INTERESTING HEALTH AND NUTRITION QUESTION - SPLURGE OR SAMPLE?

[sdiddy]

here is an interesting question that has plagued me for years. I have high cholesterol and many americans suffer from the same thing as well as other food related or food caused health issues. What I want to know is this: Consider 2 scenarios. the first one I eat quite healthy everyday, but then once a month I splurge and treat myself to a weekend of whatever I want (burgers, pizza, steak, french food, etc). Scenario 2 is I eat healthy, but eat smaller doses of unhealthy food throughout the month (a cookie here or there, one burger here or there...etc). Lets say the amount of unhealthy food in both scenarios is the exact same. Which scenario is worse for the system (with special consideration to the heart and cholesterol), or are they both the same?

[barn babe]

Sorry, but Framingham is seriously flawed.  Have you ever read the study results?

The Framingham researchers claimed to have found "striking" differences in risk of CHD in the participants under age 50 based on serum cholesterol levels. How "striking?" The mean serum cholesterol level of those with CHD was 11% higher than those without. The majority of patients - the majority - were in the normal range, and some of those participants had CHD at cholesterol levels as low as 150.

Sorry, but despite what some claim, low cholesterol does not guarantee immunity against CHD. And high cholesterol levels are anything but a sign of an impending heart disease disaster.

In 1987, the 30-year follow-up to Framingham was undertaken. The researchers could not find any correlation between high cholesterol levels and CV disease mortality in those over age 50. Why is this important to note? Because 95% of CHD deaths occur in those over age 55.  That means a very very small percentage of CHD deaths have a statistical relationship to cholesterol levels.

There was another outrageous finding in the original Framingham study that was dismissed by the researchers.  Those whose cholesterol levels *decreased* during the first 14 years of the study experienced an increase - an increase - in total and cardiovascular disease mortality.  That's right - an increase. The researchers' comment? "There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years."

Sorry, but the original Framingham study results should have brought the entire cholesterol-heart disease myth to a grinding halt. It showed that lowering one's cholesterol does not increase longevity but increases one's risk of death from all causes, including CV disease.

Color me skeptical. Meanwhile, I will enjoy my filet mignon, ribeye steaks, chicken, and fish while maintaining low body weight, running 9 miles a day, and having excellent muscular development, all without going hungry, and without savage blood sugar swings.

Enjoy your carbs.

[star queen]

The Framingham Heart Study was started in 1948 to study 5209 men and women between the ages of 30-62 without heart disease to track the incidence and progression of heart disease in order to better understand it.  They are now continuing with offspring studies.  It is this long term study that has been cheifly responsible in identifying "risk factors" to heart disease, stroke, and other disease processes.  They have "discovered" that obesity can be reversed by doing exercises, Type A (hyper and aggressive) personalities have a higher risk of stroke and heart attacks, and that obese people have a lot of high blood pressure, among others.  This study is considered to be the "gold standard" to identify risk factors.  Basically they have "found" that being alive contributes to the disease process and they don't know why.  This is the study we have to "thank" for deciding that if a person is thin, has no body fat whatsoever, exercises to the point of exhaustion, and gobbles vitamins instead of food they may be deemed "healthy" and be "free" of heart disease, stroke, and other disease processes.  This study's chief purpose is to identify "risk factors".  It is taken VERY seriously by the medical providers who are just trying to keep you healthy(Don't blame them). The drug companies just love this study. This study decided that a blood pressure of 120/80, which has been the "norm" forever, is now pre-hypertensive (you need drugs), a cholesterol level of over 200 is BAD (you need drugs)...you get the picture.  The latest is that if you are 10 pounds overweight (who dreamed up this weight scale) you are obese.  Congratulations you are now part of an international pandemic...take a pill. This study isn't entirely poop. It has set some good precedents in medicine and given us much to consider in treatment plans, but as with all medicine, the patient should be considered as an individual when applying each treatment plan.  Always work with your health care provider (they know you best).  You have a team out there watching out for you.  Your doctor, nurses, pharmacists, and specialists are the ones you should be working with to find out what is best for you.

[bobthetrainer]

have you ever heard of the Framingham study?

[barn babe]

There is evidence that cholesterol is not related to heart disease. Read "The Cholesterol Myth" by Uffe Raskonov or go to thincs.org to see an alternative viewpoint to the lipid hypothesis. I don't worry about cholesterol levels because I don't believe it is related to heart disease; what is related is insulin, which is a very powerful hormone. I eat a 100% carnivorous diet - no vegetation whatsoever - and I am in peak condition. I run marathons, I pump iron, and I have maintained my weight and have had stable blood sugar since my early 30s.

[bobthetrainer]

In terms of clinical significance (lipid values), most likely there would not be a significant difference as long as all of your other health parameters stayed the same (aka, exercise, weight, etc..)