Re:Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with pla...
by roboticmind on Thursday May 16, 2024 @09:56AM
(#40378534)
Earlier you were saying how you didn't trust only observational studies and wanted to see people actually doing randomized trials. That was for a meta-analysis, but this neither a meta-analysis nor an RCT. It is a single purely observational study.
Further, looking at their 95% confidence interval graphs... you can see the many of trends could potentially be completely reversed and still within the 95% confidence interval. Their 95% confidence interval contain probable outcomes where 140mg/dL was the worst possible level as well
Further it also still finds increased risk for heart issues with higher LDL.
> Any increase in LDL-C levels was associated with an increased risk of myocardial infarction.
Re:Cardiovascular health and cancer risk associated with pla...
by bairen on Thursday May 16, 2024 @04:21PM
(#40382680)
No you don't get to look at these graphs and claim a 90 ldl has the same outcomes as a 140.
That's just lying.
Yes there are edge cases. You could get hit by a car with a 140.
It's looking at all cause mortality.
A higher ldl seems to be protective. Of course it is. The body makes it for a reason.
Here is the study https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33293274/
A ldl of 140 mg/dL had a overall lower all cause mortality than those with a ldl of 100 or below. Doctors will prescribe a statin at 130.
Good look having a ldl of 140 on a vegan diet. It's not happening.
If you are going to ignore my scientific studies then there is no use continuing this conversation.