How did they manage to convince the world that eating pick rel will make you fat and give you heart attacks?
How did they manage to convince the world that eating pick rel will make you fat and give you heart attacks?
How did they manage to convince the world that eating pick rel will make you fat and give you heart attacks?
because it's true
how could it give you a heart attack? it is basically the same color as heart muscle, if anything it will PREVENT heart attacks
Proof, homie?
fippy bippy
Preach it sister
Because when they say "red meat le bad" they put healthy and natural meat and the most processed full of additives/nitrites McDonald tier meat on the same group.
Even the worst quality processed meats are still healthier than plant foods though. The kinds of rapid health deteriorations you see on veganism/fruitarianism don't really occur on any other diet, it's insane that we consider them health foods.
Processed """food""" will always be bad and goyslop no matter the origin. Africans from tribes refuse to eat anything that doesn't look like a slice of an animal, a fruit or a veggie. It's called instinct. I rather eat organic and fresh veggies than mystery meat.
It's basically impossible to get certain nutrients from vegan diets and that's not the case with carnivorous or omnivorous diets.
The same way they convinced the world that pic rel would kill them if they didn't wear a piece of cloth over their faces and get an experimental vaccine (+ 20 boosters). Most people are already brain damaged by pollutants and grain consumption, so they're easily manipulated. They lack critical thinking and the presence of mind necessary to realize that the world is run by a club of psychopaths who will do anything and everything to maintain their power. The masses believe anything the israelite box tells them, even if it contradicts what they heard the day before.
The same people who think vaccines are going to kill tens of millions in two weeks?
Nice bait
The saturated fat in red meat will mildly raise your ldl, mildly raising heart attack risk.
ldl doesn't increase heart attack risk
only hdl
No. LDL bad. HDL good.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Atherosclerosis
yeah you're right I just mixed the two together.
>LDL bad
no its not. millions of years of genes to make LDL and receptors for a reason. it has important functions in the body. part of immune system as well. low LDL is linked with death of sepsis, cancer, dementia, etc. inb4 moron says reverse causality
Maybe. It also causes big heart attacks
weak association using the word "risk" when not appropriate. typical of midwits citing things they dont understand. there is no evidence LDL causes heart disease
How would you explain that graph then?
cite the paper
no there isnt just weak confounded associations. human trial data have all shown no effect
Also you fat Black person I'm literally doing a PhD in population health right now. You're the definition of dunning Kruger
>i can regurgitate what other people said without thinking for myself
congrats i guess
do you know what research is? It's my job to say things that other people can regurgitate.
paper: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/31810609/
I already know what you're going to say: it's a cohort study, not an RCT. There isn't a credible RCT and there never will be because it's too expensive and won't pass ethics anymore. Why beleive it then? because every cohort study looking at non-hdl and mortality has the same findings, and because there's a solid mechanistic explanation for why apo-b bearing particles cause artery damage, and because the effect size is so large that it's implausible to explain away the whole thing with confounding.
Maintain low non-hdl-chol is one of the three best supported findings from public health research ever. its so fricking obvious.
>muh mechanisms
you could just say you have no credible evidence and choose to ignore counter evidence but youre too indoctrinated or delusional
>Available evidence from randomized controlled trials shows that replacement of saturated fat in the diet with linoleic acid effectively lowers serum cholesterol but does not support the hypothesis that this translates to a lower risk of death from coronary heart disease or all causes. Findings from the Minnesota Coronary Experiment add to growing evidence that incomplete publication has contributed to overestimation of the benefits of replacing saturated fat with vegetable oils rich in linoleic acid.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27071971/
I read your study. The intervention group was given a shitload of margarine which is high in trans fat. Everyone knows trans fat fricks your ldl levels. But you can't tell from that study because it's data from 1968 and they only measured total cholesterol.
Really think about what you're saying here. Why would I beleive unpublished data from a 1968 study that didn't fractionate cholesterol where the treatment arm had a known poison in it over the tons of cohort studies that came after and the advise from every major health organization? The balance of evidence is so obvious.
couldve favored the intervention but youre just speculating against all available evidence
>The MCE principal investigator (Ivan Frantz) and co-principal investigator (Ancel Keys), however, were well aware of the cholesterol raising effects of trans fat prior to initiating the MCE.77 Moreover, Frantz and Keys previously devised the diets used in the institutional arm of the National Diet Heart Feasibility Study (NDHS), which achieved the greatest reductions in serum cholesterol of all NDHS study sites.2 Hence, it is highly likely that this experienced MCE team selected products containing as little trans fat as possible to maximize the achieved degree of cholesterol lowering. Perhaps more importantly, it is clear from the MCE grant proposal that common margarines and shortenings (major sources of trans fat) were important components of the baseline hospital diets and the control diet (but not the intervention diet). Thus, confounding by dietary trans fat is an exceedingly unlikely explanation for the lack of benefit of the intervention diet.
this is too speculative to convince me. The weird shit with trans fats would be fine except there's no cholesterol fractionation to prove it wasn't an issue.
take a look at my graph again. same paper. how can you explain the massive effect size?
