Are We Wrong about Cholesterol and Saturated Foods in General?

Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 10:41
Last edited 09/02/2024 - 11:21

I recently got a blood test done and turns out my cholesterol is too high.

I am in my early 30s. I go to the gym 2 to 3 times a week. Generally eat healthy foods. Don't smoke. I find it hard to justify why my cholesterol is too high.

If any one is interested, my cholesterol results in mmol/L are:

  • Total = 6.7 (too high)
  • Trig = 0.9
  • HDL = 1.6
  • LDL = 4.7 (too high)

GP said my LDL and total cholesterol are too high and I need to watch my diet (eat more wholegrains, fruits, veggies, less meat, less saturated foods, etc).
Edit: I already eat like this. GP couldn't really explain the results and just kind off dismissed it by saying eat even more veggies, even less meat, etc

Everyone I speak to (friends, parents, other doctors) say that high cholesterol (especially LDL) is bad because it results in increase risk of heart disease. I had always thought that having high cholesterol was bad. However, now that my own results came up high I did some research and it seems that high cholesterol is not that bad. A better indicator of increased heart attack risk might be the level of HDL cholesterol (specifically, the Total/HDL Cholesterol ratio).

For example:

Low Carb & Keto: What about Cholesterol?
Your Doctor Is Wrong About Cholesterol
Don’t Worry About “Bad” Cholesterol, Says Dr. Paul Saladino

Going down this rabbit hole, it seems like what we have been taught about in terms of saturated fat is also incorrect. Saturated fat is not as bad as what we have been told.

What is your opinion on saturated fats and cholesterol?
Is the general population's view on saturated fats and cholesterol incorrect?

Health & Beauty

Comments

  • Jimothy Wongingtons on 09/02/2024 - 10:46
    +16

    less meat, less saturated foods,

    ayo those are the best foods though!!!!

    also..if i understand you correctly, your doctor said hey you need to make these changes to improve health, and you are saying you ..dont want to make these changes?

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:08
      +4

      I already eat the kind of foods that my doctor is asking me to. I eat generally healthy. So I am not sure why the LDL is high. This is what started me to do some research.

      • DashCam AKA Rolts on 09/02/2024 - 11:50
        +51

        So I am not sure why the LDL is high.

        You may be genetically wired to produce/hang onto more of the LDLs. My family is. Diet dropped the numbers, but they were still too high, required low doses of rosuvastatins to get it to an optimal level.

        • casho on 10/02/2024 - 14:42

          Quite common

        • Benno007 on 14/02/2024 - 18:45

          My family is genetically predisposed to despite healthy eating and all the other stuffy ahh supposedly comes with techniques to lower cholesterol..

      • Sinnerator on 10/02/2024 - 08:33
        +1

        every person is at least slighty different

        find a better dr as many drs have zero clue even after 11 years of study + work

        You may have to start experimenting yourself to find what works for you

        and finally, you may just have naturally high levels

      • unhuman on 10/02/2024 - 18:42
        +22

        Colestrol could be genetic as well. I have the same issue. Just to test it out, I didn’t eat oil, meat, eggs for 3 months and did the blood test again, my colestrol was the same. Basically I ate veggies and bread for 90 days lol was awful lol.

        • Piranha2004 on 12/02/2024 - 19:46
          -1

          This is the answer.

      • frewer on 11/02/2024 - 14:39
        +3

        Have you looked into the seeds oil ( canola, veg, cotton, corn, sunflower etc) effects on your Cholesterol?

        • vid_ghost on 12/02/2024 - 20:40

          Reduce Cholesterol, increase inflammation = increased arterial plaque and blockage

          Just eat some oats in the morning and reduce animal fats in the diet.. pretty simple really :)

      • KevinFine on 12/02/2024 - 10:09

        @Jetpck

        Make sure you watch this! - Talk about a rabbit hole - Jason is great > follow his podcast you will learn allot more:

        Cholesterol is not there to kill you!

      • ChampofAus on 13/02/2024 - 13:49

        Do you eat lots of nuts and seeds? Especially cashews
        Or coconut oil?
        My naturopath advised to avoid that and my results improved in 2 months

      • Jay0Jay on 14/02/2024 - 15:38

        YouTube != research….

        Maybe something like this might give you some answers?

    • iDroid on 12/02/2024 - 12:23
      +2

      The appears to be almost zero correlation between the consumption of cholesterol and cholesterol in your blood/body.

      Though there is a huge correlation between the consumption of trans fatty acids which come from heating vegetable oils.

      I personally do not avoid saturated fats. I put globs of butter in my food. I save rendered meat fats (lamb and beef mostly) and cook in those oils.

  • Fredfloresjr on 09/02/2024 - 10:48
    +1

    More fats please….. yum.

  • ozbargainsam on 09/02/2024 - 10:51
    +31

    So your sources are…YouTube?

    • Fredfloresjr on 09/02/2024 - 10:56

      Either it is on Tiktok or Youtube or don't bother.

      Wait, he is just trying to confuse the community so we get the same AMOUNT of LDL like him. lol

      • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:12
        -1

        I started the research because I couldn't explain the results. Youtube is a great source of info but may not be true. I thought I will check with the community to see if anyone else has came across something similar.

        • gromit on 10/02/2024 - 12:36
          +15

          youtube is an incredibly BAD source of info as unless you know what's true you have no clue if you are consuming wise advise or complete and utter crap.

          • Goremans on 11/02/2024 - 23:02
            +13

            @gromit: Harvard medical, mayo clinic etc etc all have channels, not to mention the endless doctors and specialist that have channels that they film from their practices.

            You are wrong. Youtube can be a great source of info, but also a bad one….kinda like doctors advice.

            • gromit on 12/02/2024 - 07:37
              -3

              @Goremans: you are wrong, it is an awful source, all the channels you just mentioned implies a user knows enough to go to those which in the case of most is simply untrue. They search on the topic they want and find the information that best matches and reinforces their bias.

              • Goremans on 12/02/2024 - 11:00
                +3

                @gromit: Doctors have inherent bias also. Where is your proof that people dont know to go to those sources? You say "in the case of most is simply untrue". That's a guess. You don't know that. And don't find me a "study" - that would just be cherry picking and reinforcing your bias….I can find a study too.

