Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / October 2008

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

HDL ratio more important than total cholesterol?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
PantryRaider - 15 Oct 2008 14:46 GMT
I have my cholesterol checked twice a year. I just got test results
back.

I am quite surprised at the change in my HDL level this time. The HDL
apparently is abnormally high... and I don't know if this is a marker
of a more favorable blood chemistry or if it just might be a fluke in
the testing. Probably have to get another test to tell for sure,
but... here are the results:

Total Cholesterol = 173; Triglycerides = 47; HDL chol = 87; LDL-calc
77.

in March of '08 it was Total Cholesterol = 158; Triglycerides = 44;
HDL chol = 72; LDL-calc 77.

I have made some lifestyle changes during the last 6 months:  I was
taking 1 fish oil capsule daily, now I am taking two. I starting
eating eggs again... after not eating eggs since having 3 heart
attacks in 1999. I also added oat bran to my diet, and started eating
oat bran daily over the last 3 months. I was really eager to see my
cholesterol results this time what with adding eggs and oat bran... I
thought it would be interesting sport to see how it affected my
cholesterol. I expected them to maybe offset each other, but that is
not apparent in the results. I don't think either one of those would
affect HDL level, but then I don't know for sure.  My doctor didn't
comment on the report other than to say that the results were "good
and no changes suggested".

I have also been taking a Vitamin D supplement. I had also been
reading about Vitamin D affecting lp(a), so I also had a LP(a) test
for the first time, with a result of a level of 3.

I have had a lot of cholesterol tests in the last 9 years. It seems
that my HDL has been trending up, but the 87 reading also puts my
total cholesterol way up over the recommended level of 150 or less for
a person with coronary artery disease. Is the total cholesterol level
more important than the HDL level? Or the ratio of HDL to total
cholesterol more important? Should I worry about my total cholesterol
trending up?
Susan - 15 Oct 2008 15:02 GMT
> I have my cholesterol checked twice a year. I just got test results
> back.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> cholesterol more important? Should I worry about my total cholesterol
> trending up?

High HDL and low TGLs are indicative of a lipid pattern of large, fluffy
LDL, which is not damaging and does not cause CVD no matter how high it
is, so congratulations!  The only thing that would concern me at all
would be such a low LDL; all of our adrenal steroid hormones are made
from LDL and an abnormally low number can lead to adrenal insufficiency.

Not a worry unless you start to feel bad or have symptoms.

Susan
Truth - 15 Oct 2008 15:31 GMT
> I have my cholesterol checked twice a year. I just got test results
> back.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
> cholesterol more important? Should I worry about my total cholesterol
> trending up?

That's a great HDL. Congratulations. The goal is HDL > 40 and HDL > 60
is really good, so 87 is super duper. The HDL being so high is
protective and far more important than trying to have a total
cholesterol less than 150. As long as your total cholesterol is less
than 200 and your LDLs are around 75, you are fine. I wish more of my
patients could achieve this sort of ration.

Are you taking a statin? A daily aspirin? A beta blocker?
Susan - 15 Oct 2008 16:17 GMT
> That's a great HDL. Congratulations. The goal is HDL > 40 and HDL > 60
> is really good, so 87 is super duper. The HDL being so high is
> protective and far more important than trying to have a total
> cholesterol less than 150. As long as your total cholesterol is less
> than 200 and your LDLs are around 75, you are fine. I wish more of my
> patients could achieve this sort of ration.

Elderly folks with the lowest LDL have the highest rate of mortality.  I
hope few to none of your patients routinely run that low on LDL without
your careful evaluation of their HPA axis function.  If insufficient,
myriad serious, insidious conditions ensue.

Susan
Truth - 15 Oct 2008 19:43 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 11 lines]
>
> Susan

Susan, I've seen you make this claim before. Please cite your sources
from reputable, recognized allopathic journals or texts. A little bit
of medical knowledge misapplied or anecdotal case histories can not be
extapolated to apply to the general population, so please don't rehash
your own case. Give evidence based studies  that support your claim.
Susan - 15 Oct 2008 19:50 GMT
> Susan, I've seen you make this claim before. Please cite your sources
> from reputable, recognized allopathic journals or texts. A little bit
> of medical knowledge misapplied or anecdotal case histories can not be
> extapolated to apply to the general population, so please don't rehash
> your own case. Give evidence based studies  that support your claim.

Are you serious?  Do you seriously not know that LDL is what all adrenal
steroids are made from?  If you saw me make the claim before, then you
saw me post the study information from the U.S. NIH, stating it, and
specifically undertaking to measure how much adrenal suppression occurs
when statins are used to suppress LDL!

I'm sick and tired of people claiming to be doctors who have absolutely
zero knowledge of biochemistry.

Look it up if you haven't read it in my previous posts.

