years, the wikicunts only relented after moot featured in the washington post, which is just another globohomo propaganda outlet. Seeing moot in one of their sister globohomo propaganda outlets is what made moot officially important enough to merit a wiki page.

>>15790448
Some wikicunt literally deleted sci's permutations solution

>>15790479
look in the history and find out who deleted it or when it was deleted then post a link to your finding here. if it was done by someone who is still an active editor, I'd like to know who it was

>>15776810
Cholesterol... Isn't it metabolic prodrug of something good that metabolizes into something bad when improperly combined? Let's not blame substance, but human behaviour with that.

>>15781498
>Seems there's a lot more work to do on studying how eating eggs affects our health.
Eggology is a neglected field of science, plenty of low hanging fruit ripe for the picking

>>15776810
I recommed you checking difference between saturated and unsaturated ... The stuff about saturation of fatty acids. You need unsaturated for healthy hearth. Another thing is that fat soluble vitamins often comes with food that is otherwise harmful, as vitamin E in sunflower oil. I recommend eating fortified cacao for kids, it should be out of fructosys, cocoa and vitamis not only young body needs, but body needs to stay young. Also koenzim-Q10 is important, because it is responsible for elasticity of things and creates stuff that holds body together. Almost nobody has Qoenzim-Q10 in diet, but it's good to supply to body.

200years ago most people died in 30 because of body structural stress and tiredness of material, we haven't yet evolved to produce some things in ourbodies naturally, so we need to supplement them.

Also I recommend raspberry ketones, they help to maintain correct blood sugar.

>>15776857
You think saturated fatty acids are harmless? Where the last time you read research about that?

Even wrong isomer of vitamin can kill you, or amino acid isomers have different effects, and saturation, that's even more obvious difference than stereo isometricity.

>>15792418
Yes, cholesterol is innocent. It's the protein that transports a certain class of lipoproteins that does the damage, Apolipoprotein B (ApoB)

>>15776849
>police show up at crime scenes
>police are correlated to high levels of crime

>>15790479
>one publication over a decade ago
>it got no citations
vanity publishing

>>15776977
>oy vey don't eat eggs goy!
>eat estrogen beans instead!!

>>15777027
I'm sure people tell you all the time, but you are a plague on the people around you and should be kept alone.

>>15795032
>hey goy, stop eating the foods that you've been evolving to eat for millions of years
>eat my branded kosher goyslop instead
>oh and don't forget to cut the tip of your dick off too

Dietary cholesterol is almost entirely unrelated to blood cholesterol. I eat 6 eggs a day and I feel great.

>>15796344
same goes for the "fats" argument. retards think that eating fats makes you fat when in reality animal fats are extremely filling and you won't get hungry or think about eating for a long time after consuming them.

>>15797189
Animal fats also don't contain sterols that your body can mistake for cholesterol when trying to make stuff like vit d and are apparently can cause blood clots

Why exactly do mainstream nutrition and food companies want us eating more plant sterols are they actually trying to kill us?

>>15796344
6 eggs are fine if you aren't eating many other saturated fat sources during the day. I eat 6 eggs a day and my LDL cholesterol is just 72 mg/dl. That's not because eggs are good or bad, that's because my saturated fat intake is still low despite all the eggs

>>15797623
ldl isn't bad though it's just a carrier? damaged LDL or sdLDL is bad you just need to avoid damaging the LDL

>>15797501
>are they actually trying to kill us?
yes

>>15787059

By what means were they extinct tho?
Sure, unhealthy eggs wont hatch chicks and bad offspring are produced (if even).

Evolution of chickens for the past century has all been artificially selected for “the biggest chicken with the biggest eggs”

I’m rather curious as to how this “evolution to healthiest eggs for humans” even happened.

>>15797623
do you eat all of the eggs in one sitting?

>>15777211
CHOLESTEROLCHADS GET IN HERE!

>>15798474
I had 8 eggs for dinner tonight

>>15798474
Yeah, my usual breakfast is a 6-egg quiche with tons of veggies

>>15797644
All the experimental evidence I've seen points to ldl particle count as the culprit, not any specific variety of ldl. Iirc, it was any particle with an ApoB protein, so ldl, idl, and vldl were all equally atherosclerotic

>>15798831
There's a problem with your point of view, If LDL was intrinsically atherosclerotic then it wouldn't exist and the body wouldn't preferentially make it and lipoproteins all have the same receptor unless damaged in which case foam cells mop them up
Therefore there must be some other causative factor you are ignoring, what are the trigs and blood sugar levels?

>>15799177
>If LDL was intrinsically atherosclerotic then it wouldn't exist
It's only atherosclerotic at higher levels, and even then it takes a really long time to develop atherosclerosis. People with genetic hypolipidemia don't get it because of their naturally low levels
>lipoproteins all have the same receptor
It's not the receptor, it's a specific protein called the ApoB protein. HDL particles with their ApoA protein are perfectly fine. That's why drugs that reduce HDL don't do anything, but drugs that reduce LDL can reduce mortality in clinical trials
>what are the trigs and blood sugar levels?
mine?
Triglycerides 126mg/dl
LDL 72 mg/dl
HDL 59 mg/dl
VLDL 9 mg/dl
fasting blood 74 mg/dl
That's on a diet with about 6% saturated fat, 14% total fat, 28% protein, 52% carbs (all complex, no refined carbs)
>If LDL was intrinsically atherosclerotic then it wouldn't exist and the body wouldn't preferentially make it
The body doesn't preferentially make it, I did another diet with only 3.5% of my calories from saturated fat and my hdl was higher than ldl. It's just that most people aren't autistic enough to modify their diet the way I do

>>15799211
>drugs that reduce HDL
drugs that raise HDL*

>>15799211
>mine
no not specifically I meant in the general sense, that some other factor must be causative
But as I said if ldl was harmful it wouldn't exist in a healthy animal on what it was adapted to eat some other factor is affecting it.
Most probably high carb diets like yours.
You can eat either high fat or high carb safely, but you can't eat high carb and high fat together safely.

>>15799254
>But as I said if ldl was harmful it wouldn't exist in a healthy animal on what it was adapted to eat
Why not? Humans have all sorts of bad or imperfect adaptations, this wouldn't be the first one. You can't take thought exercises like these seriously
>but you can't eat high carb and high fat together safely
Like what, 40% fat 40% carb? I don't see why this would be the case. The Mediterranean diet is kinda like that, and it does ok in clinical reasearch

>>15776810
Supposedly ApoB is the best measure, and it roughly correlates with cholesterol. Of course it can be measured directly too.

>>15776875
True. but it's like lighting a match in a dry forest compared to trying to light a match in the rain. Just don't light the match. So yeah, maybe someone can get away with sky high cholesterol with low inflammation, but there's likely to be inflammation at some point for a period of time.

>>15776920
Dietary cholesterol is typically poorly absorbed, but saturated fat has ways of increasing cholesterol synthesis and lowering LDL removal.

>>15799211
It's possible that hot air fritezis could be humanitarian aid to America?

No more saturated fatty acids there.

>>15799254
>But as I said if ldl was harmful it wouldn't exist in a healthy animal on what it was adapted to eat some other factor is affecting it.
Glucose is naturally made if not eaten. Would you say glucose without limitation is healthy?

>>15799943
Nonsense reply.
The body goes to extreme measures to control blood sugar levels while it has mature systems designed to handle fat and supply it as needed.
Hind gut fermenting herbivores effectively supply a diet of around 2/3 fats while foregut fermenters approach 3/4s and all from their carbohydrate (cellulose) rich diet, the simpler carnivore digestive system sees similar numbers.

If nothing else it implies the bodies of mammals are good at handling fatty acids and amino acids.
There are people voluntarily consuming an almost enrirely meat or animal product based diet who don't seem to suffer from any manner of disease we take for granted now including heart disease and atherosclerosis.

>>15790479
liar, I can still see it

>>15800012
If it was restored then good, but it was removed for a while

>>15799936
Nah, they'd just use it to add more calories somehow. They need to learn to control their diet, no way around that. Even if they eat the perfect healthiest diet on earth, 3500cals/day will still put them in an early grave

>>15799992
>The body goes to extreme measures to control blood sugar levels while it has mature systems designed to handle fat and supply it as needed.
Why do you believe that's the case? Saturated fat alone is enough to cause increased cholesterol synthesis and inhibit removal. That might have been okay until we had ad libitum options. Most Hunter Gatherer populations are starving, btw.

>Hind gut fermenting herbivores effectively supply a diet of around 2/3 fats while foregut fermenters approach 3/4s and all from their carbohydrate (cellulose) rich diet, the simpler carnivore digestive system sees similar numbers.
Humans are neither. What do primates who rely on fruits produce?

interesting paper
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/18779510/
Vitamin B12 status and rate of brain volume loss in community-dwelling elderly
Vogiatzoglou et al 2008
The largest recorded vegan brain size was smaller than the smallest normal brain size...

>>15776810
My biochemistry textbook had a whole page dedicated to this and had a based take on how and why there was confusion around the topic.

>>15800592
Which book?

>>15800628
Its in slavic language you wouldn't know about it.

>>15800168
>Why do you believe that's the case? Saturated fat alone is enough to cause increased cholesterol synthesis and inhibit removal. That might have been okay until we had ad libitum options. Most Hunter Gatherer populations are starving, btw.
Nta, but that's a really good point. It's also worth noting that modern farm animals are bred to increase yield, which means much more fat in their tissues. I doubt hunter-gatherers got anywhere near as much saturated fat from whatever game they hunted every now and then

>>15800730
>I doubt hunter-gatherers got anywhere near as much saturated fat from whatever game they hunted every now and then
No that's ridiculous, hunters eat as fatty a meat as they can get.