                It is hilarious on this thread how many armchair "scientists" there are. When someone says do research - clearly, they don't mean they have set up a study, with a hypothesis and had it peer reviewed… yes, in the strictest sense of the word it does mean that. I've had many doctors recommend doing some "research" on a particular topic - sematics….

                A better word might be read or educate. But then I bet those same people will jump on that word - saying people can't self educate. Gatekeepers of nothing. Lol

                • gromit on 12/02/2024 - 12:44
                  -2

                  @Goremans: Really you think the general public are all aware of the mayo clinic and which doctors are reliable on youtube? seriously? have you not seen the massive amount of misinformation and conspiracy theories that are reproduced everywhere? the literally thousands of dodgy chiros and others spruiking everything from fad diets, homeopathy and dangerous conspiracies. Hint all of those only exist because people consume them. It is a well known fact people are inherently biased towards what they think is true, this influences their searches and the results.

              • BartholemewH on 12/02/2024 - 21:30
                +1

                @gromit: Only if they are an idiot…… Fair point.

            • filmer on 12/02/2024 - 09:06
              +4

              @Goremans: As long as you don't get one of the million chiropractors calling themselves doctors and providing ridiculous medical information to sell you something.

        • Laurenlauren on 11/02/2024 - 00:32
          +4

          You haven't done any research, you've done some reading/watching.

          Research requires a hypothesis and a very strict approach to collecting and collating results from an investigation.

          Even if you're using Google Scholar and reading peer reviewed articles on the topic, that's not doing research - it's reading other people's research.

          • rumblytangara on 12/02/2024 - 10:57

            @Laurenlauren: But all the whackjob podcasters or youtubers who say "do your own research" mean "listen to my podcast or watch my videos" so surely they must be right?

          • Goremans on 12/02/2024 - 11:34

            @Laurenlauren: You would be fun at parties…lol

        • ddilrat on 11/02/2024 - 09:03
          +3

          Is this a piss take

          • cashews on 11/02/2024 - 17:34
            +5

            @ddilrat: No some people really struggle to distinguish poor quality information from quality information. Some people only like to watch videos on subjects rather than read, and very few actually check the sources that the video gets their info from, in the case that they provide sources.

            A lot of people are easily fooled by how the information is presented and the confidence of the presenter rather than the accuracy of what is presented to them.

        • Autonomic on 12/02/2024 - 10:27
          +2

          Youtube is a great source of info but may not be true.

          Sounds like it's a bad source then

          • Goremans on 12/02/2024 - 12:13
            +1

            @Autonomic: Ok. So on a given topic. You read x,y,z studies. Likely glossing over summary and or abstract. How do you place the conclusions within the field? Even if peer reviewed, there are battlegrounds in every feild of academia.

            I guess you could only read meta analysis - but then often the scope would be to broad to be useful fpr the average person with a particular health issue.

            Lets also not forget the massive silent "Replication Crisis" in the medical literature.

            People need to get off their high horses. If a "bad source" leads to someone trying a new vitamin or supplement, and it not have a measurable or qualitative benifit, is this all that bad? Especially in Australia where on the international scale we have quite good regulation around supplements.

            You can't stop people from being idiots - but we also shouldn't shame them for trying to find things that can help their situation. Particularly with diagnoses like "Irritable Bowl Syndrome" and the mystery of autoimmune disorders so many are plagued with.

            The scientific method undoubtedly is the best path forward, but with studies on medical issues being dependent on funding and interest in the field - people are left suffering for decades. Many with no cure in sight.

            • Autonomic on 12/02/2024 - 12:23

              @Goremans: Are we discussing Youtube or actual research papers?

      • Tambani on 12/02/2024 - 19:22
        -1

        This comment is

  • Craze on 09/02/2024 - 10:58
    +6

    Genetics will play a part as well- does high cholesterol run in your family?

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:07
      +1

      No it doesn't.

      • About The Woolongs on 10/02/2024 - 14:16
        +10

        Familial hypercholesterolemia generally doesn't show until men are in their 30s and after menopause for women.
        There can be fatty deposits on the lower eye lids as an indicator but most GPs don't pick up on that.

        Oats, salmon, blueberries and avocado often can bring it down. People always talk about the foods you should do without rather than the foods you should inject into your diet.

      • Crabcrabchow on 14/02/2024 - 13:23

        Yes, Genetics can play a role…
        have a look at boosting things like psyllium husk, fish oil, plant statins in your diet. Make a few sustainable changes with these, get tested again and see how it shifts.

    • El cheepo on 09/02/2024 - 11:58
      +18

      Its amazing how much genetics can play a part.

      I eat what i want, when i want. Much to the disgust of my wife who tells me it will catch up with me eventually (in weight gain, cholesterol and heart disease etc)

      I decided last year we should probably check that stuff and my results came back perfectly fine. As for my wife - who eats very healthy all the time, her results come back with high cholesterol.

      Needless to say, she was unimpressed.

      • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 12:06

        Lmao. I am thinking mine is just genetics even though no one else in my family has high cholesterol.

        • El cheepo on 09/02/2024 - 12:49

          No one either side of your family has links with it?

          Maybe it is something in your diet you’re unaware of?

        • zine21 on 10/02/2024 - 15:00
          +3

          you don't need to have it run (be visible) in the family for it to be genetics. Its probably a combination of a few different predisposing factors

      • R4 on 11/02/2024 - 23:59
        +1

        Yep. My wife is always nagging me about getting tests etc. So a few months ago I had a full blood test and my doctor says the results are about as good as it can get for someone my age.

  • boomramada on 09/02/2024 - 11:02
    +25

    Did someone say KFC?

    • Fobsessive on 11/02/2024 - 22:50
      +2

      I don't care!

      • AlienC on 12/02/2024 - 05:43
        +2

        I love it!

  • Drpepper666 on 09/02/2024 - 11:03
    +16

    Oh my God dude listen to your doctor and not fake YouTube doctors lmao

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:17
      +4

      I already eat the kind of foods that my doctor wanted me to which is why I am not sure what more I can do. That's why I tried to find out more info about this and came across these videos. I don't plan on following any of them.

