[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Maybe the issue/lesson is not that high cholesterol is good. But that lowering it through ARTICFICIAL means isn’t particularly beneficial.[/quote]
Great post
[quote]Whisper9999 wrote:
cycomiko wrote:
Whisper9999 wrote:
Like cholesterol, when lowered reduces CVD risk. (and Uffe Ravnskov is a fringe retard)
Yes, but the point of several of the posts above is the following:
even if lowering cholesterol does slightly reduces CVD risk - and personally I don’t think it does any such thing in people who eat a decent diet - it raises mortality in other key areas. The research shows it’s a net wash or worse which challenges the whole lipid hypothesis.
[/quote]No it doesnt. maybe you should actually read the research instead of the ramblings of nutters.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Maybe the issue/lesson is not that high cholesterol is good. But that lowering it through ARTICFICIAL means isn’t particularly beneficial.[/quote]
I try not to agree with anything you say (j/k), but good post.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
Maybe the issue/lesson is not that high cholesterol is good. But that lowering it through ARTICFICIAL means isn’t particularly beneficial.
Great post
[/quote]
except that it has been shown to be beneficial…
Not sure why I am bothering but…
The Framingham Heart Study was started 50 years ago to evaluate risk factors for what was becoming the number one killer at the time…heart disease.
This study has been continued for almost 50 years by the National Heart , Lung, and Blood Institute with collaboration of the Boston University and other Universities.
No drug companies are involved with this study. In fact when cholesterol was implicated, there were no drugs to treat high cholesterol. The vast majority of cardiac risk factors has come from this ongoing 50 year study. Other studies have been collaborating its findings, but this is the study that started everything.
It was years later that drug companies found drugs that lower cholesterol.
Go here, The Framingham Heart Study: Background Information
then you can find thousands of studies, none by drug companies, on the major source of why cholesterol, low HDL, trigylcerides, homocysteine levels, high CRP, lack of exercise, obesity, etc. has been linked to increase cardiac risk.
Drug companies no doubt are going to embellish and profit anyway they can, but geesh, whats up with all the conspiracy theories.
[quote]spamme wrote:
Not sure why I am bothering but…
The Framingham Heart Study was started 50 years ago to evaluate risk factors for what was becoming the number one killer at the time…heart disease.
This study has been continued for almost 50 years by the National Heart , Lung, and Blood Institute with collaboration of the Boston University and other Universities.
No drug companies are involved with this study. In fact when cholesterol was implicated, there were no drugs to treat high cholesterol. The vast majority of cardiac risk factors has come from this ongoing 50 year study. Other studies have been collaborating its findings, but this is the study that started everything.
It was years later that drug companies found drugs that lower cholesterol.
Go here, The Framingham Heart Study: Background Information
then you can find thousands of studies, none by drug companies, on the major source of why cholesterol, low HDL, trigylcerides, homocysteine levels, high CRP, lack of exercise, obesity, etc. has been linked to increase cardiac risk.
Drug companies no doubt are going to embellish and profit anyway they can, but geesh, whats up with all the conspiracy theories.
[/quote]
I agree that low HDL, high homocysteine and high CRP do in fact cause heart disease. However, there is no proof that high cholesterol alone is a risk factor.
Furthermore, the Framingham Study never recommended high doses of statins!
Its a free country, one can believe anything.
Physicians rarely accept studies done by those with bias interest. But studies such as this one in NEJM performed by a non-drug organization is among the best non-biased studies suggeting statins that lower total cholesterol do reduce the risk of CAD
http://www.gla.ac.uk/departments/pathologicalbiochemistry/lipids/woscops.html
or the Air Force/Texas study
you can find many studies (without drug company influence) showing lowering total cholesterol with drugs reduces the risk of CAD. Do the drugs have some bad side effects, yep. Would I take them for mildly elevated cholesterol… nope.
If I had familial high cholesterol, (genetically high total cholesterol of 300-500 seen in some families most of whom die from heart disease in their 30’s to 50’s) I would certainly take them. In between, very high and mildly high, I don’t know, depends.
