I am now convinced that the theory that high cholesterol causes heart disease has been created by the drug companies and the American Heart Association to sell cholesterol lowering drugs. And angiograms, angioplasty, and bypass surgery offer no advantage at all to the great majority of heart patients but they do allow surgeons, hospitals, and all sorts of other players to make billions at the expense of the patients. Read Heart Frauds by Charles McGee and Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks by Matthias Rath and you will see why. They are both MDs and they both say that your body uses cholesterol, calcium and other blood fats to repair the lesions in your arteries which happen when you don't get enough vitamins, C, B vitamins, E. The first time I checked my cholesterol in 1983 it was 305 and now it is about 283 to 300. The doctors wanted to put me on statins and they had me do a heart scan and carotid ultra sound during the last year and both showed that I had zero plaque. My blood pressure has always been around 110-120 over 65-70. The high cholesterol did not cause any plaque in my arteries because I have been taking vitamins since the early1980s. Here are two intriguing questions: why does high cholesterol causes plaque when low cholesterol doesn't according to the medical experts? And since arterial plaque is mostly calcium and cholesterol, why all the fuss about lowering blood cholesterol and not the calcium level in your blood? They are both components of arterial plaque. Maybe they don't have a drug that can lower calcium but they are making their money on statins. Just follow the money trail to find the answer. Look at all those statins TV commercials. They are making billions. Ask your doctor to give you the studies and evidence that show that high cholesterol cause heart disease.

Yes... it seems to be a decision between two evils... I'm hoping niacin plays a good non-partisain role...

I quite agree with you aamsaams1. I was frightened half to death by my doctor who said if I didn´t start taking statins, it would just be a matter of time before I had a heart attack. I took them for a couple of years, but then after reading a lot of reports and listening to peoples experiences with them I decided to stop. I feel so much better now. I then started to go away from a low fat diet and started to eat more animal fat and hey presto my HDL went up. I think it is frightening how we are constantly being lied to by the drug and food industry and how they cook their books for more profit. The rubbish that the food industry produce is what gets us ill like hydrogenetic vegetable oils trans fats etc, margarines and yoghurts that have additives that they claim we have to eat not to suffer heart desease . My feelings are, and a lot of others, is that animal fat is not what gives us heart failure, it is the above rubbish that is the real cause.

I quite agree with you aamsaams1. I was frightened half to death by my doctor who said if I didn´t start taking statins, it would just be a matter of time before I had a heart attack. I took them for a couple of years, but then after reading a lot of reports and listening to peoples experiences with them I decided to stop. I feel so much better now. I then started to go away from a low fat diet and started to eat more animal fat and hey presto my HDL went up. I think it is frightening how we are constantly being lied to by the drug and food industry and how they cook their books for more profit. The rubbish that the food industry produce is what gets us ill like hydrogenetic vegetable oils trans fats etc, margarines and yoghurts that have additives that they claim we have to eat not to suffer heart desease . My feelings are, and a lot of others, is that animal fat is not what gives us heart failure, it is the above rubbish that is the real cause.

My doctor tried to scare me too by telling me that the high cholesterol was going to kill me. Maybe the drug companies train the doctors to say that. The junk food we eat contains no vitamins or minerals which your body uses to keep the arteries healthy. Plus they contain all kinds of substances you mentioned that are harmful. I think the most important thing people can do is to take vitamins and minerals because even if you eat organic food you won't even get the RDA of vitamins and minerals. The soil the food is being grown on is not that good anymore. Even if you take all these green superfoods that cost a lot, you hardly get any vitamins or minerals out of them.

Maybe it's just me, but it seems like every other commercial on TV is pushing a pharmaceutical brand....yes, there's something to that. Pharmaceutical companies seem to have a lot of control.

Just my two cents,
Blessings,
Kelly

The link between high cholesterol and heart disease was established by scientific studies long before statins were invented.

While I agree that drug companies are in it for the money, and that many doctors are too quick to prescribe statins, to suggest that all doctors who do angioplasties do it just for the money, or that statins are not effective, and that we can all just go through life eating all the fatty meat, cheese and butter we want is ridiculous.

Most of my ancestors lived well into their 70s, 80s, or even 90s eating a high fat diet. But they also worked very hard on the farm. I don't.

The causes of heart disease are multi-factorial...genetics, diet, exercise (or the lack thereof), cholesterol, blood pressure, stress, and many other factors are involved.

My doctor was conservative...he didn't prescribe statins because my LDL and total was only what was then considered borderline high. I had a 99% blockage in my LAD as my 54th birthday present. I have a stent. I'm 100% positive it saved my life. I'll never know if having taken statins earlier would have prevented it, but I assure you I'm not going to experiment to see what would happen if I stopped taking statins now.

The nay-sayers and drug company conspiracy theorists can put their head in the sand if they want, but let's hope they are under 40, have good genes, are of normal weight, eat a healthy diet with virtually no processed food, exercise regularly, don't smoke, and live a stress free life.

There is so much scientific research over so many years in so many places around the world that prove the link between cholesterol and heart disease (I said link, not cause; no one really knows the cause except that it is multi-factored) that the rest of us are likely best served by listening to that evidence.

The link between high cholesterol and heart disease was established by scientific studies long before statins were invented.

While I agree that drug companies are in it for the money, and that many doctors are too quick to prescribe statins, to suggest that all doctors who do angioplasties do it just for the money, or that statins are not effective, and that we can all just go through life eating all the fatty meat, cheese and butter we want is ridiculous.

