-
By using this site you agree to the terms, rules, and privacy policy.
-
Charlie's Restoration Giveaway #2 (Entire Home EMF Mitigation & Protection Along With Personal Protection) - Click Here To Enter
-
Dear Carnivore Dieters, A Muscle Meat Only Diet is Extremely Healing Because it is a Low "vitamin A" Diet. This is Why it Works so Well...
Rest the rest of this post by clicking here
-
The Forum is transitioning to a subscription-based membership model - Click Here To Read
Click Here if you want to upgrade your account
If you were able to post but cannot do so now, send an email to admin at raypeatforum dot com and include your username and we will fix that right up for you.
I Dont Know What To Call This Thread But Its A MUST SEE
- Thread starter Elderflower j58
- Start date
L
lollipop
Guest
Following.
I used to follow Andrew Feldman's work. Problem is, he's biased at best just like most of the community in the LCHF world, in denial at worst. He’s an engineer, not a doctor, with an engineer approach to a biology problem.
Note that I’d blame the medical community for being a bunch of eggheads in ivory towers. Stuck in the 70s handing statins to people and now next-gen antibodies as if any of these would work - it sure works at creating huge health debts and making some companies richer.
You get the same type of results doing a high carb low fat diet (assuming the individual is adapted, read: insulin sensitive). More fuel =carbs: decrease LDL more and less fuel=increase LDL. He explains it himself when he cuts on SFA.
The difference is; someone on a low fat diet WILL have half the cholesterol of his “subjects”. Which is highly desirable in a young enough person. This whole fat propaganda is going to get people to cherrypick what they want to hear (SATFATS LOWER LDL) and lead to eating more high fat times high carbs and blame the carbs. It’s just... not how it works, and it will lead to people having high cholesterol, acting like it’s not a problem or smoke signals or anything, and be very wrong.
I think he ignores or chooses to ignore what hypothyroidism is, general metabolism and cholesterol metabolism specifically, LDL receptor activity, adrenals eventually since stress is probably the main issue to handle when cholesterol gets high, pituitary function, all because he wants to show how good he is going from 300+ to 200+. Who-ha.
And he’s 30-something years old? I’m not fooled. Healthy “primitive” populations that tend to follow quite peaty diets have total cholesterol in the low 100s. That’s a healthy metabolism
If you want a layman yet holistic approach to cholesterol follow Chris Masterjohn
Note that I’d blame the medical community for being a bunch of eggheads in ivory towers. Stuck in the 70s handing statins to people and now next-gen antibodies as if any of these would work - it sure works at creating huge health debts and making some companies richer.
You get the same type of results doing a high carb low fat diet (assuming the individual is adapted, read: insulin sensitive). More fuel =carbs: decrease LDL more and less fuel=increase LDL. He explains it himself when he cuts on SFA.
The difference is; someone on a low fat diet WILL have half the cholesterol of his “subjects”. Which is highly desirable in a young enough person. This whole fat propaganda is going to get people to cherrypick what they want to hear (SATFATS LOWER LDL) and lead to eating more high fat times high carbs and blame the carbs. It’s just... not how it works, and it will lead to people having high cholesterol, acting like it’s not a problem or smoke signals or anything, and be very wrong.
I think he ignores or chooses to ignore what hypothyroidism is, general metabolism and cholesterol metabolism specifically, LDL receptor activity, adrenals eventually since stress is probably the main issue to handle when cholesterol gets high, pituitary function, all because he wants to show how good he is going from 300+ to 200+. Who-ha.
And he’s 30-something years old? I’m not fooled. Healthy “primitive” populations that tend to follow quite peaty diets have total cholesterol in the low 100s. That’s a healthy metabolism
If you want a layman yet holistic approach to cholesterol follow Chris Masterjohn
OP
Elderflower j58
Member
@benaoao I used to follow Andrew Feldman's work. Problem is, he's biased at best just like most of the community in the LCHF world, in denial at worst. He’s an engineer, not a doctor, with an engineer approach to a biology problem.