      Just wanted to see if anyone else experienced something similar. Also wanted to see what the general opinion is with regards to cholesterol and saturated fat.

    • Ghost47 on 09/02/2024 - 17:53
      +4

      There are people on YouTube who are actually credentialed in healthcare. That's not to say quacks don't exist on YouTube, just that they are not all fake. Some do actually know what they're talking about. I don't watch many of them but there's an optometrist who is on YouTube and Dr. John Campbell who is a retired nurse with a PhD and knows quite a lot about physiology (he's written textbooks, done work in Africa and is well connected in the medical community).

      It's like Wikipedia. People will automatically bash it as a knee-jerk reaction to the word "Wikipedia" but if the information is cited and from a reliable source there is nothing wrong with it. We don't live in the 1990s anymore where Encyclopaedia Britannica is the single source of truth. People need to understand that before ignorantly dismissing platforms just because they aren't printed books.

      Some GPs don't even know what they're doing because they'll automatically prescribe their patients a course of antibiotics for a viral infection. Just because someone is on YouTube doesn't mean that they're fake, just like how some GPs don't actually know what they're doing because they got a degree 30 years ago and haven't kept up with the medical literature.

      • Aureus on 09/02/2024 - 18:04
        +3

        Dr John Campbell found that no one was interested in his actual nursing content, but pushing anti-vax nonsense could bring in a lot of views.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Campbell_(YouTuber)

        • Ghost47 on 09/02/2024 - 18:07
          +7

          Eh, you can look at it that way if you want. I don't think it's wrong for someone to change their views on a specific topic if more information comes to light about it. It's silly to deny new information just because you feel a certain way about something.

          I didn't watch him much during the pandemic but I'm fairly certain that he was pro-COVID vaccine during the pandemic, and I think he also advocated for wearing masks. If his views have changed on it all the question should be "What information has caused him to change his views?" instead of "He just wanted more viewers so decided to post controversial stuff for cookers to enjoy."

          • Aureus on 09/02/2024 - 18:12

            @Ghost47: Nah it is silly to push ivermectin and misinformation. It is also misleading to call yourself "Dr" and provide medical advise when you don't have a MD, just a doctorate.

            • Ghost47 on 09/02/2024 - 18:19

              @Aureus: He doesn't actually give advice, he states in his videos that they are not intended to be medical advice.

              And I don't think there's anything wrong at all for advocating for something that appears to work based on scientific experiments. If you have a sample of patients with an illness and give half of them a drug and see their symptoms improve and the other group doesn't improve, that drug should be further investigated and not pushed away because of "hur dur horse drugs" groupthink (and by this I'm referring to ivermectin and also ketamine). As a society we should be advocating to further our knowledge through science, not through staying ignorant because something goes against the social norm.

              It's like with psychedelics, ten years ago most people would be saying "psychedelics are dangerous and should be avoided because illegal". Now professional therapists that are qualified in their field of work are starting to investigate the potential therapeutic benefits of giving their patients psychedelics and trials have actually been promising. Here's another article on the use of psychedelics to treat patients in end of life therapy. What kind of world do we want to live in? One where people dismiss new information to willingly remain ignorant or one where people use science to understand and make the world a better place to live? For me it's the latter and I'm not surprised people prefer the former.

              • Autonomic on 12/02/2024 - 10:34
                +2

                @Ghost47: Why bother listening to someone who has a PhD in nursing when there's actual professionals within the field who you can listen to instead? At this point you're just looking for what you want to hear and disregarding what you don't.

                that drug should be further investigated and not pushed away because of "hur dur horse drugs" groupthink (and by this I'm referring to ivermectin and also ketamine(unsw.edu.au)).

                Both ivermectin and ketamine are studied heavily

                • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 01:40

                  @Autonomic:

                  At this point you're just looking for what you want to hear and disregarding what you don't.

                  What are you even on about? I'm elaborating on what he says in his videos because the other person like yourself are clearly misunderstood.

                  All he does is summarise journal articles and has interviews with other people who are highly qualified in the health field. He doesn't make anything up, he looks at the data and communicates it, like a science communicator.

          • bidoof on 13/02/2024 - 00:58
            +3

            @Ghost47: What information caused him to change his views?
            How about the information that he’s made a million pounds from his YouTube business since he pivoted to the cooker demographic?

            It’s a matter of public record:
            https://find-and-update.company-information.service.gov.uk/c…

            P.S. his PhD thesis was on the effectiveness of online teaching materials for educating nurses. Absolutely nothing to do with medical science.

            • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 03:30

              @bidoof:

              What information caused him to change his views?

              I believe it would be all the information that's come out after the pandemic in scientific journal articles and what other researchers have discovered. What information do you think has changed his views? Cooker Facebook pages?

              How about the information that he’s made a million pounds from his YouTube business since he pivoted to the cooker demographic?

              You seem to think he "pivoted" to the cooker demographic. All he's doing is presenting new scientific data that has come out recently. You seem to have some distrust of him simply because his content now focusses on things like the safety of the COVID-19 vaccines, showcases a guy who fell ill without any explanation except for the AZ vaccine (doesn't mean all vaccines are dangerous btw, because that would be a stupid conclusion to jump to), interviews other researchers who've tested ivermectin on their patients (Dr. Robert Clancy from NSW, here's a paper he's co-authored - not saying this is conclusive evidence that iVeRmEcTiN wOrKs, just that it's probably worth studying further because you know, science, whatever that is) and highlighting the fact there are excess deaths in countries all around the world and no one actually knows why yet (he's not saying it's due to vaccines either, it could be due to, for example, people not getting diagnosed for cancer due to lockdowns or whatever). The people he has on his channel are actually credentialed too, they aren't bums off the street, you can easily look them up (another guy that stands out is Angus Dalgleish). I honestly don't know why people are attacking him so zealously.