>>15799279
>The Mediterranean diet is kinda like that
The actual traditional mediteranean diet was as full as much fatty meat they could get their hands on, even olive oil mostly wasn't used for consumption, but italians and spanish are renowned for their fatty pork dishes. while the production of fat tailed sheep was a speciality.

>>15800798
I'm referring to the modern variant, it's featured in many trials and doesn't have any obvious drawbacks. So I don't see why high carb + high fat would be bad if done correctly (no refined carbs and low saturated fats)

>>15795072
have fun with your gallbladder lmao. weak faggot

No, but it causes deez

>>15776810
in the blood?
yes. it raises your chances of having heart disease.
in the food?
not necessarily. In most cases dietary cholesterol does not influence serum levels.

>>15776849
>(You)

For the guys claiming cholesterol linked to things like heart disease and those claiming the opposite could you cite a source for me to follow up on?

>>15801100
Not the same person. Have fun with your personality disorder.

Eggs are good for you, goyslop is not

>>15801462
But are grains goyslop or not?

>>15776977
Eggs is good food for humans, not for goblins like you.
Just kill yourself.

>>15800794
>No that's ridiculous, hunters eat as fatty a meat as they can get.
I think that anon's point was that they didn't have the option to hunt fat animals. There's some romantic idea that we only hunted mammoths until they were extinct. It may have not been that long, and the people today have much smaller game. What's it matter if a lot of humans had heart attacks at 50? That wouldn't have stopped them from breeding.

>>15801154
I've read it is linked to heart disease, but lower all-cause mortality. The problem is there could be other factors that make high cholesterol seem protective and low cholesterol seem dangerous, like cancer. It's the same thing for being thin. It's dangerous if you get sick and lose a shitload of weight (duh), but it's usually protective from getting the disease in the first place if you never get fat. Of course perfect diet means nothing if you sit on your ass all day, ,and moving a lot means you can have more leniency in your diet regardless of your beliefs.

>>15801474
>are cattle feed goyslop
yes, "goy" means cattle

>>15801825
but the types of cholesterol you have elevated seem to play a huge role in disease manifestation
Low HDL, high glycated LDL and high triglycerides are a bad combination

>>15776810

Nothing causes anything.

>>15802392
The main question I see, mostly from carnivores, are how bad high LDL is combined with really low triglycerides and A1C. High LDL has always been quite bad, but that's in the context of a Western diet that raises triglycerides as well. It's easy to see how a diet of mammoth could be great for a person until they're 50 or something and have a heart attack or stroke and die. That would make it beneficial when young and have no effect on mating and a negative effect on longevity. Meanwhile, vegans from a young age have issues due to growth hormone and IGF-1 being too low during formative years. Protein is also needed when older. I don't have the answer.

>>15776920
Your doctor doesn’t give a shit if you live or die. They just want to fund their kids college.

>>15802933
>Your doctor doesn’t give a shit if you live or die
They get no money from a dead patient. Sick patients are where it's at.

>>15779595
> Dr Sabatine reported receiving personal fees from Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bristol-Myers Squibb, Dynamix, Intarcia, Merck & Co, Janssen Research Development, MedImmune, Anylam, CVS Caremark, lonis, Cubist, Esperion, The Medicines Company, MyoKardia, and Zeus Scientific and grants from Abbott Laboratories, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Critical Diagnostics, Daiichi- Sankyo, Gilead, GlaxoSmithKline, Intarcia, Merck & Co, Roche Diagnostics, Takeda, Novartis, Poxel, Janssen Research and Development, MedImmune, Eisai, Genzyme, and Pfizer.
How is it even possible to be involved with so many companies

>>15803094
If you're involved with every company, then you have no conflict of interest.

>>15802929
Why was atheroscerosis barely recognised before the mid 20th century?

>>15776964
I would kill myself with egg overdose if I looked like that

>>15803787
Nta, but people didn't eat like pigs. It's easy to overdo the saturated fat when you're eating 3500 calories every single day forever. Hunter gatherers of the pre-agricultural era were facing regular starvation and had insane daily activity levels

>>15803893
Why was atheroscerosis so rare in the 1800s if people were eating so much fatty meat?

>>15803901
People weren't eating so much of anything. That's why we didn't have an obesity epidemic back then

>>15803901
People weren't fat. It's adipose tissue - particularly visceral fat - that causes the systemic inflammation that is the real case of heart disease.

>>15803906
Anon you're delusional.

>>15803911
No that's nonsense the big marker and driver is uric acid levels.

>>15803913
Do you have evidence of most people being fat fucks before the agricultural revolution? Even in the early 1900s things weren't so bad. It's pretty well proven that societies get fatter when they have access to more animal products. You don't see a lot of fat people eating only rice. I'm not saying it can't happen, but it's rare. More than likely hunters ate like gluttons when a kill was made, but have plenty of times where they were starving between kills. Modern hunter gatherers are thin and not eating to their caloric needs, using plants because they can't get enough animal food. So I don't think animal products are the issue, I think it's massive consumption of them that could be a problem. We don't yet have evidence that a huge amount of calories from meat is fine. Maybe it is, but I'd rather err on the side of caution.

>>15804537
You've conflated 3 points here.
This discussion is pointless I was arguing that people of the european type ate fairly well in the 1800s read testimonies about the amount of meat and fat they were eating in victorian era england and very few of the dietary problems we see nowadays existed in any number. something changed in the diet, your next point will probably try to argue exercise.

>fat people eating rice
also what exactly do you think sumo wrestlers ate?

>>15804585
>also what exactly do you think sumo wrestlers ate?
Rice and meat and vegetables. I'm quite aware of what they eat, and it's a lot more than plain rice. That's kind of the point. You can eat meat ad libitum and no carbs and probably not gain weight, or a lot of carbs with low fat and meat and not gain weight. Or you can eat a Western diet of meat and carbs and too much of both, becoming a fat ass.

>This discussion is pointless I was arguing that people of the european type ate fairly well in the 1800s
Without limit? Riding a car (no) everywhere? The thinnest 1st world country is Japan, where there's a lot of walking in addition to plenty of rice eating and seafood. Being active can overcome a lot of obstacles, same for seafood if it's at the exclusion of land-based meat.

>>15804943
Sumo wrestlers gorged on rice then sleep

exercise burns very little energy its main effect is on basal metabolic rate, which interestingly enough a diet low in carbs also improves because insulin reduces metabolic rate over time a low carb diet increases the amount of BAT too.

>>15805364
>insulin reduces metabolic rate over time
Really? Why would cardio athletes carb load all the time then?

>>15805420
No idea I assume on the principle of loading the liver with glycogen.
One of the doctors I was following on this topic started to experience problems with carb loading for his athletics as he grew increasingly insulin resistant, which is why he went low carb he found, he got better performance without it now he works with elite athletes like Iron man competitiors.

Where did the idea of carb loading come from originally?

>>15776810
The headline says it doesn't, so I believe that now

>>15805428
Anyone who does serious training sees a significant boost by carb loading a few hours before training. My lifts are easily 10% better if I carb load first. I tried training with a normal breakfast (not carb heavy), and I always get tired quicker
>started to experience problems with carb loading for his athletics as he grew increasingly insulin resistant, which is why he went low carb
So did he improve? Can he go back to eating high carb now, or is he still insulin resistant?

>>15805432
I don't know. Guy was called Paul Mason you could probably see what he thought somewhere.
I started following up a guy his name was Bikman, he was talking about his rat study on manipulating diet and how it affected adipose tissue and basal metabolic rate.
A low salt diet also seems to promote brown adipose increase which seems to be another part of the effects of the uric acid complex which probably implicates fructose.
Insulin promotes fat storage as it triggers recepters on adipose tissue to use blood sugar to create glycerol and subsequently store it as triglycerides, it's seems to be one of the problems with high blood sugar and why sugars and fats are a bad combination.
John Yudkin tried to replicate Ancel Key's starvation experiment after reading about it and how they were only fed I think 1500cals and experienced extreme starvation symptoms like feeling cold or listless and emaciation. He thought this was strange since people on a low carb diet seem to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption to around 1500cals while living perfectly normal lives. Which implies a calorie of carbs is used differently to a calorie of fat and protein.

>>15805452
I digressed a bit there, sorry.
I'm still trying to piece things together, but apparently even the bacteria in your mouth can have vast impacts on your health because they provide the body with nitrites

>>15805364
>Sumo wrestlers gorged on rice then sleep
You understand anyone has to just Google this to know the truth, right? They typically eat 1-2 meals a day and train on an empty stomach. Those ideas actually became popular recently because of the keto crowd, yet sumo wrestlers use it to get fat. Previously it was proposed to eat frequently to increase metabolism. They also eat chanko-nabe as their primary meal, a stew consisting of carbs and meat. It's no even close to just rice, shocker.

https://www.gq.com/story/sumo-diet-of-byamba-ulambayar

>a diet low in carbs also improves because insulin reduces metabolic rate
A diet high in carbs increases metabolic rate by increasing thermogenesis. Regardless, keto and high carb for weight loss have been compared head-to-head long term. Keto leads early on because of water loss from glycogen release, otherwise they're basically even from a year onward. Diet doesn't fucking matter so long as the person doesn't overeat.

>exercise burns very little energy
100 calories is very little, yeah? You can get that with a 30 minute walk, pretty much what the Japanese do. Multiply that by 365 days over the course of decades, and then divide by 3000 calories. It adds up. All you have to do is move more if you aren't already fat.

