Re: How to increase HDL Cholesterol

Time is money. No infinite bang.

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription

version

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
make sure it is time release.

Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

I saw quite a few wealthy types in the Cardio ward when I was there a
couple of months ago. Funny, when their tickers started acting up,
their apparent wealth didn't seem to matter that much anymore. Many
that I talked to said that they were going to have to increase the
time they spend on exercising, per their Doctors Instructions.

Bob

rmp said:

Time is money. No infinite bang.

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck

are

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription

version

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
make sure it is time release.

Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
make sure it is time release.

Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.

What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
of the bad guys to get rid of.

Mel

[email hidden] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
make sure it is time release.

Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.

What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
of the bad guys to get rid of.

Mel

The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
the denominator.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

M. Schwartz said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
make sure it is time release.

Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.

What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
of the bad guys to get rid of.

Mel

His statement reflects the ratio of TC/HDL. You can attack the problem from either end or both.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

On 24 Aug 2003 21:19:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] wrote:

> While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
> a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
> of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
> make sure it is time release.

Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.

What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
of the bad guys to get rid of.

Mel

The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
the denominator.

What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?

BTW, thanks for your contributions here.

Mooshie peas said:

On 24 Aug 2003 21:19:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> [email hidden] wrote:
>
> > While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
> > a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
> > of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
> > make sure it is time release.
>
> Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.

What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
of the bad guys to get rid of.

Mel

The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
the denominator.

What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?

Less than 3.

Quoted message said:

BTW, thanks for your contributions here.

You are very welcome :-)

Regards,

Andrew

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas said:

On 24 Aug 2003 21:19:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> > [email hidden] wrote:
> >
> > > While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
> > > a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
> > > of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
> > > make sure it is time release.
> >
> > Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.
>
>
> What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
> may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
> to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
> of the bad guys to get rid of.
>
> Mel

The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
the denominator.

What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?

Less than 3.

Quoted message said:

BTW, thanks for your contributions here.

You are very welcome :-)

Regards,

Andrew

I just want to add my two cents and say Thanks for your contributions
here. This place is greatly enhanced by your presence.

Thanks for being here!

Regards,
Mel

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:08:13 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas said:

On 24 Aug 2003 21:19:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Dr. Andrew B.
Chung, MD/PhD) posted:

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> > [email hidden] wrote:
> >
> > > While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
> > > a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
> > > of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
> > > make sure it is time release.
> >
> > Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.
>
>
> What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
> may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
> to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
> of the bad guys to get rid of.
>
> Mel

The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
the denominator.

What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?

Less than 3.

Thanks Andrew.

Is it thought that this HDL is needed (produced) to do some
"repair/cleanup" job in the body? Or is this just an urban myth?

What I'm getting at is, does it matter much what the actual numbers
are (within reason) so long as the ratio is within the range you gave?

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

I read somewhere that when TC is below 130 the goal is a ratio of 2-1
for LDL to HDL. Do you have any knowledge about that?

Mel

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas said:

On Wed, 27 Aug 2003 15:08:13 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas wrote:

> On 24 Aug 2003 21:19:06 -0700, [email hidden] (Dr. Andrew B.
> Chung, MD/PhD) posted:
>
> >[email hidden] (M. Schwartz) wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...
> >> > [email hidden] wrote:
> >> >
> >> > > While exercise helps a little the two biggest bings bang for the buck are
> >> > > a drink a day and time release niacin. Niaspan is a perscription version
> >> > > of what is easily purchased over the counter at a fraction of the price,
> >> > > make sure it is time release.
> >> >
> >> > Exercise has an infinite bang for the buck. Zero bucks.
> >>
> >>
> >> What is your opinion about Dr. Dean Ornish's statement that a low HDL
> >> may not be a bad indicator if the LDL and TC are very low? He goes on
> >> to say that the body is not producing more HDL because there is less
> >> of the bad guys to get rid of.
> >>
> >> Mel
> >
> >The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
> >cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
> >the denominator.
>
> What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?
>

Less than 3.

Thanks Andrew.

Is it thought that this HDL is needed (produced) to do some
"repair/cleanup" job in the body? Or is this just an urban myth?

It is called "reverse cholesterol transport."

Quoted message said:

What I'm getting at is, does it matter much what the actual numbers
are (within reason) so long as the ratio is within the range you gave?

According to the Framingham Heart Study data, folks with a TC/HDL ratio of less than 3 rarely acquired coronary disease.

M. Schwartz said:

"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

I read somewhere that when TC is below 130 the goal is a ratio of 2-1
for LDL to HDL. Do you have any knowledge about that?