Looks like you were following the wrong guy, his name is Dave Feldman
I think he is a very clever man and every cardiologist should
Look at his information.
If nothing else it seems to me that cholesterol
Lab results are not all they seem,they can change
According to what your diet was in the preceding
3 days.
He seems to be the only person to have Proven
You can change results very quickly back and forth.
Looks like you were following the wrong guy, his name is Dave Feldman
I think he is a very clever man and every cardiologist should
Look at his information.
If nothing else it seems to me that cholesterol
Lab results are not all they seem,they can change
According to what your diet was in the preceding
3 days.
He seems to be the only person to have Proven
You can change results very quickly back and forth.
InChristAlone
Member
Yeah cholesterol labs are a snapshot of the previous days diet. And of course they got their cholesterol down to a healthier level eating so many calories because they were in ketosis and obviously low metabolism. I do agree saturated fats are healthy. When I used to eat a pretty high fat diet back in my WAPF days my cholesterol was 168 and I was thin. Totally blew the 'saturated fats are bad' theory out of the water. I still eat quite a lot of fat but also high carb and my cholesterol was 194, LDL trending up, and I've gained weight. I think the quickest way to gain is combining fats and carbs (and I used to want to gain as I struggled with being thin).
OP
Elderflower j58
Member
Even more interesting.
Only 12 mins long
Only 12 mins long
OP
Elderflower j58
Member
He also talks about remnant cholesterol
Which no doctor/cardio ever mentions,
According to his research this is the cholesterol
That is most atherogenic .
Any response from the science guys @Amazoniac
@haidut @Travis
Which no doctor/cardio ever mentions,
According to his research this is the cholesterol
That is most atherogenic .
Any response from the science guys @Amazoniac
@haidut @Travis
OP
Elderflower j58
Member
Apologies to all the other science peeps out there
These are just the obvious ones..
These are just the obvious ones..
Baltazar
Member
- Joined
- Apr 22, 2018
- Messages
- 107
Popcorn is the best option
I healed my uncle diabetes in 3 night
Eating 10 pound of cashews
3 pound a night before bed :p
I healed my uncle diabetes in 3 night
Eating 10 pound of cashews
3 pound a night before bed :p
Westside PUFAs
Member
- Joined
- Feb 4, 2015
- Messages
- 1,972
Definitely not a “must see.” No point in posting keto threads on the RPF.
my bad I mixed names but same guy like I said, I used to follow his blog
my first post stands however, this Feldman guy should actually look at what cardiologists know not the other way around...
Did you even watch the video below? He got the same results on a high carb diet regarding the LDL measurements.
The same cardiologists who have been telling us for years that PUFA great, saturated fat is the devil?
If his findings were true in the video below I think that is pretty darn interesting and should be looked into more.
all he found was that raising the metabolism (eating more) lowers cholesterol. That's about it. Long term his diet ideas are atrocious. Besides maybe one person in his examples, they all have cholesterol levels of a 60+ yo. So that's their health status. Good for them.
I'd expect cardiologists as a whole to know about cholesterol metabolism, endocrinology, thyroid, cortisol and so on. That's what I'm talking about. Maybe Feldman as an unbiased engineer would benefit from the classes I have in mind
I'd expect cardiologists as a whole to know about cholesterol metabolism, endocrinology, thyroid, cortisol and so on. That's what I'm talking about. Maybe Feldman as an unbiased engineer would benefit from the classes I have in mind
If these tests only reflect what you ate in the past 3 days, what is the point of having them?
OP
Elderflower j58
Member
To me that means cholesterol goes up and down
According to your diet so you can have some control
Regarding heart health .
That lab result that scares the living day lights out of you is not
Set in stone,
He also does tons of heart disease research
According to your diet so you can have some control
Regarding heart health .
That lab result that scares the living day lights out of you is not
Set in stone,
He also does tons of heart disease research
OP
Elderflower j58
Member
@benaoao he speaks well of Chris masterjohn
JUN25
Thank You, American Heart Association (Sincerely)
Uncategorized
by Dave
Once again, I’m apparently having a very different reaction than everyone else.
