Guest guest Posted August 3, 2004 Report Share Posted August 3, 2004 > " HSI - Jenny Thompson " > <HSIResearch > Cholesterol Cowboys > Mon, 02 Aug 2004 08:21:32 -0400 > > Cholesterol Cowboys > > Health Sciences Institute e-Alert > > Monday August 02, 2004 > > ************************************************************** > Dear Reader, > > This headline in USA Today caught my eye recently: > " Statins Gain > Wonder Status. " > > Oh brother! – I thought – Here we go again. > > But unlike the headline, the article that followed > turned out to be > surprisingly balanced. Rather than just falling in > line with the > mainstream concept that virtually everyone could use > a > cholesterol-lowering statin drug (even if your LDL > level is already > low), the article examined the validity of statin's > emerging wonder > drug status. > > And then there was the clincher. The article quoted > Christie > Ballantyne, M.D., a cardiologist with Baylor College > of Medicine, > who said that most of her heart disease patients > have a total > cholesterol level of less than 240. And she added: > " The majority of > people who end up having heart attacks or stroke > don't have high > cholesterol. " > > It's a stunning remark, isn't it? And I'm afraid > that Dr. Ballantyne > will never get appointed to the National Cholesterol > Education > Program (NCEP) if she continues to make comments > like that. > Because the cholesterol cowboys over at NCEP really > have only > three basic points to make concerning cholesterol: > 1) Lower. 2) > Lower. 3) Lower. > > ---- > Round 'em up! > ---- > > Last week I sent you an e-Alert ( " Day-Old Fish " > 7/29/04) about > the new NCEP guidelines for cholesterol levels that > call for a > target LDL of 70 for heart patients who are > considered to be at > very high risk of a heart attack. High risk or not, > 70 is an extremely > low LDL. And it will be almost impossible for anyone > to hit that > level without using statin drugs, which the NCEP > recommends as a > course of action. > > All of this would be business as usual, except for a > little > controversy that erupted when a New York newspaper > called on > the NCEP expert panel to reveal their financial ties > to drug > companies that make statin drugs. As it turns out, > those ties run > deep and wide, with eight out of nine panelists > reporting consulting > work, honoraria for speaking engagements, and other > perks from > drug companies. > > Dr. James Cleeman – coordinator of the NCEP – told > WebMD > that, in spite of the controversy, " Nobody is > quarreling with the > substance of the message. " > > Let's check in once more with that quote from Dr. > Ballantyne: > " The majority of people who end up having heart > attacks or stroke > don't have high cholesterol. " > > That may not be a quarrel, but it couldn't be more > contradictory. > And Dr. Ballantyne is not alone. Not in the least. > > ---- > > Photo op > ---- > > If you wanted to give someone an idea of what the > Grand Canyon > looks like, you could stand on the rim and take a > wide-angle photo, > or you could take a close-up shot of the Colorado > River rushing > past a boulder on the riverbank. And while both > photos could be > called photos of the Grand Canyon, only the > wide-angle shot > would convey just how vast the canyon is. > > Trying to assess heart attack risk by looking at LDL > alone (without > also taking into account triglycerides, > homocysteine, c-reactive > protein and a few other important heart health > markers) is like > representing the Grand Canyon with the photo of the > river boulder. > There's no way you can get the big picture. And yet, > the medical > mainstream – while acknowledging other heart risk > markers – > continues to insist that lowering cholesterol should > be the > paramount goal. > > I asked HSI Panelist Allan Spreen, M.D., to comment > on this > concept that LDL cholesterol should be lowered as > much as > possible, and he immediately cited the Framingham > Heart Study: > " The largest, longest, and most prestigious heart > disease study > showed that total cholesterol levels ('total,' now, > mind you, they > didn't talk a whole lot about LDL) that went below > 160 caused > heart disease problems to go back up! So it's a > curve that bottoms > out at 160 instead of a line that gets better and > better as you get > lower and lower. " > > Dr. Spreen's comments are echoed in an article in > Red Flags Daily > by Malcolm Kendrick, M.D., which offers this quote > about the > Framingham results as published in the Journal of > the American > Medical Association: " There is a direct association > between falling > cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and > mortality over the > following 18 years. " > > And