Cholesterol Myth-Are Cardiologists Really Wrong?

[Sheryl]

Likes to sites that are promoting outright quakery have been deleted.

There is no doubt at all that elevated levels of LDL cholesterol and/or triglycerides significantly increase the risk of cardiovascular disease.

The Framinham Heart study, a massive longitudinal study that followed over 5,000 people for more than 20 years to identify risk factors associate with CVD (and which was not funded by any pharmaceutical company) and then subsequent cohort studies which have followed it are te "gold standard" research on this topic.

http://www.framingha...bout/index.html

Now what does get confusing is that (1) popular media tends to take snippets of research finding out of context and to misrepresent./exaggerate them (in particular, confusing correlation with causality) and (2) increased risk on a population level is a fact, and a quantifiable one, but does not equate exactly to the risk of a specific individual, and (most importantly) (3) knowing that XYZ are associated with an increased risk of heart disease, stroke etc doesn't automatically translate into a one-size-fits-all "solution" for individuals with one or more of these risk factors.

[cheeryble]

Thankyou for the information.

Just as I had hoped some of you have already looked into this.

I'm in Chiang Rai to partially escape Songkran and have now downloaded some of your links to digest will get back with comments and questions.

For now I note the chart Goatfarmer kindly linked and it reinforces what I had previously noted about the bottom of the U curve being 200 to 240.

I am a big fan of good statistics and shall try to look into the quality of this interpretation.

I also note Neha's link and had seen a visual interpretation of this data before.

It was a big study and nearly 80% of the cohort weren't on statins or others.....meaning the correlation between low, "acceptable" cholesterol levels and CAD wasn't necessarily because the patients were pre-diagnosed and therefore had artificially induced low levels. It somewhat suggests the lower cholesterol levels and CAD are naturally related as seen.

I also find the statement

"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator."

rather suspicious. It sounds rather like defying the evidence at all costs.

But as I said I'd like to know the other side.

[californiabeachboy]

Just to add another resource here, I recenlty read a book called "Worried Sick" by a doctor at the University of North Carolina (Nortin Hadler). His book has some information on the high cholesterol/statin argument. I have no connecdtion with him or the book, but I found it to be an interesting counter-argument to the "take a pill" solution.

[Naam]

I also find the statement

"Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit," said Dr. Gregg C. Fonarow, Eliot Corday Professor of Cardiovascular Medicine and Science at the David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA and the study's principal investigator."

rather suspicious. It sounds rather like defying the evidence at all costs.

it is a well known fact that statins and/or any cholesterine lowering drugs are a conspiracy of the Bilderbergs and the Illuminati to reduce this world's population and bankrupt flaxseed farmers

p.s. that warlords from Waziristan are involved too seems to be an unfounded claim spread by NATO headquarters in Afghanistan to divert from the problems with the Taliban.

[Naam]

The chart shows the sweet spot for cholesterol at around 210 to 220. It also shows a very weak correlation between heart disease and total cholesterol in absolute terms. In other words, while the relative risk of heart disease varies more than three-fold between 200 and 250, the absolute risk is still less than one in a thousand for TC less than 250 mg/dl.

i wouldn't trust any chart or statistics which i didn't forge prepare myself.

i'm looking for a list of hundreds of studies which i digested years ago and where one can find virtually any study/chart which is in line with one's preferred thinking. among other ridiculous ones i remember

-sweaty and stinking feet immunise the body against a variety of cancers,

-a blowjob a day keeps prostate cancer away,

-a daily tablespoon of bitter orange marmalade prevents Alzheimer's,

-wearing reading glasses might be the cause that females have problems to achieve an orgasm.

[cheeryble]

i'm looking for a list of hundreds of studies which i digested years ago and where one can find virtually any study/chart which is in line with one's preferred thinking.

I tend to agree Naam I have done Maths at university and an aware of the pitfalls possible in poor statistical interpretation.

The thing is though, that the same applies in proposing the lipid hypothesis.

