Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Dear all, am really interested in the whole cholesterol debate, particularly as i've just recently read " The Cholesterol myths " by Uffe Ravnskov. It very convincingly and in a rigorously researched manner presents the evidence that neither cholesterol nor saturated fats are causes of heart disease. He carefully dissects all the different trials, and i must say it's persuaded me to reconsider the dietary advice i'm giving to people... (and that's me having been a (semi-)vegetarian for many years - talk about pulling the carpet from under your own feet!!) Has anybody else read this book? I'd be really interested in a discussion! Even though i had known for some time that pharmaceutical politics were behind the push for statins, i strangely enough hadn't copped on to the extent to which commercial clout has obviously penetrated the whole research establishment, creating " eminence based medicine " , and influencing the outcome/presentation of so-called objective scientific studies which then form the basis for both public opinion and " professional " medical advice. (BTW, can also recommend " Calculated risks - How to know when numbers deceive you " by G Gigerenzer see review at www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/bookreviews.pdf ) If I do accept that cholesterol/LDL levels have no causative role in heart disease in anybody without familial hypercholesterolaemia, and further that diet doesn't affect those levels (if we cut down on intake our livers will simply make up for the difference), then what am i doing giving herbs to reduce cholesterol and telling people to cut out the cream?? Like Sharita I have found that nervines do seem to make some difference, but that may simply be due to the fact that during stress the body's cholesterol requirement increases - reduce the stress, reduce the requirement. It still seems to be accepted that we try to lower Pts' cholesterol levels with herbs and diet. Is there any justification for such a strategy? What dietary advice do we give to people re (good quality, organic) saturated fats? And why and on what evidence? What is people's response to Ravnskov's book? I'd love your input! All the best Sabine Sabine Hiller BSc(Hons) MIIMH MNIMH Medical Herbalist Knockrooskey Westport Co.Mayo Tel. 098-35909 herbalist@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Dear Sabine Thanks so much for giving the reference; I'll certainly get this book. I have felt for some time that the whole cholesterol thing was orchestrated by the pharmaceutical companies, and have advised patients to eat a whole-food diet, not necessarily a low-fat one, like many other herbalists, I guess, since we all understand the need for fats in the diet, and the relationship between the liver and the cholesterol levels. I've tried to encourage people to eat natural fats, and avoid the 'processed' fats such as are found in margarines etc. Also to avoid taking fats along with refined flour and sugar. I've come to this from reading lots of little bits, in lots of places, but the book you recommend sounds really good, it'll be great to have something 'evidence-based' to work with. As for giving patients herbs to lower their cholesterol, I have done this, but have always recognised that it's more to alleviate the patient's concerns than anything else, as they are usually so completely brainwashed by the medical profession, and bring their cholesterol test results with them at every opportunity. Since the herbs we use for this are such lovely hepato-protective ones anyway, we can only be doing good with this strategy! I read somewhere recently that one theory about why statins work post MI, is that they have an anti-inflammatory action, thus acting on the proposed inflammatory lesions inside the vascular lumen. Since turmeric also has anti-inflammatory properties, as well as hepato-protective ones, I think this makes it a clear winner, myself. As for the pharmaceutical companies et al being influential in research, I learned that lesson the hard way, when I questioned the value of immunisations, and was given some 'research' to read, by the GP with whom I was then working. I read it carefully, and realised that the data and the text actually said very different things! They'd clearly relied on people not caring enough to read it carefully. Alison Morton > >Reply-To: ukherbal-list >To: <ukherbal-list > >Subject: Re: Cholesterol info >Date: Fri, 3 Mar 2006 16:44:29 -0000 > >Dear all, > >am really interested in the whole cholesterol debate, particularly as i've >just recently read " The Cholesterol myths " by Uffe Ravnskov. It very >convincingly and in a rigorously researched manner presents the evidence >that neither cholesterol nor saturated fats are causes