Dealing with high cholesterol

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
lolZ
Andreas Moritz is a cancer/medical quack with no medical training at all, why any intelligent person would take what he says seriously is beyond me!!
Click to expand...

Ok sure I accept he may be a little bit of a quack and may have less qualifications that others, and I admit he's not the ultimate guru, but he's just reporting widely reported research from official clinical trials with large sample values. Dr Uffe Ravnskov's research has been widely accepted and as such more and more research is going into busting the myths behind cholesterol and fats.

Bottom line, in general fats are not bad for you, furthermore cholesterol is required for your body to function - if your body doesn't get enough cholesterol it creates it. Not all cholesterol is equal. And, living a good lifestyle with exercise and a balanced diet is far a better way to go than being sedentary, and taking statins.

However, yes, I'm not an expert, or a doctor. This is my opinion, from my own interest in this topic, and owing to my interest in health and fitness. People need to make up their own minds. :)

Ultimate bottom line from me? Eat a good balanced diet, keeping away from refined/processed foods, and do some good medium/high intensity exercise.
 
Freefaller said:
Ok sure I accept he may be a little bit of a quack and may have less qualifications that others
Click to expand...

He has ZERO credentials or expertise in medicine! The bloke was a complete charlatan you only need to look at his snake-oil website to see that!
Why are you recommending the frauds book? His opinions and so called 'expertise':rolleyes: are both dangerous and harmful :mad:
You're as nutts as he is if you take anything he says seriously!

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/5114
 
Last edited:
C.R.A.Z.Y said:
He has ZERO credentials or expertise in medicine! The bloke was a complete charlatan you only need to look at his snake-oil website to see that!
Why are you recommending the frauds book? His opinions and so called 'expertise':rolleyes: are both dangerous and harmful :mad:
You're as nutts as he is if you take anything he says seriously!

http://old.richarddawkins.net/articles/5114
Click to expand...

WOah woah woah there darling, don't get your tight little knickers in a twist.

He is only spreading research that he's found and putting out there for discussion. The research he's stating is bonefide and whilst he (or myself or you) may not be experts, we still share information with other people. That's all he's doing. I'm not defending him, but I do respect him for having the guts to challenge things and linking to actual research. IF you follow up the research/clinical trials to which he alludes to in his books, they exist, they are there.

I'm not saying what he says is gospel - and if you thought that, then, well, bless. It's just a view point. You don't like him, fine. That's cool. However, cholesterol/fat myths are being busted all over the place and have been for the past decades. As I said there are far more reputable people out there, but to get to those you need to be pointed to the clinical trials/research - this is just one way of getting to the trials. Ultimately, we still don't really know the extents of cholesterol and so on - there are no black and white facts. Every person is different. All I'm putting out on the table is a discussion of it - no need to get so wound up! You'll raise your BP and do yourself no good ;)

Why are you focussing on him and not the point?
 
Ultimately, if you eat ****, don't exercise, rely on drugs from your doctor, love your refined/processed foods then you've only got yourself to blame.

IF on the other hand, you live a healthy lifestyle, eat fats (good fats, even some animal fats OMG!!!!!1111), fish, veg, etc... or follow the Mediterranean lifestyle (I'd point to some research, but for fear of CRAZY going crazy (lol) I shan't) you're far more likely to be well sorted, and even with predispositions you're giving yourself the best chance at improving your health.

That's all I'm getting at. Trying to stir up a few ideas. Get people thinking about things - there is no black and white, cholesterol/fat isn't the evil it's purported to be neither is it the elixir of life - however, I'm dead against taking drugs for the sake of something that can be controlled naturally without too much effort.

I'm sure you'll try and rip that apart as well. But hey, each to their own... I eat 20+ eggs a week, lots of fats (oily fish in particular, but butter and red meat too), and my cholesterol is around 4.4 last time I had it measured, with HDL being over 2.2 and LDL under 2. Why? Because I exercise, eat a rounded diet with lots of fresh vegetables as well. No margarine, no processed/refined crap which is worse than eating a spoonful of butter a day.

Sure everyone is different, but there's a lot of misinformation pushed out there. That's all I'm saying.
 
Last edited:
The reason I'm angry is because the people you have promoted and the things you have said can be very dangerous if people believe and act upon them!

