Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Just a question. Do you also "vehemently"agree that 156 is ok for CRers? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: beneathremains Sent: Monday, June 28, 2004 11:18 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? > The optimum total cholesterol level in the blood is 100 mg/dl (2.6 > mM)? The WUSTL study CRers had levels of 158 versus the controls' > 205 mg/dl. Mine was just above 100.I vehemently disagree with having total cholesterol in non-CRers below 180 mg/dl...Logan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 >>For non-CRers, optimal is 180 mg/dl, though the healthiest range is 180-220 mg/dl. Half of all heart attack victims have normal total cholesterol levels What is considered normal here in the USA is really average, not healthy. Average/normal in the USA used to tbe around 200-220, which also put your risk of CVD at around 50%. Recently, recommendations have said 180-200 is now considered normal/average and that under 180 is better. But at 180, your risk is still around 20-25%. In the Framingham study, there has never been a heart attack in anyone with a total cholesterol under 155. We recommend people keep their total to below 100 plus their age, with a maximum of 165 and have published the results of these including 5 year follow ups. >>and the lower your total cholesterol, the higher your risk of dying from a stroke. While I have seen lots of claims that cholesterol can go to low, I have never seen any real date that showed that it was harmful, as long as it occurred as a result of a healthy lifestyle. We do need cholesterol for the synthesis of hormones and a few other functions, but the liver is quite capable of producing the amount we need. Even if you ate no cholesterol from outside sources, your liver would still produce enough. There are many contributing factors to heart disease and stroke. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 Total cholesterol is a rather simplistic way of dealing with the lab results, no? My last total chol was 151 mg/dl with an HDL of 105 mg/dl and LDL of 36 mg/dl. >From: " Jeff Novick " <jnovick@...> >Reply- >< > >Subject: RE: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? >Date: Tue, 29 Jun 2004 13:34:46 -0400 > > >>For non-CRers, optimal is 180 mg/dl, though the healthiest range is >180-220 mg/dl. Half of all heart attack victims have normal total >cholesterol levels > >What is considered normal here in the USA is really average, not healthy. >Average/normal in the USA used to tbe around 200-220, which also put your >risk of CVD at around 50%. Recently, recommendations have said 180-200 is >now considered normal/average and that under 180 is better. But at 180, >your risk is still around 20-25%. In the Framingham study, there has >never been a heart attack in anyone with a total cholesterol under 155. > >We recommend people keep their total to below 100 plus their age, with a >maximum of 165 and have published the results of these including 5 year >follow ups. > > >>and the lower your total cholesterol, the higher your risk of dying from >a stroke. > >While I have seen lots of claims that cholesterol can go to low, I have >never seen any real date that showed that it was harmful, as long as it >occurred as a result of a healthy lifestyle. > >We do need cholesterol for the synthesis of hormones and a few other >functions, but the liver is quite capable of producing the amount we need. > Even if you ate no cholesterol from outside sources, your liver would >still produce enough. > >There are many contributing factors to heart disease and stroke. > >Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 29, 2004 Report Share Posted June 29, 2004 >>Total cholesterol is a rather simplistic way of dealing with the lab results, no? Yes, any one number is really worthless. You need the whole picture and many new bio markers are emerging that need to be added to the picture. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 First, we can't say anything for CRer's about anything until we get long term studies to show that CR is safe and find out exactly how to do it. You and I will not be here to discuss if and when they do it. In the case of statin users, you overlook the fact that TC is monitored by a doctor who cannot prescribe a statin unless it's req'd, for one, and cannot continue to prescribe it without blood tests every 6 months. The TC will never get below your "feared" 150 level, rather the people who require a statin will likely have to make do with 220. Some people are almost totally unaffected by diet inre TC levels, ergo, require a statin to get down to