of heart disease. >He >carefully dissects all the different trials, and i must say it's persuaded >me to reconsider the dietary advice i'm giving to people... (and that's me >having been a (semi-)vegetarian for many years - talk about pulling the >carpet from under your own feet!!) Has anybody else read this book? I'd be >really interested in a discussion! > >Even though i had known for some time that pharmaceutical politics were >behind the push for statins, i strangely enough hadn't copped on to the >extent to which commercial clout has obviously penetrated the whole >research >establishment, creating " eminence based medicine " , and influencing the >outcome/presentation of so-called objective scientific studies which then >form the basis for both public opinion and " professional " medical advice. >(BTW, can also recommend " Calculated risks - How to know when numbers >deceive you " by G Gigerenzer see review at >www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/bookreviews.pdf ) > >If I do accept that cholesterol/LDL levels have no causative role in heart >disease in anybody without familial hypercholesterolaemia, and further that >diet doesn't affect those levels (if we cut down on intake our livers will >simply make up for the difference), then what am i doing giving herbs to >reduce cholesterol and telling people to cut out the cream?? Like Sharita >I >have found that nervines do seem to make some difference, but that may >simply be due to the fact that during stress the body's cholesterol >requirement increases - reduce the stress, reduce the requirement. > >It still seems to be accepted that we try to lower Pts' cholesterol levels >with herbs and diet. Is there any justification for such a strategy? What >dietary advice do we give to people re (good quality, organic) saturated >fats? And why and on what evidence? What is people's response to >Ravnskov's >book? > >I'd love your input! >All the best >Sabine > >Sabine Hiller BSc(Hons) MIIMH MNIMH >Medical Herbalist >Knockrooskey >Westport >Co.Mayo >Tel. 098-35909 >herbalist@... > _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Yup, they are currently being suggested as helpful in bird flu which does suggest antinflammatory activity, Sally O > I read somewhere recently that one theory about why statins work post > MI, is > that they have an anti-inflammatory action, thus acting on the > proposed > inflammatory lesions inside the vascular lumen. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 3, 2006 Report Share Posted March 3, 2006 Dear Sabine, I read Ravnskov's book some time ago and it made a great impression on me as well. Very succinct and well written. I came across it whilst researching the low carb approach to diabetes. I've been following the Protein Power approach with my husband to help control his diabetes. We'd been eating reasonably healthy, as I thought, when he was diagnosed. Initially he did well as I tightened up on the diet and we went semi-vegetarian too. However, in a few months we'd both piled on a stone in weight and his bloodwork was going from reasonable to not so good. I was also having a lot of digestive problems and was wondering if I actually had a grain problem. I spent 5 months researching the various low-carb approaches. The Atkins books do actually have quite a bit of research details in them if you read them through but I settled on the Eades approach of Protein Power. Their book 'The Protein Power Lifeplan' has a chapter devoted to cholesterol which makes interesting reading (unfortunately the references took up so much space -about 40 pages- they had to be downloaded separately from their website, which is in the process of being rebuilt after a hacker got in - I do have a copy but I don't know how easy it is to access them at the moment.) I am also a member of the Protein Power forum. Lots of discussion takes place and many people have been eating this way for many years. They have lost their excess weight but most place greater emphasis on the health aspects of this way of eating. Many post their bloodwork results and it certainly seems to have beneficial effects on lipid levels, with no obvious adverse effects. There are also links posted and that's how I found out about Ravsnkov. Our own personal experiences have been positive and our diet is rich in butter, cream, olive oil, salads, non-starchy vegetables, berries, meat (preferably organic, certainly free-range) and fish and low in grains and starchy carbohydrates. Bloodwork generally is good, although husband fell off the wagon last year and you can see from the results when it started showing up. He is now being good again and things are getting better. As a result of searching around about diabetes, cholesterol, and statins I have amassed a pile of papers that