Cholesterol Myth-Are Cardiologists Really Wrong?

[Wrong Turn]

I just watched the documentary "Fat Head."

Has anyone else seen it?

The lipid hypothesis was covered and the story of how the USDA, govt funding, and pharma companies are interlinked is very interesting and I will be reading more.

I have also downloaded Gay Taubs "Why we get fat."

I have no medical background but read and follow this topic about foods, macro ratios, heart disease, obesity,

And I am seeing more and more doctors and researches claim the common thought on the dangers cholersterol IN ADDITION to the USDA pyramid diet with is loaded carbs and high glycemic insulin spikes.

Anyone else see "Fat Head".

Any other recommended books out there on this topic that you think is worthy?

[JSixpack]

I just watched the documentary "Fat Head."

Has anyone else seen it?

The lipid hypothesis was covered and the story of how the USDA, govt funding, and pharma companies are interlinked is very interesting and I will be reading more.

I have also downloaded Gay Taubs "Why we get fat."

I have no medical background but read and follow this topic about foods, macro ratios, heart disease, obesity,

And I am seeing more and more doctors and researches claim the common thought on the dangers cholersterol IN ADDITION to the USDA pyramid diet with is loaded carbs and high glycemic insulin spikes.

Anyone else see "Fat Head".

Any other recommended books out there on this topic that you think is worthy?

Good stuff. I'll take a look at Fat Head, but I know what it says. Taubes is one of my favorite authors. I've quoted--uselessly, of course--here on the forum from Why We Get Fat. Some great articles and references to articles on his website.

I assume you already know Good Calories Bad Calories. You might take a look at the book New Atkins For A New You.

I follow a low-carb diet and it works just great for me. It's the easiest diet to maintain.

However, no point in arguing w/ the vast majority of forum members here who don't understand it and won't (probably can't) read any halfway technical sources to help them understand it. You'll just get Wikipedia quotes, chants, mantras, and extreme examples to "prove" it's all calories in/calories out w/ no distinction as to where that calorie comes from and how our bodies will use that calorie under what circumstances.

And they wrongly insist that low-carb diets must be high protein. Just can't let go of that idea! And fat must be bad! Nobody seems to know about the Inuit paradox.

Occasionally you'll get agreement then later disagreement from the same person. It's just very hard to escape, and then stay free, from the conventional wisdom. Me, I followed Pritikin for a while and like most I thought Atkins was totally insane when his book first came out to an avalanche of criticism.

I think I may have reached one or two members about low-carb, and if so it's worth all the blowback I suppose.

Edited August 6, 2013 by JSixpack

[geminiman]

Heart surgeon sees the light after 25 years http://www.laleva.org/eng/2012/03/world_renown_heart_surgeon_speaks_out_on_what_really_causes_heart_disease.html

[partington]

A heart surgeon is basically someone who is good with their hands who doesn't know much science.

Their ability to read understand, assimilate and analyse epidemiological data is no better than any other individual, and a single ill-informed surgeons's opinion is of no more value in deciding the validity of the weight of scientific evidence than a single astronomer, or anyone else.

Research decides truth. One man's opinion is not worth much, that is the whole basis of science.

Individual people are biased,and believe what they want to believe so you have to take the accumulated findings of thousands of people into account in order to reach the most probable viewpoint on what is true.

[geminiman]

Try this one, at least a research scientist wrote it.

http://healthfully.wordpress.com/2011/12/06/but-what-about-cholesterol/

[jrtmedic]

geminiman

Not a very impressive link !

The writer clams to have a "PhD in High Energy Astrophysics" which might be impressive but does not qualify him to hand out health advice.

You will also note that the article is unsupported by a bibliography

Rating out of ten ? ----A big fat zero !

[Wrong Turn]

I just watched the documentary "Fat Head."

Has anyone else seen it?

The lipid hypothesis was covered and the story of how the USDA, govt funding, and pharma companies are interlinked is very interesting and I will be reading more.

I have also downloaded Gay Taubs "Why we get fat."

I have no medical background but read and follow this topic about foods, macro ratios, heart disease, obesity,

And I am seeing more and more doctors and researches claim the common thought on the dangers cholersterol IN ADDITION to the USDA pyramid diet with is loaded carbs and high glycemic insulin spikes.

Anyone else see "Fat Head".

Any other recommended books out there on this topic that you think is worthy?

