User talk:AndyBryantMScPhD

I am interested
I am interested in knowing why you think a high-fat, high-cholesterol diet is healthy for someone. You claim to be an amateur triathlete so do you live on a high-fat diet? You don't have to answer if you do not want to, just a question out of interest. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 17:26, 4 December 2018 (UTC)

Dear Skeptic from Britain (I would use your name if you actually revealed it), are you aware of any of the last 20 years of (primary) literature on low carb diets, the weak correlation between dietary cholesterol and blood lipids (or in fact whether a high fat diet need be high cholesterol), LDL particle size, the application of LCHF in endurance athletics or, even, what a well formulated nutrient-dense LCHF diet might look like? If not, it's difficult to know where to start really. Yes I'm a triathlete, and I'd loosely describe my diet as targetted-carb (higher carb around particularly hard or long training/racing) and excluding processed food (fresh/varied ensures nutrient density). I'm usually around 8% body fat during competition season, which you can see approximately in this picture http://www.waldentri.co.uk/index.php/club-info/race-reports/74-andy-bryant-at-imuk. My official results for that year are here http://eu.ironman.com/triathlon/organizations/all-world-athlete/agr/2014-ironman.aspx?q=bryant#axzz5YkGEvs6Z. Since then I've competed in age-group with team GB at European events. I'm quite happy with my health considering I'm 50-something, thank-you. It may surprise you but there's been an increasing interest in LCHF in endurance athletes, right up to elite level, and the most prominent researchers in that field are the Americans Phinney and Volek.


 * I congratulate you on your health and achievements with the triathlon (you look healthy). However, there is reliable evidence that low-density lipoproteins (LDLs) cause atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease . The Lipid hypothesis is accepted by the medical community at large, there is a broad consensus on this from scientists all around the world. Only a handful of fringe researchers (Malcolm Kendrick, Aseem Malhotra, Maryanne Demasi, Uffe Ravnskov deny it. They are not putting forward hypothesis or testable predictions of their own, they just spend their time moaning about mainstream medicine and invoking government conspiracy theories. It's silly. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 08:31, 6 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Regarding Ference et al 2017 which you cite above I suggest you peruse the extensive Conflicts of Interest section. To suggest that "only a handful of fringe researchers" object merely demonstrates unfamiliarity with the wider literature; from the citations list of that paper alone see for example . As for not putting forward hypotheses of their own, surely you must be aware that Dr Kendrick has spent some years developing his alternative hypothesis, summarized recently here . Finally whilst various authors accuse pharma of ulterior motives, I'm not aware of government conspiracy theories; would you care to elaborate? AndyBryantMScPhD (talk) 21:33, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Occasionally a creationist or intelligent design proponent gets a peer-reviewed paper published. That is the same as a cholesterol denier or anti-vaxxer. There is no "controversy", a handful of researchers denying scientific evidence is not a huge controversy, look at the broader picture. The mainstream scientific consensus is that the lipid hypothesis is correct and it has been for years. Until a few weeks ago I never knew people were denying this. What's next, denying there is a link between sugary drinks and tooth decay? Kendrick is on record for claiming cholesterol levels have no effect on cardiovascular disease?! He offers dangerous medical advice. High-cholesterol increases the risk of heart disease, end of discussion! Remember the creationists who want to "debate" the topic of evolution, there is no "debate". Evolution is a scientific fact. High cholesterol levels can increase the risk of heart disease and other cardiovascular diseases... scientific fact. No debate! Only conspiracy theorists and quacks deny this fact. There are still people out there who deny the earth is spherical.

Denialism of scientific topics is wide-spread on social-media but not rational. Neither you or myself are qualified to discuss this topic in depth as we are not experts, the experts are the medical community so at the end of the day nobody cares about our opinion. Kendrick is a not an expert in this field either. He has 0 alternative hypothesis published in scientific papers. He has conducted 0 scientific experiments to demonstrate his hypothesis and no scientists have duplicated any of his non-existing results. What he practices is denialism, probably to sell books and make money. I trust the medical community on this topic, the hard-work of thousands of cardiologists publishing scientific data for years on the topic all around the world with repeatable results. I have no reason to deny this evidence because a handful of scammers make money out of books saying otherwise. There is no "cholesterol con"! As for the conspiracy theories, they are on Kendrick's website as he seems to believe the government and various nutritionists are trying to close down, suppress or ridicule low-carb high-fat food promoters. The opposite is true, healthing eating and a low-fat diet is not popular in the UK or USA, even if the government promotes it. The media loves a high-fat diet, just look at all the Christmas adverts and the amount of money it makes, not just at Christmas all year round. A high-fat diet is very popular amongst modern society. How many people do you see in McDonalds on a daily-basis? I trust scientists, not societies habits. The media are wrong about many things and misrepresent studies. How many times have the Daily Mail run head lines claiming a high-fat diet is healthy yet when you check out these scientific studies, they have been misrepresented or their data is dubious? Many. The cholesterol deniers are not true skeptics.

Most of my edits on this website are about historical matters in evolutionary biology, a topic I have studied at University. Nobody cares about this, but suddenly I submit Kendrick's article for deletion on Wikipedia and low-carb high-fat cranks go mad. Due to off-wiki harassment I will probably change my username. Take care. Skeptic from Britain (talk) 18:07, 9 December 2018 (UTC)

Apparently (removed outing information pending rev deletion) renamed himself MatthewManchester1994, then another name, then disappeared altogether. Most odd that wikipedia allows this slippery person any editing rights at all, let alone run a campaign to erase multiple pages contrary to his evangelical beliefs. AndyBryantMScPhD (talk) 22:08, 20 December 2018 (UTC)
 * Certain off-Wiki identifying information has been removed from the immediately preceding comment, pending revision deletion, per OUTING. Striker force Talk 15:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)

December 2018
Hello and welcome to Wikipedia. When you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion (but never when editing articles), such as at Articles for deletion/Malcolm Kendrick, please be sure to sign your posts. There are two ways to do this. Either: This will automatically insert a signature with your username or IP address and the time you posted the comment. This information is necessary to allow other editors to easily see who wrote what and when.
 * 1) Add four tildes  ( &#126;&#126;&#126;&#126; ) at the end of your comment, or
 * 2) With the cursor positioned at the end of your comment, click on the signature button Signature icon april 2018.png located above the edit window.

Thank you. Striker force Talk 21:37, 5 December 2018 (UTC)

Do not add personal information about other contributors to Wikipedia, as you did at User talk:AndyBryantMScPhD. Wikipedia operates on the principle that every contributor has the right to remain completely anonymous. Posting personal information about a user is strictly prohibited under Wikipedia's harassment policy. Wikipedia policy on this issue is strictly enforced and your edits have been reverted and/or suppressed, not least because such information can appear on web searches. Wikipedia's privacy policy is to protect the privacy of every user, including you. Persistently adding personal information about other contributors may result in you being blocked from editing.  Striker force Talk 15:37, 27 December 2018 (UTC)