              Now, I don't consider myself a cooker or anti-cooker; I gladly took the Pfizer vaccine when it became available to me, I masked up, I cough/sneeze into my elbow whenever I need to etc. The way I see it is that there are two extremes on this spectrum: the cookers who will never take any sort of vaccine, never vaccinate their kids, never wear a mask, don't believe in science and are borderline sovcit, and the anti-cookers who are bashing this guy because they think he's pivoted his videos to cookers when in reality he is just presenting new data. I place myself on the anti-cooker side of the spectrum (not at the very end either) as I am actually open-minded that if new data presents itself that contradicts prior beliefs, then it should be investigated and considered further instead of just reptile braining it with cOoKeR!!!! I don't know why this seems to be so controversial for some people, but it's quite sad that it seems to be the case.

              P.S. his PhD thesis was on the effectiveness of online teaching materials for educating nurses. Absolutely nothing to do with medical science.

              This isn't new information to me, it was the first thing I checked when I stumbled on his videos. It's really weird how strongly you're trying to discredit him, have you even heard of him before this thread? He's actually worked as an A&E nurse (i.e. emergency) in the UK for what I believe was a few decades as he's mentioned it in his videos and he's senior lecturer as well.

              If you're trying to use his PhD to discredit him, then that's quite bizarre and extremely unreasonable. Just because he has a PhD in digital teaching that doesn't mean he has no knowledge of medical science especially if you consider his experience holistically and not just focus on his PhD. Do you think you've magically uncovered a controversial secret no one knew previously that's lead to everyone finally finding out he's some sort of fraud or something, like this is some Hollywood movie? As I said in my comment above, he's literally written textbooks on physiology (they're also available free online for anyone who wants to read them). Look at the reviews. One is from 2017 (which is before the pandemic, just FYI). From a trauma surgeon. For a five star rating. Another one from a nursing student from 2011, five stars. There's another entry with even more glowing reviews, is that all for naught because he's on YouTube? Because that would be absolutely ridiculous.

              Honestly, what's the reasoning behind all these replies I'm getting? Where am I telling people to believe everything he says? Am I saying that vaccines don't work? Am I saying COVID-19 isn't real? Am I saying everyone on YouTube should be trusted? Am I being a cooker? No, I'm actually not saying any of that. All I'm saying is that some people online actually know their stuff and that sometimes new information comes out that changes people's beliefs and that should be investigated further.

              We don't live in the 1970s anymore where the only person who knows something about health is at the hospital or the GP's office. Just because they're on YouTube it doesn't automatically discredit their knowledge or experience. And just because someone says "some people online know their stuff", they're not saying you should believe everyone on YouTube either; the point is to come to a conclusion based on facts; not automatically believe everything you see or simply block things out because it's on YouTube. And the facts with that guy is that he has a lot of experience, he can actually interpret statistics and scientific data, he is well connected in the medical community and he knows his shit. You can deny it all you want for whatever reasons you want, but it won't change anything.

              @Aureus @Autonomic It would benefit you two to read this comment to further understand where I'm coming from.

              • mrdean on 16/02/2024 - 12:47

                @Ghost47:

                I honestly don't know why people are attacking him so zealously.

                You honestly don't know?

                It's because he's casting doubt on the "safety & efficacy" of these not-really-vaccines.

                "Even if a vaccine is produced with the utmost care in accord with the most stringent specifications, it is virtually certain to cause harm to a tiny fraction of those who use it, or sometimes to those who come into close contact with those who receive it. Some victims who suffer debilitating physical damage, or even death, receive little compensation for it. They are the unfortunate victims of programs designed to protect the public health."

                https://www.nytimes.com/1984/06/26/science/vaccine-liability…

                In relation to the polio vaccine:

                ""any possible doubts, whether or not well founded, about the safety of the vaccine cannot be allowed to exist"

                https://www.govinfo.gov/content/pkg/FR-1984-06-01/pdf/FR-198…

                page 255 of the pdf, middle column, top.

                People have been propagandized, over a very long period of time, so much so they automatically react with hatred & vilification towards anyone who goes against the manufactured consensus. It's literally what Orwell wrote in the novel 1984.

                • Ghost47 on 16/02/2024 - 17:06

                  @mrdean: Yes, I suspect you are correct. I haven't read 1984, still need to get around to that.

              • bidoof on 18/02/2024 - 05:15
                +1

                @Ghost47:

                Do you think you've magically uncovered a controversial secret no one knew previously that's lead to everyone finally finding out he's some sort of fraud or something, like this is some Hollywood movie?

                There’s no secret - plenty of people have thoroughly debunked his claims and this is common knowledge, not a secret. If you have any interest in an unbiased examination of the evidence, you’d be able to find more of these easily (you don’t even have to leave YouTube!).

                Here’s just another example of his manufactured outrage (see how convincing he sounds to a layperson, unless they actually go looking and find that he made it all up?):
                https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=HdTByuSY2g8

                You keep saying that he’s being dismissed because he’s on YouTube, but I have no idea where you’re getting that from. He’s being dismissed because despite the experience and knowledge he ought to have as a formerly decent science educator, he’s coming out with videos littered with basic statistical errors and poor comprehension. This leads to the conclusion that either dementia has recently gotten a strong hold on him, or he’s grifting, because he really ought to know better. At one point he was apparently unaware of the difference between a conference presentation and a journal article, which is literally impossible if you’ve done any kind of research degree.

                Again, it’s not that I think he’s ignorant or uneducated. It’s the opposite - the fact that he has massively regressed in terms of statistical literacy and reading comprehension over the course of a few years suggests that this is all a grift, because he really should better.

                You say you are open minded: If you watch those videos debunking his claims and then go back to the actual source or statistics/medical research resources and confirm for yourself, you’ll see how he is manipulating you by selectively presenting information, and you’ll realise how someone with a little knowledge can easily present new information in a way that’s highly misleading to a lay audience, and without the equivalent of years of medical education, you simply won’t realise you’re being lied to. His talent as an educator is also a double-edged sword, as the same skills can be used to make lies sound more convincing. And herein lies the problem. If you haven’t already caught the numerous basic errors his videos are riddled with, how do you expect to distinguish truth from lies without that basic scientific knowledge to compete with him?

