cholesterol

I just had my first blood test after reaching maintenance. My LDL dropped
and all the numbers are in the normal range according to the standards
printed on the test result page.

My guess is that the fat on my body had cholesterol in it. As I lost
weight, and my body used the stored fat, the cholesterol was released. It
seems the only logical explanation.

I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by standards I
had rejected.

Cubit wrote:
I just had my first blood test after reaching maintenance. My LDL dropped
and all the numbers are in the normal range according to the standards
printed on the test result page.

My guess is that the fat on my body had cholesterol in it. As I lost
weight, and my body used the stored fat, the cholesterol was released. It
seems the only logical explanation.


The ONLY logical explanation on the ONLY ONE you can think of? There is
a difference.


I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by standards I
had rejected.





--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

On Wed, 02 Aug 2006 11:33:23 -0400, Jbuch wrote:

Cubit wrote:
I just had my first blood test after reaching maintenance. My LDL
dropped and all the numbers are in the normal range according to the
standards printed on the test result page.
My guess is that the fat on my body had cholesterol in it. As I lost
weight, and my body used the stored fat, the cholesterol was released.
It seems the only logical explanation.


The ONLY logical explanation on the ONLY ONE you can think of? There is
a difference.

I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make it
out to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by
standards I had rejected.




Cholesterol drops with weight loss. Whether that's caused by burning fat
is a different story.

--
Bob in CT

Cubit wrote:
:: I just had my first blood test after reaching maintenance. My LDL
:: dropped and all the numbers are in the normal range according to the
:: standards printed on the test result page.

What are those numbers?

::
:: My guess is that the fat on my body had cholesterol in it. As I lost
:: weight, and my body used the stored fat, the cholesterol was
:: released. It seems the only logical explanation.

Perhaps it also had something to do with your long-term diet, too. The
absense of high BG levels over time might have had an impact, too.

::
:: I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make
:: it out to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol
:: by standards I had rejected.

I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by standards
I had rejected.

Just curious: why do you think you know better than cardiologists on the
subject of whether cholesterol is bad for you? They are unanimous in their
belief that high levels of LDL cholesterol are bad, yet you chose not to
believe that. Can you explain?

Pat in TX

Pat in TX wrote:

I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by standards
I had rejected.

Just curious: why do you think you know better than cardiologists on the
subject of whether cholesterol is bad for you? They are unanimous in their
belief that high levels of LDL cholesterol are bad, yet you chose not to
believe that. Can you explain?

Pat in TX



I took the comment to mean that he was refering to 'dietary
cholesterol' not being the villian that it was (or still is) made out
to be. While I do think that the medical community is correct in that
high LDL levels aren't good I don't think that the levels are
necessarilly a problem in and of themselves. Rather, I suspect that
they are an indicator that something is potentially amis.

First, I don't think that it is possible to pick a number and declare
below this is good above this is bad and arbitrarilly apply it to
everyone. Second, I believe that the pharmaceutical industry, which
has invested heavilly in cholesterol medication is behind a lot of the
fuss as seen by the lowering and lowering of the cholesterol goals
along with the massive increase in prescriptions. Third, I don't
believe that many in the medical community really do have the answer,
though they may think that they do and they may have good intentions.
I think that this too is obvious in the way that today one thing is
good for you and the next it is bad. Granted, these changes of opinion
may be a result of new information, but whats to say that today's idea
is any more correct than tomorrows will be?

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:26:52 -0400, Noway2 wrote:

Pat in TX wrote:

I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make
it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by
standards
I had rejected.

Just curious: why do you think you know better than cardiologists on the
subject of whether cholesterol is bad for you? They are unanimous in
their
belief that high levels of LDL cholesterol are bad, yet you chose not to
believe that. Can you explain?

Pat in TX



I took the comment to mean that he was refering to 'dietary
cholesterol' not being the villian that it was (or still is) made out
to be. While I do think that the medical community is correct in that
high LDL levels aren't good I don't think that the levels are
necessarilly a problem in and of themselves. Rather, I suspect that
they are an indicator that something is potentially amis.

First, I don't think that it is possible to pick a number and declare
below this is good above this is bad and arbitrarilly apply it to
everyone. Second, I believe that the pharmaceutical industry, which
has invested heavilly in cholesterol medication is behind a lot of the
fuss as seen by the lowering and lowering of the cholesterol goals
along with the massive increase in prescriptions. Third, I don't
believe that many in the medical community really do have the answer,
though they may think that they do and they may have good intentions.
I think that this too is obvious in the way that today one thing is
good for you and the next it is bad. Granted, these changes of opinion
may be a result of new information, but whats to say that today's idea
is any more correct than tomorrows will be?


