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

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:37
      +2

      My BMI is ~24. 173cm with 71kg.

      • trapper on 09/02/2024 - 11:58
        +2

        That's all good.

        • zorodluffy on 09/02/2024 - 19:25
          +6

          yeah buts whats his waist size, and body fat %, he could be skinny fat

          • infinite on 10/02/2024 - 17:19
            -1

            @zorodluffy: Extremely unlikely.

            Professional fighters and athletes who compete at 70kg (Lightweight) are on average 10cm-15cm shorter than him.

            You'd have to have an absurd body shape to manage to be fat at 70kg for a male who is 173cm tall.

            • filmer on 12/02/2024 - 09:15

              @infinite: Or completely untrained muscle-wise. Given they've started working out twice a week this shouldn't be the case.

              I was 70kg and overweight (by body fat % and waist) at 177cm a few years out of high school and I played sports for most of my schooling (just nothing that elicited substantial muscle growth).

              I now have abdominal definition at 73kg.

              • Jetpck on 13/02/2024 - 08:53

                @filmer: I have been going to the gym for 2 years now. I don't know what my body fat% is but I am not too worried about my physique.

                • filmer on 13/02/2024 - 09:34
                  +1

                  @Jetpck: I saw that you noted that you worked out for a couple of years so it seemed unlikely you were overweight and most likely middle of the healthy range.

                  It was more to educate the other poster. Lots of people attempt to claim BMI is bad due to muscle mass (using professional athletes as 'proof') causing fit people to have a BMI in the overweight/obese range. For the majority of the population (anyone who doesn't have a labour job, gym, or physical hobbies such as climbing) the opposite is true. People in the 'healthy' range are commonly overweight and even obese. My own history is anecdotal proof of this.

      • mrvaluepack on 10/02/2024 - 17:57

        BMI is not a good indicator. Height to waist ratio is better. Whats yours?

  • KaTst3R on 09/02/2024 - 11:37
    -1

    If you are concerned, you can take supplements like Cholestin (made by Red Yeast Rice) to help reduce total cholesterol. It is a natural substance which works similarly to Statin that is prescribed by GP if your cholesterol is too high.

    Sometimes high cholesterol if cannot be explained by your food intake practices would likely be a genetic thing. Even if your parents do not have this problem, it doesnt rule out you might be the only one in the family that has this issue.

    AB & AB (normal phenotype) = AA (perfect), BB (defective), AB, AB

  • EightImmortals on 09/02/2024 - 11:41
    +6

    Pretty sure they change the numbers every few years. Those who care to learn more could do worse than read this doctor's book.

    https://www.amazon.com.au/Great-Cholesterol-Malcolm-Kendrick…

    Sugar is the real problem. My understanding is that cholesterol is vital, the problem is that it builds up in the process of repairing all the damage we do and then causes a problem and that going after cholesterol directly is simply attacking the symptom rather than the cause. Western medicine in a nutshell. :)

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:46
      +4

      This is what I have found as well. I always thought that high cholesterol was bad and it increases the risk of heart attacks but the actual truth is something else.

      • Aureus on 09/02/2024 - 13:46
        -6

        High LDL cholesterol is bad and anyone who tells you otherwise is a moron.

        If you want to get nutrition advice from YouTube these guys are actually qualified.

        Dr Brad Stanfield
        Physionic
        Nutrition made simple!

        Most nutrition advice on YouTube is dangerously wrong.

      • knk on 12/02/2024 - 21:35

        It's a massive risk factor for cardiac disease whether you want to believe it or not.

        Yes some people can go for years with high cholesterol and be fine, but statistically we know you're worse off and will have worse health outcomes if you had high cholesterol.

  • soan papdi on 09/02/2024 - 11:44
    +3

    You can do everything right and still be affected. Don't smoke and still get lung cancer. Run moderately every day and still have heart failure.

    https://www.heartuk.org.uk/cholesterol/what-is-high-choleste…

    Anyone can have high cholesterol, even if you are young, slim, eat well and exercise. That’s because high cholesterol can be caused by different things, including your genes.

    https://www.verywellhealth.com/why-is-my-cholesterol-high-52…

    It is possible for your cholesterol to be high even when you are eating a healthy diet and exercising. Though high cholesterol is typically related to your diet, you may also have a genetic condition that makes it hard for your body to eliminate excess cholesterol. Smoking, age, and weight can also contribute to high cholesterol levels.

