High Cholesterol Is Good For You!

[quote]cycomiko wrote:
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.

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[/quote]

No problem:

The Framingham Heart Study is often cited as proof of the lipid hypothesis. This study began in 1948 and involved some 6,000 people from the town of Framingham, Massachusetts. Two groups were compared at five-year intervals?those who consumed little cholesterol and saturated fat and those who consumed large amounts.

After 40 years, the director of this study had to admit: “In Framingham, Mass, the more saturated fat one ate, the more cholesterol one ate, the more calories one ate, the lower the person’s serum cholesterol. . . we found that the people who ate the most cholesterol, ate the most saturated fat, ate the most calories, weighed the least and were the most physically active.”

[quote]cycomiko wrote:
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.

do you understand the difference between causal factor, and risk factor?[/quote]

Yes, do you?

[quote]gojira wrote:

How many of you guys know the size of your arteries, anyone had an echo or an angiogram lately?

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.
[/quote]

Right you are!

[quote]gojira wrote:

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.
[/quote]

Good to hear all your tests are normal.

But my question was rethorical, just to make people understand that they have no idea if they belong to a really prone group or not. My cholesterol is pretty low and my HDL is pretty high, but I could be atherosclerosing pretty intensly.

Just like a dead guy I saw recently on the autopsy table, lean as hell, muscular, chronic jogger, 45 years old, said to be in tip top shape. The doc showed me some of his major arteries, look at that, couldn’t even get a fish wire in there. His thoracic and abdominal aorta was so calcified I could of used it as a replacement barbell.

If we had a better test of endothelial dysfonction, it would be nice, but we only have indirect methods. Maybe one day, we’ll be able to tell Mr. X that he has basically no chances of developping atherosclerosis or that another guy should be really careful but we are not there yet.

But to the fact that medical doctors are sooo owned by pharmaceutical companies, I’ll have to disagree somewhat.

I don’t know about the US, but North of the border, basically no doctor is getting enough gifts to warrant any undeserved change in prescribing habits. What influences docs towards statins for example is seeing journal article after journal article showing new evidence of statin efficacy. As well as the guidelines that come out.

So if a doc thinks you should lower your cholesterol levels he will choose the single most effective method of doing so, which are statins. Whether reducing cholesterol is trully an effective mean to achieve significant CHD mortality/morbidity reduction in all risk brackets is another discussion altogther.

But such discussion does not interest me at the time, since I don’t plan on doing a litterature review on it anytime soon. (Interestingly, I a currently taking a class on the Lipoprotein Metabolism, and I could have gotten to write a paper on Statins, but I drew another topic from the hat. And the bastard who drew it didn’t want to switch, my topic sucks ass. You guys (an me of course) could have benefited.

Now, if you do not want to take statins solely because they are from pharmaceutical companies, why don’t you use alternatives that work through the same pathway. Of course, these alternatives are significantly less effective at reducing cholesterol but at least it will be a start. And they have other benefits.

Eat Red Yeast Rice. A cardiologist at a conference at the Montreal Heart Institute was arguing that it might nutritional advice from which people at large might benefit since it contains the equivalent from low doses of Zocor (since it is Zocor in it). (

To me thats akin to liking a Penecillium fungus when you could take the pill, but that way everybody can have some of the benefits)

Drink grean tea, it as some cholesterol blocking properties, a bit like the new Ezitimbide.

Cinammon research is hinting that there is some HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibition after consumming it in the gram range 1-6. And helps control glucose levels through insulin receptor phosphorylation.

As for the whole fix it with drugs bullshit…well, I agree with you, thats what they do. But I agree with them, that is largely the only way.

Not the only way that works in studies, but the only way that works in life.

If people ate well and exercice, we probably would not need Type 2 diabetes medication or anti-obesity meds or surgery (that seems to be gaining momentum).

An to be honest with you, there used to be recommendations to use dietary change and exercice for 6 months before trying drugs to see if the problems would be reduced but newer guidelines indicate that you should start medication right away.

You could argue that this is due the pharma companies putting pressure, but I find that kinda tough to justify for changing the guidelines. However, we know that people are lazy, weak and not ready to change.

Doctors soon realize that basically nobody does what they are supposed to do. (Then again basically everybody has been so brainwashed by the notion of balaced diet that has become synonymous with a little of everything in moderation…well, a little Big Mac here, a little potato chips bag here, a Mars bar at the coffee break,a little slice of cake there, another one can’t hurt right and so on an so forth.)

