"Abnormally low" cholesterol. Should I be worried?

[aurum]

On 6/5/2024 at 6:11 PM, Jason Actualization said:

To anyone reading this, I would just honestly ask you to explore the possibility that the mainstream medical establishment has committed a cognitive blunder with ramifications spanning far and wide.

1) That's quite a strong claim. If so, then you should be working to prove what you are saying through the peer-review process.

2) Most people do not have the medical / scientific training to evaluate the validity of what you are saying. They do not even know what ApoB is, let alone all the intricacies of biochemistry. So basically you are asking people to just trust you.

[Michael569]

14 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

You will one day be thoroughly disgusted by the depth and breadth of human havoc downstream of these industrial oils increasingly inundating the modern food supply chain, and this moment in history will be seen for the clown act that it effectively is (i.e., the mainstream misunderstanding of cholesterol, the widespread dispensation of cholesterol-lowering medications, the demonization of saturated fat and the abominable advocacy of "heart-healthy" "vegetable" oils.

The sentiment might go both ways Jason. Always important to be prepared to say "I was wrong" 

I have held strong opinions over things that turned out to be no so true many times over the years. Thanks god I never based my identity around any of those such as becoming a XYZ-Advocate on social. I'm always prepared to change opinion with influx of new data and always will be. 

Are you? 

Will you be able to drop your seed-oil denier identity if it genuinely one day turns out that you were incorrect? 

Edited June 11 by Michael569

[LSD-Rumi]

I don't think low cholesterol levels (below the normal range) is healthy. Cholesterol is essential to so many bodily functions. Cholesterol is one of the main components of cell membranes. It is a precursor for steroids and vitamin D. Gallbladder bile is full of cholesterol. Nerves are covered with cholesterol. So Cholesterol is not all bad.

A vegan diet can cause such things. Add more fats to your diet and retest.

 

Edited June 11 by LSD-Rumi

[Jason Actualization]

On 6/11/2024 at 11:20 AM, aurum said:

2) Most people do not have the medical / scientific training to evaluate the validity of what you are saying. They do not even know what ApoB is, let alone all the intricacies of biochemistry. So basically you are asking people to just trust you.

Which furthermore means that most people also lack the training to evaluate the currently prevailing paradigm, yes? That said, indeed, I am asking that people trust me, which I take extremely seriously and assume with great responsibility. I wouldn't be disseminating these ideas if I didn't have full confidence in them, and if this were not a hill I would be willing to die on.

On 6/11/2024 at 11:20 AM, aurum said:

1) That's quite a strong claim. If so, then you should be working to prove what you are saying through the peer-review process.

If I had unlimited resources, I would facilitate the following:

Study 1: Quantify the concentration of lipid oxidation products present in the 1. industrial seed oils at the point of consumer acquisition (i.e., Mazola/corn oil on the shelf of Walmart) and 2. industrial seed oils used in fast food chains (i.e., the corn oil present in a deep fryer at Burger King).

Since my hypothesis is that the consumption of lipid oxidation products in the amounts quantified will promote nearly every disease that has been named, but not least, atherosclerosis, the second study I would propose would never pass an ethics board to be done in humans.

As such:

Study 2: In primates, chimpanzees for example, have 2 groups that are fed weight-adjusted amounts of the previously quantified lipid oxidation products corresponding with the average daily American intake, and 1 group that serves as the control, with nothing added to their feed. Monitor all 3 groups for plaque formation/progression via CT angiography.

12 hours ago, Michael569 said:

Will you be able to drop your seed-oil denier identity if it genuinely one day turns out that you were incorrect? 

Yes, and I will record an apology video titled "I Was Wrong" that I will post publicly and link to in a new thread on this forum, specifically in the "Health, Fitness, Nutrition, Supplements" subsection.

For that to happen, I would need to intercept evidence of one or more of the following:

1. Industrial seed oil consumption lowers rates of LDL oxidation (which is universally acknowledged as necessary for LDL to be atherosclerotic)

2. Humans directly fed oxidized cholesterol do not develop atherosclerosis, ideally those with the lowest possible ApoB.

3. Humans directly fed oxidized phytosterols do not develop atherosclerosis, ideally those with the lowest possible ApoB.

