General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Should we really be lowering cholesterol

Started by Ray K · · Last activity · 15 posts · 270 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
26 August 2004
Last activity
1 September 2004
Original author
Ray K
Posts
15
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
270
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–15 of 15
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    cholesterol too high?

    Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too high.

    I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    thus making its reduction unwise.

    (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;
    incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    points.)

    Ray

  2. "Ray K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    cholesterol too high?

    Cholesterol is a marker for disease and you really want to get at the
    underlying cause as you state so the question is not why is the cholesterol
    too high. The cholesterol may be low normal or high in disease and in normal
    health ie reactive which is why the lipid panel is always performed when you
    are not acutely sick.

    Quoted message said:


    Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too high.

    That would then be an apparent normal physiology and it would thus be
    reactive and not pathologic.

    Quoted message said:


    I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    thus making its reduction unwise.

    Cholesterol is a marker for disease and is involved in tissue repair in both
    normal and abnormal physiology. It may not be primary in cause but secondary
    in a normal physiological repair process. The normal repair can cause
    narrowing of the lumen and in the long run disease. You want to reduce the
    availability of the normal repair process by limiting the amount of
    cholesterol in circulation.

    Quoted message said:


    (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;

    ???????

    Quoted message said:

    incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    points.)

    Ray

    The classical LDL, TC are not by themselves accurate. Subgrouping of LDL and
    lipids are more specific and can explain the so called normal LDL and the
    person gets a heart attack. If the LDL is mostly of an abnormal type then
    the total LDL is misleading.

    Quoted message said:


  3. Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    cholesterol too high?

    Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too high.

    I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    thus making its reduction unwise.

    (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;
    incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    points.)

    Ray

    Yes it is true that lowering cholesterol with drugs is not safe.
    Cholesterol does indeed rise with age and the body does this for good
    reason. It is a well established fact that not only is cholesterol
    not a risk factor in elderly people, but those with the highest
    cholesterol live longer.

    facts about the benefits of high cholesterol by Uffe Ravnskov

    http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html

    risks of cholesterol lowering drugs

    http://www.thincs.org/pressrelease82004.htm

    other good info about cholesterol at The International Network of
    Cholesterol Skeptics

    http://www.thincs.org

  4. "Wolfbrother" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    cholesterol too high?

    Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too


    high.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    thus making its reduction unwise.

    (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;
    incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    points.)

    Ray

    Yes it is true that lowering cholesterol with drugs is not safe.
    Cholesterol does indeed rise with age and the body does this for good
    reason. It is a well established fact that not only is cholesterol
    not a risk factor in elderly people, but those with the highest
    cholesterol live longer.

    facts about the benefits of high cholesterol by Uffe Ravnskov

    Not facts only spin. Talk about spin. So low cholesterol is bad?
    Most people with heart attacks have a low cholesterol?
    He spins the fact that maybe the young have stress and it causes the
    cholesterol to go up well then wouldn't that make the people with high
    cholesterols more resistent to heart attacks.
    He takes unrelated things and takes a spin on them.
    He is one big myth
    A heart attack is caused by blocked arteries as a result of "cholesterol"
    build up. It cloggs the arteries. What in the hell does he think causes the
    clogged artery? Giant Bacteria? One big ball of bacteria? Cut out an artery
    and look at it and see what's there. Its not a myth moron.

    Quoted message said:

    http://www.westonaprice.org/moderndiseases/benefits_cholest.html

    risks of cholesterol lowering drugs

    http://www.thincs.org/pressrelease82004.htm

    other good info about cholesterol at The International Network of
    Cholesterol Skeptics

    http://www.thincs.org

  5. "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    cholesterol too high?

    Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too


    high.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    thus making its reduction unwise.

    (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;
    incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    points.)