I speak to people about nutrition and pretty much everyone is convinced they eat correctly…

Even if they don’t eat healthy, they don’t want to change. A pretty recent marketing study showed that people are going back to taste over health, in the well if you are going to eat ice cream, better eat the real thing mentality…true, if you have a BMI of 22, when its 32, you might consider choosing the healthier approach calorie-wise.

A while back I was taking a patient history for an exam on a CVT surgery floor. She had been there almost a week and her wound would not heal. The patient is a 220 lb women with severe diabetes and advance CHD (she had just gotten out of CVT surgery for 3 bypass). She reports eating healthy, non-fat mayo, low-carb X and other calorie reduced things. How about sweets? I ask. Well, once in a while, you know for celebrations.

When I got out, the treating surgeon that was evaluating me asked me what I thought. The first thing that came to mind was that you don’t get to be 220 lbs at 5’3 by eating celery stalks and lettuce.

Another guy, around 300lbs, 6’3, with significant abdominal adiposity, 50 some odd years, impotent for 4 years because of diabetes related neuropathy, hospitalized for cellulitis from infected diabetic foot ulcer. So you check your blood glucose regularly or not? Nah, not really.

How often did you get foot ulcers like this? Hum, this is the third time, but last time I wasn’t hospitalized. How about food, do you follow a diet or go with what you want? Well, I know I should eat less and better but I’m not doing too well on that.

I don’t know about you guys, but if I was loosing my dick to diabetes/CHD, I would be doing something about it.

A toe I can understand…up to the point where it necroses and amputates or infects.

To me these kind of situations were eye openers. Here I was, fresh out of patient contact and professionalism courses, beleiving to some extent that the patient is and wants to be a major decision maker in his healthcare process. What a bunch of utopian bullshit.

For every one person that we find like that here on T-Nation, self-determining, health oriented and driven, you find thousands of apathetics, lazy and aimless people that don’t even care that we are going to amputate their necrosing and gangrenous leg at the knee and that they could have prevented it with a good diet, regular exercice and compliant medication taking.

So you may think that doctors are pushing for medication. I think its people pulling for it.

I mean, I don’t believe you guys are so shelterd from the world not to see this. People in general are not like you. They don’t watch what they eat, they don’t train with weights, they don’t do any cardio and they couldn’t stand changing their behavior for the life of them.

I am not necessarily pro drugs but I understand that people in general would rather lose their toes to diabetes than to change their lifestyle and diet. People want easy, simple and quick solutions to hard, complex and chronic problems.

Most of the times, doctors can do no better than to delay the inevitable, not because pills don’t work but if you are diabetic on medication and you keep eating strawberry shortcake every day, D’UH, no wonder the diabetes/obesity/CHD is still progressing.

A doctor I know has taken a habit of asking a question like this: Ok, your lab results and physical exam place you here in the risk brackets for CHD. We can do 2 things, either you stop smoking, start getting some regular exercice, eat less and greener, lose weight and then go from there or I can pump you of all these medications (listing statins, fibrates, ezitimbide, methformin, sulfonylureas, ASA, diuretic, ACE inhibitors and so on). When I asked him what most patients choose, he asked another question:

-‘‘Ever seen a fat guy jog?’’,
-‘‘No’’,
-‘‘Well there you go.’’

You guys can think doctors are morons and such and such, but I would look elsewhere.

AlexH
Take care.

[quote]Dandelex stated: So you may think that doctors are pushing for medication. I think its people pulling for it.

I mean, I don’t believe you guys are so shelterd from the world not to see this. People in general are not like you. They don’t watch what they eat, they don’t train with weights, they don’t do any cardio and they couldn’t stand changing their behavior for the life of them.

I am not necessarily pro drugs but I understand that people in general would rather lose their toes to diabetes than to change their lifestyle and diet. People want easy, simple and quick solutions to hard, complex and chronic problems. [/quote]

I don’t think that there is any question as to the validity of your comments.

However, the question becomes; should doctors and the entire health industry continue to push drugs (with all of their negative side effects) or reeducate that public as to the very best way to become and stay healthy?

In other words, while people are responsible for their own decisions without the proper education it seems that the medical/health/drug industry owns a good portion of this problem.

If you think about it the typical 35 year old has grown up watch drug commercials, McDonalds adds and a slew of other things which only reinforces certain myths: it’s okay to eat just about anything and don’t worry about it anyway as drugs (and science) will always find a way to heal you.

And that message is pure crap!

