63 replies to this topic

[Turnbuckle]

http://onlinelibrary...11.01767.x/full

RESULTS:
Among women, cholesterol had an inverse association with all-cause mortality [hazard ratio (HR): 0.94; 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.89-0.99 per 1.0 mmol L(-1) increase] as well as CVD mortality (HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.88-1.07). The association with IHD [ischaemic heart disease] mortality (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24) was not linear but seemed to follow a 'U-shaped' curve, with the highest mortality <5.0 and &ge;7.0 mmol L(-1) [<193 & >271 mg/dl]

Among men, the association of cholesterol with mortality from CVD (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.15) and in total (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.93-1.03) followed a 'U-shaped' pattern.

With men, the total cholesterol level associated with the lowest mortality was from the moderate to high range. With women, the higher the better.

They used a completely ridiculous cutoff of 215 mg/dl, TC at that level being known not to tell us much if anything. So what's all the fuss??? This might have been an interesting paper in 1955 but not for todays standards.

That is just one chart. If you go to the paper, you'll see others that show the U-shaped curve for men and the declining curve for women. I found this chart particularly interesting, however, given my risk factors, that my doctor's desire to lower my cholesterol below 200 would seemingly double my odds of death.

[Dolph]

That is just one chart. If you go to the paper, you'll see others that show the U-shaped curve for men and the declining curve for women. I found this chart particularly interesting, however, given my risk factors, that my doctor's desire to lower my cholesterol below 200 would seemingly double my odds of death.

I think you know very well why this is utter nonsense... But I also think it's completely useless to try to convince you of anything. A lot of people in this forum for whatever reason seem to prefer living in some kind of parallel reality.

[Turnbuckle]

That is just one chart. If you go to the paper, you'll see others that show the U-shaped curve for men and the declining curve for women. I found this chart particularly interesting, however, given my risk factors, that my doctor's desire to lower my cholesterol below 200 would seemingly double my odds of death.

I think you know very well why this is utter nonsense... But I also think it's completely useless to try to convince you of anything. A lot of people in this forum for whatever reason seem to prefer living in some kind of parallel reality.

So you get abusive when your programming is challenged, eh? Everyone is living in some parallel reality but you. This is typical of religion, and it's why I think of the cholesterol myth as being almost religious in nature.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 27 February 2013 - 02:09 PM.

[Dolph]

The "programming" is actually called scientific knowledge, something you chose to ignore and/or abuse for some reason only you can know. You cherrypick some crap, than don't even UNDERSTAND it as you prove here and than try to multiply the madness that is the result of that process.
That wouldn't even be the problem. The problem is is that you are are damaging other peoples health by doing so. At least if somebody is seduced to believe the stuff you spew out. How does it come that america is full of health related cranks and has the lowest life expectancy of all industrialized nations? Read this thread and you will know.

[Turnbuckle]

The "programming" is actually called scientific knowledge, something you chose to ignore and/or abuse for some reason only you can know. You cherrypick some crap, than don't even UNDERSTAND it as you prove here and than try to multiply the madness that is the result of that process.
That wouldn't even be the problem. The problem is is that you are are damaging other peoples health by doing so. At least if somebody is seduced to believe the stuff you spew out. How does it come that america is full of health related cranks and has the lowest life expectancy of all industrialized nations? Read this thread and you will know.

It's statins that are damaging the health of Americans. But pray tell, why are you so interested? Are you a high priest in the church of big pharma?

[Dolph]

It's statins that are damaging the health of Americans.

Wow, I don't think you could have proven my point any better. A class of drugs that reduces all cause mortality to an impressive degree as statins do is damaging the health of Americans? This amount of cognitive dissonance can't be explained by stupidity, lack of education or ignorance alone, it's obviously sheer madness combined with a good amount of sinisterness.

[Sillewater]

I was referring to the paper I linked to in post #22, which said, "The relative risk of all-cause mortality among patients with low cholesterol compared to others was 1.49."

Yea, previous CHD and 3.3 year f/u? there's evidence that cholesterol starts trending down 10 years before clinical manifestation. Also reading the method only those with mortality data were included out of those excluded from the BIP study, so what about those with no mortality data?

[niner]

It's statins that are damaging the health of Americans.

Wow, I don't think you could have proven my point any better. A class of drugs that reduces all cause mortality to an impressive degree as statins do is damaging the health of Americans? This amount of cognitive dissonance can't be explained by stupidity, lack of education or ignorance alone, it's obviously sheer madness combined with a good amount of sinisterness.

