28 replies to this topic

[Phoebus]

the "high cholesterol causes heart disease" theory is the emperor with no clothes on. the data simply doesn't support it. and you cant trust data that is generated by the profit mad pharma corps, they lie, thats what they do.

in this video Dr Malcolm Kendrick shows a graph that demonstrates there is virtually no connection between high cholesterol and heart disease.

http://www.youtube.c...cholesterol_con

short review of dr. kendrick's book here.

http://www.spacedoc....cholesterol_con

he claims that statins will not increase longevity one single day unless you already have advanced heart disease. in relatively healthy individuals statins have zero positive effect and MANY (largely unreported) negative, even devastating, side effects.

I am not buying the hype on cholesterol, nor am I buying the poison pill that statins are.

[biknut]

Here's some information about cholesterol I got from a Dr Blaylock wellness report

For years the recommended blood cholesterol was in the range of 200 to 210 mg/dl (milligrams/deciliter). Recently, the medical community, in league with the pharmaceutical companies, has been pushing to lower the standard dramatically.
Some of these “maniacs” are calling for blood cholesterols of 150, a level far too low. It is known that cholesterol is critical for normal brain function. The harmful effects on brain function are now appearing in a number of people taking these drugs. So, why the obsession with cholesterol-lowering statin drugs? As with most things, just follow the money. Statins have become the cash cow of the pharmaceutical companies. Consider that they are expensive — and that you have to go on them for a lifetime!

LDL Cholesterol Is the Real Worry

The news media and many doctors imply that only one cholesterol value is important — total cholesterol. If your total cholesterol level is above 200,most doctors will tell you to take a cholesterol-lowering medication. But cholesterol comes in many sizes and shapes. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol, known as HDL cholesterol and sometimes called “good” cholesterol, has been shown to protect against atherosclerosis. Until recently, assumptions were made that lowdensity
lipoprotein, or LDL, cholesterol and very low-density lipoprotein, also known as VLDL, cholesterol played major roles in atherosclerosis. Doctors have confirmed that some studies show high levels of LDL cholesterol to be a major risk factor
for heart attacks and strokes. But recent studies suggest that at least two types of LDL cholesterol inhabit a person’s body. One is a larger molecule and is difficult to oxidize, much like HDL cholesterol, which is considered protective.
Also found is a smaller, dense LDL cholesterol molecule that is very easy to oxidize; consequently, it appears to be the only form of cholesterol associated with atherosclerosis. As a result, this dense LDL type of cholesterol is the only one that can contribute to atherosclerosis and it is considerably limited. Thus, what matters in your blood evaluation is the amount of small, dense LDL cholesterol, not the total amount of cholesterol. For example, if a person's total cholesterol level is 235 mg/dl but less than 20 mg/dl of this consists of small. dense LDL cholesterol and is mostly the large-type LDL cholesterol, the risk of a heart attack or stroke is not elevated. If a significant portion consists of HDL cholesterol, again the risk will be quite low. Please remember: Total cholesterol levels reveal very little about risk. Statistically, when looking at a large number of people having high total cholesterol, the risk will be elevated simply because the odds are that a higher proportion of the total cholesterol will consist of the small, dense LDL cholesterol. Yet this does not tell you your individual risk. This is why testing must include a breakdown of the various types of cholesterol.

[Phoebus]

Please remember: Total cholesterol levels reveal very little about risk. Statistically, when looking at a large number of people having high total cholesterol, the risk will be elevated simply because the odds are that a higher proportion of the total cholesterol will consist of the small, dense LDL cholesterol. Yet this does not tell you your individual risk. This is why testing must include a breakdown of the various types of cholesterol.

thanks, this makes a lot of sense. americans are so gullible. they hear about a study result and they all flock to their doctors. they never stop and think who funded the study and who stands to profit massively from the study. corporations lie to increase profits, they always have and they always will.

i wonder if there is a test one can get to test just for these small dense LDL type cholesterol units? now, that test would be valuable! total cholesterol level tests are worthless.

