RE: Re: lowering total cholesterol

[Guest guest]

And what are your sources for this advice?

on 7/29/2004 9:07 PM, loganruns73 at loganruns73@... wrote:

> In order of importance:

>

> 1. Avoid ingesting all deadly trans-fats, isolated fructose and high-

> insulinic carbohydrates.

>

> 2. Correct hormonal imbalance with bio-identical hormone therapy.

>

> 3. Ingest soluble fiber, pharmaceutical-grade fish oil, mixed natural

> vitamin E, policosanol, artichoke leaf extract, aged garlic extract,

> curcumin, gugulipid, green tea, flushful niacin, flax seed oil, soy.

> The last three should be taken with caution.

>

> Logan

>

[Guest guest]

The recent studies by on what he called the Portfolio diet, showed

that the regime lowered total cholesterol and LDL by around 29%. This was

through the use of a vegetarian diet, soy protein, soluble fiber, plant sterols,

and nuts. The " supplements " used were the plant sterols (they used benecol

gel caps) at a dose of 2 caps twice a day, and solubles fiber (they used

metamucil 3x a day). You can read more details at the website

www.portfoliodiet.com

and search the archives for more info also.

In regard to some of the other " supplements " mentioned, CSPI recently reviewed

most of them and here are some excerpts including some of the references.

>> mixed natural vitamin E,

In early studies by researchers with a financial interest in the outcome,

vitamin E , seemed to lower LDL in people with high cholesterol. But three

larger and longer trials by independent scientists have come up empty. In the

most recent one, the formulation had no impact on LDL. " Tocotrienols don't

affect cholesterol levels in people, " says Andre Theriault of the University of

Hawaii in Honolulu. " Cholesterol is made by the liver and tocotrienols can

inhibit that process in test tubes, but it appears that not enough tocotrienols

get into the liver when people consume them as supplements. " American Journal

of Clinical Nutrition 76: 1237, 2002.

>>policosanol,

Policosanol lowered LDL by 17 to 31 percent in 19 trials involving more than

1,900 people. But 16 of the studies were carried out by just one group of

researchers in Havana, Cuba. (The other three were small trials done in Mexico,

Argentina, and Chile.) Policosanol has never been tested in good studies in the

U.S., Canada, Europe, or Japan. What's more, the policosanol used in most U.S.

supplements (including the reformulated` Cholestin) is extracted from beeswax,

not sugarcane. Beeswax policosanol hasn't been tested on cholesterol levels.

>> aged garlic extract,

It's " cholesterol's natural enemy, " say the makers of Garlique. Yet according

to a U.S. government-sponsored review of the evidence, garlic's effect on

cholesterol levels is " unclear. " While garlic supplements seem to produce a

slight drop in LDL for the first three months, the decline disappears after six

months.3 In fact, the better the design and execution of garlic studies, the

less likely they were to detect any enefit, concluded a review by British

alternative-medicine scientists in 2000(ls of Internal Medicine 133:

420,2000). In Germany, where much of the early enthusiasm for garlic's

cholesterol-busting potential originated, the government no longer allows

companies to claim that garlic can lower cholesterol.

..>>gugulipid,

The first good test of this treeresin extract outside its native India backfired

last year. Researchers at the University of Pennsylvania gave 67 men and women

with high cholesterol one or two grams a day of a standardized guggul extract

called guggulipid. (The manufacturer, Sabinsa Corporation of Piscataway, New

Jersey, funded the study.) Instead of lowering LDL, Sabinsa's guggulipid

actually raised it by five percent.(see below) And six of the guggul takers (but

none of the placebo takers) developed unpleasant rashes that went away only

after they stopped taking the supplement.

Guggulipid for the treatment of hypercholesterolemia: a randomized controlled

trial.

JAMA. 2003 Aug 13;290(6):765-72

Szapary PO, Wolfe ML, Bloedon LT, Cucchiara AJ, DerMarderosian AH, Cirigliano

MD, Rader DJ.

Department of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania School of Medicine,

Philadelphia 19104-6021, USA. szapary@...