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:53
      +1

      Totally agree. It is all about the risk isn't it. You can have high cholesterol for some unknown reason (for example, my case).
      High cholesterol is (apparently) bad and increases the risk of heart failure. Doesn't mean you won't get a heart failure if you don't have cholesterol.

      But what I am (now) unsure about is whether high cholesterol is in fact bad. What I found is if if your HDL is high then the level of LDL being high is ok.

      • soan papdi on 09/02/2024 - 11:56
        +1

        But what I am (now) unsure about is whether high cholesterol is in fact bad. What I found is if if your HDL is high then the level of LDL being high is ok.

        You are disagreeing with a trained medical professional based on a few hours of online searches. Ignore your doctor's advice at your own peril.

        • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 11:58
          +3

          I am not ignoring my GP's advice at all. On the contrary, I was already following what my GP has asked me to do.

          • carlJack on 09/02/2024 - 13:02
            -2

            @Jetpck: Stop Looking at those Youtube videos. Its not going to help you. It will just confuse you more.

        • EightImmortals on 09/02/2024 - 13:07
          +3

          And that doctor is disagreeing with plenty of other trained medical professionals. Welcome to the crisis of science.

  • JimB on 09/02/2024 - 11:51

    Anyone want to comment on my cholesterol:

    SERUM/PLASMA LIPID STUDIES - Fasting
    Total Chol: 6.2 mmol/L
    Triglyceride: 3.5 mmol/L
    HDL - C: 1.1 mmol/L
    LDL - C: 3.5 mmol/L
    NON HDL - C: 5.1 mmol/L
    Chol/HDL Ratio: 5.6

    Apparently cholesterol is a little high.. although I note, I didn't fast before the blood test as I wasn't expecting to do a blood test that day. The Dr wrote non-fasting on the pathology slip.

    I've not had KFC since seeing the Dr.. haha

    • 600dollarman on 09/02/2024 - 12:27
      +2

      Triglycerides are high. Generally below 1.8 is acceptable.

    • kehuehue on 09/02/2024 - 12:37
      +2

      your blood works should have a range listed next to it, indicating if its within range or not.

    • saitaris on 09/02/2024 - 12:51

      Not a doctor, but your trigs are quite high (normal range according to my last pathology report is 0.5-1.7). LDL at 3.5 is only just outside normal range (1.5-3.4)

      My trigs are 0.6 in my last test, LDL 0.7. My trigs only 5 months prior to my most recent bloodwork was at 2.7. I changed my diet and they dropped like a stone into normal range. My cholesterol was not high though, I seem to have genetically low chol levels.

    • JimB on 09/02/2024 - 12:54

      Thanks for the advice.

      I'm going back to the Dr after a liver scan.

      Maybe it's a wake up call…. I do admit I do eat a fatty diet but at least I don't have a sweet tooth.

      Maybe also need to reduce the amount of butter on my sourdough

    • carlJack on 09/02/2024 - 13:04

      High triglyceride means there is more fat in the body. Whats your BMI?

      • JimB on 09/02/2024 - 13:06

        Not the best 26.5

        • drewbytes on 10/02/2024 - 12:07
          +1

          My BMI is about the same as yours, but I am relatively lean. BMI on it's own doesn't mean much, body fat% is a better guide.

          • knk on 12/02/2024 - 21:37

            @drewbytes: Obese lean gang checking in also

      • Ghost47 on 09/02/2024 - 17:50
        +2

        BMI is a poor measurement because muscle weighs more than fat. You could be muscular and short and categorised as obese.

        • JimB on 12/02/2024 - 13:46

          Definately agree there but unfortunately in my case, I could definitely lose 5 KG.

          Easier said than done.

