Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Also, back when there were no effective treatments for diabetes a diagnosis was, essentially, a death sentence. I have read in older medical texts that a diabetic will succumb soon to the inevitable complications. Some very old texts suggest giving a diabetic whiskey until he went into a coma so that death will be peaceful. Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? Formerly - as recently as the 1980's, it was a very bad thing to diagnose diabetes. The few older medical texts I could find looked for eight million ways from Tuesday to find ways people do NOT really have diabetes! Diagnosing people as sick if tehy might not be is terrible manners! Also reasons to deny employment, insurance, and even drivers' licenses. I kid you not. Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Also, back when there were no effective treatments for diabetes a diagnosis was, essentially, a death sentence. I have read in older medical texts that a diabetic will succumb soon to the inevitable complications. Some very old texts suggest giving a diabetic whiskey until he went into a coma so that death will be peaceful. Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? Formerly - as recently as the 1980's, it was a very bad thing to diagnose diabetes. The few older medical texts I could find looked for eight million ways from Tuesday to find ways people do NOT really have diabetes! Diagnosing people as sick if tehy might not be is terrible manners! Also reasons to deny employment, insurance, and even drivers' licenses. I kid you not. Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Also, back when there were no effective treatments for diabetes a diagnosis was, essentially, a death sentence. I have read in older medical texts that a diabetic will succumb soon to the inevitable complications. Some very old texts suggest giving a diabetic whiskey until he went into a coma so that death will be peaceful. Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? Formerly - as recently as the 1980's, it was a very bad thing to diagnose diabetes. The few older medical texts I could find looked for eight million ways from Tuesday to find ways people do NOT really have diabetes! Diagnosing people as sick if tehy might not be is terrible manners! Also reasons to deny employment, insurance, and even drivers' licenses. I kid you not. Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Dora wrote: > > J'ai un question. > > If your triglycerides, blood sugar, insulin and LDL are all under control > and your homocysteine and c-reactive protein were high, what would you > do about it? > Homocysteine can be lowered by taking B vitamins. CRP indicates inflamation in the body, so anti-inflamatories. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Dora wrote: > > J'ai un question. > > If your triglycerides, blood sugar, insulin and LDL are all under control > and your homocysteine and c-reactive protein were high, what would you > do about it? > Homocysteine can be lowered by taking B vitamins. CRP indicates inflamation in the body, so anti-inflamatories. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 You mean like prednisone? Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? > > > Homocysteine can be lowered by taking B vitamins. CRP indicates > inflamation in the body, so anti-inflamatories. > > Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 You mean like prednisone? Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? > > > Homocysteine can be lowered by taking B vitamins. CRP indicates > inflamation in the body, so anti-inflamatories. > > Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 You mean like prednisone? Yours, Dora Austin, Texas villandra@... Re: Re: Cholesterol too low? > > > Homocysteine can be lowered by taking B vitamins. CRP indicates > inflamation in the body, so anti-inflamatories. > > Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 > (snip) > It seems you are suggesting I used " new and trendy indicators " and > not solid research in making the above statement? > If so, it's not so :-)) > ..Irene Irene: The study I cited < http://tinyurl.com/5to6v > was a study of almost 15,000 physicians by Brigham & Womens Hospital, and published in the Nov 2001 Journal of American Medical Association. Of the eleven markers, the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio was the strongest (those in the top 25% were 3.9 times more likely to vascular disease than those in the bottom 25%). C-reactive protein was the strongest of the non-cholesterol markers (2.8 times difference of top 25% to bottom 25%). All the other markers were weaker that the above two. So I still say --- show me a peer-reviewed study that says cholesterol is not a very good predictor of heart disease. :-) , Charlotte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 > (snip) > It seems you are suggesting I used " new and trendy indicators " and > not solid research in making the above statement? > If so, it's not so :-)) > ..Irene Irene: The study I cited < http://tinyurl.com/5to6v > was a study of almost 15,000 physicians by Brigham & Womens Hospital, and published in the Nov 2001 Journal of American Medical Association. Of the eleven markers, the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio was the strongest (those in the top 25% were 3.9 times more likely to vascular disease than those in the bottom 25%). C-reactive protein was the strongest of the non-cholesterol markers (2.8 times difference of top 25% to bottom 25%). All the other markers were weaker that the above two. So I still say --- show me a peer-reviewed study that says cholesterol is not a very good predictor of heart disease. :-) , Charlotte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 > (snip) > It seems you are suggesting I used " new and trendy indicators " and > not solid research in making the above statement? > If so, it's not so :-)) > ..Irene Irene: The study I cited < http://tinyurl.com/5to6v > was a study of almost 15,000 physicians by Brigham & Womens Hospital, and published in the Nov 2001 Journal of American Medical Association. Of the eleven markers, the total cholesterol to HDL cholesterol ratio was the strongest (those in the top 25% were 3.9 times more likely to vascular disease than those in the bottom 25%). C-reactive protein was the strongest of the non-cholesterol markers (2.8 times difference of top 25% to bottom 25%). All the other markers were weaker that the above two. So I still say --- show me a peer-reviewed study that says cholesterol is not a very good predictor of heart disease. :-) , Charlotte Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Dora wrote: > > : > > There isn't still one predictor of heart disease. There are two of them. Only two? :-))) There are