[Wedrifid]

i wonder if there is a test one can get to test just for these small dense LDL type cholesterol units? now, that test would be valuable! total cholesterol level tests are worthless.

Is it even possible to get a test that doesn't distinguish between the two? This is mainstream stuff nowadays, at least where I live.

[david ellis]

For years the recommended blood cholesterol was in the range of 200 to 210 mg/dl (milligrams/deciliter).

For perspective, shortly after statins came out - the reference range extended to 300.

If you want a quick check of your cardiovascular risk, give blood by Apheresis, this is two pints worth of red blood cells. Because the plasma is returned you can see it in transparent tube on the donation machine. If your plasma is milky, you have trouble. If your plasma is clear, you are good to go. My plasma is clear despite a cholesterol reading of plus 260. Milky plasma indicates oxidized LDL. Eating lots less carbs will clear the condition up. (cholesterol is a problem, but it is possible to have oxidized LDL with low or high cholesterol readings.)

[Matt]

The vast majority of people don't need to use statins, but a healthy diet will lower cholesterol anyway.

Worth reading the paper in the link below

"Hobbs once asked the leaders of the Framingham
Heart Study how many participants
with an LDL of below 70 throughout life had
suffered a heart attack. The answer? One. “It
can happen, but it’s very, very rare,” she says."...

...In rural China, LDL levels
hover around 60 or 70, and heart disease is about 15 times lower than in the
United States...

...Hunter-gatherer populations living today have LDL levels of about 70. "That
would suggest that's what our species evolved to have," says Thomas Lee, a
Harvard physician and the network president for Partners HealthCare System
in Boston, which sets cholesterol and other guidelines for doctors...

http://www.caloriere...9494#msg-189494

Edited by Matt, 13 October 2008 - 06:14 PM.

[david ellis]

The vast majority of people don't need to use statins anyway, but a healthy diet will lower cholesterol anyway.

Are you saying the Swiss with high cholesterol are not healthy?

[Phoebus]

If you want a quick check of your cardiovascular risk, give blood by Apheresis, this is two pints worth of red blood cells. Because the plasma is returned you can see it in transparent tube on the donation machine. If your plasma is milky, you have trouble. If your plasma is clear, you are good to go. My plasma is clear despite a cholesterol reading of plus 260. Milky plasma indicates oxidized LDL.

thanks, thats very interesting, i did not know that.

[senseix]

thanks, this makes a lot of sense. americans are so gullible.

You know comments like this i feel aren't needed at this site, and when i read it today i was saddened by the low iq it took to make such a broad statement about people who are a mix of the worlds people and label them americans that are gullible.

[Matt]

The vast majority of people don't need to use statins anyway, but a healthy diet will lower cholesterol anyway.

Are you saying the Swiss with high cholesterol are not healthy?

Isn't it better to study different cholesterol levels and heart disease 'within' a given population rather than across different populations, which might change things a bit. i.e one country could have higher levels of omega 3 intake, and higher overall cholesterol levels, and still have less heart disease. I'm personally happy with my Total Cholesterol being under 150mg/dl! with a low LDL :0

Edited by Matt, 13 October 2008 - 06:31 PM.

[Mind]

On the Sunday Evening Update, I recently interviewed Dr. William Davis and science author Gary Taubes and they both also mentioned that the low fat diet (high carb) was bad for people with heart disease and diabetes. Dr. Davis also claimed total cholesterol was a worthless measure.

I am not going to go on to say all corporations lie and try to kill people. Come on now. Corporations produce most of the world's goods and are responsible for nearly all the technological progress we have seen in the last century. Most of us work for corporations. I would much rather improve the regulatory process for drugs than get rid of all corporations that make them.