[quote]Dandalex wrote:

You can negate something but you would probably be alot better if you didn’t do the negative thing in the first place. AlexH.[/quote]

I think that this is your core issue here. You?re saying that cholesterol is a risk factor and so why play around with it. And I understand actually what you?re saying. But, again, my primary answer to that is that, for the normal middles age male, he has to choose between playing with it and having decent T. Saturated fat, cholesterol and total fat (and monos for that matter) make a very significant difference in ones hormonal health for someone of any age. I looked at one study and they had a cohort of younger males ? younger than us at least ? and a vegetarian diet blasted their T to an average of 400. Now imo that?s pitiful for the age of guys that they were studying. And I know that if they keep it up into their 40?s and 50?s they are going to have all kind of problems when their T starts dropping into the low 300?s. So I?m sorry, but I just believe low T is butt ugly and one of the best ways I know to do it is too eat the supposedly ?heart healthy? diet that nutritionists are recommending.

And that?s why to me the total mortality issue is key here as well: why whack your T if it doesn?t even improve your rate of mortality? I know that you may disagree with me, but why castrate yourself when there is probably no benefit to average lifespan?

And that?s especially true considering the Masai. What I?m saying is that I?d rather take my chances with the Masai than to live with low T. I?m not surprised to read that the Masai had artheriosclerosis just like everyone else as I have heard of similar studies. But you stated it well: the pont is that they did not suffer the consequences of it.

And, again, if I had cholesterol of 250, I?d probably be on a statin myself and a bunch of extra CoQ10. But for even semi-reasonable levels of cholesterol, I just don?t see the compelling evidence for whacking you T or taking a brute force drug like a statin.

But that?s just my two cents?

My dad is 53, has cholesterol of 160 and his doc still has him on statins. He is more lethargic and forgetful than I’ve ever known him to be. He just blames it on “getting old.” But it’s like he’s aged 15 years in the last 2 since he’s been on these drugs. He is blindly following his doc’s recommendation, who doesn’t even have the decency to recommend coQ10 supplementation. He sure as hell won’t listen to me with my “alternative” view on cholesterol considering what he hears from the media on tv, newspaper, magazines, books, his doc… WTF can I do? I feel like he’s dying before my eyes every time I see him. It makes me sick to think of what is happening to his body and mind.

I don’t even want to know about his virility… but my mom doesn’t seem happy…

[quote]T-Rav wrote:
My dad is 53, has cholesterol of 160 and his doc still has him on statins. He is more lethargic and forgetful than I’ve ever known him to be. He just blames it on “getting old.” But it’s like he’s aged 15 years in the last 2 since he’s been on these drugs. He is blindly following his doc’s recommendation, who doesn’t even have the decency to recommend coQ10 supplementation. He sure as hell won’t listen to me with my “alternative” view on cholesterol considering what he hears from the media on tv, newspaper, magazines, books, his doc… WTF can I do? I feel like he’s dying before my eyes every time I see him. It makes me sick to think of what is happening to his body and mind.

I don’t even want to know about his virility… but my mom doesn’t seem happy… [/quote]

That doctor should have his license to practice revoked!

How many others out there are like your Dad I wonder?

Sick!

Try to find a good web site that your Dad can read so that he increases his own personal information on statins.

Must read link for all those interested in this subject. Lots of great information on the Masai, the French, etc.:

http://www.theomnivore.com/sat-fat-chol-CHD.html

Most importantly, no one brought this fact up. READ THIS AND READ IT CAREFULLY PEOPLE.

NONE of the 27 TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED SINCE 1963,(All that have ever been done to date) EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATURATED FAT AND CVD, NONE SUPPORT THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY. NONE. ZERO. NONE.

[quote]Razwell wrote:
Most importantly, no one brought this fact up. READ THIS AND READ IT CAREFULLY PEOPLE.

NONE of the 27 TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINICAL TRIALS THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED SINCE 1963,(All that have ever been done to date) EXAMINING THE RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN SATURATED FAT AND CVD, NONE SUPPORT THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY. NONE. ZERO. NONE. [/quote]

That is a great addition to this thread, I thank you!

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Its a fact that reductions in LDL reduce proportionally cardiovascular adverse events in men, women, african-americans, and the elderly. THere are a multitude of well documented, well funded studies which lead us to these conclusions, including the ALLHAT study, and the Framingham HEART study.The evidence clearly shows a link between reductions in LDL and a decrease in cardiovasular mortality.
[/quote]

I printed up the first post from this thread and showed it to my wife (a cardiologist). First, she said that cardiologists know about all of those studies. Many are old, most are marginal in scope when compared to the body of evidence on LDL versus heart disease.

