HARD BOILED EGGS

holyfenix

KJoubert1966 wrote: »

holyfenix wrote: »

Pretty sure most medical journals disagree with you on high cholesterol. But hey what do they know, they are just a collection of studies done by scientists with PhD's. Morons the lot of them.

You mean like these studies? (Oh wait.. not those. They state the opposite)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18609060

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615352

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560285

Etc. etc.

Let's try this...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=myth+lipid+hypothesis

Or more directly...
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html

Cholesterol *MIGHT* be correlated with heart disease, and even that is greatly debated by "scientists with PhD's" as to the amount and the type, but it most certainly NOT causal.

This is quoted from your last link.

"Atherosclerosis is largely driven by the degeneration of lipids which infiltrate the blood vessel and thereby cause inflammation"

Have a good day

goddessofawesome

holyfenix wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

holyfenix wrote: »

KJoubert1966 wrote: »

Chloesterol is an anti-inflammatory, produced by your body, to deal with something ELSE that's bad for you. Blaming the cholesterol as "bad", doesn't address the actual source of the problem. Taking a statin or something like that, and forcibly lowering your cholesterol, does nothing to abate the inflammation in your system. High cholesterol is an indicator of a problem... its not THE problem.

High cholesterol can cause build up in arteries. If this build up breaks apart it can cause either stroke or heart attack. I am 100% correct in saying that high cholesterol is bad for you. It may not actually cause anything to happen, but there is always that possibility.

It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the numbers but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.

I amended that statement a few posts up. Basically said exactly what you did.

Sorry. I didn't see it.

Need2Exerc1se

pattiag wrote: »

Wondering why hard boiled eggs don't register as having any protein in them when entered.
It only comes up as fat.

Because the MFP food database is full of incorrect information.

KJoubert1966

goddessofawesome wrote: »

It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the over all number but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.

There's more to it even than that. Even LDL numbers can be broken down to large and small components, of which only small LDL can be correlated on any level with heart disease. But these tests are more expensive, and not routine. Of course, "High cholesterol is bad" is just so simple and easy to grab on to, usually by people unwilling to challenge what they think they already know, the specifics get ignored. The subtle difference between "cause" and "symptom" or "proximate cause" and "root cause" are tossed right out.

Some people don't even understand what cholesterol is and what your body uses it for, and they simply refuse to educate themselves on this point. Its a response to a problem. Ignoring that, and treating it like the root of the problem itself, you never address the health issue that is causing the generation of this response.

Makes for great pharmaceutical sales though.

goddessofawesome

KJoubert1966 wrote: »

goddessofawesome wrote: »

It depends on why your overall cholesterol numbers are high. My cholesterol tends to be on the high side according to the over all number but based on the individual breakdown of HDL/LDL/Tri's I'm in the right range. If your "bad" cholesterol and your tri's are high as well as your over all cholesterol then yes, there is an obvious problem. But to just make a blanket statement that "high cholesterol is bad" isn't necessarily true if you don't have all the numbers.

There's more to it even than that. Even LDL numbers can be broken down to large and small components, of which only small LDL can be correlated on any level with heart disease. But these tests are more expensive, and not routine. Of course, "High cholesterol is bad" is just so simple and easy to grab on to, usually by people unwilling to challenge what they think they already know, the specifics get ignored. The subtle difference between "cause" and "symptom" or "proximate cause" and "root cause" are tossed right out.

Some people don't even understand what cholesterol is and what your body uses it for, and they simply refuse to educate themselves on this point. Its a response to a problem. Ignoring that, and treating it like the root of the problem itself, you never address the health issue that is causing the generation of this response.

Makes for great pharmaceutical sales though.

^^ Agree. And lots of times the cholesterol -- or heck any problem -- is the result of wonky hormones. Statin drugs are the worst thing anyone can be on yet they're heavily pushed and people take them without doing further investigation on their or seeking alternate ways to fix the problem own because "my doctor prescribed them".

neanderthin

holyfenix wrote: »

neanderthin wrote: »

holyfenix wrote: »

KJoubert1966 wrote: »

holyfenix wrote: »

Pretty sure most medical journals disagree with you on high cholesterol. But hey what do they know, they are just a collection of studies done by scientists with PhD's. Morons the lot of them.

You mean like these studies? (Oh wait.. not those. They state the opposite)

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18609060

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18615352

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19560285

Etc. etc.

Let's try this...

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=myth+lipid+hypothesis

Or more directly...
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html

Cholesterol *MIGHT* be correlated with heart disease, and even that is greatly debated by "scientists with PhD's" as to the amount and the type, but it most certainly NOT causal.

You do realize that the way you google something creates certain results right? Google high cholesterol leads to higher risk of heart disease and post your results then.

If you really want to get to the nitty gritty, high levels of LDL (bad cholesterol) can be the cause of some serious problems.

Here is an excerpt from the Harvard book on lowering cholesterol. Give it a read, you might actually learn something
http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/Understanding_Cholesterol.htm

Harvard.......when you think we've progressed and learned a thing or two, just read Harvard. lol

I particularly liked the part where they say the problem is plaque, the cause LDL, the remedy HDL and they actually said HDL to the rescue...

Reminds me of this quote " Faced with the choice between changing one's mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof."

So basically just a more in depth version of what I stated.

Here you go, this should makes complete sense to you.

Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: An analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With The Guidelines

Background

Lipid levels among contemporary patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease (CAD) have not been well studied. This study aimed to analyze admission lipid levels in a broad contemporary population of patients hospitalized with CAD.
Methods

The Get With The Guidelines database was analyzed for CAD hospitalizations from 2000 to 2006 with documented lipid levels in the first 24 hours of admission. Patients were divided into low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL), high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL), and triglyceride categories. Factors associated with LDL and HDL levels were assessed along with temporal trends.
Results

Of 231,986 hospitalizations from 541 hospitals, admission lipid levels were documented in 136,905 (59.0%). Mean lipid levels were LDL 104.9 ± 39.8, HDL 39.7 ± 13.2, and triglyceride 161 ± 128 mg/dL. Low-density lipoprotein cholesterol <70 mg/dL was observed in 17.6% and ideal levels (LDL <70 with HDL ≥60 mg/dL) in only 1.4%. High-density lipoprotein cholesterol was <40 mg/dL in 54.6% of patients. Before admission, only 28,944 (21.1%) patients were receiving lipid-lowering medications. Predictors for higher LDL included female gender, no diabetes, history of hyperlipidemia, no prior lipid-lowering medications, and presenting with acute coronary syndrome. Both LDL and HDL levels declined over time (P < .0001).
Conclusions

In a large cohort of patients hospitalized with CAD, almost half have admission LDL levels <100 mg/dL. More than half the patients have admission HDL levels <40 mg/dL, whereas <10% have HDL ≥60 mg/dL. These findings may provide further support for recent guideline revisions with even lower LDL goals and for developing effective treatments to raise HDL.

http://www.ahjonline.com/article/S0002-8703(08)00717-5/abstract