Some people have had their health significantly damaged by statins. As it happens, Turnbuckle was one of them, and that might be coloring his views on statin wonderfulness. Try not to go all ad hominem on him. I tried a statin briefly, developed some myopathy, and quickly bailed out on it.

[Dolph]

Some people have had their health significantly damaged by statins. As it happens, Turnbuckle was one of them, and that might be coloring his views on statin wonderfulness. Try not to go all ad hominem on him. I tried a statin briefly, developed some myopathy, and quickly bailed out on it.

Yes, and millions and millions live years if not decades longer thanks to statins. Are you really telling me that fear of some muscle pain is a good reason to let people die years before they have to?

Statins for primary prevention may be a different matter by the way, especially in younger people. We probably don't have enough data to justify their use in this field and outside the US this kind of usage is indeed rather uncommon, with the exception of severe genetic hypercholesterolemia. That doesn't necessarily mean they are uneffective or unsafe for that purpose but as a supporter of evidence based medicine I support the way they are used here in Europe, that is a bit more conservative.
In secondary prevention and in older high risk individuals everybody who questions the usefulness of statins is just making a fool of oneself without any doubt.

But we are mixing up use of statins and lowering C by dietery means here. Lowering C this way or another yet won't increase mortality, that's just BS. And to spread this ridiculous view is spreading BS.

[Turnbuckle]

Some people have had their health significantly damaged by statins. As it happens, Turnbuckle was one of them, and that might be coloring his views on statin wonderfulness. Try not to go all ad hominem on him. I tried a statin briefly, developed some myopathy, and quickly bailed out on it.

Yes, and millions and millions live years if not decades longer thanks to statins.

Give us your source.

[Dolph]

You can't be serios.
This is a scientifically proven fact known for over a decade and if you search pubmed for longer than five minutes you will find gazillions of studies and metas more than clearly showing a reduction of all cause mortality due to statins in secondary prevention. There is not even any doubt about that. I don't know under what kind of rock you are living but please face reality before spreading your completely delusional theories.

Some absolutely random links that already do more than prove my point. I don't even have to prove anything that has been proven in large RCTs again and again. Do your own homework!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440795
http://www.bmj.com/c...t/338/bmj.b2376
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2291306/

[Turnbuckle]

You can't be serios.
This is a scientifically proven fact known for over a decade and if you search pubmed for longer than five minutes you will find gazillions of studies and metas more than clearly showing a reduction of all cause mortality due to statins in secondary prevention. There is not even any doubt about that. I don't know under what kind of rock you are living but please face reality before spreading your completely delusional theories.

Some absolutely random links that already do more than prove my point. I don't even have to prove anything that has been proven in large RCTs again and again. Do your own homework!
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23440795
http://www.bmj.com/c...t/338/bmj.b2376
http://www.ncbi.nlm....les/PMC2291306/

No, you haven't made your case at all. Your statement was way over the top, so you point to a few meta analyses and hope I won't notice?

Some authors make statements like "there was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription" with a straight face, and fail to account for the 20% dropout rate.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 28 February 2013 - 01:55 PM.

[Dolph]

No, you haven't made your case at all. Your statement was way over the top, so you point to a few meta analyses and hope I won't notice?

lol
It's called science. I prefer scientific meta analyses over the unbased, laughable screwball "opinion" of some forum troll any time. If you deliberately chose to make a fool of yourself, you are free to keep doing so.

Some authors make statements like "there was no evidence of any serious harm caused by statin prescription" with a straight face, and fail to account for the 20% dropout rate.

You know, the dropout rates in the placebo groups weren't significantly lower... Following your deranged "logic" this was due to the dreadful side effects of sucrose pills? Come on. I really got better things to do with my time.

[Turnbuckle]

No, you haven't made your case at all. Your statement was way over the top, so you point to a few meta analyses and hope I won't notice?

lol
It's called science. I prefer scientific meta analyses over the unbased, laughable screwball "opinion" of some forum troll any time. If you deliberately chose to make a fool of yourself, you are free to keep doing so.

So it's "science" when you wave your hands like Carl Sagan and say "millions and millions"? Where did this come from? Where are your numbers? Americans spend about $20 billion a year on cholesterol lowering drugs, so hopefully you are right and it is millions and millions and not thousands and thousands. But I don't see that in your references, so I'm asking again, where did you get it?

And as you love meta analyses, here's another one--

http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20585067

BACKGROUND:

Statins have been shown to reduce the risk of all-cause mortality among individuals with clinical history of coronary heart disease. However, it remains uncertain whether statins have similar mortality benefit in a high-risk primary prevention setting. Notably, all systematic reviews to date included trials that in part incorporated participants with prior cardiovascular disease (CVD) at baseline. Our objective was to reliably determine if statin therapy reduces all-cause mortality among intermediate to high-risk individuals without a history of CVD.


