My new Cholesterol readings. I don't want to take statins!

James Winston wrote:

get used to it.. wrote:

No my comments are not mostly insults. I have provided information. I am trying to get the few who might think T-rexing knows anything about nutrition to see that in fact, he is a fraud.

I can't believe you are going back and forth with T-Rexing. Just do a search and look at his posts on multiple of topics and you will quickly conclude he has a child's brain trapped in a man's body. Get a life and stop going back and forth with this child. I completely ignore anything he posts on any subject and you should too. Life is too short to waste on LTs.

Thanks for your enlightening information, cowardly troll who can not even stick to one name (lemme guess: cult fit clown? Bioman ? Whatever, doesn't matter , you are all the same ignorant pseudoscience clone to me. There are 1000s of you camped out on low carb or anti vaccine or anti global warming etc sites. You are all the same person to me)

You clearly have nothing of substance to add here, so stop posting.

As a couple of previous posts have remarked: different things, as usual, work for different people. The following is purely an anecdote from one person, used mostly to illustrate this point:

At age 60 my weight was kinda high, but still in the normal range; my BP, ditto. I walked 40-50 mpw (can't run); I had never had a cup of coffee, any kind of cigarette, or an alcoholic drink; and my total cholesterol, per my genetic heritage, was a little over 100. (I once asked my GP, after he'd relayed the total number to me, what my HDL/LDL ratio was. "What do you care?!?" was his response.) And I'd had a flying-colors cardiac exam (including treadmill) about three months earlier.

So I had a heart attack. I was automatically given a variety of drugs, including generic Lipitor. When I spoke to the prescribing doc about that--"Do I really need to reduce my cholesterol level?"--he said that, regardless of the numbers, clearly there was too much gunk in my circulatory system, and a chunk (most likely broken off an arterial wall) had lodged in and blocked a coronary artery (thus, it turned out, killing some cardiac muscle).

After about a year, my cardiologist (different guy) asked about some blood tests that my GP had recently ordered. I mentioned that my total cholesterol was down to around 90. "That's too low!" he said--closest to bothered that I've ever seen him (he doesn't fluster). Gee, really, doc? Hadn't I been hinting at that for a year? He took me off Lipitor at once.

Anyway, the real point is this: I don't think we have the final word on any of the stuff that's been debated in this thread. I would be pleased to see what the state of the field will be in, say, 2050, but odds are that I won't have the opportunity. In the meantime, I guess I'll go with what seems to be the consensus of people with actual educations and professional experience in the field--tempered by the understanding that what seems (statistically) to work for large populations might, or might not, work for me.

Interesting story. It was surprising they put u on the statin to some extent, I agree, however, the evidence is that those with CVD as u clearly have reduce their risk by going to extremely low levels of ldl. What was ur LDL?

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/11/18/health/study-finds-alternative-to-statins-in-preventing-heart-attacks-and-strokes.html

Also, for others reading the article, note the key lines-

"The finding can help millions at high risk of heart attacks who cannot tolerate statins or do not respond to them sufficiently. And it helps clarify the role of LDL cholesterol, the dangerous form. Some had argued that statins reduced heart attack risk not just by lowering LDL levels but also by reducing inflammation. The new study indicates that the crucial factor is LDL, and the lower the levels, the better."

Yes, but this is "old info from the 80s", right? WRONG.

lease wrote:

Anyway, the real point is this: I don't think we have the final word on any of the stuff that's been debated in this thread. I would be pleased to see what the state of the field will be in, say, 2050, but odds are that I won't have the opportunity. In the meantime, I guess I'll go with what seems to be the consensus of people with actual educations and professional experience in the field--tempered by the understanding that what seems (statistically) to work for large populations might, or might not, work for me.

that is some very rational thinking, which is rare on here. FWIW, When I quote people on these topics, they are exactly those type experts you should and do trust, and are in line with the majority expert opinion. (While most of the others on here quote random bloggers with none of those credentials, or , doctors on the very fringes of their fields, far out from the mainstream). Lastly, at least as far as the diet part goes, I am just about the only one on these threads that fits your criteria ("actual education and professional experience in the field").

Yes, get your information from the American Heart Association. Run by MD's and RD's who also read journals from the 1980's to make their decisions.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

get used to it.. wrote:

. I am trying to get the few who might think T-rexing knows anything about nutrition to see that in fact, he is a fraud.

"Trying" and failing miserably.

You claim I am in line with old evidence from the 80s, however what do the absolute latest health guidelines from nearly all major health organizations say? That high LDL and total cholesterol are major risk factors for CVD. For example

http://www.heart.org/HEARTORG/Conditions/Heart-Health-Screenings_UCM_428687_Article.jsp

"That's from oct 2014, American Heart Association

Major Risk factors for CHD-

High Blood Cholesterol: As LDL rises, so does risk of coronary heart disease."

But what does anonymous ultra-buffoon "get used to " have to say about that? He says- PAY NO ATTENTION TO YOUR CHOLESTEROL #s, THEY ARE MEANINGLESS!

Thanks for revealing yourself to be an ignoramus of an extraordinary level.

get used to it.. wrote:

Yes, get your information from the American Heart Association. Run by MD's and RD's who also read journals from the 1980's to make their decisions.