          • Ghost47 on 12/02/2024 - 21:48
            +1

            @JimB: You could possibly look into doing intermittent fasting if you're trying to lose weight. I was a bit overweight several years ago but it all just came off when I started IF (doing 16:8 then increasing to 18:6). It's hard at first because of the hunger pangs but you get used to it quickly.

            • JimB on 13/02/2024 - 10:01

              @Ghost47: I have heard about it over many years but will give it a go.

              I'll start with 16:8 which is really just skipping breakfast… 18:6 will be struggle with work and kids but I can commit to 16:8 for a couple of months.

              The hardest bit will be after evening/late night sports when I usually have a snack or bite to eat when I get home (I usually have a smaller dinner before sport).

              I'll report back in 2 weeks.

              • Cliche Guevara on 13/02/2024 - 14:27
                +1

                @JimB: Don't beat yourself up too much over the timing. If you happen to snack or have a meal after the "8" hours, just push out your first meal the next day by another hour or so. The main key is the total fasting time - the more you can keep that over 16 hours the better. It's also the long-term consistent fasting that will make the difference. Don't expect miracles in a few weeks. I've been doing it for around 5 years. My weight can still fluctuate by a few kilos (depending on the season, how strictly I'm also watching my fasting time and how much beer I drink…). I'm 178cm tall. Used be around 80kgs and was up around 85kg before I started IF. I'm around 73kg now almost never go above 75kg now. Good luck.

                • JimB on 13/02/2024 - 14:46

                  @Cliche Guevara: Thank you and thanks for the tip..

                  I'll report back.

                  I've been consistently around 74kg for the past couple of years when I started weighing myself. Lost a couple of KGs when I had Covid and now 75kg after too much good food during Chinese New Year.

                • JimB on 29/04/2024 - 16:16

                  @Cliche Guevara: OK…. it's been 2 months and surprisingly I haven't lost any weight.

                  Having said that, I do cheat once a week or so but I do feel good health wise. I have also have lost a bit of belly fat but not weight.

                  I am surprised I generally don't get hungry during those 18 hours.

                  I will continue to do it as it's not difficult to skip breakfast. I find I do crave a late night snack or meal after I play sports at night (this occurs if I have breakfast or not), this is the hardest meal to resist.

    • woltim on 11/02/2024 - 15:15

      didn't fast before the blood test

      This is the answer!! Your triglycerides will be elevated due to the natural increase in trigs post consumption of a meal. Get a retest where you are properlly fasted before going down any rabbit hole!!!

      • JimB on 12/02/2024 - 13:54

        I did ask the doctor this, and he said it was fine to take a blood test straight after after our appointment (taken in a room a few doors away).

        The Dr wrote non-fasting on the pathology slip but I did note on the report it said 'SERUM/PLASMA LIPID STUDIES - Fasting'

        I'm going to see him again so will get another pathology slip and fast before the test.

  • Mechz on 09/02/2024 - 11:58

    I was trying to find an article older than this one (like I read it at least 10 years ago) but this one will do.

    https://forums.t-nation.com/t/take-this-forgotten-vitamin-fo…

  • AustriaBargain on 09/02/2024 - 11:59
    +9

    Forget it Jetpck. While it has been established that eggs contain cholesterol, it has not yet been proven conclusively that they actually raise the level of serum cholesterol in the human bloodstream.

    • Grippit on 10/02/2024 - 07:41
      +5

      So one of those egg council creeps got to you too, huh?

  • aj3000 on 09/02/2024 - 12:11
    +10

    LDL is not all "bad". There is the Small Dense LDL (sdLDL) which is "bad" as they are smaller and heavier than the large, buoyant LDL (lbLDL). sdLDLs are more likely to penetrate the arterial walls and also oxidise, leading to inflammation and cause heart issues. lbLDLs are not at the same risk profile.

    The normal blood tests dont differentiate between sdLDL and lbLDLs and so it doesnt reflect the actual cardiovascular risk. Advanced lipid testing methods are required for a more accurate assessment.

    https://cardiab.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12933-02…

  • 600dollarman on 09/02/2024 - 12:19
    +2

    My doc says around 80% is genetics and we can only deal with the other 20%.

