Search Results

what specifically were your meals?

A fairly obviously biased article Sad to see the popularity of cranks like Petersen being used as means by which to judge this diet.

Do we have anything to show this is true?

But he's only tested his ideas on himself. That's just an n=1 experiment. It would need to be trialled with a larger sample size. The tragedy of this is that the medical orthodoxy isn't interested

I'm sure Dave Feldman is a well meaning intelligent invidual but how can we know he is correct? This is why the scientific method is so important. The process of peer review helps verify a claim.

what is that based on?

What is the 80/20 rule? And thanks to bulkbiker for editing his post. I take identity very seriously.

The article doesn't say LDL is bad, it refers to the bad LDL - the LDL component that is negative.

Sure, that's the popular claim. But it's only a hypothesis. I don't think that has been fully established. Have we any RCT's that show this?

I'm not sure that is true, the study says that butter raised LDL by 10% and HDL by 5%. I don't know if it's a zero sum game either. Also it may be that the higher the sat fat content the less it affects LDL, it may be so. However that isn't why I posted. Butter is pointed to as exmplary of...

Did you even read the article? Here is the study https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/8/3/e020167

What does it say then?

Yes that's why the comment about butter in the test is puzzling. He says the BBC test was scientifically rigorous and then reports that the butter eating cohort had a rise in LDL.

According to this: https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2018/07/03/why-saturated-fat-cannot-raise-cholesterol-levels-ldl-levels/amp/?__twitter_impression=true There was a BBC study of some rigour that seemed to show Butter raised LDL. "The group who ate butter saw their bad LDL levels rise by about...

Lo salt uses salt with chemical additives though

You can apply science to nutrition. A claim as to whether X food does Y is an empirical claim that science can investigate. That's triue of any claim made in the physical world. I don't think it matters whether nutrition is per se claimed a scientific discipline

depends how much you eat. If you're eating one meal a day you can get away with less food. I tend to eat at least 600-700g meat a day.Anything less is not sufficient to satiate. That's a lot of meat, and it comes to about £20 at least.

Right, but it's frustrating when you hear people in the community critical of epidemiological studies who then tout the same kind of studies themselves. On top of that, there's a number of articles I've seen that present, to my layman's eyes, a strong rebuttal of the claims made by people like...

And it was touted by many sites, including this one iirc, as pretty solid evidence venerating saturated fats

So what was the PURE study that people were enthusiastic about then?