CONTEXT: Herbal extracts from Commiphora mukul (guggul) have been widely used in

Asia as cholesterol-lowering agents, and their popularity is increasing in the

United States. Recently, guggulsterones, the purported bioactive compounds of

guggul, have been shown to be potent antagonists of 2 nuclear hormone receptors

involved in cholesterol metabolism, establishing a plausible mechanism of action

for the hypolipidemic effects of these extracts. However, there are currently no

published safety or efficacy data on the use of guggul extracts in Western

populations. OBJECTIVE: To study the short-term safety and efficacy of 2 doses

of a standardized guggul extract (guggulipid, containing 2.5% guggulsterones) in

healthy adults with hyperlipidemia eating a typical Western diet. DESIGN:

Double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled trial using a parallel design,

conducted March 2000-August 2001. PARTICIPANTS AND SETTING: A total of 103

ambulatory, community-dwelling, healthy adults with hypercholesterolemia in the

Philadelphia, Pa, metropolitan area. INTERVENTION: Oral, 3 times daily doses of

standard-dose guggulipid (1000 mg), high-dose guggulipid (2000 mg), or matching

placebo. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Percentage change in levels of directly measured

low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) after 8 weeks of therapy. Secondary

outcome measures included levels of total cholesterol, high-density lipoprotein

cholesterol (HDL-C), triglycerides, and directly measured very low-density

lipoprotein cholesterol (VLDL-C), as well as adverse events reports and

laboratory safety measures including electrolyte levels and hepatic and renal

function. RESULTS: Compared with participants randomized to placebo (n = 36), in

whom levels of LDL-C decreased by 5%, both standard-dose guggulipid (n = 33) and

high-dose guggulipid (n = 34) raised levels of LDL-C by 4% (P =.01 vs placebo)

and 5% (P =.006 vs placebo), respectively, at 8 weeks, for a net positive change

of 9% to 10%. There were no significant changes in levels of total cholesterol,

HDL-C, triglycerides, or VLDL-C in response to treatment with guggulipid in the

intention-to-treat analysis. While guggulipid was generally well tolerated, 6

participants treated with guggulipid developed a hypersensitivity rash compared

with none in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Despite plausible mechanisms of

action, guggulipid did not appear to improve levels of serum cholesterol over

the short term in this population of adults with hypercholesterolemia, and might

in fact raise levels of LDL-C. Guggulipid also appeared to cause a dermatologic

hypersensitivity reaction in some patients.

[Guest guest]

>The age should be irrelevant, within reason, if the research

consistently holds up over time.

Which, as I showed, they havent all done. So far, the only supplements

that seem to have held up over time and shown effectiveness unde the

scrutiny of continuted studies

To lower TC and LDL: Soluble fiber, Plant Sterols.

To Lower TGs: Fish Oil

To Raise HDL & Lower TGs: Niacin

To Lower Homocysteine: Folic Acid, B12, B6

Jeff

[Guest guest]

"should"?

Abstracts do not represent approved medical practice, which BTW, is fairly well up to date.

Have you used these things you are recommending?

In my experience, high TC is very difficult to treat in many people. In the people that can lose weight, say 50#, some may lower TC, some not. Supposedly CR will lower TC - mine went down but I was not a "high TC" person to begin with. My wife's went down from 380 to 250, BFD. I don't think we're going to treat high TC with diet in the patients where it's important, in this group.

It's a liver thing - use a statin or whatever the Dr. prescribes.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: jenesaisquoi1973

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:07 AM

Subject: FW: [ ] Re: lowering total cholesterol

The age should be irrelevant, within reason, if the research consistently holds up over time.They were all from Pubmed.Logan

[Guest guest]

Allow me to pick on that word "effectiveness".

There is a group that have high TC that will respond to nothing other than a prescribed drug. I think the things below may help those, but dropping say TC 380 by 100 points don't get it. They will still need a statin, eg, and that may not bring it down enough either.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 9:56 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: lowering total cholesterol

>The age should be irrelevant, within reason, if the researchconsistently holds up over time.Which, as I showed, they havent all done. So far, the only supplementsthat seem to have held up over time and shown effectiveness unde thescrutiny of continuted studiesTo lower TC and LDL: Soluble fiber, Plant Sterols.To Lower TGs: Fish OilTo Raise HDL & Lower TGs: NiacinTo Lower Homocysteine: Folic Acid, B12, B6Jeff

[Guest guest]

>>T here is a group that have high TC that will respond to nothing other than a prescribed drug. I think the things below may help those, but dropping say TC 380 by 100 points don't get it. They will still need a statin, eg, and that may not bring it down enough either.