Susan
Susan - 15 Oct 2008 19:52 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
>
> Susan

You're probably too lazy or don't know how:

http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00433823

Susan
Truth - 15 Oct 2008 23:40 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Susan

Just as I thought. Susan is a case of a little bit of misapplied
medical knowledge used in the wrong way. Are you too lazy to read the
information that you posted? It's an abstract of a clinical trial only
and clearly states "no study results posted." It is very dangerous
when people like you start making statements that you have made
without adequate data, medical training background or peer reviewed
studies to back up your words.
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 01:35 GMT
> Just as I thought. Susan is a case of a little bit of misapplied
> medical knowledge used in the wrong way. Are you too lazy to read the
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> without adequate data, medical training background or peer reviewed
> studies to back up your words.

It is exactly what I said it was.

But if you read it, it explicitly states what you were challenging; that
adrenal steroids are synthesized from LDL cholesterol, the whole basis
for measuring the adrenal suppressive effect.

Susan
Truth - 15 Oct 2008 23:44 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Susan

And since Susan is not archiving her posts so that her words remain
for all to see, I will do so.

> >> Susan, I've seen you make this claim before. Please cite your sources
> >> from reputable, recognized allopathic journals or texts. A little bit
[quoted text clipped - 20 lines]
>
> Susan

I'm sick and tired of someone who claims to know better than clinical
and medical experts in the field who base their knowledge on evidence
and large, peer-reviewed clinical trials with a firm foundation in
science and biochemistry.

More cites please. You haven't shown squat to support your claim.
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 01:37 GMT
> I'm sick and tired of someone who claims to know better than clinical
> and medical experts in the field who base their knowledge on evidence
> and large, peer-reviewed clinical trials with a firm foundation in
> science and biochemistry.
>
> More cites please. You haven't shown squat to support your claim.

Uh, if you need a citation from me to know that adrenal steroids are
synthesized from LDL cholesterol, you shouldn't be in this discussion.

Look it up, it's well documented and a completely accepted, non
newsworthy statement.

Your profound ignorance of basic science doesn't obligate me to spoon
feed you.

Susan
Truth - 16 Oct 2008 02:35 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 15 lines]
>
> Susan

You don't have the ability to spoon feed anyone since you are taking
one fact, that adrenal steroids are synthesized from LDL cholesterol,
but then building a totally unsupported hypothesis based on this fact.

Susan, the issue is not that adrenal steroids are synthesized from LDL
cholesterol. That is known and if you had bothered to read the sources
that I posted for you you would have seen that fact mentioned.

That doesn't mean that low LDL means low adrenal steroids. Please cite
a reputable source or study that shows that lowering LDL caused
clinically measurable problems with adrenal steroid synthesis or
function in humans. Cite several or your inability to do so will show
that you are talking out of your a.s.
PantryRaider - 16 Oct 2008 03:08 GMT
> > x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

well... hmmm....  I just know that I have felt less robust as my LDL's
have gone down. This exchange has been most enlightening. This gives
me another direction to explore. You biochemists can argue all you
want, but us patients out here are always looking for that little
angle that might explain these little changes we notice going on in
these aging bodies were are resigned to live in. I will shelve this
little exchange regarding LDL levels and adrenal steroids to my memory
banks... but, I read it as potential adrenal exhaustion as LDL goes
down.... hmmm... did I mention I am hypochondriac?
Truth - 16 Oct 2008 03:32 GMT
> > > x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 41 lines]
> banks... but, I read it as potential adrenal exhaustion as LDL goes
> down.... hmmm... did I mention I am hypochondriac?

And there in lies the danger of a little medical knowledge being a
harmful thing. There is no, I repeat no clinical evidence that
lowering LDLs interferes with adrenal axis function or synthesis, even
though it was hypothesized that it might. There are multiple studies
showing the advantage of lowering LDL as being protective against
atherosclerosis, coronary artery disease and strokes.

Some one who has had previous MIs wants to have the HDL as high as
possible and the LDL as low as possible.

I am not a biochemist. I am a board certified internist. It concerns
me when lay people armed with a little bit of medical information such
as that adrenal steroids are synthesized from cholesterol to make a
leap of a sweeping statement that therefore lowering LDL is bad for
the adrenal syntheses. This is unproven and flies in the face of all
of the evidence showing lower LDL is protective. In all of the studies
of lowering LDL there has not been any significant findings of adrenal
malfunction.

I would hate to think that someone such as PantryRaider who is doing
so well modifying what he can modify, would stop doing so because of
an unfounded theory about low LDL leading to low adrenal function.
Dangerous misinformation abounds on the internet. Susan is a prime
example of this.
zob - 16 Oct 2008 08:38 GMT
>I would hate to think that someone such as PantryRaider who is doing
>so well modifying what he can modify, would stop doing so because of
>an unfounded theory about low LDL leading to low adrenal function.
>Dangerous misinformation abounds on the internet. Susan is a prime
>example of this.

You are quite incorrect.  Susan is a well-respected contributor to
several newsgroups; she has done extensive research on such subjects;
she is a diabetic who has learned to control her diabetes primarily
through her diet because of her acquired knowledge.  She made a valid
point in her post, and it is *you* who would disseminate dangerous
misinformation by keeping people ignorant of the contraindications of
cholesterol levels that are too low.