4. Eliminating them entirely from someone's diet worsens their health (yes, that means that by and large, they will no longer be consuming processed foods, but that's the entire point, i.e., that these oils embody the epitome of ultra processing)

What would you need to encounter Michael, in order to to begin advising others to never ingest industrial seed oils again?

11 hours ago, LSD-Rumi said:

I don't think low cholesterol levels (below the normal range) is healthy. Cholesterol is essential to so many bodily functions. Cholesterol is one of the main components of cell membranes. It is a precursor for steroids and vitamin D. Gallbladder bile is full of cholesterol. Nerves are covered with cholesterol. So Cholesterol is not all bad.

A vegan diet can cause such things. Add more fats to your diet and retest.

That's right, it's not a matter of lowering cholesterol, but rather, rendering it less susceptible to oxidation. There is actually no known mechanism by which saturated fat increases cholesterol. What actually happens has to do with decreased phytosterol intake when one transitions from a more plant-based, to a more animal-based diet, which just happens to correlate with an increased saturated fat intake. This can be appreciated upon considering the fact that saturated fat-rich, yet phytosterol-containing, coconut oil, does not affect one's lipid panel in the way that would be otherwise predict based merely on its saturated fat content (i.e., relative to the saturated fat-rich butter which is nearly devoid phytosterols). By consuming an appreciable amount of phytosterols, you actually artificially lower your cholesterol, and saturated fat simply restores it to a physiologic level.

[Michael569]

 

9 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

For that to happen, I would need to intercept evidence of one or more of the following:

1. Industrial seed oil consumption lowers rates of LDL oxidation (which is universally acknowledged as necessary for LDL to be atherosclerotic)

Do you have any evidence that oxidised LDL CAUSES atherosclerosis? Not as a consequence after getting trapped at proteoglycan structure but as causative factor. 

9 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

2. Humans directly fed oxidized cholesterol do not develop atherosclerosis, ideally those with the lowest possible ApoB.

3. Humans directly fed oxidized phytosterols do not develop atherosclerosis, ideally those with the lowest possible ApoB

None of those will ever be done and you probably know that. In a way you are requesting an evidence that cannot be provided to you because this would be a type of Joseph Mengele research. I think it would be interesting but we are unlikely to ever get that. 

In the absence of this evidence, wouldn't you agree that the most cautious approach is to go for the second best we have which is a variety of existing clinical trials (a few of which are even randomized where people are being fed foods an ingredients with PUFA sources masked in them and still finding benefit) and an abundance of prospective data? -  That data shows relatively benign even positive effect of PUFA rich oils on the risk and odds (both RR and HR and OR) on the development of ASCVD and cancer. 

Otherwise you are asking people basically just to take your word for it because providing the evidence you wish would be unethical. As a health practitioner, if you, say recommended a cardiac client to follow a protocol where PUFA is being replaced by SFA sources such as using more lard and using fewer veg oils, and they have a heart attack and the post mortem investigation confirms that your recommendation was directly violating the current health guidelines, this would not only get your license to practice cancelled but potentially get you to a prison for unethical practice - I'm not trying to fearmonger but it wouldn't be the first time something like that happened. 

I understand your point of view which is aiming at oxidised cascade as the main cause of atherosclerosis and I think you correlate that with consumption of seed oils mainly? But do you think, even if that argument was true, that most people consume enough of these oils for that to have a significantly negative effect? And if that's so, I'm again asking, where is that evidence? Why don't we have it yet? - 

• What if the opposite is true? What if consuming those oils is of a benefit? How would we know which direction is the effect true? 
• If you say the current prospective data we have is skewed or unreliable, then what else can we do with borderline of ethical science, to confirm this? (I am genuinely asking, I don't know) 

9 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

4. Eliminating them entirely from someone's diet worsens their health (yes, that means that by and large, they will no longer be consuming processed foods, but that's the entire point, i.e., that these oils embody the epitome of ultra processing)

I think we have this evidence but in reverse and mostly in prospective and retrospective data which I believe wouldn't satisfy the criteria? 