Good stuff. I'll take a look at Fat Head, but I know what it says. Taubes is one of my favorite authors. I've quoted--uselessly, of course--here on the forum from Why We Get Fat. Some great articles and references to articles on his website.

I assume you already know Good Calories Bad Calories. You might take a look at the book New Atkins For A New You.

I follow a low-carb diet and it works just great for me. It's the easiest diet to maintain.

However, no point in arguing w/ the vast majority of forum members here who don't understand it and won't (probably can't) read any halfway technical sources to help them understand it. You'll just get Wikipedia quotes, chants, mantras, and extreme examples to "prove" it's all calories in/calories out w/ no distinction as to where that calorie comes from and how our bodies will use that calorie under what circumstances.

And they wrongly insist that low-carb diets must be high protein. Just can't let go of that idea! And fat must be bad! Nobody seems to know about the Inuit paradox.

Occasionally you'll get agreement then later disagreement from the same person. It's just very hard to escape, and then stay free, from the conventional wisdom. Me, I followed Pritikin for a while and like most I thought Atkins was totally insane when his book first came out to an avalanche of criticism.

I think I may have reached one or two members about low-carb, and if so it's worth all the blowback I suppose.

Good points, jsixpack.

Actually, I have not read "good calories, bad calories" but I browsed the reviews last night on Amazon and will be downloading it to my kindle in a day or two.

i will now look at "New Atkins for a New You"

Indeed, a low carb diet does not have to be "high" protein"

Lots of people are still entrenched in the food pyramid grains, starch, scheme.

i feel so much better when I avoid the simple starchy carbs and eat complex carbs at lower amounts.

Edited August 6, 2013 by Wrong Turn

[Tolley]

A heart surgeon is basically someone who is good with their hands who doesn't know much science.

Their ability to read understand, assimilate and analyse epidemiological data is no better than any other individual, and a single ill-informed surgeons's opinion is of no more value in deciding the validity of the weight of scientific evidence than a single astronomer, or anyone else.

Research decides truth. One man's opinion is not worth much, that is the whole basis of science.

Individual people are biased,and believe what they want to believe so you have to take the accumulated findings of thousands of people into account in order to reach the most probable viewpoint on what is true.

Your rather patronising statement is symptomatic of many who claim to be the only ones trained to understand or inteprept data from clinical research. In fact you need to be much more than trained in science to interpret research findings you need to look at many factors besides the supposed science behind any clinical research like who is funding the research who is benefitting from the findings how was the research conducted, how many other studies support the same findings etc etc etc

And there is a fair amount of evidence out there that where there is the likelihood of huge financial gain research findings are often manipulated, fudged, or even falsified so it really is buyer beware when it comes to any sort of research findings.

Finally a heart surgeons opinion whether it is backed by any scientific studies or not is still significant because that person has expertise in that particular area. ie in this case heart disease. That is not to say their opinion is necessarily right but still worth considering in light of their experience with heart disease.

Edited August 7, 2013 by Tolley

[Tolley]

There was an article in an Australian newspaper yesterday that said that 30 percent of Australians over 45 were on statins.

Scary stuff really.

All those people unecessarily putting their health at risk by taking statins to lower cholesterol which may or may not cause heart disease, may or may not be too high, and when in any case there are so many other ways to lower cholesterol without the need to take any drugs whatsoever.

[JSixpack]

A heart surgeon is basically someone who is good with their hands who doesn't know much science.Their ability to read understand, assimilate and analyse epidemiological data is no better than any other individual

No. Try going through med school w/o passing organic chemistry.

Suffice it say, heart surgeons are much better w/ their brains than an average know-it-all such as yourself.

This reminds me of posters in the teaching forum who insist their "life experience" makes them better qualified than PhDs, so Thailand is just so unfair and crazy to insist on any academic credentials.

Their ability to read understand, assimilate and analyse epidemiological data is no better than any other

individual

Oh, but it's, like, LOTS AND LOTS better, you see.

Research decides truth. One man's opinion is not worth much, that is the whole basis of science.

He's just giving you the conclusions of a large body of research easily found on the 'net, boiled down for the average reader such as yourself.

In fact, his two main points are hardly controversial among researchers nowadays.

For the point "If the balance shifts by consuming excessive omega-6, the cell membrane produces chemicals called cytokines that directly cause inflammation", you can, for example, simply go read this paper: .http://ajcn.nutrition.org/content/83/6/S1505.full

The insulin/fat mechanism ("When your full cells reject the extra glucose, blood sugar rises producing more insulin and the glucose converts to stored fat") has been the accepted science for decades and you can find it in any college biochem textbook.