[Phoebus]

I am not going to go on to say all corporations lie and try to kill people. Come on now. Corporations produce most of the world's goods and are responsible for nearly all the technological progress we have seen in the last century. Most of us work for corporations. I would much rather improve the regulatory process for drugs than get rid of all corporations that make them.

i am not saying they try to kill people, that would be bad for the bottom line. nor ma i saying we should abolish corporations. however, data that comes directly from pharma corps about any medication needs to be taken with a grain of salt. they have vested financial interest in specific results and thus will distort, contort, twist, and edit the statistics to make their drugs look necessary when in fact they may be unnecessary at best, harmful at worst.

also many of the doctors who do the "objective analyses" are in fact on the pharma payrolls but NEVER report it! also, many of the regulators are former pharma employees who give blind support to their buddies in the industry. it goes on and on. the point is the system is broken and very corrupt and you have to do your own research because the data from the corporations cannot be trusted.

here is one example from the new york times. the corporate system is broken.

-----------------------

Published: October 3, 2008 One of the nation’s most influential psychiatrists earned more than $2.8 million in consulting arrangements with drug makers between 2000 and 2007, failed to report at least $1.2 million of this income to his university, and violated federal research rules, according to documents provided to Congressional investigators.

The psychiatrist, Dr. Charles B. Nemeroff of Emory University, is the most prominent example to date in a series of disclosures that is shaking the world of academic medicine and seems likely to force broad changes in the relationships between doctors and drug makers.

In one telling example, Dr. Nemeroff signed a letter dated July 15, 2004, promising Emory administrators that he would earn less than $10,000 a year from GlaxoSmithKline to comply with federal rules.

[s123]

The vast majority of people don't need to use statins anyway, but a healthy diet will lower cholesterol anyway.

Are you saying the Swiss with high cholesterol are not healthy?

Isn't it better to study different cholesterol levels and heart disease 'within' a given population rather than across different populations, which might change things a bit. i.e one country could have higher levels of omega 3 intake, and higher overall cholesterol levels, and still have less heart disease. I'm personally happy with my Total Cholesterol being under 150mg/dl! with a low LDL :0

LDL: 0mg/dl???

This would scare me because LDL is needed to transport cholesterol from the liver to your cells.

My LDL: 66mg/dl

[lucid]

On the Sunday Evening Update, I recently interviewed Dr. William Davis and science author Gary Taubes and they both also mentioned that the low fat diet (high carb) was bad for people with heart disease and diabetes. Dr. Davis also claimed total cholesterol was a worthless measure.

I am not going to go on to say all corporations lie and try to kill people. Come on now. Corporations produce most of the world's goods and are responsible for nearly all the technological progress we have seen in the last century. Most of us work for corporations. I would much rather improve the regulatory process for drugs than get rid of all corporations that make them.

Dr. Davis suggested that HDL measures were also more or less worthless; I recall that he said that LDL particle size was the only worth while measure. He seems to be overly simplifying, LDL particle size does seem important but I have not seen evidence that would suggest it eclipses HDL count. Here is a blurb from wikipedia:

Increasing evidence has revealed that the concentration and size of the LDL particles more powerfully relates to the degree of atherosclerosis progression than the concentration of cholesterol contained within all the LDL particles.^[5] The healthiest pattern, though relatively rare, is to have small numbers of large LDL particles and no small particles. Having small LDL particles, though common, is an unhealthy pattern; high concentrations of small LDL particles (even though potentially carrying the same total cholesterol content as a low concentration of large particles) correlates with much faster growth of atheroma, progression of atherosclerosis and earlier and more severe cardiovascular disease events and death.

Above (5) link is a talk by taubes, Ill see if I can dig up some real studies:
The following study suggests that BOTH particle size and number are independent predictors atherogenicity and are strong predictors of CVD.