I remember seeing a video by Malcolm Kendrick MD in which he explained about how Ancel Keys, the originator of the lipid hypothesis, charted y, mortality, against x, fat intake (or was it cholesterol level?, stamping countries in their respective positions on the chart and displaying a rising straight line. Then Kendrick named a different set of countries.......and the line fell instead of rising.

Once again I am here to actually learn about the conventional view's data.

cheers Cheeryble

ps: As an aside physicians tend to be extremely unable to interpret statistics not surprising given the fact it's generally not taught them.............let alone evaluating results using Bayes Theorem.

[cheeryble]

Hi Sheryl somehow missed your Framingham link whilst on the go over Songkran.

I've already just assessed my odds of various events and will look further at comparing to my odds at lower lipid levels.

I must also consider whether the correlation suggested in the study is causation.

Thanks v much for that!

Cheeryble

[glbv]

I know this isn't evidence but among the nutrition forums of many bodybuilding sites it is accepted that dietary cholesterol has an extremely minimal effect on your bloods level.

I can say that I eat 12 eggs a day, yolk and all and have been doing so for about 4 years now. Im 23 years old and my most recent blood test showed LDL112, HDL 62 and Trigly 147.

It is slowly becoming accepted that fats are not bad and in fact required to maintain healthy levels of hormones and i believe it will soon be accepted that dietary cholesterol doesn't effect your bloods levels.

[mls]

Hi Cheeryble,

I have high cholesterol levels too and have had for years. My GP in the UK wanted me to go on Statins which I was reluctant to do but eventually gave in. However, after a month I could hardly get up stairs for the pain in my leg muscles and had constant headaches so I stopped them and my GP didn't press me to take them again. I read up on cholesterol levels and Statin use and found a telling paragraph in the Oxford Handbook of Clinical Medicine (1994 edition), the yellow book all junior hospital doctors in the UK have in their pockets to crib from.

Here is a quote I found most relevant with regards to testing cholesterol levels:

"Half the UK population have a cholesterol level which is thought to contribute markedly to CHD, but careful meta-analyses keep on showing that treating any but the highest cholesterols incresases deaths from other causes (notably violent deaths). A real danger is to turn healthy people into patients chronically anxious about a hyperlipidaemia, when the risks and benefits of a life-time of treatment are uncertain. It may be healthier not to know."

It goes on to say that cholesterol levels alone should not be used when deciding to treat. All other factors should be taken into account.

Since reading that I have come across many articles and studies showing that the use of Statins for high cholesterol is not all it's cracked up to be by the medical profession and certainly not by the drug companies. I'm afraid I can't point you in any relevant direction as I read and digest and unless I write down the source I forget where it comes from! Basically from what I've read they seem to say that lowering cholesterol alone will not prevent cardiac disease and could actually damage the heart.

LDL comes in two types/sizes of cell. One which is more likely to cause cardiac problems and the other which isn't and there are new tests which can determine the type of LDL one has, though I doubt they're available here yet. There is also the importance of having good levels of Vitamin D, which is needed for heart function as well as other things. Have also seen lot of new information on the benefits of coconut oil, a saturated fat, which has now been shown to actually reduce LDL and increase HDL.

We do need cholesterol for proper functioning of our bodies and I feel that arbitrarily lowering it may not be such a good thing especially as it can be detrimental to liver, brain and nervous system health. As everyone here has said, what works for one won't necessarily work for another.

I get a regular e-mailed newsletter from Dr Mercola (you can find him via Google) and although some of the news is a bit repetitive there are some very useful articles particularly relating to diet, exercise and cholesterol. I'm not advocating that one takes everything he says as gospel and he isn't totally altruistic as he has a lot of supplements for sale, but he does back up his medical information with interviews with specialists and research papers.

I know what you were really looking for was some useful leads to data, and I hope you have found them somewhere in this thread. So good luck with your research and I do hope you come to the conclusion that you don't need Statins. I really don't know why, but I have come to feel very strongly that they are one of the worst drugs out there and are being touted as the magic bullet to solve the western cardiac disease dilemma.

