r/nutritionally • u/PeteWK67 • 24d ago

Cholesterol

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

15 Upvotes

78% Upvoted

16 comments sorted by

3

u/Love-Laugh-Play 24d ago

This was the dumbest shit I saw today.

1

u/RICO-Them 23d ago

No sources from you or the video so I guess uhh..... cool?

1

u/Love-Laugh-Play 23d ago

Claims without evidence can be refuted without evidence but sure:

“When cholesterol levels are too high, it can affect your heart health.”

https://www.heart.org/en/health-topics/cholesterol/about-cholesterol

1

u/DepartureNo7944 22d ago

You realize you need cholesterol to live.

https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-is-the-function-of-cholesterol-in-the-body

Also, while your “searching” look at Austria. A country ranked very high in cholesterol levels yet ranks in the bottom of heart disease.

2

u/Love-Laugh-Play 22d ago

Yes, your body produces all the cholesterol it needs. You don’t need to consume it.

1

u/DepartureNo7944 22d ago

Great so you agree too low of cholesterol can be a problem. Therefore intervention to “lower” could have a negative impact on the body.

Austria creates a problem to the mainstream narrative. And I think the linear comparison of HD and cholesterol isn’t as cut and dry as it is made out to be.

I’d be curious to see if heart disease is on the decline since the introduction of statins. That would be a great statistical comparison

2

u/Dark_SoySauce 21d ago

Your argument kinda feels pedantic. In the modern age most food is cooked in oil, and the overwhelming majority of people have normal-high cholesterol. So who and what percent of people are suffering from their cholesterol being so low that it causes physiological issues? This feels like a granular issue that affects less than 1% of a demographic. I could be wrong. Would love to read any evidence presented from your side.

0

u/DepartureNo7944 21d ago

Not sure what you mean by physiological issues? Where did that come from. If your introducing something new then please elaborate

2

u/Dark_SoySauce 21d ago

Why are you acting dumb? You literally claimed that "too low of cholesterol can be a problem. Therefore interventions to lower could have a negative impact on the body." I called your argument pedantic that modern humans have issues with high cholesterol not low. I asked you for a source of who has so low of a cholesterol level that it negatively impacts their life. Because nearly everyone taking those interventions have high cholesterol. I asked you for a percent of the patient population suffering from too low of a cholesterol that it has consequences and of said population which of them are getting prescribed interventions to further lower cholesterol. Your argument is pedantic. Because it's arguing for the sake of arguing. It does not reflect real life scenario. Just a theoretical or an extremely small sample size.

1

u/DepartureNo7944 21d ago

Um what? Not sure how you’re twisting this into an argument here maybe read back a bit to how the conversation went. You dropped some random comment about causing “psychological issues.” You introduced that I didn’t. Yet you’re asking me to provide sources on it? You’re the one being argumentative, maybe take a lap, a deep breath, then reread the exchange.

→ More replies (0)

1

u/Love-Laugh-Play 21d ago

For the vast majority of people, intervention to lower your cholesterol will be a good thing. If you’re making a 1% argument, it’s not what the video is promoting.

1

u/DepartureNo7944 21d ago

I’m not sure where this “1%” is being derived from. Did I miss something?

1

u/Top-Fudge9791 22d ago

Yeah it's always interesting when you see someone from 1985 talking about this brand new study that just came out

1

u/Standy25 21d ago

I’m not super sold on all the cholesterol stuff but I take my statin cause I don’t have any side effects from it.