Guest guest Posted June 22, 2002 Report Share Posted June 22, 2002 Daphne- >, what would those measurements (of blockages and inflammation) be? That's a good question, actually. I don't think there _are_ any standardized numerical measurements of blockage and inflammation, or if there are they sure aren't reported much, because all anyone ever focuses on are surrogate markers like total cholesterol and other lipid numbers. Arguably the only presently-used surrogate marker that has any relation to actual heart disease and risk is c-reactive protein, but everyone obsesses about lipids and cholesterol-lowering drugs. However, there are devices which will see how blocked someone's arteries are, and I imagine at some point inflammation is sometimes surveyed, and those are the actual disease conditions -- blockage and inflammation -- whereas lipid numbers are just supposed to be indicators, red flags, and almost all of them are either highly dubious or outright BS. >What about insulin resistance, is there a way to test for that? The glucose tolerance test is a fairly useful indicator, though since you drink a giant cup of glucose on an empty stomach and then monitor your blood sugar for hours afterwards it's not exactly good for you. (Years ago, when I took my GTT, I ran out of my doctor's office when it was all over and blindly grabbed cookies and candies and god knows what else like a junky desperately in need of a fix.) You can also get a blood sugar test kit and prick your finger regularly to monitor your levels as they are in the real world, which may be a better way to go about it. >Also in response to a previous post, Cholesterol Myths is too technical >for most people >to understand. Perhaps, but proof is technical. Anything sufficiently non-technical just isn't going to be adequate. (And I'm pretty much in the same boat as you are: my GF refuses to believe any of this stuff I tell her, and won't read a technical book like _Cholesterol Myths_ either because she doesn't think she can understand it (wrong) and because she thinks she doesn't need to do any hard-core research of her own because her doctors tell her what to do (wrong) and because she's sure that her doctors are telling her the right things because they are knowledgeable about these things and non-doctors aren't (also wrong). As her family history is pretty much heart attack after heart attack and aneurysm after aneurysm with a dash of diabetes thrown in for good measure, I'm afraid this is going to end very badly. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2002 Report Share Posted June 23, 2002 Another useful test for heart problems is a treadmill stress test. Like any test in medicine it isn't perfect--false positives (the test indicates a problem when there isn't) and false negatives (the test indicates there isn't a problem when there is) are just part of every test. However, unlike some othre markers it's looking at heart function through the electrical activity (ECG) while stressing the heart--the patient walks on a treadmill. If it is positive, the next step would be more invasive tests as indicated--such as the angiogram mentioned below (definitely not a screening test) or an echocardiogram (basically a sonar picture of the heart) which also can be done while stressing the heart. -- -----Original Message----- From: alecwood [mailto:bill@...] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 11:37 PM Subject: Re: Artery cleansing > Daphne- > > >, what would those measurements (of blockages and inflammation) be? > > That's a good question, actually. I don't think there _are_ any > standardized numerical measurements of blockage and inflammation, or if > there are they sure aren't reported much, because all anyone ever focuses > on are surrogate markers like total cholesterol and other lipid > numbers. Angiograms have been used for over 20 years to measures blockages in arteries. It is a type of x-ray in which iodine based dye is injected into the artery to increase contrast. Doctors can measure any change in blockages by comparing angiograms. It is not a very comfortable procedure. The dye is injected through a catheter or small tube that is inserted usually in the groin area and threaded up to the heart. The test can run 1 to 3 hours and is very expensive. Sometimes as much as $3000.00. More recently Ultra High Speed CT scans are being used. These high- speed systems can x-ray a moving object such as a beating heart without blurring the image. These are the types of scans that are now being marketed directly to the public by clinics that specialize in heart or full body scans. These scans are not invasive, take only about 10 minutes, and are a lot less expensive at about $500.00. These tests are controversial since they measure calcification of the arteries. High levels of calcification may correlate to coronary artery disease, or like high cholesterol may mean nothing, > Arguably the only presently-used surrogate marker that has any > relation to actual heart disease and risk is c-reactive protein, but > everyone obsesses about lipids and