I'd rather have a shorter, good quality life than a longer one popping pills for one thing and then having to pop more to counteract the side effects.

[tropo]

I get a regular e-mailed newsletter from Dr Mercola (you can find him via Google) and although some of the news is a bit repetitive there are some very useful articles particularly relating to diet, exercise and cholesterol. I'm not advocating that one takes everything he says as gospel and he isn't totally altruistic as he has a lot of supplements for sale, but he does back up his medical information with interviews with specialists and research papers.

Yes, good ole Dr. Joseph Mercola. Saying "he isn't totally altruistic" is an understatement. He's making a fortune selling his products. Most of his articles are designed to get you to buy his products. Each newsletter has products for sale, which of course he "proves" are the best of the best. There's an interesting read about him on Quackwatch.com.

Obviously he's doing a good job coming across as altruistic, so you'll believe everything he says and spend double on his supplement lines (they're expensive - check out his whey protein). A good example is his lengthy article on probiotics. If he was altruistic he'd be promoting kefir as one of the best sources and nearly free as you can easily make it yourself - but at the end of his article he's pushing Mercola probiotics as the ultimate source. He does give kefir an honourable mention though - props to him for that.

The thing I find annoying about him is how he states everything as a proven fact. If you followed his advice you'd be taking a basketful of (his) supplements everyday and you'd live forever but ironically you'd be so stressed out about sourcing your food (everything has to be organic - even the coffee) everyday you wouldn't have time to live ... and you'd probably be broke too. You certainly would not be able to follow his advice living in Thailand.

Edited April 19, 2012 by tropo

[cheeryble]

I can say that I eat 12 eggs a day, yolk and all and have been doing so for about 4 years now. .

12 x 365 x 4 = 17500 eggs

I'd rather slit my wrists......but thanks for the anecdote......not many years ago the wisdom would have said you should be dead by now!

[goatfarmer]

Hi Sheryl somehow missed your Framingham link whilst on the go over Songkran.

I've already just assessed my odds of various events and will look further at comparing to my odds at lower lipid levels.

I must also consider whether the correlation suggested in the study is causation.

Thanks v much for that!

Cheeryble

Observational studies, such as the Framingham study, cannot, by nature, establish causation. They can only establish correlation.

I agree with Sheryl's comment: "increased risk on a population level... does not equate exactly to the risk of a specific individual," Nonetheless the Framinghamorg site attempts to offer risk values for individuals calculated to the first decimal place. This is a dubious exercise.

Dr Eades did a bit of detective work some years back. He got a copy of the original Framingham report from the early sixties and found out that the data from the study had been cherry-picked. In fact the study showed pretty much what glbv claims, above; namely, in most cases, consuming dietary cholesterol doesn't affect your blood cholesterol.

http://www.proteinpo...ingham-follies/

Mls said that "LDL comes in two types/sizes of cell. One which is more likely to cause cardiac problems and the other which isn't and there are new tests which can determine the type of LDL one has, though I doubt they're available here yet." Actually they are molecules and they come in many sizes, but the generally accepted wisdom in the US is that only the small, dense LDL molecules will oxidize and damage your arteries. The large buoyant variety cannot, it is said, penetrate the endothelial cells in the artery lining and are, supposedly, benign. Indeed we cannot get the test for particle size in this country. However, according to some researchers particle size correlates inversely with triglycerides and directly with HDL.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/11092292

Mls also muses, "We do need cholesterol for proper functioning of our bodies and I feel that arbitrarily lowering it may not be such a good thing." I'm amazed how many people - even educated people - are unaware of the fact that cholesterol is an essential building block in human physiology. Steroid and sex hormones as well as bile acids are all produced from cholesterol. They are essential for life. Yet the common perception is that cholesterol is some sort of bi-product which we should eliminate from our bodies as much as possible. As Stephanie Seneff wrote:

"There are three distinguishing factors which give animals an advantage over plants: a nervous system, mobility, and cholesterol. Cholesterol, absent from plants, is the key molecule that allows animals to have mobility and a nervous system."

http://people.csail....eally_work.html

Her article shows how statins work: by supplying the heart with an alternative fuel but at the expense of muscles getting 'wrecked in the process'. Highly recommended.

