Study Shows Drug Reverses Heart Disease

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/.../heart_disease

I guess those people that were hoping cholesterol had no relation to heart
disease will be disappointed by this study.
--
the volleyballchick

"Nunya B." wrote in
:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/.../heart_disease

I guess those people that were hoping cholesterol had no relation to
heart disease will be disappointed by this study.

I think a study paid for by the company that makes the product just
sounds dangerous. The product itself is not without risk as it stands.

Studying 349 people for such a short time and reporting such results is
questionable at best. Only 2/3s showed LDL cholesterol regression. That
leaves 1/3 of the test subjects with no such benefit. Is that a safe
margin to declare it a winning solution? Did all subjects eat the same
diet?

I dunno.

Andy
Thinking of the movie "The Fugitive"

"Andy" q wrote in message ...
"Nunya B." wrote in
:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/.../heart_disease

I guess those people that were hoping cholesterol had no relation to
heart disease will be disappointed by this study.

I think a study paid for by the company that makes the product just
sounds dangerous. The product itself is not without risk as it stands.

Studying 349 people for such a short time and reporting such results is
questionable at best. Only 2/3s showed LDL cholesterol regression. That
leaves 1/3 of the test subjects with no such benefit. Is that a safe
margin to declare it a winning solution? Did all subjects eat the same
diet?

I dunno.

Andy
Thinking of the movie "The Fugitive"

I agree that the results are always questionable, especially when the
pharmaceutical industry is involved, but there could be some valuable
information to glean from the results not having to do with the drugs. I
certainly wouldn't recommend those drugs for anyone unless weight loss,
diet, and exercise over a period of time did nothing to help.

The fact that those who did drop their LDL levels and had a reversal of some
of the heart disease indicators is what was appealing to me especially as
just another side to the whole "cholesterol is meaningless" debate that goes
on here.

I posted the info because I knew it would be ignored by those who can't see
that there are more sides to the issue than their own personal agendas.
--
the volleyballchick

Nunya B. wrote:
"Andy" q wrote in message ...
"Nunya B." wrote in
:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/.../heart_disease

I guess those people that were hoping cholesterol had no relation to
heart disease will be disappointed by this study.

I think a study paid for by the company that makes the product just
sounds dangerous. The product itself is not without risk as it stands.

Studying 349 people for such a short time and reporting such results is
questionable at best. Only 2/3s showed LDL cholesterol regression. That
leaves 1/3 of the test subjects with no such benefit. Is that a safe
margin to declare it a winning solution? Did all subjects eat the same
diet?

I dunno.

Andy
Thinking of the movie "The Fugitive"

I agree that the results are always questionable, especially when the
pharmaceutical industry is involved, but there could be some valuable
information to glean from the results not having to do with the drugs. I
certainly wouldn't recommend those drugs for anyone unless weight loss,
diet, and exercise over a period of time did nothing to help.

The fact that those who did drop their LDL levels and had a reversal of some
of the heart disease indicators is what was appealing to me especially as
just another side to the whole "cholesterol is meaningless" debate that goes
on here.

I posted the info because I knew it would be ignored by those who can't see
that there are more sides to the issue than their own personal agendas.
--
the volleyballchick

That wasn't the only study released this week linking cholesterol and
heart disease.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060314/nytu039.html?.v=43

"Beverly" wrote in message
ps.com...

Nunya B. wrote:
"Andy" q wrote in message ...
"Nunya B." wrote in
:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/.../heart_disease

I guess those people that were hoping cholesterol had no relation to
heart disease will be disappointed by this study.

I think a study paid for by the company that makes the product just
sounds dangerous. The product itself is not without risk as it stands.

Studying 349 people for such a short time and reporting such results is
questionable at best. Only 2/3s showed LDL cholesterol regression. That
leaves 1/3 of the test subjects with no such benefit. Is that a safe
margin to declare it a winning solution? Did all subjects eat the same
diet?

I dunno.

Andy
Thinking of the movie "The Fugitive"

I agree that the results are always questionable, especially when the
pharmaceutical industry is involved, but there could be some valuable
information to glean from the results not having to do with the drugs. I
certainly wouldn't recommend those drugs for anyone unless weight loss,
diet, and exercise over a period of time did nothing to help.