maybe 220. Those may be SAD or CRer's, it makes no diff, although CRONies report lower TC's. My TC didn't go down because of CR - it went down because I lost weight to a nominal level. But mine has never been high. I think your fear that levels might go to low in healthy people is unfounded. Low level due to sickness a diff story. And as Jeff Novick has accurately put it, the liver is very capable, so capable in fact, that even statins, a modified diet, and exercise will not change the TC appreciably in those special people. Cerebral hemorrhage is notable, although I sincerely doubt statins will increase the risk, it's not near the risk of ischemic stroke, heart disease. So we have to balance the risk factors. About age 85, the hemorrhagic stroke risk seems to surpass the IS risk. Finally, my TC has been as low as 116, last 156, and I have no intention of trying to raise it 180-220, even if I knew how. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: beneathremains Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:27 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? Who can say until cholesterol studies are controlled for CR and non-CR subjects? But the current evidence is that total cholesterol levels below 180 mg/dl can increase risk of cerebral hemorrhage and other lethal diseases. Some statin users can get dangerously low, particularly below 150 mg/dl.In my opinion, CRers will probably see a lower total cholesterol level due to lesser demand for hormone manufacturing. Hormones do have correlations with being pro-aging (e.g. insuling, IGF-1, et al.). However, this lower level should be completely offset by HDL being above 50 and LDL below 100 which I tend to doubt is reflected in statin users or S.A.D. eaters.Logan> Just a question. Do you also "vehemently"agree that 156 is ok for CRers?> Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted June 30, 2004 Report Share Posted June 30, 2004 Looking at hormone production, in Stenchever: Comprehensive Gynecology, 4th ed., 2001, TABLE 4-3, it looks like maybe 40 mgs made per day. Seems like 7500 mgs of circulating cholesterol, even if only 10% is available, should be plenty? Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: beneathremains Sent: Tuesday, June 29, 2004 9:27 PM Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? Who can say until cholesterol studies are controlled for CR and non-CR subjects? But the current evidence is that total cholesterol levels below 180 mg/dl can increase risk of cerebral hemorrhage and other lethal diseases. Some statin users can get dangerously low, particularly below 150 mg/dl.In my opinion, CRers will probably see a lower total cholesterol level due to lesser demand for hormone manufacturing. Hormones do have correlations with being pro-aging (e.g. insuling, IGF-1, et al.). However, this lower level should be completely offset by HDL being above 50 and LDL below 100 which I tend to doubt is reflected in statin users or S.A.D. eaters.Logan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Logan: why don't we stick to the most recent information (for obvious reasons)? Papers from the 1980's are not that relevant . We've learned so much since then. It would also be helpful if you would just post a couple of the most recent ones that state your case with at least an abstract or a conclusion (as is our custom) . That would make it easier for everyone to evaluate the info rather than us all having to go find the reference. thanks in advance. on 7/1/2004 2:20 AM, beneathremains at beneathremains@... wrote: >> So what is the source of the information you believe indicates that >> the optimal total cholesterol is 180 - 200? [edited] > > Laemmle P, et al. Know your cholesterol: population screening. J Lab > Clin Med 1988 Nov;112(5):567-74. > > Stone NJ, et al. Controlling cholesterol levels through diet. > Postgrad Med 1988 Jun;83(8):229-37, 241-2. > > Hulley SB. A national program for lowering high blood cholesterol. Am > J Obstet Gynecol 1988 Jun;158(6 Pt 2):1561-7. > > " Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program Expert Panel on > Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in > Adults. " The Expert Panel. Arch Intern Med 1988 Jan;148(1):36-69. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Dunno, Rodney- Triglycerides ain't counted as cholesterol! I think Logan's OK here. >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? >Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:04:33 -0000 > >Hi Logan: > >You seem to have a misunderstanding about how total cholesterol is >calculated. If your HDL was 25 and your LDL was 100 your total >cholesterol would NOT be 125, it would be higher because you have not >taken account of the TG. Similarly if your HDL were 100 and your LDL >80 your TC would not be 180. > >I will take a look at some of your referenced studies over the >weekend. > >Rodney. > > > > > > > Suppose you had a HDL of 25 and LDL of 100 for a TC of 125, would >you > > consider that to be more optimal instead of a TC of 180 where HDL >is > > 100 and LDL is 80? