[quote]Massif 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.
I try not to agree with anything you say (j/k), but good post.[/quote]
haha. thanks
Around 80% of cholesterol flowing through your arteries comes from your own internal production.
Cholesterol from the diet plays a rather minor role in the whole sha-bang.
Frankly, it is quite scary to see so many people who are interested in their own health having no freaking clue about how to read.
Next in line: Enteric-coated aspirin don’t reduce mortality but are just a scam by drug companies to increase sales of a slowing drug in the age of NSAIDs.
Depression doesn’t exist either, its all about lack of faith in the Lord, lack of will power and a weak character.
Anxiety disorders don’t exist either, people just don’t manage their stress well.
Vaccines serve no purpose but to introduce chemical tabs on people.
Antibiotics are useless as they just weaken your immune system and make you resistant to them.
Smoking does not kill, its just lawyer group who wanted to get in on the action.
What bothers me the most is that people go on site like this one and religiously take supplements which only have small petri dish studies done on them while they flip out on stuff that has years of research behind them.
It is just plain stupid. And somewhat sad.
Physicians are supposed to respect the beliefs and values of their patients and promote free and informed consent. Its really no wonder that they can often seem impatient.
Look at what you people do with your ability to get informed…you piss it away.
I can deal with people who are ignorant, most of the time it is not truly their fault, but people who seem to voluntarily want to be stupid is another matter.
If people like that didn’t have families that would grieve, I don’t think I would even bother trying to convince them to take the medication.
Anybody here belonging to the Flat-Earth Society?
AlexH.
You are closed minded on the subject of statins. As are most MDs.
These drugs are killing people.
[quote]Dandalex wrote:
Around 80% of cholesterol flowing through your arteries comes from your own internal production.
Cholesterol from the diet plays a rather minor role in the whole sha-bang.
Frankly, it is quite scary to see so many people who are interested in their own health having no freaking clue about how to read.
Next in line: Enteric-coated aspirin don’t reduce mortality but are just a scam by drug companies to increase sales of a slowing drug in the age of NSAIDs.
Depression doesn’t exist either, its all about lack of faith in the Lord, lack of will power and a weak character.
Anxiety disorders don’t exist either, people just don’t manage their stress well.
Vaccines serve no purpose but to introduce chemical tabs on people.
Antibiotics are useless as they just weaken your immune system and make you resistant to them.
Smoking does not kill, its just lawyer group who wanted to get in on the action.
What bothers me the most is that people go on site like this one and religiously take supplements which only have small petri dish studies done on them while they flip out on stuff that has years of research behind them.
It is just plain stupid. And somewhat sad.
Physicians are supposed to respect the beliefs and values of their patients and promote free and informed consent. Its really no wonder that they can often seem impatient.
Look at what you people do with your ability to get informed…you piss it away.
I can deal with people who are ignorant, most of the time it is not truly their fault, but people who seem to voluntarily want to be stupid is another matter.
If people like that didn’t have families that would grieve, I don’t think I would even bother trying to convince them to take the medication.
Anybody here belonging to the Flat-Earth Society?
AlexH.[/quote]
[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]
I think you are the one who doesn’t understand medical risk.
It is more like:
10 in 1000 die of heart attack at serum cholesterol of say 180 in a particular study.
15 in 1000 die in that same study at serum cholesterol level 250. (hypothetical numbers)
The drug company then touts their statin as lowering your “medical risk” of a deadly heart attack by a whopping 33% if you take their drug to get yourself into the lower 180 bracket.
Yes 1/3 less people died of a heart attack at one cholesterol level vs. the other, but that is not to say lowering your cholesterol to that level will give you a 33% better shot at not getting the heart attack. It is invented statistics.
1% of the people died of heart attack during the study at serum cholesterol level 180.
1.5% of the people died at serum cholesterol level 250.
Looks more like a .5% reduction in heart attacks to me… not the big numbers they tout. According to the posters they have up in the exam room at the doc’s the statin will save like 300+ people out of a thousand from a heart attack. When it may be more like 5 people.
And what about the side effects on those thousand people who think they NEED this product to “protect their loved ones from grief?” And EVERYONE who gets convinced to take a cholesterol test NEEDS the product because who the hell naturally has cholesterol below 180? Not me anyway.
I’m surprised my health insurance company hasn’t dropped my 30 year old ass yet for refusing a statin with cholesterol levels (at the exact moment of testing) above 250.
