[quote]MexiKen wrote:
If I start taking my Flameout with my later meals to avoid the problem of the oats negating a lot of the benefit, would the psyllium husk cause the same problem? (as it was suggested to take psyllium with meals)
TIA[/quote]
Yea, just don’t take the fish oils with the fiber. It’s solid advice from Phil.
Your fine.
[quote]swordthrower wrote:
<<< And as far as cholesterol is concerned, I am totally unconvinced that there is any correlation with heart disease.
I really recommend you check out the links above and do some research, lest you become another slave to the medical-industrial complex! And if your doctor starts pushing statins, tell him where to stick it, and get the hell out of there.[/quote]
This will be common knowledge sometime in the future and we’ll look back and lament how many people were harassed and killed by the cholesterol/animal fat lie and the corresponding poisonous drugs they were terrorized into taking.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
<<< And as far as cholesterol is concerned, I am totally unconvinced that there is any correlation with heart disease.
I really recommend you check out the links above and do some research, lest you become another slave to the medical-industrial complex! And if your doctor starts pushing statins, tell him where to stick it, and get the hell out of there.
This will be common knowledge sometime in the future and we’ll look back and lament how many people were harassed and killed by the cholesterol/animal fat lie and the corresponding poisonous drugs they were terrorized into taking.[/quote]
I suspect you are only half right. My guess is that lowering cholesterol via diet/exercise IS probably conducive to a long healthy life and that attempting to control cholesterol for it’s own sake via statins etc… is useless and possibly dangerous.
[quote]beebuddy wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
swordthrower wrote:
<<< And as far as cholesterol is concerned, I am totally unconvinced that there is any correlation with heart disease.
I really recommend you check out the links above and do some research, lest you become another slave to the medical-industrial complex! And if your doctor starts pushing statins, tell him where to stick it, and get the hell out of there.
This will be common knowledge sometime in the future and we’ll look back and lament how many people were harassed and killed by the cholesterol/animal fat lie and the corresponding poisonous drugs they were terrorized into taking.
I suspect you are only half right. My guess is that lowering cholesterol via diet/exercise IS probably conducive to a long healthy life and that attempting to control cholesterol for it’s own sake via statins etc… is useless and possibly dangerous.[/quote]
Right, I totally agree. It is true that a healthy (NOT low-fat, but low-junk) diet and excercise do lower total cholesterol, and increase HDL, etc.
But it is not the cholesterol level itself that is somehow responsible for heart disease, and artificially lowering it through drugs is not going to have the same effect as diet/excercise.
This is why I am saying that there is no (direct) correlation between cholesterol levels and heart disease.
One thing you should have checked is your C-reactive protein levels, which is a marker for inflammation in the body and heart disease is a disease of inflammation.
I’m currently reading Uffe Ravnskov’s book. He’s either brilliant or a whacko, but I’m leaning toward brilliant. Basically, the correlation between cholesterol levels on their own and heart disease is weak. Something more is clearly going on.
BTW - My cholesterol levels are quite high - higher than yours. But my triglycerides are low, my glucose is low, and most importantly, my C-reactive protein is low. I’m not worried.
I don’t understand the proclivity on T-Nation towards bashing everything that is mainstream knowledge. On one hand, you take everything that the coaches write on this site as gospel, yet on the other you ridicule the conclusions of medical specialists who are equally knowledgable in their respective fields purely because you read some radical book.
Reading Chad’s or Boyle’s or anyone else who is remotely non-mainstream doesn’t make you an expert in weight training; it’s the same thing. Statins produce a statistically significant decrease in mortality. This is not up for debate. (1994 Lancet 344: 1383-1389; 2006 Arch Intern Med 166 (21): 2307-13.)
Statins are also well tolerated. You are at high risk of atherosclerosis. Seriously consider the statins as opposed to drinking dissolved dragon tail in water.
But above all just listen to your doctor; not me, and not any of these other guys. No matter how many books or studies we’ve read between us.
