395 metabolic ward experiments show dietary cholesterol raises blood cholesterol

Der Eisbär

Banned
Banned
Joined
Aug 26, 2014
Messages
14,033
Reaction score
1
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9006469

DESIGN:
Meta-analysis of metabolic ward studies of solid food diets in healthy volunteers.

SUBJECTS:
395 dietary experiments (median duration 1 month) among 129 groups of individuals.
Isocaloric replacement of saturated fats by complex carbohydrates for 10% of dietary calories resulted in blood total cholesterol falling by 0.52 (SE 0.03) mmol/l and low density lipoprotein cholesterol falling by 0.36 (0.05) mmol/l. Isocaloric replacement of complex carbohydrates by polyunsaturated fats for 5% of dietary calories resulted in total cholesterol falling by a further 0.13 (0.02) mmol/l and low density lipoprotein cholesterol falling by 0.11 (0.02) mmol/l. Similar replacement of carbohydrates by monounsaturated fats produced no significant effect on total or low density lipoprotein cholesterol. Avoiding 200 mg/day dietary cholesterol further decreased blood total cholesterol by 0.13 (0.02) mmol/l and low density lipoprotein cholesterol by 0.10 (0.02) mmol/l.

Literally hundreds of experiments and studies show eating cholesterol and saturated fat raises blood cholesterol levels.

Link me your studies asserting otherwise and I'll show you why they're wrong.
 
In other words: We took people already eating a modern diet high in cholesterol, fed them cholesterol and oh look at that! No change in cholesterol detected.

Meta analysis of 395 studies showing a link > your One study where baseline cholesterol and ascvd risk were not assessed
 
Couldn't find something newer than a meta analysis from 1997?
 
Couldn't find something newer than a meta analysis from 1997?
Science doesn't stop being science. There are much newer studies showing the link but 395 studies aren't wrong. This is direct data from 395 separate studies showing it.

Would it be better if I linked a more recent study like no fat chicks with a flawed study design?? Lmao.

"Your study is from 1997" isn't an argument or refutation of data
 
Even outside of clinical investigation, this is obviously true.
 
Science doesn't stop being science. There are much newer studies showing the link but 395 studies aren't wrong. This is direct data from 395 separate studies showing it.

Would it be better if I linked a more recent study like no fat chicks with a flawed study design?? Lmao.

"Your study is from 1997" isn't an argument or refutation of data

Well I'm simply not going to take the time to point out all of the flaws of each of those 39x studies they pulled from.

Ok here is your flaw. It's about standard British diets and I'm not from Britain.
 
Well I'm simply not going to take the time to point out all of the flaws of each of those 39x studies they pulled from.

Ok here is your flaw. It's about standard British diets and I'm not from Britain.
Standard British and American diets are both high in saturated fat and cholesterol. Incidents of ascvd are much lower in poor countries. Know Why? Because poor countries consume a more plant based diet because that's all they can afford
 
Standard British and American diets are both high in saturated fat and cholesterol. Incidents of ascvd are much lower in poor countries. Know Why? Because poor countries consume a more plant based diet because that's all they can afford
They also eat less sugary foods and do a whole lot of other things differently. What's your point?
 
Most major sources now consider eating "good" cholesterol to be fine, but thank god we have Der Eisbär on the case, setting us straight!
 
As a side note, inflammation is also important to the formation of atherosclerotic plaques as far as my knowledge tells me.
 
Most major sources now consider eating "good" cholesterol to be fine, but thank god we have Der Eisbär on the case, setting us straight!
No. You've appealed to an authority that A) you didn't even cite and B) doesn't exist
 
Back
Top