HAh!

Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks (unless it's
low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con" by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.

Bob in CT wrote:
:: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
::
:: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
:: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
:: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in
:: arteries."
::
:: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

Noway2 said:

Bob in CT said:

When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?

"And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol
as intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or
deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/

--Bob in CT

I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical
community has been fed "certain lines of [censored]" for so long that it is
believed without question.

This last Saturday I went to one of the local Food Lions (not the
grocery store I usually go to) to get some hot dogs and buns as my wife
won't eat hot dogs without them.

Anyway, I made the mistake of reading the labels on the items. The
first pack of buns I picked up (the store brand) had an ingredients list
3 miles long and included of all things SHELLAC as 'a glazing agent'.
Next, I went to the bread isle and searched for the ones with the least
amount of 'stuff' in them.

What caught my attention (and the relevance to the O.P) is that they had
one pack of some brand's 'Heart Healthy' ones. The only thing I could
find that differentiated them was that they had slightly more fiber in
them and listed brown sugar before the HFCS. Of course even the
refinded 'white' ones had labels all over the place denoting their
"whole grain" goodness.

I also had a hell of a time trying to find hot dogs without the HFCS and
it turns out there was ONLY one brand that didn't have it.

So in answer to your question, when will they learn? Probably about the
same time that the masses stop accepting all this [censored] being put in
their food and get past the need for everything to be sweetened with
corn syrup.

They will learn when they take the time to actually acquire factual
information.

We will be ice skating in Hades when that happens.

After that, then the most people will learn the difference between loose
and lose.

Bob in CT said:

When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?

"And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol as
intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or
deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/

--Bob in CT

I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical
community has been fed "certain lines of [censored]" for so long that it is
believed without question.

This last Saturday I went to one of the local Food Lions (not the
grocery store I usually go to) to get some hot dogs and buns as my wife
won't eat hot dogs without them.

Anyway, I made the mistake of reading the labels on the items. The
first pack of buns I picked up (the store brand) had an ingredients list
3 miles long and included of all things SHELLAC as 'a glazing agent'.
Next, I went to the bread isle and searched for the ones with the least
amount of 'stuff' in them.

What caught my attention (and the relevance to the O.P) is that they had
one pack of some brand's 'Heart Healthy' ones. The only thing I could
find that differentiated them was that they had slightly more fiber in
them and listed brown sugar before the HFCS. Of course even the
refinded 'white' ones had labels all over the place denoting their
"whole grain" goodness.

I also had a hell of a time trying to find hot dogs without the HFCS and
it turns out there was ONLY one brand that didn't have it.

So in answer to your question, when will they learn? Probably about the
same time that the masses stop accepting all this [censored] being put in
their food and get past the need for everything to be sweetened with
corn syrup.

Roger Zoul <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
|| (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
|| by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
||
|| Bob in CT wrote:
|||| When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
||||
|||| "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
|||| cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
|||| odds of
|||| heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
|||| buildup in arteries."
||||

I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
been
excellent.

BJ

--
--
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally
convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of
reflection." - Jules Henri Poincaré

Glory, glory the world is saved by the Democrats. They promise
to be just as honest and bipartisan as they were before the 1994
elections.

BJ in Texas said:

Roger Zoul <[email hidden]> wrote:
|| Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
|| (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
|| by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
||
|| Bob in CT wrote:
|||| When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
||||
|||| "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
|||| cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
|||| odds of
|||| heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
|||| buildup in arteries."
||||

I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
been
excellent.

BJ

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.

So, "cholesterol" is only a portion of the story, if it is indeed much
of a driver at all.

It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to
prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X.

I recently read a recent book on CHD which cited 20 risk factors for
CHD. Author was a practicing Cardiologist.

The risk factors were given severity or significance numbers ranging
from 0 up to 20.

A personal prior heart attack got a risk significance of 20.
Family history was 10 or 15.
Most everything else was a 2, 3 or 5

Cholesterol was a 2, if I remember it accurately.

There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer" viewpoint.

Jbuch wrote:
:: BJ in Texas wrote:
::: Roger Zoul <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::: Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
::::: (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
::::: by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
:::::
::::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::::::
::::::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::::::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
::::::: odds of
::::::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
::::::: buildup in arteries."
:::::::
:::
::: I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
::: of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
::: been
::: excellent.
:::
::: BJ
:::
::
::
:: It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
:: also have Low Cholesterol.
::
:: So, "cholesterol" is only a portion of the story, if it is indeed
:: much
:: of a driver at all.
::
:: It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to
:: prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X.
::
::
:: I recently read a recent book on CHD which cited 20 risk factors for
:: CHD. Author was a practicing Cardiologist.
::
:: The risk factors were given severity or significance numbers ranging
:: from 0 up to 20.
::
:: A personal prior heart attack got a risk significance of 20.
:: Family history was 10 or 15.
:: Most everything else was a 2, 3 or 5
::
:: Cholesterol was a 2, if I remember it accurately.
::
:: There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer"
:: viewpoint.

If anything in that book I listed above is true (the references he cites)
then the entire cholesterol business is based on an "ad-hoc hypothesis" and
has little or no basis.

Jbuch said:

After that, then the most people will learn the difference between
loose and lose.

<G>

Noway2 said:

I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical
community has been fed "certain lines of [censored]" for so long that it
is believed without question.