is now 5 inches thick and desperately needs ordering and filing. Other books, with references, that I have read that cover the alternative approach to cholesterol are Barry Groves 'Eat Fat, Get Thin!' Enig and Sally Fallon 'Eat Fat, Lose Fat' and 'Nourishing Traditions'. C Vernon's 'Atkins Diabetes Revolution' also has a lot to say about cholesterol and there is a section about it Dr Bernstein's 'Diabetes Solution'. Cholesterol and especially triglycerides appear to have more of a correlation with the amount and type of carbohydrate in the diet; fat actually seems to have little impact on them and in fact saturated fats like butter can actually improve HDL status. One of the fats I use a lot now is coconut oil after reading Enig's book and another by Bruce Fife. ND 'Coconut Cures'. As a result of all this reading about I am now having to think about redoing my Cholesterol information sheet. The dietary approach can actually be a little tricky because everyone has unique requirements. Another interesting book I have read is 'The Metabolic Typing Diet' by Wolcott and Trish Fahey. This places people on a scale from protein types to carbohydrate types and the diet for each is obviously very different, and of course some people fall in the middle. The idea is to fine tune the diet to suit each individual; once you have it right the body works at optimal levels and there should be no problems. Like most things, it can all be a bit complicated. In actual fact I haven't had many people seeing me about cholesterol problems. But as a general guideline, persuading people to eat as natural a diet as possible and similar to that of our grandparents' seems a good place to start. They ate things like butter, and lard and beef dripping and in my experience they seem to have had a longer and generally healthier lifespan than later generations. I tend to point out the way I used to see things and how I see things now and point them into reading up themselves about these things before making a more informed decision about what they want to do. 'The Nourishing Traditions' has some very nice recipes in it. It's subtitle is 'The Cookbook that Challenges Politically Correct Nutrition and the Diet Dictocrats'. :-) I agree with Alison that there is an awful lot of politicing and lobbying going on with this subject that is utterly unrelated to people's health but certainly there to promote the interests of big Pharma et al. Re research as well, some of the sites like www.hsibaltimore.com and mercola.com, plus WDDTY look at recently published research that's reached the headlines and quite frequently find that the actual results show a very different picture to the one that is touted in the media. Reading abstracts is not so good as reading the actual research; unfortunately that is time consuming. I've just started on the next stage of my OU studies in Psychology and been looking at research methods. Objectivity is big in research but rather cynically perhaps, I ask myself can any research ever be truly objective? Especially if a drug or food company is paying for it. Don't we all tend to look at what supports our ideas and ignore that which queries it? If I do an internet search I can find science that both supports and debunks the Cholesterol Myth. Can't both be right can they? So I look at what's there so hopefully I can make informed decisions, hence the 5 inch pile to plough through before rewriting my cholesterol info notes. Rather rambled on a bit; sorry for that. It becomes quite a vast subject the more you look into it, and it is difficult to go against the accepted wisdom but I can only speak as I find. Regards, MNINH. MCThA. Staffordshire In message <006f01c63ee2$24d9eab0$2ee8869f@computername>, Sabine Hiller writes >Dear all, > >am really interested in the whole cholesterol debate, particularly as i've >just recently read " The Cholesterol myths " by Uffe Ravnskov. It very >convincingly and in a rigorously researched manner presents the evidence >that neither cholesterol nor saturated fats are causes of heart disease. He >carefully dissects all the different trials, and i must say it's persuaded >me to reconsider the dietary advice i'm giving to people... (and that's me >having been a (semi-)vegetarian for many years - talk about pulling the >carpet from under your own feet!!) Has anybody else read this book? I'd be >really interested in a discussion! > >Even though i had known for some time that pharmaceutical politics were >behind the push for statins, i strangely enough hadn't copped on to the >extent to which commercial clout has obviously penetrated the whole research >establishment, creating " eminence based medicine " , and influencing the >outcome/presentation of so-called objective scientific studies which then >form the basis for