Another informative video about cholesterol. And a bit shorter. I DO think this subject is an important one to talk about.

quote:

Originally posted by 6guns:
Another informative video about cholesterol. And a bit shorter. I DO think this subject is an important one to talk about.

[FLASH_VIDEO]<iframe frameborder="0" height="315" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/sY48qLl9ZzE" title="YouTube video player" width="560"></iframe>[/FLASH_VIDEO]

Chiropractor and Naturopathic Doctor in that practice?

Another source to be skeptical of.

quote:

Originally posted by jjkroll32:
Chiropractor and Naturopathic Doctor in that practice?

Another source to be skeptical of.

You’re dismissing rather than refuting. I’d personally rather hear what’s wrong with what he said.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

quote:

Originally posted by jjkroll32:
Chiropractor and Naturopathic Doctor in that practice?

Another source to be skeptical of.

You’re dismissing rather than refuting. I’d personally rather hear what’s wrong with what he said.

Far more an issue of education, training, and scope of practice.

I can find no evidence of licensed or board certified chiropractic trained or naturopathic trained cardiologists, cardiothoracic surgeons, or vascular surgeons.


Edit to add:

Cholesterol and heart disease are complex topics.

Statin hesitant individuals should discuss with their family doc, internist, or cardiologist what their ASCVD risk score might look like - for fun, calculate your own.

MD Calc - ASCVD Risk Score

This takes into consideration age, gender, ethnicity, smoking status, diabetes, BP, systolic BP number, treatment for BP, what the total and HDL are - broadly speaking modifiable and non modifiable risk factors that creates a risk over a 10 year period, what your own risk of event might actually be.

Primary references and validation sources are posted as part of the tool.

Valuable tool and point of discussion, as well as comparison from year to year to track individual risk.

This is speaking from a board certified family physician standpoint.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Wait, the presenter is a psychologist?

wcb6092, what are your qualifications to hold opinions on this subject?

You don't need "qualifications" to hold opinions.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Why do you think we are going to watch this on your say-so?

Well, the OP says "After watching this video..." and "...please do not comment unless you watch the entire video..."

"After watching this video..." assumes that you are going to watch it. He wants to allow the presenter of the video to state their case. He then asks that members refrain from commenting unless they watch the video. He is not ordering you to watch the video; he is simply asking for commentary only from those who have watched it. No one is forcing you to be in this thread or to respond to it in any way.

The first response he gets is from you, and you challenge him in an arrogant way: "wcb6092, what are your qualifications to hold opinions on this subject?"

I'll tell ya, guys- if we require members to be "qualified" to hold opinions, the frequency of postings will drop substantially. I suggest reading bryan11's post, because he made the point quite well.

Look at Scooter's response. He gave wcb his thoughts, indicating that he'd rather listen to his cardiologist. Scooter then goes on to provide wcb with perspective on his view of this. Even though wcb probably didn't get the response he wanted from Scooter, at least Scooter was polite and didn't ask wcb to present his credentials to a SIGforum board of inquiry, which, apparently, is chaired by you, jhe. My question is when was this board formed, and why was I not consulted or at least advised? The Waiver will have to be amended, you see.

kkina took the time to watch the video, and only then commented on it. Many of you do not have the time to invest in a video more than three-quarters of an hour long, and I'm certain wcb knows this. But this doesn't mean he is not allowed to set reasonable conditions for responding in his thread- and it is his thread, guys.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
No, you are being the asshole by insisting that we watch a hour long video by a person of no obvious expertise, based on your say-so, when you also have no obvious expertise. Then to try to impose an arbitrary and unrealistic condition on further comment. And then you insult those who won't comply with your unilateral rule-making.

This doesn't make him an asshole and he doesn't need to possess expertise on a subject to form an opinion on it and it's his thread, which, as far as I'm concerned, permits him to set reasonable conditions for responses to his post; in this case, the condition is the viewing of an unfortunately long video, but if a member cannot or will not watch this video, then, they should simply refrain from participating in this thread.

mark123 and ulsterman made pertinent observations and jjkroll32 took the time to post his observations and experience with the subject at hand. These are good things.