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 The evidence I think you are discussing in reagrd to stoke and low cholesterol was was presented at an AHA conference in 1999 and they recmomended the numbers you are. LEF, seems to promote this info also. Yet, the most recent National Cholesterol Education Program still recommends less than 200 as optimal without such a warning as you mention. The American Stroke Association also does not have this warning. The number they use as a low end cut off is 160 and go on to say that most on the increased mortality at the level is not due to stroke but to poort health and the remaining " small " amount is basically insignificant or " irrelevant " as they say. Here is info from the lates Scientific Paper on Cholesterol, specifically adressing the issue of low cholesterol.... <?xml version= " 1.0 " encoding= " UTF-8 " ?>Very Low Cholesterol and Cholesterol Lowering A Statement for Healthcare Professionals From the American Heart Association Task Force on Cholesterol Issues Author(s): H. Criqui, MD, MPH Epidemiological studies have consistently reported a U-shaped relationship between total cholesterol and all-cause mortality. At low levels of cholesterol, where the cardiovascular death rate is low, the increase in total mortality is due to a number of causes, including trauma, cancer, hemorrhagic stroke, and respiratory and infectious diseases. It should also be noted that there is no trend for an increase in total mortality unless the total cholesterol level is less than 160 mg/dL. It is estimated that in the United States less than 10% of middle-aged men and women have serum cholesterol levels below this range. Careful analysis has revealed that a substantial portion of this excess mortality at low levels of cholesterol appears to be caused by poor health at baseline in many persons with lower cholesterol. However, after exclusion of ill persons and early deaths, a residual association between very low cholesterol and mortality persists in some studies. Although this issue clearly requires further evaluation, it is of little current relevance to the prevention of cardiovascular disease in patients or populations. Also..As none of the articles you posted specifically adress this area, I was wondering if you can post the specific inference from one or two of any more recent studies that address this issue. In regard to LDL, this recent study said that lower (< 70) was even better (and there have been a few more confirming this)... Clin Cardiol. 2004 Jan;27(1):17-21. Related Articles, Links Marked low-density lipoprotein cholesterol reduction below current national cholesterol education program targets provides the greatest reduction in carotid atherosclerosis. Kent SM, Coyle LC, Flaherty PJ, Markwood TT, AJ. BACKGROUND: Current National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) guidelines recognize low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) below 100 mg/dl as an optimal level. Evidence supporting this is scant. Both LDL-C and C reactive protein (CRP) are known correlates of atherosclerosis progression. HYPOTHESIS: We examined the effect of final LDL-C and CRP obtained with statin therapy on carotid intima-media thickness (CIMT), a valid surrogate for clinical benefit of lipid-lowering therapies. METHODS: In a randomized, single-center trial, 161 patients were assigned to statin therapy of different potencies (pravastatin 40 mg, n = 82; atorvastatin 80 mg, n = 79). The effects on CIMT were assessed in relationship to LDL-C and CRP levels obtained after 12 months of therapy. RESULTS: Changes in CIMT were directly related to the final LDL-C level obtained on statin therapy after 12 months (R = 0.219, p = 0.015). Carotid intima-media thickness regression was seen in 61% of the subjects in the lowest quartile of final LDL-C (< 70 mg/dl) versus 29% of the subjects with the highest quartile of final LDL-C (> or = 114 mg/dl, p = 0.008). No threshold value was seen, with more favorable effects on absolute change in CIMT with lower values of LDL-C (decrease in CIMT of 0.06 +/- 0.17 mm in the lowest quartile compared with an increase of 0.06 +/- 0.09 in the highest quartile of LDL-C, p = 0.008). On-treatment LDL and CRP concentrations both below the group