zazim
#41
This is an interesting video. The topic is comparing sugars versus sugars in fruits, but what is interesting is they look at studies from the 80s when they were pretty sure that supplementing with beta carotene (perhaps also vitamin E) would be protective against certain types of cancers. This was based on studies that people who ate foods high in beta carotene did better in the cancer studies. That may have been true, but supplementing with beta carotene and vitamin E actually increased the incidence of cancer.
2 Likes
I only meant, listen, before judging. My diet, is actually heavy on carbs and fiber, (trying to emulate the Okinawans) what Nadir Ali advocates against. But I like listening to the other side of the fence.
Did you view the video? Zoom to 25:13. There is evidence he quotes from a Malcolm Kendrick from Scotland.
2 Likes
Is there any point in listening to every opinion? Itās only worth listening to if he has solid evidence instead of rhetoric eloquence.
4 Likes
7:45
The below slide is posted.
Study: Vitamn E from Food, Not Supplements, May Lower Womenās Lung Cancer Risk
āThese results reinforce the importance of getting nutrients from food rather than supplements. Other studies have found similar effects: for example, the SELECT trial found that vitamin E supplements increased prostate cancer risk in men. Likewise, AICR and World Cancer Research Fund research has found that food containing carotenoids decrease lung cancer risk, while beta carotene supplements increase lung cancer risk in smokers.ā
1 Like
Maybe you should watch and judge the evidence yourself.
zazim
#46
He has no evidence. All the evidence supports the opposite view. Itās always humorous how uninformed cardiologists often are.
2 Likes
@AJD
How do you mean I overestimate? As I said before BMI has its limitations and itās important to have this in mind with every measurement that itās taken. We are also now in a sketching phase where the list of measurements are developing. For example, the hip/waist ratio is a great complement to BMI. I will also add a blood lipid profile. What do you think about glucose measurements and insulin sensitivity?
@ēŗ¦ē夫_ęē»“å°
I agree that itās very hard to get too much muscle but the journey towards that may not be optimal for longevity. But is it not good to point out that there is a limit also in that direction? This reminds me for example of an episode with Peter Attia where he said that one of his female patients said that she doesnāt want to be too muscular. He said that she didnāt need to worry about that. I need to think a little bit more about the over muscled part but there is something there which I think is important to highlight somehow.
@JuanDaw
Good suggestion! I will add it.
@DeStrider
Good point, I will add glucose measurements there.
3 Likes
aalyman
#49
Just a few random thoughts as I perused this topicā¦
-
General observation: folks here seem to be (my observation mind you - donāt get mean) SO focused on the physiologic aspects of aging/disease/lifespan, forgetting much of that is largely guesswork. E.g. our relative risk for a chronic disease that might kill us. Iād guess that there continues to be much more we donāt know than do. Itās still largely a mystery. However, what ISNāT a mystery is the other side of the coin when it comes to aging - the functional side. E.g. movement quality, joint articulation, muscle strength, etc. My point is, for anyone to point to gaining too much muscle as they hit their 60s, 70s, and beyond, as something to be worried about, seems silly. The overwhelming evidence is just the opposite - most of the overwhelming majority of people in their 60s have hardly any muscle left. Having more muscle, along with other movement-related aspects/skills/mobility, etc., will ensure however many years you live are the highest quality they can be. As for the young muscled-up gurus on youtubeā¦geezā¦are we really paying attention to any of them? I hope not.
-
I still find it hard to believe weāre still talking about elevated LDL-cholesterol as a risk factor for CVD. The overwhelming evidence points to other factors, especially oxidative stress and epithelial cell damage that can result, as the primary factors. Most of the well-done research that Iāve reviewed in detail actually shows elevated LDL as being more closely correlated with extended lifespan, not the opposite.
Just my 2 cents. Keep on keeping on!
7 Likes
What āoverwhelming evidenceā are you talking about? Reducing LDL by 40 points reduces relative risk of death from cardiovascular events by 22%.
Most of the well-done research that Iāve reviewed in detail actually shows elevated LDL as being more closely correlated with extended lifespan, not the opposite.
Please link said āwell-done researchā. Iām fully expecting you to post an association study with an U-curve while ignoring all the intervention studies.
2 Likes
aalyman
#51
I could provide a very long list of studies/research - and I actually do that in my book - but Iāll simply provide this article published in May of this year (from David Diamond/Paul Leaverton), which looks at the existing research and established dogma, and the deceptive use of relative risk statistics regarding both LDL and statins.
Iāll finish by saying itās not my goal to create a debate. Iām much too busy for it right now. You are welcome to believe what you want to believe, of course. I fully understand thatās how the world works. Thanks!
5 Likes
Your own link agrees that the relative risk reduction is big (but tries to downplay it; nowhere does it state that LDL is helpful in any way) and states that because the absolute risk was small to begin with, the absolute risk reduction doesnāt matter (which disregards the fact that this effect accumulates over many years and both the relative and absolute risk reduction depends on the statin dose, type of statinā¦).
Here is a video which explains this in better detail:
Do Statins even work?! | Relative vs Absolute risk - YouTube
If you donāt want to discuss (as people with strong opinions but weak arguments tend to do), donāt make a post making assertions which you canāt even back up.
4 Likes
LaraPo
#54
I would love the part about elevated LDL to be true! My mother, 91, has elevated LDL all her life and still is functioning independently. Sheās not on statins any more.
5 Likes
zazim
#56
Itās a shame that ApoB tests are not standard protocol. There is a significant percentage of the population who have high LDL-C and low ApoB that are not at risk and a percentage with low LDL-C and high ApoB who have high risk and are never diagnosed.
David Diamond is a statin denier and carnivore proponent. Not the best source to cite.
2 Likes
You seem to trust the evidence you like and distrust the evidence you donāt like.
If you look for LDL using the search icon at the top of the page you will see that this topic has been discussed ad nauseam.
The evidence is in. One chooses to believe it or not. The various threads contain all of the arguments, pros, and cons.
Not looking forward to discussing this again.
No offense, but when I was new to the forum I often made the mistake of making comments that had already been made because I didnāt read the threads pertaining to the discussion.
4 Likes
AnUser
#59
Aalyman isnāt new to the forum, been registered since November last year.
I agree that the discussion is pretty much done, at least for my part. Unfortunately there will be new users who donāt bother to read first or search and will give their own pet theory they learned from popular culture or some YouTube rogue doctors.
They will think because no one tries to argue against their arguments that what theyāre saying is true and good. So be it.
1 Like
drfawn
#60
And what about BNI of WFPB vegans, as it tends to run lower?
drfawn
#61
Body weight also run much lower in vegansā¦
WFPB vegans have relatively lower BMIs compared to vegetarians or omnivores and presumably are taking care to meet their RDAs for everything. So I would suspect that if that is the case and there are no underlying pathologies, it might be ok to be slightly underweight.