                As for his textbook, you can find a free copy of it on his website. Skimming it, it looks like an excellently written text at the high school to nursing science level, but take a look at an actual basic medical pathology textbook like Robbins & Cotran - it makes his book look like child’s play in comparison. His book is simply far below the level expected of a modern medical student. Unfortunately, his average credulous viewer is far below even the level of his book, so how are they going to tell when he’s lying?

                • Ghost47 on 18/02/2024 - 21:20
                  +1

                  @bidoof: Some good videos shown there, thanks for bringing me back to reality because you know, the whole open-minded/growth mindset thing which I try to adhere to. It's always good to get pulled back to reality which seems to be what John, and I'm sure most of us, need every now and then, unless of course one has a massive ego and thinks they're infallible.

                  And the textbook comparison is a bit overly disingenuous to get your point across, it doesn't make sense to compare what is obviously a beginner to intermediate level physiology textbook written by one person to a medical pathology textbook written by three people, all of whom appear to be trained medical doctors, unless your point is to simply discredit someone else completely.

                  Unfortunately, his average credulous viewer is far below even the level of his book, so how are they going to tell when he’s lying?

                  Is there a reason why you felt the need to add all these silly little pathetic snipes throughout your comment? Did it make you feel like a bigger person? Or a better person? Because just FYI, people can be much more receptive to what you say if you don't act like a condescending (profanity) to them.

                  • bidoof on 27/02/2024 - 04:14

                    @Ghost47: Firstly, good on you for being open minded.

                    The entire point of the textbook comparison was to demonstrate the vast gulf in understanding between a layperson and Campbell, and then the vast gulf again between Campbell and an actual doctor (or medical scientist) specialising in the relevant field. For the record, Robbins and Cotran itself is at a beginner-to-intermediate level, and a qualified doctor would be expected to know about pathology relevant to their specialty in much greater depth than this. Campbell’s book is closer to a high-school level in comparison, but his knowledge is clearly more than enough to mislead the average person.

                    Is there a reason why you felt the need to add all these silly little pathetic snipes throughout your comment?

                    I’m simply stating a fact isn’t even referring to you (I said “average credulous viewer”). Personally, I’d be the first to admit that I’m absolutely a layperson outside of my field. A mechanic could tell me that I need to get my headlamp fluid replaced, and I’d be equally credulous and incapable of knowing that he’s lying because I lack the knowledge. I’m sure that my knowledge of whatever field you’re an expert in is similarly poor and you’d be able to run rings around me like Campbell does to his followers if you wanted. It’s a simple fact of life and no blow to my ego to admit this. If that offends you, that’s on you.

      • Ughhh on 10/02/2024 - 11:21

        Dr. John Campbell who is a retired nurse with a PhD a

        What did he do his phd on?

        • mrvaluepack on 10/02/2024 - 17:25

          Doctor of nursing.

        • Charmoffensive on 16/02/2024 - 12:29
          -1

          Education practices in nursing.

          • Ughhh on 16/02/2024 - 21:14

            @Charmoffensive:

            He received the Ph.D. for his work on developing methods of teaching via digital media such as online videos.

            So a phd on being a YouTuber.

            • Charmoffensive on 19/02/2024 - 00:23
              -1

              @Ughhh: Correct, and just as qualified to weigh in on vaccines as one, too.

      • filmer on 12/02/2024 - 09:10
        +6

        John Campbell has often misunderstood data, most likely intentionally to push his agenda. Providing medical information using a non MD Doctor title is disingenuous.

        • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 04:36

          Can you elaborate on the data he has misunderstood? And what do you think his agenda is? And does that mean nurses or pharmacists can't provide medical information?

          And sure it can be considered disingenuous, I certainly agree that it can be misleading, but it's easy to find out information about him and judge for yourself whether you think he might be a cooker or not. If someone has been a nurse for decades, is enthusiastic about their work to the point of writing physiology textbooks, travels abroad to teach and keeps up with medical research etc. then I don't have an issue with them providing medical information.

          On the flip side, titles are important but they mean nothing if people aren't enthusiastic about their work. There have been stories of GPs committing malpractice and of specialists who have misdiagnosed patients. People don't automatically become infallible simply because they have a title. So when you actually think about it, relying on a title can be short-sighted. Now that I think about it more, this is even more important these days consider how many people move here from overseas. This story corroborates my belief.

          Pretty sure if people look they'll find numerous stories of fake doctors in this country (and let's not forget that the news isn't exhaustive, i.e. someone could go missing and you wouldn't hear about it because it's not in the news). You'll probably say "Well the number of real doctors far outweighs fake doctors" which is probably true, but the fact it happens in the first place, and the fact so many people want to live here and will do whatever they can to make that happen means that people should still be wary.

          Anyway, the main point in my comments is that people should look at the facts presented to them and come to a conclusion, not simply to dismiss people just because they're on YouTube, nor listen to anyone blindly because they're on there either, nor assume Wikipedia is inaccurate if the information has a reliable source, nor assume Wikipedia is always accurate etc.

          • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 16:29

            @Ghost47: Not sure why I’ve been downvoted, I thought my comment was quite reasonable. Can the people who downvoted me please explain where I went wrong?

          • Charmoffensive on 19/02/2024 - 00:57

            @Ghost47: Look, I think people are being kinda rude to you and blowing you off because you're espousing someone who is a vaccine sceptic, but I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here and try to address your points honestly.

            Can you elaborate on the data he has misunderstood?

            https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-wasnt-show…

            Someone else already referred you to this. I noticed you ignored this article in your post. There are probably countless other articles because all of his positions of vaccine hesitancy are refuted by basically the entire medical community, short of a few opportunistic grifters out to use a controversial topic to make a quick buck, ala Andrew Wakefield. Scientifically speaking, vaccine scepticism is a conspiracy theory no different to the moon landing being faked.

            And what do you think his agenda is?

            To court those who are "vaccine sceptics/hesitant" in order to increase his channel's ad revenue through engagement and clicks.

            And does that mean nurses or pharmacists can't provide medical information?