Is it LDL particle size or number that correlates with risk for cardiovascular disease? Superko HR, Gadesam RR. Center for Genomics and Human Health, Saint Joseph's Translational Research Institute, 5673 Peachtree Dunwoody Road NE, Suite 675, Atlanta, GA 30342, USA. rsuperko@sjha.org

The role of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) in the pathogenesis of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and the clinical benefit of lowering LDL-C in high-risk patients is well established. What remains controversial is whether we are using the best measure(s) of LDL characteristics to identify all individuals who are at CVD risk or if they would benefit from specific therapies. Despite the successful LDL-C reduction trials, substantial numbers of patients continue to have clinical events in the treatment groups. The size of LDL particles and assessment of the number of LDL particles (LDL-Num) have been suggested as a more reliable method of atherogenicity. Each LDL particle has one apoprotein B-100 measure attached; therefore, determination of whole plasma apoprotein B can be considered the best measure of LDL-Num. Because the cholesterol content per LDL particle exhibits large interindividual variation, the information provided by LDL-C and LDL-Num is not equivalent. Individuals with the same level of LDL-C may have higher or lower numbers of LDL particles and, as a result, may differ in terms of absolute CVD risk. LDL particle size and number provide independent measures of atherogenicity and are strong predictors of CVD.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....Pubmed_RVDocSum

I would be interested to see a study that really breaks down the predictiveness and independence of HDL and LDL particle size and number. Perhaps someone has seen such a study.

At anyrate, Statins as far as I can see are really wonderful at what they do, but some argue that the statins MOA is not through its cholesterol lowering effects: Lipid Hypothesis.
http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/17050558

Meta-Analysis Shows Statins Lower All-Cause Mortality by 9%

(January 11, 2008 - Insidermedicine) Most individuals with diabetes could benefit from statin therapy whether or not they have cardiovascular disease or multiple risk factors for cardiovascular disease, according to research published in The Lancet.

Here are some recommendations on controlling lipids in patients with diabetes from the American College of Physicians:

• Use lipid-lowering therapy for secondary prevention of cardiovascular mortality and morbidity for all patients with known coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes.

• Use statins for primary prevention against macrovascular complications in patients with type 2 diabetes and other cardiovascular risk factors.

• Once lipid-lowering therapy is initiated, patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus should be taking at least moderate doses of a statin.

As part of a meta-analysis, the Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaborators analyzed data on over 18,000 individuals with diabetes and over 71,000 individuals without diabetes who participated in 14 randomized trials exploring the effects of lowering LDL cholesterol with statin therapy.

During a mean follow-up period of 4.3 years, 3,247 participants with diabetes experienced a vascular event. For every 1 mmol/L reduction in LDL cholesterol, individuals with diabetes experienced a 9% proportional reduction in all-cause mortality, which was similar to the 13% reduction found in those without diabetes. Also ,a one fifth proportional reduction in major vascular events was noted for each 1mmol/l decrease in LDL ,which is similar to that noted for non diabetics. This benefit from lowering LDL was not influenced by history of vascular disease, age, sex, or other baseline characteristics. Five years of statin therapy resulted in 42 fewer individuals with diabetes per 1,000 experiencing a major vascular event.

The authors conclude that the proportional benefits of statin therapy on major vascular events are similar for patients with and without diabetes and that statins benefit a wide range of diabetic patients, even those without a history of vascular disease. Only those with a very low risk for such events, like children and those in whom statin therapy is contraindicated, should be excluded from consideration for this therapy.

I will probably read up more on the 'Lipid Hypothesis'.. more later.

Edited by lucid, 13 October 2008 - 07:08 PM.

[Matt]

The vast majority of people don't need to use statins anyway, but a healthy diet will lower cholesterol anyway.

Are you saying the Swiss with high cholesterol are not healthy?

Isn't it better to study different cholesterol levels and heart disease 'within' a given population rather than across different populations, which might change things a bit. i.e one country could have higher levels of omega 3 intake, and higher overall cholesterol levels, and still have less heart disease. I'm personally happy with my Total Cholesterol being under 150mg/dl! with a low LDL :0

LDL: 0mg/dl???

This would scare me because LDL is needed to transport cholesterol from the liver to your cells.