This thread didn't have to play out like this. If you don't want to watch the video, then, don't watch it. Just because a member posts a long video, that doesn't mean you can come into his thread and give him a hard time. Let's please step back for a minute and ask ourselves- is this such a big deal that you feel the need to step on a long-time member of the forum?

Now, the other day, I jumped on jhe hard. I took the time to lay all of this out because no one here wants to feel as if the admin is out to get them. But, having said this - jhe, don't screw with the members of my forum. I can understand if you wouldn't believe me when I say to you that if the situation were reversed, I would come to your defense, but with things developing as they did in this thread, you got the ball rolling and your approach was uncalled for, and as far as I'm concerned, you owe an apology to wcb6092. I won't hold my breath, though.

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

• I don’t think one must have a qualification to do research.
  
• I wish someone would listen and refute rather than dismiss.
  
• Do I think people are overmedicated? Yes.
  
• Do I think doctors are purposely doing wrong? No.
  
• Do I think doctors are too busy? Absolutely.
  
• Do I think statistics are manipulated to sell pharmaceuticals? Uh huh.
  
• Do I think most of our health issues are diet related? Yes.
  
• Do I think the government recommendations (food pyramid) is wrong? I do.
  
• Do I think the food pyramid was created by lobbyists rather than doctors? Yep.
  
• Do I think people should watch this video? Yeah.
  
• Do I think we are often lied to concerning health? Follow the money.
  

This ^^^^^ All of it.

ETA: Re: jjkroll32's ASCVD Risk Score calculator link: Says I have a 21.3% Risk of cardiovascular event (coronary or stroke death or non-fatal MI or stroke) in next 10 years and a 15.1% 10-year cardiovascular risk if risk factors were optimal.

Not certain what "if risk factors were optimal means." Does that mean, for example, if my total cholesterol wasn't high (227 mg/dL)?

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by mark123:

• I don’t think one must have a qualification to do research.
  
• I wish someone would listen and refute rather than dismiss.
  
• Do I think people are overmedicated? Yes.
  
• Do I think doctors are purposely doing wrong? No.
  
• Do I think doctors are too busy? Absolutely.
  
• Do I think statistics are manipulated to sell pharmaceuticals? Uh huh.
  
• Do I think most of our health issues are diet related? Yes.
  
• Do I think the government recommendations (food pyramid) is wrong? I do.
  
• Do I think the food pyramid was created by lobbyists rather than doctors? Yep.
  
• Do I think people should watch this video? Yeah.
  
• Do I think we are often lied to concerning health? Follow the money.
  

This ^^^^^ All of it.

ETA: Re: jjkroll32's ASCVD Risk Score calculator link: Says I have a 21.3% Risk of cardiovascular event (coronary or stroke death or non-fatal MI or stroke) in next 10 years and a 15.1% 10-year cardiovascular risk if risk factors were optimal.

Not certain what "if risk factors were optimal means." Does that mean, for example, if my total cholesterol wasn't high (227 mg/dL)?

Details listed in the "Evidence" tab of the calculator below where the result shows


In summary:
Optimal Risk Factors

For the comparison of optimal risk factors, these were defined by the following specific risk factor numbers for an individual of the same age, sex and race:

Total cholesterol of 170 mg/dL
HDL-cholesterol of 50 mg/dL
Untreated systolic blood pressure of 110 mm Hg
No diabetes history
Not a current smoker

I subscribe to "Low Carb Down Under" and have seen many of their videos especially from Dr. Paul Mason.
I did skim through and have heard pretty much everything here before.

Having done a LOT of research on this subject before and after going Low Carb and especially cholesterol levels.

I realize that it is a shock to many about cholesterol and what we have been and in many cases continue to be taught that is plain wrong.

It is a fascinating subject and when you do the deep dive into the facts you find that a simple number of LDL and Total Cholesterol is sorely incomplete.
It is hard for a lot of people to wrap their head around LDL going up while Triglycerides coming down and HDL going up with low carb diet.
Old school thinking was just throw a statin at it when a number gets to point but that is poor analysis.

