I have found out that cholesterol is really not the enemy. The real enemy is hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn syrup.The drug industry advertises cholesterol lowering drugs on TV all the time with a disclaimer that the drug will not cure or prevent heart disease. Obviously the drug industry is aware that cholesterol is really not the culprit but continues to market useless drugs and to scare the public into thinking they should target cholesterol. The drugs also affect liver function which is where the source of cholesterol regulation takes place in the body further overburdening the already overworked liver with more toxic chemicals from the drugs. Why does the medical industry zero in on cholesterol when other culprits are the problem. Why is heart disease still the biggest killer after all these years and all this research.? Why does the medical industry still harp on cholesterol as the cause of heart disease?
consider that it is fully documented that plaque-based stenosis can be stopped and sometimes reversed when cholesterol is reduced. I know someone that went from a 65% blockage on his LAD to 35% with just statin use. No diet changes or weight loss.
To me, that's a smoking gun.
There's also scientific studies that show this result and some statins are proven to do so. Crestor comes to mind.
The other side of that coin, Crestor is called the "gorilla statin", has a higher possibility of side effects. pick your poisen. heart disease or risk the side effects...
I've read all the studies going both ways and I look at it like this. Until I see something that is indisputable, I will stick to the current thinking in the medical profession that higher levels of cholesterol increase the risk in CAD. Even if that's not the case, wouldn't it make sense to lower your cholesterol anyways? There are plenty of studies that do conclude that lower cholesterol equates to lower plaque build up in the arteries so I'll stick with my statin until someone proves otherwise. Why not, it can't hurt and I know how well my numbers have been conrtolled since taking a statin!
Cholesterol clogs and blocks your arteries. This is why so many people have to have angioplasty, and surgery to remove the built up plaque caused by high cholesterol Statins DO lower bad cholesterol levels. My husband's plaque build up was like concrete, and was caused by high cholesterol. Statins, change in diet and exercise have helped. My husband can barely walk due to PAD, blockages in the arteries of the legs by plaque due to high cholesterol.
When universally accepted concepts are challenged, I always question motive. The evidence overwhelmingly is in the corner of statins as a control of cholesterol, and huge volumes of empirical evidence exists that cholesterol causes high cholesterol levels that lead to heart artery blockages. What research are you referencing that hydrogenated oils and high fructose corn sugar are the only culprits? What I've seen is that hydrogenated oils are confusing to the body and add to the problem, and high fructose corn sugar raises the Trigs which adds to the CHF mix. I don't think it is an either/or proposition, it's combination. In my case, my CAD was arrested by a combination of statins, exercise and diet.
My question: have you had heart problems that led to heart disease?
I look forward to the research confirmation you are quoting and hearing about your heart history.
Well I have to agree with rbrwn310. It seems that we are still basing our ideas on the very first assumption made when a post mortem recognised the cause of death as fats in the coronary arteries. Since that time, even though it has been conclusively proved to be wrong, fats have been blamed for causing CAD. I'm not saying it doesn't play a part in it, what I'm saying is it is not the cause. Let's look at what experts tell us. Cholesterol we are told is the main culprit and we should have all guns blazing in reducing levels. In studies taken across europe to compare average cholesterol levels, the UK was not found to be the highest and yet we have the highest occurence of the disease. It appears the French can munch on saturated fats all day every day, yet if a british person does this we end up with CAD. Heart disease in the UK is becoming so common that it is becoming alarming and it is affected people far younger now than it used to.
My grandparents used to eat everything cooked in solid fat (lard/suet) and they ate all the very fatty cheap cuts of meat. They didn't eat many vegetables because they were too expensive and had to cope by trying to grow their own. Fruit was a delicacy to them. They smoked unfiltered cigarettes from the age of 12 and yet both my grandmothers and grandfathers lived to be over 80 years of age. Now, along comes good old me and if Angioplasty wasn't available, I'd probably have died at the age of 46. All my life I had eaten lots of fruit/vegetable/fish and yet I'm the one who ends up sick. If Cholesterol is the cause, why do 75% of heart attack victims have normal levels of cholesterol?
There is too much evidence against cholesterol being the cause and so for me I think what we are brainwashed into believing is not fact. Virtually every major artery in my body has been scanned to check for disease, and yet it only seems that it exists in my coronary arteries. Why not in my neck? why not in my legs? why not in my arms? why not in my kidneys? liver? Why does my immune system only decide to demolish cholesterol lipids in my coronary arteries to expose the fats? If I smoked, why would the cigarette smoke only target my coronary arteries? It's all nonsense as far as I'm concerned and they should own up to the truth.
Below are some of the core studies that have been done to study the effects of cholesterol on CAD:
"The following are some cholesterol studies that have proven the importance of managing your cholesterol levels:
Coronary Primary Prevention Trial
CPPT for short, this is one of the cholesterol studies that focused on the fact that LDL cholesterol levels have to be reduced to help prevent heart attacks and other cardiovascular diseases. The CPPT is among the cholesterol studies which have presented the fact that people with high cholesterol levels are more at risk when it comes to developing grave illnesses, most especially cardiovascular ones.
