Guest guest Posted January 14, 2000 Report Share Posted January 14, 2000 Horsemom2@... wrote: > > In a message dated 01/14/2000 7:06:02 PM Eastern Standard Time, > etcarroll@... writes: > > << Elena, who hopes Barb remains careful with her saturated fats because of > her cholesterol levels while she is trying to jumpstart her metabolism. >> > > no worry cuz I am on a cholestriol lowering drug and off the complex that > temporarily raised it. Most of my increased eating will be carbs and > vegetable oils like Olive Oil and Cannola > > Barb, great news! Now I can relax this weekend and concentrate on my husband's high cholesterol level. Elena Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Eat healthy. Live a healthy life. Hope for good genetics, and you wont need statins. No, I dont think statins are required for anyone with levels at 180. You are still very OK at those levels. We consider levels under 200 normal. You dont ? Weird. But I also think its irresponsible that someone who has heightened levels is encouraged to eat with no respect whatsoever for how much exogenous cholesterol they ingest. Especially in special population like athletics or gym rats which are many times encouraged to eat loads of " milk " , " eggs " and " milk " . Dan Partelly Oradea, Romania >>Do you think that statin therapy is wise for everyone with total > cholesterol levels of 180 and above? > > Buddy > On Mon, Mar 30, 2009 at 8:55 AM, Dan Partelly wrote: > > > > > Again, this is a very risky statement. You should always think why higher > > levels of cholesterol (LDL) appear in the first place. A disturbance in the > > regulation of cholesterol. > > > > In such cases I consider to be a crime to feed more exogenous cholesterol > > to a person. > > > > a person who cant properly regulate cholesterol level would be very ill > > advised to follow your advice that exogenous cholesterol does not count. > > > > Cholesterol end in our bodies in 2 ways: > > a) from diet , exogenous > > it is synthesized in the body > > > > One must also understand that in regulation of cholesterol, exogenous > > cholesterol always count, even on a completely healthy person The mechanism > > is based on negative feedback on cholesterol levels and probably the main > > point of regulations is in fact the very tight regulation of the HMG-CoA > > reductase, which is the rate limiting enzyme in cholesterol synthesis. > > > > The mechanism is negative feedback, and it is driven by **total** amount of > > cholesterol, regardless of source. So if you ingest more, the body will > > compensate by slowing down the rate of cholesterol synthesis. > > > > It is hence incorrect to say that exogenous cholesterol have little effect > > on blood cholesterol. Once you understand the negative feedback mechanism of > > regulation you realize that is just as important as the synthesized part. > > > > As for those of you who think cholesterol levels and disturbances in its > > regulation have no effect on heart attacks, think that ppl who are > > homozygotes for the familiar hypercholesterolemia gene has 2x the normal LDL > > levels in blood and have a incidence of hear attacks in their 30 -40s > > (incidence of 1 in 500) , and homozygotes for this gene have a 6-8x times > > the normal LDL levels and may have heart attacks in the childhood. > > (incidence of 1 in 1000000). > > > > So nutrition " experts " , please stop talking about how meaningless is the > > cholesterol you ingest from diet. Someone may actually listen to you on the > > internet, and you have no idea how the person which listen to the " expert " > > has or not any problems with regulation of cholesterol. In effect, what you > > do is actually increasing the risk of their ischemic heart disease with your > > " precious " advices. > > > > Dan Partelly > > Oradea, Romania > > > > > > > > 2) The cholesterol point if rather moot, as dietary cholesterol has > > little > > > effect on blood cholesterol. Again, however, truly free range chickens > > > produce a more nutrient dense egg with more Omega 3's. You can notice the > > > difference easily as the free range egg has a much darker yolk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > > Buddy > > ----------- > Buddy A. Touchinsky, D.C. > Blue Mountain Family Chiropractic > www.bmfchiro.com > Healthy Habits Natural Market > www.healthyhabitsnaturalmarket.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 30, 2009 Report Share Posted March 30, 2009 Well, I think you have to understand 2 things: 1. the extremes (ppl with genetic issues --> FH) where given to illustrate what happens when you have high cholesterol. 2xLDL levels ==> high risk of heart attack in the 30 - 40s. 2. All ppl who are high in cholesterol levels begin to have a problem in cholesterol regulation. If they could regulate cholesterol OK int he first place, they wouldn't have a problem. Period. Hope this makes sense. You go in the risk zone, oir in the red zone, this is because your regulatory mechanism doesn't work anymore as they should. 