5 ms·

Your drastically oversimplifying LDL's role in disease. High LDL is a very weak predictor. This has been known since the Framingham study. Looking at a combina

Your drastically oversimplifying LDL's role in disease. High LDL is a very weak predictor. This has been known since the Framingham study. Looking at a combination of LDL, HDL and trigs is a much better predictor. High LDL in combination with low trigs and high HDL, is actually protective (Not a risk factor at all) The Jeppesen Study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11176761 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11176761) the Framingham Offspring study(https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.115.002436 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.11...) How oxidised the LDL particles are is really the major metric that matters. From looking at cell cultures we know that high levels of non-oxidised LDL have no atherosclerotic properties inherently. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-0620-4_9?fbclid=IwAR1E-YEMA9r6QVY0ZKIiZPk57hFe1nJF7_qsucxmpJFeMTC2IT6PWTepXJY https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-0620-4_... Personally its my opinion that the lipid hypothesis is essentially junk. The level of LDL is a major distraction, from root issues such as inflammation, oxidation stress and diabetes, which are caused mostly by sugar and refined carbohydrates consumption.

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago
>> Personally its my opinion that the lipid hypothesis is essentially junk. OK, but this seems to be just your opinion and contrary to what experts (doctors, public health bodies, etc) advise.
- virtuallynathan 7y ago
  I'll thrown in my 2c that is really is junk. Decent overview of some of the flaws: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969815/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1...
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Doctors are not experts in this, nor are public bodies. Endocrinology researchers are... It's really still an open field. New findings take almost a generation (20 years) to propagate to run off the mill doctors, slightly faster to specialists. And public bodies are slow as molasses in comparison, some still pushing advice from 1950s.
  - AstralStorm 7y ago
    Sorry about self reply, edit was not available. Here's a decent paper on the matter of getting research into practice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3241518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3241518/

YeGoblynQueenne 7y ago

>> Personally its my opinion that the lipid hypothesis is essentially junk. OK, but this seems to be just your opinion and contrary to what experts (doctors, public health bodies, etc) advise.

virtuallynathan 7y ago
I'll thrown in my 2c that is really is junk. Decent overview of some of the flaws: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969815/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5969815/ https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1519391 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/17512433.2018.1...
AstralStorm 7y ago
Doctors are not experts in this, nor are public bodies. Endocrinology researchers are... It's really still an open field. New findings take almost a generation (20 years) to propagate to run off the mill doctors, slightly faster to specialists. And public bodies are slow as molasses in comparison, some still pushing advice from 1950s.
- AstralStorm 7y ago
  Sorry about self reply, edit was not available. Here's a decent paper on the matter of getting research into practice: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3241518/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3241518/