버그 박사의 답변: 콜레스테롤과 LDL 크기 논쟁

버그 박사의 최근 답변은 콜레스테롤에 관한 이전의 실수를 인정하는 것으로, 건강 관련 논의에서 명확성의 필요성을 강조하고 있습니다.

### 콜레스테롤과 LDL 크기 명확히 하기: 에릭 버그 박사의 답변
* 🔍 에릭 버그 박사는 최근 거의 2년 전에 게시한 반응 동영상에 대한 답변을 통해 **콜레스테롤과 LDL 크기에 대한 몇 가지 질문과 해명**에 대해 설명했습니다.
* 📅 처음에는 반응 영상이 나온 후 **버그 박사에게 연락을 시도**했지만 팀원으로부터 간단한 답변만 받았기 때문에 더 이상 연락을 취하지 못했습니다.
* 📊 버그 박사는 답변에서 제가 지적한 **총 콜레스테롤과 심장병의 연관성에 관한 오류**를 인정했으며, 이러한 실수를 공개적으로 인정한 것에 대해 칭찬을 보냅니다.
* 💔 총 콜레스테롤은 잠재적인 건강 문제를 나타낼 수 있지만, 현재 심장학에서는 **LDL과 apoB 수치에 더 중점을 두는 등 전적으로 의존하지 않는 '더러운' 지표**로 간주되고 있습니다.
* 🔬 버그 박사는 큰 LDL은 무해하다고 주장했지만, 저는 **농도에 따라 작고 큰 LDL이 모두 해로울 수 있다는 증거**를 제시하며 반박했습니다.
* 📈 특히 지질학계의 현재 합의는 **크고 작은 LDL 모두 위험을 초래**하며, **모든 지단백질 수치를 건강한 범위 내로 유지**하는 데 초점을 맞춰야 한다는 것입니다.
* 🍽 식단 권장 사항에 대한 질문에 저는 **지중해식 식단이 가장 근거가 있는 식단**이라고 강조하면서 개인의 취향에 따라 유연하게 적용할 수 있는 식단임을 강조했습니다.
* 🤝 저는 이러한 과학적 의문을 더 탐구하기 위해 **버그 박사와의 토론에 열려 있으며, 개인적 편견이 증거 기반 건강 정보의 중요성을 가려서는 안 된다**는 점을 강조합니다.

Dr. Eric Berg recently responded to one of our videos, and he asked me a number of questions, so we're going to touch on the main ones. Quick backstory to all of this: a while back, almost two years now, we published a reaction to one of Dr. Eric Berg's videos. This was at the time one of the most common requests that we got, possibly even number one. Back then, I tried to contact Dr. Berg; I never heard back, so this reaction video just sat there for almost 2 years now, and just recently, Dr. Berg decided to upload a response. I don't know why after all this time he decided to do it, don't ask me, but that's perfectly valid; there's no statute of limitations on a video. So, when some of you guys told me that there was a video up responding, I again tried to contact Dr. Berg; I thought maybe he changed his mind and wants to talk about the data after all,

and actually tried a number of different platforms and did hear back this time, briefly, from one of his team members, one of the sales reps, who said she was going to pass along the message but we have not heard back from Dr. Berg and it's been a number of weeks. Now, there's absolutely nothing wrong with that, nobody is obligated to engage with anybody else, it's perfectly valid to prefer to respond over video format. Most of the questions that Dr. Berg asks me are pretty straightforward and I'm confident we could iron this out on a quick Zoom call. And quite honestly, I think people are tired of these influencer battles and these ego trips, people just want clarity and they want influencers to get their ducks in a row, but it seems like having a one-on-one conversation is not an option right now, so we're going to touch on the main questions raised. And I know that watching me react to him react to me react to him is a little unbearable,

a little too YouTuby, but we're going to try to do this as effectively as possible. And it's really only two questions that we need to address. The first is about total cholesterol, this blood metric that we all get in our basic lipid panel, and it refers to the total amount of cholesterol in our blood being carried by these lipoproteins. So, in his original video, Dr. Berg states that total cholesterol does not significantly associate with heart disease. The total cholesterol is not significantly associated with heart disease. Okay? But it turns out that Dr. Berg was actually basing this idea on a publication that was talking about dietary cholesterol, so the content of cholesterol in food. So, I pointed that out in the reaction video from a while back, and to his credit, I want to emphasize this, in the recent response video, Dr. Berg clarifies that yes, that was an honest mistake. So, Gil's point is correct, he's absolutely correct, I did make a mistake. So