    Ray

    Yes it is true that lowering cholesterol with drugs is not safe.
    Cholesterol does indeed rise with age and the body does this for good
    reason. It is a well established fact that not only is cholesterol
    not a risk factor in elderly people, but those with the highest
    cholesterol live longer.

    facts about the benefits of high cholesterol by Uffe Ravnskov

    Not facts only spin. Talk about spin. So low cholesterol is bad?
    Most people with heart attacks have a low cholesterol?
    He spins the fact that maybe the young have stress and it causes the
    cholesterol to go up well then wouldn't that make the people with high
    cholesterols more resistent to heart attacks.
    He takes unrelated things and takes a spin on them.
    He is one big myth
    A heart attack is caused by blocked arteries as a result of "cholesterol"
    build up. It cloggs the arteries. What in the hell does he think causes the
    clogged artery? Giant Bacteria? One big ball of bacteria? Cut out an artery
    and look at it and see what's there. Its not a myth moron.

    You really are pathetic. I hope you are enjoying your statins. We
    will see who the moron is when you are dead from your stupidity. It
    must be frightening and depressing thinking the only way you can stay
    alive are toxic drugs. Yet you seem to cling so desperately to such
    self destructive notions.

  6. Wolfbrother said:

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

    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    >Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    >prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    >rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    >cholesterol too high?
    >
    >Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    >for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    >half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    >increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    >level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    >hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too

    high.

    Quoted message said:

    >I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    >theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    >thus making its reduction unwise.
    >
    >(I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    >get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    >cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;
    >incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    >better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    >have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    >cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    >points.)
    >
    >Ray

    Yes it is true that lowering cholesterol with drugs is not safe.
    Cholesterol does indeed rise with age and the body does this for good
    reason. It is a well established fact that not only is cholesterol
    not a risk factor in elderly people, but those with the highest
    cholesterol live longer.

    facts about the benefits of high cholesterol by Uffe Ravnskov

    Not facts only spin. Talk about spin. So low cholesterol is bad?
    Most people with heart attacks have a low cholesterol?
    He spins the fact that maybe the young have stress and it causes the
    cholesterol to go up well then wouldn't that make the people with high
    cholesterols more resistent to heart attacks.
    He takes unrelated things and takes a spin on them.
    He is one big myth
    A heart attack is caused by blocked arteries as a result of "cholesterol"
    build up. It cloggs the arteries. What in the hell does he think causes the
    clogged artery? Giant Bacteria? One big ball of bacteria? Cut out an artery
    and look at it and see what's there. Its not a myth moron.

    You really are pathetic. I hope you are enjoying your statins. We
    will see who the moron is when you are dead from your stupidity.

    At least he won't be dead from _your_ stupidity.

    -Jay

  7. "Wolfbrother" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

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

    Quoted message said:

    Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    > Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    > prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a


    symptom

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    > cholesterol too high?
    >
    > Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose


    that,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is


    only

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    > level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    > hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too


    high.

    Quoted message said:

    >
    > I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    > theories as to why the body might elevate its production of


    cholesterol,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > thus making its reduction unwise.
    >
    > (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    > cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end


    point;

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are


    probably

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart


    attacks

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    > cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    > points.)
    >
    > Ray

    Yes it is true that lowering cholesterol with drugs is not safe.
    Cholesterol does indeed rise with age and the body does this for good
    reason. It is a well established fact that not only is cholesterol
    not a risk factor in elderly people, but those with the highest
    cholesterol live longer.

    facts about the benefits of high cholesterol by Uffe Ravnskov

    Not facts only spin. Talk about spin. So low cholesterol is bad?
    Most people with heart attacks have a low cholesterol?
    He spins the fact that maybe the young have stress and it causes the
    cholesterol to go up well then wouldn't that make the people with high
    cholesterols more resistent to heart attacks.
    He takes unrelated things and takes a spin on them.
    He is one big myth
    A heart attack is caused by blocked arteries as a result of


    "cholesterol"

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    build up. It cloggs the arteries. What in the hell does he think causes


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    clogged artery? Giant Bacteria? One big ball of bacteria? Cut out an


    artery

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and look at it and see what's there. Its not a myth moron.

    You really are pathetic. I hope you are enjoying your statins. We
    will see who the moron is when you are dead from your stupidity. It
    must be frightening and depressing thinking the only way you can stay
    alive are toxic drugs. Yet you seem to cling so desperately to such
    self destructive notions.

