Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

ribnag t1_ix45u6g wrote

That's still a valuable finding, though - Increasing HDL without increasing total cholesterol is actually pretty hard to do. If something as simple as adding a bit of honey to my morning oatmeal can manage that, pass me some o' that yummy bee vomit!

64

jjsav t1_ix4zpio wrote

A problem rarely addressed in science is that if you run a lot of statistical tests on a lot of variables, then by chance some will come out as significant. That's the point. If you use 0.05 as the cut off, then run 20 tests just by chance one will likely come out as significant.

41

Parafault t1_ix5v3k7 wrote

I don’t trust “pure data” statistical studies unless they can back it up with a convincing and well-established mechanism. Data alone can tell you whatever you want it to, if you look at it from the right angle.

14

cygnoids t1_ix57yc6 wrote

But this is why you use posthoc tests, which account for the number of tests and variables

4

MilesDominic t1_ix59zuh wrote

Increasing HDL has no clinical relevant benefit.

−7

ribnag t1_ix5b9fz wrote

If you're referring to studies like this one, that's not quite what they're saying. You're right, it's not as simple as HDL is "good" cholesterol. As they conclude, though,

> Compared with low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), HDL‑C is of secondary importance for cardiovascular risk stratification and the calculation of the LDL-C:HDL‑C ratio is not useful for all patients. Low HDL‑C levels should prompt a search for additional metabolic and inflammatory pathologies. An increase in HDL‑C through lifestyle changes (e.g. smoking cessation and physical exercise) has positive effects and is recommended; however, HDL‑C is currently not a valid target for drug therapy.

11

Publius82 t1_ix5shye wrote

It sounds like the hdl bump might just mask a problem without providing concrete benefit

2