Statins in general are bad for you especially with the side effects but that decision needs to be made by you and your doctor.

Since going low carb 10 months ago I have been able to get off Statins and Blood Pressure Meds ~ all with my doctors blessing.
Yes, the LDL is raised but all the other markers have made remarkable improvements.
You have to do a comprehensive lipid panel to determine really where you are.

Good to hear more are waking to the facts.

Thank you Para.

The reason I posted this thread is because of my own situation which I will share.

Heart disease runs in my family and my father had his first heart attack at 40 and died from a third at 63. So I was highly motivated to do all I could to prevent the same fate. When all the recommendations came out to avoid saturated fats, exercise, and eat carbs such as grains and fruits as the majority of your calories I listened and acted. I did not eat butter, ate a lot of bread, pasta, fruits, grilled chicken breast, salmon, and very rarely red meat. Every single day I ran at least 3 miles, and lifted weights. On weekends I upped the ante and ran 5 miles each day. I was 5'11 inches tall and weighed 165 pounds. I would go to my doctor for blood work and my HDL was really low, 31. My triglycerides and LDL were high as well as my total cholesterol. All the doctor could advise was to improve my diet. After I would explain my diet and exercise he would say you have to go on a statin medication or you will end up with heart disease.

I was determined not to go on a statin medication at 28 for the rest of my life. I started cutting out so many carbs and started incorporating olive oil and more red meat in my diet, as well as whole eggs, I used to eat only the whites, because what I was doing was not working. Well guess what, my numbers improved drastically.

Fast forward to January of this year. 63 years old I just got my lab results back. Total cholesterol 212/ HDL 64 Triglycerides 61 LDL 131. So the Doctor sent a letter stating my total cholesterol is high and my ldl is high. Wanted to know if I wanted to go to nutritional counseling or get a prescription for statins.

I am 5' 11' and 167 pounds. A1C 5.1 average blood pressure 115/62. Walk at least 5 miles a day and some days 7.

I found this video because I was searching why my triglycerides were low, HDL was high(which is good) but LDL was elevated.

Watching the video it was as if my eyes were opened. I no longer have any worry about my high LDL as long an my HDL is high and triglycerides low.

After years of seeing the experts hand out the wrong nutritional advice. And they still are, look at food pyramid, no wonder half of America is obese and the military can not get recruits because of their physical shape.



Please just hear the man out. He has evidence to back up what he is saying. If you then don't agree with him that is fine and you can state why you think he is wrong. I have a friend who is a retired doctor and I ask him what he thought of this video and he agreed that there are many valid points he makes and it is well thought out. So for many days I have contemplated posting it here after getting his opinion. I decided it might be valuable to some people, as I feel it was valuable to me. That is why I asked that you view the video and at least hear what is said instead of immediately dismissing it.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:


I just got my lab results back.

Total cholesterol 212/ HDL 64 Triglycerides 61 LDL 131.

So the Doctor sent a letter stating my total cholesterol is high and my ldl is high.
Wanted to know if I wanted to go to nutritional counseling or get a prescription for statins.


I found this video because I was searching why my triglycerides were low, HDL was high(which is good) but LDL was elevated.

If that were my doctor - I would find another one.
But yes, you have discovered exactly what I have as well.

I have seen many other videos with the same conclusions.

PS your TriG to HDL ratio is very very good.

https://www.docsopinion.com/triglyceride-hdl-ratio/

Another interesting study that can be helpful in making decisions about statin, lifestyle, and other risk mitigating tools is CT calcium scoring of the coronary arteries.

Non invasive testing that can quantify the plaque buildup around your heart.

Johns Hopkins Medical

Hopkins quotes $75. Our regional hospital cash price is about $275. This study is not covered by most insurance plans.

The more personal data that you can collect and adequately interpret, helps patients and physicians to make educated decisions, particularly in patients with family history, where statin therapy is contraindicated or historically poorly tolerated. This can also reinforce that despite numbers being what they are, an individual is less likely a heart attack waiting to happen.