>>15805428
>now he works with elite athletes like Iron man competitiors
Pro athletes that aren't ultra marathoners usually prefer carbs for a reason, they work. You can do carb-specific eating if you prefer, eating them only around workouts. Explosive movements suffer when relying on fat, and there's a scientific reason for that. Keep in mind, most people go low carb because they have insulin intolerance, and there's a lot of reasons for that. Keto usually doesn't make them carb sensitive, so the idea they're insulin sensitive is bologna. They simply avoid the problem, which is fine but it's not the solution they claim.

wtf I love eating like a pig now

Dr. Keys is a fucking nigger, only taking sample groups from select countries instead of random ones to determine which diet is the healthiest.
Because of him, cholesterol and saturated fats were given the misconception of being the leading cause for heart disease, for over 60 years, when it’s actually carbohydrates.

>>15805650
>when it’s actually carbohydrates.
Ugh.

>>15805582
Because we're dealing with glycogen reserves, and muscles are a reserve.

Diabetics are clearly sick and have to avoid carbs by necessity because their regulatory options are broken. but what is it about the modern diet is making people diabetic when despite high fat and meant consumption in the 1800s obesity, diabetes and many other modern diets were comparatively rare.

And insulin drives a lower basal metabolic rate

On the japanese exercise front, yes exercise is beneficial and is one way to burn off some energy but it primarily functions by maintaining hormonal levels and a better basal metabolic rate.

But it wasn't my point, The data I saw points to insulin reducing metabolic rate and it wasn't limited to one rat trial

>>15805733
* and to note, "keto" is a misnomer, since it only takes place when the krebs cycle doesn't have sufficient acess to oxaloacetate (from carbs or protein) the only ones who seem to actively aim for a ketogenic state are those doing it for psychological health benefits otherwise it''s just a transition stage until the body refines its fat burning system

What I'm more interested in at the moment is what triggers the body to generate fructose to cause the uric acid production to go up and the subsequent effects on fat stoage and blood pressure. I know of high salt diets, hypoxia and dehydration, but there may be an effect from glucose.

>>15805452
>Insulin promotes fat storage
This is also a very wild and bizarre claim. Fat storage is always a function of calorie intake. Doesn't matter what we momentarily store at the time of feeding as long as we expend that energy later
I managed to lose almost 96lbs on a ~70% carb diet, so obviously insulin wasn't a dealbreaker for that kind of thing
>He thought this was strange since people on a low carb diet seem to voluntarily reduce their energy consumption to around 1500cals while living perfectly normal lives
Maybe they reduce energy expenditure by moving less. The Minnesota experiment included mandatory exercise, so participants couldn't just lower their activity levels to match their low caloric intake. The average person barely burns through 2k calories a day, so a 1500-calorie diet is just a 500-calorie deficit, which isn't a big deal

I'm more interested in this Paul Mason guy. So he developed insulin resistance, then went low carb. Did that actually help him? A real treatment would increase his insulin sensitivity again, not just hide it under the hood by going low carb forever

>>15805650
There's a ton of research that implicates saturated fat outside of Ancel Key's work. Stop getting your science from hacks like your picrel

>>15805764
I don't know, Dr Mason mentioned it somewhat briefly, I brought it up as anecdotal, I'm not particularly interested in the argument over whether you can fix type 2 diabetes or not.

>Maybe they reduce energy expenditure by moving less. The Minnesota experiment included mandatory exercise, so participants couldn't just lower their activity levels to match their low caloric intake
I think the exercise requirement was only a 3 mile walk.
I'd have to track down the source I heard about the low carb equivalent but I imagine they were doing more than that.
but the minnesota guys described feeling perpetually cold whih suggests a lack of endogenous heat production, while the low carb guys didn't but to go further I'd need to go back and find the source and fin details.

>>15805768
There have certainly been a lot of studies trying to find a link. imited results.
Because of his religiously inspired bias against meat, Keys missed out on a lot of interesting results from his cross country study

>>15805780
>imited
limited

>>15805777
>suggests a lack of endogenous heat production,
Suggests a large calorie deficit, as evidenced by their rapid weight loss. This isn't unusual, any large calorie deficit causes side effects like this

>>15805780
No one cares about observational studies from decades ago, the field has long moved past Keys. The only people who care about him are youtubers pushing keto as a magical diet

>>15805801
Keto is a misnomer for a transition stage outside of a very specific diet structure to produce ketones for the brain to use, It's a different concept to low carb.

>>15805797
Stop being a deflecting faggot. why are low carbers fine on a calorie intake that is starvation level for high carb diet?

>>15805825
I have no idea how much of a deficit the low carbers were on, how do you expect a discussion without the most basic background info?

>>15805829
Ok anon while I try to find the actual details why don't you work it out assuming comparable activity levels to the 22 mile walk/run a week of the minnesota starvation experiment because that's what they described. Then posit what you would expect to happen on a total daily calorie consumption of 1500

>>15779625
Read this paper please.
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903
Atheroscelosis amongst the Masai
George V Mann et al 1972

>>15805768
I mean, I was referred to that book by my dad, who switched to a carnivore diet two years ago and has not experienced any inflammation in his body, since. Of course, I have questioned his diet, since you’re usually at risk of vitamin deficiencies from just eating meat, but apparently he’s been at his healthiest in 30 years.
My mom is experimenting with a not-as-extreme method of the diet, as well, by including some vegetables, since she has her own doubts about it. She’s no longer as risk of being a type 2 diabetic.
I’m not confident enough to say meat and fat is the way to go, but they’re avoiding sugar and carbohydrates, for the most part, which will reduce your likelihood of getting fat – especially when you start exercising.

>>15805878
>but apparently he’s been at his healthiest in 30 years.
have him test his ldl
>but they’re avoiding sugar and carbohydrates, for the most part, which will reduce your likelihood of getting fat
No, you stop being fat by eating less. Doesn't matter how you eat less, it's all calories. It's great they did it by going low carb, but that doesn't mean carbs are bad. They just don't have the willpower to regulate their diet without extreme restrictions
You can lose weight on a 100% carb diet, it's all down to calories

>>15805890
>No, you stop being fat by eating less
Right, right; I’m a fucking idiot for not considering that when I made that post, but I do believe they are watching how much they eat, as well.

>>15805890
Fat composition changes with macro intake, and being skinny fat is marginally healthier than being fat fat.

>>15805898
Yeah, protein matters a lot for preventing lean mass loss when dieting. Exercise is also great for keeping more lean mass and losing more fat mass. I usually aim for 0.8-1 gram of protein per pound when dieting, which usually takes like 25% of my calories

>>15805890
>No, you stop being fat by eating less. Doesn't matter how you eat less, it's all calories. It's great they did it by going low carb, but that doesn't mean carbs are bad. They just don't have the willpower to regulate their diet without extreme restrictions
>You can lose weight on a 100% carb diet, it's all down to calories

>a calorie is a calorie
>calories in calories out
no, the format the energy you consume takes whether the various sugars or coplex, sugar, lipids or from protein all cause important and distinct effects on your phisiology.
for example If you eat sugars your body will go into storage mode, raise uric acid, reduce nitric oxide , preparing for winter using what it thinks is an autumn glut of ripe fruit to pile on fat reserves

>>15805917
There is no clinical evidence suggesting this. All clinical trials that put low carb vs high carb while equating for their calorie deficit and protein intake found similar rates of weight loss

>>15805925
I can't comment on the specifics of that, but who felt hungrier while doing it?

>>15805910
Decreasing lean muscle loss is important. Not to mention that a diet heavy in processed carbohydrates and refined sugars can result in diabetes no matter if you're at ideal weight or not.

>>15805873
Ok, so i skimmed it quickly, but I'll reread it thoroughly later
The average age was 44 years, which is kinda young compared to your average heart disease patient
Most of the patients had atherosclerosis, but they were so fit that their arteries expanded, so they maintained good function
The one patient over 60 had significant fibrosis, which is a red flag
Their total cholesterol levels were 150mg/ml, which is within the guidelines
I'm guessing the prevalence of atherosclerosis and the advanced fibrosis in the older dude is because they had really high LDL, near 100, but they didn't measure that unfortunately
Overall, this is an observational study, so no conclusions can be drawn from it. But given that the one dude who survived to old age had advanced atherosclerosis, it doesn't look good

>>15805934
I think low carbers in general felt more satiated, but their diet adherence was more or less the same in the long run
Some people adhered better to the low carb diet, others adhered better to higher carb diet. Those with the best diet adherence had the best results

>>15805937
Yes, the tolerance for refined carbs is a flat 0, no one should be eating them at all

>>15805947
that includes flour

>>15805947
Does that include flour or other grains?

>>15805955
Yes, that includes anything made from wheat flour or any other type of flour
Grains are fine if cooked from scratch at home. But if they're processed in some way, they're bad

>>15805957
What about rolled oats?

>>15805958
Oats are grains, they follow the same rule. They're fine if cooked at home. Rolling isn't really processing them, it's just a convenient form for handling them

>>15805962
What is your perspective on PUFA seed oils?

>>15805965
All clinical trials that did diet substitutions between different types of fat found PUFAs to be healthy.
I'm indifferent about seed oils, but I really don't see how one can be getting more than 200 cal/day from them even when pushing it. The people who get a significant amount of calories from them must be mega fatties
I generally avoid oils and get most of my fats from nuts and eggs

>>15805973
What about omega 6 like linoleic acid and all of its breakdown products?

