 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion GroupsGeneral TopicsLow CarbWeightWatchers WeightAdviser.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Weight Loss Forum / Low Carb / March 2007HAh!
When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good? "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries." http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/  SignatureBob in CT Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con" by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick. :: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good? :: [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :: -- :: Bob in CT || Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks || (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con" [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] |||| heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol |||| buildup in arteries." I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have been excellent. BJ Signature-- "To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of reflection." - Jules Henri Poincaré Glory, glory the world is saved by the Democrats. They promise to be just as honest and bipartisan as they were before the 1994 elections. > || Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks > || (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con" [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > BJ It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks also have Low Cholesterol. So, "cholesterol" is only a portion of the story, if it is indeed much of a driver at all. It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X. I recently read a recent book on CHD which cited 20 risk factors for CHD. Author was a practicing Cardiologist. The risk factors were given severity or significance numbers ranging from 0 up to 20. A personal prior heart attack got a risk significance of 20. Family history was 10 or 15. Most everything else was a 2, 3 or 5 Cholesterol was a 2, if I remember it accurately. There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer" viewpoint. :: BJ in Texas wrote: ::: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] :: There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer" :: viewpoint. If anything in that book I listed above is true (the references he cites) then the entire cholesterol business is based on an "ad-hoc hypothesis" and has little or no basis. > :: BJ in Texas wrote: > ::: Roger Zoul <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > then the entire cholesterol business is based on an "ad-hoc hypothesis" and > has little or no basis. Sounds vaguely like this dietary concept called Low Fat. Didn't low fat become so popular right around the time that everyone started worrying about cholesterol to the point where every two-bit corner drug store started offering cholesterol screenings? > It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to > prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X. Here's the analogy I tell people. Imagine that you came home from a trip, and your house was completely torn apart, as if by a tornado. As you inspected it, you'd see nails sticking out all over the place, wherever joints had been torn apart. There might even be loose nails lying around in the mess. So naturally you'd conclude that your house collapsed due to Nail Overload, right? Then you'd go around telling all your friends to have their houses checked for excessive nail placement, and soon we'd have an entire industry of guys with metal detectors charging big bucks to find all the extra nails in your house and remove them for you and replace them with screws. Makes perfect sense, right? That's what seems to have happened with cholesterol and heart attacks. Someone cut open some cadavers and saw that heart-attack victims tended to have high levels of cholesterol in their blood and near the heart. Being naturally disposed against cholesterol anyway because it tends to come from animals, they jumped to the conclusion that A caused B, and never considered that B might have caused A, or A might have been trying to stop B, or C might have caused A and B. SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/ "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." > It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks > also have Low Cholesterol. What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have heart attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its I've seen that slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm >> It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks >> also have Low Cholesterol. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks have normal > cholesterol levels. I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly simplified it. Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight. >>> It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks >>> also have Low Cholesterol. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly > simplified it. ... and I pretty much thought that's what you meant ... > Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight. SignatureRudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond. "It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!" -Emiliano Zapata Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at: http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm >>>> It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks >>>> also have Low Cholesterol. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > >> Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight. I think that one caution with regard to the stuff I posted is that the drug itself has some influence on heart disease. However, the high cholesterol (or LDL) proponents don't treat it that way. For instance, the "Prove it" trial used two different drugs at two different dosages, where one drug (at the higher dosage) lowered LDL by a larger degree and also appeared to cause fewer heart attacks. In this case, they asserted that it was the lowering of LDL that caused the fewer heart attacks, even though they used two drugs at two different dosages. Based on this flawed thought process, the study I posted "proved" that higher HDL = more heart attacks. SignatureBob in CT > When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good? > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > --Bob in CT I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical community has been fed "certain lines of sh.t" for so long that it is believed without question. This last Saturday I went to one of the local Food Lions (not the grocery store I usually go to) to get some hot dogs and buns as my wife won't eat hot dogs without them. Anyway, I made the mistake of reading the labels on the items. The first pack of buns I picked up (the store brand) had an ingredients list 3 miles long and included of all things SHELLAC as 'a glazing agent'. Next, I went to the bread isle and searched for the ones with the least amount of 'stuff' in them. What caught my attention (and the relevance to the O.P) is that they had one pack of some brand's 'Heart Healthy' ones. The only thing I could find that differentiated them was that they had slightly more fiber in them and listed brown sugar before the HFCS. Of course even the refinded 'white' ones had labels all over the place denoting their "whole grain" goodness. I also had a hell of a time trying to find hot dogs without the HFCS and it turns out there was ONLY one brand that didn't have it. So in answer to your question, when will they learn? Probably about the same time that the masses stop accepting all this crap being put in their food and get past the need for everything to be sweetened with corn syrup. >> When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good? >> [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > their food and get past the need for everything to be sweetened with > corn syrup. They will learn when they take the time to actually acquire factual information. We will be ice skating in Hades when that happens. After that, then the most people will learn the difference between loose and lose. > After that, then the most people will learn the difference between > loose and lose. <G> > I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical > community has been fed "certain lines of sh.t" for so long that it > is believed without question. Exhibit A: All the ads running during the NCAA basketball tournament, with the American Heart Association shilling for Subway because their food isn't "greasy." Not that a Subway sandwich could ever be greasy anyway. The huge amount of bread in one of those things could soak anything up. SignatureAaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/ "If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not zebras." >When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good? > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/ I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even at 80 and 93, and 99. :: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT" :: <ctviggen.x@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] :: family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even :: at 80 and 93, and 99. So why take statins? >:: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT" >:: <ctviggen.x@comcast.net> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >So why take statins? I'm shopping for a term life policy and they hike the premiums for high cholesterol by at least 50% Strangely enough, if you are taking statins and it brings the numbers down to normal, they don't penalize you. This is per a letter from Genworth company. :: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:02:38 -0400, "Roger Zoul" :: <rogerzoul2@hotmail.com> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] :: :: This is per a letter from Genworth company. Sounds like as good a reason as any! (good idea!) Amazing how insurance companies are running our life....if you don't take the drugs, they make you pay big time! |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.