    Tell me what's clogging arteries then? Ok it's not cholesterol then what is
    it?
    If your garbage disposal gets clogged up with banana peels then don't put
    banana peels in it next time.
    If your arteries get clogged with cholesterol then lower your cholesterol
    until they can come up with something better.

  8. "Jay Tanzman" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:
    Wolfbrother said:

    "Robert" <[email hidden]> wrote in message


    news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:


    Quoted message said:

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

    >Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message

    news:<[email hidden]>...

    >>Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    >>prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a


    symptom

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    >>cholesterol too high?
    >>
    >>Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose


    that,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is


    only

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    >>increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    >>level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    >>hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too

    high.

    >>I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    >>theories as to why the body might elevate its production of


    cholesterol,

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>thus making its reduction unwise.
    >>
    >>(I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt


    to

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    >>cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end


    point;

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    >>better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart


    attacks

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >>have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    >>cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    >>points.)
    >>
    >>Ray
    >
    >
    >Yes it is true that lowering cholesterol with drugs is not safe.
    >Cholesterol does indeed rise with age and the body does this for good
    >reason. It is a well established fact that not only is cholesterol
    >not a risk factor in elderly people, but those with the highest
    >cholesterol live longer.
    >
    >
    >facts about the benefits of high cholesterol by Uffe Ravnskov
    >

    Not facts only spin. Talk about spin. So low cholesterol is bad?
    Most people with heart attacks have a low cholesterol?
    He spins the fact that maybe the young have stress and it causes the
    cholesterol to go up well then wouldn't that make the people with high
    cholesterols more resistent to heart attacks.
    He takes unrelated things and takes a spin on them.
    He is one big myth
    A heart attack is caused by blocked arteries as a result of


    "cholesterol"

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    build up. It cloggs the arteries. What in the hell does he think causes


    the

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    clogged artery? Giant Bacteria? One big ball of bacteria? Cut out an


    artery

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    and look at it and see what's there. Its not a myth moron.

    You really are pathetic. I hope you are enjoying your statins. We
    will see who the moron is when you are dead from your stupidity.

    At least he won't be dead from _your_ stupidity.

    -Jay


    There's cholesterol deposits narrowing the arteries and the moron says it is
    a myth and don't believe it.
    Some people know how to swim and some others don't so if you through them
    both in the water the ones who don't know how to swim will drown. Conclusion
    it wasn't the water that caused them to drown because some didn't. That's
    the type of dumb ass logic the entire book is based on.

  9. "Ray K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing?

    Yes -- Of course it is!

    See: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/chd/why4.htm
    A 1994 study called the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (also called
    4S) found that lowering cholesterol can prevent heart attacks and reduce
    death in men and women who already have heart disease and high cholesterol.
    For over 5 years, more than 4,400 patients with heart disease and total
    cholesterol levels of 213 mg/dL to 310 mg/dL were given either a
    cholesterol-lowering drug or a placebo (a dummy pill that looks exactly like
    the medication). The drug they were given is known as a statin, and it
    reduced total cholesterol levels by 25 percent and LDL-cholesterol levels by
    35 percent. The study found that in those receiving statin, deaths from
    heart disease were reduced by 42 percent, the chance of having a nonfatal
    heart attack was reduced by 37 percent, and the need for bypass surgery or
    angioplasty was reduced by 37 percent. A very important finding is that
    deaths from causes other than cardiovascular disease were not increased, and
    so the 42 percent reduction in heart disease deaths resulted in a 30 percent
    drop in overall deaths from all causes.

    The 4S researchers say that the following benefits could be expected if
    doctors were to treat their heart disease patients for the same 5-year
    period and lower cholesterol to the same extent. For every 1,000 patients:

    a.. 40 people would be saved out of the 90 who would otherwise die from
    heart disease.
    b.. 70 of the expected 210 nonfatal heart attacks would be avoided.
    c.. Heart procedures such as bypass surgery would be avoided in 60 of the
    210 patients who would be expected to need these procedures.
    In 1996 the results of the Cholesterol and Recurrent Events (CARE) Study
    also showed the benefits of cholesterol lowering in heart disease patients.
    This study reported that even in patients with seemingly normal cholesterol
    levels (average of 209 mg/dL), cholesterol lowering with a statin drug
    lowered the risk of having another heart attack or dying by 24 percent.
    These patients were also less likely to need bypass surgery (26 percent
    reduction) or angioplasty (22 percent reduction) during the study. Women
    benefited even more than men, reducing their risk of having another heart
    attack by 45 percent. The CARE researchers estimate that treatment of 1,000
    patients similar to those in CARE would result in 153 fewer heart attacks
    and deaths from heart disease. If the patients were over 60, there would be
    214 fewer, and if they were all women, there would be 248 fewer.

    A study published in 1998, the Long-Term Intervention with Pravastatin in
    Ischaemic Disease (LIPID) study, examined the effects of cholesterol
    lowering in people with CHD (those who had already experienced a heart
    attack or had been hospitalized for angina) and who had relatively average
    cholesterol levels. The LIPID study used a statin drug to lower cholesterol
    levels in the treatment group. All study participants were counseled about
    following a cholesterol-lowering diet. The LIPID results showed that a drop
    of 18 percent in total cholesterol and 25 percent in LDL-cholesterol
    produced a 24 percent decrease in deaths from CHD among the treatment group
    compared with the control group. Similarly, cholesterol-lowering in the
    treatment group reduced the overall death rate by 22 percent, heart attacks
    by 29 percent, the need for bypass surgery or angioplasty by 20 percent, and
    stroke by 19 percent. Cholesterol lowering in the LIPID study resulted in
    significant reductions in CHD-related deaths and events without increasing
    non-CHD deaths.

    In the 4S, CARE, and LIPID trials, diabetic patients benefited from
    cholesterol lowering as much as nondiabetics. These studies along with many
    others support the need to lower cholesterol levels in heart disease
    patients. People with diabetes who do not have heart disease have a high
    risk for developing it - more than 20% over the next 10 years. People with a
    combination of several risk factors may also have more than a 20% risk of
    developing heart disease in the next 10 years. If your risk for developing
    heart disease is high (you have diabetes but do not have heart disease, or
    if you have a combination of risk factors and more than 20% risk in the next
    20 years), you can expect benefits from cholesterol-lowering similar to
    those in people with heart disease. If you lower your cholesterol, you too
    can see benefits like those in 4S, CARE, and LIPID.

    Also check out
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A44702-2004Jul12.html

    and check the ATP III Guidelines at
    http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/

  10. Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    cholesterol too high?

    Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too high.

    I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    thus making its reduction unwise.

    (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;
    incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    points.)

    Ray

    On the page 25 of the lecture below there is a diagram which shows the
    correlations between total cholesterol and coronary heart disease in
    The Seven Countries Study. You can see a clear correlation between
    high cholesterol and CHD mortality in Northern Europe and in the
    United States. However, in countries where flavonoid intake (see page
    26) is high and intake of omega-3 fats is also high there is almost no
    correlation. I would draw a conclusion that if the diet is not
    especially healthy one should try to lower cholesterol. But the best
    option is always to correct the diet.

    http://www.mgsd.net/uk/medias/Crepaldi_Drouin_lecture.PDF

    Jan

  11. C Kent said:


    "Ray K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing?

    Yes -- Of course it is!

    I agree.

    Quoted message said:

    See: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/chd/why4.htm
    A 1994 study called the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (also called
    4S) found that lowering cholesterol can prevent heart attacks and reduce
    death in men and women who already have heart disease and high cholesterol.


    snip

    Quoted message said:

    a.. 40 people would be saved out of the 90 who would otherwise die from
    heart disease.

    That looks nice but the data spun out here do not reflect the original
    article's finding that nearly the same number of people died in the
    follow-up in both the original and treatment arms.

    I contend that lowering cholesterol can be done in safer ways than
    simvastatin. Aside from dietary changes, quitting smoking, exercising,
    agents such as policosanol, pantethine, inositol hexanicotinate,
    fenugreek, insoluble fiber and others have shown some significant
    improvement in a range of lipid dyscrasias, including management of
    increased LDL, triglycerides, VLDL and low HDL.