All treatments for obesity, including dietary restriction of carbohydrates, have a goal of reducing the storage of fat in adipocytes. The chief enzyme responsible for the mobilization of FFA from adipose tissue, i.e., lipolysis, is thought to be hormone-sensitive lipase (HSL).

--http://www.nutritionandmetabolism.com/content/3/1/12

Triacylglycerols can be mobilized by the hydrolytic action of lipases that are under hormonal control. Glucagon and epinephrine stimulate triacylglycerol breakdown by activating the lipase. Insulin, in contrast, inhibits lipolysis."

--Biochemistry, 7th ed., Berg et al., p. 667

Individual people are biased,and believe what they want to believe so you have to take the accumulated findings of thousands of people into account in order to reach the most probable viewpoint on what is true.

No. Majority opinion doesn't determine scientific truth, neither in Galileo's time nor at present. Where did you go to school?

Edited August 7, 2013 by JSixpack

[jrtmedic]

In fact Galileo was opposed in his thinking by many (the majority )including the RC church !

Scientific "proof" is still sought and fought against !

"Global Warming" is a good example of battle lines being drawn !

[jmccarty]

I'm in reasonably good health on the outside but was then surprised in January this year to have triglyceride level over 700! I'm 47 years old, 5'10" and 92kg. I eat well enough and probably drink more wine than I should.

I started taking fish oil supplements and still do. I take a 1,605mg Omega 3, 6 & 9 fatty acid gel capsule twice a day, immediately after lunch and before bed. I eat a large bowl of fresh fruit for breakfast every day so this probably helps.

After 3 months, triglycerides down to 172.

No other changes in diet or exersize, just the fish oil.

[jrtmedic]

You may find the information in the link below helpful.

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/triglycerides/CL00015

[JSixpack]

I eat a large bowl of fresh fruit for breakfast every day so this probably helps.

Doesn't help, probably hurts according to this study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21849529

[pattayadingo]

I know one thing the doctor will want to do as soon as I get back to my home country and that is to get me on the new 3in1 pill for heart problems. He talked of it over 2 years ago.

There is IMO a lot said for and against the use of Statins. I have had a lot of earache from some over the statins I take.

Yet, before i started to take statins my cholesterol lever was over 10. Heart attack level. Now it hovers around 4 to 5.

I was working on my house in the UK and while laying floorboards and doing other work in the kitchen I had chest pains. i put it down to gas when I was bent over..

I went to the local council yard to get rid of building rubbish and the pains began again.

Straight to the doctors who checked my heart rate - seemed OK.

Sent on to the hospital where they put me on the treadmill. Less than 2 minutes later they had me sat in a chair and in a hospital bed soon after.

Imminent heart attack !!

They had me walking around the ward with a special monitor attached. Any problems and the alarm would sound.

My end point being that before Statins, I had really bad cholesterol levels. Since statins the cholesterol has been in check.

I am one of those who produce a lot of cholesterol and statins stop me doing that.

Regular blood tests to make sure everything else is working fine.

Diet? I still produce too much cholesterol.

Each to their own but i'd rather have Statins than another heart attack, thanks.

[partington]

No. Try going through med school w/o passing organic chemistry.

Suffice it say, heart surgeons are much better w/ their brains than an average know-it-all such as yourself.

This reminds me of posters in the teaching forum who insist their "life experience" makes them better qualified than PhDs, so Thailand is just so unfair and crazy to insist on any academic credentials.

Their ability to read understand, assimilate and analyse epidemiological data is no better than any other

individual

Oh, but it's, like, LOTS AND LOTS better, you see.

Research decides truth. One man's opinion is not worth much, that is the whole basis of science.

He's just giving you the conclusions of a large body of research easily found on the 'net, boiled down for the average reader such as yourself.

Individual people are biased,and believe what they want to believe so you have to take the accumulated findings of thousands of people into account in order to reach the most probable viewpoint on what is true.

No. Majority opinion doesn't determine scientific truth, neither in Galileo's time nor at present. Where did you go to school?

That's a bit rude.

Without wishing to get into a huge debate about this- no sane person believes atherosclerosis, or heart disease, has a single cause.

It is multifactorial - there are many causative factors, often interlinked : inflammation is, (and has been accepted for years to be) a major role player in atherosclerosis, which many researchers actually call an inflammatory disease. Nothing new here.

