Thu, Jun-16-16, 08:47
|
|
New Member
Posts: 21
|
|
Plan: Keto
Stats: 208/170/185
BF:
Progress:
|
|
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by M Levac
DaveKeto, I suggest you talk to Mike Eades about your experiments. The idea is that in the diet-heart hypothesis, cholesterol and lipoproteins are not the end-point, they're intermediates, the end-point is mortality. Even there, according to that hypothesis, we don't die from cholesterol or lipoproteins, but from atherosclerosis->blocked artery->heart failure. So the next thing to measure is atherosclerosis. Mike Eades uses what he calls a calcium score or something like that, check his blog for more details on that. Anyways, just refuting the first link in the chain of the hypothesis refutes the whole hypothesis already, refuting the next links is just icing on the cake.
Well done, keep it up, we're all very interested in your results.
|
Yes, I'm familiar with Mike Eades and hope to dialog with him at some point.
I'm doing another blog post soon that will break out my own risk assessment as it stands right now and indeed I'm currently more leaning toward the Response to Injury Hypothesis over the Lipid Hypothesis with regard to atherogenesis.
Ultimately, the only thing I care about is all cause morality -- is my current course of action increasing the likelihood I die sooner? For example, if I were convinced my WOE increased my chance of CVD by 10%, but decreased my risk of cancer by 50%, I'd take that spread given it would be a net decrease in all cause mortality. (That said, I doubt such obvious trade off numbers will ever been that clear)
|