steveknight

I bet a lot of our probmes are that most of our meats don't have omega 3 in them. grass fed cows and such and natuerally fed animals have it but most of our meat is not grown that way.
we wonder why we have so many problems all we have to do is look at our foods.

AnthonyG

Actually Dr Uffe Ravnskov disputes the whole good cholesterol (hdl) bad cholesterol(ldl) thing as well. The cholesterol that's realy bad for you is oxidized cholesterol and that happens when heat is used to proccess foods. Powdered milk and powdered egg are the real culprits here.

EDIT: Here's a reference for the hdl / ldl issue, https://www.ravnskov.nu/myth1.htm

On another note I go out of my way to buy meat and dairy products made from grass fed animals which means the meat and milk is high in omega 3 fatty acids. Most regular produce in America is fed grain so it's omega 6 fatty acid rich instead.

Regards, Anthony

cbhungry

I would suggest looking at the framinghan study itself than relying on dr. ravnskov to do the einterpretation. I think most people don't have the actual statistical background to analyse the primary data. I make it a habit to always look at the primary data itself so I have seen the study and his interpretations and mine are very different. But to be fair I will go and look at it again since I do have the hard copy (or reprint from the internet). He is a smart guy but he and I must be using different tools to analyze the data because we have come up with different conclusions. What I do think he does is highlight how we need to look beyond cholesterol as the only cause for heart disease. I think he is spot on with that.

I also notice that he does not criticise the well done randomized placebo controlled studies but still trys to make broad sweeping conclusions with studies that are more retrospective in analysis (thus many variables are not contolled for.) and wrong conclusions can be made.


For instance, his citation of Mexico and Finland's differences in heart disease.... ignores the knowledge the great amount of recent genetic research that shows Finlanders have genes that render them much more susceptible to heart disease than most everyone else in the world.....thus he makes the erroneous conclusion that two countries with similarly high fat diets with different heart attack rates must mean high cholesterol does not affect heart attack rates. That makes no sense but it sure sounds good.In addition, as other people have also mentioned , it may not the the amount of fat that is harmful but what type of fat (less omega three fatty acides etc.) These selective comparative retrospective studies don't control for such variables as genetics, type of fatty intake, excercise level etc. By train of logic, that is one hell of a big leap in cause and effect.

cbhungry

By the way here is a good link that reanalyses the framingham data and is really honest about what type of statistical analysis it uses and what its strengths are (methodology) and how it continues to reaffirm the coronary risk factors we have talked about.

https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/409094


So is Dr. Rasknov looking at the same data using some other type of statistical regression model?

AnthonyG

I'm concerned that the new analysis hasn't honestly stated that elevated cholesterol levels isn't even a minute risk factor for woman. That's a concern and I certainly can't assess an executive summary.

There's also the issue of having done a good control study to start with. This is where the Weston A Price Foundation comes in. The work of Dr Price was a control study of non industrialized people in the 1930's. All the populations in the study were healthy and sturdy and didn't suffer from chronic diseases incluiding CHD until refined foods made it into their diets. They did consume plenty of animal fats though.

Regards, Anthony

cbhungry

Actually it did show the risks in women. . Interesting, high triglycrides are a greater risk factor in women but not in men. This is a direct quote from the link I provided. Also in women, changes in high-density lipoprotein cholesterol and triglyceride levels were better predictors of coronary risk than LDL or total cholesterol. Thus, treatment beyond LDL-C may be of greater importance in women than in men!

I do agree that our environment (processed foods, fats etc) may be catalyzing heart disease more so than the past due to the types of foods and fats we intake now. I do agree with you on that, which is why i buy mostly organic. Unfortunately, the cost is prohibitive for many Americans.

dagna

Hey, Dragracer,

Here are my simple results, with no theory or long discussion (just the data).

Before: 224 total
2 months later: 169 (plus ratio change with lower 'bad', higher 'good')

Diet: low fat, high complex carbohydrate (little red meat, little cheese, plenty of chicken and turkey; lots of baked potatoes, brown rice, and veggies; used fat-free diary products, such as plain nonfat yogurt with fresh fruit added; avoided added fat such as butter, oil in cooking; avoided white flour and sugar...that's about it).

Not a 'fashionable' diet in these lo-carb days (except places like this, with folks who do endurance-style sports), but it worked for me.