The CPPT is also one of the cholesterol studies that have been conducted for the duration of more than 5 years (specifically 10), to be able to see a clearer trend. In the CPPT, half of the population was given cholesterol lowering diet plans plus cholestyramine, while the rest were given the same diet plan and a placebo. Those who took cholestyramine had significantly lower LDL cholesterol and also reduced risks in developing heart attacks and coronary heart disease.
Helsinki Heart Study
The Helsinki Heart Study is one of the cholesterol studies which also analyzed all kinds of cholesterol. More than 4,000 middle aged men who had high cholesterol levels were used as samples in this study.
The treatment drug used was gemfibrozil which has shown reduction in LDL cholesterol, triglycerides, and total cholesterol. HDL cholesterol levels or good cholesterol has increased. The Helsinki Heart Study is one among the many cholesterol studies that demonstrated reduced mortality rate.
Coronary Drug Project
The Coronary Drug Project may be considered as one of the most unique cholesterol studies because the population consisted of men who have survived heart attacks as compared to most of the cholesterol studies which only used people with high cholesterol levels. Those who survived heart attacks were given niacin, and have shown reduction in cholesterol levels as well as in the total mortality rate.
Many people may not have enjoyed a longer life without cholesterol studies. Cholesterol studies indeed have given us useful information on why cholesterol levels need to be managed and how they may be reduced."
I have read these studies and until I read a study that has the data to back up their claim. I am sure there are other factors involved in the development of CAD, but I will stick to the conventional thinking until it is proved otherwise. These are all intersting reads, take a look and make your own decision. There is considerable conflicting data out there, some I am unable to explain, but again I'll stick to the facts that are presented in studies like these as they have the results to prove their positions.
I would like to point out..... Yes, old time people lived longer than us. They ate butter instead of Logical (lower cholesterol margarine). They ate all those in modern world considering bad bad not healthy food. Why they didn't get sick so seriously?
They didn't have car. Where ever they go, they either walk, bicycle or get a bus, train or ship (public transport). They have a lot of exercise (walking). The food gets burn out quickly. Might be not enough (shortage) for the body itself to generate energy. Many of them only able to get food filled up half the tummy (not like us over eating). In the rural area, they need to get water in the buckets and carrying home. Farmers without machinery, all by their hard works put in under the sun (they got vitamins D better than us) or smoke free enviroment (fresh air). Rich people took the carriage or horses (like our cars). At that time most of the heart disease were considered as the rich man disease. Similar to the diabetes type II developed so well in this modern world (developed countries).
I still believe there are many alternatives can balance out our body needs. In my case, the Verapamil damaged my liver. After that event, my cholesterol starts raise. I was given by so many kind of statins. After start that for a week or so, I'll having like "heart attack" a very very bad chest pain...... (Now I realised my heart also make up by "muscle". Statin can cause muscle pain!) I tell myself it is not worth to try again. Don't know which organ will attack by "damage" next?
"The CPPT is also one of the cholesterol studies that have been conducted for the duration of more than 5 years (specifically 10), to be able to see a clearer trend. In the CPPT, half of the population was given cholesterol lowering diet plans plus cholestyramine, while the rest were given the same diet plan and a placebo. Those who took cholestyramine had significantly lower LDL cholesterol and also reduced risks in developing heart attacks and coronary heart disease. "
This trial was not really one that reflects the average person in a population. Over 3000 MEN (no women) were chosen for the trial and only men with hypercholesterolemia, a disorder of the Liver which affects 1 in 500. It was expected that the trial results would show a huge drop in CAD related instances but it did not. However, statin producers still took the small percentage and claimed it as revolutionary.
No trial has established a reduction in death rate.
If exercise was the cure, then I should never have got atherosclerosis. I had always been very active, probably on the border of hyperactive. Working in the building trade, I would get home, eat a healthy meal, then go back out for martial arts training. I used to go for
long walks at the weekends or go for cycle rides. Exercising didn't stop my disease developing, but I believe it probably helped me to develop collaterals to save my life.
I ate healthily, lots of fruit/veg and oily fish. All a waste of time in my case. If it is supposed to work, then why didnt it with me? why doesnt it work with athletes who suddenly die from heart attack thanks to this disease. We all too often conveniently forget those exceptions to the rule but they are important. I've seen heavy smokers with the disease, light smokers and people who have never smoked. I've seen alcoholics with heart disease, those who have the odd drink and people who never drink.
If 500 people contract a disease and 480 of these are smokers, it seems we are to automatically assume it's related to smoking. But, what about the othe 20? yes we must forget them, they must be secondry smoking or something. If 500 people contract a disease and 490 are obese then being overwieght is the cause. Never mind the 10 thin people.
So with CAD if 100 people have the disease and 25 have high cholesterol, why is it claimed that cholesterol is the problem when 75 have normal levels? this is what's happening and being claimed now.