Maybe its the high cholesterol COMBINED with refined vegetable oils. I’ll have to research this. Maybe butter really is better 
[quote]Ultimate Warrior wrote:
ZEB:
i thought eggs is full of cholesterol? Is it a myth then?
thx[/quote]
Cholesterol in food does not cause cholesterol to go up in your body. Saturated fat is what causes cholesterol to go up in your body. However, what most fail to realize is that the HDL, or “good cholesterol” goes up as well when we consume saturated fat.
[quote]jsbrook wrote:
Ultimate Warrior wrote:
ZEB:
i thought eggs is full of cholesterol? Is it a myth then?
thx
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. [/quote]
I have been eating MUCH more cholesterol, probably 10X as much, as I used to. My cholesterol reading from a week ago was the same as two years ago.
I think Zeb’s major point is that in a fit individual on a good diet, cholesterol is a myth.
In addition, with a lot of antioxidants in the diet, even if you have mildly high cholesterol, it will probably make little difference. This has been shown in many studies, but again I go back to the example of the Masai: they eat primarily blood, milk and meat and have very little heart disease. Same thing with Americans near the turn of the century.
That’s why the AHA now allows you to eat yolks which have incredible amounts of cholesterol…
[quote]Dandalex wrote:
It is just plain stupid. And somewhat sad.
Anybody here belonging to the Flat-Earth Society?
AlexH.[/quote]
Now this is baffling to me. Science is quite often wrong in their modeling. Their studies will often be valid, but their underlying model partially or even completely wrong. One of the most important things to realize is that there are generally several different models floating around to explain a set of phenomenon. Quite often science shifts models.
I love studies and that?s pretty much all I read as far as nutrition and performance. But there are many ways to interpret the results of all the information pouring out of the universities and I don?t think name calling helps the flow of ideas and interpretation.
Besides, calling someone a member of the Flat Earth Society simply because they don?t accept the same model as you is a classic erroneous debating technique. Just site some studies that prove your point and be done with it.
But I think you?ll find it?s not as easy as you think depending on the point you want to make?
Whisper,
Two very good posts!
Zeb,
I have to disagree on one minor point. Saturated fat consumption is not what causes cholesterol levels to go up. A destructive lifestyle and diet high in polyunsaturated fat is the culprit behind increased cholesterol. The cholesterol is your body’s restorative response to damage caused by free radials. Free radials coming in high levels from oxidized rancid unstable polyunsaturates like most processed vegetable oils.
[quote]Whisper9999 wrote:
Dandalex wrote:
It is just plain stupid. And somewhat sad.
Anybody here belonging to the Flat-Earth Society?
AlexH.
Now this is baffling to me. Science is quite often wrong in their modeling. Their studies will often be valid, but their underlying model partially or even completely wrong. One of the most important things to realize is that there are generally several different models floating around to explain a set of phenomenon. Quite often science shifts models.
I love studies and that?s pretty much all I read as far as nutrition and performance. But there are many ways to interpret the results of all the information pouring out of the universities and I don?t think name calling helps the flow of ideas and interpretation.
Besides, calling someone a member of the Flat Earth Society simply because they don?t accept the same model as you is a classic erroneous debating technique. Just site some studies that prove your point and be done with it.
But I think you?ll find it?s not as easy as you think depending on the point you want to make?
[/quote]
Ah, my dear Whisper, this rant was not to convince anyone of anything. It was not an argment in anyway.
It was simply someone shouting at the senslessness of this thread. I see the argumentation brought forth and I feel like someone seeing the destruction of great works at the hand of barbarians, wheter they burned books or destroyed millenia-old Buddhas.
You see, people here as so far off the basic understanding of reading studies that it would be funny were it not so pathetic.
Of course, this is to be expected, how many here have even limited exposure to critical appraisal, or spent hours writing critics of such studies to understand their strenghts and flaws or even have taken one evidence-based medicine class.
People here read a couple of studies and are now self-annoited experts, proposing their own theories, a significant part of which have already been discarded.
Hell, even true expert opinion rates as the lowest form of evidence. It would be interesting to discuss cutting edge scientific research but discussion cholesterol as a risk factor? We are not in the 1950s where that could have been an intellectually stimulating debate.
This is akin to the vaccine debates that are raised once in while, or people who believe that AIDS doesn’t kill people.