My LDL: 66mg/dl

No haha! . Here was my last cholesterol panel

Total : 3.7 (144mg/dl)
HDL: 1.5 (59mg/dl)
LDL: 1.9 (74mg/dl
Triglycerides: 0.6 (53mg/dl)

[david ellis]

No haha! . Here was my last cholesterol panel

Total : 3.7 (144mg/dl)
HDL: 1.5 (59mg/dl)
LDL: 1.9 (74mg/dl
Triglycerides: 0.6 (53mg/dl)

There is a relationship between total cholesterol and heart disease. Not a significantly relevant relationship, but a relationship. There is also evidence that a low total cholesterol level is not good. Cholesterol is at the top of the testosterone/estrogen cascade, an essential part of our health. Cholesterol is also needed in every cell to ensure integrity of the cell wall. I think what good and bad total cholesterol levels are is still a mystery.

[lynx]

This is why Niacin is the perfect choice for cholesterol management, it lowers VLDL and raises HDL while reducing mortality, without feeding the evil drug companies' appetite for blind profit at the expense of the gullible American consumer.

[Matt]

No haha! . Here was my last cholesterol panel

Total : 3.7 (144mg/dl)
HDL: 1.5 (59mg/dl)
LDL: 1.9 (74mg/dl
Triglycerides: 0.6 (53mg/dl)

There is a relationship between total cholesterol and heart disease. Not a significantly relevant relationship, but a relationship. There is also evidence that a low total cholesterol level is not good. Cholesterol is at the top of the testosterone/estrogen cascade, an essential part of our health. Cholesterol is also needed in every cell to ensure integrity of the cell wall. I think what good and bad total cholesterol levels are is still a mystery.

I think this has been discussed around here before. The fact that 'Calorie Restriction' is probably one of the most effective ways at extending lifespan and the most effective lifestyle for lowering cholesterol with also the majority of people who are doing CR are in perfect health, probably suggests that your statement will not be true. Falling cholesterol is a problem because it's from a disease, not stable low cholesterol which has been *induced by a healthy diet and supplements*.

1 quick pubmed search and I found this;


Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study.
Anderson KM, Castelli WP, Levy D.

From 1951 to 1955 serum cholesterol levels were measured in 1959 men and 2415 women aged between 31 and 65 years who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. Under age 50 years, cholesterol levels are directly related with 30-year overall and CVD mortality; overall death increases 5% and CVD death 9% for each 10 mg/dL. After age 50 years there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels. There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels). Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity. After age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling--perhaps due to diseases predisposing to death.

Edited by Matt, 14 October 2008 - 05:07 PM.

[david ellis]

I think what good and bad total cholesterol levels are is still a mystery.

I think this has been discussed around here before. The fact that 'Calorie Restriction' is probably one of the most effective ways at extending lifespan and the most effective lifestyle for lowering cholesterol with also the majority of people who are doing CR are in perfect health, probably suggests that your statement will not be true. Falling cholesterol is a problem because it's from a disease, not stable low cholesterol which has been *induced by a healthy diet and supplements*.

I am being sticky on this because my case shows that total cholesterol is not the best predictor of CVD. And when my cholesterol was very high I was beat on by doctor's to take statins. Statins made me sick, so I decided to go AMA. Against Medical Advice, and not take statins. Since that decision I have learned that total cholesterol is not a good predictor of disease. There are better predictors of CVD disease than total cholesterol. Oxidized cholesterol has a tighter statistically relationship than total cholesterol. TRIG/HDL is tighter. Calcium scores are tighter. These tighter scores indicate that total cholesterol is not a good indicator of disease. Healthy people are being forced to take statins without reasonable cause. And the inverse is true. People with low cholesterol are not treated.(1) The bottom line is that 50% of the people with CVD have normal or low cholesterol. This is a ridiculous situation.

From your source above - "After age 50 years there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels. " This statement means there is no predictive value to total cholesterol after 50. I am not surprised by this statement, that's why doctors are not using total cholesterol anymore. Dropping the use of total cholesterol as an indicator of health will increase the precision of language.