Just because someone is "credentialed" as you claim to be doesn't mean
that they have common sense.   And in this case you are wrong.   At
least according to the Mayo Clinic, in whom I would place more stock
than an anonymous Usenet poster:

http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cholesterol-level/AN01394
"Some research suggests that low levels of low-density lipoprotein
(LDL), or "bad," cholesterol may be associated with an increased risk
of certain types of cancer. Other studies associate a low total
cholesterol level with depression and anxiety, perhaps because low
cholesterol may reduce levels of the brain chemical serotonin. And
pregnant women who have low total cholesterol may be more likely to
give birth prematurely and have babies who have low birth weights."
Truth - 16 Oct 2008 15:43 GMT
> >I would hate to think that someone such as PantryRaider who is doing
> >so well modifying what he can modify, would stop doing so because of
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> pregnant women who have low total cholesterol may be more likely to
> give birth prematurely and have babies who have low birth weights."

Zob, it is you who are incorrect. There is nothing in your Mayo Clinic
article that supports Susan's erroneous assertion that low LDL
cholesterol caused clinically measurable problems with adrenal
steroids.

The original poster, PantryRaider is a man with CAD who has a total
cholesterol of 173, HDL of 87, LDL of 77 and triglycerides of 47 which
is perfect for his specific medical condition and what all Type 2
diabetics or those with coronary artery disease should aim for. This
is supported by multitudes of prospective, randomized clinical trials
of which I've listed four above out of 20 or more.

Just because someone has anecdotal "experience" of her own and has
controlled her own blood sugar, doesn't mean that she has the
background, training or knowledge to draw conclusions and give
patients clinical advice derived from her faulty application of her
understanding of science. That adrenal steroids are synthesized from
LDL doesn't mean that low LDL causes clinically apparent low adrenal
function. As far as we know today, this was a hypothetical concern
only and has not yet been proven to be a valid clinical by any human
studies. Interested readers are referred to my Oct 15 349 PM post from
UptoDate, a respected, subscription-only source of medical
information.

So Zob, either cite articles supporting and confirming that low
cholesterol causes clinically measurable, symptomatic adrenal axis
dysfunction in humans or accept that Susan is mistaken in this
concept. And once you see she is mistaken perhaps you won't be so
quick to judge others who ask for proof of the source of Susan's
advice to actual patients, even though it's being done on Usenet.

Buyer beware.
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 16:08 GMT
> The original poster, PantryRaider is a man with CAD who has a total
> cholesterol of 173, HDL of 87, LDL of 77 and triglycerides of 47 which
> is perfect for his specific medical condition and what all Type 2
> diabetics or those with coronary artery disease should aim for. This
> is supported by multitudes of prospective, randomized clinical trials
> of which I've listed four above out of 20 or more.

Only in the same way that routine HRT for menopausal women as protective
against CVD, stroke, dementia was supported.  By drug company falsehoods
and doctors who get all their CME's from them, as you clearly do, and do
no critical analytic thinking about data, methodology and financial
incentives by study authors and funders.

Susan
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 16:06 GMT
>>I would hate to think that someone such as PantryRaider who is doing
>>so well modifying what he can modify, would stop doing so because of
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> misinformation by keeping people ignorant of the contraindications of
> cholesterol levels that are too low.

Thanks, whoever you are.  I also raised my HDL to 74 with diet alone,
from a decade long low of 34, reversed kidney and peripheral
neuropathies with diet and alpha lipoic acid.  My LDL is about 179, but
less than 10% of it is VLDL.  I'm sure my LDL was that high due to the
adrenal insufficiency I experienced due to chronic sinus infections and
my decades of damage from prescribed steroids that I took myself off of
a couple of years ago.

Like my mother, I have acquired quite a few life altering and
threatening iatrogenic conditions at the hands of heads of dept. and
other doctors at some of NY's most prestigious academic hospitals.
Medical credentials don't mean someone is smart, much less
knowledgeable.  Perhaps when the OP spends as much time reading the
cardiology and endocrinology  literature as I have in recent years,
he'll catch up.  :-)

> Just because someone is "credentialed" as you claim to be doesn't mean
> that they have common sense.   And in this case you are wrong.   At
[quoted text clipped - 9 lines]
> pregnant women who have low total cholesterol may be more likely to
> give birth prematurely and have babies who have low birth weights."

Actually, lowering adrenal steroids, more than serotonin (a drug target,
but not necessarily the cause of depression) causes depression, or
excess of cortisol, too.  In fact, resistant depression, bipolar
disorder and even psychoses are often quickly reversed by use fo
mifepristone, a steroid receptor blocker that up regulates both steroid
receptor numbers and sensitivity.

There's no doubt, IMO, that disregulating the HPA axis, which controls
immune function, is the reason that statins cause fatigue, neuromuscular
damage, and cancer.

The fact that discussion is afoot to rx these drugs to developing
children is horrifying.

Susan
zob - 16 Oct 2008 23:33 GMT
>x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
>Thanks, whoever you are.