Dagna

EDIT: Oops, left out the part about running 3 miles a day, 5 times a week--but I assumed you're already doing the cycling equivalent of that.

dragracer

Thanks for all the discussion! My plan was already pretty close to what a few of you have suggested. I really don't understand a lot of the more indepth stuff discussed but I will do some more reading and try to educate myself a little better. I'm hesitant to do it for fear of being chastized, but I may scan in my results and let some of you more educated(than me) folks take a look.

Here's the deal... I had a brain hemmorage in late Jan and was in a neuro ICU unit for several days. I lost 100% of the feeling on my right side and could not do anything. I was in the hospital 2 1/2 weeks doing rehab and the only "pleasant" thing I had to look forward to was eating. When you're laying in a hospital bed and just grateful to be alive, the last thing on your mind is cholesterol. I started eating everything and anything and when I got out of the hospital I just continued to eat like the fat bastard I was becoming. I was about this weight a few years ago and I dropped about 20 pounds then. I WILL do it again. No more cookies and Cokes for me!! My motto for losing weight...No sugar, no fat, low carbs(for a while), lots of fiber, and lots of riding.

My cholesterol has always been a little high but I tried to eat right and didn't worry too much abou it. This latest workup scarred the %$#@ out of me. Because of the "illness" I have not been able to ride as much as I would like. Since this happened, I just can't deal with the heat. I start having excruciating headaches and get very dizzy. I'm not taking any chances because I do not want to go thru what I went thru before. I'm still pretty messed up but I am able to do most stuff. As soon as it starts to cool off I plan on riding as much as my old bones(and my wife) will allow.

Going to the doctor next week. Guess I'll see what he has to say. Thanks again for all the ideas.

BobL

David,


I've been down this road for quite some time - about 10 years. This thread has some gems and some turds, but I'm sure you expected that. Free advice is worth what you pay for it, right?

Anyway, despite everyone's best wishes, cholesterol is not always in your control. My doc says about 1/3 of the population can control their cholesterol with diet and excercise. With the exception of about 5 years in the '80s (college), I've been running or riding (or both) for 30 years now (I'm 51), and I can't control mine without drugs. (A personal ironic highlight was when they suggested I walk around the block every day, and I had just ridden a century the day before). Anyone who thinks it's all diet-related ought to read Gary Taubes' article, "The Soft Science of Dietary Fat" that was in Science a few years ago. (Easy to find in google -
https://nasw.org/mem-maint/awards/01Taubesarticle1.html ).

In my case, my HDLs are low no matter what I do. Even with statins, watching diet, and lots of activity, my HDLs are low - it's just that my LDLs have come down so much, my balance is good. I'm the only one in my family who is not diabetic, so I eat to avoid that. There is real data (controlled studies) that show watching carb intake, especially the glycemic index of the carbs is effective, so that is my main emphasis.

That said, I don't think I have any problems tolerating the statins, and there's evidence they are helpful in ways that go beyond lowering LDL or total chol. If you need to take them, they're worth it.


BobL

SSP

If you want to try something besides statins, you might want to look at niacin. I've been using it for years, with very good results.

I take 3000 mg of niacin per day (2000 in the evening, and 1000 in the morning), and my cholesterol has gone from 251 (total, with LDL=166 and HDL=40) to 192 (LDL=91, HDL=75).

It can be hard to take at first, due to the "flushing" effect. But, if you start with low doses, and take it regularly and build up the dosage over several months, your body will build up a tolerance to it, and the flushing effect becomes a non-issue.

As with all cholesterol lowering drugs, you need to consult with your physician, and get regular liver function screenings...but, my doctor has been very pleased with the results.

FWIW, niacin is also a whole lot cheaper than statins. My niacin only costs 7 cents per day, compared to around $3 per day for statins.

AnthonyG

Cause and effect please. When you hear that something is supposed to be "Statisitically significant" and then you find out they are talking about 1 or 2 % you realise it's only statisitical gibberish.

Personally I thought Dr Ravnskov was pointing that even the statistical evidence was weak. Others who accept that statistical evidence is real even though they don't have cause and effect end up making some silly assumptions based on weak statistical correlation.

What's going on is a fundamental failing of science. Scientists that should have known better beleived in and publisices a "THEORY" that they didn't have the evidence to support and now everyone is still trying to deffend the undeffendable rather than doing the basic science that should have been done in the first place.

Regards, Anthony

SSP

FWIW, I doubt you'll ever convince Anthony based on reason, logic, and statistics. He seems very willing to trust anyone who is against conventional scientific wisdom, and very fearful of many of the constituents of modern life. For instance, he is fearful of chlorine and filters it out of his shower water, he's convinced that vaccinations are "harmful" (hopefully he has no children), he filters the fluoride out of his drinking water, he claims to have been poisoned by amalgam dental fillings, and he uses raw salted beef fat as an energy source when he rides a bike.

