It's worth mentioning that sugars and other carbs, to excess, have a great deal to do with "high cholesterol": If that "low fat" diet is high in carbs (typically is), beyond the small amount stored as glycogen, the liver converts the rest into triglycerides (fats) for storage in the fat cells. This VLDL are a component of total cholester…
It's worth mentioning that sugars and other carbs, to excess, have a great deal to do with "high cholesterol": If that "low fat" diet is high in carbs (typically is), beyond the small amount stored as glycogen, the liver converts the rest into triglycerides (fats) for storage in the fat cells. This VLDL are a component of total cholesterol. Cut back on carbs and that portion of the "total cholesterol" usually drops substantially. I know from first hand experience that taking a statin* appears to make most of the lipid panel numbers “better” and that includes VLDL (“triglycerides”). A curious mind inquire what is happening to the excess carbs, absent a change in diet, when one is taking a statin. The transparent profit motives aside, the widespread [over-]use of statins is a textbook example of “treat to the numbers,” i.e. treating the “symptom” (which in the case of cholesterol, doesn’t even seem to be a medically valid “condition”!) instead of the underlying cause (a bad diet.).
*Before I wised up reading A Midwestern Doctor and others.
Blah blah blah. Maybe you could say this without all the big words. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but most people might have to read your reply three times to deconstruct it. I’m guessing you’re a scientist. (Not a bad thing; just an observation because of writing style.)
Genetics has so much to do with cholesterol levels it astounds me sometimes. My cholesterol scores have always impressed my doctors, with one declaring to me in my 20’s that I would never have heart problems. Yet two years ago (50+ years later), even with that total score nearly the same, my calcium score was 1308 on the cardiac CT, (shocking!) and two stents had to be inserted. It took two tries and a micro drill to break up the rock hard calcium before the could insert the stents (a very weird feeling, by the way.). In my case, I know it’s genetic. My dad, most of his five siblings and his dad, had heart issues—death for two, quad bypass for dad, etc. Not one was overweight. It goes to show a lot is yet to be learned. Maybe, as I said before, it’s more about the sugar. Some aunts/uncles drank a lot, and some just loved desserts. Sugar.
And then there’s a longtime friend — an MD, PhD, retired director of a medical laboratory—who vehemently disagreed with my decision to refuse statins. He’d been on them for 40 years or so, and was fine, he said. Within a year I learned he’d researched the issue more after our talk and had ditched the statins.
The simplest thing — but not easiest by any account — is to cut out refined sugar. Of course, if people actually did that, the cereal industry— which is what Dr. Malone’s article was about — would collapse. Probably not a bad thing.
It's worth mentioning that sugars and other carbs, to excess, have a great deal to do with "high cholesterol": If that "low fat" diet is high in carbs (typically is), beyond the small amount stored as glycogen, the liver converts the rest into triglycerides (fats) for storage in the fat cells. This VLDL are a component of total cholesterol. Cut back on carbs and that portion of the "total cholesterol" usually drops substantially. I know from first hand experience that taking a statin* appears to make most of the lipid panel numbers “better” and that includes VLDL (“triglycerides”). A curious mind inquire what is happening to the excess carbs, absent a change in diet, when one is taking a statin. The transparent profit motives aside, the widespread [over-]use of statins is a textbook example of “treat to the numbers,” i.e. treating the “symptom” (which in the case of cholesterol, doesn’t even seem to be a medically valid “condition”!) instead of the underlying cause (a bad diet.).
*Before I wised up reading A Midwestern Doctor and others.
Blah blah blah. Maybe you could say this without all the big words. I’m not trying to be disrespectful, but most people might have to read your reply three times to deconstruct it. I’m guessing you’re a scientist. (Not a bad thing; just an observation because of writing style.)
Genetics has so much to do with cholesterol levels it astounds me sometimes. My cholesterol scores have always impressed my doctors, with one declaring to me in my 20’s that I would never have heart problems. Yet two years ago (50+ years later), even with that total score nearly the same, my calcium score was 1308 on the cardiac CT, (shocking!) and two stents had to be inserted. It took two tries and a micro drill to break up the rock hard calcium before the could insert the stents (a very weird feeling, by the way.). In my case, I know it’s genetic. My dad, most of his five siblings and his dad, had heart issues—death for two, quad bypass for dad, etc. Not one was overweight. It goes to show a lot is yet to be learned. Maybe, as I said before, it’s more about the sugar. Some aunts/uncles drank a lot, and some just loved desserts. Sugar.
And then there’s a longtime friend — an MD, PhD, retired director of a medical laboratory—who vehemently disagreed with my decision to refuse statins. He’d been on them for 40 years or so, and was fine, he said. Within a year I learned he’d researched the issue more after our talk and had ditched the statins.
The simplest thing — but not easiest by any account — is to cut out refined sugar. Of course, if people actually did that, the cereal industry— which is what Dr. Malone’s article was about — would collapse. Probably not a bad thing.