5 ms·

You make it sound as though the Lipid Hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked, how many medical bodies agree with this conclusion, though? At the very least, th

by p_j_w 3y ago

You make it sound as though the Lipid Hypothesis has been thoroughly debunked, how many medical bodies agree with this conclusion, though? At the very least, the European Atherosclerosis Society, American College of Cardiology, and Canadian Cardiovascular Society disagree with you.

spirit557 3y ago
One could cite a lot of things against the lipid hypothesis and likewise the other way. Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint... Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900. Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the lipid hypothesis.
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint Why? >Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name= https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Do you think the scientists and doctors that have examined this issue professionally for 8 or more hours per day over decades haven't seen or considered this data? I am not going to "just think about this from an armchair standpoint" because, quite frankly, that's stupid. I don't know what the confounding variables in the data you show might be. I don't know the nuances and complexities. I would guess you probably don't either.
  - kelipso 3y ago
    This is such an ignorant and sad point of view. What are you, some hatchling that can only eat what mama bird has chewed up? At least make an attempt to do some critical thinking.
    - p_j_w 3y ago
      I’ve done the critical thinking and the conclusion that such critical thinking has lead to is that I will most likely have better outcomes if I follow the advice of people who have looked at these issues 8 hours a day for years on end than if I “do my own research” and listen to coders trying to give advice on best practices in cardiology.
      - kelipso 3y ago
        You might have your limitations but that doesn't really go for everyone. Plenty of coders can do survey research in cardiology better than most cardiologists, just how it goes. Cardiologists know the heart and dealing with patients, survey research they very often don't do so well. You should realize the limitations of experts in their own fields, they are human too, and often very biased since they have to deal with the sociopolitical climate in their fields.
- maerF0x0 3y ago
  IMO the real mistake is assuming that any survey + observational style study constitutes advice for individuals. The unfortunate truth in coaching is there's so little broad advice that can be given, that is guaranteed to not have a slice of humanity for which it's actually damaging. That is, for the vast majority of the advisable ways of living/eating, there are folks out there whom if they adhered to the advice they'd actually deteriorate. Which is a big part of what medical advisors (doctors, nutritionists, integrative medicine et al) exist, and taking advice from an influencer of 1000s or millions of followers is simply irresponsible. Rather, one needs to first do the science to understand the mechanisms, and 2nd do the labwork to understand the individual.. Then apply the mechanisms which will bring that individual to better health, and iterate too because often times the advice can either go too far, or not far enough.
- eternityforest 3y ago
  Is that age standardized? This seems to show a different curve, that does increase a ton, but then peaks and goes back down. https://amjmed.org/trends-in-coronary-atherosclerosis-a-tale-of-two-population-subgroups/ https://amjmed.org/trends-in-coronary-atherosclerosis-a-tale...
graphe 3y ago
Why do they matter? Do you only care about everything they agree on? If not, why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?
- p_j_w 3y ago
  >Why do they matter? Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion. >why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong? I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's science, the whole thing is built on showing proving previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd be better served by listening to the consensus of various medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the advice of medical bodies is better than the expected value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research," in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.
  - Phiwise_ 3y ago
    Longevity scientists are mostly just experts in the field of getting duped by pension fraudsters who say what they want to hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?

by p_j_w 3y ago

spirit557 3y ago

One could cite a lot of things against the lipid hypothesis and likewise the other way. Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint... Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=900x900 https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900. Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the lipid hypothesis.

p_j_w 3y ago
>Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint Why? >Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name= https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=... Do you think the scientists and doctors that have examined this issue professionally for 8 or more hours per day over decades haven't seen or considered this data? I am not going to "just think about this from an armchair standpoint" because, quite frankly, that's stupid. I don't know what the confounding variables in the data you show might be. I don't know the nuances and complexities. I would guess you probably don't either.
- kelipso 3y ago
  This is such an ignorant and sad point of view. What are you, some hatchling that can only eat what mama bird has chewed up? At least make an attempt to do some critical thinking.
  - p_j_w 3y ago
    I’ve done the critical thinking and the conclusion that such critical thinking has lead to is that I will most likely have better outcomes if I follow the advice of people who have looked at these issues 8 hours a day for years on end than if I “do my own research” and listen to coders trying to give advice on best practices in cardiology.
    - kelipso 3y ago
      You might have your limitations but that doesn't really go for everyone. Plenty of coders can do survey research in cardiology better than most cardiologists, just how it goes. Cardiologists know the heart and dealing with patients, survey research they very often don't do so well. You should realize the limitations of experts in their own fields, they are human too, and often very biased since they have to deal with the sociopolitical climate in their fields.
maerF0x0 3y ago
IMO the real mistake is assuming that any survey + observational style study constitutes advice for individuals. The unfortunate truth in coaching is there's so little broad advice that can be given, that is guaranteed to not have a slice of humanity for which it's actually damaging. That is, for the vast majority of the advisable ways of living/eating, there are folks out there whom if they adhered to the advice they'd actually deteriorate. Which is a big part of what medical advisors (doctors, nutritionists, integrative medicine et al) exist, and taking advice from an influencer of 1000s or millions of followers is simply irresponsible. Rather, one needs to first do the science to understand the mechanisms, and 2nd do the labwork to understand the individual.. Then apply the mechanisms which will bring that individual to better health, and iterate too because often times the advice can either go too far, or not far enough.
eternityforest 3y ago
Is that age standardized? This seems to show a different curve, that does increase a ton, but then peaks and goes back down. https://amjmed.org/trends-in-coronary-atherosclerosis-a-tale-of-two-population-subgroups/ https://amjmed.org/trends-in-coronary-atherosclerosis-a-tale...

graphe 3y ago

Why do they matter? Do you only care about everything they agree on? If not, why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong?

p_j_w 3y ago
>Why do they matter? Because they are the experts in their field. They are the most qualified to not only read through all of the literature, but actually properly understand it, debate it, and come to a reasonably correct conclusion. >why are you resistant to the idea they could be wrong? I'm not resistant to the idea they could be wrong. It's science, the whole thing is built on showing proving previous hypotheses were either wrong or somehow incomplete. However, when it comes to health, I feel I'd be better served by listening to the consensus of various medical bodies than commenters on the Internet, media outlets, or my own ability to digest the scientific literature. In mathematical terms, I think the expected value of my health outcomes where I listen only to the advice of medical bodies is better than the expected value of my health outcomes where I "do my own research," in spite of the fact that medical bodies may be wrong here or there. I'd get it wrong more often.
- Phiwise_ 3y ago
  Longevity scientists are mostly just experts in the field of getting duped by pension fraudsters who say what they want to hear: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_zone#Scientific_reception Parts of the field are in worryingly deep denial about the number and magnitude of confounding variables a moderate level of skeptical empiricism suggests could be present in their foundational research. As, again, in the specific case that user is worried you're glossing over: The lipid hypothesis was probably developed from studies with diets also high in processed foods, simple carbohydrates, added sugar, salt, and vegetable oils, and low in organ meats and heavy-metal-free fish. Don't we all agree these things as a staple in a diet will probably negative health outcomes on their own? How can the field be confident enough to publicly assert a model on that? Have they put the rice-fruit-and-legume diet through as rigorous a comparison to the chicken-veg-and-liver diet as they did to the McDonald's special diet? It'd be nice to develop a culture of a straight answer of "Yes, and here's the confirming metaanalysis [1]" on this question in place of this "mind-your-seniors" browbeating. Isn't that what science is supposed to be about?