Last week the American Heart Association (AHA) put out a Presidential Advisory statement online warning against the use of saturated fats and in favor of polyunsaturated fats.
Lead author Frank Sacks, MD was quoted by Medscape:
We want to set the record straight on why well-conducted scientific research overwhelmingly supports limiting saturated fat in the diet.
Later in the article, he goes on to say:
This advisory is based on careful scientific review — it has been organized in a very systematic way, involving experts from a wide range of fields who have looked very carefully at the literature. Then the recommendations have been thoroughly vetted and questioned through multiple levels of peer review and scientific advisory committees across the entire AHA.
Okay, without question, I considered this excellent news for several reasons. Let me explain with an analogy….
Trial of The Century
Imagine saturated fat was a defendant on trial for murder. The trial stretched into years, then decades, and now approaches a century. The prosecution side is well funded with lots of resources and has been flooding the trial with mountains of papers and studies. The defense keeps finding issues with the evidence presented and starts to bring around many studies of its own, appearing to look better and better up to this point. The jury seems to be slowly moving more and more in the direction of the defense.
Like me, you might be a juror that is coming in late and feel overwhelmed by how much homework you’ve been given and how much material you have to sift through to have any idea of what to think.
But then, out of nowhere, the prosecution says, “Alright, alright — nevermind all these things. There are really just four studies that matter. Four studies that meet the standards necessary to judge this entire case on.”
You, me, and the rest of the jury look up in both surprise and relief. Everything just got easier for all of us!
Why This is Great
The AHA (whether it meant to or not) has now told us several things by this release:
There have been many, many voices of opposition that have sprung up in the last week, but I’m going to point to two in particular.
On the public prominence front, Gary Taubes delivers an impressive critique that outlines approach, bias, and the overall politics regarding the science and studies chosen.
Of sources on the biochemical front, no one comes close to Chris Masterjohn’s very methodical breakdown of each of the Big Four. He exposes both the problems with these studies and the inconsistencies with the AHA’s selection criteria.
If I could get you to read/listen to just two – make it these two.
Will They Address Criticism Directly?
This is an extremely relevant question.
We can determine a lot by the next actions of the AHA with regard to defending their release — or ignoring arguments altogether. Is this about science or politics?
If this is about the science:
I’m being sincere here – I’m genuinely happy the AHA took this action as I can now observe how much of the institution is acting on science vs politics.
This post has no tag
Leave a Reply
10 Comments on "Thank You, American Heart Association (Sincerely)"
Subscribe
newestoldestmost voted
Guest
Audrey Drake
Great. Bravo!
0 Reply
10 months ago
Author
Dave
Thanks, Audrey!
0 Reply
10 months ago
Guest
Peter Lawton
I do like your reasoning, highlighting the trap – -Science/Politics-. I’ve read the stuff, inc Chris Masterjohn’s analysis. I feel a bit sad that AHA personnel keep staggering down the wrong road bearing their self-imposed burden.
0 Reply
10 months ago
Author
Dave
I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
For now, we can just see what happens next…
0 Reply
10 months ago
Guest
sk
Since you decided to use a courtroom analogy you need to keep in mind that not guilty does not mean innocent; it only means that the prosecutor has not provided enough of a case to convict.
So, Sat fat may not be guilty, but that does not mean in the context of your analogy that it is innocent.
0 Reply
9 months ago
Author
Dave
I completely agree. But as with science, the burden of proof lies with those who make the assertion.
0 Reply
9 months ago
Guest
calzoncillos calvin klein baratos
Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you may be a great author.
I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and definitely will come back sometime soon. I want to
encourage you to ultimately continue your great job, have a nice morning!
0 Reply
8 months ago
Guest
Ronald Hoffman MD
I am the host of the Intelligent Medicine radio program and podcast series (www.drhoffman.com/podcast-2/).
I’d like to invite Dave to join me for a podcast discussing The Cholesterol Code.
We record podcasts Mondays and Thursdays at 4 PM ET, and we have slots available in January.
