Heart disease

FredDoyle

So how do researchers measure and quantify inflammation levels? I have some reading to do.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, C-reactive protein is the blood test they check to see if you have high levels of inflammation.

That's correct. That is the marker I'm trying to reduce. I won't take statins to reduce LDL until they will test for types of LDL, and at that point I still may ignore it. It would be nice to re-examine the Framingham study more vigorously.

jeardawg

OK first I will say that I don't pretend to know anything, but I spend a fair amount of time hashing this subject over with my father in law who has a ton of time to study this very issue. It became important to him about 2 years ago when his doctor put him on Lipitor in order to lower his cholesterol and lower his blood pressure. At the time he started looking into lifestyle and diet changes in order to follow up on this issue. He adopted a diet that consisted of super clean eating, he doesn't touch nearly any processed foods, and largely eats vegan. He also exercises (primarily cardio) in a way that could only be described as nearly extreme. Genetically he is in a really bad place too as his father died young of heart disease and 2 brothers all have heart issues of one type or another. Shortly after he started taking lipitor he decided he didn't like it. ( I know how bad that is, my wife is a cardiac nurse) He never told his doc, but for the last year and a half his doc has RAVED at how low his cholesterol and high blood pressure has been due to the lipitor, while the whole time he has not been on it. I am not really ready to go claiming that his way is the end all beat all, but his results have been good for him....

neanderthin

Also, I have read many credible articles that do say that inflammation plays a huge role in heart disease. He's also suggesting that cholesterol is not the actual problem, as to why heart attacks occur.

This Johnny. He's discounting the cholesterol theory in favour of the inflammation theory.

Inflammation has always been the cause. Certain LDL particles (sdLDL) get caught up between the cell walls, oxidize and create inflamation. The body sends out macrophages from our immune system, just basically white blood cells to help repair the lesions but eventually get overrun with more LDL particles creating foam cells and when that happens it's pretty much the road to atherosclerosis.

FredDoyle

Also, I have read many credible articles that do say that inflammation plays a huge role in heart disease. He's also suggesting that cholesterol is not the actual problem, as to why heart attacks occur.

This Johnny. He's discounting the cholesterol theory in favour of the inflammation theory.

Inflammation has always been the cause. Certain LDL particles (sdLDL) get caught up between the cell walls, oxidize and create inflamation. The body sends out macrophages from our immune system, just basically white blood cells to help repair the lesions but eventually get overrun with more LDL particles creating foam cells and when that happens it's pretty much the road to atherosclerosis.

Yes. So it looks like inflammation, not high cholesterol is the cause. We'll always produce and ingest cholesterol.

neanderthin

So how do researchers measure and quantify inflammation levels? I have some reading to do.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, C-reactive protein is the blood test they check to see if you have high levels of inflammation.

That's correct. That is the marker I'm trying to reduce. I won't take statins to reduce LDL until they will test for types of LDL, and at that point I still may ignore it. It would be nice to re-examine the Framingham study more vigorously.

A VAP, Vertical Auto Profile tests for particle density and when you do some research, you'll soon find it pretty interesting I'm sure, I know I have.

neanderthin

Also, I have read many credible articles that do say that inflammation plays a huge role in heart disease. He's also suggesting that cholesterol is not the actual problem, as to why heart attacks occur.

This Johnny. He's discounting the cholesterol theory in favour of the inflammation theory.

Inflammation has always been the cause. Certain LDL particles (sdLDL) get caught up between the cell walls, oxidize and create inflamation. The body sends out macrophages from our immune system, just basically white blood cells to help repair the lesions but eventually get overrun with more LDL particles creating foam cells and when that happens it's pretty much the road to atherosclerosis.

Yes. So it looks like inflammation, not high cholesterol is the cause. We'll always produce and ingest cholesterol.

Well, I wouldn't go that far, or rely on information that says that low LDL is preferred, sounds like an oxymoron I know but total particles is where most new research on cholesterol is going. Basically 2 people could have identical LDL numbers but vasty different total particles and it's pretty much a given that it's the very small dense LDL that is atherogenic and not all LDL particles....