I see about 50-100 new patients a week, many with TC over 250, some over 300. Almost all see dramatic drops in their TC to the neighberhood of 140-180. It is not uncommon for me to see TC around 300 drop to 150 in a week or so. We have published the "averages" many times and have seen it for over 30 years. Yes, every now and than we get a few who do not respond as well. THey respond, just not as well. However in my, and our experience, they have been the minority, not the majority. Same with HTN. You "hear" the same thing, but its not what we see. but thats a seperate issue. I suppose many of the interventions that are less successfull are just less aggressive.

The link between blood cholesterol and heart attacks is well established by almost two decades of scientific research. Although many other factors may play a significant role, cholesterol is the key villain. In an analysis of over 4,500 participants , total cholesterol and LDL (the "bad" cholesterol) drop on average 23%. Triglyceride fats fell 33%. (Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 1389, 1991. New England Journal of Medicine, 323: 1921, 1990.)

THose on statins usually see an additional drop of 20 % or so.

In a recently published study of close to 100 men and women with high cholesterol levels, scientists at UCLA Medical School found that drugs like Mevacor® and Zocor® reduced total cholesterol on average 20%. Adding daily exercise and a low-fat, high-fiber diet-sent cholesterol levels plunging another 19%.(American Journal of Cardiology, 79: 1112, 1997)

THose women on HRT will also see an additional drop of around 20%.

A study of 806 postmenopausal women revealed a 20% drop in cholesterol and triglycerides, including those women on hormone replacement therapy.(Women’s Health Issues)

In just three weeks, reduced oxidative stress, controlled blood pressure, lowered cholesterol by an average of 19% and reduced insulin levels by 46%, significantly reducing their risk of heart disease (Circulation, 106: 2530. 2002)

Lets not be to quick to discount effective nutritional/lifestyle interventions.

Regards.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

No, I support nutritional measures, I just don't offer them as a therapy.

What bothers me is I read this group for info directed at longevity.

No argument that CR has reduced TC in CRONies and it improves other factors. It's just that by itself it is not a clinical solution to disease and most won't benefit that much without drugs. The group you mention - I believe you - but it's not the majority of people who have high TC. Many people just give up treating such.

They either can't or won't do anything more.

I am saying that this group is directed at CR, CRON as a good thing to do for health and longevity. If a lower TC falls out, so be it. I don't advertise it to do that, because the majority probably will not experience a large enough benefit. My wife's family is fraught with high TC and they have tried lots of things, so don't discount the value of their experience in the negative, either.

I will not suggest anyone use niacin, eg, for sure. I DID NOT like the side effects. Ergo, I will not TRY any other non-prescription stuff either. I need more than shoulds, maybes, "in most people", etc. They never seem to work for me. BTW, the niacin was prescribed.

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 10:38 AM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: lowering total cholesterol

>>T here is a group that have high TC that will respond to nothing other than a prescribed drug. I think the things below may help those, but dropping say TC 380 by 100 points don't get it. They will still need a statin, eg, and that may not bring it down enough either.

I see about 50-100 new patients a week, many with TC over 250, some over 300. Almost all see dramatic drops in their TC to the neighberhood of 140-180. It is not uncommon for me to see TC around 300 drop to 150 in a week or so. We have published the "averages" many times and have seen it for over 30 years. Yes, every now and than we get a few who do not respond as well. THey respond, just not as well. However in my, and our experience, they have been the minority, not the majority. Same with HTN. You "hear" the same thing, but its not what we see. but thats a seperate issue. I suppose many of the interventions that are less successfull are just less aggressive.

The link between blood cholesterol and heart attacks is well established by almost two decades of scientific research. Although many other factors may play a significant role, cholesterol is the key villain. In an analysis of over 4,500 participants , total cholesterol and LDL (the "bad" cholesterol) drop on average 23%. Triglyceride fats fell 33%. (Archives of Internal Medicine, 151: 1389, 1991. New England Journal of Medicine, 323: 1921, 1990.)