I haven't read every post, but many people post with the assumption that low cholesterol is healthy. I realize that healthy eating lowers cholesterol. But that doesn't prove that lower cholesterol is good, that is an assumption. I think it might be a little more complicated. When I was as young as these posters my cholesterol was low too. But life brings changes and my cholesterol went up. In my case, healthy eating, a strict low carb diet, did not lower my cholesterol. Because my doctor has not been able to find CVD despite intensive testing, I certainly don't have a reason to assume that high cholesterol is bad.

(1)"Remarkably, several studies have found that patients with low cholesterol levels had the highest rates of death from coronary heart disease.6,7"

[DukeNukem]

Triglycerides are what we should be concerned about WRT heart disease. They higher the triglyceride count, the higher the risk of heart disease. It's a very clear correlation. Gary Taubes, among many others, has made a convincing case for this. This doesn't mean there aren't other risk factors that can be measured. But cholesterol is one I tend to ignore. Yet, it's still the gold standard for the medical profession.

Edited by DukeNukem, 14 October 2008 - 07:53 PM.

[aikikai]

The heart uses surronding fat for energy, which is different from other muscles which uses carbohydrates as energy.
So of course, if one have problems with insufficient fat in their body, it will cause problems.

[s123]

Physicians are obsessed by cholesterol and they forget the important role of inflamation and AGEs in cardiovascular diseases. I'm still wondering why cholesterol levels rise with age?

[Matt]

You might want to check out this link

SIRT1 longevity gene linked to Cholesterol.
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=270857

[david ellis]

You might want to check out this link

SIRT1 longevity gene linked to Cholesterol.
http://www.imminst.o...o...st&p=270857

From your link-
"Researchers have been curious to find out whether SIRT1 has similar effects. In the new MIT study, researchers found that low SIRT1 levels in mice lead to cholesterol buildup in cells such as macrophages, a type of immune cell, due to reduced activity of a protein called LXR (liver X receptor). LXR is responsible for transporting cholesterol out of macrophage cells. When full of cholesterol, the macrophages can generate plaques that clog arteries. SIRT1 boosts LXR activity, so that cholesterol is expelled from macrophages and out of the body by HDL."

What I read is that macrophages have extra cholesterol within their cell walls. I tried to find a study that shows macrophages cause plaque. All I can come up with is an association with plaque. Recent clinical and experimental evidence indicates that inflammatory processes in the vascular wall are the decisive factor that accounts for the rate of lesion formation and clinical development in patients suffering from atherosclerosis. The macrophages are there because inflammation is there. I think it is a stretch to blame high cholesterol in the macrophage cells for the formation of the plaque. It is smoke, but not a fire. A connection, but not yet proof that serum cholesterol is a cause of plaque. I don't think there is an explanation yet how cholesterol is the cause, research seems to be focused on inflammation, not cholesterol as a cause.

Your link is an example of why I think identifying cholesterol as bad is harmful. It causes a lot of useless speculation about ways to reduce cholesterol and get a new patented cholesterol lowering block buster drug. The effect of statins is very minor. That's why the enthusiasm for the 85 mg aspirin. The small dose of aspirin has almost the same risk reduction as statins. The aspirin is an anti-inflammatory, and statins are also anti-inflammatory.

Fifty years of statistics has not proven that total cholesterol is a predictor of plaque. A component of cholesterol, oxidized LDL is implicated, and it is easy to imagine an oxidized LDL particle causing inflammation. And there is statistical evidence that oxidized LDL could be the cause of the inflammation. But there is no evidence that serum cholesterol in and of its self is associated with plaque. So precision, by not using the word "cholesterol" as a synonym for "oxidized LDL",will stop the spinning of wheels exampled in the article you quoted. And maybe, someday, cholesterol will get the respect it should.