Why would I want to submit and article to show my point when everybody has access to Pubmed and the worst of imbecile is able to search through it. When you have 1000 studies pointing in 1 direction and 2 pointing the other way it should give you an indication of the underlying/approximated truth.
However, this does not seem to be the case, as per the current thread.
In the end, one should not read with the underlying idea of just trying to find articles to prove your point and discard all others as per Mercola and co.
People read a couple of those articles and believe that they have seen the light that no one in the whole scientific community worldwide has seen! Oh, the humility is astounding!
Instead of believing you are part of the few who UNDERSTAND!!! the intricacies of human physiology, expressed in the broadest strokes of the likes of ‘‘High Cholesterol in the healthy and active is no problem’’, you should be telling yourselves, ‘‘Ok, what am I missing here that everybody else with some knowledge and experience in the domain seem to know and accept as evident by now’’.
This is like watching people who can barely count argue about quantum physics equations and saying how evident it is that this or that is impossible or clearly happening.
When people are ready to stop looking at their own mediocre intellects as being beacons of intelligence, maybe my contempt will fade.
I know nothing except the fact of my own ignorance…
and that came out about 2400 years ago, you guys are kinda late to the game.
Scary and saddening,
AlexH.
[quote]Dandalex wrote:
Whisper9999 wrote:
Dandalex wrote:
It is just plain stupid. And somewhat sad.
Anybody here belonging to the Flat-Earth Society?
AlexH.
Now this is baffling to me. Science is quite often wrong in their modeling. Their studies will often be valid, but their underlying model partially or even completely wrong. One of the most important things to realize is that there are generally several different models floating around to explain a set of phenomenon. Quite often science shifts models.
I love studies and that?s pretty much all I read as far as nutrition and performance. But there are many ways to interpret the results of all the information pouring out of the universities and I don?t think name calling helps the flow of ideas and interpretation.
Besides, calling someone a member of the Flat Earth Society simply because they don?t accept the same model as you is a classic erroneous debating technique. Just site some studies that prove your point and be done with it.
But I think you?ll find it?s not as easy as you think depending on the point you want to make?
Ah, my dear Whisper, this rant was not to convince anyone of anything. It was not an argment in anyway.
It was simply someone shouting at the senslessness of this thread. I see the argumentation brought forth and I feel like someone seeing the destruction of great works at the hand of barbarians, wheter they burned books or destroyed millenia-old Buddhas.
You see, people here as so far off the basic understanding of reading studies that it would be funny were it not so pathetic.
Of course, this is to be expected, how many here have even limited exposure to critical appraisal, or spent hours writing critics of such studies to understand their strenghts and flaws or even have taken one evidence-based medicine class.
People here read a couple of studies and are now self-annoited experts, proposing their own theories, a significant part of which have already been discarded.
Hell, even true expert opinion rates as the lowest form of evidence. It would be interesting to discuss cutting edge scientific research but discussion cholesterol as a risk factor? We are not in the 1950s where that could have been an intellectually stimulating debate.
This is akin to the vaccine debates that are raised once in while, or people who believe that AIDS doesn’t kill people.
Why would I want to submit and article to show my point when everybody has access to Pubmed and the worst of imbecile is able to search through it. When you have 1000 studies pointing in 1 direction and 2 pointing the other way it should give you an indication of the underlying/approximated truth.
However, this does not seem to be the case, as per the current thread.
In the end, one should not read with the underlying idea of just trying to find articles to prove your point and discard all others as per Mercola and co.
People read a couple of those articles and believe that they have seen the light that no one in the whole scientific community worldwide has seen! Oh, the humility is astounding!
Instead of believing you are part of the few who UNDERSTAND!!! the intricacies of human physiology, expressed in the broadest strokes of the likes of ‘‘High Cholesterol in the healthy and active is no problem’’, you should be telling yourselves, ‘‘Ok, what am I missing here that everybody else with some knowledge and experience in the domain seem to know and accept as evident by now’’.
This is like watching people who can barely count argue about quantum physics equations and saying how evident it is that this or that is impossible or clearly happening.
When people are ready to stop looking at their own mediocre intellects as being beacons of intelligence, maybe my contempt will fade.
I know nothing except the fact of my own ignorance…
and that came out about 2400 years ago, you guys are kinda late to the game.
Scary and saddening,
AlexH.[/quote]
You are a smug and pompus ass.
