>>11419773Chowdhury had more of a dog in the race, but his co-author stated this
>Another study author, Emanuele Di Angelantonio of the University of Cambridge, says the main problem is that the paper was "wrongly interpreted by the media." "We are not saying the guidelines are wrong and people can eat as much saturated fat as they want. We are saying that there is no strong support for the guidelines and we need more good trials."Wrongly interpreted by the media, which is the source of a lot of this confusion and distrust between scientists and the public about nutrition, because journalists report on every contradictory study as if it's perfectly sound and on its own changes everything. The RCTs they used are also not considered well designed studies and don't lend well to meta-analysis. RCTs for drug trials are fairly straightforward and easier to compile, but RCTs for diet studies vary hugely in their quality and methods.
>You call him quack, dispute his claims instead.I did. If you want me to get on his stupid "eat more salt to lower your blood pressure" claims, I can do that later, but I already showed how his HDL claims were bogus.
>It does, it means that LDL oxidation isn't happening by chanceI never said it happened by chance, I said it happened and that it was inevitable. Things can influence it, but it's always happening, and if you see "x increases LDL oxidation by 9%" that means it went up from a number that wasn't 0.
>LDL has other function as well, it's not only molecule designed to kill you, you know.No shit, but as with every single other substance in the blood, there's a safe amount and an unsafe amount. Strict estimates say that above 70mg/dl, LDL levels begin to be atherogenic. A diet that gives you double that level is going to be bad for your cardiovascular system, and you've shown nothing to suggest that there would be such a low level of LDL oxidation somehow that it wouldn't be a problem