Finally, although not helping Cheeryble's quest for the conventional view's data, this podcast with Dwight Lundell, a heart surgeon, is illuminating (especially at 27 minutes). He claims that postprandial glucose spikes are responsible for damaging arteries and causing plaque. How many of us who are not diabetic have a blood glucose meter on hand? He also provides an interesting account of Dick Cheney's heart history, describing it as both a great medical achievement and failure at the same time.

http://livinlavidalo...t-disease/14037

Edited April 20, 2012 by goatfarmer

[cheeryble]

Thankyou Goatfarmer et al.....

I have a clear course.....which was my reason for looking into this.

Here's what I think:

1. I tend to respect professional opinion more than most and am not a completely convinced skeptic on this. Having said that l haven't been convinced of the conventional view on cholesterol and there are certainly two sides. I shall continue to absorb more information on that if I can, but may need to accept there's no clear answer.

2. There is big data that suggests a TC level of 200 - 240 is optimal for all-cause mortality.

3. My BMI was last measured at 25.45....the beginnings of "overweight". If I am typical and do nothing this will not get better with age but worse.......and I have read that overweight may affect cholesterol levels.

4. I was already aware that my diet, was semi-healthy (daily muesli, olive oil, etc).....but mixed in with daily cake, milk drinks and ice cream, cheese, and lots of bread.

5. Rightly or wrongly, there is a considerable anti-statin camp (though I have several friends on statins who are symptomless and lowered TC).

6. I am prepared to considerably reduce my sugar and carb intake.

My course is therefore:

1. Try diet first no statins. Target 200 TC (presently 298) as a happy medium.

2. Stop cakes and sweets and ice cream strict one month then special treats only.

3. Normal 5 hot chocs (with half milk and real chocolate) reduce to one per day (can't drink coffee due panic attacks).

4. Try a month or more with little bread or rice.

5. Eat regular fish and a couple of fish oil caps per day. More nuts and heavy salads.

6. Keep up my exercise and go back to gym to build up a bit of muscle to replace the modest amount of fat. Avoid man-breasts!

The fact is I've already been doing this for about ten days now and it's not bad enjoying my food and already lost weight noticeably.

I haven't yet learned about triglycerides Sheryl let's see what happens to my levels on the present regime.

If my levels DO respond how quickly do they react? What would be an appropriate time to get a re-check......I think perhaps 6 weeks or two months which will allow for a bit of weight loss to take effect?

Thanks again for all the input!

Cheeryble

[cheeryble]

Thankyou Goatfarmer et al.....

I have a clear course.....which was my reason for looking into this.

Here's what I think:

1. I tend to respect professional opinion more than most and am not a completely convinced skeptic on this. Having said that l haven't been convinced of the conventional view on cholesterol and there are certainly two sides. I shall continue to absorb more information on that if I can, but may need to accept there's no clear answer.

2. There is big data that suggests a TC level of 200 - 240 is optimal for all-cause mortality.

3. My BMI was last measured at 25.45....the very beginnings of "overweight". If I am typical and do nothing this will not get better with age but worse.......and I have read that overweight may affect cholesterol levels.

4. I was already aware that my diet was semi-healthy (daily muesli, olive oil, etc).....but mixed in with daily cake, milk drinks and ice cream, cheese, and lots of bread.

5. Rightly or wrongly, there is a considerable anti-statin camp (though I have several friends on statins who are symptomless and lowered TC).

6. I am prepared to considerably reduce my sugar and carb intake.

My course is therefore:

1. Try diet first no statins. Target 200 TC (presently 298) as a happy medium.

2. Stop cakes and sweets and ice cream strict one month then special treats only.

3. Normal 5 hot chocs (with half milk and real chocolate) reduce to one per day (can't drink coffee due panic attacks).

4. Try a month or more with little bread or rice.

5. Eat regular fish and a couple of fish oil caps per day. Daily nuts and heavy salads.

6. Keep up my exercise and go back to gym to build up a bit of muscle to replace the modest amount of fat. At all costs avoid future man-breasts!