CONCLUSION:

This literature-based meta-analysis did not find evidence for the benefit of statin therapy on all-cause mortality in a high-risk primary prevention set-up.

I know quite a few people on statins and only two have said they've had no problems, yet every one of them was prescribed it for high cholesterol, not for any other reason. So if this study says there's no benefit, why are they spending the money and hurting themselves?

Edited by Turnbuckle, 28 February 2013 - 03:02 PM.

[niner]

Some people have had their health significantly damaged by statins. As it happens, Turnbuckle was one of them, and that might be coloring his views on statin wonderfulness. Try not to go all ad hominem on him. I tried a statin briefly, developed some myopathy, and quickly bailed out on it.

Yes, and millions and millions live years if not decades longer thanks to statins. Are you really telling me that fear of some muscle pain is a good reason to let people die years before they have to?

It was being pushed on me for primary prevention. I'm aware of the data, and might have kept using it if there was no downside, but I'm not that impressed with the evidence that my overall lipid profile was putting me at risk. This forum is populated by mostly healthy people who are interested in maintaining optimal health. I don't think we have very many members who are in the secondary prevention category.

But we are mixing up use of statins and lowering C by dietery means here. Lowering C this way or another yet won't increase mortality, that's just BS. And to spread this ridiculous view is spreading BS.

I tend to agree. However, I think it's important to look at the bigger picture of one's entire lipid profile, ApoE genotype, and also consider other endpoints besides CVD. In addition to that, it's important that we all have a life that feels like it's worth living, which severe dietary restriction might impinge upon for some people. When the entirety is considered, some peoples' "optimum" cholesterol level will probably be higher than others.

[Kevnzworld]

Elevated cholesterol is just one marker for cardiovascular disease, and possibly not even the most important one. It's importance is undoubtedly elevated because there is an effective pharmaceutical intervention. Hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars of advertising promote the use of statins.
Unfortunately they aren't very effective at lowering levels of small dense LDL particles which are the most dangerous, or triglycerides.
I've chosen to take a low dose of simvastatin , 10 mg. it has lowered my total cholesterol from 210 to 175. I also take 200 mg of ubiquinol.
I believe that people who reduce their cholesterol levels too much are also suppressing their hormone levels.
I take supplements to lower CRP, homocysteine, and glucose levels too. I also take DHEA and testosterone .
There is some evidence that the amount of oxidized cholesterol is as important as total cholesterol . This is one are where some antioxidants ( pomegranate ) can be beneficial.

[Turnbuckle]

Elevated cholesterol is just one marker for cardiovascular disease, and possibly not even the most important one. It's importance is undoubtedly elevated because there is an effective pharmaceutical intervention. Hundreds of millions if not a billion dollars of advertising promote the use of statins.
Unfortunately they aren't very effective at lowering levels of small dense LDL particles which are the most dangerous, or triglycerides.
I've chosen to take a low dose of simvastatin , 10 mg. it has lowered my total cholesterol from 210 to 175. I also take 200 mg of ubiquinol.
I believe that people who reduce their cholesterol levels too much are also suppressing their hormone levels.
I take supplements to lower CRP, homocysteine, and glucose levels too. I also take DHEA and testosterone .
There is some evidence that the amount of oxidized cholesterol is as important as total cholesterol . This is one are where some antioxidants ( pomegranate ) can be beneficial.

Oxidation and suppression, exactly. So you might want to consider Colesevelam, which is a bile acid sequestrant. Reducing the number of cycles cholesterol makes through the GI track has to be a good thing from the standpoint of oxidation, and forcing the liver to make new cholesterol is also good as it will increase the synthesis of other things on the same chemical pathway. Which is perhaps why I've found that my tolerance for carbohydrates has remarkably improved with Welchol, while with statins, it was worse.

[nameless]

I recall Michael mentioning that small/large particle LDL may not make as much as a difference as we originally thought. Particle number may be a bigger factor. What hard data is there that large particle LDL is safe? Or much safer than small LDL?

Is there mortality data for Colesevelam? I recall briefly looking into it years ago, and besides no mortality data, also read that it can increase triglycerides. Just a quick lookup now brought up: Most important, there have been no studies examining the effect of colesevelam on patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke risk.

