Otzi and Artbuc – I respect you both for taking your health into your own hands as much you can. However, a few important things are clear. One is that you guys, while not endocrinologists, are not people of average intelligence or motivation. The second is that even if you spend a lot of time doing research about human biology, which is fantastic, you are still trusting your sources. You have made the jump to getting your information from more sources more reliable than people on this message board, but you are still trusting someone when you read a paper on Pubmed. The kind of critical analysis that I am talking about doing involves tearing through supplemental methods and protocols, questioning statistical tests used to generate p-values, considering the genetic background of model organisms used, framing results in the context of other published data, etc... I'm not trying to be arrogant when I say that. This is my job and I have way more time and motivation to do this than virtually any other person. I'm sure you both have expertise (e.g.: chemical engineering) that are out of my league. Anyway... I admire your efforts. The more information you can gather, the better off you will be. However, there are always two (or more) experts that disagree with each other about most things, so you have to trust someone. That includes trusting their description of the results of their own experiments in a published paper or review. It seems like you guys have chosen wisely. Or, maybe I'm wrong and you guys do pull off the kind of analysis that I am talking about. I just know its a real bit*h for me to handle sometimes and I get paid for it.
Agree 100% which is why my initial reaction to Peter Attia was so positive. He has the requisite medical and mathematical skills plus an apparently insatiable intellectual curiosity which enable him to do exactly what you describe. I believe his cholesterol series is an excellent example. However, when all is said and done, he still isn't sure atherosclerosis is a 100% gradient driven process dependent only on LDL-P even though he states that emphatically in his series.
Originally Posted by The Scientist
I looked at Attia's ideas about cholesterol. I like most of his conclusions, but I don't think the data he is citing demonstrates that LDL-P is the only thing that matters. It may be the best measurable variable we have for correlation with heart disease, but the data do not show causation at all. The data show that people with the highest LDL-P have about 3X the risk for a cardiac event than people with the lowest LDL-P. This is a very strong correlation, but there are clearly some people with very low LDL-P that are still having heart attacks.
Originally Posted by Artbuc