view the rest of the comments
Ask Lemmy
A Fediverse community for open-ended, thought provoking questions
Rules: (interactive)
1) Be nice and; have fun
Doxxing, trolling, sealioning, racism, toxicity and dog-whistling are not welcomed in AskLemmy. Remember what your mother said: if you can't say something nice, don't say anything at all. In addition, the site-wide Lemmy.world terms of service also apply here. Please familiarize yourself with them
2) All posts must end with a '?'
This is sort of like Jeopardy. Please phrase all post titles in the form of a proper question ending with ?
3) No spam
Please do not flood the community with nonsense. Actual suspected spammers will be banned on site. No astroturfing.
4) NSFW is okay, within reason
Just remember to tag posts with either a content warning or a [NSFW] tag. Overtly sexual posts are not allowed, please direct them to either !asklemmyafterdark@lemmy.world or !asklemmynsfw@lemmynsfw.com.
NSFW comments should be restricted to posts tagged [NSFW].
5) This is not a support community.
It is not a place for 'how do I?', type questions.
If you have any questions regarding the site itself or would like to report a community, please direct them to Lemmy.world Support or email info@lemmy.world. For other questions check our partnered communities list, or use the search function.
6) No US Politics.
Please don't post about current US Politics. If you need to do this, try !politicaldiscussion@lemmy.world or !askusa@discuss.online
Reminder: The terms of service apply here too.
Partnered Communities:
Logo design credit goes to: tubbadu
Ancel Keys established a spurious link between cholesterol and heart disease. His Seven Countries Study was an early application of regression analysis. What is very rarely mentioned was that Keys omitted 5 countries (more? Can't exactly recall) that didn't fit the regression he wanted to show. (Ref: "Good Calories, Bad Calories," Gary Taubes)
Keys' contributions to lipid hypothesis fucked the metabolic health of millions for decades.
Regarding Keys' centenarian expiration, go find a pic of what that dude looked like for the last few decades of his life. I'll pass on the longevity and his diet plan.
And if you're interested in how nutritionally screwed we are in the US:
https://media.gettyimages.com/id/1155624137/es/foto/minneapolis-mn-friday-1-23-2004-ancel-keys-university-of-minnesota-professor-who-invented-k.jpg?s=612x612&w=gi&k=20&c=HVYyLQRGSsxwfiC1tbiySOxnglu4JfRsezTwJUM8Ow8%3D
Ok, so, regarding these ideas:
He made a step, perhaps a bit too long in a mistaken direction, but understanding didn't and won't stop with him. How everyone reacted to his theory was also part of the fault.
These are excellent points and spot on. We're all looking for the silver bullet and elevator pitch, even those of us who know better. "Oh, just stop eating fatty meat, eggs, and salt!" Except it's way more complex than that. To Keys' credit, he also highlighted the importance of weight management/obesity, cardiovascular health, and "regular" exercise. The definition of "regular" of course keeps getting modified.
Agreed, although too much of anything is bad. "The toxicity is in the dose." Keys pushed replacing saturated fats with PUFAs, which became a whole different problem with industrial PUFAs becoming the norm. Industrial PUFAs are high in Omega-6 EFA while being low in Omega-3 EFA. Humans don't actually need any digestible carbohydrates to survive, but we very much need fats and protein to live. Nutritional research has merely been negotiating on where the borders are.
We worry too much about exogenous cholesterol, when endogenous cholesterol is the real problem. Cholesterol is a lot like that joke about the guy looking for his keys in the middle of the street. "Did you lose your keys around here?" "No, but this is where the light is." Cholesterol, especially back when nutrition policy was being set, was what we could easily measure, and that was a correlation that science pursued. Epidemiological studies are notoriously tricky, sometimes just a step above anecdote. And to discuss these things in any serious detail requires a couple book-feet of text, most of it being contextual qualification.
Regarding the importance of cholesterol as a risk indicator: What's probably closer to the truth is balance of HDL to LDL and cholesterol to HDL, with triglycerides being a case-by-case basis. If I recall correctly >500mg/dL being the absolute level for concern and interventions, with >200mg/dL being considered abnormally high.
I think in the end, we all have to find what works for us at our given point in life. Because no silver bullet and there's no way to discuss these things simply and quickly.
I believe the current view on LDL is that its level what the body needs it to be and generally doesn't require intervention. However, the Tg/HDL ratio is a reasonably good indicator of your metabolic health. OTOH Tg should be below 100 mg/dL, and ideally it should be lower than the HDL reading. The ratio of Tg/HDL should be below 1.8, using mg/dL.