-Cloth
[quote]Cloth wrote:
I don’t understand the proclivity on T-Nation towards bashing everything that is mainstream knowledge. On one hand, you take everything that the coaches write on this site as gospel, yet on the other you ridicule the conclusions of medical specialists who are equally knowledgable in their respective fields purely because you read some radical book. [/quote]
I think more of us should question everything. I respect doctors, but they’re busy, and they don’t have time to go through all of the literature and debate whether it’s correct or not. Right now the mainstream thinking is that cholesterol is bad, so it’s just easier and safer, from a malpractice standpoint, to push diet and statins.
Also, the idea that C-reactive protein is an important, perhaps better indicator, of the risk for heart disease is not some whacko anti-mainstream concept. It’s actually becoming, if it hasn’t already become, mainstream.
I found out my numbers from blood work done for a life insurance policy. It seems that current underwriting practices feel that C-reactive protein is important, even though they still raised my rates due to high cholesterol.
[quote]
Statins produce a statistically significant decrease in mortality. This is not up for debate. (1994 Lancet 344: 1383-1389; 2006 Arch Intern Med 166 (21): 2307-13.)[/quote]
This is true, and Uffe Ravnskov and others who question the cholesterol theory have acknowledged this as true. However, statins reduce heart disease risk because, as a “side effect,” they reduce inflammation.
[quote]
Statins are also well tolerated. You are at high risk of atherosclerosis. Seriously consider the statins as opposed to drinking dissolved dragon tail in water.[/quote]
I’m not even sure where I could buy dragon tail. One of the things that make Ravnskov et al. credible is that they don’t push any proprietary supplements.
Sure, they may have a book or two to sell, but they’re not going to get rich selling books as compared to trying to push high-priced snake oil and telling people that they need to take this stuff for the rest of their lives. Nothing like that at all. They do, however, mention the benefits of fish oil and essential fatty acids.
[quote]
But above all just listen to your doctor; not me, and not any of these other guys. No matter how many books or studies we’ve read between us.
-Cloth [/quote]
Right, don’t listen to us, but don’t necessarily take your doctor’s advice as gospel. Do your own research and come to your own conclusions. Yes, it takes time and effort to read through all of the literature, but in the end, it’s your body.
Can anyone tell me where I can get some dissolved dragon tail? ;o)
I’m taking this all in, reading, making an appointment with a cardiologist (actually a DO as opposed to an MD, which I think will be even more interesting to hear her perspective).
As has been suggested, the incorporation of more healthy habits can only be beneficial. What happens to my blood profile or what I do about it from there, we’ll have to wait and see.
I still have a question about taking Flameout while incorporating more fiber via psyllium capsules. My understanding is that both should be taken with meals, yet added fiber may bind with the beneficial fats in the Flameout, essentially negating them (or at least greatly diminishing them). What’s the solution here?
thanks
[quote]Cloth wrote:
I don’t understand the proclivity on T-Nation towards bashing everything that is mainstream knowledge.[/quote]
This statement just boggles my mind. How the hell can you be surprised that people at T-Nation tend to question mainstream thinking? Isn’t that the whole driving force behind this place?
We all ended up here because we weren’t happy with the usual bullshit training info we found elsewhere. We wanted different opinions and a place to have open discussions about complex issues.
The reason there is such a strong opposition to the lipid hypothesis here is because there are a lot of us who have delved pretty deeply into the literature and found that the standard cholesterol theory is not up to snuff.
You also have to be careful about who you call experts. Is your GP an expert? Your cardiologist? They have more pressing concerns than reading lots of papers about studies. They have to save lives now, and deal with heart attacks that are happening or are imminent.
As far as they know, they are giving out good advice in terms of long term prevention. But that doesn’t mean they can’t be wrong, or on the other hand, that they are maliciously misleading people, which no-one is suggesting.
Please don’t tell us here at T-Nation not to question mainstream knowledge. You might as well ask us to stop lifting heavy, since according to mainstream knowledge, it’s dangerous.