median values were associated with the greatest likelihood of CIMT regression. CONCLUSIONS: Regression of carotid atherosclerosis is directly related to the absolute LDL-C level on statin therapy. The greatest regression was obtained with an LDL-C < 70 mg/dl, supporting marked LDL-C reduction to levels below current NCEP guidelines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 >>Isn't that a non-sequitor? Who can have extremely low TC unless they go to an extreme of drugs or a radical lifestyle like CR? :-) Actually no, cholesterol levels of under 180 are common in many areas of the world, even under 165. Mine has (and remains) under 150-155 without ever using drugs or supplements aimed at lowering it. Using lifestyle only, without the use of drugs, we regularly see levels below 165 and have published this info also as have several others (ie: Esselstyn C. and also Barnard J.). I will post them later when I dig them up. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 I have seen some references stating TC= HDL + LDL, if you have an accurate specific assay of LDL. If you calculated LDL, LDL = TC - (HDL + TG/5) unless TG > 400 mg/dl. >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? >Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 12:04:33 -0000 > >Hi Logan: > >You seem to have a misunderstanding about how total cholesterol is >calculated. If your HDL was 25 and your LDL was 100 your total >cholesterol would NOT be 125, it would be higher because you have not >taken account of the TG. Similarly if your HDL were 100 and your LDL >80 your TC would not be 180. > >I will take a look at some of your referenced studies over the >weekend. > >Rodney. > > > > > > > Suppose you had a HDL of 25 and LDL of 100 for a TC of 125, would >you > > consider that to be more optimal instead of a TC of 180 where HDL >is > > 100 and LDL is 80? > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Nah. You are right, Rodney. For me HDL = 105 mg/dl, LDL = 36 mg/dl, and TC = 151 mg/dl. Thus my VLDL must be estimated at 10 mg/dl or TG = 50 mg/dl. No? >From: " Rodney " <perspect1111@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? >Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 14:14:19 -0000 > >Hi : > >Well, if you believe that I suggest you try adding up your LDL + HDL >and see if that sum comes out to be your TC. > >Rodney. > > > > > > > > > > > > Suppose you had a HDL of 25 and LDL of 100 for a TC of 125, >would > > >you > > > > consider that to be more optimal instead of a TC of 180 where >HDL > > >is > > > > 100 and LDL is 80? > > > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 >>Isn't that a non-sequitor? Who can have extremely low TC unless they go to an extreme of drugs or a radical lifestyle like CR? :-) Oh, PS, I wouldnt think of my lifestyle as " radical " but more like " simple " . Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 >>I think that any extreme can stress the body leading to ill health. My eldest son was a marathon runner weighed about 145lbs and was 6ft tall. IMO he stressed his body to exhaustion and together with a very stressful job and lifestyle his body rebelled. He died at the age of 44 after a 5 yr fight with lung cancer. BTW he never smoked. Are you saying (or implying) that a lifestyle (or mine, more specifically) that leads to a cholesterol under 160 is extreme? There are also many other differences in these countries and people you mention. Some that eat more fat, actually eat less saturated fat than we do. And as you mentioned, junk, refined food, highly sugared and or fat " added " food is more rare. A And in some, total caloric intake is less and they are more active. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 There is a group of low TC people and they seem to have low HDL as well. The only therapy is niacin. It will raise HDL, but it lowers TC (LDL) to what may be too low. But your discussion is in the "what should the protocol be to treat CHD or prevent it". I have to look what the medical book says because that's what has been reviewed and accepted. The subject of cholesterol is well defined except maybe for CRONies. You might logon to mdconsult.com, and view some of their special reviews not available elsewhere, such as: Evidence-based Healthcare: A Scientific Approach to Health PolicyVolume 8 • Number 1 • March 2004, Copyright © 2004 Churchill Livingstone, Inc. Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Lowering LDL cholesterol reduces risk of ischaemic heart disease events S. Rosenson MD "Statins reduce incident and recurrent ischemic heart disease (IHD) events, and thromboembolic stroke in people with IHD. Randomized clinical trials (RCTs) demonstrate that statins afford consistently greater reductions in cardiovascular events for people with high baseline low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and low baseline high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C)." {Not trying to sell statins here, just CR. If CR has the same result, then I have to think it's a good thing, right?} {My doctor has said that my TC is so low that it will actually scrape fat off the arteries. He's the best practioner I've ever had (maybe second to his wife).} {And I don't think CR is all that radical, unless you think ducking a big mac is radical. } Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: beneathremains Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 1:37 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? Who can have extremely low TC unless they go to an extreme of drugs or a radical lifestyle like CR? :-)Logan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Yes, at 68yo, I would make that trade with the knowledge I have now. At 80yo, maybe it will be different. I have discussed it at length with CRONies to their edge of patience. (ask Alan Pater). The risk of IS is much larger than Hemo stroke, at least in our society. I wouldn't care if they added statins to every donut. It's hard for me to separate IS from CHD - they're tied together. I hope all the attention to statins for use in everything doesn't give people the idea it's snake oil. It could be the age retardation vitamin everyone is looking for - I don't know - we'll find out say in 10 yrs. But I think knocking cholesterol control just because of Hemo stroke is like saying don't drive thru Houston, because you might get hit by a truck. Of course, inflammation is an important thing but it's not the only thing. We don't know if atheroschlerosis will be lower in CRONies, yet, but I think we do know some of the indicators are bettered in their CR regimen. If you search the cr groups files I'm sure you'll find lots of data. I'm also sure you won't conclude anything for sure from it, other than a reduction in caloric intake is a good thing - up to a point. Regards. ----- Original Message ----- From: beneathremains Sent: Thursday, July 01, 2004 1:49 AM Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? Have you heard about the new economic agenda pushing to reclassify statins as OTC and become available to everybody? Do we really want to trade off lower ischemic stroke risk for higher cerebral stroke risk? > Cerebral hemorrhage is notable, although I sincerely doubt statins > will increase the risk, it's not near the risk of ischemic stroke, > heart disease. So we have to balance the risk factors. About age > 85, the hemorrhagic stroke risk seems to surpass the IS risk. Fair enough. > Finally, my TC has been as low as 116, last 156, and I have no > intention of trying to raise it 180-220, even if I knew how. FWIW, my TC was 160 mg/dl last I checked. I'm not too worried about it as long as it stays between 150 mg/dl and 200 mg/dl. Below 150 mg/dl would suggest to me inadequate intake of saturated fat or excessive drug/supplement TC suppression. Would that CRONer with a TC of 110 or so in here please state their HDL and LDL numbers?Logan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Hi Rodney. HDL and LDL are not themselves cholesterol, they are only transporters of cholesterol. Al > Hi Logan: > > You seem to have a misunderstanding about how total cholesterol is > calculated. If your HDL was 25 and your LDL was 100 your total > cholesterol would NOT be 125, it would be higher because you have not > taken account of the TG. Similarly if your HDL were 100 and your LDL > 80 your TC would not be 180. > > I will take a look at some of your referenced studies over the > weekend. > > Rodney. > > > > > > > Suppose you had a HDL of 25 and LDL of 100 for a TC of 125, would > you > > consider that to be more optimal instead of a TC of 180 where HDL > is > > 100 and LDL is 80? > > > > > > > > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 >>One last thought on all this. In my many years of doing 'this and that' with the goal of health in mind I've found that the mental as well as the physical needs much attention and for me that's been a practice of meditation. I agree 100%. I think the most important thing I Have ever done and still do is " the art of doing nothing " or meditation. Jeff Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 >> There is a group of low TC people and they seem to have low HDL as well. The only therapy is niacin. It will raise HDL, but it lowers TC (LDL) to what may be too low. This may be true, as there are