Sorry, Susan, I forgot to change my username in Forté Agent back from
the one I use in another NG I post to.   I'm Peter Marengo.
Susan - 17 Oct 2008 00:44 GMT
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
[quoted text clipped - 16 lines]
> Sorry, Susan, I forgot to change my username in Forté Agent back from
> the one I use in another NG I post to.   I'm Peter Marengo.

Hi, Peter, how are you doing?

Susan
Truth - 16 Oct 2008 16:24 GMT
> >I would hate to think that someone such as PantryRaider who is doing
> >so well modifying what he can modify, would stop doing so because of
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> pregnant women who have low total cholesterol may be more likely to
> give birth prematurely and have babies who have low birth weights."

Other than being written by a Mayo Clinic doctor for the non medical
public, there is no citations of any primary sources in that Mayo
article and a quick literature search turns up opinion pieces, also
without cites to primary sources in the naturopathic and chiropractic
literature. Plus, the Mayo article doesn't discuss at all that low LDL
can cause measurable low adrenal function.

I may be an anonymous Usenet poster, but I've also given you citations
and articles from mainstream, scientific, peer-reviewed sources.That
is more than Zob or Susan has done to date. Here are reputable studies
and opinions stating that lowering LDL cholesterol has no clinically
important effect on adrenal steroids and function:

http://jcem.endojournals.org/cgi/content/abstract/54/1/27

http://www.uptodate.com/patients/content/topic.do?topicKey=~cGCGfyb9DFhl9I&selec
tedTitle=29~35&source=search_result


http://lib.bioinfo.pl/auth:Isaacsohn,

All Susan has posted so far was a link to a clinical trial done in
Turkey. Although the trial was completed, the results are not yet
posted, : http://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT00433823 Yet Susan
goes on to insist that she has had to "spoon feed" me information when
she has not given any information at all.

The issue at hand is whether lowering LDL causes clinical,
symptomatic, decrease in adrenal hormones to the extent where the risk
of lowering the LDL outweighs the benefit. I say it does not and I can
safely advise my coronary artery disease and Type 2 diabetics to shoot
for a goal of LDL less than 70. That is also the accepted guideline in
all of the major, allopathic, evidence-based medical advisory groups.

If Susan wants to go contrary to this accepted advice, the burden of
proof is now upon her to support her argument. Opinion pieces don't
count.
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 17:27 GMT
> Other than being written by a Mayo Clinic doctor for the non medical
> public, there is no citations of any primary sources in that Mayo
[quoted text clipped - 31 lines]
> proof is now upon her to support her argument. Opinion pieces don't
> count.

 Listen, I don't have the time to educate you about cyp 450 enzyme
pathway activation, variants in glucocorticoid steroid receptor
performance in kindreds, nor should I have to provide citations for what
you should have learned before you were unleashed on an unsuspecting
public to practice ignorantly on them.

This is basic biochemistry; have you *heard* of the endocrine feedback
loop?  Are you debating LDL or ther cholesterols as the material for
steroid synthesis?  Are you really so woefully ignorant of the impact of
insulinemia on cortisol synthesis and cortisol binding globulin?
Clearly the answers are "yes."

I'm not going to bother to try and force feed you the education you
should have had before you began settling for collecting money for being
a drug delivery provider instead of a knowledgeable clinical practitioner.

Susan
Susan
listener - 16 Oct 2008 17:37 GMT
Susan <nevermind@nomail.com> wrote in news:6lp8a8Fd9ehgU1
@mid.individual.net:

>   Listen, I don't have the time to educate you about cyp 450 enzyme
> pathway activation, variants in glucocorticoid steroid receptor
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Susan
> Susan

One can only imagine the horrific bedside manner you would display if, in
fact, you were any kind of degreed medical professional.

L.
Truth - 16 Oct 2008 17:45 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 52 lines]
> Susan
> Susan

Susan, it is you who turned this into an ad hominem argument in the
first place. You continue your bad behavior by not offering sources
for your claims and by accusing me of "collecting money for being a
drug delivery provider instead of a knowledgeable clinical
practitioner. You know nothing about me or my background or my
practice, so let's stick to verifiable, published reports in the
current medical literature instead.

Cite your sources as pertaining to the topic in the original post.
Show where there are  clinical, human, prospective studies showing
that low LDL has caused clinically significant adrenal axis problems.
Your Turkish citation is an ongoing trial without any reported results
and that's all you've posted to date. That doesn't in any way shape or
form support your claim and your own personal experience is anecdotal
and an N=1. It's worthless to apply it to others.

Please keep the topic to that of the original poster who asked about
HDL and LDL as pertaining to his coronary artery disease.
listener - 16 Oct 2008 18:56 GMT
Truth <yamantaka@aol.com> wrote in news:175a9d0e-8935-47b9-aa42-
436acd8ae297@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:

>> x-no-archive: yes
>>
[quoted text clipped - 71 lines]
> Please keep the topic to that of the original poster who asked about
> HDL and LDL as pertaining to his coronary artery disease.

You're wasting your time.