Regarding research on total cholesterol alone being a risk factor, there are hundreds of studies showing a 100% increase in risk of CAD death with total cholesterol over 240. The Framingham heart study showed, when other variables are controlled for (compare those with only risk factor being high cholesterol to those with no risk factors), that high total cholesterol, especially high LDL, was one of the most statistically significant findings in rating the risk of death from CAD.
Saying you only believe some of the studies finding, again its a free country.
Is it 100% certain that cholesterol is the culprit, no. It rarely is that conclusive. Is it 99% sure, if you believe in biostatistics it is. But the real question is am I going to believe hundreds of researches that have no biased interest spanning 5 decades or someone on the internet. hmmm.
[quote]jehovasfitness wrote:
HDL good
LDL bad
[/quote]
How about:
HDL good
oxidized LDL bad.
Spamme:
The study that you cited was sponsored by a drug company!
How did you miss this:
And there is no conclusive proof that high cholesterol in and of itself causes heart attacks!
It seems to be one factor. But, why then do half the people who have a heart attack have normal or low cholesterol? Apparently, there is much more to the puzzle.
I think it is a very complex problem. Do the drug companies try to solve this problem? No. Do they care? No. They want to make money! And if they keep the cholesterol myth alive they continue to make money.
Why is that so difficult for people to believe?
Do you remember the ulcer drugs that the drug companies used to sell? Then a very brave physician proved that ulcers were caused by a bacteria.
Certainly everything has not been discovered regarding why people have heart attacks. And I find it ridiculous on it’s face that say a 35 year old healthy man who trains three or four times per week and eats a healthy diet of natural food and has their body weight in check, needs to be on statins the rest of his life.
There’s only one reason for that, and that is to increase the revenues of the drug companies!
Why is it difficult to believe that money is at the root of this foolish cholesterol scare?
[quote]ScottL wrote:
How about:
HDL good
oxidized LDL bad.[/quote]
Exactly!
And how can we keep the LDL from oxidizing?
Think, it’s an easy answer.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
ScottL wrote:
How about:
HDL good
oxidized LDL bad.
Exactly!
And how can we keep the LDL from oxidizing?
Think, it’s an easy answer.
[/quote]
Anti-oxidants???
Eat your berries. Mom was right again.
TNT
[quote]ZEB wrote:
Why is it difficult to believe that money is at the root of this foolish cholesterol scare?
[/quote]
Because the drug companies aren’t the ones who first said cholesterol was bad. The Framingham study did. And that was prior to the existance of any drugs to treat cholesterol.
You seem to not understand risk factors. Risk factors are not absolute.
High cholesterol increases risk 2 fold of MI. For example:
100 people with no risk factors 10 die of MI.
Another 100 people with only high cholesterol, 20 die of MI.
Another 100 people with high cholesterol and high CRP, 30 die of MI.
Another 100 people with only obesity and diabetes as risk factor, 25 die of MI.
Basically increased risk, is just that, some measure of increased risk. NONE of the risk factors suggest you will absolutely die from an MI, NONE of the risk factors are necessary to die from an MI. Just the more risk factors, the more likely you are to die from an MI.
[quote]cycomiko wrote:
Whisper9999 wrote:
cycomiko wrote:
Whisper9999 wrote:
Like cholesterol, when lowered reduces CVD risk. (and Uffe Ravnskov is a fringe retard)
Yes, but the point of several of the posts above is the following:
even if lowering cholesterol does slightly reduces CVD risk - and personally I don’t think it does any such thing in people who eat a decent diet - it raises mortality in other key areas. The research shows it’s a net wash or worse which challenges the whole lipid hypothesis.
No it doesnt. maybe you should actually read the research instead of the ramblings of nutters.
[/quote]
To me it looks like everything is changing, i.e. the whole industry is backpedaling.