    • jv on 09/02/2024 - 13:50
      -1

      80% is genetics

      gene therapy then?

  • ECE on 09/02/2024 - 12:20
    +8

    Low Carb is the way to go 😋

  • skid on 09/02/2024 - 12:24

    Do you cook your own food?

    At the gym, are you lifting weights or on the treadmill/bike/rower or both?

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 12:37
      +1

      I cook my own food.

      Mostly weights at the gym. Treadmill only for warmup.

      • Wilson Wallace on 11/02/2024 - 09:35
        -4

        If you're mostly doing weights, why are you warming up on a treadmill? You walk to the gym from home.. Or you walk from the car to the gym. Warm up your body parts, or focus on warming up a specific body muscle.

        • GrueHunter on 11/02/2024 - 12:20
          +4

          Or people warm up and work out however the f$&@ they want to

          I’m not walking from my car to the gym in the rain and back again when there’s a treadmill inside with a media centre

          “Hurr durr I only do push ups on the footpath”

      • spammingb on 11/02/2024 - 16:32

        I had the same issue. Similar diet, exercise, lifestyle to you. But I'm about 10kg lighter. Had no idea why my cholesterol was high as I ate fairly health and went gym.

        However I suspected it's due to cardio vascular health. I started hiking more recently, playing tennis / squash 2-3 times a week. Now when I go hiking and on holidays I have more energy than ever. Checked back in with the doctors and told them I increased my exercise, they checked again and sure enough the cholesterol levels were back to normal.

        I didn't lose any weight btw, because I've always been quite slim

  • djsweet on 09/02/2024 - 12:27

    As others have said, genetics play a role. Fortunately there is medication available that can sort it out for you with minimal fuss if need be. Obviously going the diet route is the preferred option if possible. However, if your diet is already as good as it is going to get, meds are a realistic option.

  • bobbified on 09/02/2024 - 12:32
    +4

    My total cholesterol has always been about 4.0 (not sure of the break-up of the total) when I had a heart attack in my late 30s, followed by a triple bypass.

    Doctor tells me that my cholesterol isn't high but since my arteries are still clogged at that level, I need to take cholesterol medication to lower it even more. So my target is 3.0.

    It does makes me wonder how big a contributor to heart disease cholesterol levels really are.

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 12:43
      +1

      That's quite scary when you can have a heart attack so young when your cholesterol is low (the range given is 3.5 to 5.5 in the blood test results). Hope you are alright now.

      • bobbified on 09/02/2024 - 12:54
        +1

        Thanks - I'm generally fine now. But I can't say the whole triple bypass procedure was fun! It's been almost five years and still get these strange aches and pains in the area (although the doctors don't think it's the heart).

    • 7ekn00 on 09/02/2024 - 15:21
      +4

      It's more common than you think, 75% of heart attacks occur in people with normal cholesterol ranges:

      https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/01/090112130653.h…
      https://www.uclahealth.org/news/most-heart-attack-patients-c…

      • bobbified on 09/02/2024 - 15:23
        +1

        That's a worry, considering all the people out there with what's considered "normal" and a false sense of security.

        • 7ekn00 on 09/02/2024 - 15:25
          +4

          Yeah, seed oil intake (in particular Omega-6's) is much much more strongly correlated than LDL levels ever were :/

          https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6196963/

        • 7ekn00 on 10/02/2024 - 01:16
          +2

          Let me guess, margarine and canola oil for most your life and a lack of Vitamin K2 (no cheese)?

          • bobbified on 10/02/2024 - 19:27
            +1

            @7ekn00:

            margarine and canola oil for most your life

            Not really. I never really ate much margarine or butter because my (asian) parents kept hammering in the idea of there being "too much oil/fat".

            and a lack of Vitamin K2 (no cheese)

            No cheese is correct though, because of the same thing…. "too much oil/fat" in cheese.

