darock_sayz
09-15-2006, 07:18 PM
The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD
Has anyone on this board read the above book....just wanted to know what the boards thoughts were on this ? I am thinking of picking it up for a read.
Has anyone on this board read the above book....just wanted to know what the boards thoughts were on this ? I am thinking of picking it up for a read.
Sponsor
NHone
09-15-2006, 07:45 PM
I had read it. I thought it was a very interesting book. Well worth the time. People whol are convinced that cholesterol is the culprit that clogs arteries don't like the book. A lot of it is just plain Bio-chemistry and it makes a lot of sense. Bio-chemistry is what most doctors are sorely lacking in.
vipergg22
09-15-2006, 11:22 PM
For more intersting reading along the same lines , web on over to [removed].
Lenin
09-16-2006, 09:21 AM
Uffe's basic premise is that the medical profession has it all wrong and that a high cholesterol is your FRIEND.
There's always that type on the fringe who will spout contrary "opinions" to sell books.
Their harm comes when they start killing people who follow their edicts instead of following proper protocols.
But, who knows, every century or so, one of these guys is proven right, but alas, the great majority are quacks. If they are claiming a cure for acne, no harm done but the ones who spout contra-thinking about heart disease, cancer cures, or AIDS not caused by HIV are KILLERS. But the books sell.
There's always that type on the fringe who will spout contrary "opinions" to sell books.
Their harm comes when they start killing people who follow their edicts instead of following proper protocols.
But, who knows, every century or so, one of these guys is proven right, but alas, the great majority are quacks. If they are claiming a cure for acne, no harm done but the ones who spout contra-thinking about heart disease, cancer cures, or AIDS not caused by HIV are KILLERS. But the books sell.
chj
09-16-2006, 12:33 PM
The trouble is, how DO you know that Uffe is not right? There is another book written by Anthony Colpo called the great cholesterol con, which makes very interesting reading. There are over a thousand medical references in the book which you can check out for your self. If you want to write a book to earn a lot of money, why not jump on the bandwagon and write about how dangerous cholesterol is. Why bother saying the opposite if it is not true? I think a title like the horrendous dangers of cholesterol would sell much better, since most people seems to be absolutely terrified by the prospect of having anything over 200. Honestly, there are som many conflicting theories so it is difficult who to believe:dizzy: I must say that I think the theory of inflammation sounds very logical to me and that numbers are not that important unless someone has serious health problems.I shudder every time when I go into the supermarket and see rows upon rows with yoghurts and margarines that we now have to eat to stay alive and the massive campaign of the drug companies to tell us how dangerous life is unless, of course ,we start to take their drugs. Indoctrination on a big scale I would say!
NHone
09-16-2006, 08:43 PM
I think you're right. Unfortunately many people haved jumped on the "cholesterol is nasty" bandwagon. They forgot to read the plaque on the bandwagon that says.."sponsered by xxx drug company..the maker of XXX" The people that write the books on the untruths about cholesterol don't just write them with their thoughts. As you said, there are hundreds of references to back up what they write. The wheel will fall off of the cholesterol bandwagon....I believe sooner than later. The statin study report coming out in December should help this along.
ARIZONA73
09-17-2006, 10:09 AM
I think that sooner or later the medical profession will have no other alternative than to reverse course and move in another direction. For several decades they have been viciously attacking the messenger(cholesterol), but have made very little progress in conquering heart disease. The only ones who are reaping any real benefits are the drug companies, whose profits have gone through roof. But other than that, I can't see where very much has been accomplished.
Lenin
09-17-2006, 12:13 PM
chj,
How does one recognize truth? Always a tough cookie.
One can experiment and find out for oneself or one can weight the opinions of others. If 100 say one thing and 2 say another, odds are good that the 100 are correct.
Life is odds.
Laetrile, anyone? Sitting in an orgone box to get the energy of the universe to cure madness? Blood letting? Faith healing? Slaughtering rhinos for hard erections. Glucosamine, chondroitin, X-rays, copper bracelets or trips to Lourdes for arthritis?
The world is only too ready to provide quackery...yeh pays yer money and yeh get yer CURE...or paperback.
How do you recognize quackery? Usually by falling for several of the schemes. Eventually, even the dimmest bulb shows a bit of light and a lesson is learned, a little diligent skepticism is developed, and the next scam that sweeps the world for 6 months is firmly resisited.
How do I know that ground up grapefruit seeds won't cause rapid weight loss? Because I am too smart to fall for that kind of nonsense, yet again. Maybe some people have an endless supply of time and money to waste on foolishness...I don't.
How does one recognize truth? Always a tough cookie.
One can experiment and find out for oneself or one can weight the opinions of others. If 100 say one thing and 2 say another, odds are good that the 100 are correct.
Life is odds.
Laetrile, anyone? Sitting in an orgone box to get the energy of the universe to cure madness? Blood letting? Faith healing? Slaughtering rhinos for hard erections. Glucosamine, chondroitin, X-rays, copper bracelets or trips to Lourdes for arthritis?
The world is only too ready to provide quackery...yeh pays yer money and yeh get yer CURE...or paperback.
How do you recognize quackery? Usually by falling for several of the schemes. Eventually, even the dimmest bulb shows a bit of light and a lesson is learned, a little diligent skepticism is developed, and the next scam that sweeps the world for 6 months is firmly resisited.
How do I know that ground up grapefruit seeds won't cause rapid weight loss? Because I am too smart to fall for that kind of nonsense, yet again. Maybe some people have an endless supply of time and money to waste on foolishness...I don't.
