Atkins diet has long-term dangers, researchers warn

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus1166"
Yes and that doesn't make it good for some of us just because our
bodies
makes it.

Good point. But, again, if you check out the cholesterol myths book,
you will see that

1) Association between cholesterol and heart disease is spurious if
you do not consider 1% of people who suffer from a genetic disease
called familial hypercholesterolemia

That is a myth implying that only people with "genetic" familial
hypercholesterolemia have problems. There are many other types of
genetic
abnormalities involving lipids. Some with various gene dossage.
The spurious results come from the old testing compared to the newer
testing
now. A total cholesterol in one patient having a heart attack being the
same
in another not having any problems. The problem is that the breakdown of
the
specific types of LDL were not performed.

That's an excellent point, but, as it turns out, even LDL level is not
a good predictor of heart attack risk. Other subfractions or ratios
may have predictive effect, but, they are not necessarily the cause of
heart disease, they could be a manifestation of a certain process.

Again you think because all the answers are not worked out that they are
useless. There are many independant risk factors involving heart disease. No
one said they were causitive, only "risk factors associated with CAD". There
is no single factor but factors and once you get all the factors found then
you add them all up to come up with a relative overall risk for developing
CAD.


2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

Who said it has to be dietary cholesterol that is the sole problem. The
body
makes cholesterol on it's own and it is a genetic misprint in the
balance.

I am gladthat I completely agree with you here.

Keep in mind that lipid abnormalities are elevated grossly in people who are
overweight. If they lose the weight then they become more normal in lipids.
They are the same individual in terms of genetics but the variable being the
obesity. It is not all derived from diet but from the abnormal physiology
associated with being overweight ie "metabolic syndrome".


Look at this logic. Glucose is not the problem in type I diabetes
because a low carb diet does not cure and people die.

Based on what I know about type I diabetes, which is admittedly little
and based on reading Dr Bernstein's book, low carb diet helps people
with type I diabetes manage blood sugars and live longer with less
diabetic complications. It obviously does not cure diabetes, in the
sense that it does not restore the body's ability to produce insulin.

You would be dead without insulin.


3) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet and drugs does not reduce
overall mortality. There are good reasons to suspect that statins also
stimulate cancer, which takes longer to find out than any of the
studies took.

There are many studies about lowering cholesterol and the benefits. You
will
not find any long term studies on newer drugs for obvious reasons,
because
they are new. They are also being replaced by newer ones rendering some
of
the older ones less disirable as side effect profile starts to increase
with
large use.

http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/2004/...atin_drugs.htm

Too many issues there to go over but lets just say by their header that they
are far from unbiased. They mention how good cholesterol is for people but
every thing in the human body has been associated with disease so simply
talking about how good something is for you is out of whack. Fat is good for
you, sugar, even beer in a relative way.


Here's information about several major studies, which found that lipid
altering drugs do not reduce all cause mortality (with references to
studies of these drugs).

"ALL cause". I thought we were talking about heart disease? They are not
dying of heart disease so they die of something else.


``ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent
Heart Attack Trial), the largest North American cholesterol-lowering
trial ever and the largest trial in the world using Lipitor, showed
mortality of the treatment group and controls after three or six years
was identical.36

http://www.servier.com/pro/cardiologie/pdfs/kub372.asp

It should be borne in mind here that ALLHAT-LLT was an open study, so that
the prescription of statins was also possible in the control group. This
could explain why in the verum group and the control group there was a
significant reduction in cholesterol after 4 years of 17.2% and 7.6%,
respectively, and a reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 28%
and 11%, respectively. Because of its design, the ALLHAT-LLT study is not in
a position to challenge the results of ASCOT-LLA.

The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) was a large clinical
study that compared two blood pressure lowering treatments. The patients,
who were recruited from family practices, had to have at least 3 risk
factors for cardiovascular disease to be included in the study.1 As an
add-on, the cardiac effects of atorvastatin, a statin drug, were compared
with those of placebo (i.e. a sugar pill) in those who had total cholesterol
levels of 250 mg/dL (6.5 mmol/L) or less. About half the patients in the
entire SCOT study qualified for this part of the study.

There were just over 10,000 patients in the lipid-lowering part of ASCOT -
5,000 each given placebo or 10 mg atorvastatin, daily. The study was planned
to run 5 years, but after an average of 3½ years the results were so
impressive that the treatment was stopped.
In ALLHAT the patients were considerably older, and included more women and
non-white patients than in ASCOT.