Most of my ancestors lived well into their 70s, 80s, or even 90s eating a high fat diet. But they also worked very hard on the farm. I don't.

The causes of heart disease are multi-factorial...genetics, diet, exercise (or the lack thereof), cholesterol, blood pressure, stress, and many other factors are involved.

My doctor was conservative...he didn't prescribe statins because my LDL and total was only what was then considered borderline high. I had a 99% blockage in my LAD as my 54th birthday present. I have a stent. I'm 100% positive it saved my life. I'll never know if having taken statins earlier would have prevented it, but I assure you I'm not going to experiment to see what would happen if I stopped taking statins now.

The nay-sayers and drug company conspiracy theorists can put their head in the sand if they want, but let's hope they are under 40, have good genes, are of normal weight, eat a healthy diet with virtually no processed food, exercise regularly, don't smoke, and live a stress free life.

There is so much scientific research over so many years in so many places around the world that prove the link between cholesterol and heart disease (I said link, not cause; no one really knows the cause except that it is multi-factored) that the rest of us are likely best served by listening to that evidence.

You are right that there is a link between cholesterol and heart disease just like there is a link between calcium and heart disease since they are both components of arterial plaque. Why then is everybody worried about cholesterol and not calcium? Your arteries contain collagen which keeps them elastic. Vitamin C is needed to make calcium. The other vitamins, proteins, minerals, all play a role in keeping your arteries healthy. When you don't get enough vitamins, the arteries crack, they get lesions because they lose elasticity and strength. Your body then increases the production of cholesterol which is used together with calcium to seal the arteries or else they would leak. As long as the arteries are weak, they keep sending a stress signal to make more cholesterol and that's how you get a plaque buildup. Dr Rath's and McGee books lists all kind of studies that show that vitamin C and other vitamins reverse heart disease. Dr Rath has a lot of patients whose cholesterol went down when they went on his vitamin program because the arteries got healthy and stopped sending a stress signal to make more cholesterol. And he says that for those who have a high cholesterol like myself because of heredity, it's not a problem as long as the arteries are healthy (strong and elastic). It's a very simple explanation that you will never find in the medical books. You said your cholesterol was not high and still got a 99% blockage. Had you been taking high dosage vitamins? I was and have zero plaque with perfect blood pressure after more than 25 years of high cholesterol. Your ancestors were probably eating much better food that had a lot more vitamins than the food we eat today. Exercise had little to do with it.

.... There is so much scientific research over so many years in so many places around the world that prove the link between cholesterol and heart disease (I said link, not cause; no one really knows the cause except that it is multi-factored) that the rest of us are likely best served by listening to that evidence.
No one questions the fact that there is a statistical association between heart disease and high cholesterol levels. It has been convincingly demonstrated through voluminous research. But so what if there is a link here? Taking statins only makes sense if cholesterol actually causes heart disease. And there is no proof that this is the case. People who take statins hope that that there is a causal relationship here and that taking a statin reduces their risk. But for most of us, there is no evidence that this is so.

By way of analogy, there is a strong link between skid marks and motor accidents. At most accident scenes, you will find skid marks. But there is no causal relationship here. Skid marks don't cause accidents. And removing the breaks from cars to reduce the incidence of skid marks would not be useful :jester: . In the same way, high cholesterol is a well known marker for heart disease. But stopping the body from producing this essential substance does more harm than good.

Doctors are generally sincere in their attempts to help patients. But they too are victims of merciless mis-information on the topic and a misguided code of practice. There is also no compelling evidence that saturated fat raises cholesterol, let alone heart disease. Which is why I eat lots of fat. It is my biggest source of calories (about 65%). And I think it is a great pity that so many people deny themselves this important nutrient. ;)

Mark

I just wanted to mention that at least 30% of patients that suffer fatal heart attacks have normal or below normal cholesterol levels. On the other hand, some people with very high cholesterol levels live to a very old age. Some countries' diets are high in saturated fats (France is a good example), yet people there have better cholesterol levels and a lower percentage of heart attacks, compared to the United States. Go figure. I think that whether or not a person gets heart disease depends on MANY other factors. Cholesterol is just one of many health factors that contribute to heart disease.

Flowergirl

How much vitamin C would you say would be required to help stop someone from getting heart disease or getting worse then they already are? I read this in a few places but people here dismiss this vitamin C theory most of the time.

How much vitamin C would you say would be required to help stop someone from getting heart disease or getting worse then they already are? I read this in a few places but people here dismiss this vitamin C theory most of the time.

Dr Rath says in his book that you should take 600 to 3000 mg of vitamin C. 600 mg would be the minimum if you don't have heart disease and people who have advanced heart disease should take up to 3000 mg. The other vitamins are also important. He gives a range for B vitamins too: B1, B2, and B6 5-40 mg, B3 and B5 40-200 mg. I just take 10 mg or 50 mg of a B complex . He says to take 100-500 mg of L-Proline and L-lysene. The vitamin C, L-Proline and Lysine and the B vitamins are the most important. But it's good to take Vitamin E, beta-carotene and minerals too.

It all sounds great BUT! this is the opinion of one man and his book.
I tend to steer and listen to the professionals which have been doing research on the relation of cholesterol to heart disease. There have been numerous studies showing the trend. I'm not ready and willing to follow one man's idea.

