M
MU
Guest
On Wed, 08 Dec 2004 04:22:12 GMT, Ed Mathes wrote:
> It's amazing the experts who spout all sorts of things about glycolated this
> and small particles that......and have no real concept of the
> inter-relationship between heart disease and diabetes. So all you
> non-physiologists, stop talking physiology and concentrate on practical
> clinical applications.
Uh, Ed, you don't seem to understand how Usenet diet/diabetes posters
think. Not only do they go around spouting off about physiology and every
other "ology" that you can think of, they are lay research scientists as
well. They fight about this citation saying that and that citation saying
this and when questioned, the most brilliant response I have gotten lately
is, "I can read English". Then, of course, when you point out that they
have little to zero qualifications to qualify studies as accurately
performed, much less interpret them, then one is usually referred to in
terms of sleeping with Mother.
Ignore the fact that they can't tell the difference between a newspaper
article and a citation, just ignore that.
> And it is not just a matter of lowering LDL.
>
> But there is a correlation between LDL and incidence of MI. This is well
> know.
>
> AND
>
> Diabetics don't die from their "sugar".
>
> Fully 80% of Diabetics die from heart attacks....
Don't tell the diabetics on alt.support.diabetes. You'll get an abstract
thrown at you.
> Many diabetics don't even get diagnosed until their first MI.
> Diabetes (we're talking type 2) is considered an "MI equivilant"...meaning,
> just having diabetes puts your risk of MI on the same level as a
> non-diabetic who has already had an MI!
>
> Diabetes causes you to go blind, destroys your kidneys, causes macrovascular
> (that's "large vessel") disease, neuropathy, and screws up your lipid
> metabolism.
>
> "Treatment" is multifactorial. Since heart attacks kill 80% of diabetics,
> it makes sense to address their cardiovascular risk factors first.....weight
> loss, control hypertension, lower LDL (I refer all to CARDS and HPS), etc.
Enter the miracle of the 2PDiet. There, I said it.
> Sugar control, while important, takes 2nd place in the early stges of
> treatment.
>
> Now, before one of you goes all out half-cocked, we do take action to bring
> sugar under control concomittently.
> BUT, most people have difficulty handling too much information...so you see
> them often and take little steps at each visit.
>
> It doesn't matter if you have diabetes and your HgbA1c is 4.5.... if you
> have an LDL of 160 or 140 or even 100....your risk is still higher than a
> non-diabetic.
>
> And don't forget triglycerides.
>
> The landmark Heart Protection Study demonstrated significant risk reduction
> when a diabetic takes a statin (specifically Zocor), regardless of LDL
> level, regardless of HgbA1c. An LDL reduction from 90 to <70 still
> demonstrated an 8% risk reduction...fully 30 points below current NCEP
> guidelines. (remember the "70" is still just a "recommendation").
>
> Ed
I fear for you.
> It's amazing the experts who spout all sorts of things about glycolated this
> and small particles that......and have no real concept of the
> inter-relationship between heart disease and diabetes. So all you
> non-physiologists, stop talking physiology and concentrate on practical
> clinical applications.
Uh, Ed, you don't seem to understand how Usenet diet/diabetes posters
think. Not only do they go around spouting off about physiology and every
other "ology" that you can think of, they are lay research scientists as
well. They fight about this citation saying that and that citation saying
this and when questioned, the most brilliant response I have gotten lately
is, "I can read English". Then, of course, when you point out that they
have little to zero qualifications to qualify studies as accurately
performed, much less interpret them, then one is usually referred to in
terms of sleeping with Mother.
Ignore the fact that they can't tell the difference between a newspaper
article and a citation, just ignore that.
> And it is not just a matter of lowering LDL.
>
> But there is a correlation between LDL and incidence of MI. This is well
> know.
>
> AND
>
> Diabetics don't die from their "sugar".
>
> Fully 80% of Diabetics die from heart attacks....
Don't tell the diabetics on alt.support.diabetes. You'll get an abstract
thrown at you.
> Many diabetics don't even get diagnosed until their first MI.
> Diabetes (we're talking type 2) is considered an "MI equivilant"...meaning,
> just having diabetes puts your risk of MI on the same level as a
> non-diabetic who has already had an MI!
>
> Diabetes causes you to go blind, destroys your kidneys, causes macrovascular
> (that's "large vessel") disease, neuropathy, and screws up your lipid
> metabolism.
>
> "Treatment" is multifactorial. Since heart attacks kill 80% of diabetics,
> it makes sense to address their cardiovascular risk factors first.....weight
> loss, control hypertension, lower LDL (I refer all to CARDS and HPS), etc.
Enter the miracle of the 2PDiet. There, I said it.
> Sugar control, while important, takes 2nd place in the early stges of
> treatment.
>
> Now, before one of you goes all out half-cocked, we do take action to bring
> sugar under control concomittently.
> BUT, most people have difficulty handling too much information...so you see
> them often and take little steps at each visit.
>
> It doesn't matter if you have diabetes and your HgbA1c is 4.5.... if you
> have an LDL of 160 or 140 or even 100....your risk is still higher than a
> non-diabetic.
>
> And don't forget triglycerides.
>
> The landmark Heart Protection Study demonstrated significant risk reduction
> when a diabetic takes a statin (specifically Zocor), regardless of LDL
> level, regardless of HgbA1c. An LDL reduction from 90 to <70 still
> demonstrated an 8% risk reduction...fully 30 points below current NCEP
> guidelines. (remember the "70" is still just a "recommendation").
>
> Ed
I fear for you.