several populations around the world that have extremely low rates of CHD yet have very low HDLs, often in the 20s. Would we recommend them to raise their HDLs? I think the attention given to HDL (and raising it) in this country is misguided. This was recently published in the JADA (April 2004 * Volume 104 * Number 4) , and addresses this very issue. What about HDL? The reduction in HDL-C that may occur on a low-fat diet is another example of a half-truth that is confusing to many people. HDL returns cholesterol to the liver for metabolism, a pathway known as reverse cholesterol transport. Most Americans consume a diet high in saturated fat and cholesterol, so those who are able to increase HDL-C in response to this diet are at lower risk than those who cannot, since they will be more efficient at metabolizing excessive dietary fat and cholesterol. In simple terms, those with higher HDL-C levels have more " garbage trucks " (HDL) to get rid of the " garbage " (excessive fat and cholesterol). However, reducing dietary fat and cholesterol may cause a decrease in HDL-C because there is less need for it. This does not confer the same risk of atherosclerosis as in Americans with low HDL levels who are consuming a high-fat diet (41). In other words, when you have less garbage, you need fewer garbage trucks to remove it, so a reduction in HDL on a low-fat diet is not harmful. There are no data showing that the physiologic reduction of HDL-C levels with a low-fat diet is detrimental, especially in that LDL-C usually decreases more than HDL-C (42). In locations such as Asia, where a low-fat diet has been the norm, HDL-C levels are low, yet the incidence of CVD is among the lowest in the world (43). In rural China, for example, the average LDL is less than 95 mg/dL. In contrast, someone who increases the amount of fat and cholesterol in their diet (eg, an Atkins diet) may increase their HDL-C because their body is trying to get rid of the extra garbage (fat and cholesterol) by increasing the number of available garbage trucks (HDL). Eating a stick of butter will raise HDL-C in those who are able to do so, but that does not mean that butter is good for the heart. HDL-C is predictive of relative heart disease risk only in populations in which everyone is eating a similar high-fat diet, such as the Framingham population. To understand better the mechanism of this phenomenon, Breslow and colleagues studied the turnover of HDL apolipoproteins (apo) A-I and A-II in 13 subjects on two contrasting metabolic diets. Upon changing from high to low intake of saturated fat and cholesterol, the mean HDL-C decreased 29%, whereas apo A-I levels fell 23%. Mean apo A-II levels did not change. The fractional catabolic rate (FCR) of apo A-I increased 11%, whereas its absolute transport rate decreased 14%. The decrease in HDL-C and apo A-I levels correlated with the decrease in apo A-I transport rate but not with the increase in apo A-I FCR. In contrast, within each diet, the HDL-C and apo A-I levels were inversely correlated with apo A-I FCR both on the high- and low-fat diets but not with apo A-I transport rate (44). Therefore, diet-induced changes in HDL-C levels correlate with and may result from changes in apo A-I transport rate. In contrast, differences in HDL-C levels between people on a given diet correlate with and may result from differences in apo A-I FCR. The mechanism of the effects on HDL-C levels of changing from a high- to low-fat diet differs substantially from the mechanism explaining the differences in HDL-C levels between individuals who are eating a high-fat diet. In summary, decreases in HDL-C due to a low-fat diet have a very different prognostic significance than someone who cannot raise HDL-C as much on a high-fat diet. Raising and lowering HDL-beneficial or harmful? An example of the half-truth of saying that anything that raises HDL-C is beneficial whereas anything that lowers it is harmful came at the November 11, 2003 annual scientific session of the American Heart Association. A paper was presented from Tufts University titled " One Year Effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in Decreasing Body Weight and Heart Disease Risk. " The researchers concluded " All diets resulted in significant weight loss from baseline and all but the Ornish diet resulted in significant reductions in the Framingham risk score " (45). This study was widely reported and caused many to say, " See, another study showing that the Atkins diet is good for your heart. " It sounds good, but it is not true. The Framingham risk score is calculated from age, sex, total cholesterol, HDL, smoking, and systolic blood pressure (46). Only total cholesterol and HDL changed in this study, so these were the only factors in determining the risk score. Total cholesterol decreased much more on the Ornish diet than on any of the other diets. However, HDL increased more on the other diets, so the differences in the Framingham risk score were due primarily to changes in HDL. The abstract did not mention that people lost the most weight on the Ornish diet, it was the only one to significantly lower LDL-C, and it was the only one to significantly lower insulin (even though one of the main premises of the Atkins and Zone diets is their purported effect on insulin). Also, C-reactive protein and creatinine clearance were significantly lowered only on the Ornish and Weight Watchers diets. As stated earlier, a low-fat, whole foods diet has been proven to reverse heart disease using actual measures of coronary atherosclerosis and myocardial perfusion, whereas none of the other three diets has been shown to do so. It was terribly misleading when this abstract made it appear as though the Atkins diet is better for your heart. This is especially incongruous when, as mentioned earlier, the only study to examine blood flow on the Atkins diet found that it actually worsened (35). 35. Fleming R, Boyd LB. The effect of high-protein diets on coronary blood flow. Angiology 2000;51:817-826. 41. Bonow RO, Eckel RH. Diet, obesity, and cardiovascular risk. N Engl J Med 2003;348:2057. 42. Connor WE, Connor SL. The case for a low-fat, high-carbohydrate diet. N Engl J Med 1997;337:562-563. 43. TC, Parpia B, Chen J. Diet, lifestyle, and the etiology of coronary artery disease: The Cornell China Study. Am J Cardiol 1998;82:18T-21T. 44. Brinton EA, Eisenberg S, Breslow JL. A low-fat diet decreases high density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol levels by decreasing HDL apolipoprotein transport rates. J Clin Invest 1990;85:144-151. 45. Dansinger ML, Gleason JL, Griffith JL, Li W, Selker HP, Schaefer EJ. One-year effectiveness of the Atkins, Ornish, Weight Watchers, and Zone Diets in decreasing body weight and heart disease risk, 2003. Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions, Orlando, November 11, 2003. 46. National Institutes of Health. Risk assessment tool for estimating 10-year risk of developing hard CHD (myocardial infarction and coronary death). Available at: http://hin.nhlbi.nih.gov/atpiii/calculator.asp?usertype=prof. Accessed March 5, 2004. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 1, 2004 Report Share Posted July 1, 2004 Absolutely! We is wierd! But look at what being normal means: being overweight, sedentary, livin' on trans-fats, saturated fats, processed " food " , borderline diabetic, gettin' hypertension, atherosclerotic vascular disease, cancer, etc.... I'll take wierd and extreme any day! >From: " citpeks " <citpeks@...> >Reply- > >Subject: [ ] Re: Cholesterol: How Low Should You Go? >Date: Thu, 01 Jul 2004 19:43:24 -0000 > > >>> > >Are you saying (or implying) that a lifestyle (or mine, more >specifically) that leads to a cholesterol under 160 is extreme? > >>> > >This is not a personal comment addressed to any one in particular, but >in my opinion EVERYONE in this group is doing something out of the >ordinary, and many outsiders might consider it extreme. > >Who in their right mind goes hungry, measures temperature and blood >pressure every day? Not normal people. Hunger is something that >occurs in poor African countries because of wars. But to do it >voluntarily? Devout religious people historically have fasted for >enlightenment and to atone for sins. Caloric intakes similar to those >consumed by anorexic patients are NOT normal. In an interview with >Liza May, a reporter wrote that on that particular day she had only >eaten one apple. The reporter left the reader with the impression >that she was not going to eat anything else that day, and everyone >knows that nobody can survive by eating only one apple per day. The >majority of the people do not understand CR and think that it is >abnormal and extreme. > >What percentage of Americans eat vegan or vegetarian diets? Not very >many. Some cultures, e.g., India, have centuries-old traditions of >vegetarianism, but not America. We like beef, pork, and poultry. >However, the percentage of vegetarians seems to be higher in the CR >community than in the general population. > >Who adds guar gum and galactomannin to the food to make it more >filling while keeping calories low? Not ordinary people. > >Face it. The lifestyle that we are choosing may make us healthier, >but it also makes us weirder. > >Tony > 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.