I have no issues with using inflammatory markers such as C-reac. protein as important indicators for heart disease. This is, simply, because they are important indicators for heart disease. You’re very correct here.
Atherosclerosis works by the accumulation of LDL on your blood vessels, and then macrophages ingest the LDL. This is an inflammatory process. Decreasing LDL will usually decrease the macrophage response, which reduces inflammation, which is what you’re talking about. You’re not wrong - but what you say suggests that statin therapy could be useful.
But, yes to the fish oil. In the context of C protein again, some studies have shown it positively effects it. Some have shown it has no effect. None, to my knowledge, have shown that it increases it. It can, however, increase LDL levels by up to 10%.
Fish oil is, on average, a better therapy for preventing heart disease than statins (although only a third as good as following a mediterranean diet). However, that is on average. I honestly don’t know if the fact that you have high cholesterol would make it less suitable for you. Mayoclinic seems to think so; but then that really doesn’t mean much to me.
As to swordthrower, yes, you’re right. Your ordinary GP and perhaps even your cardiologist may not have the time to keep up with newest research trends (although most specialists typically do). However, academics certainly do keep up with it. And forgive me for saying, they probably managed to delve even a little deeper than you have. You may be right; the lipid hypothesis is not rock solid. But the standard therapies are such because they provide the greatest decrease in mortality with the risk of adverse effects.
The only thing I find wrong with standard therapies is that they usually fail to address dietary problems; but compliance is so low with those changes that there’s not really much you can do except suggest them.
There’s no problem with questioning mainstream thinking. B-blockers were developed as a therapy in the most anti-mainstream way possible. There’s just a problem with discounting knowledge purely because it is such.
-Cloth
This argument sickens me so much, you have the pro cholesterol supporters on one side and the opposite on the other, the only difference is, the anti cholesterol hypothesis side has read a few more open minded non dolar influenced books than the brain washed magots on the other side who push the statins.
Ravnskov is one of few who can interpretate cholesterol and heart disease research properly.
Let nature take control, if it needs more cholesterol for your health then so be it.
mexi ken, hi… Looking at your lipid profile, i don’t think its all that bad. Certainly the HDL of 55 is very good, the tryglycerides of 88 are also very good. Remember tryglycerides over 150 are problematic you’re way under that. Also your ratio, of 4.3 falls into the low risk for cardiovascular problems.
The total is high and the LDL is high, i see you had the VLDL taken at 18, i don’t know the standards on these, many docs don’t even take them, its good that yours did. They tell a much more detailed story about your LDL cholesterol.
The first thing i suggest is to cut back on saturated fat and included in this is trans-fats. Trans fat are fats found in pastry and crackers and if you see partially hydrogenated oil you know they’re in there.
The next thing which has been mentioned is to increase the amount of fiber in your diet. Fiber will help your body eliminate some cholesterol. You should be getting over 30grams a minimum. Psyillum husk is a good source of fiber as is fruit and veggetables, beans and legumes, and complex grains.
If you can do cardi everyday for 30 minutes at an intensity of 60 to 80% of you heart rate max that will probably help.
That your father had a quadruple by pass at 69 doesn’t indicate you should be worried about your genetics.
Alcohol is actually a good thing for your ateries but try to keep it at one or two drinks a day. Your wine consumption doesn’t indicate that your getting high tryglycerides from that so, i would continue drinking red wine.
I think by you cutting out some of the saturated fat that your bad numbers will improve. THats the first line of attack here. secondly, do moderately intense cardio for 30minutes on all day of the week if you can.
Don’t and remember this cut out the good forms of fat, you need them to maintain you very healthy HDL levels, Good fat, omega 3’s and monounsaturated fat, and omega 6’s which are polyunsaturated forms of fat are also fine, though they should be in a ratio with omega 3, the ratio is approxiately 3 to 1 omega 6’s to 3’s. Olive oil is fine its a monounsaturated fat as are nuts.
So thats the low down and remember you only need some small adjustments and you will be in a very enviable situation.