>>15805856
I estimated the calorie deficit of the Minnesota experiment to be ~840 calories per day. I'm guessing this is why they were very tired and cold after 6 months. If low carbers had a similar deficit for a similar time period without feeling bad, that might be something interesting to look into

>>15805979
Same story, nothing bad popped up in the clinical trials I looked at. Only saturated fatty acids, trans fatty acids, and refined carbs were atherosclerotic

>>15805982
I'm sorry I can't find the source I read it from, it was a couple of months go and I apparently didn't make a note of it or save a link.
If I come across it again while the thread is still up I'll link it.

>>15805733
>Diabetics are clearly sick and have to avoid carbs by necessity because their regulatory options are broken. but what is it about the modern diet is making people diabetic when despite high fat and meant consumption in the 1800s obesity, diabetes and many other modern diets were comparatively rare.
It was a lot of meat or a lot of carbs, rarely both. They had winter and famine to deal with in the winter. It's only dangerous year-round. Having access to food all the time is a recent phenomenon. Previously, only the wealthy had access to all they could eat, and not surprisingly they were usually fat. Famine has been the biggest issue throughout human history, not overeating. Processed food is another issue, but even then I'm not sure it's a big deal if the person doesn't overconsume.

>On the japanese exercise front, yes exercise is beneficial and is one way to burn off some energy but it primarily functions by maintaining hormonal levels and a better basal metabolic rate.
I don't really like calling it exercise even though I used that word originally. We're humans, we're supposed to be physically active. Exercise is an addition, and something we can do because we have so much food. Previously it was simply a part of living. If you wanted food, you used a hell of a lot of energy to get it. There was a trade off. Now there's none, not physically anyway.

I'm not sure diet is a huge deal frankly. There's a lot of different ways to eat, and each way probably only adds or takes away a little bit from our life. It's getting enough calories and micronutrients for surviving, and not a lot more. If everyone had to walk several miles to each meal and had a choice of either meat or carbs, they'd probably be fine either way.

>>15805825
>why are low carbers fine on a calorie intake that is starvation level for high carb diet?
Actually I know some keto proponents who have lost weight, but they're also freezing. The benefit of low carb is you can eat a lot of calories without spiking insulin, which results in either weight loss, or not gaining weight. I'm on the thin side and continued to lose on carnivore even when I would have preferred to gain. It wasn't for me, but I can see the appeal.

>>15805878
>I was referred to that book by my dad, who switched to a carnivore diet two years ago and has not experienced any inflammation in his body
I've heard that and didn't get the same benefit. So I think carnivore benefits food allergies that cause inflammation (ultra-elimination diet), or aid in weight loss, there's other autoimmune conditions too. I question the benefit long term, like decades, but what's it matter if the person has major problems that will take decades off their lives anyway?

>I’m not confident enough to say meat and fat is the way to go, but they’re avoiding sugar and carbohydrates, for the most part, which will reduce your likelihood of getting fat – especially when you start exercising.
Well whole food, plant based people have some amazing testimonials too, and they eat a lot of starch and fruit. I'm fine with whatever a person prefers, it's all better than the current recommended diet that led to an obesity epidemic.

>>15805890
>No, you stop being fat by eating less. Doesn't matter how you eat less, it's all calories.
At its core, but the biggest loser contestants proved you can force yourself into starvation mood and tank your metabolism long term. Improved thyroid will also increase calories burned, so there's a window of a few hundred calories that can make a big different long term.

>>15806023
>Well whole food, plant based people have some amazing testimonials too, and they eat a lot of starch and fruit
Have you heard of guy called mcdougal?

>>15806030
The Starch Diet, yeah. Sounds a little boring, but it's turned some lives around. Some people have the genes and gut bacteria to handle a lot of starch. Others get diarrhea or bloating even from a little starch, though some of that could be due to dietary fat, but I know people that tried to make all starch work and failed. It's weird, some things work great but never for everyone.

>>15806030
nta, but isn't this the vegan "all fats are evil" guy?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RprGtr_cHlY
34 minutes in quite an interesting description of healh among the egyptians on their primarily wheat based diet

>>15776810
It is immediately obvious that eggs are healthy because it contains everything a sperm cell needs to turn into a chicken. I am not a chicken of course, so I prefer to slurp my gf’s period discharge.

>>15806036
>>15806037
>all fats are evil guy
Yeah, he pushed a programme called "the starch solution". He based it oon his experience with the diets of banana plantation workers.
eat as much starch as you want and pretty much eliminate all fat sources
If you take a look at his ted talk from ten years ago and compare it to videos of him now the decline in his health is quite impressive.
I'm not sure how old he is exactly but the past decade hit him pretty hard.

>>15806049
I generally vibe with vegans like that because I prefer a low fat diet myself. But the way they bend over backwards to demonize fat and protein is retarded. I bet all his muscles are wasting away

>>15806081
2012
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d5wfMNNr3ak
random vid from 2023
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_iOy0czWqVk

His muscle mass is possibly in the negatives

>>15805982
I've still not found the yudkin piece but I came across this.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3564212/
>The results of this study challenge the notion that a calorie is a calorie from a metabolic perspective. During isocaloric feeding following weight loss, REE was 67 kcal/d greater with the VLC diet compared to the LF diet. TEE differed by about 300 kcal/d between these two diets, an effect corresponding to the amount of energy typically expended in 1 hour of moderate-intensity physical activity.

>>15806049
>I'm not sure how old he is exactly but the past decade hit him pretty hard.
He's a pretty good example that all starch is probably not great for the body.

>>15806195
What's that reaction between glucose and protein that turns toast brown?
That's basically happening inside your body.

>>15805982
found the yudkin paper
STOCK, ANNE L.; YUDKIN, JOHN (1970). Nutrient Intake of Subjects on Low Carbohydrate Diet Used in Treatment of Obesity. The American Journal of Clinical Nutrition, 23(7), 948–952. doi:10.1093/ajcn/23.7.948

>>15806226
But it stands to reason that even with the same glucose level, if you double the protein you're going to get more reaction, which is what happens with carnivore. And then there's dietary fat, which in high amounts damages the endothelium. We're kind of fucked no matter what we eat. That said, the pancreas can manage glucose under the right circumstances, so I lean toward eating more glucose and maximizing glucose sensitivity.

>>15806247
I don't think I buy that argument.
Blood sugar spikes are going to be the biggest driver. the body tolerates only a tiny amount of glucose in the blood before trying to suppress it.
Very low glycemic load foods (not glycemic index since it ignores stuff like fructose) should be our objective.

>>15806259
>Blood sugar spikes are going to be the biggest driver. the body tolerates only a tiny amount of glucose in the blood before trying to suppress it.
Pretty much anything over 100 mg/dL seems to increase AGEs. You're stuck with pure keto, except the dietary fats also damage the endothelium. So eating carbs while having little rise in blood glucose is probably the ideal (although pro-Keto'ers would argue insulin must still go up, but I don't see that as a negative in and of itself if it goes back down). There's a genetic component to that, Asians tend to do better with starch. There's also the effect of gut flora on glucose control. I just try to eat a decent diet which is a mix of macros. I've done keto/carnivore and WFPB and felt less than ideal on both. I'm thin so whatever...

>>15776810
No. See picrel

>>15807029
Based.

>>15807029
What about duvet covers, do they cause heart disease?

>>15805878
nearly all meat is a good diet, kinda expensive. i like to mix in some fresh fruit too and whatever else i can grow in my garden.
i was in line at the butcher shop today behind a guy buying $80/lb veal.

>>15806129
>REE was 67 kcal/d greater with the VLC diet
67 calories is not a meaningful difference. But I read the whole thing to see how they calculated it. They used indirect calorimetry (basically putting stable isotopes in their water to measure their excretion rate, and estimating the TEE from that)
This is a problem for very low carb diets because these diets deplete glycogen, which retains water if present. This excess loss of water is a confounding variable for this measurement method. A much more accurate analysis would have been to use a metabolic chamber for a direct measurement (this is already a know confounder for low carb diets, and Ludwig has been criticized on that before)
But regardless, 67 calories is not worth fussing about, this is barely 2 spoonfuls of food

The other issue is the bullshit they pulled off in their metabolic syndrome claims
The low fat diet resulted in the highest insulin sensitivity, which contradicted Ludwig's claims in many previous studies
He pivots to talking about how low carb has the highest HDL and lowest trigs, but we already know that both markers are poor predictors of heart disease (the best predictor is LDL particle count)
And sure enough, no mention of LDL whatsoever, because it will obviously be elevated on a very low carb diet
He also noticed that the low carb diet elevates both CRP and cortisol, both markers of inflammation, which contradicts their earlier claims too (not that it matters, because both aren't predictors of heart disease, it's just an inconsistency in their claims)

>>15806235
This one is much less interesting. They asked participants to list their own food intake, which isn't really accurate
Their main investigation was about nutrient adequacy, which may have been a concern at the time, but isn't one now. We know that low carb diets can be nutritious if well planned

Their claims about hyperlipidemia not being a concern are outdated (this came out in the 1970s after all). Their rebuttal to this inadequacy was that the saturated fat intake of this diet is the same as "normal" diets, but we know now that the standard American diet is shit, so that rebuttal is kinda silly

Their calorie deficit was ~770, which is close to the Minnesota starvation experiment. But they only dieted for 2 weeks (Minnesota was 6 months). And this was a free-living study, the participants weren't required to exercise and their movement wasn't tracked in any way, so it's not a surprise that they didn't feel any fatigue

>>15808431
I went and rechecked the Minnesota experiment. Those boys were getting something like a 90% carb diet to simulate the piss poor conditions on the frontlines. So very little protein and fat. Low protein + running + a big calorie deficit for 6 month means they probably lost a ton of muscles, which explains the fatigue and feeling of cold. I dunno why I didn't think of this before
The boys in the paper you linked were muuuch more well fed in comparison

>>15808411
I came across something similar using those heat measuring rooms, there's possibly some effect there but I don't know

>>15808431
>>15808446
The Minnesota experiment was pretty extreme wasn't it? harrowing conditions I wonder how you could get it passed an ethics board today?

