[spirit557]

One could cite a lot of things against the lipid hypothesis and likewise the other way. Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint... Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=...

Consumption of free sugars, pulverized grains, manufactured oils and cigarette smoking took off like crazy after 1900. Type 2 Diabetes was totaly unchecked and out of control. By 1960 heart disease is the #1 killer and what do they blame... Saturated fat, beef... eggs? Come on... You don't need a million studies to scratch your head a little at the lipid hypothesis.

[p_j_w]

>Maybe just think about this from an armchair standpoint

Why?

>Before 1900 heart disease was extremely rare. And what were people eating before 1900? A whole lot of beef, bacon, butter, and eggs. Saturated fat consumption per capita was basically unchanged from 1900 to 1950. But heart disease skyrocketed. Look at this data: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/FmhBUOpagAA-9Mj?format=png&name=...

Do you think the scientists and doctors that have examined this issue professionally for 8 or more hours per day over decades haven't seen or considered this data?

I am not going to "just think about this from an armchair standpoint" because, quite frankly, that's stupid. I don't know what the confounding variables in the data you show might be. I don't know the nuances and complexities. I would guess you probably don't either.

[kelipso]

This is such an ignorant and sad point of view. What are you, some hatchling that can only eat what mama bird has chewed up? At least make an attempt to do some critical thinking.

[p_j_w]

I’ve done the critical thinking and the conclusion that such critical thinking has lead to is that I will most likely have better outcomes if I follow the advice of people who have looked at these issues 8 hours a day for years on end than if I “do my own research” and listen to coders trying to give advice on best practices in cardiology.

[kelipso]

You might have your limitations but that doesn't really go for everyone. Plenty of coders can do survey research in cardiology better than most cardiologists, just how it goes. Cardiologists know the heart and dealing with patients, survey research they very often don't do so well. You should realize the limitations of experts in their own fields, they are human too, and often very biased since they have to deal with the sociopolitical climate in their fields.

[maerF0x0]

IMO the real mistake is assuming that any survey + observational style study constitutes advice for individuals. The unfortunate truth in coaching is there's so little broad advice that can be given, that is guaranteed to not have a slice of humanity for which it's actually damaging. That is, for the vast majority of the advisable ways of living/eating, there are folks out there whom if they adhered to the advice they'd actually deteriorate. Which is a big part of what medical advisors (doctors, nutritionists, integrative medicine et al) exist, and taking advice from an influencer of 1000s or millions of followers is simply irresponsible.

Rather, one needs to first do the science to understand the mechanisms, and 2nd do the labwork to understand the individual.. Then apply the mechanisms which will bring that individual to better health, and iterate too because often times the advice can either go too far, or not far enough.

[eternityforest]

Is that age standardized? This seems to show a different curve, that does increase a ton, but then peaks and goes back down.

https://amjmed.org/trends-in-coronary-atherosclerosis-a-tale...