Please let me know if we can arrange a mutually convenient time.
Thanks in advance for your consideration,
Dr. Ronald Hoffman
0 Reply
3 months ago
Guest
Victoria
I’m a lawyer. I’ve got CAD and I believe the advice I’ve received over the last 5 – 10 years from medical doctors has worsened my condition significantly. I believe it was unethical and perhaps negligent. I’m looking into both individual and class action lawsuits (just data gathering from a legal perspective), and would appreciate hearing from anyone who has heart disease, or has lost a family member while under the care of health providers still passing out bad information. I’m actively wondering if this approach won’t bring needed, urgently needed, attention to these issues. I’d appreciate hearing from anyone… Read more »
0 Reply
1 month ago
Author
Dave
I certainly wish you luck, Victoria!
Unfortunately, I genuinely don’t believe there’s as much of a serious focus on evidence-based medicine in the area of heart disease given how much of a profitable distraction lipid-lowering drugs have become. In finding all this info on Remnant Cholesterol, I was genuinely surprised it wasn’t getting several hundred times the attention it does now given its predictive power over the much weaker LDL association with CVD (and especially All Cause Mortality). I can’t help but wonder if RCs get the silent treatment because there’s no drug that can improve it.
0 Reply
1 month ago
Donate
My primary costs are the many frequent and expensive blood tests I take for this research and data. Any size donation is appreciated. Thank you for your support!
Recent Posts
Copyright
© 2018 Cholesterol Code.
Powered by WordPress and the Graphene Theme.
JUN25
Thank You, American Heart Association (Sincerely)
Uncategorized
by Dave
Once again, I’m apparently having a very different reaction than everyone else.
Last week the American Heart Association (AHA) put out a Presidential Advisory statement online warning against the use of saturated fats and in favor of polyunsaturated fats.
Lead author Frank Sacks, MD was quoted by Medscape:
We want to set the record straight on why well-conducted scientific research overwhelmingly supports limiting saturated fat in the diet.
Later in the article, he goes on to say:
This advisory is based on careful scientific review — it has been organized in a very systematic way, involving experts from a wide range of fields who have looked very carefully at the literature. Then the recommendations have been thoroughly vetted and questioned through multiple levels of peer review and scientific advisory committees across the entire AHA.
Okay, without question, I considered this excellent news for several reasons. Let me explain with an analogy….
Trial of The Century
Imagine saturated fat was a defendant on trial for murder. The trial stretched into years, then decades, and now approaches a century. The prosecution side is well funded with lots of resources and has been flooding the trial with mountains of papers and studies. The defense keeps finding issues with the evidence presented and starts to bring around many studies of its own, appearing to look better and better up to this point. The jury seems to be slowly moving more and more in the direction of the defense.
Like me, you might be a juror that is coming in late and feel overwhelmed by how much homework you’ve been given and how much material you have to sift through to have any idea of what to think.
But then, out of nowhere, the prosecution says, “Alright, alright — nevermind all these things. There are really just four studies that matter. Four studies that meet the standards necessary to judge this entire case on.”
You, me, and the rest of the jury look up in both surprise and relief. Everything just got easier for all of us!
Why This is Great
The AHA (whether it meant to or not) has now told us several things by this release:
- People are starting to believe saturated fat is okay or even healthy to the point where the AHA feels the need to act. This isn’t a study itself or a new guideline — this is a full-throated message to the masses.
- The AHA is insisting we narrow this down to just four studies. Four!!!
- Obviously, this means The Big Four presented must stand up to scrutiny in their methodology and data. And to be sure, I don’t know myself all the ins and outs of these studies to have a strong opinion — but I definitely will eventually. After all, I only have this tiny list now instead of the thousands in front of me before.
- Likewise, this implies every other study besides The Big Four is clearly unfit to meet the criteria set forth by the AHA. This too must be examined closely.
- The selection criteria itself is now something we can look at. When you announce you have used an objective, categorical set of standards — you have to be prepared to defend it.