See https://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?t=128242 for more of where he's coming from. It's a very "non-traditional" point of view (to say the least).

La Chica

Hi Dragracer, (can you stand one more reply!?)

I am a medical professional for 28 years, and the past 7 years became an Alternative Personal Health Coach.
My question to you is:
How would you like to safely lower your cholesterol by using a fiber twice a day?
This is a very special fiber because it was clinically researched in a double blind placebo study done at the world famous Cleveland Clinic. The study proved that this fiber lowered cholesterol and furthermore stabilized blood sugar levels in Type II diabetics. In April/05 this study was presented at the International Conference of Cardiologists and is being endorsed by the American Heart Association. In May/05, the study was presented at the American Diabetic Association, who is now also endorsing our product.
My clients all reduce their levels within an average of 3-4 weeks, and normalize their cholesterol within 3 months.
To view more information on this fiber, please go to the following website:
www.bioshealth.com
Here is a summary of the study results:
Summary:
Reduces LDL and total cholesterol levels [10.3% difference between groups (p<0.001)]
Increases HDL level [+2.3% with treatment (p=0.19)]
Decreased triglyceride level [9.6% difference (p=0.17)]
Encourages weight loss
Decreased ApoB [20% reduction with treatment (p=0.0004)]
Decreased Homocysteine [9.8 mg/dl to 8.7 mg/dl, p=0.02]
When used concomitantly with statins yielded a >10% benefit in LDL reduction.

To get this fiber please email me and I will provide you with the ID number you will need.
Of interest in the US, this fiber is in the PDR (Physician's Desk Reference) which means doctors can prescribe it for their patients!
Regards,
Ann McDowell R.N.

SSP

FWIW, I tried BiosLife (aka, BioSlime) a few years ago under doctor's supervision. After 3 months using it, I had precisely zero difference in my cholesterol levels.

I also found out later on that it's some sort of multi-level marketing scheme, with the doctor's getting a commission from the manufacturer, Rexall Drugs (apparently, doctors aren't permitted to earn commissions on prescription drugs - BiosLife doesn't require a prescription so the medical professionals can skirt that restriction in the law).

While dietary fiber *is* helpful in lowering cholesterol, you can buy oat bran in bulk for about 65 cents per pound, which is a whole lot less expensive than BiosLife (and, it tastes a lot better too). A scoop or two of oat bran in your morning cereal, and a diet that includes fruits and vegtables, will provide you with plenty of good-tasting, cholesterol lowering fiber, without having to choke down an overpriced overhyped product.

FWIW, the study cited as proof of the efficacy of BiosLife also shows that by the end of the 16 week trial, there was virtually no difference between the subjects taking BiosLife and the control group. Specifically, the study states:

La Chica

Thanks for your prompt reply SSP:
Let me make a few comments:
1.re: your personal results- I do occasionally have clients that require 6 months of 2 packets/ day before there is a significant drop BUT it does occur.I also incorporate hydration, exercise and better food choices along with the BiosLife.
2. As to this being MLM (which by the way is not legal)- you are mistaken. This is called direct selling marketing...which if you know about economic trends is one of the fastest growing markets in the world! By the way I went on your website and I would say that you are also into direct selling!
3. in relation to the doctors getting a commision, tell me how many doctors do you know that do not have shares in any of the drug companies whose products they promote/endorse in their practice??!! Conflict of interest would you not agree? Being a medical professional myself, I have yet to meet a doctor that does not!
4. re oat bran's effect on cholesterol- I will refer to the Stanford Study done on BiosLife versus oat bran. The conclusion showed that BiosLife induced a reduction in TC (total cholesterol) of 26+_10mg/dl and in low density lipoprotein cholesterol of 25+_9mh/dl. The OFS (oat fiber source) induced a reduction in TC od 9+_ 13mg/dl and in low density lipoprotein cholesterol os 11+_4mg/dl. Although there was reduction in both arms of the study, the BiosLife arm was significantly more effective. The subjects in the oat arm of the study had to consume daily amounts of oat equaling 77gms; whereas the Bios arm consumed 15 gms/day, so that both arms consumed 11g/day total dietary fiber and 10g/day water soluble dietary fiber.
5. and finally as to your quote, here is the actual findings and conclusion as documented in the Cleveland study:
Methods: Patients (n=119) were randomized to either a fiber blend treatment, or placebo with 99 (50 treatment, 49 placebo) completing the study. Fasting lipid profiles (including ApoB), and homocysteine concentrations were obtained at weeks 4 and 8. Between group (Wilcoxon rank-sums test) and within group (paired t-tests) comparisons were used to evaluate treatment effect.
Results: Subjects in both groups showed similar baseline LDL levels (159mg/dl vs. 158mg/dl). The treatment group showed a 7.9% +/- 11.0 reduction (p<0.001) over 8 weeks. Placebo patients showed a slight increase in LDL over the same period (+2.4% +/- 11.7, p=0.16), for a 10.3% difference between groups (p<0.001). ApoB measured in a subset (n=53) revealed a 20% reduction with treatment (p=0.004). Treatment subjects showed a reduction in homocysteine (9.8 mg/dl to 8.7 mg/dl, p=0.02), while neither TG (p=0.95) nor HDL-c (p=0.54) changed.
Conclusions: Significant LDL and ApoB lowering effects are demonstrated. No adverse effects on triglyceride or HDL-c levels were noted, and folate/B vitamin derived benefits towards homocysteine reduction were preserved. This combination product could be used to reduce the need for concomitant lipid lowering prescription therapy, as well as for advancing self-styled primary prevention strategies.