3. So some say dietary cholesterol have no effect on total plasma levels. Other say that it has no bearing on risk of ischeamic heart disease (but please see point 1). Of course the levels are usually much lower than in the case of FH, but any increase of the risk is unwanted. (then again, some ppl insist to smoke as well ... ) So it donest count what you eat, you wont increase your risk, after this theory. But you are. And even if you increase your risk with only 1%, this is bad. Very bad. 4. This is internet. You theorize about completly healthy ppl with perfect regulation of cholesterol, but you dont say it in your messages. You only say A: " cholesterol is not the most signficant factor in blood cholesterol levels still stands. " , which is partially true. Partially true because the mechanism is negative feedback , and its should be painfully clear that total levels of cholesterol are important for this regulatory mechanism. By this I can say " synthetized cholesterol s not the most signficant factor in blood cholesterol levels still stands " and I am also partially true:P B: " ill say that in my studies, cholesterol level alone is a poor indicator for risk of cardiovascular disease " Ok, but we all know what happens in ppl with very high LDL. See the case of genetic FH. So what we do ? Relay on this ? If this only increase the risk with 0.5%, then this is a risk as a medical doctor noone should take. Do not harm... and if the risk increase with only 0.5% you do harm. And probably you know that high cholesterol goes with high LDL usually. And on internet the problem is, X comes and read your messages. He doesn't understand what means a perfect regulation of cholesterol. He only understand and hears that he can eat whatever shit he wants, because this is the message you guys are transmitting. He does, and in effect he increases his risk of hearth disease. Please keep internet free of such advices. Encourage ppl to listen to trained medical personal (MDs), and dont offer such advices on internet. Because you never know who reads your message and listens to you. Dan Partelly Oradea, Rmania > > Again, we're talking about the average person, you're jumping to extremes > and people that cannot regulate cholesterol correctly. > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 Subject: Cholesterol To: Supertraining Date: Monday, March 30, 2009, 10:17 AM Again, we're talking about the average person, you're jumping to extremes and people that cannot regulate cholesterol correctly. I will say that in my studies, cholesterol level alone is a poor indicator for risk of cardiovascular disease. As you may be aware, far more important indicators are CRP, homocysteine, ESR, low HDL levels, etc. A few questions I would ask you is at what point do cholesterol levels become dangerous? Or do you think that the 'as low as possible' mantra is correct? Do you think that statin therapy is wise for everyone with total cholesterol levels of 180 and above? =================================== ********* I would like to address the questions you posed to Dan as follows. I agree that total cholesterol is not a good indicator ( see my earlier post).CRP is not a good indicator since it is non specific indicator of inflammation. A sore throat will raise the CRP. A better indicator is the cardiac CRP which is specific to cardiac inflammation. In ordering the test you need to specify that you are interested in the carciac CRP. ESR is a very poor indicator of cardiac risk since it is also very non specific and any number of factors will raise it and it has very limited value in clinical practice. I have never heard or read any criteria that includes ESR. While there is an association between elevated homocysteine levels and cardiac risk, treating homocysteine levels does no lower cardiac risk (there have been many clinical trials that have show this) and having normal homocysteine levels does not indicate low risk for low cardiac risk. I stopped testing homocystine levels a number of years ago when the studies came out showing the poor correlation. When I was routinely testing homocysteine it was rarely high despite testing in hundreds of patients who were at risk. As for your question as to when do cholesterol levels become dangerous read my previous post. It depends on what the component levels are. An individual with an HDL of 110, LDL of 130 and triglycerides of 130 will have a total cholesterol of 266 and will be fine as long as the person as long as the HDL is the right kind. This persons nonHDL cholesterol is 156. An individual with and HDL of 15 and LDL of 140 and triglycerides of 130 would be at great risk. This individuals total cholesterol is 181. This persons nonHDL cholesterol is 166. An individual with an HDL 25 LDL of 130 and triglycerides of 130 is also at great risk is also at great risk. Total colesterol is also 181 nonHDL cholesterol is 156 but the low HDL, as you correectly pointed out, is a risk factor independent of the LDL levels. I have never heard or read any recommendations from credible authorities, that state that everyone with a cholesterol above 185 should be treated with medications. Ralph Giarnella MD Southington Ct USA Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 The pharmaceutical monopoly has enjoyed unbridled success in proliferating the cholestrol phobia myth as a vehicle for marketing statins, drugs without considerable danger. Ironically, statins may lower ldl cholestrol but do nothing for plaque. They do, however, suppress production of CoQ10 and tumor necrosis factor - so, if you fall into the statistical distribution of those for whom CoQ10 deficiency weakens skeletal and heart muscle, chances