THose on statins usually see an additional drop of 20 % or so.

In a recently published study of close to 100 men and women with high cholesterol levels, scientists at UCLA Medical School found that drugs like Mevacor® and Zocor® reduced total cholesterol on average 20%. Adding daily exercise and a low-fat, high-fiber diet-sent cholesterol levels plunging another 19%.(American Journal of Cardiology, 79: 1112, 1997)

THose women on HRT will also see an additional drop of around 20%.

A study of 806 postmenopausal women revealed a 20% drop in cholesterol and triglycerides, including those women on hormone replacement therapy.(Women’s Health Issues)

In just three weeks, reduced oxidative stress, controlled blood pressure, lowered cholesterol by an average of 19% and reduced insulin levels by 46%, significantly reducing their risk of heart disease (Circulation, 106: 2530. 2002)

Lets not be to quick to discount effective nutritional/lifestyle interventions.

Regards.

Jeff

[Guest guest]

This is not about whether you like CSPI or not. I quoted them as it was

a handy overview of the studies. Shooting the messenger doesn't change

the message.

The point is that the studies you posted did nothing more than point to

some older data about some small studies in obscure journals that didn't

prove anything, or show anything conclusive. And that the more recent

studies, regardless of the ones I post or CSPI overviews do not show

that these items have proven out to be beneficial in larger more recent

studies in more mainstream peer reviewed data. They are not the only

ones questioning the validity of the supplements you recommended. If

I left CSPI out and posted the newer studies myself (which I did for

policosanol) it doesn't make it more meaningful, but if you would

prefer, I can do that. Then, we are still in the same place...... That

none of those supplements have proven out in more recent studies and the

older ones have many questions to them.

Personally, I am surprised that someone who would insist on such

" quality " and " integrity " and be so quick to point out the " misguided "

shortcomings of one organization, yet fail to see the " glaring "

shortcomings of the data they use to support their position.

Removing beef tallow/palm/coconut was not misguided. The industries

(not CSPI's) response to use hydrogenated oils (and the resulting trans

fat) is not CSPIs fault nor was it their recommendation. I also don't

see them promoting the same old agenda as they just are part of the

movement that just succeded in having trans fat labeling required and

trans fat removed from packaged foods and are now working on

restaurants.

I still like to see some recent good data on any of the questionable

supplements you mentioned that I responded to.

Reagrds

Jeff

[Guest guest]

>> What bothers me is I read this group for info directed at longevity.

Isn't one way to increase (or maximize) longevity to stop dying prematurely from preventable diseases?

>> No argument that CR has reduced TC in CRONies and it improves other factors. It's just that by itself it is not a clinical solution to disease and most won't benefit that much without drugs.

The same non drug intervention has been used in affordable community interventions right here in the USA and shown to be as effective. See the CHIP Program run by Hans Diehl, http://www.chipusa.org and their results here... While it may not be CR at its finest, it is much closer to ON. And for most of the partipants, it does result in a substantial reduction in calories as evidenced by the overall weight loss.

>> The group you mention - I believe you - but it's not the majority of people who have high TC.

The group I mention are studies done on a group of 90,000 people over the last 30 years by us. I think it is fairly indictive of what can happen in a total population. In fact, similar interventions were done in the city of North Karelia, Finnland. This much more aggressive approach that I speak of, appears to have had dramatic results there. Over the past three decades, North Karelia, the Finnish province that pioneered such a program, has been moitored by the WHO and has slashed the number of heart attacks, deaths from heart disease and deaths from lung cancer by about 70% each. Life expectancy among men has increased to about 73 years from 65, and after the Finns expanded the project across the country in 1977, the overall mortality rate from heart disease halved. Overall cholesterol levels in the province have fallen 17%. Now the World Health Organization is setting up trial versions of the program around the globe, from China to South America to the Middle East. "The solution they found in North Karelia is extremely relevant for us," says Tom Kottke, a cardiologist at the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minn., and project director of CardioVision 2020, a program sponsored by the clinic that is closely modeled on the Finnish program.

>> Many people just give up treating such. ..They either can't or won't do anything more.