It all sounds great BUT! this is the opinion of one man and his book.
I tend to steer and listen to the professionals which have been doing research on the relation of cholesterol to heart disease. There have been numerous studies showing the trend. I'm not ready and willing to follow one man's idea.
I quoted two books who quote a lot of studies that prove what they say. Plus Dr Rath continued the work of Linus Pauling who has many followers who have also written books and quote studies. You can check out their books and the reviews that they got. So far, I got the same results they talk about in their books. Jack LaLanne takes 40 different supplements and we all wish we can get to be 90 and be in the same shape that he is. And if you look at the other end of the spectrum, we got so many people in need of health care that it threatens our economy. $100,000 for a heart bypass, $60,000 for a gastric bypass, $25,000 for a lapband not to mention all the medications for diabetes, cholesterol, high blood pressure that people take. What the drug companies and modern medicine offers can be helpful but most of the time is not that great and very very expensive.

aamsaams1,

You seem to be implying that because doctors and pharmacists and drug companies are making lots of money, therefore they are to be suspected in their motives. I might point out the the writers of these books that you mention are also making lots of money. Lots of it. By selling lots of books. So why is the making of money by doctors and pharmacists and drug companies a bad thing, but the making of money by writers of your favorite books ok? And it's ok for the makers of vitamins and minerals and other supplements to make money? Lots of money. By selling their wares to people who read the books by authors such as the ones you mention.

I am inclined to agree with flowergirl2day ("I think that whether or not a person gets heart disease depends on MANY other factors") and others who say that the issue of cardiovascular health is a complex issue. We in the western world like to look at places in the world where people seem to be living rather healthy lives, and see if we can distill something of their lives into a package: drink red wine like the French. Oh, better -- let's manufacture one chemical out of the red wine and sell it as a supplement. Oh look -- the Japanese live long lives by eating a few veggies. Let's distill the vitamins and minerals out of the veggies and sell them as supplements.

We are not so good at looking at the whole lifestyle of these populations. We overlook the fact that many of these populations that seem to produce long-living and long-healthy people are societies where there is a great deal of daily physical activity, where there is a support network from the entire village, where there is time to pause and enjoy meals and friends over a long meal, where meals are made up of foods that are whole and lovingly (not mass-) produced.

None of these aspects of the societies that we "borrow" from are included in our attempts to find the magic pill or combination of pills. I am not against taking supplements. I take a handful myself. I just don't believe that they are "the" solution.

--Rheanna

When it comes to preventative treatment against heart disease for people without any known heartdisease are statins in most cases doubtful. There is no controlled scientific evidence that that shows that women have any particular use of statins in preventative cases apart from possibly someone with diabetes.Most women have a cholesterol of 250. For someone who does not smoke with normal bloodpressure is the 10 year risk prognosis to die of heart disease 2 procent. We all need cholesterol to survive and to suggest that it is something bad is completly wrong. Low cholesterol has been linked with depression and strokes. High cholesterol in older people has led to a longer life.There are many factors that causes heart disease. Stress is a big reason. We should all keep away from fast carbrohydrates, smoking and junk food that contain unmentionable additives, sugars, transfats etc and stick to a more natural diet of fresh meat, fish and vegetables. There is nothing wrong with animal fat.

I wonder what the average cholesterol is in the french population.
Their diet is high in fat, they drink wine and smoke but yet, they live longer and healthier.

I wonder what the average cholesterol is in the french population.
Their diet is high in fat, they drink wine and smoke but yet, they live longer and healthier.

BouBou,

I can answer that one for you, as I only live just up the road from there.

Mens figures for ages 45-64.

TC - 6.1mmol/l
HDL - 1.3mmol/l

These figures are generally on par with the UK averages, however the French only have 25% of the heart disease rate as that of the UK and the USA.

But.....joining France with these figures are Spain, Italy, Greece and a majority of the Mediterranean countries.

Why? Here are the main clues.: Life time of red wine, lots of garlic, extra virgin olive oil and lightly cooked vegetables (thus retaining essential anti-oxidants).

Too late to do anything about it for most of us though.


Lord Taff.

...It is best to look at the overall (big) picture and educate ourselves as to what is really going on. One example is with Triglycerides. while this is only one component of totals cholesterol, it can be a very important factor. For years it was thought that triglycerides could only be lowered by a low fat diet, yet in most cases it is by controlling carbohydratesthat Triglycerides are controlled.
...High triglycerides can be caused by metabolic syndrome which is a buzzword for insulin resistance and the resulting hyperinsulinemia. Hyperinsulinemia has been linked ot heart disease. Once I controlled my triglycerides with diet (glycemic index) I saw my triglycerides drop from 350 to 97. I also saw my blood pressure drop from 135/80 to 118/75. So hyperinsulinemia and the resulting high triglycerides are nothing to play around with.
...So I would be careful with blanket statements regarding cholesterol as it has many components some of which are known to be harmful and some that may be questionable as you point out. And it cost me nothing to lower my triglycerides except for reducing the amount of white starches in my diet.
Rick