I think that deserves a lot of respect. He could have just handwaved it or not talked about it, but he actually came on in front of his however many millions of followers and said, Yeah, that was an error. I think we need more of that vibe on social media. And actually, we'll touch on some things that I could have done better in that react video from a while back as well a bit later on in the video. Okay, mistake aside, what do we know about total cholesterol from the balance of evidence of decades of research? It's a pretty dirty indicator of risk. It's been reported many times, all the way back to Framingham, that it correlates roughly with heart disease risk. So, populations with higher total cholesterol tend to have higher risk of heart disease. This has been reported many times. I'll link some studies below for people who want to go a little deeper, but it's not a

very reliable metric. We can find studies also where that correlation does not reach statistical significance, for different reasons, sometimes follow-up not very long or the difference in cholesterol level not very large, different methodological reasons, but basically it's kind of a rough metric. Nobody in cardiology or lipidology relies on total cholesterol exclusively anymore. In his response video, Dr. Berg looks at a narrative review, and he reads a section heading, the title of a section in that review that refers to total cholesterol as not associating to atherosclerosis, to plaque in arteries, and from this title, he essentially concludes okay, so there's no association, and he kind of moves on from that. Now, that section is mainly looking at autopsy data, so they're measuring cholesterol in corpses, in dead people. There's a number of methodological problems with that, one of which is that death and many of the events that precede death change

our physiological parameters profoundly, and cholesterol specifically changes with chronic diseases, with cancer, with infections, with malnutrition, with trauma, many of these things, and so very often when you measure the cholesterol level of a cadaver, of a dead body, it doesn't reflect the levels that people had for decades during life, during which the disease was developing. So nowadays this is well understood and so the effect of cholesterol on health and cardiovascular disease is not assessed from dead bodies, you actually take thousands of people who are alive, everybody has a pulse, and the gold standard is a randomized trial, so you take thousands of people whose cholesterol is high, you split them randomly, you lower the cholesterol of half of them and then you follow them for years, so it's a prospective study, and you see if these guys where you lowered the cholesterol have more or less heart attacks, more or less strokes, their

plaque, does it grow slower or faster? And we have dozens and dozens of these randomized trials now with thousands and thousands of people. So this is where the bulk of the evidence comes from, and also genetic studies with thousands and thousands of people, everybody's alive and is followed for decades. We could go over more methodological issues with these cadaver studies. Sample size is usually tiny, they're cross-sectional, they're not prospective, so that's methodologically weaker. I mean, we could go over all this, it doesn't really matter, it's kind of academic because everybody agrees that total cholesterol is this dirty indicator. The field moved on from relying on total cholesterol exclusively a long time ago. For many years, LDL cholesterol became the default metric. Less dirty than total cholesterol, still plenty of imperfection, we have a lot of content going over that. Nowadays, if you ask people in cardiology, lipidology, it's pretty widely

agreed upon that apoB is a better metric than either of those two, and APO B includes all of these lipoproteins that can cause problems when they're too high, so it includes the ldls, the vldls and a few others. so that's the total cholesterol question, there's no contradiction, when we look at what the experiments are actually measuring there's no contradiction between that section heading that Dr Berg read and balance of evidence. total cholesterol is a rough metric, a rough indicator, we don't ignore it, if it's high it could be pointing to something underneath that's not right but we don't stop at total cholesterol, we double check with more reliable metrics. the second scientific question we have to address is about LDL size, and this was the main message of Dr Berg's original video and it was also the focus of my reaction video from 2

years ago, the small LDLs and the large LDLs. And they go by different names, you might have heard large fluffy, large buoyant, small dense, pattern A, pattern B. But it's all the same question, which sizes are harmful and which, if any, are harmless. So in his original video, Dr. Berg actually shares blood work of a family member of his, and he says, Look, this person has a very high concentration of LDLs, of total LDLs, so these lipoproteins that carry cholesterol around in the blood, but I'm not worried about it because they seem to be mostly of this large fluffy kind. And so the message very clearly was the large LDLs are harmless. And then in my reaction video, I went through a number of studies indicating that this idea is likely incorrect. And now in his recent response, I know this is a lot of layers but this is the last one, in his recent response video