MIRACL there was no change in death rate compared to controls and no
significant change in re-infarction rate or need for resuscitation
from cardiac arrest

http://www.vbwg.org/quickorder/resou...mID=7&TypeID=5

MIRACL: Very early statin therapy not guided by cholesterol levels is
beneficial in acute coronary syndromes
June 8, 2001


Final results of the Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Aggressive
Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) trial have been published and confirm that
treatment with atorvastatin 80 mg/d early during an acute coronary syndrome
(ACS) reduces the risk of early recurrent events, primarily recurrent
symptomatic ischemia during hospitalization



Meta-Analysis (2003)

In a meta-analysis of 44 trials involving almost 10,000 patients, the
death rate was identical at 1 percent of patients in each of the three
groups--those taking atorvastatin (Lipitor), those taking other
statins and those taking nothing.44

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...d=l4KoIJRjJSEc

http://www.dustri.com/ze/cp/33cp0312.htm#cp41_567

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bo.../statdiab.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


''

Like I said, I do not pretend to be some sort of final authority on
these issues -- but I read a lot and try to read all sorts of things
and the picture that I see is fairly consistent.

i

You are free to see what you want to see. If you ever get a heart attack
then you might see things differently.
Statins are not the final answer and things will change.

"Ignoramus1166" wrote in message
...
In article , Robert wrote:

"Ignoramus1166"
Yes and that doesn't make it good for some of us just because our
bodies
makes it.

Good point. But, again, if you check out the cholesterol myths book,
you will see that

1) Association between cholesterol and heart disease is spurious if
you do not consider 1% of people who suffer from a genetic disease
called familial hypercholesterolemia

That is a myth implying that only people with "genetic" familial
hypercholesterolemia have problems. There are many other types of
genetic
abnormalities involving lipids. Some with various gene dossage.
The spurious results come from the old testing compared to the newer
testing
now. A total cholesterol in one patient having a heart attack being the
same
in another not having any problems. The problem is that the breakdown of
the
specific types of LDL were not performed.

That's an excellent point, but, as it turns out, even LDL level is not
a good predictor of heart attack risk. Other subfractions or ratios
may have predictive effect, but, they are not necessarily the cause of
heart disease, they could be a manifestation of a certain process.

Again you think because all the answers are not worked out that they are
useless. There are many independant risk factors involving heart disease. No
one said they were causitive, only "risk factors associated with CAD". There
is no single factor but factors and once you get all the factors found then
you add them all up to come up with a relative overall risk for developing
CAD.


2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

Who said it has to be dietary cholesterol that is the sole problem. The
body
makes cholesterol on it's own and it is a genetic misprint in the
balance.

I am gladthat I completely agree with you here.

Keep in mind that lipid abnormalities are elevated grossly in people who are
overweight. If they lose the weight then they become more normal in lipids.
They are the same individual in terms of genetics but the variable being the
obesity. It is not all derived from diet but from the abnormal physiology
associated with being overweight ie "metabolic syndrome".


Look at this logic. Glucose is not the problem in type I diabetes
because a low carb diet does not cure and people die.

Based on what I know about type I diabetes, which is admittedly little
and based on reading Dr Bernstein's book, low carb diet helps people
with type I diabetes manage blood sugars and live longer with less
diabetic complications. It obviously does not cure diabetes, in the
sense that it does not restore the body's ability to produce insulin.

You would be dead without insulin.


3) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet and drugs does not reduce
overall mortality. There are good reasons to suspect that statins also
stimulate cancer, which takes longer to find out than any of the
studies took.

There are many studies about lowering cholesterol and the benefits. You
will
not find any long term studies on newer drugs for obvious reasons,
because
they are new. They are also being replaced by newer ones rendering some
of
the older ones less disirable as side effect profile starts to increase
with
large use.

http://www.mercola.com/fcgi/pf/2004/...atin_drugs.htm

Too many issues there to go over but lets just say by their header that they
are far from unbiased. They mention how good cholesterol is for people but
every thing in the human body has been associated with disease so simply
talking about how good something is for you is out of whack. Fat is good for
you, sugar, even beer in a relative way.


Here's information about several major studies, which found that lipid
altering drugs do not reduce all cause mortality (with references to
studies of these drugs).

"ALL cause". I thought we were talking about heart disease? They are not
dying of heart disease so they die of something else.


``ALLHAT (Antihypertensive and Lipid-Lowering Treatment to Prevent
Heart Attack Trial), the largest North American cholesterol-lowering
trial ever and the largest trial in the world using Lipitor, showed
mortality of the treatment group and controls after three or six years
was identical.36

http://www.servier.com/pro/cardiologie/pdfs/kub372.asp

It should be borne in mind here that ALLHAT-LLT was an open study, so that
the prescription of statins was also possible in the control group. This
could explain why in the verum group and the control group there was a
significant reduction in cholesterol after 4 years of 17.2% and 7.6%,
respectively, and a reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol of 28%
and 11%, respectively. Because of its design, the ALLHAT-LLT study is not in
a position to challenge the results of ASCOT-LLA.