I am now convinced that the theory that high cholesterol causes heart disease has been created by the drug companies and the American Heart Association to sell cholesterol lowering drugs. And angiograms, angioplasty, and bypass surgery offer no advantage at all to the great majority of heart patients but they do allow surgeons, hospitals, and all sorts of other players to make billions at the expense of the patients. Read Heart Frauds by Charles McGee and Why Animals Don't Get Heart Attacks by Matthias Rath and you will see why. They are both MDs and they both say that your body uses cholesterol, calcium and other blood fats to repair the lesions in your arteries which happen when you don't get enough vitamins, C, B vitamins, E. The first time I checked my cholesterol in 1983 it was 305 and now it is about 283 to 300. The doctors wanted to put me on statins and they had me do a heart scan and carotid ultra sound during the last year and both showed that I had zero plaque. My blood pressure has always been around 110-120 over 65-70. The high cholesterol did not cause any plaque in my arteries because I have been taking vitamins since the early1980s. Here are two intriguing questions: why does high cholesterol causes plaque when low cholesterol doesn't according to the medical experts? And since arterial plaque is mostly calcium and cholesterol, why all the fuss about lowering blood cholesterol and not the calcium level in your blood? They are both components of arterial plaque. Maybe they don't have a drug that can lower calcium but they are making their money on statins. Just follow the money trail to find the answer. Look at all those statins TV commercials. They are making billions. Ask your doctor to give you the studies and evidence that show that high cholesterol cause heart disease.
I've got to agree with you. And I am surprise that the medical community will even except the theory. Has anyone ever seen a double blind study documenting the effect of cholesterol and CHD? What if the only benefit if any, of cholesterol lowering is a placebo effect? Patients and doctors know their lipid panel numbers before and after using the medication don't they? It's well documented that the statins lower cholesterol but I think the long term double blind clinical studies of the effectiveness of cholesterol reduction is lacking.

There seems to be plenty of evidence of the causes of CHD. And you've touched on some of them. Based on what I've read I believe these are the most likely causes. To bad I didn't understand this 30 years ago. But it's never to late to change.

1. Trans Fats to including all processed oil that have been extracted and heated. Don't rely on Trans Fat Labeling to keep you safe. You would not believe what they can do to an oil and still label it as cold pressed.

2. Lack of antioxidants, minerals and vitamins. We have replaced real food with processed junk.

3. Once our cells have been damaged by 1 and 2 we are very vulnerable to toxins. Smoking, Pollution, ect.......

Bravo! :wave:

Well done, Rheanna! You make a lot of good points! I would add that the people and nations that were mentioned also deal with a lot less STRESS in their lives and do not lead as fast-paced lives as we seem to in the western world. Stress is a major contributor to heart disease, regardless of the diet.

Red, :)

Ditto! I agree with you also.
However, no one (especially the recipients) would deny that angioplasty with stenting has saved many, many lives. Yes, they are costly procedures and everyone involved ends up making money. They are a lot cheaper than open heart surgeries!

Bravo! :wave:

Well done, Rheanna! You make a lot of good points! I would add that the people and nations that were mentioned also deal with a lot less STRESS in their lives and do not lead as fast-paced lives as we seem to in the western world. Stress is a major contributor to heart disease, regardless of the diet.

Red, :)

Ditto! I agree with you also.
However, no one (especially the recipients) would deny that angioplasty with stenting has saved many, many lives. Yes, they are costly procedures and everyone involved ends up making money. They are a lot cheaper than open heart surgeries!


Flowergirl, somewhat surprisingly ,most recent figures and studies do NOT show life extension with angioplasty and stenting versus medication. do a little checking on recent publications and it'll pop up.

Rheanna and Flowergirl, you are both saying that heart disease depends on many factors. So how does lowering your cholesterol with drugs help the situation? Do statins address all of the other causes? The answer has to be a big no. The facts have shown that populations that lived long and healthy lives on their local diet that had lots of vitamins and minerals have gotten the same diseases that we get when they were introduced to a western diet which has little or no vitamins and minerals with all the processed foods grown on poor soil. And this time and time again. One or two hundred years ago when the food supply in the west was so much better than today, heart disease, cancer, diabetes were very rare. This has all been documented. And it all proves that is the lack of nutrients that causes disease which taking vitamins and minerals addresses but drugs do not. Sure, Dr Rath and McGee make money selling books or vitamins, but at least I can thank them for showing me what causes disease and how how I can prevent it. And a month's supply of high dosage vitamins and minerals costs $20-$30, while one month supply of zocor and plavix costs $250. Yes, Vitamin C and E, proline and lysene keep your blood from sticking too. Add to the cost of the drugs the cost of Dr's visits and lab tests which are not cheap either. Then compare the side effects between the nutrients and the drugs. Read the posts of people who have had side effects from drugs. The same societies that Rheanna mentioned who have more physical activity, support networks, little stress, still developed the western diseases when they adopted a western diet. So it had to be the lack of nutrients in the diet that made the difference. And yes stress depletes nutrients which can be replenished by taking nutrients but not by taking drugs. And if the cause of disease is a bad diet that lacks nutrients and has harmful substances, how does taking drugs help the situation? All they can do is relieve symptoms and cause side effects. And then add the astronomical cost of drugs, surgery, and medical care. The bottom line is, the evidence does show that taking vitamins and minerals prevents and reverses heart disease by themselves although you get better results by eating healthy. Where is the evidence that people with lower cholesterol don't get heart disease and people with high cholesterol do? All those TV ads do is say that statins lower cholesterol but they never show the evidence that low cholesterol cures or prevents heart disease. Oh, they also show people who look like foods that contains cholesterol (Vytorin).And by the way, when my thyroid is not working I take a natural thyroid supplement made from cows that I can get without a prescription and never had a problem. Or I could take Armour which is made from pig thyroid but I will never take synthetic thyroid hormone. Just go to the thyroid forum and you'll see all the problems people have with synthroid and the other synthetic hormones. And the doctors who prescribe them.

So... are you saying the American Heart Association don't know what they are talking about and that they are making stuff up...?

So... are you saying the American Heart Association don't know what they are talking about and that they are making stuff up...?