Not disagreeing that there are discrepancies that are just not yet explained. My own father is an avid body builder, lived on bran, fruits, veggies and protein, worked out 7 days a week including a 20 mile bike ride until he had his bypass at age 72 due to multiple blockages. His cholesterol was over 270 and had never been checked until he was in the hospital. Mine has dropped to 155 with statins and my cardiac work ups are very good.
What you experienced is your reality, I understand that. My life is my reality, but until someone can show me data that goes against traditional thinking concerning cholesterol and it's link to CAD, I'll stick with it. Believe me, I would love to read the "magic bullet" out there, nothing I have read has the data to back up the theories yet, perhaps some day. Reading posts that shoot holes in all the studies I've read does not sway me and won't until I see some real data supporting their position.
Again, to me it's just common sense to lower one's cholesterol, can't hurt even if the studies are wrong which they are not. You will find a flaw in every study, if that what you need to do, go for it, but there is considerably more data to support the link between cholesterol and CAD than not.
I have to agree with you about cholesterol not being the enemy. Cholesterol is made by the human body. It is used at the cellular level to replace dead or damaged cells in our tissues. Our immune system is also not the enemy and is our last line of defense when something invades our body. Histamines are also in this mixture of mistaken enemies.
Ask your doctor to give you a CRP blood test. I will wager that it will show a high reading and he will not be able to tell you why. Cholesterol is part of the problem, but injury, disease, inflamation (inflammation) and even attitude and stress are involved.
The amount of cholesterol eaten in your diet is a small percentage of the total. Statins are not the magic bullet and can cause serious and even deadly side effects. They are huge moneymakers for the drug industry and profitable for the doctors who prescribe them. It must be very difficult for a doctor to say, "There is nothing more I can do for you-- so please take this prescription. It may help." All those quoted studies were funded by the drug industry and run by the doctors who are too closely involved with their use. Think of Stomach Ulcers in the past!
Again, please give your source of information before you recommend people stay away from statins. Been on them for 5 years, never and issue here, just better cholesterol numbers. I do agree there is more to it, just don't know what it is.
To everyone that would recommend that people NOT take a statin, unless you a doctor, researcher or can show me data that contradicts current thinking concerning cholesterol, you are not in a position to recommend that I avoid a medication.
Also, concerning the drug company conspiracies;
CPPT was run by the National Institutes of Health, last time I checked, they were not a drug manufacturer, instead a federal agency.
Helsinky Heart Study was performed by the Finnish Institute of Occupational Health, Helsinki, FINLAND in association with School of Public Health, University of Tampere, FINLAND. Pretty sure Finland is a country, not a drug manufacturer.
The Coronary Drug Project was done by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), again, hardly a drug manufacturer.
None of these studies state any involvement with any company that is involved in the production of cholesterol lowering drugs.
Agreed, this is a great test to add when you are having your lipids checked, I always ask for it as it commonly know that high levels of homocysteine can injure the lining of your blood vessels and increase your risk of developing CAD.
I don't understand your thinking on percentages. In your comments about the CPPT studies you wrote;
"It was expected that the trial results would show a huge drop in CAD related instances but it did not. However, statin producers still took the small percentage and claimed it as revolutionary"
The actual results quoted from the study were;
"The cholestyramine group experienced a 19% reduction in risk (p less than .05) of the primary end point--definite CHD death and/or definite nonfatal myocardial infarction--reflecting a 24% reduction in definite CHD death and a 19% reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction."
Those are some pretty impressive results, must have missed that when you read the study. If not, why would you think a 24% reduction in CHD death is "a small reduction that the claimed to be revolutionary" yet when you talk about a POSSIBLE 2% defective rate (worse case scenario) on pacemakers, this is very alarming to you. Hard to follow.............
Have statins been around for as long as pacemakers? Do we have data reflecting the real long term effects of statins yet? With no data, we are quite happily popping these pills along with many millions of others.
erijon, walk into any heart hospital during visiting time and ASK the patients what their cholesterol levels are like. I really believe you will be shocked at the answers.
Let me ask you something. If I take 100 people and feed statins to half of them and the other half a placebo, how will I know if it has made any real difference? How do I know if 50 statin swallowers were never going to develop heart problems over 10 years? I could probably get the same results by giving all the test subjects water to drink.
I was put on statins and also ezetimibe on top. You wouldnt believe how low my cholesterol is. It's being blocked at the point of absorption in the gut and also in the Liver.
However, my disease continued to grow for another 2 years, even though I was told that statins will probably clean up some of the disease. This same fairy tale was told to many patients I spoke to, all of whom were having further stenting or bypasses. Talk to the actual patients and you will conclude the same as me. All those patients are wondering why this wonder drug isn't helping them and they still require surgery year after year. I managed to stop my disease growing in the end by avoiding stress. Everytime a stressful situation arises, I take deep breaths, relax and then put everything into perspective and ask if it's worth my life. I know you think honesty goes all the way to the top but I'm afraid in the real world this is not the truth. Bribary goes all the way to the top and I bet if health officials in the FDA were put on lie detectors we would be shocked.
