Dave Feldman Debunked. Yes or No

Mbaker said:

This "debunking" video came up in my YouTube feed, regarding an interview Dave Feldman had with a Lean Mass Hyper Responder (someone who's LDL goes above the upper reference number on LCHF / Keto style diet, but Trigs, HDL and other markers tend to be good (my understanding)). The LMHR gentleman frankly has good to astonishing numbers in many bio markers (HDL, Trigs, CRP and ridiculous 5.6% body fat (what!)) apart from LDL (if you think this is relevant in his context).


I expected this lady to come up with an excellent critique that would give me "food for thought", ala Bart Kay. Unfortunately most of her criticisms came from a place of defence, I felt. In her shoes I would have watched more Feldman videos to get a feel for his knowledge, I would have definitely watched the actual video on the NHANES dataset to understand how good or bad / relevant it is. What scares me is the proportion of likes to dislikes for her debunking video that in my view was like comparing a Mercedes F1 car (Dave Feldman's facts) to a Trabant (the debunking). Wheres the free thinking fact checking.

My view is that LDL is problematic when oxidised / damaged and possibly if heart disease is already in place; would we say red blood cells are dangerous because some people have sickle cell anaemia. The clinchers for me are CAC testing results I have watched via Ivor Cummins, with respect to LDL, and the observational evidence of incidence of heart disease prior to the changes from circa 1977 - 85' ish, guidelines compared to now.

Here is a link to the interview Dave conducted:


Although not a response to the "debunking" directly Dave provided some answers in a response to another criticism:


What they do they don't realise with this absolute Super Star is that unlike some, he goes where the evidence takes him.

Click to expand...

Mbaker said:

This "debunking" video came up in my YouTube feed, regarding an interview Dave Feldman had with a Lean Mass Hyper Responder (someone who's LDL goes above the upper reference number on LCHF / Keto style diet, but Trigs, HDL and other markers tend to be good (my understanding)). The LMHR gentleman frankly has good to astonishing numbers in many bio markers (HDL, Trigs, CRP and ridiculous 5.6% body fat (what!)) apart from LDL (if you think this is relevant in his context).


I expected this lady to come up with an excellent critique that would give me "food for thought", ala Bart Kay. Unfortunately most of her criticisms came from a place of defence, I felt. In her shoes I would have watched more Feldman videos to get a feel for his knowledge, I would have definitely watched the actual video on the NHANES dataset to understand how good or bad / relevant it is. What scares me is the proportion of likes to dislikes for her debunking video that in my view was like comparing a Mercedes F1 car (Dave Feldman's facts) to a Trabant (the debunking). Wheres the free thinking fact checking.

My view is that LDL is problematic when oxidised / damaged and possibly if heart disease is already in place; would we say red blood cells are dangerous because some people have sickle cell anaemia. The clinchers for me are CAC testing results I have watched via Ivor Cummins, with respect to LDL, and the observational evidence of incidence of heart disease prior to the changes from circa 1977 - 85' ish, guidelines compared to now.

Here is a link to the interview Dave conducted:


Although not a response to the "debunking" directly Dave provided some answers in a response to another criticism:


What they do they don't realise with this absolute Super Star is that unlike some, he goes where the evidence takes him.

Click to expand...

Mbaker said:

This "debunking" video came up in my YouTube feed, regarding an interview Dave Feldman had with a Lean Mass Hyper Responder (someone who's LDL goes above the upper reference number on LCHF / Keto style diet, but Trigs, HDL and other markers tend to be good (my understanding)). The LMHR gentleman frankly has good to astonishing numbers in many bio markers (HDL, Trigs, CRP and ridiculous 5.6% body fat (what!)) apart from LDL (if you think this is relevant in his context).


I expected this lady to come up with an excellent critique that would give me "food for thought", ala Bart Kay. Unfortunately most of her criticisms came from a place of defence, I felt. In her shoes I would have watched more Feldman videos to get a feel for his knowledge, I would have definitely watched the actual video on the NHANES dataset to understand how good or bad / relevant it is. What scares me is the proportion of likes to dislikes for her debunking video that in my view was like comparing a Mercedes F1 car (Dave Feldman's facts) to a Trabant (the debunking). Wheres the free thinking fact checking.

My view is that LDL is problematic when oxidised / damaged and possibly if heart disease is already in place; would we say red blood cells are dangerous because some people have sickle cell anaemia. The clinchers for me are CAC testing results I have watched via Ivor Cummins, with respect to LDL, and the observational evidence of incidence of heart disease prior to the changes from circa 1977 - 85' ish, guidelines compared to now.

Here is a link to the interview Dave conducted:


Although not a response to the "debunking" directly Dave provided some answers in a response to another criticism:


What they do they don't realise with this absolute Super Star is that unlike some, he goes where the evidence takes him.

Click to expand...

Cocosilk said:

I'm very happy to see that 2nd video after my doctor told me yesterday that I should start statins... and quit breastfeeding my 8 week old in the process!

Click to expand...

Caeseji said:

if I remember he's always welcomed counter points hasn't he?

Click to expand...

Tophat1900 said:

No

Click to expand...

Mbaker said:

Here's your choice then man made intervention vs nature. If you are concerned I would ask a general question on the subject to a recognised UK expert such as Dr Trudi Deakin https://www.xperthealth.org.uk/Contact. I cannot guarantee she will respond, but given the topic area and how "nice" she is I feel confident she would generalise some information for you. Surely this is too serious a matter involving another formative life for general practice advice (not meant to sound condescending).

Click to expand...

kitedoc said:

But do we know whether other possible factors like steroid use, high blood pressue and intake of processed meat were ruled out ?

Click to expand...

Winnie53 said:

The coronary aterial calcium score uses radiation. I'd be concerned it would effect the breasts or milk. CIMT uses ultrasound, no radiation, I believe. Perhaps that would be a better choice. It's confusing to me that the doctor doesn't seem to understand how important breastfeeding is for the baby. It made a huge difference for our son.

Ivor Cummins recently interviewed Aseem Malhotra and they talked about these high pressure tactics to get patients started on a statin immediately. Do you have hypertension too or other complicating issues or is it just the high LDL?

I'm old enough now so taking a statin likely would be a mistake. Older women who have higher cholesterol live longer when compared to women of similar age who have lower cholesterol.

Click to expand...

Winnie53 said:

The coronary aterial calcium score uses radiation. I'd be concerned it would effect the breasts or milk. CIMT uses ultrasound, no radiation, I believe. Perhaps that would be a better choice. It's confusing to me that the doctor doesn't seem to understand how important breastfeeding is for the baby. It made a huge difference for our son.

Ivor Cummins recently interviewed Aseem Malhotra and they talked about these high pressure tactics to get patients started on a statin immediately. Do you have hypertension too or other complicating issues or is it just the high LDL?

I'm old enough now so taking a statin likely would be a mistake. Older women who have higher cholesterol live longer when compared to women of similar age who have lower cholesterol.

Click to expand...