Dr. Berg reads some passages from publications suggesting that the small LDLs might be worse, might be more harmful. The small dense LDL being more atherogenic than the large LDL subfractions. So, we covered this in the reaction video. This correlation has been shown many times in many epidemiological studies. It's been reported over and over. People who have a lot of small LDLs tend to have a higher risk of heart disease. They also tend to have more obesity, pre-diabetes, metabolic syndrome, and their AOB B tends to be higher. And when you account for all these variables, the effect of small LDLs goes away. It's no longer statistically significant. It's no longer a significant predictor of risk. So, this was all covered in that reaction video step by step, with visuals, with the citations. We showed the passages explaining this. But also, this wasn't really the main issue at stake, whether the small LDLs are a little worse or

just as bad, the question was whether large LDLs are harmless or not, right? So that someone who has a lot of large LDLs is or isn't at risk. The small LDLs could be even worse, and they could both be really bad. Cigars are worse than cigarettes; the risk is higher for cigars, but it doesn't mean that cigarettes are harmless. Coincidentally, a few months ago, we had a lipidologist on who has done a lot of work in this field, Dr. William Cromwell is his name. He was actually one of the first people that adapted the NMR technique, which is now routinely used to measure lipoprotein size. So, he has done a lot of these measurements and published in this exact field, on this exact question of LDL size and risk. And so, he came on, and he did a beautiful job of explaining this entire field. I highly recommend people watch that interview. He explained this question like I've never seen

anyone do on social media and much better than I ever could. He goes over those correlations and then the accounting for the variables and then what the bottom line was. Small size is no longer a significant predictor after you've adjusted for the number of particles present. He also touches on another question that sometimes comes up, that actually Dr. Berg briefly alludes to, which is molecular changes that happen to the small LDLs, that they might penetrate the artery wall easier, that they might get more oxidized, etc., and the different hypotheses that existed around that and what the balance of evidence is now. And he also talks at length about the large LDLs and this question of are they harmful or harmless? The risk of large LDLs is seen in some studies, not all; it depends how the analysis is done. In really careful analyses that look at them simultaneously, side by side, small LDLs and large LDLs, we see risk in both and similar ballpark. You have

equal outcomes small or large, so large is not less significant than small, small is not more significant than large. large and small, they're both equally associated with heart attacks, strokes, and events. the more particles, the more problems, be they large, be they small. so two things can be true at the same time, a lot of small is bad, a lot of large is bad, both are true, it doesn't have to be the case that one or the other is bad and the other one is just along for the ride. we can also look at different lines of evidence. genetics, for example, some people with a lot of small ldls, others with a lot of large ldls, both determined genetically, we see risk in both. and similar ball park. histological studies, so looking at the actual plaque, not just floating in the bloodstream but actually inside the artery wall, inside the plaque, which size

ldls end up lodged in there? And we see plenty of small ldls, large ldls, and even lipoproteins that are much larger than any LDL size. So there is a degree of complexity in this field for sure, and there's a lot of studies. But when we go through the data systematically and when we look at what the experiments are actually measuring and how they're actually done, there does seem to be consistency in the answer. Now, I don't think this issue is completely settled and done. We're going to keep bringing on people who specialize in this field, more lipidologists. Actually, we already have more scheduled for this year, and I'm going to keep asking these questions. And if the data, if the scientific evidence changes in the future, great, that's how science works. But this ain't it. There's nothing in these passages that Dr. Berg read from that is particularly novel. It was all

covered in the reaction video and certainly in the interview with Dr. Cromwell. The balance of evidence points to all of these lipoproteins being potentially problematic if their concentration is too high, the small LDLs, the large LDLs, and even others that are much larger than any LDL size, and the best bet seems to be to get all of these guys in the healthy range. So that's it, that's essentially Dr. Berg's response. After a few minutes of briefly touching on these scientific questions that I raised, Dr. Berg decided to stop focusing completely on anything scientific that I said, and he dedicated most of his time and most of his attention to focusing on me personally. Who is this guy and why is he coming for me? This type of thing. He wasn't rude, I don't have any personal problem with anything he said, but it was this long, drawn-out, kind of directionless

conspiratorial trip that there's a plot out to get him, and I'm the Hitman that these people sent to take down Dr. Berg. Dr. Berg finds this website that's linked in my social, the true Health Initiative, that has my professional profile on it. He goes, Aha, this must be the conspiracy, these are anti-low carb, anti-meat, anti-Berg people, and so they colluded with this guy to come destroy me. This is a nonprofit that emailed me four years ago. They were bringing together scientists with different dietary leanings precisely to look at areas of commonality in the science and to get over this tribalism on the internet. Some of these people were more Mediterranean, some were more paleo, some were more vegetarian. Actually, at the time, the father of the paleo diet, Dr. Boyd Eaton, was on there, same group as I was. And there was Zero money in