>Maintain low non-hdl-chol is one of the three best most disproven findings from public health research eve
fixed. and no drug trials are not analogous to lowering cholesterol levels with dietary interventions because morons like you always love to go there
you are making wild guesses based on associative data you Black person homosexual
My wild guesses are supported by 30 years of cohort studies and every public health agency in Europe and the America's.
>30 years of useless data
>expert opinion of homosexuals in the most unhealthy regions in the world
Sure dude. They're your arteries play it how you want.
>because every cohort study looking at non-hdl and mortality has the same findings
missed this part holy shit lmao. you are indoctrinated. you should also try looking at unadjusted outcome statistics every now and then you might be surprised
>High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic).
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27292972/
>https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27292972/
This isn't a useful study right from the title. You don't care about cholesterol levels in the elderly because by then they've already developed heart disease. Low cholesterol in old people is associated with dementia, sepsis, and disease generally.
You care about cholesterol levels for the 50 years leading up to your heart attack. That's why you need decade long cohort studies to test the hypothesis. Find me a study that says your non-hdl-chol at age 40 doesn't predict heart disease at age 60.
>this thing in your blood is totally bad for you for 60 years and then all of a sudden its really good and predicts longevity?
huh?
trans fat raises cholesterol intervention group lowered cholesterol significantly. really bending over backwards to try (unsuccessfully) play devils advocate
No, but being in poor health causes low cholesterol acutely. My friend from the ER says you can even see hypo cholesterol lemia in trauma patients.
Trans fat raises non-hdl cholesterol a lot and has a small to modest effect on total chol. That's why you need cholesterol fractionation. A diet that lowers total chol by tanking hdl and raising ldl is a bad diet. Without cholesterol fractionation you can't rule it out-- all you know is the intervention arm had their sat fat partially substituted with more trans fat. The effect could have gone either way.
Now explain my graph
>Now explain my graph
it explains itself "association" contradicted by many others
perhaps an intervention would be useful?
OK, what confounders are biasing this association? The study was controlled btw
controlled how and for what
Read the study. I forget. Without looking, lets say race, sex and age. Or just pretend it isn't controlled. What confounders could explain a 3x hazard ratio?
you could imagine an infinite number of confounders. surely a genius phd like yourself understands that. thats why we do randomized controlled trials
Explain it then.
continue to ignore the fact trans fat raises total cholesterol. no fractanation needed
Some parts of the intervention arm raise cholesterol (like trams fats) and other parts lowering cholesterol (like pufas). The net effect on cholesterol could go either way-- in this case total chol went down.
Total chol isn't a good predictor of heart disease. Non hdl is. The intervention arm prescribed some foods that lower nonhdl and others that raise it. You can't rule out that the net effect on total chol was negative while the effect on nonhdl chol was positive.
>Find me a study that says your non-hdl-chol at age 40 doesn't predict heart disease at age 60
heres half a dozen for you to ignore because they have FH
>As the level of LDL-C in FH varies considerably, those who suffer from CVD should have higher LDL-C and die earlier than those with the lowest values. A number of studies have shown that LDL-C and the age of those with and without CVD and without lipid lowering treatment did not differ significantly. In most of these studies, many of the participants had been on statin treatment for several years, which may have biased the results. However, in five studies including seven cohorts of FH individuals without cholesterol-lowering treatment, the mean LDL-C was only higher among those with CVD in one of the cohorts (Table 1) [23,24,25,26,27].
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC9409002/
Your study isn't a study, its a review. I don't trust it because the first paragraph of the intro is already littered with untrue statements. Here are a few:
>For example, people with low cholesterol have the same degree of atherosclerosis as people with high cholesterol
Obviously not true. See my graph.
>there is no exposure-response in cholesterol-lowering trials
See every statin trial for conflicting evidence
I'm not reading the rest because at this point its incredible.
Explain my graph
is no exposure-response in cholesterol-lowering trials
there isnt. the people who find there is all have massive COI and exclude trials to bias their result
>Figure 2. The association between degree of LDL-C lowering and the absolute risk reduction of total mortality (%/year) in 26 statin trials, where total mortality was recorded and which were included in the study by Silverman et al. and in 11 ignored trials. ARR is weakly associated with degree of LDL-C lowering in the included trials (y = 0.28x + 0.06) but inversely associated in the excluded trials (y = −0.49x − 0.81).
they exclude trials because a lot of those trials in what you are quoting and showing are confounded and thus not adequate
> Thus, there is no longer an ‘LDL-C hypothesis’, but established facts that increased LDL-C values are causally related to ASCVDs, and that lowering LDL particles and other ApoB-containing lipoproteins as much as possible reduces CV events. Yet the relationship between dyslipidaemias and cardiovascular diseases (CVD) goes beyond LDL-C and the atherosclerotic plaque.
https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/article/41/40/3865/5973923
>they exclude trials because
of course they need to make up reasons for doing so.