cholesterol-lowering drugs. However, > there are devices which will see how blocked someone's arteries are, and I > imagine at some point inflammation is sometimes surveyed, and those are the > actual disease conditions -- blockage and inflammation -- whereas lipid > numbers are just supposed to be indicators, red flags, and almost all of > them are either highly dubious or outright BS. > > >What about insulin resistance, is there a way to test for that? > > The glucose tolerance test is a fairly useful indicator, though since you > drink a giant cup of glucose on an empty stomach and then monitor your > blood sugar for hours afterwards it's not exactly good for you. (Years > ago, when I took my GTT, I ran out of my doctor's office when it was all > over and blindly grabbed cookies and candies and god knows what else like a > junky desperately in need of a fix.) > > You can also get a blood sugar test kit and prick your finger regularly to > monitor your levels as they are in the real world, which may be a better > way to go about it. > > >Also in response to a previous post, Cholesterol Myths is too technical > >for most people > >to understand. > > Perhaps, but proof is technical. Anything sufficiently non- technical just > isn't going to be adequate. (And I'm pretty much in the same boat as you > are: my GF refuses to believe any of this stuff I tell her, and won't read > a technical book like _Cholesterol Myths_ either because she doesn't think > she can understand it (wrong) and because she thinks she doesn't need to do > any hard-core research of her own because her doctors tell her what to do > (wrong) and because she's sure that her doctors are telling her the right > things because they are knowledgeable about these things and non- doctors > aren't (also wrong). As her family history is pretty much heart attack > after heart attack and aneurysm after aneurysm with a dash of diabetes > thrown in for good measure, I'm afraid this is going to end very badly. > > > > > - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2002 Report Share Posted June 23, 2002 Hi everyone, Am only following this thread loosely, but thought I might add a few notes. One book I have found very enlightening is the Metabolic Typing Diet by Wolcott. The bottom line is that there is no ONE RIGHT DIET for everyone as far as macronutrients--protein, fats and carbs and if you eat the wrong balance for you, your body will protest (i.e get sick). It and Nourishing Tradition are the 2 main books I recommend when people ask me for advice about diet. I always have to chuckle when people mention physicians and what they know. I was trained as an allopathic physician with a speciality in Family Practice. When I trained we didn't get much info on diet, etc. and what we did get was pretty much party line--it's just stuff that everybody already knows right--believe me there was not much critical thinking, no examination of the literature and certainly no introduction to books such as Weston Price's. There is so much stuff thrown at you so fast it is unreal--so many diseases so little time. Also, there is a lot of pressure to tow the line and not make waves. I am in recovery now, I transitioned out of active practice and do private consulting and study healing. I used to be an ovo-lacto vegetarian--wasn't very healthy and I would crave meat. I now eat lot's of meat as rare as possible, sometimes raw, lot's of milk (raw-gasp) and cream, kefir, farm fresh eggs--my metabolic type needs lots of protein right now--I've never been healthier, I only rarely get a cold, no cravings--used to crave and eat junk food a lot-- One other note on doctors, from my own experience when I was actively in that world they ARE doing the best they can--I know I was, they really are trying to help--it's just that they get caught in the system like so many others, for the most part they really don't know any better although I think they should. Just my 2 cent's worth just so you can tell you GF at least one doctor agrees with you, Pellicer, M.D. -----Original Message----- From: Idol [mailto:Idol@...] Sent: Friday, June 21, 2002 10:17 PM Subject: Re: Re: Artery cleansing Daphne- >, what would those measurements (of blockages and inflammation) be? That's a good question, actually. I don't think there _are_ any standardized numerical measurements of blockage and inflammation, or if there are they sure aren't reported much, because all anyone ever focuses on are surrogate markers like total cholesterol and other lipid numbers. Arguably the only presently-used surrogate marker that has any relation to actual heart disease and risk is c-reactive protein, but everyone obsesses about lipids and cholesterol-lowering drugs. However, there are devices which will see how blocked someone's arteries are, and I imagine at some point inflammation is sometimes surveyed, and those are the actual disease conditions -- blockage and inflammation -- whereas lipid numbers are just supposed to be indicators, red flags, and almost all of them are either highly dubious or outright BS. >What about insulin resistance, is