Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

Food, diet, facts and myths

Jump to new
MrBurns

MrBurns

Joined
6 September 2008
Posts
7,676
Reactions
68
Thought this deserved it's own thread.

The following is from another forum, this guy has done a lot of research and probably knows more than many doctors, in fact I'm sure of it.


The first link I can think of is: http://highsteaks.com/forum/whatever/cholesterol-52.0.html

But even that is outdated already. You don't know this yet but there's a new medical/govt standard in the midst of being approved - called ATP 4 - which will all but abolish the cholesterol/lipid hypothesis and render almost all current statins and biomarker levelling drugs impotent.

How do I know this? Well, I'm not a medical practitioner, I shouldn't know this information.... Guess what - I know because of this thing that almost nobody else does - "research".
Click to expand...
 
Update -

Actually, scratch what I said above, it will take them months/years to get through and the only thing they'll learn is that cholesterol is almost pointless to measure. That's all they need to know - unfortunately media/doctors/everyone says the opposite.

Watch this instead - it's one hour's investment, but if cholesterol/statins affect you then you'd be silly to not.
Click to expand...

STATIN NATION:

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Statins currently show an evidence base for certain indications.

However, from the relatively simple understanding I have about them, it would be quite difficult to mount a decent cost-benefit analysis (but really, take a look at oncology and see where loads of money is spent for relatively limited gain).

Health economics is really thrown out the window when individual stories come into the picture and this is promoted by the media.

Full cost benefits should be performed, and I am sure that primary prevention, education and incentives to follow up on these would be better as a population approach, the problem is it will probably not happen in my lifetime.

So even though there is possibly some truth in the first post, I will not bother to read the link, as it will probably just be in some kind of reference that the absolute risk reduction is very small, and it costs a fortune to achieve this, then again, I am probably wrong :)

MW
 
Since I hit 40 last year I started buying a big bottle of plant sterol tablets from Vitacost in the USA.

Bascially it's the same stuff they have in the expensive margarines to help lower cholesterol.

When I did a checkup a few months later and got my results the nurse was quite surprised at my VERY high level of good Cholesterol. I had a higher bad cholesterol too, but she said the ratio was on the very good side of things. From what she said my level of 1.8 for the good was way higher than for most men who are lucky to get to 1.

I don't drink a lot, never smoked, exercise pretty much every day, so I'm hopping these cheap tablets will help to keep me from keeling over from blocked arteries or some other heart issue.
 
sydboy007 said:
Since I hit 40 last year I started buying a big bottle of plant sterol tablets from Vitacost in the USA.

Bascially it's the same stuff they have in the expensive margarines to help lower cholesterol.

When I did a checkup a few months later and got my results the nurse was quite surprised at my VERY high level of good Cholesterol. I had a higher bad cholesterol too, but she said the ratio was on the very good side of things. From what she said my level of 1.8 for the good was way higher than for most men who are lucky to get to 1.

I don't drink a lot, never smoked, exercise pretty much every day, so I'm hopping these cheap tablets will help to keep me from keeling over from blocked arteries or some other heart issue.
Click to expand...

I have never smoked nor am I a heavy drinker (until I joined this forum :D ) ,I never use butter or margarine on my bread,I believe anything that is packaged is bad for me (processed) and I try to eat and drink only natural items,like water,fruits and vegetables,fish,eggs etc.

I am an avid follower of the "Fat sick and nearly dead" detox and last year before my surgery I utilized this detox and feel it was a great benefit to my health and is worth a look into to reduce cholesterol naturally without tablets.
One has to be careful they are not sucked into the sheep following involved into these "Good for you tablets"

I have had a brother and sister die in my arms that with the information I now possess could have saved their lives,makes me feel a bit stupid I didn't acquire this knowledge earlier.
 
sydboy007 said:
Since I hit 40 last year I started buying a big bottle of plant sterol tablets from Vitacost in the USA.

Bascially it's the same stuff they have in the expensive margarines to help lower cholesterol.

When I did a checkup a few months later and got my results the nurse was quite surprised at my VERY high level of good Cholesterol. I had a higher bad cholesterol too, but she said the ratio was on the very good side of things. From what she said my level of 1.8 for the good was way higher than for most men who are lucky to get to 1.

I don't drink a lot, never smoked, exercise pretty much every day, so I'm hopping these cheap tablets will help to keep me from keeling over from blocked arteries or some other heart issue.
Click to expand...

Cholesterol is a sterol ( animal ) . Plant sterols are a sterol ( plant ).

Sterols getting into the artery wall is the event that can cause atherosclerosis.

When you get a cholesterol test they only measure cholesterol ( animal sterol ) .
Unless you get a special test you can not be sure if you have high levels of plant sterols in your blood.

Plant sterols lower cholesterol levels by competing for absorption.

They also can cause poor absorption of certain vitamins.

I would be careful , the little amounts in real foods seem beneficial ( nuts etc , olive oil )
But as a supplement or as a "functional food" , the levels need to lower cholesterol , are way above the levels of natural intakes . plant sterols are for plants , cholesterol is for Humans , without cholesterol you die .


http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/fm/flp/2008/00000003/00000003/art00009
 
Please watch the video
Please read ( it is a good summation of where the science is )

The levels of cholesterol LDL-C what is measured is a poor maker for any individual .
BUT works as an average at a population level.