It is not cholesterol that causes atherosclerosis, it is simply a 'stage' in the development of the disease. It is a fact and well known that it is not the primary cause. I have asked many questions in this thread of which you have addressed none. So, let me ask you a different way so through your expertise in blood chemistry you can explain where I am going wrong.
If cholesterol is a natural sticky substance which forms atherosclerosis, then why dont we all have heart attacks by the age of 3? It should be clogging the arteries by that age.
Cholesterol lipids are not sticky (fact) and they are made by the body to transport fat around the blood stream. This is necessary because blood is made up mostly from water and fat will not dissolve in water. Lipids are safe and do not cause harm unless they become trapped. So what causes them to become trapped in coronary arteries?
Why would less cholesterol make any difference? surely fewer lipids means the same results but MAYBE over a slightly longer period of time. So, if lower lipid levels makes no difference, why take statins?
We're not going to agree, that's all there is to it and that's fine There will always be more than one train of thought on most every subject. I'm not saying people don't lie, I'm basing my belief on the actual data, not my personal beliefs and perceptions.
Again, CPPT results;
"The cholestyramine group experienced a 19% reduction in risk (p less than .05) of the primary end point--definite CHD death and/or definite nonfatal myocardial infarction--reflecting a 24% reduction in definite CHD death and a 19% reduction in nonfatal myocardial infarction."
I'll take that rate reduction any day of the week. However, as you say, there will be people having heart attacks with low cholesterol numbers, I wish I could read a study that explained why but none exist so I'll go with what I can quantify.
I wish they would find the real reason why arteries plug up i had a heart attack 3 yrs ago and my cholesterol was a little high the dr put in 5 stents. i then went to the lipid clinic and through trial and error found a medication that lowers my bad chlosterol but keeps my good cholesterol high so now my cholesterol is low and right where its suppose to be and its been that way for 21/2 yrs i have changed my diet and have been exercising but my artieries keep on plugging up i have had 4 more stents since on artieries that were not plugged up before i wish someone would find the answer.but i dont think its cholesterol i think its in my genes
I am glad that you are able to take Statins and your cholesterol level is controlled. There is no use in your requesting a CRP test on your blood, because your RA will always show a high inflammation. I cannot take any statin. They attack my muscles and liver. That is why the doctor will run a CPK blood test on you every six months.
The CPPT that you quoted used Colestramine not statins
The Helsinki Heart Study was 11/12/1987 in the New England Journal of Medicine but a follow up on failures and problems 1/14/1993 same source.
The Coronary Drug Project used Niacin, Hormones and Aspirin not statins.
I reread my original message and I did not tell you to quit taking your statin. You should not heed any advice that you read on these blogs. Only what your physician tells you to do. (There is a disclaimer on the home page of this website)
I have about as much chance of uncovering the convoluted funding of any medical study as I do of finding out how Barack Obama paid for his Ivy League education.
I have very little information on cholesterol...mine could n't be better with medication, and CAD may be regressing as my tolerance for exertion has increased. But my reasoning on the subject of meds, diet, exercise, etc. can be said, is it better to assume I or anyone will come to harm if not on the recommended protocol for CAD for which there is no proof, or will there be harm if one doesn't abide with the cholesterol lowering protocol for which there is proof...it is reasonable to stay with meds, etc., and good luck to naysayers.
The discussion was never directed at statins, it was whether lowering one's cholesterol had and effect on the end results of CAD/Cardiac events. These studies all show that lower cholesterol levels result in fewer cardiac events, that was the point. Also, I did not mean to imply that you told me directly, but the text of your post was directed at statin use overall, and I understand that is your opinion and I respect that.
Where I take issue is your comments below;
"They are huge moneymakers for the drug industry and profitable for the doctors who prescribe them."
"All those quoted studies were funded by the drug industry and run by the doctors who are too closely involved with their use."
These statements are clearly intended to discredit the medical profession and all of us "saps" that were talked into taking cholesterol lowering drugs. Think about this in reverse, if individuals with low cholesterol levels let their levels increase to say 300 TC, would more of them have a cardiac event? Of course they would.
Also, concerning the CRP, I do get that checked when my lipids are done if I am not in a current RA flare, it is a common practice. If my sed rate is under 4 I'm good for a CRP test.
"ed, anything on that 75% yet, would really like to have that info to help me understand"
The latest evidence is a new study in the American Heart Journal published in January, 2009. This new study tested the cholesterol of heart attack patients admitted to 500 hospitals. The disturbing new findings reveal:
75% of those patients had LDL-cholesterol levels below the current guidelines of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) of 130 milligrams.
· 50% had LDL-cholesterol levels below 100 milligrams.
· 17% had LDL-cholesterol levels below 70 milligrams, which is the new, more stringent guidelines.
How Much Lower Must We Go Before Admitting There Is No
Correlation Between Lowering Cholesterol And Heart Attack Risk?