from the National Heart, Lung and Blood > Institute's Honolulu > Heart Program (an ongoing study that began in 1965 > with more > than 8,000 men), Dr. Kendrick presents this quote as > it appeared in > the Lancet medical journal: " Our data accord with > previous > findings of increased mortality in elderly people > with low serum > cholesterol, and show that long-term persistence of > low cholesterol > concentration actually increases the risk of death. " > > > So while the medical mainstream chants, " Lower! > Lower! Lower! " > – the better mantra would be, simply, " Moderation. > Balance. " But > of course, a call for cholesterol moderation doesn't > make a good > sales pitch for statin drugs. > > ---- > > Education crisis > ---- > > When the new NCEP guidelines were released last > month, Dr. > Cleeman told the Associated Press that, in addition > to taking drugs, > heart patients should exercise and keep their weight > under control. > I don't believe anyone will quarrel with the > substance of that > message. But to this, Dr. Cleeman added that > patients should eat a > diet low in cholesterol. > > I'm sorry – coming from someone who's the spokesman > for the > National Cholesterol EDUCATION program – that's just > a > flabbergasting comment. Because study after study > has shown that > dietary cholesterol does not raise blood serum > cholesterol in the > overwhelming majority of people. By some estimates, > that > majority is well over 80 percent. So most of us can > eat a three-egg > omelet every morning without any change in our > cholesterol levels > at all. > > In tomorrow's e-Alert I'll turn again to Dr. Spreen > for some natural > ways to effectively address elevated cholesterol and > other heart > disease markers without the use of drugs. > > ************************************************************** > ...and another thing > > > What's on the menu? I hope you like fish. > > In the e-Alert " Good Dirt " (7/15/04), I told you > about a recent > study that examined the diets of nearly 7,000 > subjects. The > researchers' conclusion: People who consumed greater > proportions > of their total energy intake from fresh fish had a > significantly lower > risk of three types of cancer: leukemia, non-Hodgkin > lymphoma, > and myeloma. > > Now a new study from Northwestern University finds > that fish > intake also offers protection from the risk of > ischemic stroke; the > type of stroke that occurs when an artery leading to > the brain is > blocked. > > Researchers analyzed eight different studies that > examined the > relationship between fish intake and incidence of > stroke. More than > 200,000 subjects participated in the eight studies. > > The Northwestern team found an association between > fish intake > and a reduced risk of stroke. And they also came to > this surprising > conclusion: Fish consumption protects against the > risk of ischemic > stroke even if only one to three servings of fish > are eaten each > month. > > This study didn't address the types of fish that > were eaten, or > specific preparation methods. But from what we've > seen from > other studies, we can guess that little or no > protection comes from > deep fried fish. > > In the e-Alert " David Beats Goliath Again " > (5/15/03), I told you > about a University of Washington study that > demonstrated how > those who regularly eat tuna and other baked or > broiled fish (three > or more times per week) may have a significantly > lower risk of > coronary heart disease (CHD) than those who eat the > same fish > infrequently. Those who regularly eat fried fish, > however, could > have a higher risk of both heart attack and death > due to CHD. > > So... drive past McDonald's and think about a nice > poached > salmon tonight. > > To Your Good Health, > > Jenny Thompson > Health Sciences Institute > > ************************************************************** > Sources: > " Implications of Recent Clinical Trials for the > National Cholesterol > Education Program Adult Treatment Panel III > Guidelines " > Circulation, Vol. 110, No. 2, 7/13/04, > circ.ahajournals.org > " New Guidelines for Heart Disease Patients " The > Associated > Press, 7/12/04, msnbc.com > " Why the Cholesterol-Heart Disease Theory is Wrong " > Malcolm > Kendrick, M.D., Red Flags Weekly, 12/12/02, > redflagsweekly.com > " Fish Consumption and Incidence of Stroke: A > Meta-Analysis of > Cohort Studies " Stroke, Vol. 35, No. 7, 5/20/04, > ncbi.nlm.nih.gov > " Eating Fish Protects Against Stroke " Reuters > Health, 7/23/04, > reutershealth.com > > Copyright ©1997-2004 by www.hsibaltimore.com, > L.L.C. > The e-Alert may not be posted on commercial sites > without > written permission. > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.