I agree that many give up but diagree that they cant or wont do more. My experience is that most people give up because the intervention they are given is not very effective. So, being intially very motivated, they try hard, give it all their "gusto" and see little results. The problem wasnt their motivation or their effort, the problem was the intervention. Now, if you apply the same motivation and effort to a more aggressive intervention, and they see more remarkable results, then perhaps they wont give up. In fact, one of the strongest motivators I see in people, is results.

I agree with your other comments.

Regardsjeff

[Guest guest]

Hi Jeff, Let me say first I respect your opinions more than most because you and I share some common thoughts on diet.

Just to redirect this thread somewhat, what do you think of Walford's list of supplements pg 165-167, 120 yo?

I think you must have a copy but for those that don't, you can search it at amazon.

As an example only: I was intrigued by his niacin use of 100 -300 mg /day.

I would like you to comment on those values, if you will.

Regards

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:23 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: lowering total cholesterol

This is not about whether you like CSPI or not. I quoted them as it wasa handy overview of the studies. Shooting the messenger doesn't changethe message. The point is that the studies you posted did nothing more than point tosome older data about some small studies in obscure journals that didn'tprove anything, or show anything conclusive. And that the more recentstudies, regardless of the ones I post or CSPI overviews do not showthat these items have proven out to be beneficial in larger more recentstudies in more mainstream peer reviewed data. They are not the onlyones questioning the validity of the supplements you recommended. IfI left CSPI out and posted the newer studies myself (which I did forpolicosanol) it doesn't make it more meaningful, but if you wouldprefer, I can do that. Then, we are still in the same place...... Thatnone of those supplements have proven out in more recent studies and theolder ones have many questions to them. Personally, I am surprised that someone who would insist on such"quality" and "integrity" and be so quick to point out the "misguided"shortcomings of one organization, yet fail to see the "glaring"shortcomings of the data they use to support their position. Removing beef tallow/palm/coconut was not misguided. The industries(not CSPI's) response to use hydrogenated oils (and the resulting transfat) is not CSPIs fault nor was it their recommendation. I also don'tsee them promoting the same old agenda as they just are part of themovement that just succeded in having trans fat labeling required andtrans fat removed from packaged foods and are now working onrestaurants. I still like to see some recent good data on any of the questionablesupplements you mentioned that I responded to.ReagrdsJeff

[Guest guest]

I won't argue the merits of your prestigious clinic, although there are millions who could not have attended it, even if they knew about it. Nor could they have attended others like Duke, eg. What I meant was that I wanted to hear about your efforts using CR, maybe in your clinic.

CR stands on its own for extending lifespan (if that's possible).

Your clinic is weight loss, and using weight loss to cure those diseases related to obesity, right?

We can do CR without weight-loss, and if TC lowers it's a side benefit. But even if it doesn't, I think we have a chance to extend lifespan. We are a CR group that wants to discuss things in CR terms, not weight-loss, per se.

Curing disease is interesting - I'm more interested in PREVENTING disease since yours and other clinics have the curing pretty well covered.

Do healthy nominal weight people go to your clinic and ask for disease prevention, life extension? (rhet)

Regards.

----- Original Message -----

From: Jeff Novick

Sent: Friday, July 30, 2004 12:51 PM

Subject: RE: [ ] Re: lowering total cholesterol

>> What bothers me is I read this group for info directed at longevity.

Isn't one way to increase (or maximize) longevity to stop dying prematurely from preventable diseases?

>> No argument that CR has reduced TC in CRONies and it improves other factors. It's just that by itself it is not a clinical solution to disease and most won't benefit that much without drugs.

The same non drug intervention has been used in affordable community interventions right here in the USA and shown to be as effective. See the CHIP Program run by Hans Diehl, http://www.chipusa.org and their results here... While it may not be CR at its finest, it is much closer to ON. And for most of the partipants, it does result in a substantial reduction in calories as evidenced by the overall weight loss.

[Guest guest]

>> what do you think of Walford's list of supplements pg 165-167, 120 yo?

I will list the nutrient, (Dr Walfords Recommendations in paranthesis) and my comments.

First, I agree with his general recommendation of not supplementing more than 50-100% of the RDA for most nutrients.