[Turnbuckle]

A most interesting paper: The ‘Forgotten’ Bile Acid Sequestrants: Is Now a Good Time to Remember?

http://pt02.wkhealth.com/pt/re/merck/fulltext.00045391-200711000-00010.pdf;jsessionid=RvyR3Ctn17zr9QXL6SXngvnQfDFh5VTkswhMbkfn4SRlmmy1VQJJ!1612949135!181195629!8091!-1

The paper ends with--

At a time when newer lipid-altering or antihyperglycemic agents have demonstrated either no benefits for CHD or the possibility of increased risks for cardiovascular events, it seems to be a good time to remember the adage, “primum non nocere”--“first do no harm” in making the case for the use of BAS.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 28 February 2013 - 08:16 PM.

[Dolph]

So it's "science" when you wave your hands like Carl Sagan and say "millions and millions"? Where did this come from? Where are your numbers? Americans spend about $20 billion a year on cholesterol lowering drugs, so hopefully you are right and it is millions and millions and not thousands and thousands. But I don't see that in your references, so I'm asking again, where did you get it?

Oh boy, I really couldn't know you are unable to cope with some third grade arithmetic...
You know, guess what, the reduced all cause mortality adds up. SURPRISE!!!! Given the number of treated patients over a given time you can calculate the number of saved patient years on your own if you aren't outright retarded. I admit I don't have much hope in that regard.

[Turnbuckle]

So it's "science" when you wave your hands like Carl Sagan and say "millions and millions"? Where did this come from? Where are your numbers? Americans spend about $20 billion a year on cholesterol lowering drugs, so hopefully you are right and it is millions and millions and not thousands and thousands. But I don't see that in your references, so I'm asking again, where did you get it?

Oh boy, I really couldn't know you are unable to cope with some third grade arithmetic...
You know, guess what, the reduced all cause mortality adds up. SURPRISE!!!! Given the number of treated patients over a given time you can calculate the number of saved patient years on your own if you aren't outright retarded. I admit I don't have much hope in that regard.

And still no numbers? So you weren't quoting anyone, and you are keeping your own number secret--that you calculated after your wild statement--and thus it now seems you really aren't capable of much in the way of argument except ad hominem attacks.

[Kevnzworld]

I recall Michael mentioning that small/large particle LDL may not make as much as a difference as we originally thought. Particle number may be a bigger factor. What hard data is there that large particle LDL is safe? Or much safer than small LDL?

Is there mortality data for Colesevelam? I recall briefly looking into it years ago, and besides no mortality data, also read that it can increase triglycerides. Just a quick lookup now brought up: Most important, there have been no studies examining the effect of colesevelam on patient-oriented outcomes such as mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke risk.

Quote: " Observational and epidemi- ological studies suggest those having a predominance of small, dense particles may have an increase in risk up to 300 percent greater than those having a predominance of large and fluffy LDL particles. This observed increase in risk forms the basis of the rationale in using particle size as an adjunct to the standard proven means of risk assessment."
http://www.centerfor...d_messenger.pdf
Quote : " Viewed under an electron microscope, some LDL particles appear large, while others are small and dense. Surprisingly, the big, buoyant LDL particles are relatively benign. It’s their bantam-sized counterparts that do more of the damage. That’s because small, dense LDL particles seem better able to slip through the cells that line the walls of arteries. These small LDL particles are also more readily oxidized, and only oxidized LDL can enter the macrophages in the lining of the arteries and form cholesterol- rich plaques.
http://www.johnshopk...lth/1886-1.html

[nameless]

Quote: " Observational and epidemi- ological studies suggest those having a predominance of small, dense particles may have an increase in risk up to 300 percent greater than those having a predominance of large and fluffy LDL particles. This observed increase in risk forms the basis of the rationale in using particle size as an adjunct to the standard proven means of risk assessment."
http://www.centerfor...d_messenger.pdf
Quote : " Viewed under an electron microscope, some LDL particles appear large, while others are small and dense. Surprisingly, the big, buoyant LDL particles are relatively benign. It’s their bantam-sized counterparts that do more of the damage. That’s because small, dense LDL particles seem better able to slip through the cells that line the walls of arteries. These small LDL particles are also more readily oxidized, and only oxidized LDL can enter the macrophages in the lining of the arteries and form cholesterol- rich plaques.
http://www.johnshopk...lth/1886-1.html

Thanks for the links... I know that is the prevailing theory in regard to small/large particle size, but I could have sworn someone here (maybe it was Michael), providing a couple of studies showing particle number trumping size.

I should look over that first article again, but did they take into account HDL, as well? By that I mean, if a person has small LDL, typically it also means higher triglycerides + lower HDL. I am just wondering if perhaps it's not the particle size specifically, but the lower HDL that usually goes along with it, that increases CVD risk.