            In the fields of virology or diagnostic medicine? Correct, both would be unqualified. As someone who studied pharmacy in uni, I can tell you that we aren't qualified in the slightest to weigh in on that. While we/they may have some level of increased medical literacy compared to a layman, they are not qualified to weigh in on all medical matters, only those that pertain to their expertise. i.e. A pharmacist would be able to weigh in on the efficacy and possible side affects of pharmaceuticals, drug interactions etc. He/she would not be any more qualified to weigh in on the efficacy of vaccines than a chemical engineer. Nurses are more specialised in patient care and in Australia are not allowed to diagnose patients or prescribe medication because they are not adequately trained with the requisite medical knowledge to provide that level of medical care.

            I fear you assume Campbell's qualifications give him far more authority that it does. He is not a specialist in vaccines or virology and knows no more about the subject than anyone else who has completed anatomy and physiology 2 at uni. This is to say, unless he has extensively trained and specialised in this area of medicine (he hasn't), it is incredibly disingenuous for him to display his title as Doctor given his thesis was pertaining to education in the online space. He is also not qualified to accurately interpret the data in vaccine studies, nor is able to distinguish between a robust study and one with poor rigor (or he is simply not interested in making the distinction).

            Anyway, the main point in my comments is that people should look at the facts presented to them and come to a conclusion

            I agree to a degree, although there are some pretty large caveats to this. I'm not exactly qualified enough to form an opinion on say, the safety of xylene in the workplace for instance, but I'm sure there are plenty of people who could present data that supports any position on xylene that they want, for or against. It is through this process that honest people looking for the truth are easily misled by someone presenting data on a subject they are unfamiliar with, using their own very skewed interpretation or bias. We can also be misled by someone presenting one or two studies about how dangerous xylene is, while omitting the hundreds of others that affirm how safe it is. Because I'm a layman, I am not able to discern if these rogue studies are valuable and I'm probably not going to search through journal articles to find the thousands of others - I'm just going to take someone's bad faith, cherry picked data at face value and consequently leave misinformed. Nurses are especially vulnerable to this, as their superficial grasp of diagnostic medicine often leaves them feeling far more qualified to make assessments on medical areas that they actually have very little knowledge of. There's a reason anti-vax nurses outweigh anti-vax doctors 10 to 1 in ratio/percent.

            not simply to dismiss people just because they're on YouTube

            I agree, there's hundreds of fantastic and well research videos on youtube, doing deep dives into anything from NFT's to abandoned theme parks. I agree that (like wikipedia) it doesn't automatically make it wrong because anyone can upload - HOWEVER, you should always enter into it with extreme scepticism and if it's a subject that has real world consequences, like health or accounting and finance, go and seek out a real world professional who you can have a chat with. Youtube/wikipedia while not automatically wrong, are NOT a substitute for a real specialist working in the field.

            • Ghost47 on 21/02/2024 - 19:39

              @Charmoffensive:

              espousing

              Um, where did I do this? Is saying what he does on YouTube espousing him? Is saying "Dr. John Campbell who is a retired nurse with a PhD and knows quite a lot about physiology" "supporting" him? Did I say something along the lines of "everyone should go and watch this guy and believe everything he says"? If so, can you please quote where I said that? Is mentioning his name and describing content of some of his videos "espousing" him? Is saying he "knows quite a lot about physiology" (based on the fact he wrote a textbook that I would say most people couldn't write themselves) espousing him? I thought I was just stating facts. If I say "the moon is 384,400 km from the earth, mankind had to find a way to travel through the earth's atmosphere and through the cold void of space to land on the moon" does that automatically mean I "espouse" conspiracy theories about the moon landing being faked? Honestly, I think what happened is that I dropped a name (to use as an example of someone who is "credentialed") which turned out to be extremely controversial to some people and because I dropped that name, people's reptile brains automatically kicked in and assumed I was "espousing" someone they believe to be an anti-vaxxer, despite the guy making videos during the pandemic telling people to mask up and get vaccinated. If he was a poor example for some people, fair enough. There are probably other doctors on YouTube that are still credentialed.

              vaccine sceptic

              Sure, in more recent times he has become a vaccine sceptic. From what I can see he wasn't a sceptic during the pandemic though. He took his vaccines but he has since become more sceptical of them in recent times. Being clear about this because it's important to be accurate about things and not imply he was always some sort of vaccine sceptic (and no, I'm not trying to espouse him either, just getting the facts straight).

              I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here

              Benefit of the doubt for what? What do you think I'm trying to do?

              Someone else already referred you to this. I noticed you ignored this article in your post…. Scientifically speaking, vaccine scepticism is a conspiracy theory no different to the moon landing being faked.

              That's nice, I'm sure you also saw the comments where I said I couldn't be bothered discussing this anymore. And yes, I saw the article, he mislead on that topic, great, it's good he was called out for it because being factual is important, duh! I was actually wondering what else he's mislead on in general, because the other person said "often misunderstood data" so people seem to be implying he's mislead on a lot of things said so I was hoping for different examples of where he has shown a scientific journal article on video and misinterpreted the data. And I was hoping for someone to actually describe the details, not link to some other YouTube videos of someone debunking him. And obviously, YES it's a bad thing that he misunderstood something and communicated the data incorrectly! So can you please show me some other examples without simply linking to articles where he's been "debunked"? And please summarise it all for me, thanks. May I suggest tabulating the data? Possibly one column with the video name, another column with the claims he made, and a third column with the facts that refute the claims he made.

              To court those who are "vaccine sceptics/hesitant" in order to increase his channel's ad revenue through engagement and clicks.

              Yes, you've already made that clear in the second paragraph in your comment. His channel obviously mustn't have been doing very well post-pandemic, views dropped as life got back to normal and now what with the obvious dementia and senility kicking in he's decided to pivot to the cookers. That's the only logical explanation for his behaviour.

              it is incredibly disingenuous for him to display his title as Doctor

              Sure, I don't disagree with that, especially since his videos are related to health people could get the wrong message by him using that title. You would have to be pretty silly to automatically assume he was a medical doctor straight off the bat and there was no possibility he had a PhD though (which I didn't actually, the first time I saw his videos I checked if he was a medical doctor or had a PhD, not that I think you'll actually believe me since you seem to think I'm an anti-vaxxer simply because I mentioned his name and watched his videos despite that not even being the core of what my original point was).

              He is also not qualified to accurately interpret the data in vaccine studies, nor is able to distinguish between a robust study and one with poor rigor (or he is simply not interested in making the distinction).