  • c64 on 09/02/2024 - 12:45

    Are We Wrong about Cholesterol and Saturated Foods in General?

    no. your situation is probably genetic unless you are scoffing down copious amounts of butter and coconut oil

    • TEER3X on 12/02/2024 - 19:54

      What are copius amounts? I have coconut oil with my coffee regularly. I use lots of butter in mash potatoes, and anything else that needs it.

  • onetwothreefour on 09/02/2024 - 13:10

    Is there anyway to check historical blood test results?

    My specialist always wizzes through the results and says they're fine but it would be good if I could keep my own record of them to see how they have tracked over time.

    • carlJack on 09/02/2024 - 13:14
      +1

      Ask for a printed copy. They should give it to you.

    • skid on 09/02/2024 - 13:23

      The reports may be in e-health via the mygov site.

      • onetwothreefour on 09/02/2024 - 13:36

        I tried searching everywhere in the Medicare section in mygov and couldn't find it.

  • carlJack on 09/02/2024 - 13:12

    please everything you can reduce your LDL level and increase HDL. Good fats like nuts and avocado can help you with that. But make sure you eat them in moderation. I had high cholesterol. All I did to reduce was to lose weight by lifestyle changes. I didnt do anything in particular. All I did was stopped snacking and lifting more weight.

  • ForkSnorter on 09/02/2024 - 13:15

    The big 3 risk factors for cardiovascular disease are, in no particular order: 1. overweight/obese, 2. smoker/ex-smoker, 3. high cholesterol (both genetic and diet-derived).

    Going forward, the most important thing is to exclude all of these if possible. Genetically high cholesterol can partially be resolved by medication if high enough to be high risk. I doubt you are that high.

  • DingoBilly on 09/02/2024 - 13:24

    It sounds like you're doing an OK job but need to step it up a bit basically. Maybe your exercise isn't intense enough, maybe your general healthy eating is actually much worse than you think Etc.

    But otherwise it's much more likely that current understanding of cholesterol Etc. Is right than for some random people online to have uncovered a conspiracy about it all.

  • 7ekn00 on 09/02/2024 - 13:45
    +6

    Wait until you realize your "LDL" test actually scores a total of 5 types of LDL particle (two are the "bad" type, three are natural and required for the body to function)!

    You can prove the existence of all five types with a specialized apheresis test through gel (which essentially separates and measures "particle size") ;)

    Show these scientific papers to your GP (the triglyceride to HDL cholesterol ratio is far more predictive of metabolic problems than LDL):
    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2664115/
    https://www.mdpi.com/1422-0067/20/13/3151

    And there is a slew of other research showing it's a better marker for all sorts of things:
    https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?start=0&q=triglyceride…

    And here is a study that shows eating a packet of Oreos per day REDUCES your LDL cholesterol BETTER than statin medications:
    https://www.mdpi.com/2218-1989/14/1/73

    If you are in Sydney, try to get an appointment with Dr Paul Mason (he is a medical doctor that specializes in sports science - so he has seen and sorted all sorts of cholesterol related problems): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-nq60_oEIc

    Before your doctor tries to push you onto a statin, get a CTCA for a "Callcium Score" - the latest 2021 European guidelines (https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamacardiology/fullarticle/…) suggest a statin is useless for zero scores ;) I managed to get my score from 137 down to zero in three years with Dr Paul Masons advice!!

  • jv on 09/02/2024 - 13:51
    +7

    Have you had a Coronary Artery Calcium Score done?

    If not, ask your GP if they think you should have one, and they can give you a referral…

    Not cheap, but might be worth it in the long run…

    • Jetpck on 09/02/2024 - 14:30

      Thanks. Will check this out.

    • Shamdog on 11/02/2024 - 16:32
      +1

      ^this. I technically have high cholesterol and did a CT angiogram to check whether I have any calcification in my arteries. Came back as 0%. I was also a smoker for a number of years so I was surprised that it came back with nothing.

    • Plasticman on 11/02/2024 - 20:59

      Coronary Calcium scores not usually recommended in those under 40 years of age. Mainly because they are looking for calcified atherosclerotic plaques in the coronary arteries. If you are in your 30s, even if you have plaques they may not have yet calcified.