FredDoyle

So how do researchers measure and quantify inflammation levels? I have some reading to do.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, C-reactive protein is the blood test they check to see if you have high levels of inflammation.

That's correct. That is the marker I'm trying to reduce. I won't take statins to reduce LDL until they will test for types of LDL, and at that point I still may ignore it. It would be nice to re-examine the Framingham study more vigorously.

A VAP, Vertical Auto Profile tests for particle density and when you do some research, you'll soon find it pretty interesting I'm sure, I know I have.

I know the test can be done, but whether it becomes a standard paid by the Canuck/Ontario govt. is another story.

NRSPAM

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

BigUncaMo

Here's a good discussion of the way to measure what everyone's talking about here.

http://www.health.harvard.edu/newsweek/C-Reactive_Protein_test_to_screen_for_heart_disease.htm

neanderthin

So how do researchers measure and quantify inflammation levels? I have some reading to do.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, C-reactive protein is the blood test they check to see if you have high levels of inflammation.

That's correct. That is the marker I'm trying to reduce. I won't take statins to reduce LDL until they will test for types of LDL, and at that point I still may ignore it. It would be nice to re-examine the Framingham study more vigorously.

A VAP, Vertical Auto Profile tests for particle density and when you do some research, you'll soon find it pretty interesting I'm sure, I know I have.

I know the test can be done, but whether it becomes a standard paid by the Canuck/Ontario govt. is another story.

LOL.....hell no, we pay for that. I'm from Ontario as well and I get the test done regularily, well every 6 months for the last 5 years. You could get a CAT scan and check for calcification....no calcification, no problems. I've done that as well.

jonnythan

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

FredDoyle

So how do researchers measure and quantify inflammation levels? I have some reading to do.

If I'm not mistaken, and I may be here, C-reactive protein is the blood test they check to see if you have high levels of inflammation.

That's correct. That is the marker I'm trying to reduce. I won't take statins to reduce LDL until they will test for types of LDL, and at that point I still may ignore it. It would be nice to re-examine the Framingham study more vigorously.

A VAP, Vertical Auto Profile tests for particle density and when you do some research, you'll soon find it pretty interesting I'm sure, I know I have.

I know the test can be done, but whether it becomes a standard paid by the Canuck/Ontario govt. is another story.

LOL.....hell no, we pay for that. I'm from Ontario as well and I get the test done regularily, well every 6 months for the last 5 years. You could get a CAT scan and check for calcification....no calcification, no problems. I've done that as well.

I guess my quack doc didn't check that box...

neanderthin

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Jonny I'm not sure we'll find a direct link considering it's mostly lifestyle, genetics. It appears people that actually have heart attacks have certain lipid markers that are common. Low HDL, average LDL and high triglycerides. High triglycerides and low HDL are linked to inflammation and small dense LDL particles.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23881582
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21226274
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0021915008002815

NRSPAM

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Sorry, can't help you. I for one think pink slime is gross, and I don't think cleaning our food with ammonia can be a good thing, but who am I?

jonnythan

That's my impression to N, but if someone is saying the data is there to indicate certain dietary choices lead to chronic inflammation I'm rather interested. Of Amy Sue h data exists I want to see it.

jonnythan

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Sorry, can't help you. I for one think pink slime is gross, and I don't think cleaning our food with ammonia can be a good thing, but who am I?

Chances are a lot of things you eat are cleaned with or contain ammonia. It's a common agent, and many foods contain it naturally.

NRSPAM

If this is the case, how does one explain cases like mine, where my cholesterol levels have improved significantly over time despite high quantities of sugar intake?

Would have been nice if he gave references for some of these claims.

Sugar lowers cholesterol levels.

According to this, sugar lowers good cholesterol, which isn't a good thing.
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100420/high-sugar-diet-linked-lower-good-cholesterol

neanderthin

If this is the case, how does one explain cases like mine, where my cholesterol levels have improved significantly over time despite high quantities of sugar intake?

Would have been nice if he gave references for some of these claims.

Sugar lowers cholesterol levels.

According to this, sugar lowers good cholesterol, which isn't a good thing.
http://www.webmd.com/heart-disease/news/20100420/high-sugar-diet-linked-lower-good-cholesterol

I didn't say it was a good thing. Most people seem to feel that lowering cholesterol is the end all be all, which it's not.