Current studies including up to 20,000 subjects show that

  1. cholesterol and LDL levels are the
    strongly and significantly correlated to incidence of heart attack.

  2. not only do cholesterol reducing drugs reduce the likeliness of heart attack, but they do so in direct proportion to dosage.

  3. cholesterol reducing drugs clearly cause a reduction in arterial plaque.

The issue is that it’s starting to look like the cholesterol reducing drugs work by reducing inflammation more than by any other mechanism.

Also, it is possible that at a certain age, cholesterol reduction may have negative health effects which balance the decrease in rate of heart attack in all groups.

People may live longer, because instead of having a deadly heart attack they just get a debilitating stroke instead.

And of course heart attack risk is clearly related to testosterone levels and these are influenced by lipid intake.

[quote]MODOK wrote:
Its a fact that reductions in LDL reduce proportionally cardiovascular adverse events in men, women, african-americans, and the elderly. THere are a multitude of well documented, well funded studies which lead us to these conclusions, including the ALLHAT study, and the Framingham HEART study.The evidence clearly shows a link between reductions in LDL and a decrease in cardiovasular mortality.[/quote]

Yes, but there are ZERO studies, performed by independent organizations which determine that overall high cholesterol is bad for you!

And statin drugs are poison to your system! They can and do cause liver damage and muscle spasms.

I only read the first page of responses, but here’s my take on it.

What foods raise your cholesterol.
Meat, fat(butter,oils,etc) etc.

These foods provide more protein, are more calorically dense, and provide certain much needed nutrients.

I think that people with high cholesterol tend to live longer (if the study is true)
not because of the high cholesterol, but because the foods that raise cholesterol help the body fight infection, because they are high in protein, calorically dense,etc.
Steve

Cinnamon.

My father-in-law is big-time into healthy lifestyle and so on. He showed me an article about how cinnamon tabs drastically lower cholesterol, mostly LDL, if I remember. The article was by an MD.
Went to the local Vitamin Shoppe and they had a couple of bootles left, said the stuff flies off the shelf.

HH

[quote]Headhunter wrote:

I think the culprit in heart disease and the like is vegetable oils. Our consumption of meat and butter has actually gone down in the past 100 years, but oils has shot through the roof.[/quote]

you cant blame one thing its not one part of nutrition. exercise regularly and eat a healthy mixed diet and everyone will be fine, that same message always comes out.

[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Cinnamon.

My father-in-law is big-time into healthy lifestyle and so on. He showed me an article about how cinnamon tabs drastically lower cholesterol, mostly LDL, if I remember. The article was by an MD.
Went to the local Vitamin Shoppe and they had a couple of bootles left, said the stuff flies off the shelf.

HH
[/quote]

There is no way that a drug company can make any money from cinnamon. Therefore, you will not hear of any highly touted studies from medical circles regarding the positive effects of cinnamon.

Cardiologists have been scamming for years with PROPOGANDA

THE FACTS REMAIN

NONE OF THE 18 TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINCIAL TRIALS , NONE SHOW ANY BENEFIT WHATSOEVER TO SATURATED FAT RESTRICTION OR CHOLESTEROL LOWERING FACT!!!

CLINCIAL TRIALS ARE WHAT MATTER, NOT EPIDEMIOLOGICAL. BUT OIF YOU WANT TO TALK EPIDEMIOLOGICAL FOLLOW UP STUDEIS WELL

NONE OF THE 26 LONG TERM PROSPECTIVE STUDIES SUPPORT THE CHOLESTEROL THEORY. NONE FACT.

BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY

NO RANDOMIZED TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINCIAL TRIAL HAS EVER, EVER SHOWN ANY REDUCTION WHATSOEVER IN CVD FROM SATURATED FAT RESTRICTION OR CHOLESTEROL LOWERING

STATINS DO NOT , DO NOT HAVE SLIGHT BENEFITS IN PERSONS WITH ACTIVE CVD, BY CHOLESTEROL LOWERING
STAINS HAVE SLIGHT ANT INFLAMTION PROPERTIES THAT IS HOW THEY ARE SLIGHTLY BENEFICIAL TO A SMALL PERCENTAGE WITH ACTIVE CVD
THE REULTS HOWEVER ARE VERY UNIMPRESSIVE see www.ravnskov.nu/myth 3.htm

Dr Uffe Ravnskov gives the statistics.