Matt, don't take this personally, the media blitz about the dangers of cholesterol has been well financed, effective, and long going. Many believe the story, and I know, abandoning the story was not easy for me. When a statement is internalized it is very difficult to examine its truth. But imprecision has reached the point where it is causing damage to research.

[edward]

From all that I have read the best predictor of good cardiovascular health is the combination of High HDL and Low Triglycerides. If you have this then total cholesterol/LDL are irrelevant.

How can you get these numbers. Well most people can achieve a High HDL and Low Triglycerides by simply limiting processed sugars and processed carbohydrates (high GI, worthless empty stuff like white bread) and getting enough exercise. So Exercise + reduction in Sugar/Processed Carbs = Good health.....who would have thunk it... Or you could just CR yourself and then you wouldnt have to worry quite so militantly about the amount of exercise and the amount of reduction of sugar/processed carbs.

Edited by edward, 15 October 2008 - 05:28 PM.

[david ellis]

From all that I have read the best predictor of good cardiovascular health is the combination of High HDL and Low Triglycerides. If you have this then total cholesterol/LDL are irrelevant.

How can you get these numbers. Well most people can achieve a High HDL and Low Triglycerides by simply limiting processed sugars and processed carbohydrates (high GI, worthless empty stuff like white bread) and getting enough exercise. So Exercise + reduction in Sugar/Processed Carbs = Good health.....who would have thunk it... Or you could just CR yourself and then you wouldnt have to worry quite so militantly about the amount of exercise and the amount of reduction of sugar/processed carbs.

You are right Edward, if HDL and most importantly triglycerides are good, the odds are that everything will be good. Even if your total cholesterol is high. Your diet advice is right on but if eliminating obvious "fluff" doesn't bring the triglycerides down, then it is time to get rid of whole grains. Carbs are not essential, human brains can run on fats in an emergency, but most of the time, the body can make enough glucose to cover the brains needs. So extreme changes in carb consumption might be warranted to get triglycerides down.

If triglycerides are high, then you might have oxidized LDL. Give blood by apheresis(see post above) and find out if your plasma is cloudy. If it is you definitely need to work with your doctor to reduce oxidized LDL.

There are other things that can go wrong, for instance Lp(a). Just don't anyone say cholesterol is bad and lower cholesterol is always good.

[edward]

From all that I have read the best predictor of good cardiovascular health is the combination of High HDL and Low Triglycerides. If you have this then total cholesterol/LDL are irrelevant.

How can you get these numbers. Well most people can achieve a High HDL and Low Triglycerides by simply limiting processed sugars and processed carbohydrates (high GI, worthless empty stuff like white bread) and getting enough exercise. So Exercise + reduction in Sugar/Processed Carbs = Good health.....who would have thunk it... Or you could just CR yourself and then you wouldnt have to worry quite so militantly about the amount of exercise and the amount of reduction of sugar/processed carbs.

You are right Edward, if HDL and most importantly triglycerides are good, the odds are that everything will be good. Even if your total cholesterol is high. Your diet advice is right on but if eliminating obvious "fluff" doesn't bring the triglycerides down, then it is time to get rid of whole grains. Carbs are not essential, human brains can run on fats in an emergency, but most of the time, the body can make enough glucose to cover the brains needs. So extreme changes in carb consumption might be warranted to get triglycerides down.

If triglycerides are high, then you might have oxidized LDL. Give blood by apheresis(see post above) and find out if your plasma is cloudy. If it is you definitely need to work with your doctor to reduce oxidized LDL.

There are other things that can go wrong, for instance Lp(a). Just don't anyone say cholesterol is bad and lower cholesterol is always good.

Oh I agree 100% I just didnt want to get all low-carb preachy. I do think that for most people eliminating sugars, processed carbs, obvious high GI carbs, carb only snacks etc. would solve most peoples problems (so long as they were exercising) the next step would be eliminating offensive grains like wheat and cutting total carbs down to less than 150 grams per day, next one could go to a paleo diet still keeping carbs at 150 grams per day or less and finally one could go low carb keto (for most this would be 30 grams of carbs or less).