The Anglo-Scandinavian Cardiac Outcomes Trial (ASCOT) was a large clinical
study that compared two blood pressure lowering treatments. The patients,
who were recruited from family practices, had to have at least 3 risk
factors for cardiovascular disease to be included in the study.1 As an
add-on, the cardiac effects of atorvastatin, a statin drug, were compared
with those of placebo (i.e. a sugar pill) in those who had total cholesterol
levels of 250 mg/dL (6.5 mmol/L) or less. About half the patients in the
entire SCOT study qualified for this part of the study.

There were just over 10,000 patients in the lipid-lowering part of ASCOT -
5,000 each given placebo or 10 mg atorvastatin, daily. The study was planned
to run 5 years, but after an average of 3½ years the results were so
impressive that the treatment was stopped.
In ALLHAT the patients were considerably older, and included more women and
non-white patients than in ASCOT.




MIRACL there was no change in death rate compared to controls and no
significant change in re-infarction rate or need for resuscitation
from cardiac arrest

http://www.vbwg.org/quickorder/resou...mID=7&TypeID=5

MIRACL: Very early statin therapy not guided by cholesterol levels is
beneficial in acute coronary syndromes
June 8, 2001


Final results of the Myocardial Ischemia Reduction with Aggressive
Cholesterol Lowering (MIRACL) trial have been published and confirm that
treatment with atorvastatin 80 mg/d early during an acute coronary syndrome
(ACS) reduces the risk of early recurrent events, primarily recurrent
symptomatic ischemia during hospitalization



Meta-Analysis (2003)

In a meta-analysis of 44 trials involving almost 10,000 patients, the
death rate was identical at 1 percent of patients in each of the three
groups--those taking atorvastatin (Lipitor), those taking other
statins and those taking nothing.44

http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/lin...d=l4KoIJRjJSEc

http://www.dustri.com/ze/cp/33cp0312.htm#cp41_567

http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/bo.../statdiab.html

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/q...&dopt=Abstract


''

Like I said, I do not pretend to be some sort of final authority on
these issues -- but I read a lot and try to read all sorts of things
and the picture that I see is fairly consistent.

i

You are free to see what you want to see. If you ever get a heart attack
then you might see things differently.
Statins are not the final answer and things will change.

MikeL wrote in message . ..
On 9 Sep 2004 20:35:29 -0700, (Tony Lew) wrote:

MikeL wrote in message . ..
On 9 Sep 2004 00:41:33 -0700, (Wolfbrother)
wrote:

MikeL wrote in message

Try dense small-particle LDL, which can be minimized and even eliminated
by eating a low-carb diet like that proposed by the Atkins diet.

Don't you know anything?

Priscilla

Ok which is raised by saturated fats found in lard, meat, poultry,
butter, cheese etc.

Ummm wrong. So wonderful when people make such ignorant baseless
statements. Seems you need a reality check. Try getting some facts
before you make yourself look stupid. Not only do those fats NOT
raise spLDL but in the case of milk fat it REDUCES spLDL.

My original question still stands, what food is clogging people's
arteries?

Polyunsaturated fats.

uh no


LOL. You ask what causes heart disease and when someone tells you one
of the causes you say no. That is too hilarious. It is sad enough
that you are so wrong about what you think causes heart disease and at
the same time believe that what actually does cause it really does
not. While there is no one cause of heart disease the consumption of
large quantities of polyunsaturated vegetable oils is certainly a
MAJOR factor. Only a fool would not see that after a little
investigation. You should try it. You would also find that the other
major cause (which was also given to you and again denied by you
LOL!!) is chronic elevated levels of insulin. You crack me up.

MikeL wrote in message . ..
On 9 Sep 2004 20:35:29 -0700, (Tony Lew) wrote:

MikeL wrote in message . ..
On 9 Sep 2004 00:41:33 -0700, (Wolfbrother)
wrote:

MikeL wrote in message

Try dense small-particle LDL, which can be minimized and even eliminated
by eating a low-carb diet like that proposed by the Atkins diet.

Don't you know anything?

Priscilla

Ok which is raised by saturated fats found in lard, meat, poultry,
butter, cheese etc.

Ummm wrong. So wonderful when people make such ignorant baseless
statements. Seems you need a reality check. Try getting some facts
before you make yourself look stupid. Not only do those fats NOT
raise spLDL but in the case of milk fat it REDUCES spLDL.

My original question still stands, what food is clogging people's
arteries?