NRSPAM

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Sorry, can't help you. I for one think pink slime is gross, and I don't think cleaning our food with ammonia can be a good thing, but who am I?

Chances are a lot of things you eat are cleaned with or contain ammonia. It's a common agent, and many foods contain it naturally.

Didn't know that...

jonnythan

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Sorry, can't help you. I for one think pink slime is gross, and I don't think cleaning our food with ammonia can be a good thing, but who am I?

Chances are a lot of things you eat are cleaned with or contain ammonia. It's a common agent, and many foods contain it naturally.

Didn't know that...

Peanut butter, mill, cheese, cured meats, bread, etc. It's a non issue. Pink slime is an "ew that looks gross" issue not a health issue.

NRSPAM

A role for inflammation has become well established over the past decade or more in theories describing the atherosclerotic disease process.4,5 From a pathological viewpoint, all stages, ie, initiation, growth, and complication of the atherosclerotic plaque,6,7 might be considered to be an inflammatory response to injury. The major injurious factors that promote atherogenesis—cigarette smoking, hypertension, atherogenic lipoproteins, and hyperglycemia—are well established

Johnny, I read the article and found this^^. Basically, what I gathered from it, is that inflammation is a major cause of atherosclerosis, and their risk of causing a heart attack. I have not found any actual data that says that the inflammation is caused by "not eating clean". It just says that causes of inflammation are due to cholesterol levels, smoking, and the typically well known causes. However, think of all the stuff they put in our food that we don't even know about. How long have they been putting "pink slime" in our food, and we're just now recently finding out about it. I know not all documentaries are factual either, but I've watched a few on how animals that we eat are raised. It's not natural. Their raised with NO sunlight, and fed diets of corn. Naturally, those animals are supposed to be eating grass. All of the preservatives that are put in all of those packaged and canned foods can't be good for us.

We've always known about pink slime. No one ever cared about it. It's just meat. There's nothing wrong with pink slime.

I'd like to see data indicating what types of foods or specific ingredients or chemicals contribute to cardiovascular inflammation.

Sorry, can't help you. I for one think pink slime is gross, and I don't think cleaning our food with ammonia can be a good thing, but who am I?

Chances are a lot of things you eat are cleaned with or contain ammonia. It's a common agent, and many foods contain it naturally.

Didn't know that...

Peanut butter, mill, cheese, cured meats, bread, etc. It's a non issue. Pink slime is an "ew that looks gross" issue not a health issue.

Hmmmm.....that's messed up.

jonnythan

Just turns out small quantities of ammonia are common, natural, and harmless.

Charlottesometimes23

That's my impression to N, but if someone is saying the data is there to indicate certain dietary choices lead to chronic inflammation I'm rather interested. Of Amy Sue h data exists I want to see it.

You might be interested in this article. A New Dietary Inflammatory Index Predicts Interval Changes in Serum High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777480/#!po=22.0000
It's available on PMC for free and it provides details of how the dietary inflammation score was calculated ie. how foods etc. were weighted.

Abstract: Inflammation is associated with a number of chronic conditions, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. Reducing inflammation may help prevent or treat these conditions. Diet has consistently been shown to modulate inflammation. To facilitate research into the inflammatory effect of diet on health in humans, we sought to develop and validate an Inflammatory Index designed to assess the inflammatory potential of individuals' diets. An Inflammatory Index was developed based on the results of an extensive literature search. Using data from a longitudinal observational study that carefully measured diet and the inflammatory marker, serum high-sensitivity (hs) C-reactive protein (CRP), in ~600 adults for 1 y, we conducted analyses to test the effect of Inflammatory Index score on hs-CRP as a continuous and dichotomous (≤3 mg/L, >3 mg/L) indicator of inflammatory response, while controlling for important potential confounders. Results based on continuous measures of hs-CRP suggested that an increasing Inflammatory Index score (representing movement toward an antiinflammatory diet) was associated with a decrease in hs-CRP. Analyses using hs-CRP as a dichotomous variable showed that an antiinflammatory diet was associated with a decrease in the odds of an elevated hs-CRP (P = 0.049). The results are consistent with the ability of the Inflammatory Index to predict hs-CRP and provide additional evidence that diet plays a role in the regulation of inflammation, even after careful control of a wide variety of potential confounders.

neanderthin

That's my impression to N, but if someone is saying the data is there to indicate certain dietary choices lead to chronic inflammation I'm rather interested. Of Amy Sue h data exists I want to see it.