What I don't understand is why you're so determined to disagree with the overwhelming opinion of the medical profession :confused: Do you have high cholesterol? Eat loads of red meat and fat ?
It's tin-foil hat territory dude :confused:
 
That's the thing, it's not CT at all. It's also backed up by lots of clinical trials. Trials that come under the same scientific standards.
Also we also know that a lot of cholestrol stuff was based on rubbish, back when things weren't so strictly monitored.

Still no where near enough reserch on it though.

Why do repeated studies and anecdotal evidence show a decrease in factors with an increase in natural fats and proteins.

Why have we seen a increase in CVD yet a decrease in dietary cholesteol and other "evils"

Maybe just maybe, the initial "reserch" didnt support the claims they made and newer reserch is pointing out though (in some cases pure lies). I did notice the new uk adverts, focus more solely on eating takeaways/processed foods, rather than fat etc.

You also have to remeber a lot of this early reserch is purely epidemiological and with out the monitoring equipment needed. Now we have short term clinical trials, mixed in with far better epidemolical trials.

You also need to look into epidemolical in far more detail than early trials did. High fat can be broken into several sub groups, which aren't all the same.

It's is just one of thousands of clinical trials, that don't paint a good picture on current advice.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15616799

RESULTS:
Body weight, waist circumference, triglycerides and insulin levels decreased with all three diets but, apart from insulin, the reductions were significantly greater in the HF and HP groups than in the HC group. These observations suggest that the popular diets reduced insulin resistance to a greater extent than the standard dietary advice did. When compared with the HC diet, the HF and HP diets were shown to produce significantly (p<0.01) greater reductions in several parameters, including weight loss (HF -2.8 kg, HP -2.7 kg), waist circumference (HF -3.5 cm, HP -2.7 cm) and triglycerides (HF -0.30 mmol/l, HP [corrected] -0.22 mmol/l). LDL cholesterol decreased in individuals on the HC and HP diets, but tended to fluctuate in those on the HF diet to the extent that overall levels were significantly lower in the HP group than in the HF group (-0.28 mmol/l, 95% CI 0.04-0.52, p=0.02). Of those on the HF diet, 25% showed a >10% increase in LDL cholesterol, whereas this occurred in only 13% of subjects on the HC diet and 3% of those on the HP diet.
CONCLUSIONS/INTERPRETATION:
In routine practice a reduced-carbohydrate, higher protein diet may be the most appropriate overall approach to reducing the risk of cardiovascular disease and type 2 diabetes. To achieve similar benefits on a HC diet, it may be necessary to increase fibre-rich wholegrains, legumes, vegetables and fruits, and to reduce saturated fatty acids to a greater extent than appears to be achieved by implementing current guidelines. The HF approach appears successful for weight loss in the short term, but lipid levels should be monitored. The potential deleterious effects of the diet in the long term remain a concern.
Click to expand...

http://www.uptodate.com/contents/dietary-therapy-for-obesity/abstract/38


Taken on its own, means next to nothing, far to a specific a study and not e ought detail on the diet used. Looked at as part of a much wider ranger of medical trials and its much more apparent, but very under researched.


As I said there's isn't nearly enough actual clinical trials and not nearly enough separating high fat/protein processed from high fat/protien natural from high carb refined and high carb natural.

And on top of such studies into differing types of diet, we then have the very murky water of what is actually a CVD risk factor, first it was cholesteol, then LDL cholesteol, then small LDL cholesteol, now theres talk of triglyceride ratios and oxidation of certain LDL. Others are suggesting correlation of cholesteol should just be thrown out all together and it was just a false herring from edpidimoligical studies.

We could throw clinical trials and statistical trials at each other for days. If people are interested, they need to spend a while reserching for themselves both sides and finding litterature which actually has references, then going and finding those studies and having the knowledge to read and discern what it's actually testing.

And just as it says high fat or high carb isn't anywhere near strict enough. High carb could be 95% whole grain or it could be 95% pure sugar. Same for high protien. What high protien which fats etc?

IMO this is what happens when you miss use edpidimoligical trials, they suggest a link and something to further reserch. They do not prove a link. That is what I think happened a few decades ago. They took it as fact and once something gets going its hard to stop that momentum, along with huge money from certain groups.just have to look at corn industry and influence.
Why are statins sold to everyone? Yet clinical trials show that it works for only about ~20% and off course they have side effects. There's even clinical studies showing a decrease in cholesteol from statins, but zero reduction in Heath.