For example, why does the AHA now allow almost an egg a day for example? If cholesterol is so nasty for you, and eggs have the equivalent cholesterol of five hamburgers if I remember right, then why would they allow that as part of your everyday diet? The answer, of course, is that eating of cholesterol has nothing to do with heart disease or cholesterol levels.
Here’s another example: ten years ago, noone cared about trans fats except for a few so-called alarmists. Now we are going to have labelling for it and article after article is coming out about the dangers of trans fats.
Imo saturated fat will be the giant to topple…
[quote]spamme wrote:
ZEB wrote:
Why is it difficult to believe that money is at the root of this foolish cholesterol scare?
Because the drug companies aren’t the ones who first said cholesterol was bad. The Framingham study did. And that was prior to the existance of any drugs to treat cholesterol.
You seem to not understand risk factors. Risk factors are not absolute.
High cholesterol increases risk 2 fold of MI. For example:
100 people with no risk factors 10 die of MI.
Another 100 people with only high cholesterol, 20 die of MI.
Another 100 people with high cholesterol and high CRP, 30 die of MI.
Another 100 people with only obesity and diabetes as risk factor, 25 die of MI.
Basically increased risk, is just that, some measure of increased risk. NONE of the risk factors suggest you will absolutely die from an MI, NONE of the risk factors are necessary to die from an MI. Just the more risk factors, the more likely you are to die from an MI.
[/quote]
Yes, and I know you know this as you know more than I do, but why is it that the French have half the heart disease of us and yet eat much more cholesterol and fat? Why is it that turn-of-the-century American consumed great amounts of cholesterol with much less cardiovascular disease? And why do the Masai have so little heart disease?
I think everyone?s point is simply that something is missing from the equation here. In other words, the saturated fat and cholesterol in our diets are not the culprit (unless you?re eating bacon 3X/day).
Example: I have drastically changed my diet in the last few months and added one egg yolk per day and one serving of beef per day. In addition, I sometimes have coconut oil as well. My cholesterol was the same that it was two years ago when I at only chicken and no beef or yolks.
Okay, if you?re cholesterol is 250, then you?re at an extreme and you may need to medicate. Just like someone with a T-level of 300 may need HRT.
But, again, I just don?t see cholesterol and sat fat as the root of the problem?
[quote]Whisper9999 wrote:
I think everyone?s point is simply that something is missing from the equation here. In other words, the saturated fat and cholesterol in our diets are not the culprit (unless you?re eating bacon 3X/day).
[/quote]
I would agree with that. First the Framingham study was referring to high blood levels of cholesterol, and again it is just one risk factor of many.
Most people on this site, those exercising, eating less than 30% fat calories, mixed fats, and non-obese, aren’t the ones that need to be worrying about cholesterol and fat intake (except those with genetically high cholesterol).
Neither does anyone else except those who actually listen to the drug company commercial’s exaggerations on TV, or those media types who regurgitate it.
I would read the framingham study and go by their levels, not the one’s the drug company’s are pushing.
If the point of this thread was saying high cholesterol has no risk I would disagree.
If the point was, the drug company’s have taken this one risk factor (that primarily applies to the sedentary obese and those with genetically high cholesterol) and have tried to apply it to the entire population using scare tactics for monetary gain, then I would agree.
[quote]spamme wrote:
If the point of this thread was saying high cholesterol has no risk I would disagree.
If the point was, the drug company’s have taken this one risk factor (that primarily applies to the sedentary obese and those with genetically high cholesterol) and have tried to apply it to the entire population using scare tactics for monetary gain, then I would agree.[/quote]
Good points.
[quote]spamme wrote:
You seem to not understand risk factors. Risk factors are not absolute.
High cholesterol increases risk 2 fold of MI. For example:
100 people with no risk factors 10 die of MI.
Another 100 people with only high cholesterol, 20 die of MI.
Another 100 people with high cholesterol and high CRP, 30 die of MI.
Another 100 people with only obesity and diabetes as risk factor, 25 die of MI.