The American Heart Association says the same things my doctors told me 25 years ago when my cholesterol was 287 to 305. I never took any statins, my cholesterol is still 280-300 and my heart scan and carotid ultrasound this year show that I have zero plaque. My blood pressure has always been below 120/70. I started to take vitamins about 25 years ago. Had I listened to the American Heart Association and my doctors I would have been taking statins, paid a lot of money for the drugs, Dr's visits and lab tests, and probably suffered some serious side effects. And if the arteries were weak and cracking, the statins wouldn't have helped the situation. Your arteries need to be sealed if they develop lesions. I don't see where the evidence is that low cholesterol is the way to go. Look, maybe statins may help people who have familial hypercholesterolemia which means your cholesterol can be 500-600 which will probably make your blood too thick. A coworker of mine who had liver damage from AIDS had a cholesterol of 1100 and his blood was so thick that it took a long time to draw it. I don't think having thick blood is a good situation. But the AHA and drug companies are now trying to lower LDL below 100 for some people. I think they want everybody below 200 now or even lower. I guess that means more people on statins. The AHA doesn't say one thing about taking vitamins and minerals. You have to wonder why. Read my previous post about vitamins and minerals and the food we eat. Or the books I mentioned which go into a lot more detail.

As little as 7 years ago I had no blockages , and this was confirmed with an angiogram...this year i have 2 branches that are 30 percent narrowed. While millions of people are walking around with the same problem ( most not even knowing it ) i have decided to go the low fat eating route , also taking vitamins and supplements and also taking the statins. Once I get my numbers to where I like them I will try to back off the drugs. Some people can eat all they want , whatever they want and nothing bad happens to them...others eat good all their lives , exercise like demons and die of a heart attack at 30...they do an autopsy and see that the person had either a blockage that caused a massive heart attack or the person had an enlarged heart for some reason...people are different , while vitamins alone may work for you that doesn't mean it will work for the next guy. I am glad though that it is working for you.

mmvic,

Flowergirl, somewhat surprisingly ,most recent figures and studies do NOT show life extension with angioplasty and stenting versus medication. do a little checking on recent publications and it'll pop up.

How recent are we talking about? I get daily medical news from around the world delivered to my mailbox, as well a weekly summary of international medical news in all fields. I only read about topics I am interested in, of course. Cardiology is one of them. I also read numerous studies, as do most of us on these boards. Maybe I'd have to go back in time a little. I have only been doing this since becoming ill nine months ago. :)

In my opinion, both medications and stenting have their pros and cons. I have been having a terrible time with my multiple rx meds, side effects etc. so tend to favor med-free solutions whenever possible.

FG

Hi, :)

One or two hundred years ago when the food supply in the west was so much better than today, heart disease, cancer, diabetes were very rare. This has all been documented. And it all proves that is the lack of nutrients that causes disease which taking vitamins and minerals addresses but drugs do not.

What could account for the chronic diseases being rare two hundred years ago? A shorter life span, for one. Undeniably, in those days people died at a much younger age than today. Autopsies were performed rarely, so the cause of death often remained unknown. There was a lack of sophisticated equipment and medical knowledge to detect these diseases, treat them, or keep statistical records.

I am not against using supplements. Quite the opposite. I consider them extremely beneficial to our well-being. I try to keep mine to a minimum, though. I cannot imagine taking 40 or so a day. $20 a month does not buy much in supplements. It would cover the cost of my multi's with minerals. Of course, I take more than just the multivitamins :)

Another thing I cannot imagine is not having to rely on doctors, diagnostic and other tests and medication to assure a good long-term prognosis. People in good health view things differently. There's an attitude adjustment once a person becomes ill. Life's put on hold. The priorities shift. A person gains a deeper perspective. Illness changes everything.

P.S. I am glad you have remained healthy and that the use of supplements seems to have contributed.

flowergirl

Sorry, I don't buy your argument.

Funny... I know folks who are total healthfood buffs and think the FDA and AMA is out to get them and everyone else. These folks do not exercise and they love fast food... but nothing a little RYR or milk thistle can't cure. Their concern for health seems very hypocritical.

Just because something is "natural" doesn't mean it's not potentally dangerous. All medications in whichever forms should be monitored.

I'll take a measured controlled medication over natural remedy hear-say any day of the week. No one is forcing a statin down your throat... or especially mine as I will never consider a statin again as a remidy due to side effects. But to say a cholesterol level of 300 is OK is questionable.

Lifestyle is a huge part of health... like eating proper and exercising... and living like a Munk. Folks who chunk down vitamins and supplements can not scientifically based a claim for health or expect others to perceive this as being healthy lifestyle. Yes, I take a decent multi-vitamin, and have tried supplements based on "claims"... yet I have never seen those claims fan out.

We all make choices... I'm sticking to science.

I'm so confused. :(

I'm only 29 years old and I took it upon myself to get my cholesterol, bp and everything under control ... I think my total cholesterol was 270... my hdl number was like 57.

Its so hard to know what's good and what's not! Like saying drink red wine cause its good for your heart...well I have really high triglycerides and the only thing I can think that raised them high was red wine.... cause I love red wine... so, am I never supposed to drink red wine again?

I'm on Lipitor... should I keep taking it? Or since I'm so young just use diet and exercise to compensate?

I am on Benicar and HCZ too... and I hate all these pills cause they make me feel terrible. Is lowering my bp and cholesterol worth all the side effects you get from these pills?

Red meat has just about the same amount of cholesterol in it as chicken or turkey... so why does everyone say DONT EAT RED MEAT!!