L.
Truth - 16 Oct 2008 21:10 GMT
> Truth <yamant...@aol.com> wrote in news:175a9d0e-8935-47b9-aa42-
> 436acd8ae...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 94 lines]
>
> L.

Hi Listener. I don't care if Susan changes her tune or not. I do want
it on the record that she is proven wrong and that she has not
supported he anecdotal claims that lowering LDL to the levels advised
for coronary artery patients will cause clinically significant changes
in the adrenal steroids. Having LDL below 70 and HDL greater than 40
for these patients remains the standard of care and is amply supported
by multiple, large studies.
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 23:24 GMT
> Hi Listener. I don't care if Susan changes her tune or not. I do want
> it on the record that she is proven wrong and that she has not
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> for these patients remains the standard of care and is amply supported
> by multiple, large studies.

I haven't been proven wrong, just google it up if you can't read
journals in cardiology, endocrinology, molecular biology or  lipids
research.

Only thing I've done wrong is waste minutes of my life arguing with an
ignorant dope.

Susan
Truth - 17 Oct 2008 00:42 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> Susan

Susan you have been proven wrong because you *are* wrong. If you
continue to insist lowering LDL to the currently recommended level of
less than 70 for those with coronary artery disease and Type II DM
causes clinically evident problems with the adrenal steroids, then
cite one source amount the hundreds you claim to have read. Find one
respected expert anywhere and cite him or her. Your failure to do so
and your resorting to ad hominem insults shows that you are the one
who is the "ignorant dope."

A little bit of medical knowledge, misapplied as you have done is a
dangerous thing. You are talking out of your a.s. Just because adrenal
hormones are made of cholesterol doesn't mean that low cholesterol
equals low adrenal hormones as you are trying to imply. If it's all
over journals in cardiology, endocrinology, lipids research then you
Google one of those and cite a study that shows that low cholesterol
clinically affects the adrenal steroids in humans. Back up your
statement with some verifiable studies.

I've cited multiple journal articles and other respected sources
stating that there isn't a clinically significant effect. You've cited
one Turkish clinical trial that is ongoing and has not yet reported
any results.

You have no science to back up your claims. Instead of getting
defensive and angry that someone has called you on your flawed
thinking, if you think you are correct then prove it. That's what
adults in the medical and scientific fields do. They don't sit there
and say, "I had this happen to me and so did my mother so that proves
it, " as you are trying to do. And they don't call a physician who is
up to date with the standard of care as far as lipid treatment and
coronary artery disease an "ignorant dope" for challenging your
uneducated, untrained, quackery view point.
Susan - 17 Oct 2008 00:45 GMT
>>x-no-archive: yes
>>
[quoted text clipped - 47 lines]
> coronary artery disease an "ignorant dope" for challenging your
> uneducated, untrained, quackery view point.

You're boring and dumb and have not refuted one single assertion of mine
with any scientific knowledge or citation, which means you have none or
you're too dumb to find them.

I'm so done.

Susan
Truth - 17 Oct 2008 02:42 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>
> Susan

Wrong, Susan. You are acting like a pouting, petulant child. I have
cited ample articles from reputable sources in this thread while you
haven't cited one to support your argument that LDL lowered to less
than 70 causes clinically harmful derangements in the adrenal hormones
in humans.. Are you too lazy to click on the links or read the
articles I've provided? You are running your mouth off and giving
dangerous, nonstandard, unsubstantiated medical advice on a
sci.med.cardiology newsgroup.

I've posted citations supporting my claim. You have not done the same.
It's up to you to prove your points, although I've already shown you
are wrong. Saying you've read scads and oodles of articles supporting
your view means nothing if you are unable or unwilling to produce at
least a few citations.

So keep throwing the ad hominem insults my way. It shows that you are
unable to counter with actual, evidence-based, published studies.

You are acting like Chung does in this respect. This is what you sound
like on this thread, "It's my way because I say so and anyone who
disagrees with me is Satan." What's next? Are you also going to claim
that low cholesterol causes chronic systemic candidiasis?
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 17 Oct 2008 09:45 GMT
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/0ad49f78d54cdd4e?

<><

"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/298d4d9131be066d?
Truth - 18 Oct 2008 04:45 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 57 lines]
>
> Susan

Susan being unable to post any citations supporting her claim that low
LDL cholesterol (per current guidelines of less than 70 for secondary
prevention in Type II diabetics and those with coronary artery
disease) causes clinically significant detectable problems with
adrenal steroids is noted. It doesn't happen therefore there are no
prospective studies in peer reviewed journals stating it does. Yet
Susan claims to have read lots and lots of them and calls any who ask
her to post the links, "boring and dumb."

Meanwhile I've posted several citations and also excerpts of respected
online sources stating that the lowering of LDL does not interfere in
a clinically significant way with adrenal steroid synthesis and
function, even though yes, adrenal steroids are made from
cholesterol.