ARIZONA73
09-17-2006, 12:41 PM
Honestly, there are som many conflicting theories so it is difficult who to believe:dizzy: I must say that I think the theory of inflammation sounds very logical to me and that numbers are not that important unless someone has serious health problems.
Inflammation sounds more plausible to me, too. I think that the medical profession will soon begin to take a more active interest in this, and will begin to focus more of their attention on inflammatory risk factors. I believe that would be a start in the right direction. After all, heart disease doesn't discriminate based on a cholesterol number. It affects people with both high, normal, and even low levels. I also do not believe that saturated fat is anywhere near as bad as they make it out to be, and that people haven't been doing themselves any favors by following a low-fat diet. As a result, people are consuming more sugar and refined carbohydrates, believing that they are better off, since they are restricting fats. But are they? I don't think so. It is a fact that refined carbohydrates and sugar are pro-inflammatory substances. So, I think we need to take a closer look at what we're eating, because I believe that many people are making a very big mistake by restricting fats and loading up on carbohydrates. I also feel that many people are suffering from deficiencies, and should be taking supplements, especially the antioxidants.
Inflammation sounds more plausible to me, too. I think that the medical profession will soon begin to take a more active interest in this, and will begin to focus more of their attention on inflammatory risk factors. I believe that would be a start in the right direction. After all, heart disease doesn't discriminate based on a cholesterol number. It affects people with both high, normal, and even low levels. I also do not believe that saturated fat is anywhere near as bad as they make it out to be, and that people haven't been doing themselves any favors by following a low-fat diet. As a result, people are consuming more sugar and refined carbohydrates, believing that they are better off, since they are restricting fats. But are they? I don't think so. It is a fact that refined carbohydrates and sugar are pro-inflammatory substances. So, I think we need to take a closer look at what we're eating, because I believe that many people are making a very big mistake by restricting fats and loading up on carbohydrates. I also feel that many people are suffering from deficiencies, and should be taking supplements, especially the antioxidants.
chj
09-17-2006, 01:39 PM
Well, I think the odds are getting closer to 50-50 regarding the cholesterol issue. Bloodletting was a very popular cure doctors performed often. Quackery or science? Prescribing statins for people unless their level is under 200. Quackery or science? The book "the great cholesterol con" by Colpo, is by no means just a paperback. It is very well researched and nobody could call it quackery.Lenin, try and get hold of a copy, maybe from the library, and see what you make of it. Statins are very powerful drugs that interfers with many things in your body, sometimes with terrible results. I think doctors must start to think very seriously about this issue, before prescribing them any old how.Profit must not come into it. I quite agree with arizona that nutrition and what we eat is the biggest issue. Peoples health are getting worse because of fast and processed food and dangerous hydrogenetic vegetable oils. I saw a very disurbing item on the news the other day from a school in England, where they have started to give the pupils healthy food only. Most of the pupils refused to eat it and their mothers was standing outside the school gates at break time to take food orders from the kids and then went to the local take away and got sausages and burgers dripping in oil and chips fried in goodness knows what and fizzy drinks. Sad, no wonder people get sick.
NHone
09-18-2006, 12:49 AM
Most of the known world thought the world was flat.... Was it? Doctors and drug companies are already pushing more on HDL...and getting slowly and descreetly away for just using the total cholesterol number. It is only a matter of time, before cholesterol will not be in "fashion".
Lenin
09-18-2006, 11:04 AM
On the other hand most people "know" that exiting a high floor window and flapping arms will result in death...DOES IT?
But I'm sure there have been a couple fools here and there who have tried to fly away.
:wave:
Get the mop!
I agree, the total cholesterol number has been superceded by finer delineations of the most atherogenic compounds...but there is still meaning to a total cholesterol reading over 300 and the meaning is still dire. And a person with a +200 LDL is very likely to develop heart disease unless he dies young. That won't change.
Understanding the intracies of the bloods lipid constituents is an unfolding picture...but that doesn't mean that the earlier limited views were not valid, only less complete.
Finding that there are 3 different HDL's does not negate the negative impact of LDL, VLDL, or Lp(a).
Uffe Ravsnovsky is an almost exact parallel of Peter Duesberg, the attle-brained theorist of the deadly school of thought that insists that HIV does NOT cause AIDS. The whacko mentality is the same, only the fatal disease has changed.
But I'm sure there have been a couple fools here and there who have tried to fly away.
:wave:
Get the mop!
I agree, the total cholesterol number has been superceded by finer delineations of the most atherogenic compounds...but there is still meaning to a total cholesterol reading over 300 and the meaning is still dire. And a person with a +200 LDL is very likely to develop heart disease unless he dies young. That won't change.
Understanding the intracies of the bloods lipid constituents is an unfolding picture...but that doesn't mean that the earlier limited views were not valid, only less complete.
Finding that there are 3 different HDL's does not negate the negative impact of LDL, VLDL, or Lp(a).
Uffe Ravsnovsky is an almost exact parallel of Peter Duesberg, the attle-brained theorist of the deadly school of thought that insists that HIV does NOT cause AIDS. The whacko mentality is the same, only the fatal disease has changed.
NHone
09-18-2006, 04:18 PM
Unfortunately long term "real life" studies of elderly people have shown without a doubt that the people with the highest cholesterol, (including those over 300), and the highest LDL (the supposed bad kind) live the longest. ALso none of the studies to date have shown that lowering cholesterol has shown any increase in longevity to women. I agree that when someone jumps from a high window, the results will be fatal. WHy...we have seen the evidence.... On the other hand the long term studies on elderly show that higher cholesterol in elderly equates to longer longevity...why? we have seen the evidence. (or at least these people claim to be alive)... alas you can't always believe everything you see and hear. I tend to believe the elderly people in the studies would agree that they are indeed alive.