The fact is I've already been doing this for about ten days now and it's not bad enjoying my food and already lost weight noticeably.

I haven't yet learned about triglycerides Sheryl let's see what happens to my levels on the present regime.

If my levels DO respond how quickly do they react? What would be an appropriate time to get a re-check......I think perhaps 6 weeks or two months which will allow for a bit of weight loss to take effect?

Thanks again for all the input!

Cheeryble

[rak sa_ngop]

2. There is big data that suggests a TC level of 200 - 240 is optimal for all-cause mortality.

What do you mean by "optimal for all-cause mortality"?

Are you saying that TC 200-240 is best and artificially lowering TC below 200 with statins is proven from 'big data' to be worse for you?

[tropo]

2. There is big data that suggests a TC level of 200 - 240 is optimal for all-cause mortality.

What do you mean by "optimal for all-cause mortality"?

Are you saying that TC 200-240 is best and artificially lowering TC below 200 with statins is proven from 'big data' to be worse for you?

That's exactly what he is saying. This always comes as a big surprise to people tuned into the idea that over 200 is unhealthy.

[cheeryble]

2. There is big data that suggests a TC level of 200 - 240 is optimal for all-cause mortality.

What do you mean by "optimal for all-cause mortality"?

Are you saying that TC 200-240 is best and artificially lowering TC below 200 with statins is proven from 'big data' to be worse for you?

That's exactly what he is saying. This always comes as a big surprise to people tuned into the idea that over 200 is unhealthy.

Not quite Tropo, I don't believe the all-cause-mortality line on the chart is linked to statin "therapy".

However, Raksangop, 200-240 TC is the clear bottom of the mortality u-curve (with a very large cohort) and rising considerably both at lower (especially much lower) as well as higher TC levels.

The chart is linked early in this thread if I remember.

[cheeryble]

Whoops

Edited April 22, 2012 by cheeryble

[cheeryble]

I must add something to the list.

Goatfarmer's comment slipped my memory:

As CM says, if your cholesterol is over 250 you probably have a metabolic issue, the most obvious of which is thyroid. Thyroid is required to metabolize cholesterol. In the case of chronic stress the body produces an isomer of the active thyroid hormone which slows down the metabolism resulting in a rise in cholesterol.

Last year I had half my thyroid removed. I was told at the time that 40% of the thyroid can provide all the thyroxine.

But I really should double check that panel.

I have reasonable energy levels and can exercise fairly vigorously, and I think it's probably OK........but I have an odd syndrome where late afternoon I become overwhelmingly sleepy. When I say this I mean it's irresistible. If I can't quite fall asleep (normally easy) because of the situation, I might yawn dozens of times at very short intervals. Yet if I can just catch a few minutes nap I feel much better and am OK until very late night. It's interesting cos there's almost a mental reset too, it's refreshing in mind and body.

I've never known anyone else like this. I would almost welcome it except often it really gets in the way of getting things done.

Maybe that's for another thread, but interesting what Goatfarmer said about stress as I suffer from agoraphobia and still spend some of my time in panic or high stress mode.

Anyway I'll get that test soon.......and re-do my lipids in month or two and post here.

Cheeryb;e

[ronz28]

I am adding 250 mg daily of Pomegranate (40 % Ellagic Acid & 30 % Punicalagins) to my daily Vit. C. based on discussion with my doc today. Still taking Pravastatin Sodium in the evening with 2 chewable baby aspirin (timing is important- about 6 PM as studies show it is more effective then) as previously discussed but will take Pomegranate in the morning to avoid any potential problems like you get with grapefruit juice.