>>15808361
>$80/lb veal
Was it rose or white veal?

>>15808457
>I came across something similar using those heat measuring rooms, there's possibly some effect there but I don't know
The effect was tiny iirc, something like 100 calories max, so it's not worth fussing over. It just ticks me off because my lab published a paper that criticizes Ludwig for this confounder, but he completely shrugged us off
>harrowing conditions I wonder how you could get it passed an ethics board today?
They did all sorts of unethical research for the sake of ww2. When shit hits the fan, ethics goes out the window

>>15808468
>but he completely shrugged us off
It's frustrating when people just dismiss or ignore your work.

This whole nutrition field is overwhelmed by either ideologues or industrial interests, it's difficult to divine what's valid and wahat isn't.

btw does absolute ldl matter more or less than type a vs type b?

>>15808478
Technically, it's all particles that have an ApoB protein. So LDL, sd-LDL, oxLDL, IDL, VLDL, they are all atherogenic. If it has an ApoB protein, it can cause issues

>>15808482
Don't all the lipoproteins have the same protein recepter? I thought it was what make them a lipooprotein, sdLDL/oxLDL are the distortions that get mopped up by the foam cells.

What has your reading found about how the body handles plant sterols? Someone said the body tries to handle them like cholesterols but has a problem

>>15808487
If it was just a receptor issue, HDL levels would have had an impact on the problem. But there have been clinical trials on meds that modulate HDL levels, and they did nothing. LDL being oxidized is inevitable because all metabolism is an oxidative stress on the body
This is why I take issue with the claims about inflammation being causal for heart disease. It's technically true, but we can't have 0 inflammation, it's an inevitable side effect of being alive. Best we can do is avoid the atherogenic lipoproteins
>What has your reading found about how the body handles plant sterols? Someone said the body tries to handle them like cholesterols but has a problem
Didn't really read anything much about them
I vaguely remember reading something about certain saturated fatty acids being worse than others, something about palmitic being the worst one. But the author was one of those die hard vegan shills, so I was skeptical

>>15808517
From what I remember they said phytosterols from seedoils were associated with plaques and calcification of the heart also that the body tries to use them like cholesterol to synthesise vitamin d but it doesn't work right.
And something about red blood cells being the most cholesterol dense cell thing in the body and as such the can cause disruption there too.
I should keep better notes it would make finding half heard references easier

>>15776810
>have heart
>heart has big Arteries
>small capillarries (that get ignored)
>collateral Arteries (that get ignored)
>majority of heart attack, without any "blockage" or stenosis (that gets ignored)
>but please trust us avoid [natural product] that does not require huge supply chains and chem industry involvement
>it blocks your heart
>trust us it has nothing to do with the fact that the heart can be simply exhausted or acidic >trust us it has nothing to do with the parasympathetic nervoussystem
>trust us, even though we know poisons that stop the heart, do not cause a "blockage" but fuck up your nervoussystem
>trust us it has nothing to do with the microdosing of neurotoxins we push on the plebs via pills, food and vaccines
>its the eggs and butter
>its the LDL and meme cholesterols
>its all the memes but not the fact that your nervoussystem regulates your heart
>ignored that people die from heart attacks induced by psychological shocks or long term psychological stress which result in a Parasympathetic rebound
>please ignore all the modern civilisatory influences on the nervoussystem of the humans
>trust me its is the EGGS!!!

>>15808517
>>15808487
>>15808482

You mongolid retards, this ADL, HDL meme shit, is a meme to sell:
> Atorvastatin, Fluvastatin, Lovastatin, Pitavastatin, Pravastatin, Rosuvastatin, Simvastatin.

Cholesterol is a fundamental buildingblock of all hormones from cortisol, to testosterone to Vitamin D.
If you fuck up your bodies metabolism and reservior of cholesterol, your hormones go to shit.
And "evidence based medicine" is the biggest scam to sell you retarded stories about [insert common healthy thing] is actually bad for you, to sell you shit that is actually bad for you. There is big interest of chem corps to ensure all food involves highly complex supply chains and chemistry involvement to ensure a distribution of "stops" and "jobs" until a product reaches to customer.

Evidence refers to any information, facts, data, or materials that are presented or used to support or demonstrate the truth or validity of a claim or proposition. It can take various forms, such as documents, testimonies, scientific studies, photographs, or any other relevant information that provides support or suggests(!!!!) the likelihood of something being true. Evidence is used to build a case or support an argument, but it does not necessarily guarantee the truth or conclusiveness of the claim, yet it is often exploided.
The cholesterol bullshit is a "evidence based" scam.

People consumed butter and eggs and animal fats since thousands of years, but only since WWII it became "bad for the heart"...
Not the deep frying shit, not the palm oil and sneed oils, not the sugars high availability of caffein, not the overusage of "painkiller" meds or magic pills that make you "sleep" or "calm you down" like vioxx, bextra and all the crap.

>>15806087
he's so full of shit it's unreal

>>15808960
I believe him in the second vid at 3m 40s when he says that half of vegans are overweight.

>>15808675
>all the evidence is bullshit
>trust me bro

Ok, so what the fuck you do do/eat to lower LDL then?

>>15809075
Which LDL do you want to lower?

>>15809083
The one that shows up in blood tests along with triglycerides

>>15809086
remove refined carbohydrates especially fructose and alcohol, along with seed oils from your diet.

>>15809093
>fructose
So fruits are bad for you?

>>15809075
No refined carbs, keep saturated fats under 7% of calories. That's it

>>15809095
That's a complex topic the fibre content of fruit and other important components like vitamin c uptake competition inherently reduce the available fructose from being absorbed into your blood stream.
if possible eat fruit only seasonally and a little under ripe apparently species like bears that use fruit to build fat stores to hibernate on, like their fruit very ripe and mushy because more of the fructose has been released..
Fruit juices are pure liberated sugar so reduce those to.
Most processed foods have sugar hidden in them too so watch out for that

Something I've been looking into recenly is a pathway involving uric acid that where the body naturally generates a feedback loop to generate fructose endogenously to achieve certain metabolic endpoints such as water retention or energy storage. It suggests avoiding excessive salt consumption without enough water can mimic the effects of dehydration, so avod salty snacks and get healthy sleep and some exercise

>>15809121
>anti animal fat
>no mention of sneed oils

>>15809146
have as much animal fat as you want, just keep the saturated one under 7%

>>15776810
DOES
NOT
FUCKING
MATTER
i will not change my diet because the jew say something this week and the opposite of it the next week.
all dietary experts should be fucking hanged and their followers should kill themselves.

>>15809244
So eat fish?

>>15809280
Sure, eat whatever as long as it's not refined carbs

>>15809095
no. its not a complex topic either >>15809122 is just a mentally ill blowhard

>>15809046
You can look at it yourself.
Ancel Keys and the lipid "hypothesis".
It was a hypothesis based on a Epidimio-illocigal study of country, to "correlate" the incidence of heart diseases with cholesterol.

And he literally just excluded the countries in which:
>high colesterol => low heart diseases
>low colesterol => high heart diseses

Thats it. "Evidence" is not "proof beyond reasonable doubt".
Evidence is the collection of "documents", no matter how flawed they are. You simply bend this until it fits the hypothesis.
And when people "agree" then it is deemed "evidence" but not proof.

Heart diseases rapidly increased everywhere, after "food rationing" because of wars.
Food rationing means:
>taking away egs, butter and milk
>giving them wheat and magarine and sneed oils

Since the Agricultural adjustement act the govermnet especcially in the US got highly involved the "regulating" of the diet of the common men, which results in the issues you see today.
Before they consumed all types of animal fats, and had no blood pressure or heart problems.
But after WWII everyone almost everywhere had to drop traditional food for a replacement with söycumsized food.

Read "Pathology of the Heart and Sudden Death in Forensic Medicine". Its about 50 years of pathology of "heart attacks" in which they tried to verify that "colesterol" is a the mayor cause of heart problems.
Which it isn't.

>>15810238
>Ancel Keys and the lipid "hypothesis".
Ancel keys did an observational study almost 80 years ago
None of the conclusions available in the field right now rely on observational studies. There are mountains of experimental research on this issue
Ffs stop getting your science off of youtube. This is the only place where people care about a dead dude from 80 years ago

>>15810249
please provide a scientific study with clinical endpoints and clear and disclosed methodology, which demonstrates the causality of the consumption of colesterol and the result of increased heart disease.

>>15810014
too much fruit is bad for you

>>15810014
I won't necessarily dispute the accusation but whether fruit or modern fruit is healthy for you is a complerx question because modern fruit is increasingly sweeter and with fewer of the other components like fibre that would balance it

>>15810279
>consumption of colesterol
saturated fat, not dietary cholesterol
I posted the following studies like a week ago, but might as well recap them here

ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
When you replace saturated fat with complex carbs or unsaturated fat, LDL goes down. This was done in metabolic wards, no observational shit, so the diets were controlled

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-660
27-4
To determine the causality of LDL for heart disease, they did something called a Mendelian randomization analysis. It stratifies people according to their genetic polymorphisms that increase or decrease LDL, and monitor for outcomes. Same was done for HDL and Trigs. Turns out only LDL is causal for heart disease
That means those susceptible to have high LDL get heart disease, and vice versa. Other lipid parameters were not causal. This is the strongest form of analysis you could find out there

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903
Also, when you examine people eating "ancestral diets" that have too much animal fat, they do show plenty of atherosclerosis as early as their 40s. The one dude who survived to his 60s had plenty of fibrosis already

>>15810344
>https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903
>The Masai vessels enlarge with age to more than compensate for this disease. It is speculated that the Masai are protected from their atherosclerosis by physical fitness which causes their coronary vessels to be capacious.

>>15810347
>speculated
They still had plenty of atherosclerosis
Physical activity is good, nobody contests that, but it doesn't stop atherosclerosis. Also all these dudes were still in their 40s (only 1 guy made it to his 60s, and he had legit fibrosis). Atherosclerosis is progressive, it would have become worse had they survived longer

>>15810348
I wonder if there are any historical general mortality studies of the masai that simply tracked cause of death?

>>15810344
>ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2125600/
>When you replace saturated fat with complex carbs or unsaturated fat, LDL goes down. This was done in metabolic wards, no observational shit, so the diets were controlled

This is not a study with clinical endpoints for any desired outcome but only lab parameters, with no corelation whatsoever to an outcome.

>https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-020-660
27-4
To determine the causality of LDL for heart disease, they did something called a Mendelian randomization analysis. It stratifies people according to their genetic polymorphisms that increase or decrease LDL, and monitor for outcomes. Same was done for HDL and Trigs. Turns out only LDL is causal for heart disease

Still no clinical finding nor correlation with the consumption of product, with increase of LDL in blood, nor that food causes problems.

No assertion IF LDL is a marker for inflamation, or a metabolite of other inflamatory process.
It is just assumed that it is a cause of le "Animal fats" when they use this study as a reference.

Again where is the proof beyond reasonable doubt that "animal fats" cause the problems?
In this study
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/1679034

Is absolutely retarded

>>15810414
>This is not a study with clinical endpoints for any desired outcome but only lab parameters, with no corelation whatsoever to an outcome.
Yes, this one only shows the link between saturated fat and LDL, the other study handles that part
>Still no clinical finding nor correlation with the consumption of product, with increase of LDL in blood, nor that food causes problems.
That's what the first study is for anon...
Are you that bad at adding 1 and 2 together?
>No assertion IF LDL is a marker for inflamation, or a metabolite of other inflamatory process.
LDL is a metabolite of VLDL, and both are just parts of the lipid metabolism of the body
And nobody has conducted any analysis that suggests that inflammation is causal for heart disease anyway. There is only some mechanistic speculation about why it has a correlation with heart disease. LDL on the other hand appears as the culprit in a causal inference analysis like mendelian randomization
When use markers of inflammation as predictors of heart disease (like CRP), they have piss poor performance
>It is just assumed that it is a cause of le "Animal fats" when they use this study as a reference.
Saturated fats, regardless of source. It's just as bad if you get it from coconut oil or something

>>15810414
>In this study
>https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/1679034
This link isn't working btw

>>15810369
idk, but I wouldn't bet on it. Cohort studies with somewhat decent controls are a very recent thing
I think there was a study about the Eskimos that claimed a very low rate of heart disease among them, but just like the masai study, they lived shorter lives and their arteries were just as atherosclerotic when examined

>>15776810
it ain't no going back when arteries start to squeeze

>>15810420
>>15810428

This is absolutely retarded.
If no proof of consumption of natural animal fats:
> a) increases the LDL
> b) have a consistent bad outcome related to increased LDL levels caused by consumption of animal fats

the equivocation of LDL or other Lab parameters with food like butter or eggs, is absolutely retarded.
All you cells and tissues are composed of colesterol and its metabolites.
The rise in blood cholesterol levels can also be caused by inflamation or acidosis or tissue damage, meaning the cholesterol level is the symptom and mechanism of repair of a already damaged system and does not "cause" damage to the system.

>>15810428
>>https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/1679034
>This link isn't working btw
https://academic.oup.com/aje/article-abstract/95/1/26/167903

This tanzania study was conducted in 1972.
And guess also happened in 1950s-1970s in Tanzania.

The WHO decided to spray down everyone with new and old pesticides...
such as DDT, BHC and PCB (which all fuck up your circulatory system)
https://www.mdpi.com/2227-9059/11/9/2427

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/34290045/
>Open Heart - Noakes 2021
>Hiding unhealthy heart outcomes in a low-fat diet trial: the Women's Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial finds that postmenopausal women with established coronary heart disease were at increased risk of an adverse outcome if they consumed a low-fat 'heart-healthy' diet

wut?

>>15810542
>If no proof of consumption of natural animal fats:
> a) increases the LDL
You were presented with a meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies that show exactly that. When we replace saturated fat with the same amount of calories from complex carbs and unsaturated fats, LDL goes down
Give your reasoning for why their results are invalid
>b) have a consistent bad outcome related to increased LDL levels caused by consumption of animal fats
Elevated levels of LDL are atherogenic regardless of the source
If you eat animal fat but you're genetically hypolipidemic, you won't get anything because you won't produce enough LDL
If you eat minimal fat, but you're genetically hyperlipidemic, you'll still get heart disease
Your arteries don't care about the source, they only care about the LDL particles in your bloodstream
>All you cells and tissues are composed of colesterol and its metabolites.
No one is arguing that cholesterol is bad
The ApoB lipid carrier particle itself is the atherogenic element. The cholesterol and triglycerides it carries are innocent
>The rise in blood cholesterol levels can also be caused by inflamation or acidosis or tissue damage
Momentary fluctuations are irrelevant for any marker of any disease. The average longterm levels are what matters, and those are determined by your diet
Plaque formation in the arteries precedes inflammation and calcification by a long time, sometimes by decades. If it precedes them, it's not caused by them
>And guess also happened in 1950s-1970s in Tanzania
I don't care about your schizo conspiracies

>>15809095
No. Actual, physical fruits are high in fiber. This makes them relatively filling and thus it's unlikely that you will consume unhealthy amounts of sugar from them alone. You would have to eat a metric shitton of fruit for it to be an issue which is likely will not happen

Fruit juice, on the other hand, is more controversial

>>15810639
Sounds like a lot of made up hyptheticals to ensure that statins will be prescribed.

>>15810790
Statins are fucking nasty, and fuck your brain. Anyone prescribing them needs gelding with a brick.

>>15810790
If someone is fucked up enough to need statins, it's too late already. It's like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. It helps a bit, but it's not a real treatment

>>15810639
What do you think of the framingham study and their conclusion that the best calculation was total cholersterol divided by hdl level?
https://www.cooperinstitute.org/blog/framingham-heart-study-use

>>15810964
There is some nuance to that. They're right, TC/HDL is the most sensitive marker, but the least specific one. It can make lots of right predictions, but it also makes a lot of wrong predictions
ApoB is the most specific marker (least % of false positives)
If you wanna min-max the stats, ApoB/ApoA gives you the best sensitivity to specificity ratio
But the added cost of ApoB tests is just way too silly to justify. TC/HDL is still gonna be the best bang for the buck the insurance companies can get, so it's probably not going anywhere

>>15810608
Free-living trials always give retarded results like that, that why epidemiology sucks and should be taken with a grain of salt
If you read the actual numbers, you'll realize why. The intervention group reduced their LDL from 133 to 123 ... so basically reduced it by nothing. They were still in the high-risk category after the intervention
When you look at the dietary changes, they reduced saturated fat from ~12% to ~10%, way above the 7% cutoff of the guidelines
Worse yet, they replaced this saturated fat by 1 serving of veggies (good), 1 serving of refined carbs (bad), and 1 less serving nuts (also bad)

If you want to see what's happening under the hood, you need to stratify the results by saturated fat reduction%, which is what the original WHI study did
>Compared with those in the entire comparison group, a trend was observed toward reduction of CHD risk among those in the intervention group who reached the lowest levels of saturated fat (HR, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.69-0.96 in the group that consumed <6.1% energy; P<.001
This was published in the original WHI trial, but the dude who wrote the study you linked needs to sell his low carb books (not joking, look at his conflicts of interest), so he omitted that part

I'm confused because my mother apparently has really terrible cholesterol levels but my problem is this
Wouldn't the logical thing to do if her cholesterol was a serious risk be to get her to adopt a very high intensity low fat diet and then test her cholesterol levels in say, 6 months or less and then see what to do next?
Instead they just told her to reduce the amount of animal fats she consumed and the amount of eggs
That seems like very ambiguous and ineffective advice to me and I feel like the advice should be to provide a goal (the next blood test) that she can reach through dieting instead of just minor lifestyle changes

>>15811121
Those book titles almost sound like parody.

>>15776810
maybe it does, maybe it doesn't
but where's the proof that heart disease is actually bad for you and not the heart repairing itself from all the toxins in food, vaccines, the air, water, pretty much everywhere?

>>15811277
>Instead they just told her to reduce the amount of animal fats she consumed and the amount of eggs
This is the meme interpretation of dietary guidelines that most doctors fall for. If she reduces fat and replaces it with refined carbs, she'll still have just as high cholesterol as before, which is how most people end up on statins even if they catch their high cholesterol early
The average doctor doesn't know shit about nutrition. If they read that saturated fat is problematic, they ignore the "saturated" part and instead demonize all fats. They also still think that dietary cholesterol is the same as serum cholesterol. Some of them even fall for meme diets like keto, carnivore, and vegan
Your mom would be better off if she actually reads the guidelines herself

elevated LDL causes heart disease, this is a fact in the field of epidemiology and bio chem. the more trig and LDL particles in the blood stream the more plaque builds up. what causes this? saturated fat and too much fat in the diet. sugar is not the culprit here. that doesnt mean you can eat as much sugar as you want. the science is clear. they are correlative, but the physiology is so complex you cant account for everything. let me know if you want me to link studies reversing CVD by all rice diet and all potato diet by dean ornish out of duke uni

>>15811836
bullshit

>>15811836
>this is a fact in the field of epidemiology and bio chem

no it isn't they have some data.
Of that data they apply exclusion criteria and memes to have some pitfalls to keep on going with shifting the goalpost from "LDL" to "LP(a)" etc.
So they never PROVE the causality.
They establish only a vague connection and then get smaller and smaller and smaller everytime.
>It's not all LDL its the subgroup
>its not the subgroup it's the genetic meme that interacts with the subgroup
>its not the subgroup with genetics its a invisible hypothetical meme molecule that may exist in the LDL
etc. etc.

And they use huge amounts of buzzwordbingo lingo to make it appear "plausible" when there is no data to back it up.
>may, might but please give us more funding, I swear its the meme lipids
And then of course the next goalpost shift is:
> but the physiology is so complex you cant account for everything
Which is the absolute truth, which means: Nobody actually knows but we simply focus on cholesterol to prescribe statins, because with the downstream side effects of statins we can prescribe even more meds to deal with the side effects.
>fucks up testosterone
>fucks up tissues because it interferes with the cholesterol metabolism which is crucial to regenerate and build cells (because they are mostly build from it)
>fucks up the brain (which is the most cholesterol-rich organ of the body)
>fucks up the nervoussystem because the myelin (insulation layer of nerves) is made from cholesterol and collagen (which is also syntheticised from colesterol in combinations of sulfur and proteins)
Patients on statin therapy may develop a peripheral neuropathy, complaining of numbness, tingling, pain, and tremor at hands or feet, as well as unsteadiness during walking. All these symptoms are usually generated by a long-term therapy (which is default).

The downstream effects are a goldmine to turn patients into customers for life and increase social burden

>>15779884
Good book thanks for the rec
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=czUUrWdKoVc

>>15793015
>Even wrong isomer of vitamin can kill you
lol yeah and margarin is one molecule away from being plastic

but unless you eat truly bad/weird fats or actual plastic that argument is bunk

>>15811836
>elevated LDL causes heart disease,
What is the actual detailed mechanism behind this? How does cause atherosclerosis mechanistically, describe the process step by step I'm trying to get an understanding of this seemingly complex topic so I'd like to know how it causes the disease

>>15812005
You make it sound like there is some sort of back-and-forth in the field. In reality, the recommendations have been consistent for decades. Picrel is from the first version of the dietary guidelines 46 years ago. There are no goalposts, there are no vague connections, there is just a lot of schizos who insist that everything is a conspiracy to make them sick

>>15812511
>There are no goalposts, there are no vague connections, there is just a lot of schizos who insist that everything is a conspiracy to make them sick
You are wrong, the "schizos" are actually right, documents exist proving the roockefellers and their co-conspirators have been driving this agenda to destroy peoples health through for decades.

>>15812527
Then please do share them anon

>>15776810
OxLDL- Oxidized LDL from sneed oils does>>15811836

>>15811836
Why do you say too much fat in the diet?
The Mediterranean diet is one of the best diets for cholesterol and it's a high fat diet

>>15812511
>In reality, the recommendations have been consistent for decades

No, there is not "back and forth" there is always excuses of "whats ackshually" the cause, because just "saturated fats" were not even provable.
They always did memes and number crunshing and p-hacking to approximate the hypothesis:
>traditional diet with animal fats bad for you
>trust me its the eggs and butter and red meat etc.
>consoom onions and sneed oils
>oh sneed oils are also bad
>but now you do not have options because we already demonized animal fats
>please do not invest a single thought in the shitty emulsifiers and meds we sneaked into the food supply and day to day life of the people
>please do not even think about this may also fuck up the heart
>please ignore all the overprescribed and then some pulled of the market meds like vioxx and bextra and fentanyl and oxycodone etc.
>ignore this please
>please ignore how blood pressure regulating and blood thinner meds fuck up the ions in your blood which subsequently fuck up the metabolism and regeneration process of your body
>trust me its all the food
>ignore the aspirin and ibuprofen popping
>ignore the SSRIs and ADHD meds
>ignore the vaccines
>its the nature and natural foods that kill you

>>15813313
The goal of eating healthy is to avoid all of this crap in the first place. Meds won't do much when someone has been eating like shit all his life. The statins you vilify so much weren't even developed for fatties, they were developed for familial hypercholesterolemia (and were discovered after the guidelines became a thing). Using them for fatties with broken hearts is a relatively recent development, and it's mostly just a bandaid, diet and exercise still have a stronger effect
>oh sneed oils are also bad
This is also an online meme, all the decent RCTs done on seed oils show good results when they iso-calorically replace saturated fat or refined carbs
The average fatty in free living populations gets his sneed oils from ultraprocessed crap like chips and pastry, and he eats a fuckton of calories in the first place. If people stop eating like savages and cook at home, sneed oils are fine

Wanna see a real fuckin travesty, read a book called salt, sugar, and fat. Food companies are adding a fuckton of those in every processed piece of shit they sell to make it hyper-palatable, and they're doing that very openly. And the average person is sure as shit falling for it, eating more calories decade after decade because they have no self control

>>15813332
>ignore addatives
>ignore meds
>its just the macronutrients and calories
>trust me
>it has nothing to do with a buckload of factors like meds, emulsifiers, aspartame, other polysacharides, food colorings, trickle aid, binders, preservatices, vaccines, meds
>its simply the fat salt and sugar
>nothing else
>don't you dare to look

>>15813332
>seed oils
>high in omega 6 linoleic acid
>omega 6 breaks down to multiple toxic end products
you are full of shit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kGnfXXIKZM

>>15813381
>Unironically links a youtube video with a dude speculating about mechanisms
>From a channel that shills for 1 diet as a magic solution
>Disregards actual RCTs done on humans
Brainwashed
Stop falling for the memetube
>>15813358
Where have I said any of this ... I've been harping against all processed foods this entire post, and I'm against relying on meds for any substantial changes. You're arguing against yourself dude

>>15813453
I just typed in chris knobbe and that was the first that came up for me.
He's an eye doctor who found seed oils are associated with macular degeneration.

>>15813454
>associated
Good for him
Now show it happening in an RCT that rules out other confounders

Wait a fuckin minute
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0306987717305017
This is his only article ever published
It contains 0 data, he is literally just speculating about a hypothesis
Only 5 total citations in the last 6 years
And he has the fuckin audacity to say that he found an association ... What an utter clown

>>15812532
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R14b0ZSSSUM

>>15779884
aren't sneed oils the cause now?

>>15813691
>more memetube
The absolute state of /sci/ these days

>>15811836
saturated fat not unsaturated fats

but if you consume a surplus of oil youll have elevated trig which can cause cvd

>>15811925
you are full of shit nigger

/s

>>15813453
>Where have I said any of this
But you argue like it.
>muh monocausality
>muh LDL
>muh unproven monocausal meme
A thing that is beyond my comprehension is, the proven and clear fact that LDL makes up the majority of the cholesterol of our tissues, including the epithelium, nerves etc.
Yet when it starts circulating which mostly happens in parrallel to an inflamation, nobody even dares to question if this is a reparair mechanism or a clean up mechanism of the damage.

Meaning:
>cells damaged
>excess and discarded cholestrol gets transported away
>resources to repair getting transported to the damaged area
>VIA THE MAIN TRANSPORTATION MEDIUM OF OUR BODY: THE BLOOD

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/11528414/

Because it is a well known fact, that CHESTPAIN and angina is caused by the build up of lactic acid, which leads to an acidosis and subsequent inflamation of the heart and circulatory system because duh you are now acidic.

Yet acidosis is treated like it is never a thing and is only diagnosed when it is in an acute dangerous state, but never when it is in a subacute yet chronic state.

It's absolutely retarded to conclude that digested fats, which never cause a problem, suddenly cause a problem only when patient has a problem. But otherwise it is "asymptomatic" or some shit.
They and YOU pretend to know that there is a causality between the digestion of fat and damage of the circulatory system only based on the observation that:
>circulation of cholesterols conincide with inflamation
And from that place just speculate that it comes from le eggs, meat and dairy.
The fucking retarded state of pop söyence.

>>15814767
>muh monocausality
There are other factors that don't relate to diet composition, like obesity, insulin resistance, and high blood pressure. But that's outside of the scope of this post
>LDL makes up the majority of the cholesterol of our tissues
The LDL is just the particle that transports lipids, it's not the cholesterol itself
That particle makes up the majority of lipid transporters in people who eat like shit. My HDL is higher than my LDL despite eating a decent amount of animal products
>which mostly happens in parrallel to an inflammation
Atherosclerosis precedes inflammation
>nobody even dares to question if this is a reparair mechanism or a clean up mechanism of the damage.
Those who have familial hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipidemia get heart disease way earlier and at elevated rates, regardless of what they eat. It's a pretty clear indication that the lipid transporter system is the culprit
Plus all the research done on the causality of various elements of the lipid transport system, but you already noped out of acknowledging that twice
>Because it is a well known fact, that CHESTPAIN and angina is caused by the build up of lactic acid
Atherosclerosis precdes any pain or discomfort
>digested fats, which never cause a problem
Except for all the data that shows it does cause a problem
When you were confronted about the poor artery condition of your Masai meme, you immediately coped with conspiracy theories. You pick and choose what to believe
>circulation of cholesterols coincides with inflammation
Atherosclerosis precedes inflammation
>And from that place just speculate that it comes from le eggs, meat and dairy.
Comes from excess saturated fat and refined carbs. Doesn't have to be animal products specifically
I was never anti animal products. I eat 6 eggs and get plenty of dairy every day, I just make sure to watch my saturated fat intake. I'm not a diet zealot like the idiots you linked on youtube

>>15814796
>Those who have familial hypercholesterolemia and hyperlipidemia get heart disease way earlier and at elevated rates, regardless of what they eat. It's a pretty clear indication that the lipid transporter system is the culprit
Source?
>Except for all the data that shows it does cause a problem
Source?
>When you were confronted about the poor artery condition of your Masai meme, you immediately coped with conspiracy theories. You pick and choose what to believe
No it is poor study design with not even mentioning nor acknoledging environemntal circumstances or influences.