Basically increased risk, is just that, some measure of increased risk. NONE of the risk factors suggest you will absolutely die from an MI, NONE of the risk factors are necessary to die from an MI. Just the more risk factors, the more likely you are to die from an MI.
[/quote]
I understand that an observation was made a long time ago which is not totally correct!
Then, the drug companies jumped on the band wagon in a (very successful) attempt to sell more statin drugs to the public.
I also understand that high cholesterol in and of itself kills no one! That is something that the drug companies don’t want you, or anyone else to know.
I also know that more people are dying of heart disease today (proportionally) than they did prior to statin drugs.
I also know that the USA takes more statin drugs than any other developed country and we also have the second highest rate of heart disease.
I am not denying that if someone has high cholesterol and IF they also have many of the other risk factors then high cholesterol (above 250) can be a danger.
That means that along with the high cholesterol they also have
-
High homocysteine levels,
-
High Blood Pressure
-
High inflammation,
-
Overweight,
-
Have a low activity level
-
A very poor “unnatural” diet
-
Perhaps a smoker
Now I ask you, if the above represents our patient do you think that prescribing a cholesterol drug is the BEST way to treat him?
My point is that the very least of this persons problems is a cholesterol of 250!
Every other item on the list is FAR more dangerous to this health and longevity than the high cholesterol.
Why isn’t the man put on a strict diet of natural foods?
No money to be made there!
Why isn’t the man told (and helped) to stop smoking?
Very little money to be made there!
Why isn’t the man put on a strict exercise regime?
No money to be made there!
Getting the picture yet?
There is no other drug that matches the profit potential of the statin group. It’s a money machine for the drug companies.
Pfizer’s sales of Lipitor alone were $8 BILLION for the year 2002. That is only one drug company and only one statin. There are five statin drugs and many, many drug companies.
Billions and billions of dollars would be lost if this foolish fixation on cholesterol is not maintained.
Someday this entire cholesterol scare will go down in history along with other things the “experts” stated that just wasn’t true.
Don’t eat eggs-
Avoid all fats-
High carb diets-
Open your eyes my man-not everyone, in particular the drug companies have your best interest in mind.
"Low Cholesterol and HIV/AIDS
Young, unmarried men with a previous sexually transmitted disease or liver disease run a much greater risk of becoming infected with HIV virus than other people. The Minnesota researchers, now led by Dr. Ami Claxton, followed such individuals for 7-8 years. After having excluded those who became HIV-positive during the first four years, they ended up with a group of 2446 men. At the end of the study, 140 of these people tested positive for HIV; those who had low cholesterol at the beginning of the study were twice as likely to test postitive for HIV compared with those with the highest cholesterol.6
Similar results come from a study of the MRFIT screenees, including more than 300,000 young and middle-aged men, which found that 16 years after the first cholesterol analysis the number of men whose cholesterol was lower than 160 and who had died from AIDS was four times higher than the number of men who had died from AIDS with a cholesterol above 240.7 "
Wow you gotta explain this to me more! Is it saying that having high cholesterol will prevent me from having sex with AIDS infected people or getting into situations where I cut myself with an AIDS infected knife? I think maybe people with low cholesterol maybe dying faster of AIDS due to the cholesterol level, but I don’t think that risk of initial infection has that much to do with it. (Tell me if it does) And, you’ve gotta remember that people who die of AIDS actually die of other diseases that HIV virus makes the body vulnerable to. But, these all have to do with low cholesterol, but maybe there is a level of “normal” cholesterol. And I agree with everyone who says that exercise will help and oxidation of LDL is bad, but this AIDS thing stumped me here for a minute.
ZEB:
i thought eggs is full of cholesterol? Is it a myth then?
thx
[quote]Ultimate Warrior wrote:
ZEB:
i thought eggs is full of cholesterol? Is it a myth then?
thx[/quote]
Eggs do have a good amount of cholesterol. No myth. But even if high cholesterol is bad, excessive saturated fat has much more of impact on cholesterol than dietary cholesterol.