Feldman: Carbohydrate restriction-induced elevations in LDL-cholesterol and atherosclerosis: The KETO Trial

science
(Mark Rhodes) #1

Well Folks, I do not have Metabolism access but the first paper is out: https://www.metabolismjournal.com/article/S0026-0495(24)00080-5/abstract

(Bob M) #2

The one thing I can see looks interesting:

image
image.jpg1150Ă—841 283 KB

Average HDL of 90, trigs of 64, LDL of 272 (with a high of 591!).

(Alec) #3

So, in this study there is NO correlation/association between LDL-C levels and CVD-plaque levels. What a surprise! Could it have something to do with LDL NOT being causal in CVD, despite the conventional wisdom?

(Joey) #4

This is surprising … a paywall?! I thought the Feldman science model was to provide open access to the results for the betterment of all.

Didn’t many of us (myself included) financially support his open science effort? Am confused. :thinking:

(Alec) #5

I am gonna guess that the authors need this to be published in a journal, and it’s the journal behind the paywall. And that in a few weeks this article will be freely available. But I am guessing.

(Bob M) #6

I think there’s a conflict between wanting to be in a journal that doctors will read and being free. I think there’s almost a requirement that the publications that have the highest impact are the ones that aren’t free.

(Mark Rhodes) #7

Matthew Budoff is lead author

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #8

Surely you jest, you heretic, you! :rofl::rofl::rofl:

(Joey) #9

But half the data comes from Feldman’s nonprofit and he’s a co-author. Seems odd to me he would accept such paywall terms.

Don’t get me wrong… I’m a big Feldman fan. I supported the effort financially.

Just disappointed he would allow a study using data from the crowd-sourced funding for a study to be sequestered behind a monetization scheme.

Having helped fund the project, I’d like the results to be open to the public so I can read them.

(Bob M) #10

This is what I’m talking about. This has a high “impact factor”.

image
image.png684Ă—769 113 KB

They do have an open access, but it looks like it costs money.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/journal/metabolism/publish/open-access-options

(Mark Rhodes) #11

Are you serious? DO you have any idea how much influience Dave, Nick and Siobahn get from having Budoff Join as co-author? Did you not hear Dave’s excitment in 2023 when he discussed this?

Plus Budoff has made multiple appearances and discussed the pre publication at length, including a video I posted in this forum.

Joey, there are 3 more iterations of this paper coming out this year in various peer reviewed papers.

(Joey) #13

@beannoise Thank you!

@marklifestyle Yup, 100% completely serious.

Dave’s excitement is clear. Again, I’m a big fan and supported his nonprofit (Citizen Science Foundation) … which touts conducting science that’s open to the public.

These results are not fully open to the public. Hence my disappointment at this time.

Not sure what’s so confusing about this.

(Mark Rhodes) #14

Perhaps it is that you do not have the mission statement correct. to wit: The Citizen Science Foundation (CSF) is a fully qualified 501©(3) Public Charity. EIN: 84-6753275

Our mission is to advance the field of “Citizen Science” by empowering ideas from outside traditional avenues of academia and institutions. We believe that scientific achievements can come from anyone, regardless of their background or education level. Therefore, we actively support projects and events that promote collaborative efforts across the spectrum of disciplines, both in and outside formal scientific institutions. We believe that bringing people from different backgrounds and experiences together can lead to new discoveries and innovative approaches to scientific research.

In addition to supporting collaborative efforts, we also believe in the importance of communicating scientific research and its many diverse methods. We understand that not everyone has the opportunity to access traditional academic channels of communication. Therefore, we serve efforts to communicate this research through various accessible channels, such as social media, film, and video. We believe that communicating scientific research in these formats can increase the visibility of scientific achievements and make them more accessible to a broader audience.

Overall, our goal is to promote a more inclusive and collaborative approach to scientific research. We believe that by empowering ideas from outside traditional avenues and communicating scientific research through accessible channels, we can advance the field of “Citizen Science” and ultimately contribute to solving some of the world’s most pressing problems."

Various channels are exactly this. 2017 or 2018 Dave and I are sitting outside Carl Franklins house at 1 AM. Dave is lamenting that we cannot crowd source science. I said sure we can, but you do not want to use Kickstarter or the like. You want something that is more like a 501. I said Dave, I would pay for science that investigated things that were of interet to me.? Now mind you, at the time I was a scienctist working at UW Milwaukee designing and fabricating equipment for primary reearch. Dave and I talked some more.

What is amazing about Dave is that he took this simple idea and took it to the fullwidth and depth one possibly could. Far beyond anything I envisioned that is for sure.

I fail to understand your dissappointment as Citizen Science is doing exactly waht it’s mission statemtns says… and now we have someobody here who posted a link until Sunday with Metabolism’s paper.

(Joey) #15

Your failure to understand does not invalidate my feelings on the matter.

Yes, I’d read the 501(c )(3)'s mission statement before contributing.
Yes, Dave is an amazing individual whom I greatly respect.
Yes, someone outside of Citizen Science has temporarily shared the results.
And yes, I am disappointed in how the results of charitably-funded research are being shared by Citizen Science Foundation at this time.

Out of respect for Dave I’m sharing my reaction on our forum. Out of respect for you I’ve tried to explain - seems straightforward enough. :man_shrugging:

[At the risk of getting a bit wonky: Someone outside the nonprofit is currently monetizing a work product which would not have been possible without the resources of a public charity. The IRS calls that a “personal benefit” which can serve as grounds for losing its tax-exempt status.]

(You've tried everything else; why not try bacon?) #16

Okay, guys. You are talking past each other. I’m asking you to give it a rest.

Bear in mind that we’d all like to be able to read the study. so finding it’s behind a paywall is disappointing, to some extent. Unfortunately, if wishes were fishes we’d all swim In riches, / if wishes were horses, then beggars could ride.

Please also bear in mind that we all fully support Dave and his work, so being disappointed at not having access to the full study is not a criticism of Dave or this experiment in any way.

Peace, bros!