      • jv on 11/02/2024 - 21:44
        +1

        Coronary Calcium scores not usually recommended in those under 40 years of age.

        That's why I said they should discuss it with their GP…

    • raspudala on 12/02/2024 - 21:07

      My cholesterol is 7.2 and yet calcium score was 0%.

      My GP no longer blindly believes in high cholesterol myth and myself I don't really care - I'm not overweight, eat healthy, drink in moderation, no chance I'm going to start using some statins.

      • jv on 12/02/2024 - 22:08

        My cholesterol is 7.2 and yet calcium score was 0%.

        Even though they are two of the main factors that can indicate heart disease, there are other factors too…

        no chance I'm going to start using some statins.

        You generally would only need statins if you calcium score was over 100… (Depending on your age too…)

  • LanceVance on 09/02/2024 - 15:24
    +12

    A lot of the comments in here saying tell you to just listen to your GP or dissing you for listening to 'YouTube Doctors' are ignoring the fact that science is rarely ever settled. Even in the last 10 years what most of us were taught as children as the ideal diet aka 'the food pyramid' seems to actually be upside down.
    Statin medication also has growing scepticism in terms of its actual utility. It takes a long time for new information to reach the mainsteam and even then to change the status quo, especially given all the entrenched industries benefitting from how things currently are, its hard to change peoples minds etc…

    Keep in mind GP's are very much a one size fits all approach, specialist in depth advise requires specialist knowledge and there is no harm getting multiple opinions.

    • Aureus on 09/02/2024 - 15:56
      +1

      Keep in mind GP's are very much a one size fits all approach, specialist in depth advise requires specialist knowledge and there is no harm getting multiple opinions.

      Yes, but most of the Youtubers are not specialists. One of the biggest Youtubers in this space is a chiropractor who doesn't even get the science right and gives lots of bad advice. So yeah there can be harm in getting multiple opinions.

      • LanceVance on 09/02/2024 - 18:12
        +5

        True, but theres others like Dr Aseem Malhotra out of the UK, a cardiologist who advocates low carb diets and scepticism towards statins and a Aus specific Youtube channel called Low Carb Down Under which has many doctors/dietitians presenting on these diets. So Youtube can actually be a fantastic way for credentialed individuals to put out a perspective in their area of expertise.

        • Aureus on 09/02/2024 - 18:19
          +1

          True. There are some great channels out there also. I haven't watched anything from Aseem Malhotra.

          The big problem is if you find one of the big channels providing dangerous and bad advice, as a layman it is hard to tell if the advice is true or not. After all you are probably searching Youtube to learn. But after you watch some of those videos, Youtube will start recommending similar channels that will push the same sort of misinformation.

          • Mistredo on 10/02/2024 - 22:01
            +1

            @Aureus: The best is to consult multiple channels and check credentials of every person. If they are a professor at a prestigious university it vets them.

            • Aureus on 10/02/2024 - 22:04

              @Mistredo: That's true, but it isn't what most people do.

              For example OP linking to a popular unqualified chiropractor.

    • larndis on 10/02/2024 - 08:03
      +1

      The pyramid is upside down? So we should eat mostly fat and almost no fruits and vegetables?

      • Reggyscum on 10/02/2024 - 17:38
        +3

        The refined carbs should be where the fat is. Then the other 3 catagories can be where ever suits your current goals best.

        Personally i eat a high animal protein diet with a shit load of non starchy vegetables, then a smaller amount of nuts, dairy and added fats, then very limited refind carbs.

      • Shamdog on 11/02/2024 - 16:27
        +1

        Look into the carnivore diet. Lots of info available from qualified doctors on YT - Dr Baker, Berry, Chaffee etc

    • gromit on 10/02/2024 - 14:42
      +3

      The problem with youTube doctors isn't that they are all wrong, it is that they are a mix of correct, wrong and dangerously wrong and unless you know which is which (in which case you probably don't need them anyway) then you are playing russian roulette with them. Many don't even have any scientific or medical backgrounds and are simply spruiking for clicks.