Mel

There's no data regarding LDL/HDL ratios.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote in part:

Quoted message said:

Seems that as we are nearly all too fat, that the best avenue would be
to reduce all packaged/refined fats and stick to getting our fats from
wholefoods without any added (in fact reduce meat and dairy fats where
convenient) .

Eating "whole foods" would probably work fine, IMO, but only if meat and dairy
were almost eliminated.

(There is some ambiguity in the term "whole foods." Is an apple only whole if
you eat the seeds, too? The stem? The branch? The roots? The tree? I think
there is some usefulness in the concept, but I think it is a kind of stand-in
for "foods like our primitive ancestors ate."😉
--
Jim Chinnis Warrenton, Virginia, USA

Mooshie peas said:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:43:53 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
>> >cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
>> >the denominator.
>>
>> What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?
>>
>
>Less than 3.

Thanks Andrew.

Is it thought that this HDL is needed (produced) to do some
"repair/cleanup" job in the body? Or is this just an urban myth?

It is called "reverse cholesterol transport."

Quoted message said:

What I'm getting at is, does it matter much what the actual numbers
are (within reason) so long as the ratio is within the range you gave?

According to the Framingham Heart Study data, folks with a TC/HDL ratio of less than 3 rarely acquired coronary disease.

So the TC is not that important?

It is still in the numerator.

Quoted message said:

Would you ever worry if it were over
a particular figure?

Over 200 is a concern.

Quoted message said:

Just on another tack, am I on the right track that this
"good-fat"/"bad-fat" thing is just that too many folk eat the wrong
ratios coz of the abundance of processed fats and fatty foods that
have too much of one kind and too little of the other.

Yes, you would be on the right track with avoiding hydrogenated fats.

Quoted message said:

Seems that as we are nearly all too fat, that the best avenue would be
to reduce all packaged/refined fats and stick to getting our fats from
wholefoods without any added (in fact reduce meat and dairy fats where
convenient) .

You probably don't want to get me started about why folks get "fat."

Quoted message said:

This would surely redress the present skewing of our fat
type intakes and lower our calorie input at the same time.

I realise this is difficult to get across to the great unwashed
(general public) but it's surely better than pushing the
"swig-more-olive-oil-to-redress-the-balance" advice now abroad.

I'd appreciate your comments.

You have them and you are welcome.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:52:11 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas said:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:43:53 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

> >> >The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
> >> >cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
> >> >the denominator.
> >>
> >> What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?
> >>
> >
> >Less than 3.
>
> Thanks Andrew.
>
> Is it thought that this HDL is needed (produced) to do some
> "repair/cleanup" job in the body? Or is this just an urban myth?
>

It is called "reverse cholesterol transport."

>
> What I'm getting at is, does it matter much what the actual numbers
> are (within reason) so long as the ratio is within the range you gave?

According to the Framingham Heart Study data, folks with a TC/HDL ratio of less than 3 rarely acquired coronary disease.

So the TC is not that important?

It is still in the numerator.

Quoted message said:

Would you ever worry if it were over
a particular figure?

Over 200 is a concern.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just on another tack, am I on the right track that this
"good-fat"/"bad-fat" thing is just that too many folk eat the wrong
ratios coz of the abundance of processed fats and fatty foods that
have too much of one kind and too little of the other.

Yes, you would be on the right track with avoiding hydrogenated fats.

I was thinking of the folks saying we eat too much omega 6.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems that as we are nearly all too fat, that the best avenue would be
to reduce all packaged/refined fats and stick to getting our fats from
wholefoods without any added (in fact reduce meat and dairy fats where
convenient) .

You probably don't want to get me started about why folks get "fat."

Well what else but that they eat too much. Many for psychological
comfort that they learned as a child.
I happen to agree with your strategy, BTW.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This would surely redress the present skewing of our fat
type intakes and lower our calorie input at the same time.

I realise this is difficult to get across to the great unwashed
(general public) but it's surely better than pushing the
"swig-more-olive-oil-to-redress-the-balance" advice now abroad.

I'd appreciate your comments.

You have them and you are welcome.

Thanks again.

Mooshie peas <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:52:11 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas said:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:43:53 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

>> >> >The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of total
>> >> >cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator or
>> >> >the denominator.
>> >>
>> >> What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Less than 3.
>>
>> Thanks Andrew.
>>
>> Is it thought that this HDL is needed (produced) to do some
>> "repair/cleanup" job in the body? Or is this just an urban myth?
>>
>
>It is called "reverse cholesterol transport."
>
>>
>> What I'm getting at is, does it matter much what the actual numbers
>> are (within reason) so long as the ratio is within the range you gave?
>
>According to the Framingham Heart Study data, folks with a TC/HDL ratio of less than 3 rarely acquired coronary disease.

So the TC is not that important?

It is still in the numerator.