Exhibit A: All the ads running during the NCAA basketball tournament,
with the American Heart Association shilling for Subway because their
food isn't "greasy." Not that a Subway sandwich could ever be greasy
anyway. The huge amount of bread in one of those things could soak
anything up.

--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Roger Zoul said:

Jbuch wrote:
:: BJ in Texas wrote:
::: Roger Zoul <[email hidden]> wrote:
::::: Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
::::: (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
::::: by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
:::::
::::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::::::
::::::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::::::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
::::::: odds of
::::::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
::::::: buildup in arteries."
:::::::
:::
::: I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
::: of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
::: been
::: excellent.
:::
::: BJ
:::
::
::
:: It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
:: also have Low Cholesterol.
::
:: So, "cholesterol" is only a portion of the story, if it is indeed
:: much
:: of a driver at all.
::
:: It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to
:: prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X.
::
::
:: I recently read a recent book on CHD which cited 20 risk factors for
:: CHD. Author was a practicing Cardiologist.
::
:: The risk factors were given severity or significance numbers ranging
:: from 0 up to 20.
::
:: A personal prior heart attack got a risk significance of 20.
:: Family history was 10 or 15.
:: Most everything else was a 2, 3 or 5
::
:: Cholesterol was a 2, if I remember it accurately.
::
:: There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer"
:: viewpoint.

If anything in that book I listed above is true (the references he cites)
then the entire cholesterol business is based on an "ad-hoc hypothesis" and
has little or no basis.

Sounds vaguely like this dietary concept called Low Fat. Didn't low fat
become so popular right around the time that everyone started worrying
about cholesterol to the point where every two-bit corner drug store
started offering cholesterol screenings?

Bob in CT said:

When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?

"And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol as
intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or deaths,
or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/

I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even
at 80 and 93, and 99.

deke wrote:
:: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT"
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::
::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in
::: arteries."
:::
::: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
::
:: I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
:: family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even
:: at 80 and 93, and 99.

So why take statins?

Roger Zoul said:

deke wrote:
:: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT"
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::
::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in
::: arteries."
:::
::: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
::
:: I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
:: family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all even
:: at 80 and 93, and 99.

So why take statins?

I'm shopping for a term life policy and they hike the premiums for
high cholesterol by at least 50%

Strangely enough, if you are taking statins and it brings the
numbers down to normal, they don't penalize you.

This is per a letter from Genworth company.

deke wrote:
:: On Tue, 27 Mar 2007 16:02:38 -0400, "Roger Zoul"
:: <[email hidden]> wrote:
::
::: deke wrote:
::::: On Mon, 26 Mar 2007 12:23:16 -0400, "Bob in CT"
::::: <[email hidden]> wrote:
:::::
:::::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
::::::
:::::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
:::::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
:::::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup
:::::: in arteries."
::::::
:::::: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
:::::
::::: I'm back on statins after my total went to 297. However, all my
::::: family have high numbers and no history of heart disease at all
::::: even at 80 and 93, and 99.
:::
::: So why take statins?
:::
::
:: I'm shopping for a term life policy and they hike the premiums for
:: high cholesterol by at least 50%
::
:: Strangely enough, if you are taking statins and it brings the
:: numbers down to normal, they don't penalize you.
::
:: This is per a letter from Genworth company.

Sounds like as good a reason as any! (good idea!)

Amazing how insurance companies are running our life....if you don't take
the drugs, they make you pay big time!

Jbuch said:

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.

What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have
heart attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its
I've seen that slightly MORE that half of all women who have
heart attacks have normal cholesterol levels.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

RRzVRR said:

Jbuch said:

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.

What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have heart
attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its I've seen that
slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks have normal
cholesterol levels.

I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly
simplified it.

Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight.

Jbuch said:

RRzVRR said:

Jbuch said:

It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.

What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have
heart attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its I've
seen that slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks
have normal cholesterol levels.

I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly
simplified it.

.... and I pretty much thought that's what you meant ...

Quoted message said:

Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight.

--
Rudy - Remove the Z from my address to respond.

"It is better to die on your feet than to live on your knees!"
-Emiliano Zapata

Check out the a.s.d.l-c FAQ at:
http://www.grossweb.com/asdlc/faq.htm

RRzVRR said:

Jbuch said:

RRzVRR said:

Jbuch wrote:

> It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
> also have Low Cholesterol.

What I've often seen cited is that about half the people who have
heart attacks also have normal cholesterol levels. Plus, its I've
seen that slightly MORE that half of all women who have heart attacks
have normal cholesterol levels.

I think that is what I MEANT to say, but a senior moment overly
simplified it.

... and I pretty much thought that's what you meant ...

Quoted message said:

Right now, I'm so terrified about Xylitol that I can't think straight..

I think that one caution with regard to the stuff I posted is that the
drug itself has some influence on heart disease. However, the high
cholesterol (or LDL) proponents don't treat it that way. For instance,
the "Prove it" trial used two different drugs at two different dosages,
where one drug (at the higher dosage) lowered LDL by a larger degree and
also appeared to cause fewer heart attacks. In this case, they asserted
that it was the lowering of LDL that caused the fewer heart attacks, even
though they used two drugs at two different dosages. Based on this flawed
thought process, the study I posted "proved" that higher HDL = more heart
attacks.

--
Bob in CT