QUOTE FROM NEW ENGLAND JOURNAL OF MEDICINE

“ATHEROSCLEROSIS REGREESED IN PATIENTS WITH THE GREATEST REDUCTION IN CRP C REACTIVE PROTEIN LEVELS BUT NORT IN PATIENTS WITH THE GREATEST REDUCTION IN LDL CHOLESTEROL”

First of all mertdawg Atherosclerotic “plaque” is REALLY DISCREET LESIUONS OF FIBEROUS SCAR TISSUE , SMOOTH MUSCLE CELLS , CALCIUM DEPOSIS, IN HUMANS

There is very little cholesterol. Cholesterol DOES NOT make up that much, nor is it blocking anything.

Human lesions are HARD.

Rabbits “plaques”
are SOFT and contain cholesterol in large amounts .

The Cholesterol Theory was WRONG from the start as pertains to HUMANS. The Cholesterol Theory is based on the JUNK SCIENCE of feding rabbits, 100 % vegetarian animls by nature, cholesterol and observing a bad result and trying to correlate that bad result to OMNIVOROUS HUMANS.

Statins results are VERY UNIMPRESSIVE and the ONLY persons that it can have a SLIGHT benefit to are a small percentage of persons WITH ACTIVE CVD. The way they SLIGHTLY are beneficial to persons WITH active CVD is BY ANT- INFLAMATORY PROPERTIES AND HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOWERING LDL!

"Atherosclerosis regressed in patients with the greatest reduction in CRP levels BUT NOT in patients with the greatest reduction in LDL cholesterol.

EVEN STATIN MANUFACTURERS ACKNOWLEDGE THE MECHANISM HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH LOWERING CHOLESTEROL, (even though they do lower LDL, which is pointless).

STATIN RESULST ARE LARGELY IN FLATED BY MEDIA . SEE THE REAL RESULTS www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm see the statin section

Those AHA bastards have lied about the real reuslts of the Framingham Research to FIT THEIR AGENDA

www.ravnskov.nu/myth8.htm
“11 % OVERALL, AND 14 % CVD DEATH RATE INCREASE PER 1 MG DROP IN CHOLESTEROL” THIS IS THE REAL RESULT

VERY VERY VERY DAMING EVIDENCE TO THE AHA’S NONSESNE PROPAGANDA

Your wife can NOT come up with ONE SINGLE TIGHTLY CONTROLLED CLINCIAL, CLINICAL TRIAL THAT SUPPORTS CHOLESTEROL THEORY. Confront with THIS ECVIDENCE (Framingham Research MOST COMPREHENNSIVE EVER DONE ON CHOLESTEROL) and all the CLINCIAL TRIALS THAT ARE NOT SUPPORTIVE OF CHOLESTEROL THEORY.

Adherence to BOGUS UNTENABLE DISPROVEN THEORY AS PERTAINS TO HUMANS, IS THE REASON WHY THE INCIDENCE OF CVD HAS NOT DECLINED ONE IOTA IN 50 YEARS.

Masai, Dinkas, Samburu

Tokeluans

Okinawans

French

Inuits

Crete

ALL THESE CULTURES EAT A DIET RICH IN ANIMAL AND OR TROPICAL FATS AND ALL ENJOY VERY LOW ARTES OF CVD

Read and read CAREFULLY

www.theomnivore.com/Malmo_Study_2005.html

NONE of the 26 prospective trials support the Cholesterol Theory NONE Fcat.

and MORE IMPORTANTLY than that

NO randomized CLINCIAL TRIAL has EVER, EVER SHOWN ANY REDUCTION WHATSOEVER FROM SATURATED FAT RESTRICTION OR CHOLESTEROL LOWERING . tELL YOUR WIFE THIS

(Nothing personal against your wife, just doctor-wise tell her to stop scamming patients with nonsense)

The Mediterranean Diet is ALSO LIED ABOUT BY THE AHA BASTARDS

The Mediterranean Diet is RICH IN SATURATES , with the French having the MOST SATURATES out of abn already saturate rich Mediterranean Diet and the LOWEST RATE OF CVD IN THE WHOLE MEDITERRANENA AND THE AREA OF FRNACE THAT CONSUMES THE MOST PERCENTAGE WISE FROM ANIMALS FATS HAS THE LOWEST RATE IN ALL OF FRANCE OOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOPS!

Slightly Over 50 percent of persons who have has heart attacks HAD LOW levels of LDL

Serum Level of blood cholesterol HAS NO RELATION TO LEVEL OF ATHEROSCLEROSIS
www.ravnskov.nu/myth2.htm