>Figure 3. The association between the absolute 5-year risk reduction (ARR) and the degree of LDL-C lowering in 12 trials included in Table 4A in the article by Ference et al. (r = 2.59) and from 21 trials they have ignored or excluded (r = −0.1).
seems to be a pattern here. trials that dont fit a nice clean graph get excluded what a coincidence
I can't tell who posted this because its a three man fight now.
But I do notice that all these trials that showed ldl reduction also showed risk reduction.
and some with more ldl reduction showed less benefit suggesting the benefit isnt related to ldl reduction
>(r = 2.59) and from 21 trials they have ignored or excluded (r = −0.1)
genius you should understand this high school level math
First result for "cholesterol lowering therapy heart disease"
I don't know how they cooked up that meta analysis, but it seems likely bullshit. If lowering cholesterol didn't reduce heart disease, why does the top google result say it does, and every doctor prescribe statins?
https://www.bmj.com/content/321/7267/983.full?casa_token=GCjHwYXIcr4AAAAA%3Ay2aFuUhgeB8iAx7HRGO8XQMPvzHN_FBi25LuZqNsNIOH2Q274YphqrBzQhGuVcBsbLSN4PT4O0s
the shit hes quoting comes from people that belong to the organization The International Network of Cholesterol Skeptics (or THINCS), don't take anything he says seriously lol
much less credible than the people given money to publish in favor of cholesterol lowering drugs im sure
Explain my graph. What confounders could explain such a huge effect
thats not a huge effect. diabetes is more strongly related to heart disease than any measure of cholesterol or apob
What confounders explain it then.
wealth, exercise, smoking, stress, lifestyle factors, environmental factors, larger societal things(war etc). even if you controlled for a millions things there could be others you cant imagine thats why randomized trials are necessary
Except for stress, there's no evidence that any of those things raise nonhdl.
Good luck not eating until an RCT comes out. 99% of nutritional epi is basic on cohort study data and its not going to chance.
The one place you might go for caudusl data are the medelian randomization studies on ldl. I'm not going to dig any up because I'm sleepy, but if you do you'll find they support the ldl heart disease hypothesis, just like the cohort studies.
>The one place you might go for caudusl data are the medelian randomization studies on ldl
these are still not causal just more associations
You don't know how mendelian randomization works, do you? Its OK, college isn't for everyone.
associations not causal. no need to seethe about it
>Power, linkage disequilibrium, pleiotropy, canalization and population stratification have all been recognized as potential flaws in the Mendelian randomization approach
surely this doesnt need explanation like i needed to spell out what confounding is
>there's no evidence that any of those things raise nonhdl.
thats the point. they are confounders
You don't know what a confounder is, do you? Are you confounded right now?
>tell people high ldl is bad
>people living unhealthy lifestyles dont care
>unhealthy people smoke, dont exercise, etc
the ldl mustve killed them along with your remaining brain cells
Lmao I should known something was up when he started citing pay to publish, online only journal articles.
cholesterol lowering drugs have other effects (anti coagulant, anti inflammatory, maybe others). looking at all trials there is no relationship between degree of cholesterol lowering and mortality, events, etc
Also, its published in an online only no name journal. I would be surprised if its pay to publish. It would be hard to imagine this paper getting through peer review.
>running out of arguments quick appeal to authority
wouldnt be necessary if your actual arguments were correct
Then why aren't statins more effective?
You ask too many questions. I think you need a trip to the reeducation room
So how does one keep ldl in check?
by eating heart healthy seed oils and taking anti cholesterol drugs of course
In descending order of importance:
1. Exercise, including a few hours of cardio per week.
2. Cholesterol lowering drugs. I like pravastatin and ezetimibe but they're not as strong as the standard bigboy statins.
3. Minimally processed diet high in fiber and low in saturated and trans fat. Fatty fish and vegetable/seed oils. Basically the Dr. Greger diet but with fish, lean meats and nonfat dairy for protein.
Black person, just kys.
Saturated fats are not inherently more dangerous than other types of fats or nutrients; it's about the context and the amount in which they are consumed
This is contradicted by the last 30 years of nutritional epidemiology.
Correct
No, there's an increasing amount of evidence supporting the idea that the issue is related more to the proportions of individual fatty acids and wider diet context. Modern western diets tend to be higher in palmitic acid specifically which is probably the reason behind the research thought to indicate saturated fats were bad in general
Cite it or I'm not listening.
A quick googling says palmitic acid is the most common saturated fatty acid in food.
