Medical Forum / General / Cardiology / October 2008
HDL ratio more important than total cholesterol?
|
|
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.
|
|
|