I'm just so confused its not even funny... I know some of you are gonna say I'm just gonna have to do what I'm confortable with. But I don't know what I'm comfortable with... I wanna do the right thing as I wanna live a long time... but who is to say that taking all these pills isn't gonna make some other thing in my body go haywire... and then I read posts like this where I hear higher cholesterol is ok?

Sigh...

I was nearly your age when I was diagnosed with high BP and high choleserol. I've been working on these for 16 years now. No need to worry... the fact you are doing something about it early on means you should live to be old enough to be a burden to your children. :D

The right thing to do is keep working with your Doctor, and don't give up... and take a topic such as this with a huge grain of salt.

There are a lot of different meds that work for some and don't for others. The same is true with the side effects.

Don't over intellectualize your health... there are a lot of good meds out there to select from. Aim for a total cholesterol of 200 and HDL above 40... and a BP of 120/80. The closer you can get to these numbers, the better.

Personally, I do not buy into getting numbers much below these ideal numbers. I do have to concur with others that I think the pharmacutical companies have more to gain than you by trying to get you to achieve even lower numbers.

Aim for these numbers the best you can and enjoy life... have some pizza or other favorite food while you are at it. But try to eat healthy the best you can... and get some exercise if you can stand it.

Best of luck and keep up your work at controlling your numbers... :)

I'm so confused. :(

Red meat has just about the same amount of cholesterol in it as chicken or turkey... so why does everyone say DONT EAT RED MEAT!!





First, this is only my opinion based on the reading I've done. The biggest problem with red meat is not cholesterol or even the saturated fats. The problem is with what else is in the fat. The health risks of red meat go beond CHD it seems to play a significant factor in many cancers also. A cow eats literally tons of grass in its lifetime, and in doing so, it collects and concentrates low-level pollutants found in its diet. it's not uncommon to find trace amounts of heavy metals, pesticides, and even PCBs in beef. It's much like avoiding toxins from fish. The larger and longer lived fish seem to accumulate and store more toxins over their life span. A sardine is normally less contaminated than shark and chicken less than beef. Now all that being said I still got to have a juicy steak every now and then. But I gave up eating it daily.

I'm so confused. :(

I'm only 29 years old and I took it upon myself to get my cholesterol, bp and everything under control ... I think my total cholesterol was 270... my hdl number was like 57.

Its so hard to know what's good and what's not! Like saying drink red wine cause its good for your heart...well I have really high triglycerides and the only thing I can think that raised them high was red wine.... cause I love red wine... so, am I never supposed to drink red wine again?

I'm on Lipitor... should I keep taking it? Or since I'm so young just use diet and exercise to compensate?

I am on Benicar and HCZ too... and I hate all these pills cause they make me feel terrible. Is lowering my bp and cholesterol worth all the side effects you get from these pills?

Red meat has just about the same amount of cholesterol in it as chicken or turkey... so why does everyone say DONT EAT RED MEAT!!

I'm just so confused its not even funny... I know some of you are gonna say I'm just gonna have to do what I'm confortable with. But I don't know what I'm comfortable with... I wanna do the right thing as I wanna live a long time... but who is to say that taking all these pills isn't gonna make some other thing in my body go haywire... and then I read posts like this where I hear higher cholesterol is ok?

Sigh...

...By reducing the amount of potatoes and rice in my diet, I got my triglycerides down from 350 to 97. It also lowered my BP from 135/80 to 118/75.
rick

mmvic,



How recent are we talking about? I get daily medical news from around the world delivered to my mailbox, as well a weekly summary of international medical news in all fields. I only read about topics I am interested in, of course. Cardiology is one of them. I also read numerous studies, as do most of us on these boards. Maybe I'd have to go back in time a little. I have only been doing this since becoming ill nine months ago. :)

In my opinion, both medications and stenting have their pros and cons. I have been having a terrible time with my multiple rx meds, side effects etc. so tend to favor med-free solutions whenever possible.

FG

Very recent and very surprising to most doctors. Current consensus is to use clot busting drugs and anti coagulants since there is no link to improved survivability. Now this is not the most lucrative way for surgeons but it works well for cardiologists.:cool:

First, this is only my opinion based on the reading I've done. The biggest problem with red meat is not cholesterol or even the saturated fats. The problem is with what else is in the fat. The health risks of red meat go beond CHD it seems to play a significant factor in many cancers also. A cow eats literally tons of grass in its lifetime, and in doing so, it collects and concentrates low-level pollutants found in its diet. it's not uncommon to find trace amounts of heavy metals, pesticides, and even PCBs in beef. It's much like avoiding toxins from fish. The larger and longer lived fish seem to accumulate and store more toxins over their life span. A sardine is normally less contaminated than shark and chicken less than beef. Now all that being said I still got to have a juicy steak every now and then. But I gave up eating it daily.

Red60, US beef contains substantial amounts of hormone bio-identical to human hormone -not a great proposition. Other than free range, chickens include antibiotics, hormones, what have you. Add in pesticide residues and awaaaay we go.:D But then again we can't live forever.

The Europeans do not allow most of these treatments and modifications and it maybe one of the reasons the average life span surpasses the US. That and wine! Mad cow is another story.:angel: Can you guess I'm a wine drinking vegetarian?:D

Red60, US beef contains substantial amounts of hormone bio-identical to human hormone -not a great proposition. Other than free range, chickens include antibiotics, hormones, what have you. Add in pesticide residues and awaaaay we go.:D But then again we can't live forever.