One would think the overwhelming evidence that lowering cholesterol levels fails to prevent heart disease would be sufficient for a new focus. One would also think a scientist would be willing to re-examine a theory when the evidence against that theory is decidedly inaccurate.
Instead, the response from the American Heart Association sponsored researchers is to lower acceptable cholesterol levels even more resulting in countless people beginning statin medications unnecessarily.
This demonstrates once again the powerful success marketers of cholesterol-lowering medications have achieved. Their influence upon Physicians, government agencies and professional bodies leaves no one daring to question the cholesterol theory without fearing ridicule and risking professional suicide.
I am left with the utmost sadness their influence leaves intelligent and caring Physicians no longer giving needed thought to what really causes heart disease or how to prevent it. Instead, they have become convinced that cholesterol-lowering drugs are the answer despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary.
Let’s use this study to our best advantage by stimulating an open-mindedness with questions and dialog about the cholesterol theory. Let’s get to the real cause and get serious about preventing unnecessary disease and death. Let’s re-examine the validity of the old science and examine the overwhelming evidence in today’s science. The latter provides the answer.
Dwight Lundell, M.D.
this is just one report of so many. It is interesting reading those study reports of which there are many also, but they all show the same thing, there is no link between cholesterol levels and heart attacks.
There are controlled tests done by medical labs indicating that deaths occur more with those with lower cholesterol than with higher cholesterol indicating this cholesterol scare is a myth and a big scam to make drug companies bottom lines even bigger. I have the results that were posted in medical journals for those that think I do not know what I am talking about. Those journals go to your doctors that stack them in a corner and never read them.
"There are controlled tests done by medical labs indicating that deaths occur more with those with lower cholesterol than with higher cholesterol indicating this cholesterol scare is a myth and a big scam to make drug companies bottom lines even bigger. I have the results that were posted in medical journals for those that think I do not know what I am talking about. Those journals go to your doctors that stack them in a corner and never read them"
Please back this up, the only data you sent me yesterday was an old study of 800 individuals looking at the link between high cholesterol and heart disease IN PEOPLE OVER 70. Your own study states that this is not a proper control group and they claim not to make any conclusions in individuals under 70 years of age.
Ed has provided some compelling reading which I will look at this evening, I would include anything you have as well. Just don't use the foul language as you have in your multiple messages to me yesterday. I don't know why my opinion is so important to you, but please don't be so rude and abusive.
In 1962 autopsy studies by Polish researchers found that 2/3 of those who died from confirmed cad, had serum cholesterol in the normal to low ranges They could find no correlation between blood cholesterol content and the cholesterol content of arterial plaque.(Marek et al 1962;American Heart Journal). Subsequent autopsy studies from the USA and Gautemala confirmed those findings.
Heart disease is still the biggest killer of Americans despite the wide spread use of high dollar statin drugs. Oh but I forgot there are some here that think heart disease has been cured by statins and that I am all wet. As stated before the real enemy is still on the shelf of your grocery store. If one insists on taking statins a product in the health food store will do the same job for a heck of a lot less money but its still not the answer.
Can you imagine the absolute mess it would make when everyone realises statins are a waste of time. People who claim statins regress their disease are not realising its just due to their change in diet. When people really start to look at the evidence, lawsuits will be flying everywhere. It makes me sweat just to think of the money that will be involved.
At times LDL cholesterol can begin to stick to arteries that have been damaged by free radicals found in common grocery store vegetable oils and food. When one speaks of cholesterol one needs to speak of LDL or HDL. The type that may stick to damaged artery walls is the LDL and the HDL will remove that cholesterol. If one has an HDL reading of over 50 or higher then the body is safer from any plaque accumulation due to internal artery damage from hydrogenated vegetable oils, cigarettes, alcohol, or other nasty items many put into their one and only body.
According to a Medical Doctor this is why statins are dangerous and why this is all a big scam. According to doctor Ron Rosedale statins actually increase heart disease.
"Low cholesterol levels have been shown to worsen patients with congestive heart failure, a life threatning condition where the heart becomes too weak to effectively pump blood. Statin drugs have have been shown to also cause nerve damage and to greatly impair memory. One reason that statin drugs have these serious side effects is thatv they work by inhibiting a vital enzyme that manufactures cholesterol in the liver. However, the same enzyme is used to manufacture coenzyme q10, which is an biochemical needed to transfer energy from food to the cells to stay alive and healthy.
Statin drugs are known to inhibit our very important production of coq10. Importantly while many cardiologists insist that lowering cholesterol; is correlated with a reduction of heart attacks; few can say that there is a reduction in the risk of mortality. In other words it has never never been shown conclusively that lowering cholesterol saves lives. In fact several large studies have shown that lowering cholesterol into the range currently recommended is correlated with an increased risk of dying especially of cancer."
Ron Rosedale MD
Not my words but of a well respected medical doctor not afraid to speak out against the crimes being committed by the drug industry and the food industry.
Money, what are you talking about? Please don't make personal attacks on this board. I don't make a dime off of statins. If you and Ed want to avoid them, please do, you don't need me to agree with you.