It is websites and pundits saying cholesterol's causal links to heart disease are a myth that I object to. Whether these are written by surgeons (a surgeon is not a scientist, though they can learn to be - a scientist is a person engaged in research, not someone who "has learnt organic chemistry"), health pundits or anyone else, they are not a true representation of the findings of epidemiology, and the truth generally accepted by most researchers in the field.

For a start cholesterol causes inflammation in the artery wall, directly. Macrophages take up LDL which becomes trapped in the artery wall , and this uptake causes them to become what are termed "foam cells". The very act of taking up LDL switches them into an inflammatory program, including the secretion of cytokines and oxygen free radicals, which both damages the artery wall further and attracts more macrophages, causing an ever increasing damage loop. The more LDL you have, the more risk there is of this occurring.

So I just won't accept any of this "cholesterol myth" bilge.

While I agree that scientific truth is not a majority vote, I stand by my opinion that any single person's views are not the point. Scientific truth IS arrived at by hundreds of groups of researchers investigating aspects of a problem or disease process, and repeated confirmation and extension of these findings is how people assess their truth and general applicability. Obviously for any major discovery there is going to be a point at which only the discoverer knows it. Nevertheless it is accepted as true only after repetition and confirmation.

Your assumption that I am an average reader know-it-all who can't use his brain as well as a "heart surgeon"- could be rather rash.

How would you possibly know? For all you know I might have, say, a Ph.D in Biochemistry; I might have spent 30 years of my professional life as a biomedical research scientist with a focus on cholesterol and heart disease, I might even have published more than 30 research papers on the subject?

All these are actually true, by the way.

[wilcopops]

Guide to good health read the "alternative" posts - do the opposite.

[JSixpack]

It is websites and pundits saying cholesterol's causal links to heart disease are a myth that I object to. Whether these are written by surgeons (a surgeon is not a scientist, though they can learn to be - a scientist is a person engaged in research, not someone who "has learnt organic chemistry"), health pundits or anyone else, they are not a true representation of the findings of epidemiology, and the truth generally accepted by most researchers in the field.

Now, one knowledgeable reviewer of Dr. Lundell's book on the subject, The Cure for Heart Disease: Truth Will Save a Nation, says,

My minor of study for my doctoral degree was microbiology and immunology. Though I did not have the surgeon's perspective to see the inflammation in the cardiac system, other physicians and I discussed the inflammatory hypothesis that Dr. Lundell defends in this book. It makes scientific sense. His book provides convincing evidence to this effect. Scientific peer-reviewed journal publications are cited in the thorough annotated bibliography in the appendices.

First, there's inflammation, attracting LDL particles and admitting them into the artery wall. If inflammation continues, then macrophages etc. oxidize the LDL, meaning more inflammation, and THAT mess may start to block the artery or become a clot.

The good surgeon was just pointing out the crucial role from the beginning of the inflammation and giving sound advice about how to avoid it

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sheryl
flaming/baiting language removed by moderator

[Wrong Turn]

There was an article in an Australian newspaper yesterday that said that 30 percent of Australians over 45 were on statins.

Scary stuff really.

All those people unecessarily putting their health at risk by taking statins to lower cholesterol which may or may not cause heart disease, may or may not be too high, and when in any case there are so many other ways to lower cholesterol without the need to take any drugs whatsoever.

Big Pharma and western doctors educated and trained to "prescribe, prescribe, prescribe."

[partington]

I really don't want to get involved in a long point by point debate about this, but there are some major observations in your post and in the writings of Doctor Lundell that are not accurate.


Firstly everybody in the field would agree that inflammatory processes play a major role in the development of atherosclerosis, and reducing inflammatory processes will decrease disease progression - this is uncontroversial. But to say

" First, there's inflammation, attracting LDL particles and admitting them into the artery wall...If inflammation continues, then macrophages etc. oxidize the LDL, meaning more inflammation, and THAT mess may start to block the artery or become a clot."

is not right.

LDL can and does get into the artery wall without existing inflammation being necessary. LDL goes through the endothelial cells that line arteries by many processes that do not involve inflammation. It is transported by vesicles which gobble it up in direct proportion to its concentration in the blood, carry it through cells and spit it out the other side. The majority goes through leaky junctions between endothelial cells ( often made more leaky by hypertension , or by turbulent blood flow at arterial branch points ) again in direct proportion to its concentration in the blood.

