zlacker

If we're going to be citing a random YouTube video as the same weight as scientific studies, I don't see much point in continuing this conversation

>>roboti+(OP)
It's a youtube video discussing a Scientific study.

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.

>>bairen+G1
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.

>>roboti+66
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.