[quote]T-Rav wrote:
Zeb,
I have to disagree on one minor point. Saturated fat consumption is not what causes cholesterol levels to go up. A destructive lifestyle and diet high in polyunsaturated fat is the culprit behind increased cholesterol. The cholesterol is your body’s restorative response to damage caused by free radials. Free radials coming in high levels from oxidized rancid unstable polyunsaturates like most processed vegetable oils.[/quote]
I did not mean to imply that saturated fat was THE only substance that is capable of raising cholesterol levels (both good and bad).
In fact, I could not agree with you more relative to your take on processed vegetable oils/free radicals etc.
[quote]Dandalex wrote:
Ah, my dear Whisper, this rant was not to convince anyone of anything. It was not an argment in anyway.
It was simply someone shouting at the senslessness of this thread. I see the argumentation brought forth and I feel like someone seeing the destruction of great works at the hand of barbarians, wheter they burned books or destroyed millenia-old Buddhas.
You see, people here as so far off the basic understanding of reading studies that it would be funny were it not so pathetic.
Of course, this is to be expected, how many here have even limited exposure to critical appraisal, or spent hours writing critics of such studies to understand their strenghts and flaws or even have taken one evidence-based medicine class.
People here read a couple of studies and are now self-annoited experts, proposing their own theories, a significant part of which have already been discarded.
Hell, even true expert opinion rates as the lowest form of evidence. It would be interesting to discuss cutting edge scientific research but discussion cholesterol as a risk factor? We are not in the 1950s where that could have been an intellectually stimulating debate.
This is akin to the vaccine debates that are raised once in while, or people who believe that AIDS doesn’t kill people.
Why would I want to submit and article to show my point when everybody has access to Pubmed and the worst of imbecile is able to search through it. When you have 1000 studies pointing in 1 direction and 2 pointing the other way it should give you an indication of the underlying/approximated truth.
However, this does not seem to be the case, as per the current thread.
In the end, one should not read with the underlying idea of just trying to find articles to prove your point and discard all others as per Mercola and co.
People read a couple of those articles and believe that they have seen the light that no one in the whole scientific community worldwide has seen! Oh, the humility is astounding!
Instead of believing you are part of the few who UNDERSTAND!!! the intricacies of human physiology, expressed in the broadest strokes of the likes of ‘‘High Cholesterol in the healthy and active is no problem’’, you should be telling yourselves, ‘‘Ok, what am I missing here that everybody else with some knowledge and experience in the domain seem to know and accept as evident by now’’.
This is like watching people who can barely count argue about quantum physics equations and saying how evident it is that this or that is impossible or clearly happening.
When people are ready to stop looking at their own mediocre intellects as being beacons of intelligence, maybe my contempt will fade.
I know nothing except the fact of my own ignorance…
and that came out about 2400 years ago, you guys are kinda late to the game.
Scary and saddening,
AlexH.[/quote]
You seem to have “enlightened” so many others on the 140 or so other threads that you took part in.
Why don’t you just jump in and steer us all in the proper direction regarding the topic of cholesterol.
Light a candle man.
[quote]Dandalex wrote:
In the end, one should not read with the underlying idea of just trying to find articles to prove your point and discard all others as per Mercola and co.
[/quote]
My point is this: the Masai, turn-of-the-century Americans, the French, the Eskimos and other cultures have proven that there is a healthy lifestyle where you can have your saturated fat and cholesterol w/o having risk factors. There?s nothing really to argue about that, is there? They?ve laid the ground work for us ? all we have to do is figure out what they did.
But, more to the point, you keep making an assertion that, at least in my case, I basically agree with and then calling me a ?flat earther?. I agree that for the typical American, which is who comprises the great majority of studies, that cholesterol is a risk factor.
But that?s not what I?m getting at. Here?s what I?m trying to get everyone to think about:
–Is cholesterol a risk factor for TOTAL mortality? I don?t believe that this been solidly established at all.
–Does there exist a ?healthy? lifestyle that negates the risk factors of medium cholesterol? (The Masai, the French, tun-of-the-century Americans and the Eskimos all say a resounding ?yes? if you ask me.)
And please don?t tell me saturated fat and cholesterol are not important here on T-Nation. I have read the studies that show the ration of SFA/PUFA is directly related to baseline T-levels. Everyone on T-Nation, esp. those over the age of 35, should be very interested in the subject.