Just the same question I have asked before, if a person with a low cholesterol level decided to give up and let their TC get elevated to say 300 mg, would they be at greater risk? OF COURSE THEY WOULD. Whether it's due to a link between cholesterol and CAD or because of injured arteries as you state, in either case they would increase their risk. Statins have helped many of us who did change their diet and exercise routine and lost considerable weight and moved to a healthier lifestyle but still struggled with high cholesterol levels, why can't you just accept that and give it a rest. You don't want to take them, good for you I hope whatever you do works for you.
I read the paper you pointed out, interesting read, it was actually a review of the "Get with the Guidelines" study that was conducted. The actual conclusions are below;
In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with CAD,
almost half have admission LDL <100 mg/dL, whereas less
than a quarter have LDL N130 mg/dL. The LDL levels
<70 mg/dL are observed in only 17.6% of patients.
Admission HDL levels are <40 mg/dL in 54.6% of patients
hospitalized with CAD, whereas <10% of patients have
admission HDL levels ≥60 mg/dL. Ideal lipid levels (LDL
<70 mg/dL with HDL ≥60 mg/dL) are seen in only 1.4% of
patients hospitalized with CAD. There were reductions in
admission LDL and HDL levels over time. These findings
provide insights into the lipid levels encountered in
recent clinical practice for patients hospitalized with
These findings may provide further support for
recent guideline revisions with even lower LDL goals.
They also may suggest a clinical need for developing
effective treatments to raise antiatherogenic HDL."
The end result was not to discount the link between CAD and levels of cholesterol, but whether or not the guidleines need to be revied and lowered. The study also pointed out that over 54% had HDL levels below the present guidelines and recommended that new protocol be put in place to increase levels of HDL.
I have some mixed feelings on this. As I read the reviews of this study, there was a common criticism which was that the control group only inlcuded those that were in the hospital. No consideration was made for the general public that has cholesterol levels at the recommended guidelines that do not have CAD. Also, if you look at those that were consider in the control group;
"Cardiovascular risk factors and comor-
bidities were frequently present with 54.2% having
hypertension, 26.2% having diabetes, and 30.4% being
smokers. Prior MI was noted in 16.5% of patients. For
this population, 45.6% had documented prior CHD,
other atherosclerotic vascular disease, or diabetes, and
54.4% did not."
Meaning that almost half the participants were already pre-disposed initial or further cardiac events not necessarily contributed to their cholesterol level. Most of the reviews I read felt these should be eliminated from the results.
The problem is, HDL can trigger LDL to become 'null' and return to the Liver but it is not able to when trapped in fissures in a damaged artery lining. This is why our immune system sends in the big guys to destroy them. However white cells cannot dissolve fat and turn into foam cells, the start of the athero process.
I really dont understand why people can't see why the levels of cholesterol make no difference. Let me put it in an easy to visualise manner,,,,,
imagine a grass hill. The grass is neatly trimmed, like the green on a golf course. Now stand on the top of the hill and tip out a small bucket of golf balls. You will see them roll down the hill and this represents cholesterol flowing through a healthy artery.
Now dig a narrow trench across the middle of the hill to represent damage in the artery
wall. Now tip a large bucket of golf balls down the hill and most of the golf balls will be trapped in the trench. This represents the cholesterol becoming trapped in a damaged artery and someone with high cholesterol. Now do the same thing but with a small bucket of golf balls. Strangley enough, the golf balls fall into the trench in the same way.
So, the obvious conclusion from this is that the level of cholesterol makes no difference, EXCEPT the disease will progress more slowly. The only way to STOP the disease obviously is to have NO cholesterol, but this would KILL us.
Very good points. However, there will always be people that you can try and convince that the sky is blue but they will always argue that its green. Common sense is something that you are either born with, or you are not.
by ed34, Oct 18, 2009 04:17AM
"If exercise was the cure, then I should never have got atherosclerosis. I had always been very active, probably on the border of hyperactive. Working in the building trade, I
would get home, eat a healthy meal, then go back out for martial arts training"
>>>On another post to establish credibility on a thread about pacemakers you stated you had experience in the electronic's field until 2000 and the company you were with was absorbed by hp. That is inconsistant with the building trade work..
by ed34, Oct 18, 2009 04:17AM
Exercising didn't stop my disease developing, but I believe it probably helped me to develop collaterals to save my life.
I ate healthily, lots of fruit/veg and oily fish. All a waste of time in my case.
>>>>>>What is considered beneficial for some heart patients is aorobic exercise for less than an hour 3 times a week. I believe the controlled time is a requirement for beneficial results?!. And whether you worked with electronics for a defibrillator manufacturer or the building trade is irrelevant for the respective threads. You don't have to answer any personal questions, but I'm somewhat confused are you retired or disabled?
>>>On another post to establish credibility on a thread about pacemakers you stated you had experience in the electronic's field until 2000 and the company you were with was absorbed by hp. That is inconsistant with the building trade work.. <<<
Now we have someone who fancies themselves as internet detective rather than giving valuable advice, opinions, experiences to people who are asking, which is why I thought the forum existed.