I think I know better than cardiologists what numbers are better. Pat,
please read some books:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...lance&n=283155

Douane Graveline: Lipitor - Thief of Memory, Statin Drugs and the
Misguided War on Cholesterol. Infinity Publishing, Haverford, Pennsylvania

Alice Ottoboni, Fred Ottoboni: The Modern Nutritional Diseases: Heart
Disease, Stroke, Type-2 Diabetes, Obesity, Cancer.

If you don't have time to read books, how about a paper:

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf

Colpo also has a book out.

The "high blood cholesterol causes heart disease" is one of the biggest
shams ever created.

--
Bob in CT

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:53:39 -0400, Bob in CT
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:26:52 -0400, Noway2
wrote:

Pat in TX wrote:

I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make
it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by
standards
I had rejected.

Just curious: why do you think you know better than cardiologists on
the
subject of whether cholesterol is bad for you? They are unanimous in
their
belief that high levels of LDL cholesterol are bad, yet you chose not
to
believe that. Can you explain?

Pat in TX



I took the comment to mean that he was refering to 'dietary
cholesterol' not being the villian that it was (or still is) made out
to be. While I do think that the medical community is correct in that
high LDL levels aren't good I don't think that the levels are
necessarilly a problem in and of themselves. Rather, I suspect that
they are an indicator that something is potentially amis.

First, I don't think that it is possible to pick a number and declare
below this is good above this is bad and arbitrarilly apply it to
everyone. Second, I believe that the pharmaceutical industry, which
has invested heavilly in cholesterol medication is behind a lot of the
fuss as seen by the lowering and lowering of the cholesterol goals
along with the massive increase in prescriptions. Third, I don't
believe that many in the medical community really do have the answer,
though they may think that they do and they may have good intentions.
I think that this too is obvious in the way that today one thing is
good for you and the next it is bad. Granted, these changes of opinion
may be a result of new information, but whats to say that today's idea
is any more correct than tomorrows will be?


I think I know better than cardiologists what numbers are better. Pat,
please read some books:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...lance&n=283155

Douane Graveline: Lipitor - Thief of Memory, Statin Drugs and the
Misguided War on Cholesterol. Infinity Publishing, Haverford,
Pennsylvania

Alice Ottoboni, Fred Ottoboni: The Modern Nutritional Diseases: Heart
Disease, Stroke, Type-2 Diabetes, Obesity, Cancer.

If you don't have time to read books, how about a paper:

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf

Colpo also has a book out.

The "high blood cholesterol causes heart disease" is one of the biggest
shams ever created.


For instance, here are some materials from the Colpo PDF:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

During the 1980s, some researchers began to recognize that
LDL itself was not a reliable independent risk factor for CHD; half
of those who suffer CHD have LDL levels within normal limits.
Among the 28,000-plus participants of theWomen's Health Study,
for example, 46% of first cardiovascular events occurred in women
with LDL cholesterol levels less than 130 mg/dL-the 'desirable'
target for primary prevention set by the National Cholesterol
Education Program (NCEP).

In animal studies, administration of antioxidant drugs like
probucol impairs LDL oxidation and arterial plaque formation,
even when there is no change in blood cholesterol levels. In fact,
administration of the antioxidant butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
significantly reduces the degree of atherosclerosis in the aorta of
rabbits, even though it raisesLDLcholesterol levels.
Asimilar phenomenon is observed in humans.Among elderly
Belgians, higher levels of oxidized LDL were accompanied by a
significantly increased risk of heart attack, regardless of total
LDLlevels.

In Japanese patients undergoing surgery to remove plaque from
their carotid arteries, blood levels of oxidized LDL were
significantly higher than those measured in healthy controls.
Advanced carotid plaques removed from these patients showed far
higher levels of oxidized LDL than neighboring sections of artery
that were disease-free. Elevated oxidized LDL was also associated
with an increased susceptibility of plaque rupture. However, there
was no association between oxidized LDLconcentrations and total
LDLlevels.

Von Shacky and coworkers, in a 2-year double-blind trial in
patients with CHD, found that daily fish-oil supplementation
increased the incidence of atherosclerotic regression, and
decreased the loss in minimal luminal diameter, as assessed by
quantitative coronary angiography. Fish-oil recipients also
experienced fewer cardiovascular events. LDL cholesterol levels
tended to be greater in the fish-oil group.

The lack of importance of total LDL levels was further
underscored by two recent trials that examined the impact of LDLlowering
therapy on calcified coronary plaque progression. In the
first of these studies, patients given aggressive LDL cholesterollowering
treatment (statins plus niaicin) were compared with those
receiving less aggressive treatment (statins alone). Despite greater
LDL reductions in the former group, there were no differences in
calcified plaque progression as detected by electron beam
tomography. The authors concluded: "with respect to LDL
cholesterol lowering, 'lower is better' is not supported by changes
in calcified plaque progression."

