4 ms·

[Citation Needed] And if you are just an armchair cardiologist and you cherry pick one or two publications that suit this conclusion, well...

by vbtemp 7y ago

glastra 7y ago
That goes both ways. To be honest, you can bear the burden of proof yourself. If you want to show me I'm wrong, I'm more than willing to review the evidence. Unless of course you're just projecting the whole armchair thing onto others. Lastly, if you think of it, asking others to prove the irrelevance of LDL with regards to CVD is straight non-sense. Do I also have to prove to you that wearing grey socks doesn't cause disease?
- vbtemp 7y ago
  I normally wouldn't belabor the point, but you peddle at best dubious information and cloak your argument in pseudo-logical sophistry. You, without any clear credentials in the field, make a bold claim that flies in the face of the standard medical understanding of cardiovascular health. And - when challenged - you twist the argument around and ask your interloper to defend the scientifically standard model. Elevated LDL is associated with CVD, and is - in itself - an independent risk factor for developing CVD. The _extent_ to which this is true seems to be an open and unresolved question. The scientific understanding of this interplay between LDL and CVD may shift over time, and there may well be breakthroughs in the years to come, but that is the medical consensus and one should need significantly clear evidence that to the contrary. Not that you are on this level right now, per se, but this is how anti-vaxxers operate too. This is pick-your-facts pseudo science. This is spreading misinformation that less-informed people might make decisions on.
  - glastra 7y ago
    I assume you know what a risk factor is and how it is established. I also assume you know what association is, and what it does and does not mean. Should I also mention epidemiology and observational studies? It must be clear to you, then, that nothing points to a mechanistic or causal relationship between high LDL in the blood and CVD. LDL does participate in the formation of atheroma (albeit in an altered state), but so do so many other molecules and cells. Do macrophages cause disease? Well, they must be there for it to develop, but they are an otherwise vital part of our bodies. Same goes for LDL. As for the misinformation I am spreading, what are you afraid of? Do you think me saying LDL is not a predictor or cause of CVD (which, again, is true, and you know that) is going to cause harm to anyone? How so? By them gorging on butter? If you still believe saturated fat is bad, well... This conversation is rather futile, and we both know it. Either way, I'm curious: what is a heart-healthy diet for you? Also, I would ask of you to please keep the fancy words for more relevant uses. I am not a native English speaker and I fear I might not understand some.

[Citation Needed] And if you are just an armchair cardiologist and you cherry pick one or two publications that suit this conclusion, well...

by vbtemp 7y ago

[Citation Needed] And if you are just an armchair cardiologist and you cherry pick one or two publications that suit this conclusion, well...

glastra 7y ago

That goes both ways. To be honest, you can bear the burden of proof yourself. If you want to show me I'm wrong, I'm more than willing to review the evidence. Unless of course you're just projecting the whole armchair thing onto others. Lastly, if you think of it, asking others to prove the irrelevance of LDL with regards to CVD is straight non-sense. Do I also have to prove to you that wearing grey socks doesn't cause disease?

vbtemp 7y ago
I normally wouldn't belabor the point, but you peddle at best dubious information and cloak your argument in pseudo-logical sophistry. You, without any clear credentials in the field, make a bold claim that flies in the face of the standard medical understanding of cardiovascular health. And - when challenged - you twist the argument around and ask your interloper to defend the scientifically standard model. Elevated LDL is associated with CVD, and is - in itself - an independent risk factor for developing CVD. The _extent_ to which this is true seems to be an open and unresolved question. The scientific understanding of this interplay between LDL and CVD may shift over time, and there may well be breakthroughs in the years to come, but that is the medical consensus and one should need significantly clear evidence that to the contrary. Not that you are on this level right now, per se, but this is how anti-vaxxers operate too. This is pick-your-facts pseudo science. This is spreading misinformation that less-informed people might make decisions on.
- glastra 7y ago
  I assume you know what a risk factor is and how it is established. I also assume you know what association is, and what it does and does not mean. Should I also mention epidemiology and observational studies? It must be clear to you, then, that nothing points to a mechanistic or causal relationship between high LDL in the blood and CVD. LDL does participate in the formation of atheroma (albeit in an altered state), but so do so many other molecules and cells. Do macrophages cause disease? Well, they must be there for it to develop, but they are an otherwise vital part of our bodies. Same goes for LDL. As for the misinformation I am spreading, what are you afraid of? Do you think me saying LDL is not a predictor or cause of CVD (which, again, is true, and you know that) is going to cause harm to anyone? How so? By them gorging on butter? If you still believe saturated fat is bad, well... This conversation is rather futile, and we both know it. Either way, I'm curious: what is a heart-healthy diet for you? Also, I would ask of you to please keep the fancy words for more relevant uses. I am not a native English speaker and I fear I might not understand some.