Here is some info. on Pomegranate from http://www.longecity.org/forum/topic/13255-who-is-taking-pomegranate-juice-or-extract/:

Heart doctors who do not recommend to their patients to take high dose

vit. C and a pomegranate supplement are doing their patients a serious

injustice. Note the benefits of pomegranate alone...

"Pomegranate juice consumption inhibits serum angiotensin converting

enzyme activity and reduces systolic blood pressure." (PMID:

11500191)

"Effects of a Pomegranate Fruit Extract rich in punicalagin on

oxidation-sensitive genes and eNOS activity at sites of perturbed

shear stress and atherogenesis." (PMID: 17014835)

"Beneficial effects of pomegranate juice on oxidation-sensitive genes

and endothelial nitric oxide synthase activity at sites of perturbed

shear stress." (PMID: 15781875)

"Pomegranate juice flavonoids inhibit low-density lipoprotein

oxidation and cardiovascular diseases: studies in atherosclerotic mice

and in humans." (PMID: 12224378)

"Pomegranate juice (PJ) consumption for 3 years by patients with

carotid artery stenosis reduces common carotid intima-media thickness,

blood pressure and LDL oxidation." (PMID: 15158307) Also from this

report: "The patient's systolic blood pressure was significantly (P<

0.05) reduced by 7%, 11% ,10%, 10% and 12% after 1, 3, 6, 9, and 12

months of PJ consumption, respectively, compared to values obtained

before treatment." And: "In the control group that did not consume

PJ, common carotid intima-media thickness (IMT) increased by 9% during

1 year, whereas, PJ consumption resulted in a significant IMT

reduction, by up to 30%, after 1 year."

These are hugely significant findings of the vascular benefits of

pomegranate polyphenols, and cannot be duplicated by modern medicine.

Both pomegranate and vitamin C are hugely beneficial in preventing

heart disease. I challenge everyone to ask their doctor if they

recommend either of these two supplements for the prevention of heart

disease. Me, I've been taking pomegranate for two years already. And

vit. C for six.

For fun, here's a report by the American Medical Assoc. from 2004

showing that statins do not increase lifespan (well, they do, by a

statistically unimportant 0.4%, less than one percent!).

"Conclusions: For patients with coronary heart disease, intensive

lipid-lowering treatment with atorvastatin reduced progression of

coronary atherosclerosis compared with pravastatin. Compared with

baseline values, patients treated with atorvastatin had no change in

atheroma burden, whereas patients treated with pravastatin showed

progression of coronary atherosclerosis. These differences may be

related to the greater reduction in atherogenic lipoproteins and C-

reactive protein in patients treated with atorvastatin."

http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/291/9/1071.abstract

Note that atorvastatin is only deemed better than pravastatin because

pravastatin basically resulted in no change, while atorvastatin merely

slowed down the build up of arterial plaque. There are other reports

showing that statins do not actually increase lifespans. But, these

remain the drugs of choice if you ask your heart specialist.

Ask your doc about this.

[ronz28]

New study suggest increasing good cholesterol (HDL) may not help. The real help comes from lowering the bad cholesterol (LDL).

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504763_162-57436495-10391704/good-hdl-cholesterol-may-not-protect-heart-after-all-study-suggests/

There is a well-established connection between elevated LDL levels and heart attack, and decades of research - including genetic studies similar to the new study - paved the way for the development of lipid-lowering drugs known as statins.

[Sheryl]

Doctors no longer look at TC b ut rather at the different types of cholesterol and their ratio.

TC is useful only a gross screening tool in that if it is less than 200, levels of LDL are bound to be OK, and if they are very elevated, LDL will almost certainly be too high. For the large number of people whose TC is somewhere in the 200 - 300 range, TC is not a very useful measure.

[cheeryble]

Well I dieted for a month or so and promised I'd come back.

My half-a-thyroid hormones were pretty much mid range but new lipid results are remarkable.