there a way to test for that? The glucose tolerance test is a fairly useful indicator, though since you drink a giant cup of glucose on an empty stomach and then monitor your blood sugar for hours afterwards it's not exactly good for you. (Years ago, when I took my GTT, I ran out of my doctor's office when it was all over and blindly grabbed cookies and candies and god knows what else like a junky desperately in need of a fix.) You can also get a blood sugar test kit and prick your finger regularly to monitor your levels as they are in the real world, which may be a better way to go about it. >Also in response to a previous post, Cholesterol Myths is too technical >for most people >to understand. Perhaps, but proof is technical. Anything sufficiently non-technical just isn't going to be adequate. (And I'm pretty much in the same boat as you are: my GF refuses to believe any of this stuff I tell her, and won't read a technical book like _Cholesterol Myths_ either because she doesn't think she can understand it (wrong) and because she thinks she doesn't need to do any hard-core research of her own because her doctors tell her what to do (wrong) and because she's sure that her doctors are telling her the right things because they are knowledgeable about these things and non-doctors aren't (also wrong). As her family history is pretty much heart attack after heart attack and aneurysm after aneurysm with a dash of diabetes thrown in for good measure, I'm afraid this is going to end very badly. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2002 Report Share Posted June 23, 2002 According to http://www.mercola.com/2001/jul/14/insulin.htm, fasting insulin is good indicator. Roman biophile410 wrote: > What about insulin resistance, is there a way to test for that? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 23, 2002 Report Share Posted June 23, 2002 - >Just my 2 cent's worth just so you can tell you GF at least one doctor >agrees with you, I wish it would help, but I have books written by doctors, some of whom also have PhDs -- like _Cholesterol Myths_ and it doesn't matter. The overwhelming weight of " medical " opinion is on the lowfat side, and she can't conceive of organizations like the AHA having anything but altruistic motives. I certainly understand where she's coming from, and she has the added problem of having some friends who are world famous physicians who also advocate the standard regimen (and incidentally are very unhealthy people...) so I don't know how to convince her. I come from a family of scientists and skeptics who don't automatically believe what institutions tell us and tend not to trust doctors to be all-knowing all-seeing geniuses, so I guess I just have a fundamentally different perspective. - Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2002 Report Share Posted July 6, 2002 On Sat, 22 Jun 2002 01:17:12 -0400 Idol <Idol@...> writes: Perhaps, but proof is technical. Anything sufficiently non-technical just isn't going to be adequate. (And I'm pretty much in the same boat as you are: my GF refuses to believe any of this stuff I tell her, and won't read a technical book like _Cholesterol Myths_ either because she doesn't think she can understand it (wrong) ******Do you really believe she really believes she can't understand it? Really?? Perhaps this is just a way for her to avoid having her comfortable nutritional worldview challenged. Maybe you guys can compromise. Perhaps you can do something that is really important to her that you don't like in exchange for her reading the book. I don't know, just throwing out some thoughts. and because she thinks she doesn't need to do any hard-core research of her own because her doctors tell her what to do (wrong) *******Hmmm...one of the hardest things to shake (IMO) is a thoroughing going belief/faith in the medical model. Dr. Mendelsohn was correct when he referred to physicians as the " Priests of Modern Medicine " . For many people it is like a religion in which nothing will shake their faith. Even the Apostles had their moments of doubt but modern devotess of allopathic medicine often hang in there right up until the time they depart this earthly scene. and because she's sure that her doctors are telling her the right things because they are knowledgeable about these things and non-doctors aren't (also wrong). As her family history is pretty much heart attack after heart attack and aneurysm after aneurysm with a dash of diabetes thrown in for good measure, I'm afraid this is going to end very badly. *****Good luck . Sounds like a mess waiting to happen. Bianca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 6, 2002 Report Share Posted July 6, 2002 Bianca- >Do you really believe she really believes she can't understand it? >Really?? Yes, I think so. She also believes I can't understand research papers because they require tremendous credentials and education to comprehend, in part because of her overdeveloped respect for MDs, particularly the leading-light sorts who are her friends. - 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.