The Europeans do not allow most of these treatments and modifications and it maybe one of the reasons the average life span surpasses the US. That and wine! Mad cow is another story.:angel: Can you guess I'm a wine drinking vegetarian?:D

Good point on the hormones. I know of ways to help the body deal with the heavy metals by using natural chelators like Alpha-lipoic acid, cilantro,chlorella, rice bran (IP6) ect....... But I'm not sure there is much you can do about the hormones except try your best to avoid them. Hopefully the continued pressure from other nations will force US producers to end the practice of using antibiotics, steroids, and hormones to fatten the animals and wallets. It appears to be having some effect already, many of the chicken producers have stopped or cut back their us of antibiotics and there seems to be a growing number of small cattle producers offering organic grass feed beef.

Isn't it sad that our food supply is becoming so contaminated. I've read there are traces of rocket fuel in a good percentage of our water, milk and even many vegetables. History has shown us that every large civilization in the past has at some point fell for one reason or another. I think lots of people feel we would eventually destroy ourselves with nuclear war but it starting to look more like we'll contaminate our environment to the point we'll poison ourselves to death.

Sorry I think I got a little off topic there. We'll all feel much better and live longer if we can just get our LDL below 130 and our HDL to 50 and keep the triglycerides around 100. Distraction is such a powerful tool.

Very recent and very surprising to most doctors. Current consensus is to use clot busting drugs and anti coagulants since there is no link to improved survivability. Now this is not the most lucrative way for surgeons but it works well for cardiologists.:cool:

Ahhh, you might want to read the actual study that was touted in the news media as showing stents were no better than medication. The study showed this to be true for what in reality is probably only a minority of people with coronary disease.

They did not allow many, many types of patients to participate in the study. The number of people with heart disease that they screened out vs. the number of people who actually completed the study was incredible (and frightening given that this fact was ignored by the news reports).

For example, I would probably not have been able to participate in the study because I had an almost total blockage of my LAD. There is no doubt a stent saved my life.

This was not the only study to show this. In some cases a blockage like yours is best stented but again in many cases, a clot buster will keep it open. If it was fully blocked, most of the time stenting will not work and bypass is required. Regardless, stents and angioplasties are VERY overused in the US relative to drug therapy. Actually, the time to have treated this was prior to the blockage. This is where our medical system is not responding correctly in preventing the problems before they are critical.

Ahhh, you might want to read the actual study that was touted in the news media as showing stents were no better than medication. The study showed this to be true for what in reality is probably only a minority of people with coronary disease.

They did not allow many, many types of patients to participate in the study. The number of people with heart disease that they screened out vs. the number of people who actually completed the study was incredible (and frightening given that this fact was ignored by the news reports).

For example, I would probably not have been able to participate in the study because I had an almost total blockage of my LAD. There is no doubt a stent saved my life.

You should read Heart Frauds by Charles MgGee where you will read about the history of the angiogram which can be very inacurrate. He quotes a study that showed that in 1974 when angiograms that had been used to perform bypass surgeries were compared to the actual arteries of the patients who had died, serious dicrepancies were found. Also, in 1976 according to a study
at Massachussets General Hospital four doctors who had read a minimum of 1500 angiograms were asked to interpret the same angiograms of the highest quality. One doctor saw a 100 percent obstruction while another saw no obstruction at all or 0 percent in the same angiogram. Amazing stuff if you ask me. He also quotes another study in 1984 that showed very serious inaccuracies in angiograms. These studieswere done with ordinary angiograms. The book also says that a new and more accurate angiogram was developed in 1977 but as of the writing of his book, 2001, is not being used by doctors, only for research. He calls it this deception and if true, it is. I guess they wouldn't want to admit that they had been doing heart surgeries based on inaccurate angiogram. I have every reason to believe the book since he is an MD, quotes studies, and doesn't make no where near as much as doctors who do angiograms and heart surgeries. It's not like he is selling millions of books.

I am sure there are 1 million studies from a lot of sources that show the exact opposite. Not all of these angiograms are being done so a doctor can make more money..its implausible to think that could happen for the last 30 years or more. Also when my angiogram was being done , about 6 tech people were all looking and commenting on the procedure to each other while it was being done. Its not just 1 guy who looks at the live pics of the procedure..its all recorded and gone over very carefully. Don't get me wrong , I wish my doctors were wrong and i had no narrowing but now that a whole load of people have seen my procedure I am pretty sure that what they told me is accurate and I am not going to add to my problem by ignoring it.

This was not the only study to show this. In some cases a blockage like yours is best stented but again in many cases, a clot buster will keep it open. If it was fully blocked, most of the time stenting will not work and bypass is required. Regardless, stents and angioplasties are VERY overused in the US relative to drug therapy. Actually, the time to have treated this was prior to the blockage. This is where our medical system is not responding correctly in preventing the problems before they are critical.

I don't happen to have the studies and stats at the ready, but I do know that there are some situations where the general consensus of cardiologists is that medication is the way to go, others where stents are the most effective treatment, and still others where a bypass is needed.

I've been symptom-free for almost 3 years; even if I eventually need to have a bypass, I'm happy to have the time without such major surgery.

How long do you suppose I should have let them experiment with a "clot buster" before deciding that I needed the angiogram and stent? (For me, the 2 weeks of angina and 24 hours+ in CCU with the IV drip of the "clot busters" was more than enough, after I failed the nuclear stress test so badly the cardiology fellow was shaking and those with more experience were amazed I was still alive). (Remember, my blockage was the "widow-maker" type of blockage, which they couldn't positively confirm until they did the angiogram).