Vit A, (None), I agree. Can increase risk for Osteo and fractures. In addition, the RDA was lowered since the publication of the book and an UL (upper limit) was set for the first time of 10,000

Vit D, (800 - 1000 including amt from sun/dairy), I agree. In some areas of the country/world, especially in the Northern climates where there is less sun exposure and along with everyones fear of the sun and constant 24 hr use of sunscreen, I agree.

Vit E, (100-200 d alpha, 100-200 d-gamma, 100 IU tocotrienol). Mixed tocophorols are better however, if someone is on a statin, I wouldnt recommend this. There may be some benefit in reducing risk for Alzheimers, Macular Degeneration and certain cancers. And for most people, eating the typical way, Vit E may be difficult to get. So, I think this is more individual based on personal situation. I wouldnt give a generic recommendation

Vit K; (400 mcg including food sources). I agree, but for most of us, especially CR-ON and other healthy vegetable eaters, this should be no problem getting it from food

Vit C (500-100 in ester form) I disagree. I have concerns about excess vit c. I can post some data later, but we get way more than we need from a healthy diet.

B1 (RDA) I agree

B2 (RDA) I agree

Niacin (100-300mg). I disagree. I agree with supplementing nicain where appropriate for lowering LDL and raising HDL but the amount needed is much more than this. So, I am not sure of the proposed benefit of this smaller amount.

Folate (800) I agree but i would count in food sources towards the total. On a healthy diet, its easy to even get the 800. A typical diet is tough to get 200. So, shoot for 800.

B6 (50mg) I dont see the need except in certain situations so this would be individual. Along with folate and B12 may be important for elevated homocysteine levels.

B12 (200) agree. might even recommend more as absorbtion is very low and may go lower as people age. 500-1000 mcg is safe on a daily basis.

Calcium (enough to get to RDA) I agree but also limit intake of salt, and get some weight bearing exercise.

Magnesium (500 mg) i would agree with 400-500.

Selenium (200) RDAs were lowered from 70 - 55 at the same time Vit A was lowered a year or two ago. With the change I would recommend 50-100 for most. And, as he says, eating a brazil nut or 2 a day can easily do it.

Iron (none) I agree except in rare situations on a as needed basis

zinc (no more than 30 mg) I agree

Manganese (RDA ) i agree

Chromium (50 mcg) I agree In diabetics, would even up it to 200 mcg with some magnesium and selenium.

Alpha Lipoic Acid (50). For Peripheral Neurpoathy, around 600-1000 can help, so i would agree but with much more. Than the new formula from Dr Ames in which i think he recommends 100 (or 200?) which if someone wanted to take, I am OK with.

Acetyl l carnitine (500) same as comment for Dr Ames formula

Bio-flavonoids (500) I dont see the need in a healthy diet

Co Q 10 : (100mg) If on a statin, I agree. Otherwise, debatable

SAMe (200-400) Not in general

Omega 3s (500-700 mg mixed EPA/DHA) I disagree, first get it from food.

I think I got them all. If I missed one, let me know. I may add some more comments when I have some time over the weekend.

RegardsJeff

[Guest guest]

>> What I meant was that I wanted to hear about your efforts using CR, maybe in your clinic.

While I and my collegues will often discuss/debate the merits and data on CR amongst ourselves and with our patients, we are not a CR clinic. However must people here are consuming around 1200-1500 calories (Some a little less, some a little more). What I always found interesting over the years is that Dr Walford would often recommend our clinic (or books) for people trying to figure out how to do "this" (CR-ON) in the real world. I know he had his critiques of our program but also his regard for it.

>> Your clinic is weight loss, and using weight loss to cure those diseases related to obesity, right?

We are not a weight loss clinic nor were we ever. We oringally were founded as a clinic offering an alternative solution to those with CVD, HTN, DB and some cancers. In the beginning few if any were overweight. It wasnt an issue. So, the results had little to do with any weight loss.

In the recent years, people have realized that the program is also extremely effective for losing weight in a healthy "weigh". ANd, many of those who come for CVD, HTN, DB, Metabolic Syndrome are now also overweight. We actually have published no direct data on weight loss. Most all of the 90 studies we have published deal with CVD, Lipid Abnormalities, DB, HTN, Metabolic Syndrome, Cancers, etc etc And, for those who come for CVD, DB, HTN, etc now, who are also overweight , losing weight will help reduce their risks.