Beware of people without formal training or education in medical
fields who claim to know more that those who have had years of
evidence-based training and experience, just because they or their
mother or their dog have anecdotal experience. A little bit of medical
knowledge misapplied broadly is a dangerous and irresponsible.
listener - 19 Oct 2008 17:26 GMT
Truth <yamantaka@aol.com> wrote in news:2ecd3d73-63d9-4485-89a4-
0ac33e893a90@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:

> Beware of people without formal training or education in medical
> fields who claim to know more that those who have had years of
> evidence-based training and experience, just because they or their
> mother or their dog have anecdotal experience. A little bit of medical
> knowledge misapplied broadly is a dangerous and irresponsible.

Well said.

Of course, you're posting this in a newsgroup that is, practically
speaking, owned by a psychotic lunatic - Dr. Chung.

So, there really are no guarentees either way.

L.
laurahalvarson - 19 Oct 2008 17:57 GMT
> Truth <yamant...@aol.com> wrote in news:2ecd3d73-63d9-4485-89a4-
> 0ac33e893...@v72g2000hsv.googlegroups.com:
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>
> L.

Vast medical knowledge misapplied can also be dangerous and
irresponsible.  Dr. Chung's postings are truthful and have more
healing power than most here understand.  Truth is simple.  Thank you
Andrew for making it so easy to understand the simple Truth.

Love, Laura Lynn Halvarson

THE PATIENT WHO REFUSED TO DIE
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 19 Oct 2008 18:58 GMT
> > satan masquerading as truth via a sockpuppet posted:
> >
[quoted text clipped - 17 lines]
> healing power than most here understand.  Truth is simple.  Thank you
> Andrew for making it so easy to understand the simple Truth.

Laus Deo :-)

<><

"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43acbc5ea248ceee?
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 23:22 GMT
> Susan, it is you who turned this into an ad hominem argument in the
> first place. You continue your bad behavior by not offering sources
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
> Please keep the topic to that of the original poster who asked about
> HDL and LDL as pertaining to his coronary artery disease.

The sources I've read are in the hundreds.  I'm not going to launch a
search for every text or peer reviewed journal I've read over the past
10 years just because your basic medical education is inadequate or long
forgotten.

I've made assertions you can look up instead of diddling yourself here
on usenet, which no doctor adequately caring for a significant caseload
has time to do.

Susan
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 17 Oct 2008 02:35 GMT
<snip>
> I've made assertions you can look up instead of diddling yourself here
> on usenet, which no doctor adequately caring for a significant caseload
> has time to do.

Lawyers have caseloads while doctors have patients.

Writing and posting on usenet remains possible for busy doctors with
GOD's help :-)

<><

"... no one can say 'Jesus is LORD' except by the Holy Spirit." (1 Cor
12:3)

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/43acbc5ea248ceee?
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 15:58 GMT
> I am not a biochemist. I am a board certified internist. It concerns
> me when lay people armed with a little bit of medical information such
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> Dangerous misinformation abounds on the internet. Susan is a prime
> example of this.

I'd hate to think anyone would rely upon you for medical knowledge or
clinical care.

LDL has been proven to be the worst indicator of CVD risk.  TGLs are the
best, particularly when seen in ratio with HDL.  LDL doesn't cause CVD,
it's marker, same as HDL is, for a certain type of metabolism.  When
TGLs are low and HDL high, as occurs with carbohydrate restriction or
within certain kindreds heritably, then even LDL in the hundreds is non
atherogenic.

My mother died with high LDL, high HDL and low TGLs. Her arteries and
veins, imaged and operated on in the last days of her life were "clean
as a healthy 40 year old's."  She had no plaque nor blockage a few years
before on imaging.  The author of phlaunt.com/diabetes has a family
pattern of non atherogenic LDL and her father died at 95 of none CVD
causes after a lifetime of LDL over 300.  It was large, bouyant, none
atherogenic LDL, not VLDL.

LDL is an inappropriate target for prevention; but it's a mighty
profitable way to sell drugs, and to earn rewards from drug companies
for rx'ing statins when it's hard for docs to make money doing what they
should be doing.

Susan
Susan - 16 Oct 2008 15:52 GMT
> well... hmmm....  I just know that I have felt less robust as my LDL's
> have gone down. This exchange has been most enlightening. This gives
[quoted text clipped - 5 lines]
> banks... but, I read it as potential adrenal exhaustion as LDL goes
> down.... hmmm... did I mention I am hypochondriac?

I'm not a biochemist, I'm a patient, and the child of a parent who
suffered horribly from statin injury by a drug she never needed.

The fact is that the endocrine system is an exqusitely sensitive
feedback loop.  Change anything, the level of one hormone or transport
protein, and the message is delivered and responded to by every other
part of the loop.
commonly due to dietary induced hyperinsulinemia or statin or other drug
therapy,  (high levels of insulin inhibit steroidogenesis and cortisol
binding globulin, the protein that delivers cortisol to cells) your body
attempts to supply more of the building material (LDL) to restore
adequate adrenal support levels.

