3 ms·

Why are you concerned with blood cholesterol as opposed to e.g. calcium scoring or actual inflammation markers you can measure almost as easily as a lipid panel

Why are you concerned with blood cholesterol as opposed to e.g. calcium scoring or actual inflammation markers you can measure almost as easily as a lipid panel? One does not spontaneously develop atherosclerosis from elevated blood cholesterol. That just doesn’t make sense from a metabolic perspective.

cageface 8y ago
Elevated LDL is very highly correlated with heart disease. Studies that show that people born with genetically very low cholesterol levels are practically immune to heart disease reinforce this. The mechanism for this is well understood.
- bad_user 8y ago
  There are many studies confirming no link between high LDL and heart disease. It’s a myth.
  - cageface 8y ago
    Meat industry smoke and mirrors siezed upon by people that want to feel good about eating thier bacon, unfortunately: https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo If what you say is true then why are people born with exceptionally low cholesterol levels basically immune to heart disease?
    - bad_user 8y ago
      I don’t know from where you get your ideas, but as a matter of fact low LDL is associated with heart disease!
      - cageface 8y ago
        You could, you know, actually watch the video I linked.
        bad_user 8y ago
        I don't watch YouTube bullshit. Start by reading this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068
        cageface 8y ago
        He summarizes a bunch of peer review studies in that video instead of just choosing one that supports his point of view. Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy but it also peaked in 1999: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-americans-consume-its-complicated/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-american... What's exploded since then is chicken and cheese consumption.
        mmt 8y ago
        > Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy I'm unconvinced that anything is "definitely unhealthy", especially when lumping "sugar" (which sugar?) in with "sweeteners". First, I want a credible mechanism of action (e.g. "Sugar, the bitter truth", on Youtube, since you seem to like Youtube videos), then I want credible studies, which we're terribly light on, before reaching any conclusions. > but it also peaked in 1999: Assuming obesity (after some delay, according to whatever theory this is) did not also peak, that merely refutes the theory that obesity is directly proportional to sugar consumption (in whatever way measurement methodology that article used). AFAICT, that theory is a strawman. A more nuanced theory would include all intake of fructose, to the exclusion of glucose (e.g. sucrose only counts half but HFCS is variable depending on formulation), with an accounting of absorption prevention by the presence of fiber (as in fruit). An even more nuanced theory wouldn't depend on a simple linear proportional correspondence but would assume a minimum "safe" daily fructose dose above which obesity effects would be triggered. Perhaps, above that, the degree of obesity in the individuals suffering from it would follow a proportional curve, but the rate incidence in the population wouldn't be expected to go down until the rate of consumption fell below that minimum threshold for enough individuals. Assuming that threshold corresponds to 40g of sucrose daily [1], all the numbers in the article are so far above it, a 15% drop fails to refute such a theory. > On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down Most importantly, this kind of statistic would have to be considered suspect on its face, because it's unclear if fruit juices, a source of highly-concentrated, fiber-free fructose, are included. Is it considered a "sweetener" if it was there all along and almost everything else was removed? The body doesn't care, but the government statisticians might. We need not look to chicken and cheese if "refined" sweeteners have just been swapped out for "natural" ones. [1] the US RDA for all sugars is 50g, according to the article. A better estimate for the threshold, according to such a theory, would be pre-obesity US sugar consumption, such as from the 1950s.

cageface 8y ago

Elevated LDL is very highly correlated with heart disease. Studies that show that people born with genetically very low cholesterol levels are practically immune to heart disease reinforce this. The mechanism for this is well understood.

bad_user 8y ago
There are many studies confirming no link between high LDL and heart disease. It’s a myth.
- cageface 8y ago
  Meat industry smoke and mirrors siezed upon by people that want to feel good about eating thier bacon, unfortunately: https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo https://youtu.be/MsFWeC-DeLo If what you say is true then why are people born with exceptionally low cholesterol levels basically immune to heart disease?
  - bad_user 8y ago
    I don’t know from where you get your ideas, but as a matter of fact low LDL is associated with heart disease!
    - cageface 8y ago
      You could, you know, actually watch the video I linked.
      - bad_user 8y ago
        I don't watch YouTube bullshit. Start by reading this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/28515068
        cageface 8y ago
        He summarizes a bunch of peer review studies in that video instead of just choosing one that supports his point of view. Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy but it also peaked in 1999: https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-americans-consume-its-complicated/ https://www.cbsnews.com/news/just-how-much-sugar-do-american... What's exploded since then is chicken and cheese consumption.
        mmt 8y ago
        > Consumption of sugar and sweeteners is definitely unhealthy I'm unconvinced that anything is "definitely unhealthy", especially when lumping "sugar" (which sugar?) in with "sweeteners". First, I want a credible mechanism of action (e.g. "Sugar, the bitter truth", on Youtube, since you seem to like Youtube videos), then I want credible studies, which we're terribly light on, before reaching any conclusions. > but it also peaked in 1999: Assuming obesity (after some delay, according to whatever theory this is) did not also peak, that merely refutes the theory that obesity is directly proportional to sugar consumption (in whatever way measurement methodology that article used). AFAICT, that theory is a strawman. A more nuanced theory would include all intake of fructose, to the exclusion of glucose (e.g. sucrose only counts half but HFCS is variable depending on formulation), with an accounting of absorption prevention by the presence of fiber (as in fruit). An even more nuanced theory wouldn't depend on a simple linear proportional correspondence but would assume a minimum "safe" daily fructose dose above which obesity effects would be triggered. Perhaps, above that, the degree of obesity in the individuals suffering from it would follow a proportional curve, but the rate incidence in the population wouldn't be expected to go down until the rate of consumption fell below that minimum threshold for enough individuals. Assuming that threshold corresponds to 40g of sucrose daily [1], all the numbers in the article are so far above it, a 15% drop fails to refute such a theory. > On average, Americans’ total consumption of caloric sweeteners like refined cane sugar and high-fructose corn syrup is down Most importantly, this kind of statistic would have to be considered suspect on its face, because it's unclear if fruit juices, a source of highly-concentrated, fiber-free fructose, are included. Is it considered a "sweetener" if it was there all along and almost everything else was removed? The body doesn't care, but the government statisticians might. We need not look to chicken and cheese if "refined" sweeteners have just been swapped out for "natural" ones. [1] the US RDA for all sugars is 50g, according to the article. A better estimate for the threshold, according to such a theory, would be pre-obesity US sugar consumption, such as from the 1950s.