Imo, their T depends on it?
[quote]Whisper9999 wrote:
Dandalex wrote:
My point is this: the Masai, turn-of-the-century Americans, the French, the Eskimos and other cultures have proven that there is a healthy lifestyle where you can have your saturated fat and cholesterol w/o having risk factors. There?s nothing really to argue about that, is there? They?ve laid the ground work for us ? all we have to do is figure out what they did.
But, more to the point, you keep making an assertion that, at least in my case, I basically agree with and then calling me a ?flat earther?. I agree that for the typical American, which is who comprises the great majority of studies, that cholesterol is a risk factor.
But that?s not what I?m getting at. Here?s what I?m trying to get everyone to think about:
–Is cholesterol a risk factor for TOTAL mortality? I don?t believe that this been solidly established at all.
–Does there exist a ?healthy? lifestyle that negates the risk factors of medium cholesterol? (The Masai, the French, tun-of-the-century Americans and the Eskimos all say a resounding ?yes? if you ask me.)
And please don?t tell me saturated fat and cholesterol are not important here on T-Nation. I have read the studies that show the ration of SFA/PUFA is directly related to baseline T-levels. Everyone on T-Nation, esp. those over the age of 35, should be very interested in the subject.
Imo, their T depends on it?
[/quote]
Whisper, the objective is not to discuss wheter or not you can negate the risk factor with other things. Of course you can negate the influences through various means.
The topic here is on cholesterol as a risk/benefit factor.
For example, we know that elevated levels of cholesterol are associated with cardiovascular mortality. Is it associated with total mortality? I haven’t checked that out yet, but it is bound to be more difficult to prove by the simple definition of total mortality and the size-of-effect dilution that comes in.
As for the healthy lifestyle your are talking about, lets not compare apples and oranges. Yep the French have a good amount of fat in their diet, mostly of a relatively beneficial kind. But it kinda helps that they take in like a third less calories and have higher energy expenditure.
As for the Eskimos, by 50-55 years of age, around 25% of them have CHD even with there high consumption of n-3 FA. Now how do we know that it was not lower total calories and increased energy expenditure that might accout for positive factors.
As for the Masai, they have advanced atherosclerosis, but do not suffer the consequence. Lucky for them. That is like arguing that my grand-father is proof that cigarettes don’t kill people he smoked 2 packs a day since he was 13 and lived healthy until 97 when he died in a car crash…(My real Grand-dad died during a bypass op, shouldn’t have been smoking). So they have atherosclerosis, what we don’t understand is why they don’t die from it like the rest of the world. Are they then what you wish to base your assertions?
The point is, just because we don’t know exactly why X, Y, Z populational subgroups is not as affected as another does not imply in anyway that established links do not exist.
You can smoke and be a marathoner, and maintain a healthy lung capacity. How does that change the fact that smoking reduces lung capacity, for exemple.
You can negate something but you would probably be alot better if you didn’t do the negative thing in the first place. You can be overweight and active, and have almost the same risk profile of a normal weight and sedentary individual. Your risk profile would be much better if your were normal weight and active. You can drink 4 gallons of Pespi a day if you run 20 miles a day…
I am failling to see the point here. In most nutrional based instances of risk factors, the size of effect is often small. Cholesterol also has a moderate effect, but such effect is probably moderated (influenced by) other factors.
Some people are prone to atherosclerosis even with low level of serum cholesterol, but for these people, the higher the cholesterol, the worst the prognosis is.
On the other hand, some people don’t seem to develop significant atherosclerosis even in the presence of high level of cholesterol.
What does that imply? Nothing beyond that some people are genetically ‘‘superior’’. Hell, my sendentary best friend who eats mayonaise by the tablespoon to put on his full-fat mergez and french fries with the 2 liter of sugary fruit juice is an example of this.
There I was, a cocky confident bastard, training for a marathon, hitting the weights 4 times a week and eating cleaner than Berardi himself, so convinced that I would show him the errors of his ways when the blood tests came in, saying how bad his results would look.
Of course, he humiliated me on blood tests. He had lower glucose levels, lower glycated hemoglobin, lower triglycerides, above range HDL and below range LDL. My numbers were good compared to the average popopulation, but damn I was maxing out on all variables and he wasn’t doing squat…
Personal aparte aside, we have not yet figured out who will respond to cholesterol and who will not, just like we don’t know exactly why some poeple just never get lung cancer even after having smoked like coal plants for 70 year straight. What we do know is that a lot of people out there respond to high levels of cholesterol, which is one of the reasons why statins work well at reducing mortality/morbidity in this group of patient. We also know that statins as primary prevention are really not that good, but hey, not many things are.