BEFORE

TC 298

Trig 165

HDL 57

LDL 208

AFTER

TC 221

Trig 160

HDL 50

LDL 139

Whilst I reduced fat generally in that I ate less and no cake etc it was mostly a low carb and sugar diet no bread little ice cream little rice etc, but I still ate cheese and fried foods just perhaps less......and for lunch a bag of nuts and or some 5 baht pork sticks.

The last few days of the month I must admit to having some more carbs not sure if this was why the triglycerides didn't change much.

The funny thing is that TC 221 is bang in the middle of the bottom of the all-cause-mortality U curve and that's where I like being!

ps:

1. How likely is it the results are inaccurate?

2. Do I want to know?

Cheeryble

Edited May 20, 2012 by cheeryble

[banglay]

check this link out it's regarding statins as a preventative therapy http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-18091708

[Sheryl]

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the results.

the big improvement in your LDL is no doubt due to avoiding sugars and processed carbs (Google "metabolic syndrome" and "insulin resistance").

in addition to greatly helping with dyslipedemias, avoiding processed sugar in any form will greatly reduce the chances of developing type 2 diabetes which in turn is a risk factor for just about everything.

try to make the change permanent. You need not avoid bread and rice altogether, just limit it to brown rice and wholegrain breads.

[cheeryble]

There is no reason to doubt the accuracy of the results.

the big improvement in your LDL is no doubt due to avoiding sugars and processed carbs (Google "metabolic syndrome" and "insulin resistance").

in addition to greatly helping with dyslipedemias, avoiding processed sugar in any form will greatly reduce the chances of developing type 2 diabetes which in turn is a risk factor for just about everything.

try to make the change permanent. You need not avoid bread and rice altogether, just limit it to brown rice and wholegrain breads.

Thankyou Sheryl just noticed your post late sorry.

Must admit I enjoy the (white) focaccia bread with cheese every day.

Still, I guess if I am at least allowed a fair bit of fat and protein I could try to stick to the more complex carbs.

I have an 84 yo friend whose wife's taken this to an art form.

Example.....chocolate cake made with powdered almond for flour, the right sort of very healthy cocoa (not the Dutch one I use apparently the process is wrong there) and some sort of sugar substitute (Splendour?) which really works.

This is simply delicious!

Again thanks I shall google your links...

[cheeryble]

This modest article, whilst introducing the cholesterol "myth" in the form of a documentary, has at least two highly qualified detractors of a "myth"......(i originally came on here looking for a defence of the "conventional" view on cholesterol to get a properly balanced picture.)

Arguments in the link against the "myth" a bit short on detail but at least something new for me.

Edited August 21, 2012 by cheeryble

[meatboy]

i know when i was told i had high cholesterol at 57yr.old i did not have clue what it was,doc told me good level was4-5 mine was9-11.looking at the causes of bad chol.what rubbish foods i had been eating for 40yrs.its no wonder my arteries where blocked,5yrs of taking statins as much as 80mg a day only delayed having heart by pass surgery finally having to have a double by-pass with a new aorta valve replacement.the time i was in hospital it was like a cattle market by-pass surgery non stop one in one out,never an empty bed.so i think cholesterol in the blood circling around your arteries in time must look something like a waste pipe from the kitchen sink with sludge stuck to the sides.

[jrtmedic]

Go here

http://guidance.nice.org.uk/CG67

here

http://www.nice.org.uk/nicemedia/live/11982/40689/40689.pdf

and here

http://publications....s-ta94/guidance

Edited August 21, 2012 by jrtmedic

[FBN]

Cholesterol is neither a myth nor an absolute. The risk it presents to different individuals is probably different for many different reasons and variables. It has to be looked at for what it is; an indicator of cardiovascular risk that is easily measurable, repeatable, accurate and inexpensive. Therefore, a reasonable indicator to use.

Will statins reduce the risk for cardiac events; probably yes. Is it absolutely guaranteed to do so in ALL individuals, unlikely, for reasons mostly unknown at this time but which may be genetic.

Physicians have to manage cholesterol based on "accepted" and evidence based practice, current AT THE TIME.

The best approach to this would be a more holistic one rather than an absolute scientific one.