Regards,

jur

A year ago I had somewhat high cholesterol levels, the GP said lose weight. So I carefully counted kilojoules and increased the amount of olive oil in my diet. 6 months later, I'm in the middle of my BMI range (dropped 15 kilos) and my cholesterol has dropped thru the floor.

AnthonyG

SSP,

I don't have a problem with my alternative views being publisized. I should say that I'm a proponent of Science. The bigest hurdle to real science these day's is the grip that the religion of science seems to have so that's been a target of mine.

OK so you don't beleive me about the "religion of science " thing? Tell me, what is the scientific method and who did the scientific trial that proves it works?

Anyway feel free to provide me with any of the science that proves that adding chlorine and flouride, two known poisions into our water supply is safe. Ditto for vaccines. I will warn you now that vaccines have never been scientificaly tested for saftey of effectiveness because it was deemed unethical to do so.

Regards, Anthony

SSP

I think there's a big difference between a doctor owning shares in a company (a very indirect relationship), and being a commissioned sales rep (a very direct relationship) at the same time they are providing medical advice. What's next? Doctor's selling specific brands of breakfast cereals?


They are quoting the results obtained at week 8...but, they knew from prior research that the cholesterol lowering effects vanish after that. By week 16, there was virtually no difference between the BiosLife group, and the control group - look at the graph in Figure 1, and read the Discussion section again. Buried in a lengthy paragraph there, you'll note this: "We found ApoB and LDL-C lowering markedly diminished if not lost by the 16th week.".

Please note: I'm not saying BiosLife can't help some people. But, I did try it for 3+ months and noticed no change in my cholesterol levels, and my results are consistent with the results of the study cited.

And patients who take the product should be aware that their health care providers have a personal financial interest in promoting it (my doctor did not make this relationship clear).

SSP

I find it ironic that you claim to be a "proponent of Science" when you seem to question the scientific method.

You also said earlier in this post, "What's going on is a fundamental failing of science. Scientists that should have known better beleived in and publisices a "THEORY" that they didn't have the evidence to support and now everyone is still trying to deffend the undeffendable rather than doing the basic science that should have been done in the first place."

So, are you saying that that most scientists and researchers are: a) stupid, or b) unethical, or c) both?

FWIW, whenever I hear such broad criticisms of the scientific method (especially by someone espousing "way out" views like yours), I have to assume I'm hearing the words of a zealot. I've learned from past experience that attempting to reason with "true believers" is a fruitless and time-consuming endeavor.

BTW, one of the beauties of science is that it is a self-correcting mechanism. They don't always get it right, but fortunately there are always ambitious young PhD candidates who are looking for a way to make a name for themselves...proving that a previous belief is wrong is one of the ways they do that.

AnthonyG

What I'm suggesting is that most scientists are committing the sin of PRIDE and heck their not alone. It's the human condition.

My view isn't "Way Out". I'm a follower and supporter of the "Control" position. The "Control" position is scientificaly VERY strong. It's weakness is a political weakness not a scientific one.

As far as science being a self correcting mechanisim I agree with the ideal but unfortunately it's failed. WHY? See point 1.

Regards, Anthony

SSP

Several questions come to mind...

