> Get a blood lipids panel and see what your ApoB is like!

not sure how this tell me if i have 'unique feedback mechanism' . wtf does that phrase even mean.

If you have a cholesterol synthesis feedback mechanism then as you increased your consumption of foods that are known to increase LDL-c (butter, lard, tallow) then your LDL-c would not rise or would only rise by a smaller amount than would be predicted by the Keys equation.

So you could get your LDL-c checked, up your butter consumption and then get a retest and compare the results to the expected value.

only genetics influence those markers? I thought even stress causes increase in cholestrol levels. How is this person so sure that Masai have some sort of special genetics when there are so many other factors.

It’s literally in the reference given. Just read it yourself and all will be revealed:

Biss, K., Ho, K.-J., Mikkelson, B., Lewis, L. & Taylor, C. B. Some Unique Biologic Characteristics of the Masai of East Africa. N. Engl. J. Med. 284, 694–699 (1971).

"The high ratios of phospholipid to cholesterol and bile acid to cholesterol in their gallbladder bile explain the extreme rarity of cholesterol gallstones. All these characteristics may reflect a long-term biologic adaptation of the tribe."

This is just an hypothesis that says they "may" have adaption? Not sure how that translates to definitive "they have a unique feedback mechanism "

Ok, so you have an issue with the certainty that Yoder used in his discussion of that particular issue. Does expressing certainty when the author of the referenced study uses less certain terms make something a joke?

If so, I have some wonderful things to show you from Teicholz that will have you rolling on the floor with laughter compared to Yoder’s stuff.

Yes because certainty was used to refute the findings. I don't have an issue otherwise.

That certainty is what led me to believe i can look up genetic markers in my 23andme.

In what way was the certainty used to refute the findings? The point Yoder was making was that Teicholz made an inference that was incompatible with the study used to support it.