Purpose of review 

Conventional knowledge holds that saturated fat is the primary dietary driver of increases in low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), and that high LDL-C seen among some persons consuming low-carbohydrate, high-fat diets is driven by increased saturated fat intake. This simple paradigm cannot account for the lipid patterns, nor for the magnitude of effect, observed in ‘lean mass hyper-responders’ on low-carbohydrate diets. The Lipid Energy Model (LEM) provides an alternative explanation for LDL-C increases seen in persons without obesity who adopt ketogenic diets and makes testable predictions, including that acute overfeeding, including increased saturated fat consumption, would decrease LDL-C levels.

Recent findings 

This study reports data from an n = 1 experiment, performed in duplicate, in which the subject consumed three ketogenic diets for 5 days that varied in caloric content: weight-maintenance (2278 kcal/day), hypo-caloric (1135 kcal/day), and hyper-caloric (4116 kcal/day). Consistent with the LEM, LDL-C and apolipoprotein B increased following caloric restriction and decreased following overfeeding, despite increased saturated fat consumption. Data from a case series of 24 individuals who underwent similar protocols similarly found that overfeeding on a ketogenic diet decreased LDL-C.

Summary 

This n = 1 study and associated case series provide data that short-term overfeeding can lower LDL-C in the context of carbohydrate restriction.

I had Covid already and I am going based on data that also accounts for cardio metabolic health and nutrient deficiencies or lack thereof rather than just age BMI gender and other diseases etc.

Risk assessment should be individualized not based on broad averages for a population. For example let’s say a study came out showing that the general population ate too little protein and the average person needs to increase their protein. Perhaps I as an individual eat too much protein. Why would my recommendation be affected by a broad average for a population?

I eat a low carb diet and I am in great cardio metabolic health and I get plenty of exercise and have no nutrient deficiencies. The general population is at high risk with Covid because this does not describe them and high carb, seed oils is the popular diet. Most don’t get sufficient cardio exercise and have a few deficiencies.

My personal risk of complications with the vaccine is much higher whereas for some individuals the risk is higher with infection

Well the fact that the overwhelming data shows that the vaccine poses more risk to me personally than the infection, this should inform my decision whether or not to get vaccinated

Yes I was responding to point number one. Some individuals are actually at greater risk of myocarditis from the vaccine as what you’ve referred to are broad population averages. Another part of the issue is how since the causality between the vaccine and myocarditis isn’t recognized how the data is skewed or we could say that conclusions are tailored/shoehorned to meet the hypotheses

You are definitely confused but it does make sense. Yes, the comparison being made is myocarditis risk between Covid-19 exposure and vaccination. These risks are weighed or averaged for the general population.

Many individuals are at such a low risk of a severe covid case that they are more likely to get myocarditis resulting from vaccination

It’s not this simple because depending on a person’s state of health they may be at an extremely low risk of myocarditis should they get Covid and in these cases the myocarditis risk for those individuals is higher with the vaccine than with Covid

No what you’re doing is presupposing that you can measure and completely control in order to find harm. You’re also disqualifying or not counting studies that reject your hypothesis, and yes that glyphosate in the residual amount is safe is a hypothesis and not a conclusion.

You’re the one advocating that studies are weighted based on their alignment with your ideology rather than their adherence to the scientific method or their rigorousness

No I mean harm done in the doses regularly found in residues

No, I was responding to the person that said “Red flags: Strong correlation related to urban (more access to health care) vs rural (less access to health care); mischaracterize gly as "organophosphorous compound," which is a common tactic by anti-gly activists to associate it with organophosphate insecticides. This is activist research.”

Hence why other studies have demonstrated the harms

I could essentially just reply with the same exact comment.

Still effectively “safe until proven unsafe” because they merely reify the fact that they know what a safe level is, and that they understand every potential mechanism by which glyphosate can harm us, and that they know and have measured the full extent of the effects of the safe amounts of residue.

Glyphosate is an organophosphorous compound and you want it falsely classified otherwise. If insecticides are a different class than correctly classifying glyphosate should not be confusing for others even though it may be for you

I thought it was interesting that this person said that glyphosate is mischaracterized by being correctly categorized as an organophosphorous compound, the sort of compound that it actually is. It’s actually a projection, they are suggesting that they wish to classify it incorrectly because being in the same class with insecticides makes it look bad even though it truly is an organophosphorous compound

The problem with this is that truth is not voted on democratically. There used to be a consensus that malaria was contracted from the soil and those who believed it to be caused by mosquitoes were very few and considered fringe. Consensus doesn’t determine reality. We cannot just vote on what we want the laws of physics to be. Things are as they are.

Not to mention the consensus manufacturers gets to choose what scientists/what data to include

I don't see any red flags or mischaracterizations

But it’s still effectively “safe until proven unsafe” because they merely reify the fact that they know what a safe level is, and that they understand every potential mechanism by which glyphosate can harm us, and that they know and have measured the full extent of the effects of the safe amounts of residue

I think it's a decent correlation considering the lack of weights in the upper percentiles past 5ng/ml

Yeah I agree but I think what it comes down to is that any way of farming that will be safe is going to require more labor and community involvement in peoples' own food production. but people have become acclimated to delegating the food production to mass producers so they can have easier lives.

I mean food prices have drastically dropped over the last 100 years since food production became hyper industrialized, to the point that the quantity of labor that actually goes towards feeding oneself is an all time low across world history. They're acclimated to super cheap food (with the health costs they're largely unaware of). People complain that the costs went up 10% or so as a result of inflation. It will be even more expensive than that if its not produced industrially with harmful compounds

It sure is but the reactionary mass denial of any potential harm is more severe than a pun

Not surprising at all but I'll weight for the apologists

I always think about when people cut Azek and vinyl how they’re making tons of microplastics and how much that stuff is cut

I assume a lot of the particles are big enough to be heavy enough and fall to the soil I am sure the person who cuts Azek with a chop saw breathes in his share of microplastics though