Why ? Because what matters is the number of cholesterol particles.This is not the same thing as Cholesterol levels.

Eg very low LDL-c ,but very high LDL particles


LDL particles (LDL-P), not LDL cholesterol content (LDL-C), is what drives sterols into artery walls – Don’t confuse the “number of cars ” with the “number of passengers.”

You want to start to know your risk in Australia ?

you can not do an LDL-P Test in Australia.

But you can measure measure Apo B (= LDL-particles ) and Apo A-1 ( = HDL particles )
And the ratio of ApoB to ApoA-1

The Triglyceride level is very important too .


http://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-why-everyone-should-know-their-ldl-particle-number

More detail

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-...things-you-need-to-know-part-1/#axzz2Rjrocjtf

http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-...things-you-need-to-know-part-2/#axzz2Rjrocjtf


 
Last edited by a moderator:
Statins are the biggest con that have generated billions for big Pharma.

If you don't have CVD which is 75 percent of people who take statins then all the current research says that you derive no benefit from statins. What you get is a bunch of nasty side effects including: liver problems, diabetes, parkinsons, cancer etc

Caveat Emptor
 
Intrinsic Value said:
Statins are the biggest con that have generated billions for big Pharma.

If you don't have CVD which is 75 percent of people who take statins then all the current research says that you derive no benefit from statins. What you get is a bunch of nasty side effects including: liver problems, diabetes, parkinsons, cancer etc

Caveat Emptor
Click to expand...

The answer is a daily diet of.

One Aspirin

A reasonable modicum of grog

A reasonable modicum of sex

and


sardines.jpg

gg
 
This thread is getting fishy :D

joke aside, thanks for the info, I will dig into it.
 
Teens eat as many calories at Subway as McDonalds: study

A US study has found that teenagers consume almost the same amount of calories and more salt when they eat at Subway as opposed to McDonalds.

The Journal for Adolescent Health published a study this week revealing teenagers only ate slightly less calories at the sandwich chain, despite its perception as a healthier option.

In addition to this, teens choosing lunch at Subway ended up consuming a significant amount more sodium with their meals.

The burgers purchased at McDonalds had an average of 572 calories while the average Subway sandwich had 784 calories.

But side items like chips and soft drinks significantly added to the McDonalds meal total, meaning the teenagers in the study consumed more calories there.

When the adolescents in the study were given the option of either chain, they ate too many calories at both.

"We found that there was no statistically significant difference between the two restaurants, and that participants ate too many calories at both," Dr Lenard Lesser said.

"The nutrient profile at Subway was slightly healthier, but the food still contained three times the amount of salt that the Institute of Medicine recommends."

Dr Lesser recommended McDonalds customers not eat French fries or sugary drinks at the chain, while diners at Subway are advised to pick smaller sandwiches with less meat.
Click to expand...

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/2...as-many-calories-at-subway-as-mcdonalds-study
 
MrBurns said:
http://news.ninemsn.com.au/health/2...as-many-calories-at-subway-as-mcdonalds-study
Click to expand...

I think that study is very favourable to Maccas and doesnt in any way reveal the truth behind the meal types.

It all depends what you pick at subway as to the salt level and meat level. If you are getting a wholemeal roll with say roast chicken and salad and a bottle of water how is that not way superior to anything that Maccas has to offer.

Further calories is not the whole story in any case. It is the type of food eaten. Maccas has deep fried chips and highly sugared soft drinks that have a lot of other adverse health effects.

I dont buy it at all. If you picked a subway meat lovers white roll with cheese then it might be comparable to a Maccas hamburger but then you still dont have the chips and soft drinks.
 
"Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es." [Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are].
Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Physiologie du Gout, ou Meditations de Gastronomie Transcendante, 1826

Genetics have the biggest impact. Mine are poor re CHD. And despite 30 years of careful eating etc, I have CHD (slightly) higher than what would be expected for my age . Funny side of it was the cardiologist seemed surprised & I wasn't. I take but remain wary about statins.

I am reading "The Ominovore's dilemma" by Michael Pollan. Interesting read for someone from a farm and in the food industry. About the food chains and what we eat. Worth a read.
 
johenmo said:
"Dis-moi ce que tu manges, je te dirai ce que tu es." [Tell me what you eat and I will tell you what you are].
Anthelme Brillat-Savarin. Physiologie du Gout, ou Meditations de Gastronomie Transcendante, 1826

Genetics have the biggest impact. Mine are poor re CHD. And despite 30 years of careful eating etc, I have CHD (slightly) higher than what would be expected for my age . Funny side of it was the cardiologist seemed surprised & I wasn't. I take but remain wary about statins.

I am reading "The Ominovore's dilemma" by Michael Pollan. Interesting read for someone from a farm and in the food industry. About the food chains and what we eat. Worth a read.
Click to expand...

Did you watch Food Inc.? Makes fries seem like a health food, relatively speaking of course!
 
CanOz said:
Did you watch Food Inc.? Makes fries seem like a health food, relatively speaking of course!
Click to expand...
No I haven't. from a preservative, minimal processing POV fries are quite unprocessed, aren't they. We eat oven fries only and their fat content is around the same as regular milk. No-one says avoid regular milk because it'll kill you...
 
Top