In the Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipid Lowering Trial,
patients with calcific aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to
receive either 80 mg of atorvastatin daily or placebo. After 25
months, serum LDL concentrations remained at an average 130
mg/dL in the placebo group but fell significantly to 63 mg mg/dL in
the atorvastatin group. Despite the fact that LDL levels were
reduced by more than half in the atorvastatin subjects, there was no
difference in aortic-jet velocity or progression in aortic-valve
calcification between the treatment or placebo groups.
---------------------------------------------------

I suggest that everyone read the entire PDF. And this is a small amount
of material indicating why LDL has no correlation with heart disease.
Cardiologists are not correct and are not Gods.

--
Bob in CT

Bob in CT wrote:
On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:26:52 -0400, Noway2 wrote:

Pat in TX wrote:


I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they
make it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by
standards
I had rejected.

Just curious: why do you think you know better than cardiologists on the
subject of whether cholesterol is bad for you? They are unanimous in
their
belief that high levels of LDL cholesterol are bad, yet you chose not to
believe that. Can you explain?

Pat in TX



I took the comment to mean that he was refering to 'dietary
cholesterol' not being the villian that it was (or still is) made out
to be. While I do think that the medical community is correct in that
high LDL levels aren't good I don't think that the levels are
necessarilly a problem in and of themselves. Rather, I suspect that
they are an indicator that something is potentially amis.

First, I don't think that it is possible to pick a number and declare
below this is good above this is bad and arbitrarilly apply it to
everyone. Second, I believe that the pharmaceutical industry, which
has invested heavilly in cholesterol medication is behind a lot of the
fuss as seen by the lowering and lowering of the cholesterol goals
along with the massive increase in prescriptions. Third, I don't
believe that many in the medical community really do have the answer,
though they may think that they do and they may have good intentions.
I think that this too is obvious in the way that today one thing is
good for you and the next it is bad. Granted, these changes of opinion
may be a result of new information, but whats to say that today's idea
is any more correct than tomorrows will be?


I think I know better than cardiologists what numbers are better. Pat,
please read some books:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...lance&n=283155


Douane Graveline: Lipitor - Thief of Memory, Statin Drugs and the
Misguided War on Cholesterol. Infinity Publishing, Haverford, Pennsylvania

Alice Ottoboni, Fred Ottoboni: The Modern Nutritional Diseases: Heart
Disease, Stroke, Type-2 Diabetes, Obesity, Cancer.

If you don't have time to read books, how about a paper:

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf

Colpo also has a book out.

The "high blood cholesterol causes heart disease" is one of the biggest
shams ever created.

I was going to ask if anyone had read this book and found it worthwhile.

Seems as if someone has found it helpful, and revealing.

I am finishing "The Cholesterol Myth" and looking for more.

This whole area is bothersome, and reminds me of the time I did
prosthetic joint implant research.

We would present "poster" exhibits on the mechanics of artificial joints
at places like the annual meetings of The American Orthopedic
Academy.... and the questions and discussions with practicing orthopedic
surgeons showed that they often had grossly bad understanding of joint
mechanics...

It became standard to teach "Biomechanics" to Orthopedic students in the
1970's, and the students found biomechanics to be one of the hardest and
most disliked subjects in their medical education.


So, if someone says that MD's are pretty ignorant of real science, the
answer is (in my experience) YES, that is true.

And, therefore they are capable of conning themselves and of being
conned by the drug business. And they have done both.

Jim

--
1) Eat Till SATISFIED, Not STUFFED... Atkins repeated 9 times in the book
2) Exercise: It's Non-Negotiable..... Chapter 22 title, Atkins book
3) Don't Diet Without Supplemental Nutrients... Chapter 23 title, Atkins
book
4) A sensible eating plan, and follow it. (Atkins, Self Made or Other)

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 11:53:06 -0400, Bob in CT
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:53:39 -0400, Bob in CT
wrote:

On Thu, 03 Aug 2006 10:26:52 -0400, Noway2
wrote:

Pat in TX wrote:

I never did believe that cholesterol was the villain that they make
it out
to be. So, I find some irony in now having good cholesterol by
standards
I had rejected.

Just curious: why do you think you know better than cardiologists on
the
subject of whether cholesterol is bad for you? They are unanimous in
their
belief that high levels of LDL cholesterol are bad, yet you chose not
to
believe that. Can you explain?