              Ok, so the only people who are allowed to interpret scientific journals are those who are qualified on the topic being studied. Anyone else who reads a study is likely to misinterpret it even if they're qualified or have experience in analysis of biological, scientific and/or statistical data, and can also read other texts to develop their background knowledge on the topic. It's therefore pointless for universities to give students assignments where they need to read journal articles and interpret them because they aren't qualified in the first place, how silly of the assignment creators, they obviously don't realise that you're either born with it or you're not. You need to get a degree in a specific field to be able to accurately interpret or discuss anything in that field, got your message. I personally think humans are a bit more capable of learning new things than that, but you do you.

              I'm sure there are plenty of people who could present data that supports any position on xylene that they want, for or against. It is through this process that honest people looking for the truth are easily misled by someone presenting data on a subject they are unfamiliar with, using their own very skewed interpretation or bias. We can also be misled by someone presenting one or two studies about how dangerous xylene is, while omitting the hundreds of others that affirm how safe it is.

              Sure, if someone does decide to mislead someone by cherry picking examples that is obviously bad. I would think that most people would understand this. It's stupid to go down a narrow path of literature and get tunnel vision without considering other things and looking at the wider picture.

              Nurses are especially vulnerable to this, as their superficial grasp of diagnostic medicine often leaves them feeling far more qualified to make assessments on medical areas that they actually have very little knowledge of.

              Ok, cool. I'll go and assume you're qualified in the field of nursing, medicine, hospital studies etc. to make this assertion based on what you previously said.

              HOWEVER, you should always enter into it with extreme scepticism and if it's a subject that has real world consequences, like health or accounting and finance, go and seek out a real world professional who you can have a chat with.

              You are really good at stating the glaringly obvious. Nowhere did I say I watch his videos for advice, nor have I said "listen to this guy on YouTube he knows what he's talking about!!!" or "don't take the vaccine it's dangerous Dr. John said so!!!" or "take ivermectin if you have COVID-19 it's good for you!!!". Maybe you should read my other comments (but please, don't reply because I'm actually quite tired of communicating the same thing over and over in this thread).

              Youtube/wikipedia while not automatically wrong, are NOT a substitute for a real specialist working in the field.

              Provide me a quote of myself saying this, because I don't think I ever said that. All I was saying is that some people are actually credentialed (i.e. "having qualifications"), did I say "they are infallible and you should believe everything they say"? No, I didn't. Did I say "John is right about everything he says"? No. Did I say his PhD was in vaccinology/immunology? No. But if you think I did say those things, please quote where I said them. I'm sure John has said some accurate/misleading things in the past. I'm sure he's also said some inaccurate/misleadings things in more recent times. I'm sure he's also actually said some things that have in fact been accurate in the past (shock, horror!). I don't automatically believe anyone is infallible, nor do I automatically assume people are completely devoid of knowledge.

              But yes, sure, go see a specialist if you want advice, there's nothing wrong with that. But as I mentioned in my other comment, you should also keep in mind also that just because you see a specialist in person, that doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get the right advice, that's why people say "get a second opinion" especially if someone feels like their diagnosis isn't accurate or that their problems aren't being solved (because people aren't infallible). Malpractice is a thing and I'm sure there are thousands of people out there that get misdiagnosed by healthcare professionals every year, because humans in general aren't infallible! And after I say this, what do you think I'm saying? Let me guess, you're probably thinking that I'm saying specialists are completely pointless and unnecessary, right? Because I said "just because you see a specialist in person, that doesn't mean you're guaranteed to get the right advice", right? Guaranteed to get the right advice implying you will get the right advice with 100% certainty, every time you see a specialist. Do you seriously think people are infallible?

              Oh and by the way, my comment is snarky because I'm tired of this thread, maybe my words weren't clear enough in my comments but I never said people should believe everything they see on YouTube or Wikipedia, just that some people are actually credentialed on YouTube and that Wikipedia can be trusted if the citations are reliable because we don't live in the 1970s anymore where Enyclopaedia Britannica is the only single source of truth. Obviously people aren't infallible either and therefore people on YouTube, people who edit Wikipedia, people who write scientific journals and yes, even people who give specialist advice can also be prone to mistakes (who knows why, maybe they forgot something, maybe they wanted to get out of the office to go to an important event, maybe some new regulation or legislation came out that they hadn't read up on, maybe they're trying to do something they haven't done in years, whatever, humans aren't infallible).

              • Charmoffensive on 22/02/2024 - 23:15

                @Ghost47: Every single one of your points uses the same argument: "I didn't draw a pig, I just drew an outline over and over again that is pig shaped. That's not the same as drawing a pig".

                You can't talk around a topic over and over again, leave a glaringly obvious square shaped hole and then claim you never directly talked about squares. It's so incredibly disingenuous.

      • Autonomic on 12/02/2024 - 10:32
        +1

        That's not to say quacks don't exist on YouTube, just that they are not all fake. Some do actually know what they're talking about. I don't watch many of them but there's an optometrist who is on YouTube and Dr. John Campbell who is a retired nurse with a PhD and knows quite a lot about physiology (he's written textbooks, done work in Africa and is well connected in the medical community).

        Except you, a layman, have no way of evaluating the truthfulness, accuracy or quality of these videos. There may be some good doctors on there (obviously official Harvard or Mayo Clinic videos are trustworthy) but without the ability to distinguish it's pointless to "do your own research" when you have zero qualifications.

        • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 01:43
          -2

          when you have zero qualifications.

          Cute of you to assume I have zero qualifications when you don't even (profanity) know me in real life. What a weird and narcissistic comment.

          • Autonomic on 13/02/2024 - 11:24

            @Ghost47: If you have medical qualifications, why are you listening to youtubers for medical advice?

            • slothhead on 13/02/2024 - 13:59
              +2

              @Autonomic: Reviewing the findings of others in the same field would be a common way to stay abreast of the state of the art in your field.

              I think you've committed the logical error of treating an entire platform as a single authority when in fact a platform is better described as a marketplace for ideas. Some of those ideas will be from highly regarded experts, and some will be from baseless conspiracy theorists. But to treat them all as 'one' is simply not accurate.

