HAh!

When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?

"And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol as
intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or deaths,
or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/

--
Bob in CT

Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks (unless it's
low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con" by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.

Bob in CT wrote:
:: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
::
:: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
:: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the odds of
:: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in
:: arteries."
::
:: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/
::
:: --
:: Bob in CT

Noway2 wrote:
Bob in CT wrote:

When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?

"And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol
as intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or
deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/

--Bob in CT


I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical
community has been fed "certain lines of ****" for so long that it is
believed without question.

This last Saturday I went to one of the local Food Lions (not the
grocery store I usually go to) to get some hot dogs and buns as my wife
won't eat hot dogs without them.

Anyway, I made the mistake of reading the labels on the items. The
first pack of buns I picked up (the store brand) had an ingredients list
3 miles long and included of all things SHELLAC as 'a glazing agent'.
Next, I went to the bread isle and searched for the ones with the least
amount of 'stuff' in them.

What caught my attention (and the relevance to the O.P) is that they had
one pack of some brand's 'Heart Healthy' ones. The only thing I could
find that differentiated them was that they had slightly more fiber in
them and listed brown sugar before the HFCS. Of course even the
refinded 'white' ones had labels all over the place denoting their
"whole grain" goodness.

I also had a hell of a time trying to find hot dogs without the HFCS and
it turns out there was ONLY one brand that didn't have it.

So in answer to your question, when will they learn? Probably about the
same time that the masses stop accepting all this crap being put in
their food and get past the need for everything to be sweetened with
corn syrup.




They will learn when they take the time to actually acquire factual
information.

We will be ice skating in Hades when that happens.

After that, then the most people will learn the difference between loose
and lose.

Bob in CT wrote:
When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?

"And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good cholesterol as
intended, that made no difference in the odds of heart attacks or
deaths, or key measures of cholesterol buildup in arteries."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17798411/

--Bob in CT

I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical
community has been fed "certain lines of ****" for so long that it is
believed without question.

This last Saturday I went to one of the local Food Lions (not the
grocery store I usually go to) to get some hot dogs and buns as my wife
won't eat hot dogs without them.

Anyway, I made the mistake of reading the labels on the items. The
first pack of buns I picked up (the store brand) had an ingredients list
3 miles long and included of all things SHELLAC as 'a glazing agent'.
Next, I went to the bread isle and searched for the ones with the least
amount of 'stuff' in them.

What caught my attention (and the relevance to the O.P) is that they had
one pack of some brand's 'Heart Healthy' ones. The only thing I could
find that differentiated them was that they had slightly more fiber in
them and listed brown sugar before the HFCS. Of course even the
refinded 'white' ones had labels all over the place denoting their
"whole grain" goodness.

I also had a hell of a time trying to find hot dogs without the HFCS and
it turns out there was ONLY one brand that didn't have it.

So in answer to your question, when will they learn? Probably about the
same time that the masses stop accepting all this crap being put in
their food and get past the need for everything to be sweetened with
corn syrup.

Roger Zoul wrote:
|| Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
|| (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
|| by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
||
|| Bob in CT wrote:
|||| When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
||||
|||| "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
|||| cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
|||| odds of
|||| heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
|||| buildup in arteries."
||||

I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
been
excellent.

BJ

--
--
"To doubt everything or to believe everything are two equally
convenient solutions; both dispense with the necessity of
reflection." - Jules Henri Poincaré

Glory, glory the world is saved by the Democrats. They promise
to be just as honest and bipartisan as they were before the 1994
elections.

BJ in Texas wrote:
Roger Zoul wrote:
|| Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
|| (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
|| by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
||
|| Bob in CT wrote:
|||| When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
||||
|||| "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
|||| cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
|||| odds of
|||| heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
|||| buildup in arteries."
||||

I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
been
excellent.

BJ



It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
also have Low Cholesterol.

So, "cholesterol" is only a portion of the story, if it is indeed much
of a driver at all.