Good starting point is what ever change of diet you do, is find out the supposed risk factors and measure them. So having repeat cholestrol monitoring for example.
 
Last edited:
I don't have high cholesterol, I do eat lots of fat and red meat yes. I'm not saying I think they're the massiahs of nutrition, I'm trying to get a discussion going on the facts that there's more to it than the "OMG eating cholesterol and fat is bad" - it's not. Sure, anything in excess is not conducive to good health, but I just like to show a different side to the story. There is more research coming out suddenly going "oh you know what? We weren't 100% correct on that" when it comes to this sort of thing. Look at Eggs for example - the supposed evil cholesterol ridden food - then it was widely accepted that dietary cholesterol and human cholesterol showed no correlation. As such, eggs are now back in favour.

So sure, I quoted those guys because I found their take on things interesting - do I live by their word? No. Do I listen to both sides of the argument - yes (although you may disagree :p) - I try and keep a balance between the two. I am perhaps I admit a little more on one side, and certainly, I'm a little bit out of the norm owing to my interest in health/fitness - but that's not to say it is applicable to 80% of people who are willing to put a little effort into sorting out their lives. :)
 
The truth is there are still major misunderstandings regarding cholesterol in the body, dietry cholesterol and the relationship between them and CVD/CHD.

I believe saturated fats from natural sources are healthy, I eat a very high fat diet but have low cholesterol and minimal body fat. What people don't realise is that most of the cholesterol in our bodies is produced by our liver and cells (approx 75%). It's a very complex subject when you really get down to the science of it and there is no way I'm capable of explaining it, but these links might help anyone who is interested.

The straight dope on Cholesterol part 1.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
 
Im not gonna get involved in this thread. Because you are all stupid, except a few of you who know who you are. This has been fun.

Also what doctors know about cholesterol and how to be healthy could be written on the back of a postage stamp, one that was torn up using a tiny razor into the smallest possible divisions. If you dont believe me, go find an Oxford grad biologist with a PhD practicing in medical research. Ask them what they think about a GP's knowledge. ;)
 
Last edited:
Whats your ratio of LDL to HDL?

If you have very high HDL compared to LDL its far better than the other way around. Remember as well until a few years ago 6 was actually the upper limit of healthy levels of cholesterol
 
My cholesterol is 8.9 but has been reduced to 4 by the use of statins. When I was diagnosed, I was prescribed Simvastatin but this caused severe leg pains so I stopped taking them and was offered no alternative. About 3 years ago I changed doctor and he tried out out various alternative statins until we found that I could take Pravastatin without having the side effects.
If you are having side effects from statins I would advise you to encourage the doctor to explore alternative formulations.
 
smit101 said:
The truth is there are still major misunderstandings regarding cholesterol in the body, dietry cholesterol and the relationship between them and CVD/CHD.

I believe saturated fats from natural sources are healthy, I eat a very high fat diet but have low cholesterol and minimal body fat. What people don't realise is that most of the cholesterol in our bodies is produced by our liver and cells (approx 75%). It's a very complex subject when you really get down to the science of it and there is no way I'm capable of explaining it, but these links might help anyone who is interested.

The straight dope on Cholesterol part 1.
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Part 5
Part 6
Part 7
Part 8
Part 9
Click to expand...

icon14.gif
 
A proven way of reversing vascular damage is the Ornish Program by Dean Ornish. He is a professor of Cardiology at UCLA and is not a quack. I came across him when researching my vascualr problems. He said that he had a group of patients waiting for heart transplants, who would wait over a year for the op. He put half of the patients on his reduction diet and the other on his stricter elimination diet. At the end of a year, the patients health, on the strict diet, had improved so much that they no longer needed the transplants.
I researched the diet and found that it essentially involves drastically reducing fat intake. Essentially this means no fat or oil as the fat contained in vegetables makes up the daily allowance. Filled with enthusiasm I embarked on the diet only to give it up a couple of weeks later. The reason was that all the foods I ate were tasteless, due to the flavour of many herbs and spices being fat soluble and not water soluble. I tried making a curry which was disgusting and then asking a guy in an indian supermarket about how to make a curry without oil. He thought that I was mad.
Google "Ornish" if you want to try it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom