Anybody interested in a lipid chat with Dave Feldman?

[jgilberAZ]

He kind of addressed that. He said that LDL-P (particle count) increases when the LDL becomes damaged due to blood sugar and seed/vegetable oils.

Because they're damaged, they are not recognized by the LDL receptors in the liver, and are therefore not removed from the bloodstream and recycled, causing the actual count of LDL particles to increase.

So, high LDL-P is indicative of damaged LDL.

[cdamaden]

So, high LDL-P is indicative of damaged LDL.

Thanks, I’m interested but not yet convinced. Will study this some more since I fall into this category.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Stavia]

I still believe high LDL is only a problem in a high glucose environment.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXKJaQeteE0

Otherwise, high LDL is protective.

It is a theory, which deserves serious consideration.
I however am not convinced beyond reasonable doubt that a high LDL is innocuous in everyone who is insulin sensitive. I dont believe its as simple as that.

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

[GLS18]

Hi Julie G!

Thanks for arranging this and I wish that I could attend. Will the Zoom meeting be recorded and available to members not able to attend?

Thanks again!

Yes! We've decided to make this a formal webinar, which will be recorded. We'll provide access following the event. You can find registration information here.

Fantastic! Thank you.

[MarcR]

He kind of addressed that. He said that LDL-P (particle count) increases when the LDL becomes damaged due to blood sugar and seed/vegetable oils.

Because they're damaged, they are not recognized by the LDL receptors in the liver, and are therefore not removed from the bloodstream and recycled, causing the actual count of LDL particles to increase.

So, high LDL-P is indicative of damaged LDL.

I think the wording here could lead to misunderstanding. Dr. Mason's talking about LDL-P that is discordant with LDL-C on the high side. For example:

Patient 1: LDL-C = 90, LDL-P = 1,800 (many damaged particles, pattern B phenotype)
Patient 2: LDL-C = 180, LDL-P = 1,800 (few damaged particles, pattern A phenotype)

In my example, both LDL-P counts are "high" with respect to the LDL-P reference range, but I think Dr. Mason would only ascribe elevated cardiovascular disease risk to Patient 1.

For those who haven't yet watched Dr. Mason's presentation, I recommend it. Dr. Mason's examples, illustrations, and graphs are lucid, and he shares compelling supporting references throughout. And for those of us tempted to pay for advanced lipid tests, I encourage you especially to watch his presentation and evaluate his evidence - he'll likely save you money.

In my opinion, it's a great antidote to jargon-filled "trust us because we so clearly know more than you" discussions. Those of us who have "lost our will to live" may regain it through exposure to Dr. Mason.

[NewRon]

Marc,

I found Dr Mason's presentation very clear and easily understandable.

However, I find it hard to correlate the mindnumbing complexity of Dr Dayspring's 5 Attia podcasts and the simplicity of Dr Mason's 26 minute video. Sometimes complex things appear complex....because they are complex!

[jgilberAZ]

Ivor Cummins has a new (11/15/2018) presentation covering LDP-P.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBKa6d6j9_8

[MarcR]

NewRon, if we dig deeply enough into any topic we eventually find overwhelming complexity. All roads lead to quantum physics.

Dr. Mason is communicating on a layer of abstraction that is closer to our everyday reality than the one used by Dr. Dayspring. Should we assume that deeper is automatically superior and that higher layers are obliged to reconcile any conflicts with lower ones? Perhaps we should keep Occam's razor in mind as well - complexity can conceal errors or deceptions. Sometimes a lower layer of abstraction is just inside baseball (or quantum mechanics!), and we can play the game (or live life) without them.

Without pretending insight into anyone's intentions and motives, consider these two sets of observations:

1. Direct - presenter uses ordinary words and refers to illuminating visual aids. I understand and am thereby empowered. Accountable - presenter explains reasons for conclusions. Transparent - presenter shares source material so I can review and confirm for myself. Call to action - decide and do for myself.

2. Indirect - presenter employs jargon heavily. I learn that this subject can only be understood by specialists. Authoritative - presenter conveys conclusions only. Opaque - presenter acts as self-validating authority with occasional reference to the conventional wisdom. Call to action - pay authorities for interpretation, advice, and treatment.

[mike]

Nice job on your first podcast Julie and Marc!

Julie, you mentioned at one point that folks who are IR can't fast. I've done three extended water fasts, so does that mean that I'm NOT IR? My glucose levels are very high...

[MarcR]

I'm no doctor, but I would guess that you are hypo- rather than hyper-insulinemic. Perhaps your pancreas was damaged by a prior period of insulin resistance and hyperinsulinemia and no longer has enough functional beta cells to produce sufficient insulin?

I wonder if Dr. Richard Bernstein's insights would apply to your situation. He's an 84-year-old engineer and physician who was diagnosed with type 1 diabetes at the age of 12. As an adult he innovated his way to good health and has spent the rest of his life helping others learn his methods.