How many of you guys know the size of your arteries, anyone had an echo or an angiogram lately?
End point, you don’t know if your are ‘‘immune to cholestorol/atherosclerosis’’, normal or prone. Most people belonging to the normal group, it would simply be wise to trie to maintain ‘‘normal’’ levels of cholesterol.
As for saturated fats and cholesterol and T, I understand these might be interesting research venues and are topics that are important to you, if I remember our previous exchange correctly, but this represents too large an undertaking at this late hour. Then again, this was not a point with which I had beef in my earlier rant.
For example, this belongs in an area of research that I might want to look into as it is more cutting edge and intellecutally challenging. As opposed to other proposed opinions.
For Zeb, I appreciate the comment on my post if it was not being sarcastic, but in the words of Conan the Barbarian, if your were, ‘‘Then to Hell with you!’’.
I hope that you realize what a huge undertaking it is to mount a rebuttal to an article like the one you have submitted, or to any of Dr Mercola’s article for that matter. The first because it requires inspecting all the cited studies for their infered conclusion in the text. The second because he simply twists the truth on so many issues that explaining them all becomes so tedious you want to stop.
As for Dr Ravnskov, its interesting, and expert on cholesterol but hasn’t published a single article on it execpt for comments againts the conclusion about statins/dietary fat and cholesterol.
Now I don’t like to refer to Experts but I am wondering why he’s the only guy who seems to think this way about cholesterol. Where is everybody else? The pharm companies haven’t bought the whole world, especially not all university/institution based researcher, who quite often, just don’t like them.
I hope this was not a too incoherent/typo ridden message for you too read, but I was a bit tired as I wrote this.
AlexH.
[quote]My point is this: the Masai[/quote]Do some research on the masai, having a massive aorta and altered cholesterol metabolism is an interesting thing
[quote] turn-of-the-century Americans[/quote] Pointless. Tell us how many subjects died of CHD in 1890? accurately, or at least as accurate as we can now? you know, since the likes of the NHIS was set up in '57
Also include their average life span?
A few interesting things about the french. Alcohol related deaths vs other countries, the lovely time lag theory, and thats even avoiding reporting differences
You understand how high LCPUFA influenced CHD risk? its not via cholesterol.
Except we are not other cultures. Enviroment and genetics. Funny things those.
Except your examples are nearly pointless
Had differnet parents? are you masai, french, or eskimo?
no, but a lot of other things are invovled in total mortality. Which is why they break things down into different causes of death, like cardiovascular.
now show us that eating a low safa diet reduces T? Nice correlation tho.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
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.[/quote]
do you understand the difference between causal factor, and risk factor?
[quote]T-Rav wrote:
Zeb,
I have to disagree on one minor point. Saturated fat consumption is not what causes cholesterol levels to go up. A destructive lifestyle and diet high in polyunsaturated fat is the culprit behind increased cholesterol. The cholesterol is your body’s restorative response to damage caused by free radials. Free radials coming in high levels from oxidized rancid unstable polyunsaturates like most processed vegetable oils.[/quote]
now show us the evidence, surely if its this hard and fast you have the evidence that saturates do not influence cholesterol levels, and its all polyunsaturates
I have. Had one and a stress test back in Oct. 05. My cholesterol is about 214 and the son of a bitch started talking statins and dietary changes.
Allow me to explain that I get a stress test and echo cardiogram done about every five years because there appears to be some heart disease in my family. My mother dropped dead of a heart attack (I was there when it happened) and her last cholesterol reading was around 160 at the age of 72.
Now, back to the doctors office: so I’m sitting there listening to this fat bastard tell me about available drugs and dietary changes. I explain to him my weightlifting hobby and he states that I should do cardio instead of lifting weights because lifting weights will make my heart big. Great, I’ll stop lifting, take your drugs and do cardio instead.
Typical medical community bullshit. Fix it with drugs. They are sooooo owned by the pharmaceutical companies.
I have very little faith in doctors. Remember, they are trying to sell you their product.
Oh, and by the way all my tests were fine. I could rant on as there is much more to say but, I’m gonna go eat some eggs now.