Susan
Truth - 15 Oct 2008 23:49 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Susan

From UptoDate:

INTRODUCTION — The major adrenal steroid hormones are synthesized in
different areas of the adrenal cortex: glucocorticoids (particularly
cortisol), androgens, and estrogens in the zona fasciculata and
reticularis; and aldosterone in the zona glomerulosa. The steps
involved in the production of these hormones will be reviewed here. An
appreciation of these pathways serves as the basis for understanding
the different forms of congenital adrenal hyperplasia (CAH) and
isolated hypoaldosteronism in which there are defects in the function
of the enzymes involved in adrenal steroid synthesis. (Also see
"Anatomy and development of the adrenal cortex").

CHOLESTEROL SUBSTRATE — Cholesterol is the substrate for the synthesis
of all steroid hormones. The cells of the adrenal cortex can either
take up cholesterol from the circulation or synthesize cholesterol de
novo from acetate. In humans the majority of the cholesterol for
adrenal steroidogenesis is believed to be provided by serum low-
density lipoproteins (LDL) [1-3] , which are delivered to the interior
of adrenocortical cells via specific cell surface receptors for LDL
[4,5] .

High-density-lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol also serves as an important
source of substrate for human adrenal steroidogenesis. In patients in
whom delivery of LDL cholesterol to the adrenal is impaired, basal
adrenal steroidogenesis is normal. Patients with abetalipoproteinemia,
a heritable deficiency of apolipoprotein B production and no LDL in
serum, and patients with familial hypercholesterolemia caused by
defects in the LDL receptor system have normal basal cortisol
production [6,7] . These patients do have subtle impairment of
cortisol synthesis during prolonged corticotropin (ACTH) stimulation
[6,7] , but it is not clinically important [3] . Furthermore, chronic
treatment with pravastatin, an HMG-CoA reductase inhibitor, which
reduces serum LDL cholesterol concentrations by 25 percent, has no
effect upon basal or ACTH-stimulated cortisol secretion [8] . These
clinical observations suggest that either de novo cholesterol
synthesis or other sources of extracellular cholesterol, such as HDL,
must support at least basal adrenal steroidogenesis.

A receptor system for HDL was first characterized in adrenal and other
steroidogenic tissues in mice [9,10] . This SR-BI (scavenger receptor,
class B, type I) receptor transfers HDL cholesterol into cells without
endocytosis of the entire lipoprotein particle, as occurs with LDL
[9] . Expression of SR-B1 is stimulated by activation of adenylyl
cyclase, suppressed by the intracellular level of cholesterol,
positively regulated by the transcription factor, steroidogenic
factor-1 (SF-1), sterol regulatory element-binding protein 1a
(SREBP-1a), and cofactors such as promoter-specific transcription
factor (Sp1). It is negatively regulated by the dosage-sensitive sex
reversal-adrenal hypoplasia gene on the X chromosome, gene 1 (DAX-1)
transcription factor [11,12] . Patients heterozygous for inactivating
SF-1 mutations have adrenal insufficiency [13] . Dax-1(- /Y) mice have
normal basal serum corticosterone levels and have greater
corticosterone responses to ACTH than wild-type mice [14] . SR-B1
knockout mice have lipid-depleted adrenocortical cells and high serum
HDL cholesterol concentrations [15] . The human homolog of SR-B1,
called CLA-1, is expressed in liver and steroidogenic cells and
transfers HDL cholesterol into cultured adrenal cells [16,17] .

The amount of free intracellular cholesterol available for adrenal
steroidogenesis is metabolically regulated. Receptor-mediated uptake
of LDL inhibits cholesterol synthesis by reducing the activity of
hydroxymethylglutaryl (HMG) CoA reductase, the rate-limiting enzyme in
cholesterol biosynthesis; it also stimulates esterification of the
imported cholesterol and downregulates the number of cell-surface LDL
receptors [18] . On the other hand, ACTH increases the number of LDL
receptors on the cell surface; it also increases the activity of the
cholesterol esterase that liberates free cholesterol from cholesteryl
esters delivered by LDL or stored in lipid droplets. Both of these
effects increase the amount of free intracellular cholesterol
[19,20] . ACTH also upregulates in vivo expression of the adrenal HDL
receptor SR-B1 in mice [21] . ACTH does not stimulate HMG CoA
reductase activity or alter the ability of LDL to inhibit this enzyme
[19,20] .
Truth - 15 Oct 2008 23:58 GMT
> x-no-archive: yes
>
[quoted text clipped - 24 lines]
>
> Susan

From Uptodate:

Clinical trials of cholesterol lowering in patients with coronary
heart disease or coronary risk equivalents
Author
Robert S Rosenson, MD
    Section Editor
Mason W Freeman, MD
    Deputy Editor
David M Rind, MD

Last literature review version 16.2: May 2008  |  This topic last
updated: April 12, 2008   (More)

INTRODUCTION — The preeminent role of LDL-cholesterol in the
pathogenesis and perpetuation of atherosclerotic vascular disease has
emerged from many sources [1-4] . The Lipid Research Clinics
Prevalence Study, for example, evaluated the influence of lipids on 10-
year cumulative coronary heart disease (CHD) death rates in patients
with and without CHD [2] . The CHD death rate increased at higher
plasma concentrations of total and LDL-cholesterol for both cohorts,
but the impact of elevated lipid levels was significantly greater in
subjects with preexisting CHD (show figure 1).

