Nutrition versus The Lipid Problem: Response Video

Nutrition trumps medical intervention. It is much fast. The effect are nearly instantaneous. Drug therapy is hit and miss, and very often takes several years to decades to make any real difference.
Take type 2 diabetes. By giving up all, and I do mean ALL carbohydrates, diabetes just goes away.
I use myself as an example.
I was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes in August of 2017. At Dx, my blood glucose was 594, with an HbA1c of 11.8%. After six hours in the ememrgency room my blood glucose was bought down to 300. I was allowed to leave at that time. After one month of medical directed diet and drugs (metformin), my average daily BG reading was 250, measured every hour. I sat not on my as this entire month. I studied. I read everything I could about type 2 diabetes. I discovered two schools of thought. One was fat caused, the other sugar caused. I went with sugar as being the problem, seeing as my blood sugar was the problem. On October 1 of 2017, I went cold turkey on all carbohydrates. Carbonongrata. Full on carnivore. The next day, some 30 or so hours later, my BG had dropped from 250 to 85 measured every hour. Non diabetic levels. Not even pre diabetes levels. GONE! This was later confirmed at my 4 month follow up as having and HbA1c of 5.5%. Cured. A change in nutrition is all you need to do sometimes. And it works much faster than medications.

From a fat family, when few were fat, despite huge amounts of exercise I was fat most of the time till I was 62. I cut sugar out of my diet and lost 20lb but continued to be plagued by depression. After a slow regain of 7lb I went on LCHF and the magic happened. I lost all my excess weight and have kept it off for almost 10y AND my depression disappeared and has stayed gone.
This is my point. The nutrition problem and the depression problem were the same problem. A nutrition problem.
It is also probably true for the lipid problem and the nutrition problem. The same problem. I wouldn't be at all impressed by Peter Attia. It's not anything he's done, but he has just as much right to be wrong as any other doctor!

wait…….oreo vs. statin??

If humans weren't meant to live on fat then why did evolution create a primate supremely adapted to do so?

There is no lipid problem. The problem is with arterial damage that alows plaques to form.

– it's becoming common knowledge that atherosclerosis is caused by injury to arterial wall when deficient in vitamin c for collagen synthesis, then lipo a patches it, and then if you have too much inflammation the clot grows over time.
– Thus the four major risk factors are thick blood viscosity, lack of arterial elasticity, too much oxidation, and hyper inflammation.
– Linus pauling insisted that high doses of vitamin c would prevent and in combination with certain amino acids even heal atherosclerosis. Because it keeps the arteries collagen rich and elastic and able to repair damage.
– Others see tocotrienol vitamin e as the second most important way to avoid atherosclerosis. As vitamin e lowers blood viscosity, is the antioxidant in the oil part of our cells, and prevents blood clotting.
-Others see chelation with edta to remove arterial calcification (stiffening) and lead (huge oxidant load and another highly correlated data point with atherosclerosis) to be the third most important factor.
-Some see methylated b vitamins to combat homocysteine levels to be vital.
– And finally, there was the whole blood viscosity cure where it was recommended to give blood every two months to lower blood viscosity. That guy.. .kinsey…. died from his blood getting too thin however and getting a brain bleed. He was taking aspirin I believe at the time.
– So if I had the time and a perfect world I would take liposomal c and tocotrienols every day, get chelation once a year, and donate blood maybe every three months. Prolonged fasts also trigger healing of the vascular system through ketone signaling.
– I feel that this entire lipid fixation is a red herring by pharma. It's all downstream of the actual mechanisms. It's the same with inflammation. If you crush my knee with a hammer, the proper response is not to get rid of the pain and inflammation with drugs and leave the injury to fester. The proper thing to do is fix my knee and after it heals there will be no need for anti inflammatories and pain meds. Any intervention that is focused on changing blood lipids directly almost feels like superstition… the links and mechanisms are so weak. If metabolic diseases cause messed up lipid levels… directly intervening to change the lipid levels won't help the disease. The person will probably be worse because the lipids were an adaptive response by the body. That's my gut instinct. I know, in some indirect ways changing lipids and statins can help certain factors… but I'd rather just have a good metabolism and clean arteries.

Let’s also stop pussyfooting, plants are not good for us they cause all of human problems. Eat animals and we have zero problems. And you have proven if eating animals raises ldl and eating cookies lowers it, then it is supposed to be high

Come on Nick, spill the beans (Oreos) on your outcome!

In my mind Peter's logic to is this. APOB is causal for ASCVD -> you crush APOB either with diet/genetics/medication -> you do not die from ACSVD.

So the two disagreements with Attia's statements would be nutrition in some cases is more important than he is making it sound and that in some cases we do not see as much plaque buildup as we would expect compared to the study that matched the 80 LMHR Keto subjects to the some general population. Am I getting that right?

I would still want to keep your APOB as low as possible assuming all other factors held constant. No? It seems risky to assume that I am somehow immune to the effects of APOB based on my diet/genetics given the current balance of evidence.

Also, maybe this is my lack of knowledge. But why do these studies always focus on LDL-C not APOB? Is the test for LDL-C that much cheaper? Why not do both?

Absolutely loving your channel and insights!

Attia has admitted 50% of what he learned in med school is wrong. He can’t see that maybe 50% of what he knows now is also wrong.

Is it just me or has Peter flipped yet again and now focused on the pharmaceutical bandwagon as his new “magic pill”. Sure people should be able to change their mind, especially with new data. His jump feels to me to be pronounced, recent and not driven by new data.

I'll make the same comment here that I did on that video:
I think Peter is right about so many things, but I think he's wrong about this. He is still too focused on pharmaceuticals. Nutrition should be first and foremost. No one has a statin deficiency.
I would love to have him analyze my hormones though.