Once inside the artery wall it stays there because it binds to a number of types of molecules, e.g. proteoglycans, that form the extracellular matrix on which the cells are sitting. It does not need inflammation to stick there, as LDL has a natural binding affinity for these molecules, and therefore becomes trapped by this binding process alone. (This has been effectively demonstrated by mutating the major protein of LDL to remove the binding sites for extracellular matrix: when this is done LDL no longer gets trapped under the endothelium, and in experimental animals atherosclerosis is nearly eliminated completely). Once LDL is stuck in the artery wall, endothelial cells can oxidise it, and begin the inflammatory cycle. That inflammatory cycle does NOT need to have started for the process to begin - it can be begun by LDL accumulation alone.


Of course atherosclerosis doesn't have one cause . You can get atherosclerosis on a background of completely normal LDL levels, caused by something else. This does not mean increased LDL does not increase your risk! So the observation that many people with atherosclerosis do not have high LDL is not a meaningful observation in this context, although it is almost always present in articles like Dr Lundell's.

Edited August 8, 2013 by Sheryl
removed responses to flaming/baiting post

[chiang mai]

OP: We're the same age but I have a single stent and following years of largely ignoring diet and exercise in favour of work I now lead a healthy life style.

It came as a shock to me that I had a blocked artery and because of my tall and lean build I had never imagined that CAD or cholesterol issues were a part of my future. Today, I have no idea whether high cholesterol is at the centre of the CAD issue, I take the collective word of the medical profession that it somehow plays a role and that it needs to be kept lower and I'm fine with that, I don't feel the need to verify what they have said on this point.

In going forward since that time six years ago I have come to realize that my continued good health is reliant on balance, I check my lipids/glucose/kidney function levels every month because I have high blood glucose levels hence when I take corrective action in one area of my diet I often find that another area may well be negatively impacted. It's all well and good to have optimal cholesterol levels but if my triglyceride levels are high then I'm in even bigger trouble. Ditto my blood sugar levels and kidney function, it's easily possible to drive blood glucose levels down into a most acceptable range by going super low carb but typically that's at the expense of kidney function.

I guess that if I were you I would want to start statins quite soon in order to get the cholesterol levels down and I would want to seriously modify my diet to lower those dangerously high triglyceride levels. I'd also want to get some base line blood tests done and as I tweaked my lifestyle, diet, weight and exercise I'd want to retest against that baseline to see what changes had occurred. Then, and only then would I spend time investigating whether cholesterol was a route cause or not, if you find out later that it is not then you can always undoe any of the remidal action you've taken thus far, statins can be stopped, weight can be regained etc etc etc, my guess is that you'll never reach that last stage however.

[partington]

Oh dear. Just to follow up, I have found that Dr Lundell is just another one of those bankrupt, struck off, charlatan doctors who are selling supplements:

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

Seriously if I'd known he was one of those, I wouldn't even have bothered with this. I was more charitable to this jerk than I should have been, mistaking him for a genuine but misguided amateur. It's apparent that his motivation in declaring that cholesterol is not a risk factor for heart disease in fact derives from his desire to sell his "supplements". This may be somewhat related to the fact that he became bankrupt just before he was struck off for killing patients through negligence, and this sorry affair may have been the inspiration for his views, rather than having been gifted with unique insight into the cause of heart disease.

Oh well, I'll be more careful next time. This guy is a crook.

Highlights of his illustrious career:

Star Physician:

"A physician who has served on NourishLife's medical-scientific team, Dr. Dwight Lundell, lost his license to practice in 2008 after that state's medical board determined that Lundell, an Arizona cardiac surgeon, made mistakes resulting in the deaths of six patients."

• In 2008, the board reviewed Lundell's management of several more patients and revoked his medical license. The board's order mentioned that the board was investigating his care of seven patients because the Banner Desert Medical Hospital had suspended Lundell's surgical privileges [7]

Broke tax evader:

• In 2005, he again filed for bankruptcy, claiming to have assets of $12,990 and liabilities of $20,185,769.60. The liabilities included $74,264.77 in credit card debts, $78,932.48 for accounting services, the $20 million debt related to the previous bankruptcy, and "unknown amounts" of state and federal taxes owed. The financial statement also listed his earnings as $0 for 2005, $0 for $2004, and $288,436 for 2003 [8].
• In 2004, Lundell pleaded guilty in federal court to three counts of willful failure to file income tax returns. A newspaper report indicates that he had become a client of "tax protester" Wayne C. Bentson after a long-running dispute with the IRS and that rather than filing tax returns from 1992 to 1996, Lundell had filed affidavits contesting the government's right to levy taxes [9]. In 2005, Lundell was sentenced to three years' probation, but the probation was terminated after 16 months. Bentson was ordered to pay $1,129,937 to the Internal Revenue Service and was sentenced to four years in prison, to be followed by three years of supervised release [10].