Most CTA calcium score reports provide vessel specific areas which can also be points to discuss with your physician. I had one such patient that showed heavy build ups in the LAD (aka widowmaker heart attack artery) and was taken to cardiac cath by his cardiologist the following day, as he decided to speak up about his fatigue and "little needles that poked his left chest" when we discussed the results after he had the test done.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:T
I started cutting out so many carbs and started incorporating olive oil and more red meat in my diet, as well as whole eggs, I used to eat only the whites, because what I was doing was not working. Well guess what, my numbers improved drastically.

Imagine that.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Watching the video it was as if my eyes were opened. I no longer have any worry about my high LDL as long an my HDL is high and triglycerides low.

I already subscribe to this belief, myself.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
After years of seeing the experts hand out the wrong nutritional advice. And they still are, look at food pyramid, no wonder half of America is obese and the military can not get recruits because of their physical shape.

The "government's" food pyramid has done incredible harm to the American public. (I put "government's" in quotes because I believe it's really Agribusiness'.)

quote:

Originally posted by ensigmatic:

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:T
I started cutting out so many carbs and started incorporating olive oil and more red meat in my diet, as well as whole eggs, I used to eat only the whites, because what I was doing was not working. Well guess what, my numbers improved drastically.

Imagine that.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
Watching the video it was as if my eyes were opened. I no longer have any worry about my high LDL as long an my HDL is high and triglycerides low.

I already subscribe to this belief, myself.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
After years of seeing the experts hand out the wrong nutritional advice. And they still are, look at food pyramid, no wonder half of America is obese and the military can not get recruits because of their physical shape.

The "government's" food pyramid has done incredible harm to the American public. (I put "government's" in quotes because I believe it's really Agribusiness'.)

You must understand the time frame I was doing the high carb low fat: That was the scientific consensus at the time. Late 80's early 90's.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
You must understand the time frame I was doing the high carb low fat: That was the scientific consensus at the time. Late 80's early 90's.

I figured it was a while ago. That wasn't a shot at you.

This is one of the points the video is explaining. Relative risk reduction vs absolute risk reduction. A big difference in perception as to how effective the medication really is. The drug companies emphasize relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction stated in JAMA is 0.8% for all-cause mortality. 1.3% for heart attacks,.04% for strokes.



March 14, 2022

Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment

A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

https://jamanetwork.com/journa...cle-abstract/2790055

Key Points
Question What is the association between statin-induced reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute and relative reductions in individual clinical outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke?

Findings In this meta-analysis of 21 randomized clinical trials in primary and secondary prevention that examined the efficacy of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, there was significant heterogeneity but also reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% for all-cause mortality, 1.3% for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins compared with control, with relative risk reductions of 9%, 29%, and 14%, respectively. A meta-regression was inconclusive regarding the association between the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke.

Meaning The study results suggest that the absolute benefits of statins are modest, may not be strongly mediated through the degree of LDL-C reduction, and should be communicated to patients as part of informed clinical decision-making as well as to inform clinical guidelines and policy.

Abstract

Importance The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.

Objective To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.

Data Sources PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.

Study Selection Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.

Data Extraction and Synthesis Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.

Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.

Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.

Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.

quote:

Originally posted by jjkroll32:
Another interesting study that can be helpful in making decisions about statin, lifestyle, and other risk mitigating tools is CT calcium scoring of the coronary arteries.

Non invasive testing that can quantify the plaque buildup around your heart.

Johns Hopkins Medical

Hopkins quotes $75. Our regional hospital cash price is about $275. This study is not covered by most insurance plans.

The more personal data that you can collect and adequately interpret, helps patients and physicians to make educated decisions, particularly in patients with family history, where statin therapy is contraindicated or historically poorly tolerated. This can also reinforce that despite numbers being what they are, an individual is less likely a heart attack waiting to happen.

Most CTA calcium score reports provide vessel specific areas which can also be points to discuss with your physician. I had one such patient that showed heavy build ups in the LAD (aka widowmaker heart attack artery) and was taken to cardiac cath by his cardiologist the following day, as he decided to speak up about his fatigue and "little needles that poked his left chest" when we discussed the results after he had the test done.