it, not a cent was exchanged. low carb, high carb, red meat, white meat, beyond meat, none of it ever came up once. and actually after that initial exchange where they asked me if it was okay to add my name, I said that was fine, sounds like a great idea, there was like a list of a hundred doctors and scientists from every University, all leading nutrition scientists were on there, after that initial exchange we never spoke again, not one email in literally 3 and a half, 4 years. unfortunately, because I think the initial idea was great and it's exactly what we need more of on social media, but I don't think this ever took off. I don't think they're even active, because true Health Initiative, I haven't heard about them in literally in years. so this idea that we colluded to come after Dr berg, to come take him down, complete delusion. never told them

I was making that video or any other video, nor would they care that a YouTuber is making a video about another YouTuber. Completely divorced from reality. And I love it when people ask, Hey, where do you get checks, from which industry? 'Cause the answer is so simple. We're one of the few channels in this space that turns down every offer of sponsorship. We've done it since day one. It was always the vision for this channel. It's not a secret; it's spelled out on our about page here on YouTube. So, Dr. Berg, there's no sponsors, there's no checks, there's no conspiracy, there's no supplements, there's no supplement line, never was, never will be. There is no coaching calls, there is no merch, there's no upsell. And real quick, just for you guys at home to know a little bit how this works behind the scenes, as soon as you get a little bit of size on social media.

companies come for you. You don't need to ask for anything. Literally, we get all the time, and everybody does, I'm not saying I'm special. You get cold calls, you get cold emails from these companies saying, Hey, I work for this laboratory, this device company, this supplement company. Can you mention our brand on your videos? Can you review our product on your videos, and we'll pay you X thousands of dollars for one video. You could literally make in one hour of light work what a lot of people out there are making in a month, breaking their backs, if you're willing to play ball. And I don't think there's anything inherently wrong with an influencer having sponsors or promoting a product as long as those products are evidence-based. Vast majority of the time, they're not, but that's another story. I don't think it makes an influencer

nefarious or any worse because they have sponsors or they promote a product. The reason I've chosen to do it this way since day one is precisely this aspect of clarity, that when this comes up, the answer is very simple. Zero checks from Big Pharma, big supplement, big meat, big Dairy, Big Oil, big broccoli, big beyond meat, nothing. 100% independent. Dr. Berg is also bothered by the words I use in videos. He says, Why do you always use 'we' and 'us'? Why do you not just say 'me, me, me, me, me' all the time? Because we have people helping out, Dr. Berg. We have people helping with editing sometimes, with other tasks... also, we bring on specialists in all of these fields all the time precisely so that viewers have more depth and more information, so it's not a one-man show. It's appropriate to say we. I like saying we. Of course, I'm going to keep saying we. Everything you see,

the Merit is shared; the responsibility is 100% mine. Nobody tells me what to publish or how to say it. Dr. Berg goes into a thousand distractions, things that have nothing to do with my video, things I never mentioned. Dr. David Katz, he talks about David Katz for minutes on end; he goes over interviews that David Katz gave line by line. David Katz is anti-low carb; David Katz is anti-this... I've never spoken to David Katz once, not one email. I have no idea what David Katz's views are on low carb or red meat or any of these things. I know what my views are because we have dozens of videos on these topics, and Dr. Berg found those videos; he points to them in his response, and he chose not to watch any of it. I have no idea what your thoughts are; I didn't watch these videos. That's 100% fine; nobody's obligated to go watch anybody.

else's content. What's strange is to create this Cinematic Universe in your head that somebody is anti-this and pro-that and to just run with it. We've covered many studies here on low carb, on high carb, on red meat, every other meat. We've said here many times that a healthy dietary pattern can include red meat. We get complaints about that from a subset of viewers who say we shouldn't mention that. We've also explained that at a certain level of intake you see a signal of risk pop up in the scientific literature. We get complaints about that from another subset of viewers who say we shouldn't bring that up, don't mention that part. So that's always been there, it's never influenced our content. The majority of our viewers, they want to know what science has figured out whichever way it points and they understand what we're doing. We have a

