https://youtu.be/FcUUqGJBXFM?si=4VmVtWH52Rt35nwc

A new meta study looking at LDL level, bmi correlated to LDL. Inverse on a low carb diet.

Maybe someone can summarize this video into text.

Here's the actual study, published today in American Journal of Clinical Nutrition ..

Increased LDL-cholesterol on a low-carbohydrate diet in adults with normal but not high body weight: a meta-analysis

My conclusion is that LDL-C is not dangerous once the person lowers their BMI. Am I missing something? she asked sarcastically.

Yes, it merits investigation. It's trying to reshape how Western Medicine views cholesterol. Which keeps getting NOT supported in actual research.

When something is this obscured and obtuse maybe it's on purpose.

Yes, its frustrating.

We need to keep proving a low carb diet has far more health benefits than living an obese SAD life.

This study is one more proof to support low carb is safe.

( thanks Doreen for finding the study and posting. ,)

Dr Eades Arrow has some notes on this paper:
https://michaeleades.substack.com/p/the-arrow-159
(Search for 'Hyper' to skip to the relevant section).

Read the sttudy in full https://www.sciencedirect.com/scien...via%3Dihub]here.

This study has been getting picked apart on Twitter, and one thing (of many) that drives me crazy about X is having to analyze a scientific study in a 13 part thread dense with charts

Keven Hall starts his this morning, "A paper by ~AdrianSotoMota ~nicknorwitz ~davidludwigmd et al. reanalyzed data from our previous study, claiming to have invalidated our primary findings, & concluding that our data support the carbohydrate-insulin model (CIM) of obesity.
Our response: Despite generating lots of noise, their reanalysis never addressed our study’s primary outcome: differences in energy intake when the same people ate low carb (LC) vs low fat (LF) diets. Our result was valid & there was no significant effect of diet order.
Instead, they attempted to analyze whether the group of participants assigned to the LC followed by the LF diet had different outcomes compared to those assigned to the reverse order. That’s a separate but interesting topic. Unfortunately, their reanalysis had several fatal flaws….and then he lists them in excruciating detail, shredding the authors. ….

Overall, the reanalysis paper exhibited poor scholarship by failing to engage with our prior work, suggested their analysis was more novel than it was, ignored the within-participant study design, failed to disclose the possibility of bias, & committed many statistical errors.
……
In summary, the fatally flawed reanalysis by ~AdrianSotoMota ~nicknorwitz ~davidludwigmd et al attempted to resurrect the CIM by following the adage "if you torture data long enough, it will confess to anything". In this case, data torture led to a false confession of CIM support.

There's more, but you get his point. I stopped believing in the CIM a few years ago so I ignored this study, but response is worth sharing.

Any time a finding challenges one's belief system, there are repercussions that come with strong claims about being wrong. Those firmly in one camp vs another want the findings to be wrong. No one wants to be wrong. Those who have done earlier studies that are found lacking will argue and insult the new study, thus casting suspicion on the unwillingness to carry out the scientific method with productive dialog purely for learning new information. This is clear in this situation. What I know is that diet wars are unproductive and cause confusion. This is no different than the arguments among vegans, vegetarians, omnivores of many different dietary stripes and persuasions, low carb, ketogenic, carnivore, Paleo, optimising nutrition, satiety per calorie (SPC), CIM, P:E, and on and on and on. There are divisions being established on this forum, where only the naive would think we would agree on everything dietary. Why? Because no one has the answer for a single, perfect human diet that applies equally to everyone guaranteeing optimum health. Anyone who claims this and can prove it should be recognized as the "missing" expert in all things dietary. Until then, I'll keep reading and continually learning to ensure I am eating healthy foods and maintaining a healthy lifestyle.

A blast from the past Denise Minger (author of Death by Food Pyramid) writes:


This vaguetweet is in reference to ~KevinH_PhD getting mobbed by Low Carb True Believers for the cardinal sin of conducting a study that did not support the carbohydrate-insulin model

Dr Eenfeldt retweeted Denise's post with his comment: "Low carb works great for many (science confirms it), but this is unfortunately too true"

Like Dr Eenfeldt, Dr Naiman and Marty Kendall, more low carb influencers now understand that the Carbohydrate-Insulin model is incomplete, and your Energy Toxicity needs to be addressed. Six good articles on Insulin at this post:
https://forum.lowcarber.org/showpos...4&postcount=287