Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Having gone to the link, and read your previous thread, I'd like someone to tell me what it was that totally blocked my right coronary artery a couple weeks ago which necessitated the implantation of four stents.
Can your doctors tell you? I certainly can't. We are all unique human creatures and live as we do. Eat as we do, exercise as we do, worry or not as we do, smoke/drink as we do, ...genetics I'm sure play a role in cardio health. I take supps to keep my heart healthy and hope they are doing a good job.
Can your doctors tell you? I certainly can't. We are all unique human creatures and live as we do. Eat as we do, exercise as we do, worry or not as we do, smoke/drink as we do, ...genetics I'm sure play a role in cardio health. I take supps to keep my heart healthy and hope they are doing a good job.
I asked you since you don't seem to think cholesterol is an issue and is some sort of Big Pharma conspiracy.
I asked you since you don't seem to think cholesterol is an issue and is some sort of Big Pharma conspiracy.
I can't give you answers. I can only speak for myself and knowing my parents who lived into 90's had strong hearts. There is a lot of info on homocysteine levels and heart disease. My MD has been working this angle for a few yrs now. I bought the book: The Heart Revolution about 10 yrs ago and the info in the book opened my mind in other direction. Homocysteine being the culprit. Did your MD ever test those levels? BTW: Were you, are you taking statins?
I can't give you answers. I can only speak for myself and knowing my parents who lived into 90's had strong hearts. There is a lot of info on homocysteine levels and heart disease. My MD has been working this angle for a few yrs now. I bought the book: The Heart Revolution about 10 yrs ago and the info in the book opened my mind in other direction. Homocysteine being the culprit. Did your MD ever test those levels? BTW: Were you, are you taking statins?
Having gone to the link, and read your previous thread, I'd like someone to tell me what it was that totally blocked my right coronary artery a couple weeks ago which necessitated the implantation of four stents.
Cholesterol is involved in the formation of plaque that can block arteries. But knowing that cholesterol is involved does NOT mean the process and its cause is well understood. It is a mistake to assume cholesterol is the ultimate cause just because it is somehow involved in the process.
There is a genetic disorder that causes extremely high cholesterol which can lead to heart attacks and death, but it is rare. It makes sense to lower cholesterol with statin drugs in those cases.
Except for that genetic disorder, high cholesterol is NOT the cause of artery disease, even though it is involved.
Having type 2 diabetes or smoking can somehow cause chronic inflammation of the arteries. The arteries become damaged and the body tries to repair the damage with cholesterol. At least, that is one theory, which sounds reasonable.
In those cases, where the cholesterol is a response to the problem, not a cause, lowering cholesterol with statin drugs does not address the cause.
Statin drugs are anti-inflammatory, in addition to cholesterol-lowering. It is thought that statins can benefit heart disease patients because they reduce inflammation, not because they lower cholesterol.
So there is quite a lot of confusion surrounding cholesterol and statins and artery disease.
The benefit of statins has been demonstrated mostly in patients who already have artery disease. For people with high cholesterol but no history of heart attack or stroke, there is really no known benefit.
It makes very little sense to give statins to someone who smokes, or has type 2 diabetes. If their cholesterol is high, it is probably in response to the chronic inflammation that can result from smoking or from type 2 diabetes. The obvious solution to problems caused by smoking is to stop smoking. And type 2 diabetes is almost entirely a lifestyle disease, which can be reversed or improved by lifestyle changes.
But now statins are being recommended for middle-aged and older people if their total cholesterol is over a certain limit, and we don't know why or how the limit is chosen.
Is total cholesterol above 200 dangerous for everyone? What about someone with a healthy lifestyle, no previous artery disease, low triglycerides, and high HDL? There is no evidence suggesting that person would benefit from taking statins, yet it is recommended that they take them anyway.
It is true that heart disease and stroke are leading causes of death in our society, so naturally doctors want their patients to be protected. However, it is wrong to assume that artery disease is a natural result of aging, and that drugs are needed to prevent it. It is wrong to assume that if an older person's cholesterol level rises, it is because of artery disease. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
It is known that in pre-industrial societies heart disease and stroke (and cancer and diabetes) are very rare, and that they increase dramatically as a society becomes westernized.
Is it because people who have traditional lifestyles die very young, and never get a chance to die from the diseases of old age?
No -- this has been studied many times. You can easily find research showing that traditional societies tend to be much healthier than ours. Some members of these societies might die young for lack of modern medicine, but those who survive to old age are generally much healthier than older Americans, on average.
Smoking and diabetes 2 are major causes of the modern diseases. And both are easily avoided.