Seller of Potions

A biographical sketch on Amazon.com states that Lundell formulated and promotes two dietary supplements for Asantae (a multilevel company): HeartShot™ and RealW8™. HeartShot is claimed to reduce the risk of cardiovascular disease" disease by "dramatically reducing inflammation." RealW8 is claimed to "help you control the addiction to sugar and carbohydrates, thus allowing you to lose weight." [13]

[jrtmedic]

partington

Quackwatch is an excellent resource !

Stephen Barrett exposes the crooks, fraudsters and quacks but the "believers" do not believe him!

C'est la vie!

[Sheryl]

Flaming and baiting remarks have been edited out as well as responses to same and the guilty parties warned.

There is zero tolerance for this on the health forum.

Substantive comments have been retained.

No one in "mainstream" medicine disputes the role of inflammation in coronary artery disease...nor that elevated levels of LDL/ an unfavorable HDL"LDL ratio are a risk factor. That's risk factor, not sole cause. Unlike infectious diseases, cardiac and other chronic diseases are multifactoral in origin. Difficulty in understanding this often underlies peoples arguments "against" the significance of elevated triglycerides and LDL.

One other clarification: cholesterol deposits on arterial walls do not "become" blood clots. Rather, because they provide a rough surface on which clots already formed can easily stick. in addition, they narrow the lumen of the artery so that a clot is more likely to cause occlusion.

this is why -- in addition to its anti-inflammatory properties -- low dose aspirin is commonly recommended for persons with dyslipedemias. It will help prevent clot formation.

[Tolley]

Flaming and baiting remarks have been edited out as well as responses to same and the guilty parties warned.

There is zero tolerance for this on the health forum.

Substantive comments have been retained.

No one in "mainstream" medicine disputes the role of inflammation in coronary artery disease...nor that elevated levels of LDL/ an unfavorable HDL"LDL ratio are a risk factor. That's risk factor, not sole cause. Unlike infectious diseases, cardiac and other chronic diseases are multifactoral in origin. Difficulty in understanding this often underlies peoples arguments "against" the significance of elevated triglycerides and LDL.

One other clarification: cholesterol deposits on arterial walls do not "become" blood clots. Rather, because they provide a rough surface on which clots already formed can easily stick. in addition, they narrow the lumen of the artery so that a clot is more likely to cause occlusion.

this is why -- in addition to its anti-inflammatory properties -- low dose aspirin is commonly recommended for persons with dyslipedemias. It will help prevent clot formation.

The problem with mainstream medicine is that it has been giving wrong information about causes of heart diseases for the last few decades.

The whole low fat fiasco which has been endorsed by heart foundation and mainstream medicine is based on wrong science.

People turned to high carb diets and low fat products which are generally loaded with sugar on the advice of mainstream medicine and they ended up getting fatter with huge increases in metabolic syndrome type 11 diabetes and of course more heart disease.

You dont even have do to much clinical research to see that it is sugar and refined carbs that is doing most of the damage because sugar consumption has rocketed over the last few decades yet consumption of fat has remained stable.

On the subject of statins all the research indicates that only those with CAD benefit from statins but 70 percent of people who have been prescribed statins dont have CAD thus they are unecessarily taking a potentially harmful product.

[chiang mai]

I'll share this because it reinforces my earlier point about balance:

I just got my blood test results back and I'm elated, here's what they are now and in brackets, what they were:

Cholesterol - 135 (200)

Triglycerides - 94 (276)

HDL - 54 (60)

LDL - 51 (100)

Creatinine - 1.1

BUN - 23

A1C - 4.8 (6.4) Wheee!

ALT - 47 (83)

The above with diet (90%), exercise (10%) and 5mg Crestor/300mg coated asprin.

EDIT: I have a single stent (five years) and I'm Type 2 (one year).