The only way to show the releation and causality would be:
Take a jail or other confined controlled place.
Give one parts of all inmates 4 eggs and dairy.
And other part none.
Observe for 2 years.
Establish parameters of physical fitness, heart function etc.

Everything else is 100% assumption of diet and survey based.

>>15814835
>Source?
Familial hypercholesterolemia and heart disease risk
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6678686/
Notice the hazard ratio on those getting only primary prevention (only diet, no statins). Their risk is 7x that of young adults who don't have the condition. That's because diet composition doesn't unfuck their lipid levels
Secondary prevention (statins) reduce the risk to 2x only

It also works in reverse. Familial Hypolipidemia gives those who have it a reduced risk of heart disease, even though they also have low HDL levels
https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/pdf/10.1161/CIRCGENETICS.111.960674
>No it is poor study design with not even mentioning nor acknoledging environemntal circumstances or influences.
Cool, I agree it's just an observational study that can't adjust for confounders. All observational studies are poor by definition. It was in the video you linked though, so why didn't you have an issue with it before I pointed it out?
You get outraged at the results obtained from mendelian randomization or RCTs of metabolic wards (highest tiers of evidence), yet are perfectly fine with observational shit when it comes from the low carb zealots
>Take a jail or other confined controlled place.
>Give one parts of all inmates 4 eggs and dairy.
>And other part none.
>Observe for 2 years.
It's called a metabolic ward. Asking for 2 years worth of it is impossible because no one gives up 2 years of their life for a study
What we can do is use them to assess how different nutrients affect lipid levels, that's how we know saturated fats and refined carbs raise baseline LDL levels
We can then use genetic polymorphism related to hyperlipidemia to assess the impact of high levels of different lipid transport elements on the body longterm. This is what Mendelian randomization is for. This is also why familial hyper and hypolipidemia are great examples

>>15813734
>>15813691
This wasn't me, I wasn't going to reply with any link, if you were motivated to you would investigate the topic on your own.

>>15814385
Please explain the mechanism of how fat consumption increases LDL levels and then how LDL levels cause heart disease and atheroscerosis..
Start from the absorbtion of fats from the intestines.

>>15814882
Investigating the topic is literally my job

>>15814889
the biology or the conspiracy?

>>15814926
The biology ofc

>>15814929
maybe you should also consider the conspiracies as well as the biology?

Where does the fat carried in ldl come from?

>>15776810
Since covid I realized I'm medical expert, I just say X may or may not cause Y and that's it, so it may or may not be

>>15814946
We consider the evidence, not speculation. Conspiracies are built on a mountain of speculation. They can't answer simple contradictions to their worldview, like how statins are amazing for hypercholesterolemia
>Where does the fat carried in ldl come from?
Depends on whether the liver can get its hand on easily accessible fatty acids or not
In obese people, its usually from fat tissue lipolysis (burning their own fatty acid stores) cause they have so much of it
In normal-weight people who eat a typical diets, it's mostly from de novo lipogenesis
In those eating a low carb diet, it's mostly from dietary fat

>>15814883
when you eat saturated fats your free lipids spike

directly building up on your endothelial lining because there's too much fat in your blood

its quite simple anon

>>15815043
Simple yes, however it is complete nonsense with no evidence to back it up.
If it did work this way everyone would already be dead, fortunately our bodies aren't designed this badly.

>>15815055
there is a ton of evidence

eat saturated fat and get a endothelial function test

>>15815409
That literally isn't what happens, initiation begins between the intima and media layers of arterial tissue.

>>15814865
>It's called a metabolic ward. Asking for 2 years worth of it is impossible because no one gives up 2 years of their life for a study

We already have jails.
So why bot do it?

People rather demonize eggs, dairy and meat based on biased research.

>>15814986
>hypercholesterolemia
You still fail to provide clear evidence that excludes civilisatory "interventions" which also fuck up the body while also causing hypercholesterolemia.

Let me give some examples:
>side effects of the Painkiller Bextra
https://www.rxlist.com/bextra-drug.htm
>Celebrex or Celecoxib attenuated hypercholesterolaemia
Both were widely given to people over 40 until both were banned.
Another "Blockbuster drug" that got banned during the cholesterol is le bad hype:
> Vioxx
Metabolic side effects have included appetite change, hypercholesterolemia, and weight gain. Mayor reason why it got banned was : Heart failure.

And the next thing would be contra indication.
People with heart problems would get prescribed shit like quinapril, which has a buckload of "contra indications" which when ignored cause heart failure:
https://www.mayoclinic.org/drugs-supplements/quinapril-and-hydrochlorothiazide-oral-route/side-effects/drg-20069162?p=1

Quinapril for example. Which causes heartfailure when a person has hypercholesterolemia.
And the list goes on and on.

There is not a single study that looks at the group of interest while taking into account the meds they recieved.
Its always meme retrspective studies which ignore all the meds.

>>15816260
>We already have jails.
Jails aren't a controlled environment. They smuggle all sorts of shit in there
> People rather demonize eggs, dairy and meat based on biased research
You have been told repeatedly that research isn't demonizing animal products, it only recommends limiting saturated fats to 7%. You can eat plenty of animal products while still not hitting 7%
The recommended intake of refined carbs is 0%, so if anything is demonized, it's refined carbs
>You still fail to provide clear evidence that excludes civilisatory "interventions" which also fuck up the body while also causing hypercholesterolemia.
You don't get a familial hypercholesterolemia diagnosis just for having high LDL. The differential requires both a family history of FH and the exclusion of environmental factors like other meds and diet. They also find weird cholesterol deposits on the ankles in half of those who have it, which is specific to this condition. It's not just a "lol this person has high cholesterol, slap him with a FH diagnosis"
>Quinapril for example. Which causes heartfailure when a person has hypercholesterolemia
What you're citing here would be an issue if FH wasn't diagnosed, but this is a study on people who were already diagnosed. And the primary prevention group was on diet-only interventions on top of that. Meds were the secondary prevention group

>>15816345
>isn't demonizing animal products,
>animals are the primary source of saturated fats
>eat the seed oils to reduce your sat fat percent
It's like you can't see it even though it's right therem, weird

Begs the question why animals naturally have so much saturated fat stored in their bodies.

>>15816361
>It's like you can't see it even though it's right therem, weird
How about you just don't eat a fuckton of it? Why is that never an option? Why is it all or nothing? I get 6 eggs and 3 cups of milk everyday and my sat. fat is still at 6% of my calories
>eat the seed oils to reduce your sat fat percent
If someone gets most of their unsat. fat from oils, they'd be a mega fatty. Just eat some nuts or nut butters or something. Most of my unsat. fat intake is from walnuts, I barely use any oil for cooking
This oil obsession is the weirdest online fad. The free living population gets most of their unsat. fat from processed or deep fried food. If you follow dietary guidelines, you'd be getting it from nuts. Why exactly is chugging down seed oils as a cornerstone of a healthy diet?

>>15816416
>Why exactly is chugging down seed oils as a cornerstone of a healthy diet?
Shit like flora is promoted as a health food "because it reduces cholesterol" while suppresses might be a better word for it, and all the moralistic language around LDL being the bad cholesterol implies something is strange about it.all.

>>15816436
Think about all the baking, it used to be made with dripping, lard, grease, tallow, etc, etc,
crisco was first marketed as shortening for baking

>>15816436
>promoted as a health food
Companies are allowed to lie through their teeth when promoting their shit. Every sugar-fucked cereal out there promotes itself as a healthy breakfast in some subtle way. If it were up to me I'd be banning 80% of the shit sold at grocery stores
Even pastries. The shit being has so much unnecessary sugar and salt, as if all the processed carbs weren't already bad enough
Health food is whatever you can cook at home in reasonable amounts, that has never changed

>>15816468
>breakfast cereal
My first real wake up call to this was walking down the cereal aisle (an entire god forsaken aisle 0_0) and pulling cartons and bags off the shelves to look at the ingredient lists.
I fould only two things that didn't have sugar added to them, shredded wheat and porrage out of that entire aise of shelves stacked 2m high.
It's gotten better the past couple of years at least a little but dear god did it make me have to reconsider everything.

>>15816500
Same. I was looking for a cereal for my first bulk ever, and I didn't know what to get. Only a single brand didn't have added sugar, and that was the only one that people hadn't touched in the whole isle. Scary shit

>>15816345
Ah yeah sure

>>15816557
Remember how humans evolutionarily specialised to have women obsessing over food and picking the safest tubors and berries to feed their children and make them grow big and strong while the men focused more on hunting.
With standardisation of the food system we probably thought we didn't need to bother with it so much but I feel like we're literally being forced back to that state by necessity.

>>15816571
I think the problem is way more pathological than that. Healthy food isn't a mystery if they invest a minimal amount of effort of looking into it. People just don't have the willpower to do shit anymore. They'd rather cope that everything is fine or that they don't have the power to change. Life became way too comfortable for people to learn discipline and accountability

>>15816646
And it's literally killing them.
I think it will necessitate something redevoloping by way of social behaviour