lot of videos on low carb diets going over tons of studies. We have a lot of viewers who like to eat low carb diets. We've brought on doctors who prescribe low carb diets for different clinical applications. We've even brought on doctors who like to eat low carb diets explaining how they do it. So, this world view that somebody's disagreeing with me, they must be anti-low carb, they must not like the diet I like, it's so silly. Even Dr. Cromwell who came on and spoke about LDL size, I've heard him speak enthusiastically about low carb diets. So, it's got nothing to do with pro-low carb and anti-low carb. And this is nothing new, we're used to this. We made a video commenting on Dr. Michael Greger some time ago and it was exactly the same story. I disagreed with several of his views, not everything but some of his central views because

they're not supported by the balance of evidence and got a lot of messages from his followers asking if I'm just biased against his favorite diet or if I'm funded by the beef industry. So this happens all the time. And actually even in that reaction video that we made to Dr. Berg, it was the same thing, we got loads of comments of people attacking Dr. Berg personally, not for something that he claimed or for something scientific that he said, but dismissing him on the basis of some bias that he purportedly has or religion. We got hundreds of comments, no exaggeration, talking about the man's religion and how that disqualifies him and everything he ever said. Honestly guys, I don't recommend this headspace. First of all, I think it's a little below the belt, but even for your own sake, I think this is kind of disempowering. You're focusing on the messenger

and you're distracting yourself from the only thing that matters, which is the facts, the science that's going to help you optimize your health. I don't know what foods Dr. Berg likes to eat or what church he goes to, I couldn't care less. I care about the scientific claims and are they backed by the evidence, that's it. Of course, we're all really tempted to focus on the messenger 'cause it's a much more comfortable belief. Here's somebody disagreeing with me, it can't possibly be that I might be wrong about something, it's probably that he has some bias or some funding thing, it's a problem with him, right? I speak truth so if this person disagrees with me surely they can't handle the truth, that's the only explanation. This is a much more comforting belief but focusing on the messenger doesn't change the science, it just distracts us from the Science. Now,

I want to make one last mea culpa because I share some of the responsibility for this climate of tribalism. In retrospect, that react video that I made on Dr. Berg probably didn't help. Even though I didn't go after him personally, ad hominem, didn't attack his credibility or bias or funding or something like that, that's obvious, you don't do that in science, that's basic, but still, just the non-verbal tone can rub people the wrong way. And so, I've learned a lot from those older videos, and I think our content now is much better, much stronger, much more laser-focused on the science, and much more effective. A lot less viral, a lot less views than that video got, but ultimately much better and not feeding tribalism. Tribalism helps influencers. It gets clicks, it gets engagement, but it hurts the public every single time. When we take all of the distractions out of the way,

all the bells and whistles, the question on the table was LDL size and heart disease risk, and the balance of evidence that I've seen points to all LDL sizes being potentially problematic if there's too many of them. If there's other evidence I haven't seen, I want to see it. I want to see it yesterday. But that's going to be scientific evidence, not conspiracy theories and sob stories that people are coming after me. All right, let's take a look at the last question Dr. Berg asked me. So my question for Gil is, what diet do you recommend, you know, what should we be eating? Sure, good question, so more than what diet I personally recommend, 'cause we're still at the level of influencer B versus influencer A, personal opinion, who cares. More to the point, which dietary patterns have the strongest evidence behind them? If I have to name a diet,

probably Mediterranean. We have several multi-year randomized trials with the Mediterranean diet; no other diet has been tested quite to that extent. We have a lot of content going over all those data. Now, key idea: the Mediterranean diet is a fluid concept. It doesn't mean that everybody needs to eat the exact same foods; it can be tailored for personal preference to help with adherence long-term, which is absolutely key. So, a Mediterranean-style diet, ish, can be done in a more low-fat way, low-carb way, pescatarian way, omnivore way, all of it while still locking in the benefits of a Mediterranean-style pattern. So, that's my answer. So, Dr. Berg, if you're watching one day, the backstory of that reaction video is exactly what I said on it. We don't need a conspiracy theory for everything. Viewers asked me to comment on your content and that video specifically.

I disagreed with some of your ideas because the balance of evidence is not there, nothing personal against you or your favorite diet. If you change your mind and you want to talk someday, we can do it, we can do it offline if you prefer, doesn't have to be public, completely up to you. And we can chat about this or any other scientific questions that you're interested in. Alright?

Dr. Eric Berg responded to my video fact-checking him. Here are my thoughts.

Nutrition Made Simple!

에릭 버그 박사의 답변과 콜레스테롤에 대한 토론

거의 2년간 연락이 없던 에릭 버그 박사가 최근 자신에 대한 반응 영상에 응답했습니다.