      • idonotknowwhy on 10/02/2024 - 20:40
        +1

        Many don't even have any scientific or medical backgrounds and are simply spruiking for clicks.

        Yep, some of these "Doctors" are chiropractors making up absolute bullshit like "drinking vinegar can clear calcium out of your joints because of the acidity" lol

    • SpainKing on 11/02/2024 - 15:11

      I'm reading a book right now called Overkill: When Modern Medicine Goes Too Far by Dr. Paul Offit that's all about how slow and resistant to change the medical industry is. Unfortunately I'm going to look stupid and conspiratorial trying to sum up any of his points, but the ones that come to mind are:

      1. How you don't necessarily have to finish the full course of antibiotics (and it may even increase the risk of antibiotic resistant bacteria if you do). The current line of thinking seems to be "you must take all the antibiotics to ensure all the bacteria are killed" but bacteria doesn't function on the 5/7 day cycles we get prescribed antibiotics. You may feel fine 2 days after taking them and have none of the offending bacteria left by day 4. Continuing to take the antibiotics kills other bacteria which aren't harmful and we live harmoniously with. By continually assaulting these bacteria with antibiotics, some may grow resistance and outcompete all the others, forming and encouraging an antibiotic resistant bacteria. Taking more of your antibiotics won't help because it's already resistant, you just kill off its competitors. The scary thing is, there's these things called plasmids bacteria can exchange to learn antibiotic resistance from other bacteria. I probably fouled that up somewhere but that's the gist

      2. Screening for certain types of cancers (thyroid, prostate, breast) isn't always helpful and may lead to worse results for patients on the whole. Many of the cancers that are found in those groups are ones you're more likely to die with than from, but as soon as people hear they have cancer they want to treat/remove it (I don't blame them) because to do nothing and observe is scary. I won't go any further for brevity's sake ;)

      • gromit on 11/02/2024 - 17:57
        +1

        interesting, not a medical expert so won't comment on how accurate they are, however from what I have been told point 1 is the opposite, by not doing the full course you in effect give the bacteria a chance to learn but not killing it all off, if it is all dead in your body it can't learn to become resistant.

        second point, cancers generally don't stay put, you don't generally die from breast cancer, you die from it spreading to other organs in your body where it most definitely will kill you, hence you die with it rather than from it.

        • SpainKing on 12/02/2024 - 17:28

          Not a medical expert either and without more research it's difficult to know which way of looking at things is accurate. I had heard the same things you had about antibiotics my whole life, but when I read that we prescribe antibiotics for periods that are just multiples of 5/7 days it did make me feel like it was due to the convenience of the calendar rather than empirically backed

          In relation to the cancer statements, he uses an analogy that says diagnosing and treating cancer is like opening a barn door. There are 3 animals in the barn (a turtle, rabbit and bird). As soon as you open the door, the bird flies out; if you act quickly enough, you can prevent the rabbit from getting out and the turtle isn't something you have to worry about because it moves so slowly. To translate these metaphors - the bird is a cancer that grows quickly and spreads aggressively where treatment is unlikely to save you; the rabbit is a cancer that can potentially be successfully treated; the turtle is a cancer that is present but so slow in its development that it wouldn't kill you

          The goal is obviously to find the rabbits and treat them, but of the cancers I listed in my first comment most turn out to be turtles or birds. Treating a cancer that grows so slowly that it's unlikely to kill you generally is a worse experience than living with the cancer was the argument I believe he was trying to make. I can't convey the nuance or studies he references in my comment as well as he can in his book so I'd suggest reading it to get a better picture of what I mean

      • mrdean on 11/02/2024 - 18:03

        Lol. Funniest thing I've read in ages, using the word "conspiratorial" in relation to Offit. And I've read some of his books (appalling), but not Overkill. The guy is as mainstream consensus as they come. Everytime I hear his name, I think of those babies who died from intussusception thanks to his rotavirus vaccine he made enough money off of to never have to work again if he so desired.

        • SpainKing on 12/02/2024 - 17:38

          Could you help me understand where you're coming from a bit more Mr. Dean?