You mean to tell me that a dirt cheap oil gets put into food more than olive oil?
I'm not sure what you're saying. wikipedia says palmitic acid is the most common saturated fatty acid in plants and animals.
Your argument is:
>sat fat not bad
>palmitic acid bad
>ignore that palmitic acid is a saturated fatty acid.
yeah just roll the dice on your life based on youtube videos made by supplement salesmen and fraudsters.
>yeah just roll the dice
so instead i should roll the dice based on a twitter picture? i like my dice better
Only small dense LDL and oxidized LDL increase your risk.
The problem is that pretty much every study does not make the distinction between healthy LDL and oxLDL/sdLDL.
Macrophages only react to the later two.
Saturated fat increases healthy LDL. Polyunsaturated fats oxidize your healthy LDL.
The cholesterol lowering properties of PUFA is actually your body trying to protect itself.
Steak? Nobody ever claimed that.
you have to be at least 18 to browse here
With science
The same thing that organized religions have done it during thousands of years. Appeals to authority, social pressure, fear, tribalism.
You can convince an entire group of millions of people of anything if you are in an authoritative position. You can convince them that the day of the rapture will be tomorrow, they'll believe it.
Remember the nuclear weapons Saddam had? And safe and effective impfung?
same reason people think sugar is bad.
same reason people think the flu shot was a vaccine.
same reason people think the earth is flat.
same reason people think Trump is coming back and just 2 more weeks.
>same reason people think Trump is coming back
Even Democrats now think because gas prices are increasing Trump will win.
They call Republicans moronic.
>How did we get IST to believe in memes?
Well for 1 you guys do nofap so it was pretty easy
This. I stopped browsing for a while. Years sometimes, and every time I come back I'm surprised by some new dumb fricking dipshit fad.
>sunning balls
>icing balls
>gallon of milk a day
>keto
The only thing I'm consistently taking away from you homosexuals is that none of you read books, and you're all generally ignorant and paranoid to the nth degree.
they conflated processed meats such as deli meat with red meat
They didn't. They convinced those who follow the current thing and for example became vegan or carnivore
I dunno. The last two weeks all I've eaten is steak and eggs though. If I don't die by the end of the year doing this, I'll know the truth.
You won't be dead by the end of the year. You won't even feel unhealthy.
Your cholesterol numbers will be worse unless you also lost a lot of weight, in which case they could either be better or worse. Your triglycerides will be better from reduced simple carbs. Your hba1c and fasting glucose will be better from reduced simple carbs.
The overall effect on your health could be positive or negative depending on what you were doing before.
Your diet will be better than average by a lot and worse than optimal. You might consider adding a statin to offset the dislipidemia from all the saturated fat.
there is no evidence statins hold benefit to those on low carb diets. and there is some evidence to the contrary
What you said makes no sense. Carb consumption doesn't directly affect lipids except for trigs. And statins primarily target ldl with a small boost to hdl
It makes perfect sense. Low trig and high hdl don't benefit from statins and that's what you get from low carbs
Cigarette companies lobbied like hell to make meats seem to be the cause of heart attacks rather than smoking.
There is research done that shows constantly eating red meat leads to increased risk of cancer. Where's your research that says otherwise?
Eating more red meat means you live longer.
Living longer means higher chance of cancer.
/thread
source: I made it up lol
The very best source.
>meat intake is positively correlated with life expectancies
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8881926/
nta but this is the same weak data as
perhaps just less cherry picked
what a graph meat makes you live longer i guess
SE Asia you good?
correlation =/= causation
Yeah I did. Any counter arguments? Don’t worry I won’t read them.
>sciencecels shitting up the board
>moron cant into irony
With bad faith studies that compared heart disease in populations of normal people (people who eat meat) to vegetarians. What they didn't tell you is that people with restricted diets (vegetarians in this instance) tend to make more health concious choices, like drinking less, not smoking, exercise, etc.
nuh uh we've controlled for all that and vegetarianism will still make you liver longer
The same way they convinced people that eating industrial waste will make them healthy, 24/7 propaganda
of course its healthy it lowers my cholesterol and the AHA says so 🙂
I also tell people gamma rays are a good way to lower cholesterol since our cells are made of it
Probably due to the fact meat has visible fat. I'm sure many connected that to gaining weight and fat.
Calories in, calories out wasn't invented until 1972
The important distinction is what king of meat. Wagyu steak? Fillet? Grass fed? Thats all great.
But the shit you get in a burger? Sausages that have added sugar? Ham? Yeah that shit is not good.
Average american probably consumes more of the latter, so it makes some sense
They are subsidized by daddy government to keep feeding us grain. The government is complicit
If they managed to convince billions of "educated" people to get injected with mystery juice they can convince them of anything. People don't really think for themselves, they defer their thinking to "experts" and allow themselves to be subverted.