그는 총 콜레스테롤과 심장병의 연관성에 대한 자신의 이전 발언이 식이 콜레스테롤 관련 간행물에 근거한 것으로, 실수였음을 인정하며 해명했습니다.

수십 년간의 연구에서 나온 증거의 균형은 총 콜레스테롤이 심장병 위험의 더러운 지표이며, 수치가 높을수록 더 큰 위험과 관련이 있다는 것을 나타냅니다.

총 콜레스테롤은 건강 결과와 거칠고 일관되지 않은 상관관계로 인해 더 이상 심장학 및 지질학에서 독점적으로 사용되는 지표가 아닙니다.

콜레스테롤과 죽상동맥경화증의 연관성에 대한 부검 데이터에서 얻은 버그 박사의 결론은 사람의 일생 동안의 장기적인 콜레스테롤 수치를 반영하지 못하기 때문에 방법론적으로 결함이 있습니다.

이 분야는 심혈관 위험을 더 잘 나타내는 지표로 LDL 콜레스테롤과 최근에는 apoB를 사용하는 방향으로 바뀌고 있습니다.

LDL 크기와 그 영향에 대한 논쟁

LDL은 큰 크기와 작은 크기로 분류되며, 전자는 종종 무해한 것으로 간주됩니다.

버그 박사의 초기 동영상에서는 고농도의 큰 LDL은 걱정할 필요가 없다고 말했지만, 최근 연구와 그의 답변에 따르면 작은 LDL이 더 해로울 수 있다고 합니다.

작은 LDL과 심장병 위험 증가 사이의 상관관계는 잘 알려져 있지만, 다른 변수를 고려하면 위험 예측 인자로서의 중요성은 감소합니다.

작은 LDL 입자와 큰 LDL 입자 모두 심장 문제와 동일하게 연관되어 있으며, 둘 다 유전적으로 결정될 수 있습니다.

조직학 연구에 따르면 크고 작은 LDL뿐만 아니라 더 큰 지단백질도 동맥 플라크에 쌓일 수 있습니다.

증거의 균형에 따르면 이러한 모든 지단백질은 농도가 너무 높으면 문제가 될 수 있으며, 가장 좋은 방법은 건강한 범위로 유지하는 것입니다.

채널의 독립성 및 접근 방식 명확히 하기

이 채널은 대형 제약사 및 건강보조식품 회사를 포함한 어떤 업계로부터도 후원이나 재정적 지원을 받은 적이 없습니다.

트루 헬스 이니셔티브와의 초기 연결은 짧았으며 수년 동안 더 이상의 소통은 없었습니다.

동영상에서 '우리'를 사용하는 것은 시청자에게 다양한 정보를 제공하기 위한 팀의 노력과 협업을 인정하기 위한 것입니다.

식이 요법에 대한 오해 바로잡기

발표자는 카츠의 비판에도 불구하고 자신의 콘텐츠에 대한 책임은 전적으로 자신들에게 있으며 데이비드 카츠 박사와는 아무런 관련이 없음을 강조합니다.

저탄수화물 식단과 붉은 육류에 대한 토론에 대한 시청자의 반응이 일치하지 않는 점을 강조하며, 자신의 콘텐츠는 과학적 연구와 다양한 관점에 기반하고 있다고 말합니다.

발표자는 저탄수화물 식단에 대한 다양한 견해를 가진 의사들이 출연했다는 점을 지적하며 저탄수화물 식단 찬성 또는 반대라는 이분법적 개념에 반대한다고 주장합니다.

메신저에 집중하는 것의 위험성

메신저의 편견이나 사생활에 초점을 맞추면 건강을 최적화할 수 있는 중요한 과학적 사실에 집중할 수 없습니다.

발표자는 부족주의 분위기에 기여한 자신의 역할을 인정하고 이후 콘텐츠를 과학에 더 집중하는 방향으로 전환했습니다.

부족주의는 참여와 클릭을 통해 인플루언서에게는 도움이 될 수 있지만, 궁극적으로는 필요한 증거와 사실로부터 주의를 분산시켜 대중에게 해를 끼칩니다.

LDL 크기와 심장병 위험: 과학적 관점

증거에 따르면 모든 LDL 크기가 너무 많으면 문제가 될 수 있습니다.

지중해식 식단은 여러 해에 걸친 무작위 실험을 통해 가장 강력한 증거를 확보하고 있습니다.

이 식단은 유연하며 개인의 취향에 맞게 조정할 수 있으면서도 그 이점을 그대로 누릴 수 있습니다.