1) What is it about PRIDE that makes scientific research findings and conclusions invalid?

2) If it's the human condition to be a prideful sinner (a characterization I find laughable and wrong), can we assume that you too are a prideful sinner? And, if so, how can we possibly believe the off-beat views you're espousing?

FWIW, broad characterizations like yours ("science is failing", "scientists are sinners") are the hallmark of a zealot.

AnthonyG

Labeling someone else a Zealot is a sure sign of being a Zealot yourself so you need to be careful with an argument like that.

Am I a prideful sinner? Absolutely!

Give that man some brownie points and a Koala stamp!

EDIT: OK as to the problem with pride basicaly it leads to a situation where we DON'T honestly admit to our mistakes while beleiving in the worth of science based on the idea that we DO freely admit to our mistakes so obviously if a mistake had been made they would tell us about it. Wouldn't they?

The mistake no one want's to admit to is that we didn't do a proper control study in the first place before going off half cocked. It's akin to being the masters aprentice. Mother nature is the master and we need to study her more.

Regards, Anthony

cbhungry

You are right. Coming from the horse's mouth, most docs do not own stock in drug companies contrary to urban myth.

La Chica, the study you mentioned was a well designed study with the exception of small sample size and duration of observation. . It would be nice if larger studies were done so that errors inherent in small sample size can be compensated for. (like the famous Women's Health Initiative that overturned so many erronous conclusions about hormones which had always used much smaller sampling sizes or been retrospective in nature.) It also only follwed them for eight weeks (for instance the West of Scotland study followed them for ten years.) Thus, it is hard for a doctor to base his or her practice on data that has been studied in only 119 patients for 8 weeeks. But it does give consideration for more research using such fiber alternatives!

SSp brings up a good point about the long term data.. By the way, I'm not sure since I can't find the study but I wonder if the differences between placebo group and bioslime disappeared after eight weeks (became non significant) due to the fact that the placebo group was still ingesting a huge amount of oat bran. Thus, it was not a real placebo group (was getting fiber naturally ) and thus the differences between the two groups (treated and placebo) became diminished.

BaadDawg

dragracer please don't take this the wrong way (you stated in your last post you are worried about being chastised).

You had a stroke in January and you are asking for medical advise in August on an internet biking forum?

You need expert medical advise and quick. If you are not sure you want to follow the advise given at that time, get a 2nd opinion from another medical expert (meaning neurologist).

I went through the whole stroke thing after a CT scan taken for migraine headaches showed evidence of what "might have been a stroke". 8 months later a MRI was done showing that the "space" shown in the CT is congenital (I was born with it) and not from a stroke. I had another MRI 2 years after that with the same result (meaning I never had a stroke and am normal other than the frigging migraines but that's another story).

Even so, I now take BP medication (even though my BP was borderline 135-85) and statins even though my cholesterol was again just over the top end of normal.

I have always been in good shape and carry at most 10 pounds too much.

GO SEE PROFESSIONALS (DOCTORS) AND FOLLOW THEIR ADVISE AND /OR GET 2nd OPINIONS. YOUR LIFE AND QUALITY OF LIFE DEPEND ON IT.

The internet is a great thing and can be a good source of medical information.

But your fears of medication after having a stroke in January and gaining a lot of weight quickly afterwards all add up to nothing good.

TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY, not by worrying about it but by doing something about it. Vigorious exercise is probably the worst thing right now for you unless you have full medical clearance.

dragracer

Ummmmm...Not sure what makes you think I have not seen a doctor. I've seen so many damn doctors(neuro, rehab, family dr, ER Dr....the list goes on) that I have lost count. To be honest, I'M SICK OF SEEING DOCTORS!!! Once the insurance door has been opened, they don't even bother knocking. They just let themselves on in. One day when I was doing my PT, a Dr. came in and introduced himself and talked about 30 seconds and left. A month ago I got a $350 bill from the rat bastard for "evaluating" me. I got a bill for a $900 custom brace they made me when I was having trouble with an old ankle injury in physical threrapy.... I used it probably twice. The bills are nipping at 100 grand and will pass it by the end of the year. And you don't think I've seen a doctor?

This thread had nothing to do with my "stroke"(as you call it). If you would have read my last reply(post) you would have seen that I said I'm going to the Dr. next week. I will trust his advise and stand by it. I wasn't asking for any miracles, just asking for some personal experiences that others had gone thru getting their cholesterol down.

I tried to not take it the wrong way.......but I failed. Sorry.