both public opinion and " professional " medical advice. >(BTW, can also recommend " Calculated risks - How to know when numbers >deceive you " by G Gigerenzer see review at >www.aapsonline.org/jpands/vol9no1/bookreviews.pdf ) > >If I do accept that cholesterol/LDL levels have no causative role in heart >disease in anybody without familial hypercholesterolaemia, and further that >diet doesn't affect those levels (if we cut down on intake our livers will >simply make up for the difference), then what am i doing giving herbs to >reduce cholesterol and telling people to cut out the cream?? Like Sharita I >have found that nervines do seem to make some difference, but that may >simply be due to the fact that during stress the body's cholesterol >requirement increases - reduce the stress, reduce the requirement. > >It still seems to be accepted that we try to lower Pts' cholesterol levels >with herbs and diet. Is there any justification for such a strategy? What >dietary advice do we give to people re (good quality, organic) saturated >fats? And why and on what evidence? What is people's response to Ravnskov's >book? > >I'd love your input! >All the best >Sabine > >Sabine Hiller BSc(Hons) MIIMH MNIMH >Medical Herbalist >Knockrooskey >Westport >Co.Mayo >Tel. 098-35909 >herbalist@... > > > >List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 5, 2006 Report Share Posted March 5, 2006 Good grief! Talk about getting on the bandwagon ... What lengths will pharmaceutical companies not go to to increase sales ?!?**! Jan > Yup, > they are currently being suggested as helpful in bird flu which does > suggest antinflammatory activity, > Sally O > > > > >> I read somewhere recently that one theory about why statins work post >> MI, is >> that they have an anti-inflammatory action, thus acting on the >> proposed >> inflammatory lesions inside the vascular lumen. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Thanks Alison and for your replies! > I've tried to encourage people > to eat natural fats, and avoid the 'processed' fats such as are found in > margarines etc. Also to avoid taking fats along with refined flour and > sugar. Yes, Alison, i'd done this too, but have always presented a vegetarian wholefood diet supplemented with fish/seafood/esp fatty fish as the ideal, with occasional small amounts of lean meat only if desired/indicated. This, I had learned during my course, and also through further reading, was the best way to avoid CVD, maintain a healthy weight, prevent cancer and a myriad of other conditions. It was all centered on reducing SatFAs as well as not burdening the body with excess protein. It looks as if i may have to rewrite all my info-sheets, but at the same time, i don't just want to hop from one ill-thought-out dogma to another... > I spent 5 months researching the various > low-carb approaches. The Atkins books do actually have quite a bit of > research details in them if you read them through but I settled on the > Eades approach of Protein Power. Hi , I find a low-carb approach which excludes/restricts wholegrains from the diet problematic. Much of it seems based on some notion of what our pre-historic " ancestors " diet was like. Nobody will ever know what exactly they ate in which proportions, and many high-protein/fat diet proponents (I've only read " The modern nutritional diseases " by A & F Ottoboni and Sally Fallon's 'Nourishing Traditions' plus some internet stuff) seem to focus on the Cro Magnon, who was around during the reindeer period (30-10,000 BC), had a large brain, straight forehead, and was for that reason heavily mythologised in the 19th C and used extensively in race theory at the time... This Cro Magnon was a hunter (cold climate, spare vegetation), practised religion and art, but didn't do very well population wise, and eventually disappeared (possible remnants in Canary Islands). The massive increase in population only arose when people started to have increased access to grains (in France/Iran etc first sickles were found 7-8,000 BC) and especially once they started cultivating them (from around 6-5,000BC). I have more detail if you're interested. To vilify grains seems non-sensical to me, as they dramatically improved survival and initiated a rapid and exponential growth in human population (whether that was good or bad for the planet as a whole is another story...) > But as a general guideline, persuading people to eat as > natural a diet as possible and similar to that of our grandparents' > seems a good place to start. They ate things like butter, and lard and > beef dripping and in my experience they seem to have had a longer and > generally healthier lifespan than later generations. I completely agree with you, , and Ravnskoff's book has reassured me not to feel bad about using butter and cream more liberally, but we have to remember, that in practice most people's diets were centered around a carb food, be that rice, cassava, millet, maize, wheat or spuds. Here in Ireland, peasants lived on spuds, porridge, buttermilk, cabbage, wild garlic, plus the odd egg, butter and occasionally meat - depending on whether they could afford not to sell them. Meat and other animal products did not make up 40-60 % of people's diets, as the Eades' approach seems to advise (they suggest 40% carb (which I'd understand to be your veg plus small amounts of grain), 30% protein, 30% fat). At the same time i acknowledge that this approach may work well for curbing hunger while losing weight, and is obviously best for those with extensive grain intolerances. On a global level though, we will have to rely largely on plant sources of protein to feed the world, there is no way it can be done with an emphasis on animal products (never mind organic/free-range ones!). > The idea > is to fine tune the diet to suit each individual; once you have it right > the body works at optimal levels and there should be no problems. Like > most things, it can all be a bit complicated. Yes...but i want it easy! > Reading abstracts is not so good as reading > the actual research; unfortunately that is time consuming. I've just > started on the next stage of my OU studies in Psychology and been > looking at research methods. Objectivity is big in research but rather > cynically perhaps, I ask myself can any research ever be truly > objective? I've come to the same question, or rather conclusion that no, it can't be. Do herbalists in general see it that way, and if so, what consequences does this have on us wanting to be accepted by the orthodox medical establishment, on us wanting to " join the club " ? If herbal medicine is to become orthodox, it will invariably adopt the same power structures, etc - anyway, this is another topic altogether... > Don't > we all tend to look at what supports our ideas and ignore that which > queries it? If I do an internet search I can find science that both > supports and debunks the Cholesterol Myth. Can't both be right can they? I completely agree. I guess it's all part of post-modernism, but i don't like it at all... Can you give me deatils for the debunk websites? > Rather rambled on a bit; sorry for that. Same here, apologies likewise, but these are fascinating topics... Has anybody researched the research on associations between cancer and dietary protein and sat. fat intakes? Best wishes Sabine Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 6, 2006 Report Share Posted March 6, 2006 Dear Sabine, Thanks for your feedback. It really can be a very interesting and far-ranging topic. Re the grains - I know they can have a place in a healthy diet, barley and oats particularly. Speaking for myself I do have a definite problem with grains; over the past 3 years I have challenged every so often and still get GIT problems. I really do miss my porridge. Husband also has a problem in that grains, no matter how wholesome, push his blood sugar up into double figures for some reason and it takes too long for them to return to normal. We did go pretty much vegetarian for about 8 months or so after his diagnosis and the weight piled on, the GIT played up and the blood sugar levels went haywire. So for us personally that approach does not seem viable. It does not however stop me from advocating that approach to others if it seems suited to them. That's why I became interested in the metabolic typing diet ideas insofar that it works on the basis that everyone's needs are unique to that individual. I suppose ultimately it's finding what works best for a person, pretty much what we do anyway as herbalists, tailoring our approach to each patient. The ethics of what we eat and how we produce it is of course another huge subject entirely. Interesting question that you pose about research and whether we 'join the club' of orthodox research. We work so differently; it's like comparing apples and pears. Ideally I suppose we need to come up with some alternative yet acceptable methods or look to changing paradigms. Not easy considering the vested interests of both pharmaceuticals and food producers/suppliers, etc. With regard to details 'debunking' the cholesterol myth, if you give me a bit of time I can hopefully come up with them. Next week I have some time earmarked for going through the huge pile of bumph I've accumulated, putting it into order so that I can put my hand straight to the information required when asked to. Some of it relates to diabetes, some to cholesterol and statins and I'll probably come across some other long lost info in the process, or stuff that now seems totally useless. Two sites off the top of my head that have interesting pieces on this topic are www.mercola.com and www.hsibaltimore.com. You can always do searches. Whether or not you agree with them of course is a different matter but it's all food for thought. To balance my knowledge I'm interested in the grain cultivation info you mention. I always like to have a good read around any topic - keeps the grey cells going if nothing else. :-), and sometimes you can come across info that can change one's thoughts around. Best wishes, In message <003201c64120$3a8d8570$bae8869f@computername>, Sabine Hiller writes >Thanks Alison and for your replies! > >> I've tried to encourage people >> to eat natural fats, and avoid the 'processed' fats such as are found in >> margarines etc. Also to avoid taking fats along with refined flour and >> sugar. > >Yes, Alison, i'd done this too, but have always presented a vegetarian >wholefood diet supplemented with fish/seafood/esp fatty fish as the ideal, >with occasional small amounts of lean meat only if desired/indicated. This, >I had learned during my course, and also through further reading, was the >best way to avoid CVD, maintain a healthy weight, prevent cancer and a >myriad of other conditions. It was all centered on reducing SatFAs as well >as not burdening the body with excess protein. It looks as if i may have to >rewrite all my info-sheets, but at the same time, i don't just want to hop >from one ill-thought-out dogma to another... > >> I spent 5 months researching the various >> low-carb approaches. The Atkins books do actually have quite a bit of >> research details in them if you read them through but I settled on the >> Eades approach of Protein Power. > >Hi , I find a low-carb approach which excludes/restricts wholegrains >from the diet problematic. Much of it seems based on some notion of what >our pre-historic " ancestors " diet was like. Nobody will ever know what >exactly they ate in which proportions, and many high-protein/fat diet >proponents (I've only read " The modern nutritional diseases " by A & F >Ottoboni and Sally Fallon's 'Nourishing Traditions' plus some internet >stuff) seem to focus on the Cro Magnon, who was around during the reindeer >period (30-10,000 BC), had a large brain, straight forehead, and was for >that reason heavily mythologised in the 19th C and used extensively in race >theory at the time... This Cro Magnon was a hunter (cold climate, spare >vegetation), practised religion and art, but didn't do very well population >wise, and eventually disappeared (possible remnants in Canary Islands). > >The massive increase in population only arose when people started to have >increased access to grains (in France/Iran etc first sickles were found >7-8,000 BC) and especially once they started cultivating them (from around >6-5,000BC). I have more detail if you're interested. To vilify grains seems >non-sensical to me, as they dramatically improved survival and initiated a >rapid and exponential growth in human population (whether that was good or >bad for the planet as a whole is another story...) > >> But as a general guideline, persuading people to eat as >> natural a diet as possible and similar to that of our grandparents' >> seems a good place to start. They ate things like butter, and lard and >> beef dripping and in my experience they seem to have had a longer and >> generally healthier lifespan than later generations. > >I completely agree with you, , and Ravnskoff's book has reassured me >not to feel bad about using butter and cream more liberally, but we have to >remember, that in practice most people's diets were centered around a carb >food, be that rice, cassava, millet, maize, wheat or spuds. Here in >Ireland, peasants lived on spuds, porridge, buttermilk, cabbage, wild >garlic, plus the odd egg, butter and occasionally meat - depending on >whether they could afford not to sell them. Meat and other animal products >did not make up 40-60 % of people's diets, as the Eades' approach seems to >advise (they suggest 40% carb (which I'd understand to be your veg plus >small amounts of grain), 30% protein, 30% fat). At the same time i >acknowledge that this approach may work well for curbing hunger while losing >weight, and is obviously best for those with extensive grain intolerances. > >On a global level though, we will have to rely largely on plant sources of >protein to feed the world, there is no way it can be done with an emphasis >on animal products (never mind organic/free-range ones!). > >> The idea >> is to fine tune the diet to suit each individual; once you have it right >> the body works at optimal levels and there should be no problems. Like >> most things, it can all be a bit complicated. >Yes...but i want it easy! > >> Reading abstracts is not so good as reading >> the actual