Is cholesterol bad? Is low cholesterol safe? In this video, we’ll cover common cholesterol misinformation, how cholesterol was demonized, and the cholesterol truth you need to know now for better health.
Our bodies make 3000 mg of cholesterol each day! Babies are born with higher cholesterol, and our brain is composed of it. Cholesterol is vital for our cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D, bile salts, repair, and immunity.
Cholesterol isn’t a poison; it’s an essential building block! When a doctor measures your cholesterol, they’re measuring the cholesterol in the blood, not what’s deep in the cells.
There are two types of cholesterol: HDL and LDL. HDL carries cholesterol from the cells back to the liver for recycling, while LDL delivers cholesterol to the cells. There are two types of LDL cholesterol: small, dense LDL and large, buoyant LDL. Only an advanced lipid profile can discern the difference.
Small, dense LDL particles can cause inflammation and other problems, but this typically occurs only when your glucose is high or you have insulin resistance. If you’re on a low-carb diet and you don’t have insulin resistance, you’ll have more large, buoyant LDL. If you have high levels of large, buoyant LDL, it is not pathogenic!
Cholesterol is a building block of the precursor of cortisol, so if you’re dealing with stress, it could be the reason your cholesterol is high. Testosterone is also made from cholesterol, so if you take a drug to lower cholesterol, your testosterone levels may suffer.
If you have low cholesterol, you won’t produce enough bile. This will interfere with your ability to absorb fat, and you also won’t have enough raw material to make vitamin D.
High cholesterol is not a disease! If your cholesterol is high, it’s important to understand why. Consuming refined sugar and starch can raise your cholesterol and triglyceride levels. Inflammation and your body’s repair needs can also increase your levels.
Low cholesterol in older adults is associated with higher rates of death from all causes. Low cholesterol is linked to lowered immunity, depression, memory, and hormone issues. Cholesterol naturally rises in the winter and decreases in the summer. This could be related to your need for vitamin D.
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36102667/
This being completely outside of my field, I'd rather read the hedged and uncertain conclusions of a meta-study than hear absolute truths from a health guru on Youtube~~
As a general trend I've noticed is that a lot of the "mainstream science has it completely wrong" videos base their assessment on old science from my parent's generation that has been corrected since (e.g. sugar is good, all fat is bad... no up-to-date doctor will still confidently claim this). Similarly, high cholesterol is not considered necessarily bad anymore. It's just a marker amongst others, and context matters when this marker comes back high.
I think what you're seeing though is a mainstream deterioration of trust in medical science.
Which in my opinion, is warranted. But we shouldn't throw the baby out with the bathwater. Problem is, "this being completely outside my field" is the position of 99% of the population, so what is a non-expert to do?
We need trustworthy and incentive-aligned experts. Unfortunately, the US academic system has very messed up incentives.
I agree, but the same thing can be said about many of these health gurus. Their incentives are usually pretty opportunistic, too, especially when they sell some magic health supplement on their channel.
As a non-expert, it's hard to assess whether one or the other expert is incentive-aligned, so, metastudies are probably the best next thing we can do...
Fair enough.
I'd rather hear someone put the pieces together in a coherent easy to follow narrative that discusses the mechanisms than just present a summary of findings from problematic empirical studies.
Science is often boring and not easy to follow, without a clear and simple narrative. That's probably also why there are so many problematic empirical studies. Too many cofounding variables.
Tbh, deepdown, I agree... i prefer reading a quanta magazine article on a topic I am not familiar with than the original article. More catchy, with a clear narrative, and gives me the illusion of understanding some abstract math.
But for health-related topics, the quest to create catchy and superficial YT videos can have more dramatic consequences.
Did you watch the video or have familiarity with the person who made it? Because, I don't find that to be a fair assessment.
I have read lots of primary sources in health and nutrition science. The Eric Berg videos I've seen generally present the material accurately, in the cases I'm able to judge.
They are also often poor empiricists. Most of our examples of poorly identified studies (other than econ ones) that we discuss in econometrics courses come from health and medicine. Despite the importance of doing so, they receive basically no training in addressing endogeneity problems.
It is an attempt at dymystification, whereas in the mainstream, pharmaceutical-peddlers seem bent on the opposite. Gotta look critically on either side, but I feel much more aligned with the person who treats the body as an interconnected system. TCM is another world entirely.
TCM as in traditional Chinese medicine?
Yessir