But who base most of their advice on studies from 2010-2014. And u get your info from? Chiropractors, random personal trainer blogs, "alternative" health experts and the latest fad diet sites. Oh, and the occasional study that you randomly stumble across from somewhere around 2006. Good luck with that! I'd rather get my health advice from the homeless guy on the corner than most of your sources.

and stuff wrote:

http://www.drperlmutter.com/about/grain-brain-by-david-perlmutter/

That guy is a QUACK QUACK QUAAAAACK.

so, that's all you have, huh?

Thank you guys for all the input. A lot to sort through. Went for a stair work out today(training for stair climb races) and heard a pop in my left calf muscle.. Damn. Hopefully its not a tear. I can put a little weight on my left foot but not enough to stand up straight. Anyways, I have more time to research while this heals up. Keep on pushing forward I say.....Will keep you posted on cholesterol progress. Duane

and stuff wrote:

so, that's all you have, huh?

From the website: "carbs are destroying your brain"

Nope. Sorry, see if you can find another opportunist using his med degree to hock books on the latest diet fad.

Have you read the book? Do you understand the context of "destroying your brain"? Are you understanding the increasing findings of neurological disorders, and common health disorders such as diabetes?

And btw, the 'latest diet fad' is quite satisfying for me. I have almost entirely cut grain consumption, minus the occasional burger, and my health has never been better... literally.

Have you ever observed the difference between a grain fed egg yolk, and a grass fed egg yolk? Strikingly different.

So now you're eating grass and your health has never been better, is that what you're saying?

and stuff wrote:

Have you ever observed the difference between a grain fed egg yolk, and a grass fed egg yolk? Strikingly different.

Isn't grass used as grain?

Yeah... yeah, that's it. I'm eating grass. Thanks for clearing that up, for me.

Go ahead, destroy the messenger, and never-mind the anecdotal and empirical evidence...

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-differences-between-grass-fed-beef-and-grain-fed-beef/#axzz3KquBO0S4

and for more anecdotal accounts...

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-i-ditched-my-diabetes-medication-and-found-a-new-life-plan/#axzz3KquBO0S4

and stuff wrote:

Go ahead, destroy the messenger, and never-mind the anecdotal and empirical evidence

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-differences-between-grass-fed-beef-and-grain-fed-beef/#axzz3KquBO0S4

and for more anecdotal accounts...

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/how-i-ditched-my-diabetes-medication-and-found-a-new-life-plan/#axzz3KquBO0S4

Oh boy. Look, I am going to try and be respectful, really I am. Here goes-

On the grass fed beef issue-

Great, grass fed beef seems a bit more humane and natural. And it appears to be *slightly* more nutritious (I've looked at many studies comparing grain vs grass fed beef. The nutrient differences ARE rather small. Even mark Apple admits this, though he tries To exaggerate the difference. Yes, grass fed has more omega 3. However, it is still a poor choice for this nutrient. As even mark says, all you have to do is eat some fatty fish and bam, you've way more than made up the difference between omega 3 in grass and grain fed beef, I.e., the omega 3 advantage of grass fed is a pretty weak point in favor of it. And grass fed has more sat fat, which, by most expert opinions is not advantage. But despite all that, I support eating grass fed beef for the slight nutritional and natural advantages it might confer). Then go ahead , eat grass fed beef, no one is stopping you. There are no studies demonstrating some fantastic difference in disease outcomes of those eating grass vs grain fed cows. So this has very little to do with the nonsense, and yes it is,of grain brain and wheat belly. Right?

Your "anecdotal" evidence. You don't think I could produce 100 anecdotes of obese people changing their lives and losing a ton of weight on diets 100% contrary to the paleo-primal-low carb diet your story was based on? C'mon. Of course I can. Vegan, high carb NO MEAT diets. Absolutely it has happened. So what does it prove? It proves that if you stick to a diet, cut calories, and especially dessert and junk/fast food calories, and exercise a lot (as the people in your story did, it was clearly a key to their success) you will lose weight. Now maybe the primal,diet is easier for some to stick to, but for many it is not (the evidence is clear on this). And notice how the lady in your story failed miserably on Atkins, which believe it or not, ain't much different than marks super copyrighted special primal diet.

Sorry, science is better than anecdote. And science says: in the long run, for people without serious gluten issues, a high carb diet,with plenty of whole grains is at least as good for weight loss as a low carb diet with no grains, probably superior for health, but both will confer benefits if the people stick with them and lose lots of weight/fat if they were obese to begin with.

I mean, I know you got the low carb religion thing going, but you need to stop believing every blog post or book that some person looking to cash in on the latest diet fad/craze posts or publishes.

Tyrannosaurus Rexing wrote:

racist right wingers don't like me on here

Ah this explains a lot. I always wondered what your deal was. Everyone who disagrees with you is a racist right wing nut that wants to take away all your freedoms and eat babies, right?

I'm not sure what racism and right wing politics has to do with cholesterol but rest assured whenever you think the whole world is conspiring against you I'm sure you're right, darling. Don't you ever believe those crazy people that tell you the voices are only in your head.

Are you prepared to explain why other areas with high carb diets don't have high rates of these neurological conditions?

And chickens don't eat grass-- I think their natural diet is bugs and such. They definitely aren't ruminants, so I don't know how they'd survive on grass. So no, I'm not familiar with the appearance of a "grass fed egg yolk".

Cool, I won't believe what I read. Also, I won't believe that MY OWN EXPERIENCE with these forms of food intake, is worth anything. It's all BS! My DEXA body composition results, and blood tests, are all BS. Got it.