It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to
prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X.


I recently read a recent book on CHD which cited 20 risk factors for
CHD. Author was a practicing Cardiologist.

The risk factors were given severity or significance numbers ranging
from 0 up to 20.

A personal prior heart attack got a risk significance of 20.
Family history was 10 or 15.
Most everything else was a 2, 3 or 5

Cholesterol was a 2, if I remember it accurately.

There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer" viewpoint.

Jbuch wrote:
:: BJ in Texas wrote:
::: Roger Zoul wrote:
::::: Yes, Chol is pretty much a useless indictor of heart attacks
::::: (unless it's low), as discussed in "The Great Cholestrol Con"
::::: by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick.
:::::
::::: Bob in CT wrote:
::::::: When will they learn that LDL isn't bad and HDL isn't good?
:::::::
::::::: "And even though they and the Pfizer drug raised HDL good
::::::: cholesterol as intended, that made no difference in the
::::::: odds of
::::::: heart attacks or deaths, or key measures of cholesterol
::::::: buildup in arteries."
:::::::
:::
::: I had cholesterol numbers in the 155 to 170 range for a number
::: of years and still had a heart attack. Other indicators have
::: been
::: excellent.
:::
::: BJ
:::
::
::
:: It's commonly said that about half the people who have heart attacks
:: also have Low Cholesterol.
::
:: So, "cholesterol" is only a portion of the story, if it is indeed
:: much
:: of a driver at all.
::
:: It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to
:: prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X.
::
::
:: I recently read a recent book on CHD which cited 20 risk factors for
:: CHD. Author was a practicing Cardiologist.
::
:: The risk factors were given severity or significance numbers ranging
:: from 0 up to 20.
::
:: A personal prior heart attack got a risk significance of 20.
:: Family history was 10 or 15.
:: Most everything else was a 2, 3 or 5
::
:: Cholesterol was a 2, if I remember it accurately.
::
:: There are some MD's who don't buy the "Cholesterol is #1 Killer"
:: viewpoint.

If anything in that book I listed above is true (the references he cites)
then the entire cholesterol business is based on an "ad-hoc hypothesis" and
has little or no basis.

Jbuch wrote:

After that, then the most people will learn the difference between
loose and lose.

G

Noway2 writes:

I think part of the problem is that both the public and the medical
community has been fed "certain lines of ****" for so long that it
is believed without question.

Exhibit A: All the ads running during the NCAA basketball tournament,
with the American Heart Association shilling for Subway because their
food isn't "greasy." Not that a Subway sandwich could ever be greasy
anyway. The huge amount of bread in one of those things could soak
anything up.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."

Jbuch writes:

It is easy to correlate cholesterol with something X, but harder to
prove that cholesterol causes the behavior of that something X.

Here's the analogy I tell people. Imagine that you came home from a
trip, and your house was completely torn apart, as if by a tornado.
As you inspected it, you'd see nails sticking out all over the place,
wherever joints had been torn apart. There might even be loose nails
lying around in the mess. So naturally you'd conclude that your house
collapsed due to Nail Overload, right? Then you'd go around telling
all your friends to have their houses checked for excessive nail
placement, and soon we'd have an entire industry of guys with metal
detectors charging big bucks to find all the extra nails in your house
and remove them for you and replace them with screws. Makes perfect
sense, right?

That's what seems to have happened with cholesterol and heart attacks.
Someone cut open some cadavers and saw that heart-attack victims
tended to have high levels of cholesterol in their blood and near the
heart. Being naturally disposed against cholesterol anyway because it
tends to come from animals, they jumped to the conclusion that A
caused B, and never considered that B might have caused A, or A might
have been trying to stop B, or C might have caused A and B.



--
Aaron -- 285/235/200 -- http://aaron.baugher.biz/

"If you hear hoofbeats, you just go ahead and think horsies, not
zebras."