The Thread about Nothing....

matagi said:

paulambry said:

Ma, do you have a view on this? abc.net.au5130670Open ↗

Statins benefit a select group of people, but there are a lot of people who are on them who really should not be. These things have some potentially horrendous side effects, so a doctor should not be starting a patient on them just because they have a high cholesterol - they need to look at their risk factor profile and that that into consideration too.  You treat the person not the number, but unfortunately a lot of doctors fail to do that. Every time I read the "if people stop taking these drugs they will die" line the Heart Foundation seems to want to peddle, I want to punch someone in the face. What a load of emotive [censored].

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link? I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

paulambry said:

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link? I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

You can search Google Scholar or arXiv for research on the topic. It's all out there.

alienator said:

paulambry said:

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link? I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

You can search Google Scholar or arXiv for research on the topic. It's all out there.

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. :big-smile:

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. [IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

Part 1 is still on the ABC site. It's grouse, especially the it all started by dodgy Ancel Keys.
abc.net.au3876219.htmOpen ↗
There are some interesting comments under the video, particularly by Dr Troy Stapleton

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. [IMG]files.cyclingforums.combig smile.pngOpen ↗[/IMG]

Pauie get this book! You will love it.

http://www.bookdepository.com/Good-Calories-Bad-Calories-Gary-Taubes/9781400033461?redirected=true&gclid=CMrO1Ib0k7sCFShepgodCn4ATQ

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by matagi

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by paulambry

Ma, do you have a view on this?

abc.net.au5130670Open ↗

Statins benefit a select group of people, but there are a lot of people who are on them who really should not be. These things have some potentially horrendous side effects, so a doctor should not be starting a patient on them just because they have a high cholesterol - they need to look at their risk factor profile and that that into consideration too. You treat the person not the number, but unfortunately a lot of doctors fail to do that.

Every time I read the "if people stop taking these drugs they will die" line the Heart Foundation seems to want to peddle, I want to punch someone in the face. What a load of emotive [censored].

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link?

I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

Well that's because there isn't really a definitive answer. There is an association, but the problem is that cholesterol per se is not the culprit. As with all things pertaining to the human body, the problem is multifactorial. There is evidence now suggesting inflammation has a far greater role - we even measure CRP (which is an inflammatory marker) as part of the stratification of risk.

As for "good" cholesterol vs "bad" cholesterol - the idiot that coined those terms should be shot. LDL cholesterol (or "bad" cholesterol) is manufactured by the human body. It's function is to deliver cholesterol to cells (and cells need cholesterol to keep their cell membranes fluid) so it is in fact essential. People are now starting to look at the glycation of lipoproteins as the culprit in atherosclerosis (even though this is not a new concept), which certainly has more merit than leaping up and down loudly proclaiming we should all be reducing our cholesterol levels below a certain magic number or we will all turn into solid blocks of atheroma.

Thanks Ma. That does seem to accord with some of the stuff I've read this year. And with the Catalyst program.

Jono L said:

paulambry said:

Yes. That's the problem. There's SO much out there... much of it contradictory. I need a smart, well informed filter. That's where Ma comes in. :big-smile:

Pauie get this book! You will love it. bookdepository.com9781400033461Open ↗

Cool. Thanks Jono. I've just read a few articles in Scientific American on those topics. A recent edition was entirely devoted to food... calories, diets, 'big fat lies' topics etc. Good stuff.

MediaWatch ripped Catalyst a new one over that show. Check that out if you haven't already.

alienator said:

paulambry said:

So Ma, have we established a causal link between high cholesterol and heart disease? Or is it a circumstantial / statistical / epidemiological link? I can never seem to get a definitive answer on this stuff.

You can search Google Scholar or arXiv for research on the topic. It's all out there.

Excellent... didn't know about either of those. Many thanks.

paulambry said:

Excellent... didn't know about either of those. Many thanks.

I only ask for gratuitous images of nekid women in return.

ok, here's the chick with the big [censored] from Two Broke Girls

heaven666.orgkat dennings nude 46185.phpOpen ↗

531Aussie said:

ok, here's the chick with the big [censored] from Two Broke Girls  heaven666.orgkat dennings nude 46185.phpOpen ↗

You can't see my tears of joy and gratitude, but they are there. Say, you wouldn't happen to have any of Kat Dennings with a lesbian lover would ya?

Hmm, there are probably some out there, but most are fake, like this one

-big-2-Broke-Girls-ass-nude-42212/1331785690-Kat-Dennings-000.jpg"]http://www.lairofluxlucre.net/celebrity-fakes/Kat-Dennings-[censored]-big-2-Broke-Girls-ass-nude-42212/1331785690-Kat-Dennings-000.jpg

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by gplama
MediaWatch ripped Catalyst a new one over that show. Check that out if you haven't already.

Undeservedly so, however.

Paulie:

http://bert-hubert.blogspot.nl/2013/05/the-new-nutritional-consensus-key.html

Interesting stuff.

Everything needs the odd grain of salt. But the general gist, I'm coming around to..

Jono L said:

gplama said:

  MediaWatch ripped Catalyst a new one over that show. Check that out if you haven't already.

Undeservedly so, however.

Yeah, that's what I reckon. I was also a bit baffled by the vociferous reaction from Norman Swann.

Jono L said:

Paulie: bert-hubert.blogspot.nlthe new nutritional consensus key.htmlOpen ↗ Interesting stuff. Everything needs the odd grain of salt. But the general gist, I'm coming around to..

Quoted post said:

Paleo The guiding philosophy here is that anything we haven’t been eating for a million years is unlikely to work well for us. There is ample evidence that many paleolithic societies were low carb, and as they did not have organized agriculture, ate little dairy.

I used to think there was some merit in this. Until I learned that the frozen man, Ötzi, had heart disease. [IMG ALT=""]http://www.cyclingforums.com/content/type/61/id/294707/width/350/height/700[/IMG]

N=1 Read that book, just keep your mind open :-) Meanwhile, I'm off to eat some meat..

Quoted post said:

Originally Posted by Jono L

Meanwhile, I'm off to eat some meat..

Isn't that supposed to be what she said... ?