Cholesterol is involved in the formation of plaque that can block arteries. But knowing that cholesterol is involved does NOT mean the process and its cause is well understood. It is a mistake to assume cholesterol is the ultimate cause just because it is somehow involved in the process.
There is a genetic disorder that causes extremely high cholesterol which can lead to heart attacks and death, but it is rare. It makes sense to lower cholesterol with statin drugs in those cases.
Except for that genetic disorder, high cholesterol is NOT the cause of artery disease, even though it is involved.
Having type 2 diabetes or smoking can somehow cause chronic inflammation of the arteries. The arteries become damaged and the body tries to repair the damage with cholesterol. At least, that is one theory, which sounds reasonable.
In those cases, where the cholesterol is a response to the problem, not a cause, lowering cholesterol with statin drugs does not address the cause.
Where do you get the notion that the benefit from a statin depends only on whether there is a familial hyperlipidemia? Source?
How do you explain deposition of cholesterol in arteries of children and young adults who have never smoked and who are not diabetic?
"The initial steps of atherosclerosis include adhesion of blood leukocytes to the activated endothelial monolayer, directed migration of the bound leukocytes into the intima, maturation of monocytes (the most numerous of the leukocytes recruited) into macrophages, and their uptake of lipid, yielding foam cells."
Quote:
Statin drugs are anti-inflammatory, in addition to cholesterol-lowering. It is thought that statins can benefit heart disease patients because they reduce inflammation, not because they lower cholesterol.
Now you say statins are beneficial? Part of the benefit lies in increasing HDL, which holds cholesterol out of the artery wall, and lowering LDL, which make less cholesterol available to be pushed into the arterial wall.
Quote:
So there is quite a lot of confusion surrounding cholesterol and statins and artery disease.
The experts are not confused at all.
Quote:
The benefit of statins has been demonstrated mostly in patients who already have artery disease. For people with high cholesterol but no history of heart attack or stroke, there is really no known benefit.
There is considerable evidence that there is value is statins for prevention in people who have risk factors, including high cholesterol, but who have not yet had an event such as a heart attack or stroke.
It makes very little sense to give statins to someone who smokes, or has type 2 diabetes. If their cholesterol is high, it is probably in response to the chronic inflammation that can result from smoking or from type 2 diabetes. The obvious solution to problems caused by smoking is to stop smoking. And type 2 diabetes is almost entirely a lifestyle disease, which can be reversed or improved by lifestyle changes.
Adding risk factors such as diabetes or smoking actually strengthens the indication for a statin. See the link above.
Doctors discuss lifestyle changes until they are blue in the face. Patients do not make those changes.
Quote:
But now statins are being recommended for middle-aged and older people if their total cholesterol is over a certain limit, and we don't know why or how the limit is chosen.
The levels are chosen based on studies showing the risk of cardiovascular disease at different levels.
Quote:
Is total cholesterol above 200 dangerous for everyone? What about someone with a healthy lifestyle, no previous artery disease, low triglycerides, and high HDL? There is no evidence suggesting that person would benefit from taking statins, yet it is recommended that they take them anyway.
The combination of a high LDL and high HDL is uncommon. Use of a statin is no longer based solely on total cholesterol but on an evaluation of all risk factors.
You have been provided a link to the complex decision algorithms used to prescribe statins. I see you have still not read the material.
Quote:
It is true that heart disease and stroke are leading causes of death in our society, so naturally doctors want their patients to be protected. However, it is wrong to assume that artery disease is a natural result of aging, and that drugs are needed to prevent it. It is wrong to assume that if an older person's cholesterol level rises, it is because of artery disease. Sometimes it is, sometimes it isn't.
The arterial disease is correlated with the level of LDL. It is not the arterial disease that causes the cholesterol to rise.
Quote:
It is known that in pre-industrial societies heart disease and stroke (and cancer and diabetes) are very rare, and that they increase dramatically as a society becomes westernized.
Is it because people who have traditional lifestyles die very young, and never get a chance to die from the diseases of old age?
No -- this has been studied many times. You can easily find research showing that traditional societies tend to be much healthier than ours. Some members of these societies might die young for lack of modern medicine, but those who survive to old age are generally much healthier than older Americans, on average.
Smoking and diabetes 2 are major causes of the modern diseases. And both are easily avoided.
If you live in a society with an average life expectancy of 45 you are not going to live long enough to have a stroke or a heart attack. That is simple fact. You do have to be one of those that manages to live to an older age.
It's fine for you to say smoking and diabetes are easily avoided. If they were, no one would smoke and no one would have diabetes.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