              • Autonomic on 13/02/2024 - 16:11

                @slothhead:

                treating an entire platform as a single authority

                When did I do that? I even say there are trustworthy channels.

            • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 16:09

              @Autonomic: Because it’s easy to go on YouTube and watch an 10 minute video made by someone who’s simply trying to communicate recent findings in medical literature.

              That’s like saying “Why would you watch a channel like Kurzgesagt?” It’s not as if they block people who are credible from making videos, sheesh.

              • Autonomic on 13/02/2024 - 16:13

                @Ghost47: Why not just…read the abstract? That will take far less than 10 minutes. Especially when you know how easily studies are misinterpreted by those outside their field? Case in point, John Campbell: https://healthfeedback.org/claimreview/ivermectin-wasnt-show…

                • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 16:18
                  -1

                  @Autonomic: Why do people watch Chubbyemu then?
                  You do actually realise there is more to a science journal than an abstract right? You can’t interpret an entire journal, nor should you just by going through the abstract.

                  Also I don’t watch him for “medical advice”, you clearly don’t understand what he actually does or why people watch him. All he does is communicate recent findings in journals.

                  Especially when you know how easily studies are misinterpreted by those outside their field?

                  Yeah like by people who read abstracts only and assume other people know nothing, such as yourself eh?

                  • Autonomic on 13/02/2024 - 16:40

                    @Ghost47:

                    You do actually realise there is more to a science journal than an abstract right? You can’t interpret an entire journal, nor should you just by going through the abstract.

                    Do you mean study here instead of journal?

                    Why do people watch Chubbyemu then?

                    Sorry, do you think doctors watch Chubbyemu for serious research?

                    Yeah like by people who read abstracts only and assume other people know nothing, such as yourself eh?

                    So let's be straight here, DO you actually have any medical qualifications? Also I don't only read abstracts. And I certainly wouldn't take someone's interpretation of a study when it's from a field they're not even in.

                    Also I don’t watch him for “medical advice”

                    Sorry, "medical information". What's the difference again?

                    • Ghost47 on 13/02/2024 - 16:45

                      @Autonomic: Eh honestly I can’t be bothered discussing this with you anymore. I’ve made my point clear, other people clearly understand what I’m trying to say yet you seem to have some sort of one track mind where you can’t accept what I’m saying. Going around in circles is a waste of both our time.

                      I’m not going to share my qualifications either because of privacy reasons and there are too many weirdo stalkers on OzBargain, but I’m more qualified than you think I am. Assuming other people know nothing simply because they mentioned a YouTube channel they watch is naive.

                      I never said doctors follow Chubbyemu for advice either. You seem to be hellbent on assuming that people who watch videos on medical topics on YouTube are after medical advice, that isn’t the case whatsoever.

    • Mistredo on 10/02/2024 - 21:59
      +4

      There are many doctors with YouTube channels with their own research that are more qualified than your regular GP.

      Did you know doctors used to prescribe cigarettes from the 1930’s to the 1950’s?

    • tmcn85 on 13/02/2024 - 21:10

      Are you still wearing your mask??

  • teacherer on 09/02/2024 - 11:15
    +1

    Are We Wrong about Cholesterol and Saturated Foods in General?

    No

  • MrHyde on 09/02/2024 - 11:29
    +2

    Do you keep a food log?

    That is a really good way to get a true understanding of what you really eat? You may think that you already eat those foods; but is that what happens in reality? Are you sneaking in a burger as a snack or eating some fried food like chips in between meals?

    A detailed food log will help identify what could be causing the high LDLs.

    Alternatively, ignore the doctor and take the gamble on future heart issues. There is no guarantee they will or will not happen? Its all a chances game with the doctor recommendations likely to reduce the chance (not eliminate) future heart issues.

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:35
      +1

      I do keep a food log (use an app called myfitnesspal). I don't eat anything unhealthy as far I can tell. This is why it is confusing.

      • jv on 09/02/2024 - 13:47
        +3

        What about the volume of food…

        Try reducing it by 25% for a few months, and then test again.

      • temperature on 12/02/2024 - 16:15
        +1

        To be sure, you need to work out % of diet that is saturated fat. Dietary guidelines recommend 10%, a fairly low bar that is exceeded by a large fraction of the population. American Heart Assoc recommends 5%. If your diet is low in saturated fat, then look at dietary cholesterol (eggs?) and trans fat.
        Before you use Ozbargain to gauge the "general" opinion, do consider books/videos by Drs Caldwell Esselstyn and Michael Greger.

      • alikazi on 14/02/2024 - 10:55

        If you're fitness enthusiast pretty sure you take protein shakes, protein bars, supplements? Take a second look at those. Anything increasing your cholesterol there? Supplements industry is notorious for lying on their labels or hyping benefits. Like Athletic Greens has less than 1 gm of 90% of their listed beneficial ingredients, most of it is spirulina and fiber (93% per serving) which are nothing worth paying $100 a month. I went for a clinical trial once and the doctors wanted to examine every single bottle of my supplements because they said these days they'll put "anything" in there meaning they're not trustworthy.

  • mbck on 09/02/2024 - 11:31
    +19

    Doctor shoudlve referred you to a dietitian who can suss out what youre actually eating.

    Doctors dont have the time to go through what you have for bfast, lunch,dinner. Whereas a one-on-one with a dietitian will. Might be a good idea to write a food diary for a week to show them, before the actual appointment.

    You wont find any answers here,especially if you somply say 'i already eat healthily'. That means moot.

    Good luck with the dietitian.

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:34
      +6

      This might be the way to go. I might ask the doctor to refer me to a dietician. Thanks. I already have a food diary so should be relatively easy to explain what I eat.

      • mbck on 09/02/2024 - 11:35
        +11

        If it's not too intrusive, kindly share your findings. I'd be interested to know.

        All the best

    • jv on 09/02/2024 - 13:48
      +7

      Doctors dont have the time to go through what you have for bfast, lunch,dinner.

      Nor the expertise in nutrition…

  • trapper on 09/02/2024 - 11:36

    Is your weight good, what's your BMI?

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join