    George M. Carter

  12. Ray K <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing? Regardless of method -
    prescription drugs, diet, supplements - it seems like treating a symptom
    rather than the underlying cause. The question becomes, why is
    cholesterol too high?

    Many of the body's hormones are derived from cholesterol. Suppose that,
    for whatever reason, the conversion of cholesterol to hormone A is only
    half as efficient as in our youth or in a healthier body. Perhaps the
    increase in cholesterol is the body's attempt to maintain the proper
    level of hormone A. Of course if the conversions of cholesterol to
    hormones B and C are okay, then hormones B and C will be become too high.

    I welcome your comments on this possibility, as well as any other
    theories as to why the body might elevate its production of cholesterol,
    thus making its reduction unwise.

    (I'm aware that the constant lowering of "safe" levels is an attempt to
    get more people on expensive drugs. I'm also aware that reducing
    cholesterol levels below a certain level isn't really a valid end point;
    incidence of heart attacks or strokes or death from them are probably
    better ones. And I'm aware that half the people dying from heart attacks
    have none of the alleged major risk factors: high LDL or total
    cholesterol levels, smoking, obesity, etc. So no need to raise these
    points.)

    Ray

    Of course we need to lower cholesterol. How else are the
    pharmaceutical companies going to earn billions for their share
    holders?

    TC

  13. GMCarter <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

    Quoted message said:
    C Kent said:


    "Ray K" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Is lowering cholesterol really a good thing?

    Yes -- Of course it is!

    I agree.

    Quoted message said:

    See: http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/chd/why4.htm
    A 1994 study called the Scandinavian Simvastatin Survival Study (also called
    4S) found that lowering cholesterol can prevent heart attacks and reduce
    death in men and women who already have heart disease and high cholesterol.


    snip

    Quoted message said:

    a.. 40 people would be saved out of the 90 who would otherwise die from
    heart disease.

    That looks nice but the data spun out here do not reflect the original
    article's finding that nearly the same number of people died in the
    follow-up in both the original and treatment arms.

    I contend that lowering cholesterol can be done in safer ways than
    simvastatin.

    Use herbs. I tried it before and they worked beautifully. The good
    thing about using herbs is that you need not take them permanently and
    there are hardly any side-effects. The downside to herbs is that you
    do need an experienced herbs practitioner to prescribe a recipee which
    does not make your body over-react. And I doubt if there are that
    many good traditional practitioners are around in North America.

    FP
    ==================================

    Aside from dietary changes, quitting smoking, exercising,

    Quoted message said:

    agents such as policosanol, pantethine, inositol hexanicotinate,
    fenugreek, insoluble fiber and others have shown some significant
    improvement in a range of lipid dyscrasias, including management of
    increased LDL, triglycerides, VLDL and low HDL.

    George M. Carter

  14. "francispoon" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    news:[email hidden]...

    Quoted message said:

    Use herbs. I tried it before and they worked beautifully. The good
    thing about using herbs is that you need not take them permanently and
    there are hardly any side-effects.

    Herbs are just drugs in their natural form. A good deal of the drugs we use
    now started as plant extracts anyway. Like drugs, herbs do have
    side-effects. Like drugs, they only tend to work for as long as you use
    them, unless you use them to treat an acute disease (and then you can
    discontinue use, just like you do with drugs). Herbs can kill you or harm
    you, just as easily as drugs can. Eating a few mouthful of bay leafs
    (dont't!) will be as harmfull as overdosing on heart pills.

  15. On 31 Aug 2004 15:44:18 -0700, [email hidden] (francispoon)
    wrote:

    snip

    Quoted message said:

    Use herbs. I tried it before and they worked beautifully. The good
    thing about using herbs is that you need not take them permanently and
    there are hardly any side-effects. The downside to herbs is that you
    do need an experienced herbs practitioner to prescribe a recipee which
    does not make your body over-react. And I doubt if there are that
    many good traditional practitioners are around in North America.

    A variety of nutrients might help. See, e.g.,
    http://www.thorne.com/altmedrev/.fulltext/7/3/203.pdf

    George M. Carter

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.