research; unfortunately that is time consuming. I've just >> started on the next stage of my OU studies in Psychology and been >> looking at research methods. Objectivity is big in research but rather >> cynically perhaps, I ask myself can any research ever be truly >> objective? > >I've come to the same question, or rather conclusion that no, it can't be. >Do herbalists in general see it that way, and if so, what consequences does >this have on us wanting to be accepted by the orthodox medical >establishment, on us wanting to " join the club " ? If herbal medicine is to >become orthodox, it will invariably adopt the same power structures, etc - >anyway, this is another topic altogether... > > >> Don't >> we all tend to look at what supports our ideas and ignore that which >> queries it? If I do an internet search I can find science that both >> supports and debunks the Cholesterol Myth. Can't both be right can they? > >I completely agree. I guess it's all part of post-modernism, but i don't >like it at all... >Can you give me deatils for the debunk websites? > >> Rather rambled on a bit; sorry for that. > >Same here, apologies likewise, but these are fascinating topics... Has >anybody researched the research on associations between cancer and dietary >protein and sat. fat intakes? > >Best wishes >Sabine > > > >List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 I am doing the MSc course with the ish School and want to do some aspect of the cholesterol debate for my dissertation. I am in the early stages of refining the research proposal, and want to choose what would be the most useful and relevant for us herbalists. This could be a literature search, or a review of some case histories. What it WON'T be is whether one particular herb is useful in lowering cholesterol. The approach will be holistic, with an energetic interpretation. Any responses and other ideas would be most welcome - either on or off list. What knowledge about this subject would be most useful to you in practice? Many thanks Helen Duxbury Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Hi Helen Good for you; hope you enjoy it as much as I did! For me, the most useful thing would be to collate all the information which shows that the whole cholesterol thing is a nonsense (if it is; of course you may find the opposite, that the medics and pharmaceuticals have been right all along!). How you could wriggle that round into a viable hypothesis is your problem! Alison Morton > >Reply-To: ukherbal-list >To: <ukherbal-list > >Subject: Re: Cholesterol info >Date: Tue, 7 Mar 2006 10:57:02 -0000 > >I am doing the MSc course with the ish School and want to do some >aspect of the cholesterol debate for my dissertation. I am in the early >stages of refining the research proposal, and want to choose what would be >the most useful and relevant for us herbalists. This could be a literature >search, or a review of some case histories. What it WON'T be is whether one >particular herb is useful in lowering cholesterol. The approach will be >holistic, with an energetic interpretation. >Any responses and other ideas would be most welcome - either on or off >list. >What knowledge about this subject would be most useful to you in practice? > >Many thanks >Helen Duxbury > > _________________________________________________________________ Be the first to hear what's new at MSN - sign up to our free newsletters! http://www.msn.co.uk/newsletters Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 7, 2006 Report Share Posted March 7, 2006 Dear Helen, I would second Alison Morton's response. As she says you may actually prove that cholesterol is a big problem but I would take that view more seriously only if I knew that the researcher was at least someone who does not have a vested interest, with as impartial an outlook as possible, who is looking at the subject from a viewpoint of what would be best for the general public interest and welfare. -- In message <001401c641d5$dea1c120$db416a51@helenrn4hru6kt>, Helen Duxbury writes >I am doing the MSc course with the ish School and want to do some >aspect of the cholesterol debate for my dissertation. I am in the early >stages of refining the research proposal, and want to choose what would be >the most useful and relevant for us herbalists. This could be a literature >search, or a review of some case histories. What it WON'T be is whether one >particular herb is useful in lowering cholesterol. The approach will be >holistic, with an energetic interpretation. >Any responses and other ideas would be most welcome - either on or off list. >What knowledge about this subject would be most useful to you in practice? > >Many thanks >Helen Duxbury > > > > >List Owner: Graham White, MNIMH > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.