There have been many, many voices of opposition that have sprung up in the last week, but I’m going to point to two in particular.
On the public prominence front, Gary Taubes delivers an impressive critique that outlines approach, bias, and the overall politics regarding the science and studies chosen.
Of sources on the biochemical front, no one comes close to Chris Masterjohn’s very methodical breakdown of each of the Big Four. He exposes both the problems with these studies and the inconsistencies with the AHA’s selection criteria.
If I could get you to read/listen to just two – make it these two.
Will They Address Criticism Directly?
This is an extremely relevant question.
We can determine a lot by the next actions of the AHA with regard to defending their release — or ignoring arguments altogether. Is this about science or politics?
If this is about the science:
- They will rightly defend their selection criteria and address comments about this process itself.
- They will likewise rebut issues with the studies directly and why they believe each is worthy of the standard they set.
- They may ignore critiques of this advisory entirely, insisting their release adequately addressed all possible concerns.
- They may set up a false dichotomy with regard to response effort — “Hey, we can’t answer every criticism of this work.” In other words, if we have to answer even one, then we’d have to answer all. Therefore the prudent thing would be to answer none.
- They may employ political tactics such as singling out an extremist voice in order to set up a Weak Man Argument. This hasn’t happened yet, but let me go on record now to say it is a very, very common practice in politics of the modern era.
I’m being sincere here – I’m genuinely happy the AHA took this action as I can now observe how much of the institution is acting on science vs politics.
This post has no tag
Leave a Reply
10 Comments on "Thank You, American Heart Association (Sincerely)"
Subscribe
newestoldestmost voted
Guest
Audrey Drake
0 Reply
10 months ago
Author
Dave
Thanks, Audrey!
0 Reply
10 months ago
Guest
Peter Lawton
I do like your reasoning, highlighting the trap – -Science/Politics-. I’ve read the stuff, inc Chris Masterjohn’s analysis. I feel a bit sad that AHA personnel keep staggering down the wrong road bearing their self-imposed burden.
0 Reply
10 months ago
Author
Dave
I want to give them the benefit of the doubt.
For now, we can just see what happens next…
0 Reply
10 months ago
Guest
sk
Since you decided to use a courtroom analogy you need to keep in mind that not guilty does not mean innocent; it only means that the prosecutor has not provided enough of a case to convict.
So, Sat fat may not be guilty, but that does not mean in the context of your analogy that it is innocent.
0 Reply
9 months ago
Author
Dave
I completely agree. But as with science, the burden of proof lies with those who make the assertion.
0 Reply
9 months ago
Guest
calzoncillos calvin klein baratos
Thanks for your personal marvelous posting! I actually enjoyed reading it, you may be a great author.
I will ensure that I bookmark your blog and definitely will come back sometime soon. I want to
encourage you to ultimately continue your great job, have a nice morning!
0 Reply
8 months ago
Guest
Ronald Hoffman MD
I am the host of the Intelligent Medicine radio program and podcast series (www.drhoffman.com/podcast-2/).
I’d like to invite Dave to join me for a podcast discussing The Cholesterol Code.
We record podcasts Mondays and Thursdays at 4 PM ET, and we have slots available in January.
Please let me know if we can arrange a mutually convenient time.
Thanks in advance for your consideration,
Dr. Ronald Hoffman
0 Reply
3 months ago
Guest
Victoria
I’m a lawyer. I’ve got CAD and I believe the advice I’ve received over the last 5 – 10 years from medical doctors has worsened my condition significantly. I believe it was unethical and perhaps negligent. I’m looking into both individual and class action lawsuits (just data gathering from a legal perspective), and would appreciate hearing from anyone who has heart disease, or has lost a family member while under the care of health providers still passing out bad information. I’m actively wondering if this approach won’t bring needed, urgently needed, attention to these issues. I’d appreciate hearing from anyone… Read more »
0 Reply
1 month ago
Author
Dave
I certainly wish you luck, Victoria!