lots:-) Too low potassium is one that I have to fight all the time for example. My mother died of that one - runs in the family and is an unusual one - but it is a predictor and is the cause of my own heart attacks in 2001 :-) Sometimes the medical profession latches onto one or other factor and " sees a correlation " statistically betwen it and heart disease - and then only layter finds that some other aspect is the real problem - and the statistics led them astray. It's better if we understand the metabolic mechanism as well so that it makes logical sense, amnd not only statistical sense. For example the potassium one woudl not make statistical sense - it's quite rare - but it makes logical sense and is valid. The " cholesterol in the diet " one is false the other way round - more statistics than logic and later we find it's not cholesterolin the diet as in eggs that is the problem - but cholesterol formed after eating too many carbs and turning them to triglycerides - so that internal cholesterol transport is affected - it's not to do with dietary cholesterol. And as you pointed out - the understanding that HDL cholesterol is " good " is a relatively recent addition. And that only is because it is now understood as a logical function and not a statistical figure. Looks like homocysteine and c-reactive protein also need better general acceptance as heart problem predictors to name a couple more. Glucose is directly another one - high glucose that is. It directly causes calcification of the blood vessels by glycation - ugh! A real baddie for us. Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Dora wrote: > > : > > There isn't still one predictor of heart disease. There are two of them. Only two? :-))) There are lots:-) Too low potassium is one that I have to fight all the time for example. My mother died of that one - runs in the family and is an unusual one - but it is a predictor and is the cause of my own heart attacks in 2001 :-) Sometimes the medical profession latches onto one or other factor and " sees a correlation " statistically betwen it and heart disease - and then only layter finds that some other aspect is the real problem - and the statistics led them astray. It's better if we understand the metabolic mechanism as well so that it makes logical sense, amnd not only statistical sense. For example the potassium one woudl not make statistical sense - it's quite rare - but it makes logical sense and is valid. The " cholesterol in the diet " one is false the other way round - more statistics than logic and later we find it's not cholesterolin the diet as in eggs that is the problem - but cholesterol formed after eating too many carbs and turning them to triglycerides - so that internal cholesterol transport is affected - it's not to do with dietary cholesterol. And as you pointed out - the understanding that HDL cholesterol is " good " is a relatively recent addition. And that only is because it is now understood as a logical function and not a statistical figure. Looks like homocysteine and c-reactive protein also need better general acceptance as heart problem predictors to name a couple more. Glucose is directly another one - high glucose that is. It directly causes calcification of the blood vessels by glycation - ugh! A real baddie for us. Namaste, Irene -- Irene de Villiers, B.Sc AASCA MCSSA D.I.Hom. Box 4703 Spokane WA 99220. www.angelfire.com/fl/furryboots/clickhere.html (Veterinary Homeopath.) Proverb:Man who say it cannot be done should not interrupt one doing it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Dora wrote: > > You mean like prednisone? > > > > > > > Homocysteine can be lowered by taking B vitamins. CRP indicates > > inflamation in the body, so anti-inflamatories. > > > > Amber > > No, like NAC (N-Acetylcysteine) which is a precursor to Glutathione. Natural substances can help without resorting to Rx drugs. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 14, 2005 Report Share Posted April 14, 2005 Dora wrote: > > You mean like prednisone? > > > > > > > Homocysteine can be lowered by taking B vitamins. CRP indicates > > inflamation in the body, so anti-inflamatories. > > > > Amber > > No, like NAC (N-Acetylcysteine) which is a precursor to Glutathione. Natural substances can help without resorting to Rx drugs. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 I thought that a normal total cholesterol reading was suppose to be under 200. I went to the doctor recently, my bloodwork showed 190, boy was I happy. Then the doctor told me they had NEW guidelines and it should be 130...eeek Marla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 I thought that a normal total cholesterol reading was suppose to be under 200. I went to the doctor recently, my bloodwork showed 190, boy was I happy. Then the doctor told me they had NEW guidelines and it should be 130...eeek Marla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 I thought that a normal total cholesterol reading was suppose to be under 200. I went to the doctor recently, my bloodwork showed 190, boy was I happy. Then the doctor told me they had NEW guidelines and it should be 130...eeek Marla Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 Marla wrote: > I thought that a normal total cholesterol reading was suppose to be under > 200. I went to the doctor recently, my bloodwork showed 190, boy was I > happy. Then the doctor told me they had NEW guidelines and it should be > 130...eeek > Marla > 180-200 is great. Your Dr. couldn't have possibly meant 130 for total cholesterol. Anything under 150 represents a very sick person. If a doctor actually me that, I'd be finding another doctor real quick. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 Marla wrote: > I thought that a normal total cholesterol reading was suppose to be under > 200. I went to the doctor recently, my bloodwork showed 190, boy was I > happy. Then the doctor told me they had NEW guidelines and it should be > 130...eeek > Marla > 180-200 is great. Your Dr. couldn't have possibly meant 130 for total cholesterol. Anything under 150 represents a very sick person. If a doctor actually me that, I'd be finding another doctor real quick. Amber Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 15, 2005 Report Share Posted April 15, 2005 Marla wrote: > I thought that a normal total cholesterol reading was suppose to be under > 200. I went to the doctor recently, my bloodwork showed 190, boy was I > happy. Then the doctor told me they had NEW guidelines and it should be > 130...eeek > Marla > 180-200 is great. Your Dr. couldn't have possibly meant 130 for total cholesterol. Anything under 150 represents a very sick person. If a doctor actually me that, I'd be finding another doctor real quick. Amber 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.