Edited by nameless, 28 February 2013 - 11:32 PM.

[misterE]

my doctor's desire to lower my cholesterol below 200 would seemingly double my odds of death.

Nonsense.

The rural-Chinese have an average cholesterol of nearly 100mg/dl (give or take) and have some of the lowest rates of cancers in the world. They are also immune from diabetes, osteoporosis, heart-disease, obesity, and Alzheimer’s. The reason is simple and easy to understand: they eat primarily rice (which is low in both fat and simple-sugar and high in complex-carbohydrates) and vegetables, and are much more physically active than most Americans. They lose their great health status however, once they abandon their rice in favor for meats, cheese and sugars (foods Americans eat on a daily basis).

It's statins that are damaging the health of Americans.

The rich American diet is what’s damaging the health of Americans. We are eating less fiber and starch and more fat and simple-sugar than ever before. Statins are just another drug that combats the symptoms of disease not the underlying problem (the food).

Edited by misterE, 01 March 2013 - 12:46 AM.

[misterE]

It's statins that are damaging the health of Americans.

Wow, I don't think you could have proven my point any better: a class of drugs that reduces all cause mortality to an impressive degree as statins do, is damaging the health of Americans? This amount of cognitive dissonance can't be explained by stupidity, lack of education or ignorance alone, it's obviously sheer madness combined with a good amount of sinisterness.

Well said Dolph. This thread is complete nonsense. These jokers can't even get their story straight!

[misterE]

This thread is a perfect example of how people make up ridiculous claims to justify their habit of eating fatty and cholesterol-laden foods. They don't want to hear bad news about their favorite delicacies, so now we've had it wrong the whole time and everything is now ass-backwards: oatmeal will clog your arteries, eat bacon and eggs for breakfast instead... give me a break!

Edited by misterE, 01 March 2013 - 01:17 AM.

[Turnbuckle]

The rural-Chinese have an average cholesterol of nearly 100mg/dl (give or take) and have some of the lowest rates of cancers in the world. They are also immune from diabetes, osteoporosis, heart-disease, obesity, and Alzheimer’s. The reason is simple and easy to understand: they eat primarily rice (which is low in both fat and simple-sugar and high in complex-carbohydrates) and vegetables, and are much more physically active than most Americans. They lose their great health status however, once they abandon their rice in favor for meats, cheese and sugars (foods Americans eat on a daily basis).

That's interesting. It seems to come from a paper titled "Diet and Health in Rural China: Lessons Learned and Unlearned," but every instance of it is beyond a pay wall. Do you have a copy so that you can tell us more?

I see that he has a book out too, called "The China Study," which promotes a vegan diet. He has many 5 star reviews at Amazon, but I always look at the 1 stars first on any book, and the most helpful review said he got hold of the paper (it's not in the book for some reason) and found that the data didn't back up his hypothesis.

The review is here--
http://www.amazon.co...howViewpoints=0

But that said, I will have to get the book and read it myself to form a judgment.

I did see this with the search inside function: "Some counties had average levels as low as 94 mg/dl...For two groups of about twenty-five women in the inner part of China, average blood cholesterol was at the amazingly low level of 80 mg/dl."

Yes, that is amazing. And I'd have to look at the reference for it, but I'm afraid there isn't one.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 01 March 2013 - 02:17 AM.

[mikela]

I have read and followed Esselstyn's diet as described in his book "Prevent and Reverse Heart Disease" and lost about 20lbs, felt the best I have ever felt etc. However, lately I have adopted Dr Fuhrman's 90/10 diet (http://www.drfuhrman...px#.UTADHjAslyI) as more practical for myself. It allows for approximately 10% of the forbidden fruit of dairy, meats, processed foods etc. The other 90% is basically Esselstyn's diet. The story about the 20 or so "death row" cardiac patients that Esselstyn got to go on his diet and how they recovered to live long lives is pretty amazing. So if I find myself in that situation I will switch back to his diet.

[Turnbuckle]

Nonsense.

The rural-Chinese have an average cholesterol of nearly 100mg/dl (give or take) and have some of the lowest rates of cancers in the world. They are also immune from diabetes, osteoporosis, heart-disease, obesity, and Alzheimer’s.

Still waiting to see the data on that.

[Kevnzworld]

Here is an article written with Brian Peskin. He has made the study of dietary fats, cardiovascular disease and cancer his life's work. His opinions are controversial but interesting. I read one of his books, The Hidden Cause of Cancer.
" The Failure of Vytorin and Statins to Improve Cardiovascular Health: Bad Cholesterol or Bad Theory?"
http://www.brianpesk...in-JPandS08.pdf