Unfortunately, I genuinely don’t believe there’s as much of a serious focus on evidence-based medicine in the area of heart disease given how much of a profitable distraction lipid-lowering drugs have become. In finding all this info on Remnant Cholesterol, I was genuinely surprised it wasn’t getting several hundred times the attention it does now given its predictive power over the much weaker LDL association with CVD (and especially All Cause Mortality). I can’t help but wonder if RCs get the silent treatment because there’s no drug that can improve it.
0 Reply
1 month ago
Donate
My primary costs are the many frequent and expensive blood tests I take for this research and data. Any size donation is appreciated. Thank you for your support!
Recent Posts
- The Next Chapter
- Gaining Weight for Science
- A #LoveLetterAroundTheWorld to my Wife on our 10 Year Anniversary
- Who Gets 67 C-Reactive Protein Tests? I do!
- London Trip, Social & Comments Growth, and Even More Shawn Baker
- Siobhan Huggins on Are you a Lean Mass Hyper-responder?
- Roger Johnson on Are you a Lean Mass Hyper-responder?
- Siobhan Huggins on New Report Tool in Development
- Siobhan Huggins on Remnant Cholesterol – What Every Low Carber Should Know
- Noah on Remnant Cholesterol – What Every Low Carber Should Know
- April 2018
- March 2018
- February 2018
- January 2018
- December 2017
- November 2017
- October 2017
- September 2017
- August 2017
- July 2017
- June 2017
- May 2017
- April 2017
- March 2017
- January 2017
- December 2016
- November 2016
- October 2016
- September 2016
- August 2016
- July 2016
- June 2016
Copyright
© 2018 Cholesterol Code.
Powered by WordPress and the Graphene Theme.
Good for him but advocating low carb and/or ketogenic diets is ignoring all the evidence against them. There’s no evolutionary advantage to a high fat / ketogenic diet and no population thrives on it. It’s a short term strategy only. Going from 300+ to 200+ TC means nothing at all from a health standpoint, besides that his metabolism is slow.
Being insulin sensitive is much more desirable, having high LDL receptor activity and high (cholesterol) metabolism and therefore low lipid numbers is much more desirable, not being hypothyroid is much more desirable.
Lab tests are always a picture of what’s going on in your body at a defined time (when you get bloods drawn). The idea behind them is to make them useful through giving an accurate picture, meaning don’t try to game them just show up after some day to day routine is set. Then ask a capable doctor to read a blood test, which is the technical part, although what they prescribed is a strong indicator to whether you should look for another doctor or not.
Edit - and yeah the AHA is an awful bunch of policital morons who wanna pay their bills being in bed with big pharma. As a pharmacist I can safely say a large number of doctors MDs or pharmDs aren’t fools and have the basis that engineers don’t. But we’re in a day and age where people want magic pills to cure their lifestyle nonsense, and wanna feel good about eating more fat. So what shall we say that isn’t perceived as boring at best, or threatening to most?
Being insulin sensitive is much more desirable, having high LDL receptor activity and high (cholesterol) metabolism and therefore low lipid numbers is much more desirable, not being hypothyroid is much more desirable.
Lab tests are always a picture of what’s going on in your body at a defined time (when you get bloods drawn). The idea behind them is to make them useful through giving an accurate picture, meaning don’t try to game them just show up after some day to day routine is set. Then ask a capable doctor to read a blood test, which is the technical part, although what they prescribed is a strong indicator to whether you should look for another doctor or not.
Edit - and yeah the AHA is an awful bunch of policital morons who wanna pay their bills being in bed with big pharma. As a pharmacist I can safely say a large number of doctors MDs or pharmDs aren’t fools and have the basis that engineers don’t. But we’re in a day and age where people want magic pills to cure their lifestyle nonsense, and wanna feel good about eating more fat. So what shall we say that isn’t perceived as boring at best, or threatening to most?
Last edited:
OP
Elderflower j58
Member
@charlie Sorry only meant to insert his post
You can delete as needed,
I'm not great with techno stuff.
You can delete as needed,
I'm not great with techno stuff.
EMF Mitigation - Flush Niacin - Big 5 Minerals
Similar threads