All I will say is that you are wrong and you should think at least two dimensional. I have friends who have four jobs, we are not limited to one. I left school with very good qualifications in computer programming and took up a contract to write applications for Kontron. It was only for a couple of hours a day and most of the software was written at home over weekends. For the money I was paid, I couldn't turn the contract down.
The building trade was in a partnership with my brother. I would drive from Kontron to the location of our current job, get changed and dig in. So, 8.30am - 10.30am was with Kontron and 11am to 5pm was in the building trade.
What will you dig up about me on the internet next? that I had a dislocated toe at the age of 20 perhaps?
"Now dig a narrow trench across the middle of the hill to represent damage in the artery
wall. Now tip a large bucket of golf balls down the hill and most of the golf balls will be trapped in the trench. This represents the cholesterol becoming trapped in a damaged artery "
greetings, Ed. I kind of like that analogy. Suppose we extend it by changing to both golf and tennis balls, and saying that the trench is too narrow for the tennis balls. The tennis balls would go past. They correspond to large LDL particles, which some say come from eating meat/fat. The small LDL comes from eating carbs.
ed34, 13 hours ago
QUOTE:"Now we have someone who fancies themselves as internet detective rather than giving valuable advice, opinions, experiences to people who are asking, which is why I thought the forum existed."
Stick to the subjects and don't characterize my motives to detract from the issues that have been raised. I work everyday, and don't have luxury of idle time that you apparently have and without asking about the inconstistencies you present is not detective work...its recognizing fabrications at most and/or irrelevancy. You consider yourself giving valuable advice on the two subject threads? Others differ with you and have more persuasive arguments in my opinion...you bring in your background as a last resort to be persuasive, but that tactic is irrelevant as I have said...even if one believes your work history which may be true or not.
If you stop thinking of something smart to say, please address the issue as asked: Isn't it the controlled time and degree of aorobic exercise done that is the most beneficial, not just ordinary busy work as you state you do or have done!
Regarding the pacemaker thread: You had stated (no longer on the thread) that you have electronic experience. Almost everyone now days has the computer software education you have indicated you have had. But the issue as I read is not related to writing code software as you claim you have done. The pacemaker as I understand is wired for a fixed rate pulse and doesn't require any programming. The demand type pacemaker notwithstanding...so your code writing experience is not going to help you...who are you trying to impress, fibbing and exaggeration will catch up to you as it appears now to have happened . That sir is what it is about, don't you agree a person can come to the conclusion that you have been a little disingenuous. Thank you.
"fibbing and exaggeration will catch up to you as it appears now to have happened"
I do not lie and I demand an apology. Since I began posting on here I have not yet seen one constructive post from yourself towards any questions. All I have seen is personal attacks on people. This is not what the forum is about and it certainly doesn't need an amateur psycho analyst believing he can work out a persons character and then smudge it, or attempt to. You say that background is irrelevant but thats utter rubbish. Background is experience and if someone experiences something then they have more understanding with many aspects than someone who hasn't. The argument was that electronic components break down and develop faults but you seem adament that this doesnt happen because you are creating an argument out of it. I tried to explain that I have seen this first hand but still you disbelieve it. Perhaps if components didn't break down the crew of Apollo 13 would have landed on the moon. It happens so you just need to deal with it.
>>>>>>What is considered beneficial for some heart patients is aorobic exercise for less than an hour 3 times a week. I believe the controlled time is a requirement for beneficial results?!. And whether you worked with electronics for a defibrillator manufacturer or the building trade is irrelevant for the respective threads. You don't have to answer any personal questions, but I'm somewhat confused are you retired or disabled? >>>
You're right I dont have to answer, the last thing I need is an agony aunt.
There's always one on every forum isnt there, looks like Ive found the one in this forum.
Your asides are of little consequences and are meaningless in the scheme of the subject discussed. No oplogy is needed, and I am not going to list your inconsistencies and go there for proof. I will state I don't believe you, others can come to their own conclusions.
But go to a more important issue: You state the mission of the forum is to give valuable advice,...so you have stated..."giving valuable advice, opinions, experiences to people who are asking, which is why I thought the forum existed." So we will go there: My posted comments deal with the truth (usually) doctors give their patients, and for good doctor/patient relationships there needs to be trust!....the medical community agrees that aorobic exercise is beneficial for heart patients and as well as a healthy diet, and you, Ed, if one is to believe you, you have worked hard and you have had a healthy diet, and because you have CAD one should not believe the doctor's advice because if it were true as the doctors claim you should of all people not have gotten CAD. You stated on other threads you do not believe in diet and exercise as being beneficial! What you have done is plant a seed of distrust with an individual for his/her doctor or medical research (some people need very little persuasion to stay with unhealthy diet,continued smoking, exercise,drinking etc.will accept any excuse) You are out of line to post that untruthful concept and possibly burden a person and family. That is what is important, not your inability to see the truth (who cares?), you should not mislead a reader as you often do. You should retract your personal experience lest you unnecessarily burden an individual and family that may take you seriously. I can virtually guarantee someone will disregard their doctor's advice because that is the easy way out and the most pleasant in the short run.
