Aa
IS CHOLESTEROL THE REAL ENEMY?
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?
This discussion is related to High Choleserol/low triglycerides.
This discussion is related to High Choleserol/low triglycerides.
COMMUNITY LEADER
Just beacuse you think it doesn't mean you're right.............. I don't know about the UK, but here everyone can have an opinion.
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?
"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?
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.
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.
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.
COMMUNITY LEADER
Ed,
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;
Conclusions
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
CAD.
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.
In any case, intersting read.
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;
Conclusions
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
CAD.
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.
In any case, intersting read.
Have an Answer?
You are reading content posted in the Heart Disease Community
Is a low-fat diet really that heart healthy after all? James D. Nicolantonio, PharmD, urges us to reconsider decades-long dietary guidelines.
Can depression and anxiety cause heart disease? Get the facts in this Missouri Medicine report.
Fish oil, folic acid, vitamin C. Find out if these supplements are heart-healthy or overhyped.
Learn what happens before, during and after a heart attack occurs.
What are the pros and cons of taking fish oil for heart health? Find out in this article from Missouri Medicine.
How to lower your heart attack risk.