You know I would love to watch you debate a good debator who is well versed in the evidence on this topic so he could argument better than us on the forum who are not great debators or maybe not fully versed in the current evidence. I am not.

Someone like Nutrivore would maybe be worth challenging? I know Nick is always open to debates and his style has definitely changed to more compassionate and less aggressive over the last year. Just throwing it out there. Would be nice to get visibility to your channel as well. 

9 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

What would you need to encounter Michael, in order to to begin advising others to never ingest industrial seed oils again?

I don't have a horse in that race at all Jason. I see seed oils as such a tiny fragment of someone's diet that I don't believe they are source of harm in a way currently consumed even for those who are at the highest percentile of consumption. And for those who get most of their calories from shit like Mcdonalds and Burger King, I think the problems could be down to other factors like salt and caloric excess and overally really bad lifestyle etc. 

I've reviewed much of the prospective evidence myself at different times when creating client plans and for the purpose of self education,  and it seems that overwhelmingly the data we have right now, point to similar direction although you will find outliers such as Sydney Diet study and Minnesota Coronary Experiment. 

I've reviewed a lot of the evidence on SFA sources such red meat, lard, coconut and butter to also believe them to be rather harmful than beneficial.  -  Full disclosure I am by no means an expert on critically evaluating evidence although I've had a decent training, so that's a major limitation. I think that's a skill that takes years to develop. 

Overall, I am just finding it hard to believe that a single ingredient can cause this much havoc as you claim, but, same as you, I am open to changing my opinion if I see direction of effect changing with influx of new data. 

But overall, outside of this, I think our opinions on what constitutes a healthy lifestyle would agree up to 90% so maybe we are over zooming on this niche topic. 

Edited June 12 by Michael569

[aurum]

21 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

Which furthermore means that most people also lack the training to evaluate the currently prevailing paradigm, yes?

The situation is asymmetrical.

People are not putting their trust in any one individual person or idea. They are putting their trust in the institution of science and the peer-review process of thousands of medical professionals.

You are one pharmacist who lacks research to support your thinking.

And I don't say that to disparage your ideas or attack you. I say that because I believe you can do better. 

21 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

That said, indeed, I am asking that people trust me, which I take extremely seriously and assume with great responsibility. I wouldn't be disseminating these ideas if I didn't have full confidence in them, and if this were not a hill I would be willing to die on.

I respect that and I believe you.

But I'm sorry, that's not good enough.

We are talking about atherosclerosis, one of the most deadly conditions on the planet. People will not, and should not, just believe you.

There are tons of people with all kinds of theories that feel just as strongly about them as you do. And that vast majority of them are wrong. 

This is why we have peer-review. You can criticize this process for being corrupt, subject to group-think or limited in whatever way you like. But it's still the best option that we have as a society for filtering out medical nonsense.

Research comes first, then dissemination.

21 hours ago, Jason Actualization said:

If I had unlimited resources, I would facilitate the following:

Study 1: Quantify the concentration of lipid oxidation products present in the 1. industrial seed oils at the point of consumer acquisition (i.e., Mazola/corn oil on the shelf of Walmart) and 2. industrial seed oils used in fast food chains (i.e., the corn oil present in a deep fryer at Burger King).

Since my hypothesis is that the consumption of lipid oxidation products in the amounts quantified will promote nearly every disease that has been named, but not least, atherosclerosis, the second study I would propose would never pass an ethics board to be done in humans.

As such:

Study 2: In primates, chimpanzees for example, have 2 groups that are fed weight-adjusted amounts of the previously quantified lipid oxidation products corresponding with the average daily American intake, and 1 group that serves as the control, with nothing added to their feed. Monitor all 3 groups for plaque formation/progression via CT angiography.

Great. Get a PhD, get funding and prove it.

Alternatively, you can continue to play outside the system. But I would really consider the downsides of that.