• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

Butter And Ldl

I remain unconvinced. The science in cholesterol and lipids in general is still ongoing, hampered in my opinion, by the paucity of good, solid research and the poorly executed (and at times biased) studies published seemingly weekly lately.
 
I'm sooo dum. I thought thread title was 'Butter and Lidl' . Ha ha
I was going to comment how the price has jumped up recently. Ha ha
 
Hi guys!

A number of posts have been removed from this thread. Don't worry. I kept the on topic stuff.

& learned the definition of a word I never knew existed.. Thanks BB, you're a mine of info..

Play nice.
 
The 'study' is a bit like: I have trees in my garden. They are doing no harm, they are providing shade, so are of some use.

would more trees affect my health?

Cholesterol made by our bodies, or ingested, does not harm to nearly all of us (unless we have familial cholesterol issues), and does some good to us, so why discuss the types or number of trees?
 
Ancel Keys would be delighted to know his hypothesis still causes a stir, he basically said the world is flat and still has a following.

For me based on the 80 / 20 rule, the diet heart hyporhesis is dead in the water and has been completely discredited. Major dietary regulators since 2015 have been gradually rowing back on their artificial guidelines around fat / cholesterol. I saw the programme which rated butter the worst performer for LDL - I don't mind the increase in the context of the overwhelming rebuttals on contempary thoughts around cholesterol, it's Kerry Gold for me all the way. I also saw the Channel 4 programme on chips cooked in vegetable oil compared to chips cooked in coconut oil - this showed the vegetable oil going rancid and no effect on the coconut oil via a scientific method; I expected this to be all over the news...not quite, talk about hiding in plain site.

Thank God or Goodness (whatever your belief) for the Engineers and Investigators who have broken open this debacle and provided solid alternatives, such as CAC scans (a CVD disease real measurement), compared to the relied on Framingham (an estimate of risk of CVD GP's use). The Feldman Protocol demonstrates that cholesterol is a point in time measurement of basically how you have eaten over 3 days, so in isolation is too variable, as you can change it from poor to great by changing the way you eat over the 3 days - yet a multi-billion worldwide business in built on this sand.

"They" are all other the place with cholesterol (and totally ignore for instance Insulin levels). Of my measurements below, I am interested in the HDL and Trigs (notice the remark next to my HDL):

I may actually need to up the fat as my numbers are around 30% lower on Keto than before I was diagnosed. I know around 30% who low carb get an increase, I would say if you are worried, save up, beg, borrow (but don't steal) and get a CAC scan.
 
More and more I am switching off from all talk on lipids. Until we're given tests that include particle size/count then LDL remains just a number.
 
lucylocket61 said:
PS my click of 'agree' is not agreeing that you are dumb : )
Click to expand...
I know. Ha ha
Well. I can be sometimes. I wonder where my brains have gone. Especially punctuation and spelling. I've never been fantastic but I'm seriously lame now.
 
What is the 80/20 rule?

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

And thanks to bulkbiker for editing his post. I take identity very seriously.
Click to expand...
If you had 100 people for example drink full fat milk maybe 80 of them would be fine, with 20 having mild to extreme reactions. In this example the major were fine and had what might be classed as a "normal" response, the 20 outliers with some sort of intolerance would not be the regular reaction so when discussing if full fat milk was safe etc, you would put this in the context of the 80 (the majority).
 
what is that based on?
 
ghost_whistler said:
what is that based on?
Click to expand...
It is just a method of stating that for any scenario you cannot say that 100% would react in the same way; using the 80 / 20 rule you can make a broadbrush statement without offending the approximate 20% for whom your statement is non-applicable.
 
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.
 
ghost_whistler said:
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.
Click to expand...
I not so sure the scientific method is applied at all regarding Type 2 DM. I have seen Professor Roy Taylor apply this with his Twin Cycle Hypothesis - he did try to disprove his theory, as the scientific method dictates. If the same were applied to Saturated Fats and Cholesterol why are we in this mess where higher LDL does not correlate with CVD and CHD.

I agree with those that suspect the lowering of LDL is correlated with Alzheimer's. I have no proof but given the brain has around 25% of the total cholesterol, and "we" have deliberately chosen to lower cholesterol amounts artificially, based on the Diet Heart Hypothesis, I will not be shocked if a link is positively found over time. If we had to rely on the application of the scientific method to fixing problems with complex systems such as airplanes - God help us. Mercedes and Ferrari could not rely on scientific methods that were not close to absolute, they would never accept some of the shoddy science in the medical arena - for me engineering all the way. Feldman has had many repeat his protocol with around an 85% success, LDL proponents are no where near this degree of correlation, Framingham is busted. Perhaps I have been hard on the scientific method, it just hasn't been used "they" are meant to do their best to disprove their own theory, not experiment on the general public with the low fat high carb nonsense. The equation I see is HCLF = circa 60% overweight, obesity and insulin resistance in all regions.
 
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
 
ghost_whistler said:
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
Click to expand...
This is not accurate, he has published his method, invited others to try it, at least 50 I can find have, but I suspect more as this is a 2017 figure. It is known that persons have used the Feldman protocol to lower cholesterol scores to obtain cheaper insurance, it takes around 3 days to produce these results. The establishment of MD's and PhDs are quiet, because they have nothing to challenge him with. He is not alone Zoe Harcombe and Ivor Cummins have also taken apart established views - such bad science. I have the utmost respect for the Doctors who used to follow the standard line and in the face of obvious evidence have stood up:
Dr Sarah Hamburg, Dr Jason Fung, Dr Eric Westman, Dr Tim Knoakes there are so many.

The only reason why big business continues with LDL is because it has been so well monetarised via statins; attempts to create HDL increasing drugs have failed. Even the WFPB movement have conceded that in women around 60 years of age, higher LDL is protective (this causes then a technical hurdle impossible to overcome). The Big Fat Surprise gives further evidence how lowering cholesterol is harmful (particularly to women). For me this is criminal. We know that LDL fixes trauma, we know that HDL is protective to heart health and that low Trigs (the fat produced mainly by carbs) is another good health marker. We know that LCHF / Keto tends to produce better HDL and lower Trig numbers due to saturated fat, so why on earth would we focus on 1 marker that has no sustained proof of harm.....statins.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn More.…