Pat in TX



I took the comment to mean that he was refering to 'dietary
cholesterol' not being the villian that it was (or still is) made out
to be. While I do think that the medical community is correct in that
high LDL levels aren't good I don't think that the levels are
necessarilly a problem in and of themselves. Rather, I suspect that
they are an indicator that something is potentially amis.

First, I don't think that it is possible to pick a number and declare
below this is good above this is bad and arbitrarilly apply it to
everyone. Second, I believe that the pharmaceutical industry, which
has invested heavilly in cholesterol medication is behind a lot of the
fuss as seen by the lowering and lowering of the cholesterol goals
along with the massive increase in prescriptions. Third, I don't
believe that many in the medical community really do have the answer,
though they may think that they do and they may have good intentions..
I think that this too is obvious in the way that today one thing is
good for you and the next it is bad. Granted, these changes of opinion
may be a result of new information, but whats to say that today's idea
is any more correct than tomorrows will be?


I think I know better than cardiologists what numbers are better. Pat,
please read some books:

http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/096...lance&n=283155

Douane Graveline: Lipitor - Thief of Memory, Statin Drugs and the
Misguided War on Cholesterol. Infinity Publishing, Haverford,
Pennsylvania

Alice Ottoboni, Fred Ottoboni: The Modern Nutritional Diseases: Heart
Disease, Stroke, Type-2 Diabetes, Obesity, Cancer.

If you don't have time to read books, how about a paper:

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf

Colpo also has a book out.

The "high blood cholesterol causes heart disease" is one of the biggest
shams ever created.


For instance, here are some materials from the Colpo PDF:
--------------------------------------------------------------------

During the 1980s, some researchers began to recognize that
LDL itself was not a reliable independent risk factor for CHD; half
of those who suffer CHD have LDL levels within normal limits.
Among the 28,000-plus participants of theWomen's Health Study,
for example, 46% of first cardiovascular events occurred in women
with LDL cholesterol levels less than 130 mg/dL-the 'desirable'
target for primary prevention set by the National Cholesterol
Education Program (NCEP).

In animal studies, administration of antioxidant drugs like
probucol impairs LDL oxidation and arterial plaque formation,
even when there is no change in blood cholesterol levels. In fact,
administration of the antioxidant butylated hydroxytoluene (BHT)
significantly reduces the degree of atherosclerosis in the aorta of
rabbits, even though it raisesLDLcholesterol levels.
Asimilar phenomenon is observed in humans.Among elderly
Belgians, higher levels of oxidized LDL were accompanied by a
significantly increased risk of heart attack, regardless of total
LDLlevels.

In Japanese patients undergoing surgery to remove plaque from
their carotid arteries, blood levels of oxidized LDL were
significantly higher than those measured in healthy controls.
Advanced carotid plaques removed from these patients showed far
higher levels of oxidized LDL than neighboring sections of artery
that were disease-free. Elevated oxidized LDL was also associated
with an increased susceptibility of plaque rupture. However, there
was no association between oxidized LDLconcentrations and total
LDLlevels.

Von Shacky and coworkers, in a 2-year double-blind trial in
patients with CHD, found that daily fish-oil supplementation
increased the incidence of atherosclerotic regression, and
decreased the loss in minimal luminal diameter, as assessed by
quantitative coronary angiography. Fish-oil recipients also
experienced fewer cardiovascular events. LDL cholesterol levels
tended to be greater in the fish-oil group.

The lack of importance of total LDL levels was further
underscored by two recent trials that examined the impact of LDLlowering
therapy on calcified coronary plaque progression. In the
first of these studies, patients given aggressive LDL cholesterollowering
treatment (statins plus niaicin) were compared with those
receiving less aggressive treatment (statins alone). Despite greater
LDL reductions in the former group, there were no differences in
calcified plaque progression as detected by electron beam
tomography. The authors concluded: "with respect to LDL
cholesterol lowering, 'lower is better' is not supported by changes
in calcified plaque progression."

In the Scottish Aortic Stenosis and Lipid Lowering Trial,
patients with calcific aortic stenosis were randomly assigned to
receive either 80 mg of atorvastatin daily or placebo. After 25
months, serum LDL concentrations remained at an average 130
mg/dL in the placebo group but fell significantly to 63 mg mg/dL in
the atorvastatin group. Despite the fact that LDL levels were
reduced by more than half in the atorvastatin subjects, there was no
difference in aortic-jet velocity or progression in aortic-valve
calcification between the treatment or placebo groups.
---------------------------------------------------

I suggest that everyone read the entire PDF. And this is a small amount
of material indicating why LDL has no correlation with heart disease.
Cardiologists are not correct and are not Gods.


By "LDL", I mean non-oxidized LDL, as oxidized LDL does seem to have a
correlation with heart disease.

--
Bob in CT