The headline is broadly defensible, but the qualifications matter. Effect sizes vary by population, the strongest claims rest on shorter trials, and credible voices push back on how it's typically framed.
if you have low hdl-c you cannot infer if it's low because you are failing to quote unquote pick up cholesterol or because you're delivering it quickly conversely or similarly I should say if you have high HDL C it is not clear if it is high because you pick up a lot which in theory would be quote unquote good or because you're deficient at dropping it off which would be quote unquote bad
Every Sunday: the week’s new conflicts and verdict changes — and nothing else.
Native comments, Twitter mentions, and Reddit threads about this claim — surfaced together so the conversation isn't fragmented across platforms.
Bookmarking — the dossier-vs-overview split is the right call. Most of the time I want overview; sometimes I want receipts.
Would love a "what would change this verdict" RSS feed. Sign me up if it exists.
the most confusing of the lot now we've already done dedicated podcasts on this topic we've spoken at length about this so we're not going to be able to obviously cover this in too much detail and we'll Point people back towards the previous podcast where I've done this but um you've already alluded to the fact that hdls can be protective this has led M many people to refer to HDL as the so-called good cholesterol and if your quote unquote good cholesterol is high yeah you don't need to worry about anything um I'm not going to ask you to debunk that because the tone of my question already suggests that that's nonsensical