Edited August 9, 2013 by chiang mai

[Tolley]

I'll share this because it reinforces my earlier point about balance:

I just got my blood test results back and I'm elated, here's what they are now and in brackets, what they were:

Cholesterol - 135 (200)

Triglycerides - 94 (276)

HDL - 54 (60)

LDL - 51 (100)

Creatinine - 1.1

BUN - 23

A1C - 4.8 (6.4) Wheee!

ALT - 47 (83)

The above with diet (90%), exercise (10%) and 5mg Crestor/300mg coated asprin.

EDIT: I have a single stent (five years) and I'm Type 2 (one year).

Wow your triglcerides were terrible before. I reckon they are more important even than LDL levels for heart disease. Fish oil works really well as does exercise for reducing the T levels. Mine were 35 when I last tested in January.

[chiang mai]

I agree, for me it's oatmeal, flaxseed, zero refined carbs, 100% low glycemic carbs, blueberries, zero added sugar, salads, almonds, spinach, spinach and more spinach, zero beef, 85% cocoa, a Dutch bread made from whole grains (tastes like sawdust at first but have grown to like it). I'm to the point now where I can tweak my diet slightly and adjust specific numbers accordingly, it was painful at first but now it's great fun and I've never felt better. Almost forgot, the key part of course is weight control, currently 77kgs (90kgs) and never plus or minus more than 1.5 kgs.

[jrtmedic]

chiang mai

An impressive outcome !

Well done !

[partington]

You dont even have do to much clinical research to see that it is sugar and refined carbs that is doing most of the damage because sugar consumption has rocketed over the last few decades yet consumption of fat has remained stable.

On the subject of statins all the research indicates that only those with CAD benefit from statins but 70 percent of people who have been prescribed statins dont have CAD thus they are unecessarily taking a potentially harmful product.

Although you say that "all the research" indicates that only those with CAD ( coronary artery disease) benefit from statins, I have to tell you that you are mistaken in this statement.

In the Lancet last year ( http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22607822 ) a meta-analysis was published that analysed data from 27 separate clinical trials of statins, done at different sites and by different groups all over the world. It therefore represents the conclusions of the majority of the clinical trials of statins that have ever been done.

This was extensively covered in the popular press, and created a stir because its major conclusions were that:

1. People with low CAD risk who would not normally be prescribed statins showed a clear benefit in terms of prevention of future coronary events and

2. These benefits were independent of whether they had existing CAD or not, that is, statins reduced future heart disease in people who did not already have it.

As I have given you the reference so you can look up the paper, I hope you will stop repeating the statement that only those with CAD benefit from statins, as I have shown you it is not supported by the scientific literature.

Secondly the low fat recommendations of the last 50 years have not been a fiasco, and are not the wrong advice. In this period mortality from heart disease in the US has fallen 60-70%, whereas all-cause mortality has fallen only 40%. The change in diet has played an important contributory role in this success story.

I suppose what depresses me most is that it seems really difficult to get across the idea that atherosclerosis has more than one risk factor, and they are all important. It is not a competition where a winner has to eliminate all the others!

It seems to me that for some people an almost faith-based need to criticise statin use causes a denial of the importance of plasma cholesterol to become an end in itself.

Nevertheless: high blood cholesterol increases your risk for heart disease. Smoking increases your risk for heart disease. High fructose/sucrose consumption increases your risk for heart disease. High blood pressure increases your risk for heart disease. Obesity increases your risk for heart disease. Diabetes increases your risk for heart disease. Unknown factors yet to be identified increase your risk for heart disease.

In recent years it is quite true an increased incidence of diabetes, metabolic syndrome and obesity has begun to reverse the benefits derived from cholesterol lowering strategies, reduction in smoking etc, and the consumption of high fructose corn syrup and sucrose containing foods is probably the major contributory factor to this increase.

To say that scientists or clinicians are somehow responsible for this high sucrose and fructose consumption seems perverse however. The idea that high carbohydrates are harmful to your health is accepted by most clinicians and health authorities the world over. The mayor of New York recently tried to ban the sale of super-sized drinks on health grounds: this is about as mainstream as an idea can possibly get !

For at least the last three decades the recommended dietary guidelines from the American Heart Association have been simple: lower your saturated fat intake, and replace those calories with whole grains, fruits, vegetables and nuts; eat some fish regularly.

If everyone followed those guidelines, derived directly from scientific discoveries, there would be no problem. It is not the fault of clinicians that people will not follow their advice.

Edited August 9, 2013 by partington