of surviving a heart attach are greatly diminished; moreover, with suppression of tumor necrosis factor, while decreasing cholestrol you increase possibility of dying a painful death from cancer. Alternatives exist. The ing-Rath treatment, using ascrobic acid, l-proline, and l-lysine, is known to dramatically arrest and reverse arterial placque within a year - for less than $300- total cost. I know of one man locally whose CT scans indicated greater than 90 percentile blockage, who wisely chose against statins, and for whom a year of ing-Rath reduced blockage to zero percentile. Also viable is EDTA chelation therapy for bringing down calcification, especially when combined with vitamin k-2. Obviously such therapies offered at low cost intrude into monopolies successful for pharmaceutical companies and cardiologists. Inflamatory markers are significant. And bringing them down is rather inexpensive as well. A healthy diet goes a long way. N-acetyl-cysteine, rather inexpensive, brings down the homocysteine rapidly. CRP responds favorably to krill oil, even chocolate despite the specious claims for Crestor in a flawed study released last year. LDL cholestrol seems to indicate a well working immune system, one responding to inflammation from myriad causes. caveat lector! Ken O'Neill Austin, Texas > > > > > Again, this is a very risky statement. You should always think why higher > > levels of cholesterol (LDL) appear in the first place. A disturbance in the > > regulation of cholesterol. > > > > In such cases I consider to be a crime to feed more exogenous cholesterol > > to a person. > > > > a person who cant properly regulate cholesterol level would be very ill > > advised to follow your advice that exogenous cholesterol does not count. > > > > Cholesterol end in our bodies in 2 ways: > > a) from diet , exogenous > > it is synthesized in the body > > > > One must also understand that in regulation of cholesterol, exogenous > > cholesterol always count, even on a completely healthy person The mechanism > > is based on negative feedback on cholesterol levels and probably the main > > point of regulations is in fact the very tight regulation of the HMG-CoA > > reductase, which is the rate limiting enzyme in cholesterol synthesis. > > > > The mechanism is negative feedback, and it is driven by **total** amount of > > cholesterol, regardless of source. So if you ingest more, the body will > > compensate by slowing down the rate of cholesterol synthesis. > > > > It is hence incorrect to say that exogenous cholesterol have little effect > > on blood cholesterol. Once you understand the negative feedback mechanism of > > regulation you realize that is just as important as the synthesized part. > > > > As for those of you who think cholesterol levels and disturbances in its > > regulation have no effect on heart attacks, think that ppl who are > > homozygotes for the familiar hypercholesterolemia gene has 2x the normal LDL > > levels in blood and have a incidence of hear attacks in their 30 -40s > > (incidence of 1 in 500) , and homozygotes for this gene have a 6-8x times > > the normal LDL levels and may have heart attacks in the childhood. > > (incidence of 1 in 1000000). > > > > So nutrition " experts " , please stop talking about how meaningless is the > > cholesterol you ingest from diet. Someone may actually listen to you on the > > internet, and you have no idea how the person which listen to the " expert " > > has or not any problems with regulation of cholesterol. In effect, what you > > do is actually increasing the risk of their ischemic heart disease with your > > " precious " advices. > > > > Dan Partelly > > Oradea, Romania > > > > > > > > 2) The cholesterol point if rather moot, as dietary cholesterol has > > little > > > effect on blood cholesterol. Again, however, truly free range chickens > > > produce a more nutrient dense egg with more Omega 3's. You can notice the > > > difference easily as the free range egg has a much darker yolk. > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > Thanks, > > Buddy > > ----------- > Buddy A. Touchinsky, D.C. > Blue Mountain Family Chiropractic > www.bmfchiro.com > Healthy Habits Natural Market > www.healthyhabitsnaturalmarket.com > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted March 31, 2009 Report Share Posted March 31, 2009 **** Ironically, statins may lower ldl cholestrol but do nothing for plaque. **** This not true -- and is another example of how the 'cholesterol skeptics' distort the science. Corti R, Fuster V, Fayad ZA, et al. Effects of aggressive versus conventional lipid-lowering therapy by simvastatin on human atherosclerotic lesions: a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial with high-resolution magnetic resonance imaging. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jul 5;46(1):106-12. Corti R, Fuster V, Fayad ZA, et al. Lipid lowering by simvastatin induces regression of human atherosclerotic lesions: two years' follow-up by high-resolution noninvasive magnetic resonance imaging. Circulation. 2002 Dec 3;106(23):2884-7. Lima JA, Desai MY, Steen H, et al. Statin-induced cholesterol lowering and plaque regression after 6 months of magnetic resonance imaging-monitored therapy. Circulation. 2004 Oct 19;110(16):2336-41. Gympie, Australia 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.