Regarding your pacemaker response. By stating a newly installed pacemaker maybe a problem may cause unnecessary stress especially when the patient's symptoms, treatment, and history doesn't logically lead to that conclusion. It is only a mistake in judgment, but so are many of your other posts.
I have no idea about your past experience on forums, but you do indicate by your snide remark you have had problems in the past with forums! I think I know the reason. You retract your misleading comments, and I will make the appropriate response to you.
YAWN, as usual a blah blah blah post which is of no use whatsoever to anyone. Well done again. I keep looking for your posts that actually give advice and yet I can't seem to find any. All I find are silly argument tactics. Still, rather than sit back believe Im mr perfect and trying to find faults in people who bother to find time to help others, I will simply continue with what I am doing. As for other forums, I belong to quite a few and have no problems. Like I said, there's usually ONE who has to be the spoiled apple but fortunately they are usually removed quickly by admin staff. Anyway you've made your points and I look forward to reading your future posts which actually deal with helping people (the purpose of this forum).
To be helpful as YOU claim you are, you should retract your rhetoric regarding healthy diet and exercise to be no benefit for heart patients...people like my father will use any excuse not to change to a more healthy protocol, and possibly others as well. THAT IS NOT HELPING to make a diliberate effort to mislead readers with information (true, who knows!) by an example of yourself having CAD even though you have had a healthy diet and hard work daily for enough exercise. You pretend indignation when accurssed of lying.
Probably you don't know, lying is to create a false or misleading impression by an inaccurate statement(s),and anyone who submits information as truth (your proclamation of diet and work) without knowing for certain whether or not it (proclamation effects) is true is "liar". And an untrue or inaccurate statement that may or may not be believed as true by the writer of subject material does nevertheless create a false and misleading impression...and it a fabrication, lie, prevarication, etc. And that speaks of your proclaimed help!
Your help as an example is equal to the kind of help a person who does not know the direction but will still give an asking tourist a direction anyway, and technically that would be a lie according to philosophers Kant, Nietzche, et al. Stop lying as your nose may grow across the pond into New York. I'm a member for information on this forum, and resent the exposture of misleading information you have given to readers who are seeking good relevant information not misleading information.
You remind me of extemist religious sects who take a small snippet and put it all out of context. Anyway, nice to see you for your weekly visit and thanks for a great post that has helped lots of people again. Keep up the usual good work.
you say Oct 19 your cholesterol couldn't be better with medications...WHAT medication? Do you take s med that increases HDL? Mine has dropped from 53 to 24 this year despite meds prescribed by cardios for my test-suggested CAD (Beta blocker, omega-3+B vits) no statins, no niacin. I have gone the meds-excercise-diet route , by the way, not meds+stents, or meds+bypass. Six weeks now, with recurring same old knock-down symptoms. But alive
What worries me is that cholesterol is needed to keep up alive. It is used to make new cells, repair damaged cells. It is used abundantly in the brain because fats are used to seal permanent connection between neuron cells. It is used to make certain hormones and certain vitamins. I cannot find one single place that states how much cholesterol is required to keep the body functioning properly. In the UK, recommended cholesterol levels for heart disease victims has been 'raised' to a higher level. Why on earth would they do this if cholesterol is the problem. Maybe they have realised that the body requires more cholesterol than believed to stay healthy.
My HDL wouldn't raise to the level required for many months and my cardiologist added a new medication to my regime which increased it. Atorvastatin 40mg daily seemed to lower LDL but hardly touched triglycerides or HDL. The Liver produces around 65-70% of the fats used in cholesterol lipids, the rest is from consumed foods. Ezetimibe 10mg daily was added which acts like a turbo booster for Atorvastatin. It works by limiting the amount of fats the body can absorb from foods. My LDL dropped another small amount but my triglycerides really shot down. Strangely, my HDL boosted to the recommended level. Don't ask me how this combination affects HDL, it just does.
Copyright 1994-2016 MedHelp International. All rights reserved.
MedHelp is a division of Aptus Health.
This site complies with the HONcode standard for trustworthy health information.
The Content on this Site is presented in a summary fashion, and is intended to be used for educational and entertainment purposes only. It is not intended to be and should not be interpreted as medical advice or a diagnosis of any health or fitness problem, condition or disease; or a recommendation for a specific test, doctor, care provider, procedure, treatment plan, product, or course of action. Med Help International, Inc. is not a medical or healthcare provider and your use of this Site does not create a doctor / patient relationship. We disclaim all responsibility for the professional qualifications and licensing of, and services provided by, any physician or other health providers posting on or otherwise referred to on this Site and/or any Third Party Site. Never disregard the medical advice of your physician or health professional, or delay in seeking such advice, because of something you read on this Site. We offer this Site AS IS and without any warranties. By using this Site you agree to the following Terms and Conditions. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your physician or 911 immediately.