>> Curing disease is interesting - I'm more interested in PREVENTING disease since yours and other clinics have the curing pretty well covered.

IN the old days, most people came to "treat" their disease. Today, about 1/3 - 1/2 came for prevention. Many of our patients now have no existing disease but want to learn how to prevent them. We also run a special program for children 7-16 each summer. Striclty prevention. It (and I ) were featured on Fox News, last week for this step towards prevention for kids.

>> DO healthy nominal weight people go to your clinic and ask for disease prevention, life extension? (rhet)

Yes, all the time. Thats actually how I met my now fiancee` 3 years ago. She came here to learn about prevention and healthy living. Now that she met me, she wants to live forever!

Jeff

[Guest guest]

Logan has many good points here, What are the unintended consequences

of today's "best" dietary advice? I think the problem is that deep

fried foods regardless of the oil, is not healthy.

I think that our modern cattle raising techniques (I speak here as a

former cattle rancher) has lead to an increase in saturated fat in the

meat. Chicken today is a lot more fatty than it was just 20 years ago.

(as someone posted here.)

Personally I just purchased a calf and I am going to grass feed it. The

part that is uncertain in my mind is how long long I will grain feed it

just before slaughter. Are there Any studies that tell us how quickly

the steers body will change with the grain diet? Traditionally one

grains the steer for 60 to 90 days to get the "yellow" out of the fat,

however, is this only cosmetic or is there taste involved and does this

change result is more saturated fat?

I do not know.

positive Dennis

BTW I am recovering well from my surgery.

loganruns73 wrote:

--- In , "Jeff Novick" <jnovick@p...

> recommended. If

> I left CSPI out and posted the newer studies myself (which I did

for

> policosanol) it doesn't make it more meaningful, but if you would

> prefer, I can do that. Then, we are still in the same place......

All right, fair enough. You obviously keep more up to date with

recent research than laymen like me.

> Personally, I am surprised that someone who would insist on such

> "quality" and "integrity" and be so quick to point out

the "misguided"

> shortcomings of one organization, yet fail to see the "glaring"

> shortcomings of the data they use to support their position.

That was only relative to just one or two of the recent studies you

posted. But I'll take your word for it there are more recent

contradictory or inconclusive studies on the substances in question.

> Removing beef tallow/palm/coconut was not misguided. The

industries

> (not CSPI's) response to use hydrogenated oils (and the resulting

trans

> fat) is not CSPIs fault nor was it their recommendation. I also

I don't have time to prove in detail how it was indeed misguided even

though millions of years of human evolution is on my side. A good

place to start is by reading "The Lipid Hypothesis" section at

http://www.nursingceu.com/NCEU/courses/diet/

Propaganda has to be much more sophisticated and relentless to work

succesfully in a democracy as opposed to a dictatorship. So the fact

is that CSPI did mount an enormous propaganda campaign in the late

80's to demonize and remove tropical oils and saturated fats from all

junk and fast food, ignoring (whether good or a lack of) science and

economic conspiracy. They should be guilty of criminal association

especially due to the enormous influence over "public opinion" they

wield. CSPI may not be the "right arm" like the FDA is, but they

certainly do act as the "left arm". Like many other organizations,

they're also complicit in helping Americans become overweight/obese.

> don't see them promoting the same old agenda as they just are part

> of the movement that just succeded in having trans fat labeling

> required and trans fat removed from packaged foods and are now

> working on restaurants.

As per the typical boondoggle: propagandize an original "problem" so

you can then wind up proposing "solutions" to fix the

original "problem". And in the interim, the new and unexpected

problem always winds up being worse than the original "problem".

What revealed danger in 20-30 years from now will there be from

spearheading this new movement to postmodern, tasteless, trans-fat

free canola oil? Prostate cancer?

> I still like to see some recent good data on any of the

questionable

> supplements you mentioned that I responded to.

I'll leave that up to you to research, if you really care. The

studies on the other substances seem robust enough to warrant a lack

of promoting statin therapy. :-)

Logan