1/ Thread
Commenting on @kevinnbass article regarding our #LMHR Measurement Project via CitizenScienceFoundation.org <— Please continue to donate!
Commenting on @kevinnbass article regarding our #LMHR Measurement Project via CitizenScienceFoundation.org <— Please continue to donate!
2/ “... I am musing a bit offline about what exactly his LHMR study would show even if atherosclerosis did not progress in his subjects much.
Because we already know that other factors besides LDL also modify risk.”
This is a very important stopping point, right at the start...
Because we already know that other factors besides LDL also modify risk.”
This is a very important stopping point, right at the start...
3/ The vast majority of LMHRs who approach us at the site or groups explain their doctor is extremely concerned — regardless of their other risk factors that might be optimal. And this is understandable given existing medical opinion regarding LDL.
4/ I don’t know that I’ve heard a story as of yet with a conventional doctor seeing an LDL above 200, checking it against a CVD calculator, then concluding the patient is only at a very marginal increase in absolute risk.
5/ Familial Hypercholesterolemia provides a major cornerstone of the lipid hypothesis, where we find many with LDL above 200 commonly suffering from xanthomas, anginas, and unfortunately, MIs at a very, very young age.
6/ This likewise falls in line with the guidelines, which adivise maximally tolerated statin at LDL≥190 with no other qualifiers of any kind.
As is often expressed, LDL is “dose dependent and log linear”. (Moreover, given current theory, LMHRs have prior “LDL lifetime burden”)
As is often expressed, LDL is “dose dependent and log linear”. (Moreover, given current theory, LMHRs have prior “LDL lifetime burden”)
7/ That’s why this project is so important. We’re not just tracking events, we’re capturing scans via CT Angiogram. And we now have very expert guidance in this area that the turnaround time is much shorter than we thought given the exposure and expected speed of outcome data.
8/ It’s also worth emphasizing what I feel this project *isn’t*. I don’t believe this will categorically disprove the lipid hypothesis. For instance, it could well be that it applies in other contexts, but perhaps not where LDL increased due to healthy metabolic fat adaptation.
9/ And I doubt they’ll be any result that is definitive to the point we wouldn’t want further study, of course.
But would it be a truly unexpected finding to existing medical opinion if LMHRs did not develop rapid atherosclerosis with FH-levels of LDL? I certainly think so, yes.
But would it be a truly unexpected finding to existing medical opinion if LMHRs did not develop rapid atherosclerosis with FH-levels of LDL? I certainly think so, yes.
10/ addendum for those requesting- original link here: nutritionalrevolution.org/2019/11/28/cho…