The fact that those who did drop their LDL levels and had a reversal of
some
of the heart disease indicators is what was appealing to me especially as
just another side to the whole "cholesterol is meaningless" debate that
goes
on here.

I posted the info because I knew it would be ignored by those who can't
see
that there are more sides to the issue than their own personal agendas.
--
the volleyballchick

That wasn't the only study released this week linking cholesterol and
heart disease.

http://biz.yahoo.com/prnews/060314/nytu039.html?.v=43

It's another drug company funded study but yes, it does demonstrate a link.
I don't necessarily believe in using drugs to lower cholesterol unless the
circumstances are extreme. As someone who is genetically predisposed to
heart disease and with PCOS, another factor that increases my risk, I take
interest in this info no matter where it comes from. As I said before, this
info is as important as the other studies that get crossposted here by
others - studies I also read and don't ignore them just because I don't
agree with them or their posting source.
--
the volleyballchick

Ignoramus4546 wrote in
:

Studying 349 people for such a short time and reporting such results
is
questionable at best. Only 2/3s showed LDL cholesterol regression.
That
leaves 1/3 of the test subjects with no such benefit. Is that a safe
margin to declare it a winning solution? Did all subjects eat the same
diet?

Good question.


i,

Another omission wss this wasn't a controlled study. With some taking
placebo.

I'll step back from this discussion (but continue to read it) because I
know volleyballchick, Beverly, you and others have more knowledge in
medical science.

It just read like a rose-colored glasses study to me.

All the best,

Andy

In article , Ignoramus4546
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:53:03 -0600, Andy q wrote:
Ignoramus4546 wrote in
:

Studying 349 people for such a short time and reporting such results
is
questionable at best. Only 2/3s showed LDL cholesterol regression.
That
leaves 1/3 of the test subjects with no such benefit. Is that a safe
margin to declare it a winning solution? Did all subjects eat the same
diet?

Good question.


i,

Another omission wss this wasn't a controlled study. With some taking
placebo.

I missed that completely. Thank you for pointing it out.

You missed something. Guess you didn't read the entire thing and here I
was defnding your consistency LOL!

"Ignoramus4546" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 14:16:22 -0500, Carol Frilegh
wrote:
In article , Ignoramus4546
wrote:

On Tue, 14 Mar 2006 12:53:03 -0600, Andy q wrote:
Ignoramus4546 wrote in
:

Studying 349 people for such a short time and reporting such results
is
questionable at best. Only 2/3s showed LDL cholesterol regression.
That
leaves 1/3 of the test subjects with no such benefit. Is that a safe
margin to declare it a winning solution? Did all subjects eat the
same
diet?

Good question.


i,

Another omission wss this wasn't a controlled study. With some taking
placebo.

I missed that completely. Thank you for pointing it out.

You missed something. Guess you didn't read the entire thing and here I
was defnding your consistency LOL!

What a crime against humanity!

yeah really, the next thing you know someone will be all up in arms and
calling you a liar for making such an error. Not like any reasonable person
would do such a thing...
--
the volleyballchick

Nunya B. wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/.../heart_disease

I guess those people that were hoping cholesterol had no relation to heart
disease will be disappointed by this study.

I've heard that people with statins die with low cholesterol... i.e., it
DOES lower cholesterol but there is no improved mortality rate. In
fact, they have poorer quality of life between kidney problems and
muscle problems. My MIL has pretty severe muscle pain (probably caused
by her statins) that keeps her from being physically active.

This study did not show a reduction in heart attacks OR improved
mortality rates. And it was funded by the manufacturer. Be careful.

Dally

"Dally" wrote in message
...
Nunya B. wrote:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20060314/.../heart_disease

I guess those people that were hoping cholesterol had no relation to
heart disease will be disappointed by this study.

I've heard that people with statins die with low cholesterol... i.e., it
DOES lower cholesterol but there is no improved mortality rate. In fact,
they have poorer quality of life between kidney problems and muscle
problems. My MIL has pretty severe muscle pain (probably caused by her
statins) that keeps her from being physically active.

This study did not show a reduction in heart attacks OR improved mortality
rates. And it was funded by the manufacturer. Be careful.

and I'll say AGAIN that I don't believe anyone should take statins except as
a last resort.

I also don't believe that there is no link between cholesterol and heart
disease. Maybe I'll be proven wrong someday but it hasn't happened.
--
the volleyballchick