Polyunsaturated fats.

uh no


LOL. You ask what causes heart disease and when someone tells you one
of the causes you say no. That is too hilarious. It is sad enough
that you are so wrong about what you think causes heart disease and at
the same time believe that what actually does cause it really does
not. While there is no one cause of heart disease the consumption of
large quantities of polyunsaturated vegetable oils is certainly a
MAJOR factor. Only a fool would not see that after a little
investigation. You should try it. You would also find that the other
major cause (which was also given to you and again denied by you
LOL!!) is chronic elevated levels of insulin. You crack me up.

Insulin caused by overconsumption of carbohydrates.

I see so insulin is clogging peoples arteries hmm.....

Well, some hints for you:

Why Type2 diabetics have much higher incidence of coronary?

You can also try to google some relationships between carbs, TG, HDL,
LDL density and oxLDL.

Another hint: what they did to that mice that outlived its lifespan by
year?

Low-carb might not be ideal, but insulin (metabolic syndrome) is at
least one of biggest contributors to heart disease.

Mirek

Well, as far as I am concerned saturated fat and cholesterol causes
heart disease. It always amazes me that people will pour bacon grease
into a cup and let it harden because they don't want to clog their
pipes yet they don't see the correlation with the clogging of their
arteries.

Well, you are making classical mistake - applying your kitchen
experience to human body. But it is not how it works:

Fat that gets absorbed in intestines does NOT goes directly too blood.
Instead it is packed and distributed in particles called chylomicrons -
and nobody never found chylomicrons to be harmful to arteries - for
simple reason - they are too big to penetrate and/or damage endothelium.

Now carbs are converted to saturated fat in liver and transported in
VLDL particles. After loosing its fat contents, VLDL become LDL - so
called bad cholesterol. Now amount of insulin secreted probably affects
LDL size. Smaller LDL is supposed to be more likely to penetrate
endothelium and oxidize and plague to grow.

Mirek

In alt.support.diet.low-carb Ignoramus1166
wrote:

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

That seems to be contradicted by all the people who are reporting vast
beneficial changes in their overall cholesterol and their ratios as
well
due to following a low-carb diet.

You have noticed this paradox too?

"Cholesterol is not dangerous, but low-carb diet does improve it"

Sometimes my fellow low-carbers seem a little bit childish to me...

Mirek

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

Who said it has to be dietary cholesterol that is the sole problem.
The body
makes cholesterol on it's own and it is a genetic misprint in the
balance.
Look at this logic. Glucose is not the problem in type I diabetes
because a
low carb diet does not cure and people die.

I think he speaks about lowering LDL by low-fat diet. Not dietary
cholesterol.

And, BTW, IMO research consistetly shows why it is so: while low-fat
decreases LDL, it also decreases LDL particle size.

3) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet and drugs does not reduce
overall mortality. There are good reasons to suspect that statins
also
stimulate cancer, which takes longer to find out than any of the
studies took.

There are many studies about lowering cholesterol and the benefits.
You will

There are in fact many studies about statin benefits. And some of them
in fact show that benefits are unrelated to cholesterol lowering
effects. There are very little studies showing benefits of other
cholesterol lowering drugs/techniques.

Mirek

2) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet does not work

Who said it has to be dietary cholesterol that is the sole problem.
The body
makes cholesterol on it's own and it is a genetic misprint in the
balance.
Look at this logic. Glucose is not the problem in type I diabetes
because a
low carb diet does not cure and people die.

I think he speaks about lowering LDL by low-fat diet. Not dietary
cholesterol.

And, BTW, IMO research consistetly shows why it is so: while low-fat
decreases LDL, it also decreases LDL particle size.

3) Lowering cholesterol by means of diet and drugs does not reduce
overall mortality. There are good reasons to suspect that statins
also
stimulate cancer, which takes longer to find out than any of the
studies took.

There are many studies about lowering cholesterol and the benefits.
You will

There are in fact many studies about statin benefits. And some of them
in fact show that benefits are unrelated to cholesterol lowering
effects. There are very little studies showing benefits of other
cholesterol lowering drugs/techniques.

Mirek

Keep in mind that lipid abnormalities are elevated grossly in people
who are
overweight. If they lose the weight then they become more normal in
lipids.
They are the same individual in terms of genetics but the variable
being the
obesity. It is not all derived from diet but from the abnormal
physiology
associated with being overweight ie "metabolic syndrome".

In fact it would perfectly explained all the confusion about
cholesterol.

Being overweight and Mets is THE cause. High cholesterol (or bad TC/HDL)
is just indication of BMI and Mets.

You are free to see what you want to see. If you ever get a heart
attack
then you might see things differently.
Statins are not the final answer and things will change.

Agree.

Mirek