          I believe you're saying he holds views consistent with medical consensus (based off putting "conspiratorial" in quotes and saying he's as mainstream as they come). This hasn't been my experience talking with friends inside or outside of medical fields (one is currently studying pharmacology and seemed concerned when I mentioned not taking the prescription of antibiotics in its entirety)

          What makes you say his books are appalling?

          You taught me what intussusception is and I don't love knowing that that can happen but thank you for the knowledge. In my brief research it seemed that his rotavirus vaccine increased chances of it immediately after receiving the vaccine but actually lowered risk of intussusception afterwards (along with the lower risk of catching rotavirus). What exactly is it that leaves a bad taste in your mouth with regards to Offit?

          • mrdean on 12/02/2024 - 18:02

            @SpainKing: There's been a lot written about Dr Offit. I first came across him about 10 years ago. He is well known in the mainstream medical community. Being a paediatrician & head of infectious diseases at CHOPS, he was mentored by Stanley Plotkin who has a textbook named after him. Plotkin's Vaccines. In the hierarchy of (the cult) of vaccinology they don't come much higher. Whenever the mainstream media needed a spokesperson for vaccines, for example when there were news reports of "outbreaks" of infectious diseases, Dr Offit would come on to provide an expert opinion. In the last few years, the baton appears to have been passed to one Dr Peter Hotez. Listening to & watching Hotez should send chills up the spine of any normal human being.

            Both Plotkin & Offit have made millions of dollars from being co-inventors or inventors on vaccine patents. Rights are usually assigned to the hospitals or academic centres where they teach or work (& probably their own companies) from & then licenses/agreements are made available for corporations to make the product. From memory, Plotkin made a mint & continues to earn royalties from the Rubella portion of the MMR shots & Offit on rotavirus shots. I would encourage you to find the 9 hour video of Plotkin's legal deposition from 2018 where attorney Aaron Siri questioned him about vaccines. It is a truly superb video document & should be viewed multiple times by everyone who wants to "research" vaccines. Both Offit & Plotkin & many many others who aren't as well known are heavily INVESTED in vaccines being the most important & necessary medical intervention of the 20th century. To them, they CANNOT consider the possibility that vaccination has done way more harm than good, so they seek to deny it any way they can & that means they will shut down any discussion of harms by saying that serious adverse reaction like death are very very very "rare" (1 in a million they say) & that the benefit of vaccination outweighs the risk. I don't blame them. Facing up to the reality would mean they've pushed a procedure that has weakened, maimed, disabled, sickened & killed way more children (SIDS, autoimmune illnesses, allergies, cancer, MS, GBS, paralysis to name a few) & adults than most would believe possible.

            I've read a couple of his books, one on "alternative" medicine called "Do You Believe In Magic" & another one called "Deadly Choices". They are both highly one sided, but slick & persuasive if one doesn't bother to know anything about the subjects he writes about. Having read both sides, to me it is obvious what he is doing.

  • AussieDaddy on 09/02/2024 - 15:34
    +2

    I eat a lot of red meat (daily), and I take medication for an chronic blood related issue twice a day that needs a blood test every 3 months. I'm in my mid 40s and over 90kgs, and my cholesterol has been within the normal range in the 4 years I've been doing the blood tests. As someone else mentioned above, it's probably something to do with genetics.

    • ihbh on 12/02/2024 - 14:49

      I eat a lot of red meat (daily)

      Is there a reason for that?

      You don't want to go bonkers activating mTOR.

      • AussieDaddy on 12/02/2024 - 16:23
        +1

        Have been on Keto diet for a few years, so stuck with eating eating meat almost daily. Also grew up eating red meat daily, and never had any issues (so far, fingers crossed).

      • 7ekn00 on 13/02/2024 - 09:34

        Ah, mTOR, the latest vegan propaganda ;)

        Sssh, don't tell this clown that exercise and Insulin spikes (like eating bananas) also activates mTOR more than eating red meat :P

        https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/15702344/

Login or Join to leave a comment
Login Join