I found a really cool supplement that prevents the creation of triglycerides!!! If I was still eating carbs I would be all over this stuff. Salvia Miltiorrhiza standardized for Tanshinones
The Mixed Tanshinones contained in Salvia Miltiorrhiza extract are potent compounds for body recomposition. Most notably, they inhibit an enzyme called "DiAcylGlycerol Acyl Transferase" (DGAT), which enables triglycerides to form. Triglycerides is the form of fat stored in the body. By inhibiting this enzyme, fatty acids are unable to be stored effectively, and remain circulating and more readily usable by the body for fuel.
It also is theorized to inhibit PPAR gamma the "bad" PPAR

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ov/sites/entrez
http://www.pubmedcen...i?artid=1761145
http://www3.intersci...l...=1&SRETRY=0

Edited by edward, 15 October 2008 - 11:31 PM.

[lynx]

I found a really cool supplement that prevents the creation of triglycerides!!!--- YES

NIACIN

From all that I have read the best predictor of good cardiovascular health is the combination of High HDL and Low Triglycerides. If you have this then total cholesterol/LDL are irrelevant.

How can you get these numbers. Well most people can achieve a High HDL and Low Triglycerides by simply limiting processed sugars and processed carbohydrates (high GI, worthless empty stuff like white bread) and getting enough exercise. So Exercise + reduction in Sugar/Processed Carbs = Good health.....who would have thunk it... Or you could just CR yourself and then you wouldnt have to worry quite so militantly about the amount of exercise and the amount of reduction of sugar/processed carbs.

You are right Edward, if HDL and most importantly triglycerides are good, the odds are that everything will be good. Even if your total cholesterol is high. Your diet advice is right on but if eliminating obvious "fluff" doesn't bring the triglycerides down, then it is time to get rid of whole grains. Carbs are not essential, human brains can run on fats in an emergency, but most of the time, the body can make enough glucose to cover the brains needs. So extreme changes in carb consumption might be warranted to get triglycerides down.

If triglycerides are high, then you might have oxidized LDL. Give blood by apheresis(see post above) and find out if your plasma is cloudy. If it is you definitely need to work with your doctor to reduce oxidized LDL.

There are other things that can go wrong, for instance Lp(a). Just don't anyone say cholesterol is bad and lower cholesterol is always good.

Oh I agree 100% I just didnt want to get all low-carb preachy. I do think that for most people eliminating sugars, processed carbs, obvious high GI carbs, carb only snacks etc. would solve most peoples problems (so long as they were exercising) the next step would be eliminating offensive grains like wheat and cutting total carbs down to less than 150 grams per day, next one could go to a paleo diet still keeping carbs at 150 grams per day or less and finally one could go low carb keto (for most this would be 30 grams of carbs or less).

I found a really cool supplement that prevents the creation of triglycerides!!! If I was still eating carbs I would be all over this stuff. Salvia Miltiorrhiza standardized for Tanshinones
The Mixed Tanshinones contained in Salvia Miltiorrhiza extract are potent compounds for body recomposition. Most notably, they inhibit an enzyme called "DiAcylGlycerol Acyl Transferase" (DGAT), which enables triglycerides to form. Triglycerides is the form of fat stored in the body. By inhibiting this enzyme, fatty acids are unable to be stored effectively, and remain circulating and more readily usable by the body for fuel.
It also is theorized to inhibit PPAR gamma the "bad" PPAR

http://www.ncbi.nlm....ov/sites/entrez
http://www.pubmedcen...i?artid=1761145
http://www3.intersci...l...=1&SRETRY=0

[edward]

Yes Niacin is good but the mechanism of action is not even close to as interesting from an over all health perspective as Salvia Miltiorrhiza derived Transhiones, just read some of the studies on it, in particular its effects on fat storage and metabolic syndrome issues (something niacin is not that effective for).