The major clinical trials that have addressed cholesterol lowering for
the secondary prevention of coronary events are reviewed here,
including trials in patients with coronary risk equivalents. Coronary
risk equivalents include (see "Overview of treatment of
hypercholesterolemia"):

   * Diabetes mellitus
   * Symptomatic carotid artery disease
   * Peripheral arterial disease
   * Abdominal aortic aneurysm
   * Multiple risk factors that confer a 10-year risk of CHD >20
percent

#  Ballantyne, CM, Grundy, SM, Oberman, A, et al. Hyperlipidemia:
diagnostic and therapeutic perspectives. J Clin Endocrinol Metab 2000;
85:2089.
# Pekkanen, J, Linn, S, Heiss, G, et al. Ten-year mortality from
cardiovascular disease in relation to cholesterol level among men with
and without preexisting cardiovascular disease. N Engl J Med 1990;
322:1700.
# Rosengren, A, Hagman, M, Wedel, H, et al. Serum cholesterol and long-
term prognosis in middle-aged men with myocardial infarction and
angina pectoris. A 16-year follow-up of the Primary Prevention Study
in Goteborg, Sweden. Eur Heart J 1997; 18:754.
# Third report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP)
Expert Panel on detection, evaluation, and treatment of high blood
cholesterol in adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). Circulation 2002;
106:3143.

There are many more completed, published, peer reviewed trials
supporting the safety of lower LDL cholesterol and the benefits in
secondary prevention of heart attacks and strokes. In all of these
trials with thousands of participants, finding problems with the
adrenal axis due to lowering the cholesterol has not been noted.
PantryRaider - 15 Oct 2008 17:57 GMT
> > I have my cholesterol checked twice a year. I just got test results
> > back.
[quoted text clipped - 46 lines]
>
> - Show quoted text -

I now take 20mg generic Zocor, a 325mg coated aspirin, 4mg of generic
Cardura, and 50 mcg Levothyroxine daily. I also take vitamin
supplements, including 250mg of niacin that I have taken daily for
many years.

Back in 1999 when I infarcted 3 times in 3 months, my total
cholesterol was 308. The diagnosis from the angiogram was diffuse
disease that could not be intervened upon. I got off the high fat food
and the junk food and the fast food. I did not own a stove since I ate
all my meals out or ate out of the microwave. I bought a stove and
read all about nutritional stuff and bought cookbooks and learned how
to prepare healthy meals and quit eating in the drive-thru. I started
exercising. I lost 70lb. Blood pressure went from 150/100 to 100/60
over the last 9 years. Proof that eating right and losing weight and
exercising works more than anything else.
Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD - 15 Oct 2008 18:18 GMT
> > > I have my cholesterol checked twice a year. I just got test results
> > > back.
[quoted text clipped - 51 lines]
> over the last 9 years. Proof that eating right and losing weight and
> exercising works more than anything else.

Your still needing medications would be an indication that you have
not been cured yet.

It remains the collective clinical experience of those of us who have
an understanding that VAT is the root cause of cardiovascular disease
that the cure (no longer needing medications) does not occur until the
VAT is gone.

It is only by being hungrier (healthier) from doing everything right
(eating the right amount, eating the right foods, being with the right
people, and doing the right things) that we lose all the VAT.

May you and other dear neighbors, friends, and brethren have a
blessedly wonderful 2008th year since the birth of our LORD Jesus
Christ as our Messiah, the Son of Man ...

... by being hungrier:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f891e617d10bd689?

Hunger is wonderful ! ! !

It's how we know the answer to the question "What does Jesus
want?" (WDJW):

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/f43db72a7c5c1da0?

Yes, hunger is our knowledge of good versus evil that Adam and Eve
paid for with their and our immortal lives:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/52a3db8576495806?

"Blessed are you who hunger NOW...

... for you will be satisfied." -- LORD Jesus Christ (Luke 6:21)

Amen.

Here is a Spirit-guided exegesis of Luke 6:21 given in hopes of
promoting much greater understanding:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/cc2aa8f8a4d41360?

Be hungrier, which is truly healthier:

http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/991d4e30704307e7?

Marana tha

Prayerfully in the awesome name of our Messiah, LORD Jesus Christ,

Andrew <><
--
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.med.cardiology/msg/3558812d72ab4e17?
listener - 16 Oct 2008 17:33 GMT
PantryRaider <pantryraider@aol.com> wrote in news:0b93b455-c259-4a60-
bc07-d5fa7a3873a1@h60g2000hsg.googlegroups.com:

>> > I have my cholesterol checked twice a year. I just got test results
>> > back.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>> > more important than the HDL level? Or the ratio of HDL to total
>> > cholesterol more important?

>>>Should I worry about my total cholesterol
>> > trending up?

No. Your numbers, generally speaking, are great. You're also better off
ignoring the armchair suggestions from Susan and the delusional medical
advice from "Dr." Chung.

Sounds to me like you're doing a great job taking care of yourself.

L.
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2009 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.