Yes, according to the video calcium scoring is a better predictor of coronary artery disease than cholesterol numbers.

quote:

Originally posted by parabellum:

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
Why do you think we are going to watch this on your say-so?

Well, the OP says "After watching this video..." and "...please do not comment unless you watch the entire video..."

"After watching this video..." assumes that you are going to watch it. He wants to allow the presenter of the video to state their case. He then asks that members refrain from commenting unless they watch the video. He is not ordering you to watch the video; he is simply asking for commentary only from those who have watched it. No one is forcing you to be in this thread or to respond to it in any way.

The first response he gets is from you, and you challenge him in an arrogant way: "wcb6092, what are your qualifications to hold opinions on this subject?"

I'll tell ya, guys- if we require members to be "qualified" to hold opinions, the frequency of postings will drop substantially. I suggest reading bryan11's post, because he made the point quite well.

Look at Scooter's response. He gave wcb his thoughts, indicating that he'd rather listen to his cardiologist. Scooter then goes on to provide wcb with perspective on his view of this. Even though wcb probably didn't get the response he wanted from Scooter, at least Scooter was polite and didn't ask wcb to present his credentials to a SIGforum board of inquiry, which, apparently, is chaired by you, jhe. My question is when was this board formed, and why was I not consulted or at least advised? The Waiver will have to be amended, you see.

kkina took the time to watch the video, and only then commented on it. Many of you do not have the time to invest in a video more than three-quarters of an hour long, and I'm certain wcb knows this. But this doesn't mean he is not allowed to set reasonable conditions for responding in his thread- and it is his thread, guys.

quote:

Originally posted by jhe888:
No, you are being the asshole by insisting that we watch a hour long video by a person of no obvious expertise, based on your say-so, when you also have no obvious expertise. Then to try to impose an arbitrary and unrealistic condition on further comment. And then you insult those who won't comply with your unilateral rule-making.

This doesn't make him an asshole and he doesn't need to possess expertise on a subject to form an opinion on it and it's his thread, which, as far as I'm concerned, permits him to set reasonable conditions for responses to his post; in this case, the condition is the viewing of an unfortunately long video, but if a member cannot or will not watch this video, then, they should simply refrain from participating in this thread.

mark123 and ulsterman made pertinent observations and jjkroll32 took the time to post his observations and experience with the subject at hand. These are good things.

This thread didn't have to play out like this. If you don't want to watch the video, then, don't watch it. Just because a member posts a long video, that doesn't mean you can come into his thread and give him a hard time. Let's please step back for a minute and ask ourselves- is this such a big deal that you feel the need to step on a long-time member of the forum?

Now, the other day, I jumped on jhe hard. I took the time to lay all of this out because no one here wants to feel as if the admin is out to get them. But, having said this - jhe, don't screw with the members of my forum. I can understand if you wouldn't believe me when I say to you that if the situation were reversed, I would come to your defense, but with things developing as they did in this thread, you got the ball rolling and your approach was uncalled for, and as far as I'm concerned, you owe an apology to wcb6092. I won't hold my breath, though.

I am indeed sorry for being harsher than called for.

This one just popped up on my radar in YT.
Only one of many other great explanations of cholesterol.
Yes it is long and I am sure is boring to many
but if you are interested in this area and want to it is quite good information.

quote:

Originally posted by wcb6092:
This is one of the points the video is explaining. Relative risk reduction vs absolute risk reduction. A big difference in perception as to how effective the medication really is. The drug companies emphasize relative risk reduction. The absolute risk reduction stated in JAMA is 0.8% for all-cause mortality. 1.3% for heart attacks,.04% for strokes.

That is a problem in a lot of studies and articles. It's particularly bad when a drug company is sponsoring the research, but isn't limited to that. The benefits of cancer screening are also distorted by it. Tell someone they can lower their risk by 30% and many patients would be all over it. Tell them the absolute risk drops from 2.1% to 1.4% and they are likely to pass.