Sorry, but it is just as silly to think that "everyone with CAD just needs medication," as it is to think that "everyone with CAD needs a stent," or "everyone with CAD needs a bypass," or "no one should take statins; they're just a drug company scam."

I do agree more emphasis should be placed on prevention, but that's a bit too late for the millions like me, except for secondary prevention.

You should read Heart Frauds by Charles MgGee where you will read about the history of the angiogram which can be very inacurrate. He quotes a study that showed that in 1974 when angiograms that had been used to perform bypass surgeries were compared to the actual arteries of the patients who had died, serious dicrepancies were found. Also, in 1976 according to a study at Massachussets General Hospital four doctors who had read a minimum of 1500 angiograms were asked to interpret the same angiograms of the highest quality. One doctor saw a 100 percent obstruction while another saw no obstruction at all or 0 percent in the same angiogram. Amazing stuff if you ask me. He also quotes another study in 1984 that showed very serious inaccuracies in angiograms. These studieswere done with ordinary angiograms. The book also says that a new and more accurate angiogram was developed in 1977 but as of the writing of his book, 2001, is not being used by doctors, only for research. He calls it this deception and if true, it is. I guess they wouldn't want to admit that they had been doing heart surgeries based on inaccurate angiogram. I have every reason to believe the book since he is an MD, quotes studies, and doesn't make no where near as much as doctors who do angiograms and heart surgeries. It's not like he is selling millions of books.

Thanks for the references; I'll put them on my list of things to check out.

But for the record, my cardiologists work for Mayo Clinic, where they are paid the same salary regardless of how many patients they see or how many angiograms, angioplasties, or surgeries they perform. It is ridiculous to think they and most other cardiologists in the country are doing angiograms, etc. just for the $$$.

I don't know about the accuracy of angiograms in the 1970s vs. now. I presume they know a lot more about them now than they did almost 40 years ago, and that there is better training and certainly more experience in reading them.

I do know that my Dad had one in the early 1970s which showed blockages varying from 85% to almost 100% in at least 3 major arteries. He was offered the opportunity to be a guinea pig for some of the first bypass surgeries and declined. He was also dead of a massive heart attack about a year later. My guess is his angiogram was pretty accurate.

My guess is also that the angiograms of those who later died that you referred to were also reasonably accurate: what was their cause of death? Heart disease? (Probably for the majority, otherwise why would they have an angiogram in the first place?).

No medical test of any kind is always 100% accurate; there are always some false positives and some false negatives.

I was awake and fully cognizant when my angiogram/stent was placed. I could personally SEE the blockage on the screen, and then see the blood flow after they put in the stent. I had severe, classic angina for 2 weeks before the procedure and none since. While one might quibble about whether I had a 99% blockage, or 98% blockage, or even an 89% blockage, I'm reasonably certain I had a major blockage and the stent fixed it BEFORE I had a major heart attack. (For how long, of course, is an unknown, but I'm almost 3 years out and counting...)

Maybe YOU want to experiment with other alternatives if you're having what you know to be angina that is confirmed by a nuclear stress test, but I certainly don't. I will ask more questions about the benefits of drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents or other possible treatments, now that the science has evolved since my DES was placed, but I will undergo another angiogram if I have a bad stress test.

I'd rather gamble that the majority of cardiologists in this country, especially those at major care centers, know what they're talking about, than gamble that I won't drop dead driving home after refusing treatment.

Connie, angioplasty may be a good option for severe blockages and it would have to be better than a bypass. But if I had severe blockages and not much time to decide, I would opt instead for chelation therapy with EDTA. Unfortunately, doctors don't offer that option and it's probably not even covered by insurance, and you would have to find a doctor who does on your own. If there had been any deaths or serious side effects from it, I am sure the FDA would have moved in to ban it just like they did with Efedra. Unfortunately, it gets a very bad review at WebMD while angiograms get thumbs up. WebMD makes no mention of taking vitamins and minerals for heart disease. We know that some entities have tried several times to stop the sale of vitamins and minerals and make them available by prescription only. There are very few doctors who recommend taking vitamins and minerals. There is an awful lot of money made in surgery and drugs and things that compete with them are not being given thumbs up by the drug companies and medical equipment manufactures and most doctors who work for them. On the other hand, they have tried to ban the over the counter sale of supplements. You have to wonder why. I think that drugs are good for acute problems and I use them that way, but using drugs in the longterm comes at a high cost and serious side effects. All these things leads me to believe that profits are probably the biggest factor in determining how health care is delivered. Add to that the fact that close to 100,000 people die each year in hospitals due to mistakes and now I have no choice but to think twice before going for some expensive surgery and longterm drug treatment. You can search that when doctors go on strike, death rates in hospitals go down. And what do doctors do other than prescribe drugs and do surgeries?

Connie, no disagreement in your case or similar ones about the benefits of stenting or bypasses. This is particularly true in cases of severe angina or shortness of breath. The questions have been raised recently about intermediate levels of blockage such as 40 to 60% and limited symptoms.

I do strongly disagree that doctors, including cardiologists, don't make decisions strongly based on $$$. I've seen it first hand and drug prescription results, surgery statistics, and general incidental medical data strongly say this is so. These guys are human and like to make $$$. Just follow some of the AMA initiatives for a laugh like their recent altruistic concern about walkin clinics in stores. All this means you have to ask questions, be vigiliant and watch out for yourself.