Quoted message said:

Would you ever worry if it were over
a particular figure?

Over 200 is a concern.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just on another tack, am I on the right track that this
"good-fat"/"bad-fat" thing is just that too many folk eat the wrong
ratios coz of the abundance of processed fats and fatty foods that
have too much of one kind and too little of the other.

Yes, you would be on the right track with avoiding hydrogenated fats.

I was thinking of the folks saying we eat too much omega 6.

That too.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems that as we are nearly all too fat, that the best avenue would be
to reduce all packaged/refined fats and stick to getting our fats from
wholefoods without any added (in fact reduce meat and dairy fats where
convenient) .

You probably don't want to get me started about why folks get "fat."

Well what else but that they eat too much. Many for psychological
comfort that they learned as a child.
I happen to agree with your strategy, BTW.

May God protect you for boldly writing (and Xposting) the above :-)

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This would surely redress the present skewing of our fat
type intakes and lower our calorie input at the same time.

I realise this is difficult to get across to the great unwashed
(general public) but it's surely better than pushing the
"swig-more-olive-oil-to-redress-the-balance" advice now abroad.

I'd appreciate your comments.

You have them and you are welcome.

Thanks again.

No problem.

--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com

This one's for you Mooshie, and all who think you have to be insulin
resistant to obtain benefit from a controlled carbohydrate diet.
MikeV
No need to reply. I've heard it all before. 🙂)

J Nutr. 2003 Sep;133(9):2756-61. Related Articles, Links

An Isoenergetic Very Low Carbohydrate Diet Improves Serum HDL Cholesterol
and Triacylglycerol Concentrations, the Total Cholesterol to HDL Cholesterol
Ratio and Postprandial Lipemic Responses Compared with a Low Fat Diet in
Normal Weight, Normolipidemic Women.
Volek JS, Sharman MJ, Gomez AL, Scheett TP, Kraemer WJ.

Human Performance Laboratory, Department of Kinesiology, University of
Connecticut, Storrs, CT 06269-1110 and. Laboratory for Applied Physiology,
The University of Southern Mississippi, Hattiesburg, MS 39406.

http://www.docguide.com/news/content.nsf/PaperFrameSet?OpenForm&refid=2&id=288CD03588170FAA8525695C00588836&c=Nutrition%2fDietetics&newsid=8525697700573E1885256D95002E1A9A&ref=/news/content.nsf/AllSpecNews?OpenForm&dt=s&id=288CD03588170FAA8525695C00588836&specialty=Nutrition%2fDietetics&u=http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12949361

"Mooshie peas" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

On Wed, 03 Sep 2003 10:52:11 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

Quoted message said:

Mooshie peas said:

On Thu, 28 Aug 2003 19:43:53 -0400, "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD"
<[email hidden]> posted:

>> >> >The data we have speaks to the importance of the *ratio* of

total

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >cholesterol divided by HDL. You can attack either the numerator

or

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> >> >the denominator.
>> >>
>> >> What's the desired ratio range, Andrew?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Less than 3.
>>
>> Thanks Andrew.
>>
>> Is it thought that this HDL is needed (produced) to do some
>> "repair/cleanup" job in the body? Or is this just an urban myth?
>>
>
>It is called "reverse cholesterol transport."
>
>>
>> What I'm getting at is, does it matter much what the actual numbers
>> are (within reason) so long as the ratio is within the range you

gave?

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>
>According to the Framingham Heart Study data, folks with a TC/HDL

ratio of less than 3 rarely acquired coronary disease.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

So the TC is not that important?

It is still in the numerator.

Quoted message said:

Would you ever worry if it were over
a particular figure?

Over 200 is a concern.

Thanks.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Just on another tack, am I on the right track that this
"good-fat"/"bad-fat" thing is just that too many folk eat the wrong
ratios coz of the abundance of processed fats and fatty foods that
have too much of one kind and too little of the other.

Yes, you would be on the right track with avoiding hydrogenated fats.

I was thinking of the folks saying we eat too much omega 6.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Seems that as we are nearly all too fat, that the best avenue would be
to reduce all packaged/refined fats and stick to getting our fats from
wholefoods without any added (in fact reduce meat and dairy fats where
convenient) .

You probably don't want to get me started about why folks get "fat."

Well what else but that they eat too much. Many for psychological
comfort that they learned as a child.
I happen to agree with your strategy, BTW.

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

This would surely redress the present skewing of our fat
type intakes and lower our calorie input at the same time.

I realise this is difficult to get across to the great unwashed
(general public) but it's surely better than pushing the
"swig-more-olive-oil-to-redress-the-balance" advice now abroad.

I'd appreciate your comments.

You have them and you are welcome.

Thanks again.