You might be interested in this article. A New Dietary Inflammatory Index Predicts Interval Changes in Serum High-Sensitivity C-Reactive Protein
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2777480/#!po=22.0000
It's available on PMC for free and it provides details of how the dietary inflammation score was calculated ie. how foods etc. were weighted.

Abstract: Inflammation is associated with a number of chronic conditions, such as cancer and cardiovascular disease. Reducing inflammation may help prevent or treat these conditions. Diet has consistently been shown to modulate inflammation. To facilitate research into the inflammatory effect of diet on health in humans, we sought to develop and validate an Inflammatory Index designed to assess the inflammatory potential of individuals' diets. An Inflammatory Index was developed based on the results of an extensive literature search. Using data from a longitudinal observational study that carefully measured diet and the inflammatory marker, serum high-sensitivity (hs) C-reactive protein (CRP), in ~600 adults for 1 y, we conducted analyses to test the effect of Inflammatory Index score on hs-CRP as a continuous and dichotomous (≤3 mg/L, >3 mg/L) indicator of inflammatory response, while controlling for important potential confounders. Results based on continuous measures of hs-CRP suggested that an increasing Inflammatory Index score (representing movement toward an antiinflammatory diet) was associated with a decrease in hs-CRP. Analyses using hs-CRP as a dichotomous variable showed that an antiinflammatory diet was associated with a decrease in the odds of an elevated hs-CRP (P = 0.049). The results are consistent with the ability of the Inflammatory Index to predict hs-CRP and provide additional evidence that diet plays a role in the regulation of inflammation, even after careful control of a wide variety of potential confounders.

CPR is kinda like insulin resistance, if you got it, it was something else that caused it. It is an indicator, but not something I would use as a bulls eye, but that's just my opinion. I will say though, that when refined carbs and sugar is decreased in the diet CRP levels decrease. I've also seen a few studies where the paleo diet was better at reducing inflammation than the inflammation diet, probably because of grains and the oil from grains that are generally heavy in omega 6's, which can be pro-inflammatory.

hlopez_

The western diet is filled with sodium and omega 6 fatty acids and low in vitamins and minerals. This combination creates acidic and inflammatory environments within the body. Of course a proper "clean" diet is what should be recommended. Statins and heart surgeries don't remove the issue of heart disease they just mask it.

Carnivor0us

If this is the case, how does one explain cases like mine, where my cholesterol levels have improved significantly over time despite high quantities of sugar intake?

Would have been nice if he gave references for some of these claims.

Well, he does say that losing weight also significantly lower cholesterol, as well, if I'm not mistaken. That's true, there are no references, but I do think that diet plays a huge role, as well as genetics, since so many of my patients say they take their meds religiously, and stick to a much healthier diet, and still come back.

Then as a nurse, you'd know that patients aren't always honest about compliance and diet/exercise habits at home. Those patients that say they are, aren't a reliable source of information either, even though they should be for their own sake.

Yeah, those patients are filthy liars. No way those meds might actually be useless.

BrianSharpe

It should also be noted that he lost his medical license in 2008......

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

jkowula

I think I "really" know why they return to your unit! :-)
Anyways, my fear of heart disease is one of the primary reasons I need to lose weight and eat healthier. I have learned a lot about nutrition in the last 3 months and through changing my diet, I have almost lost 25 pounds. It hasn't been too hard either. Thanks for this article, the more information I absorb, the better off I think I will be in the long run.

jkowula

It should also be noted that he lost his medical license in 2008......

http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/lundell.html

All the sudden, this gets more interesting.

stealthq

If this is the case, how does one explain cases like mine, where my cholesterol levels have improved significantly over time despite high quantities of sugar intake?

Would have been nice if he gave references for some of these claims.

Well, he does say that losing weight also significantly lower cholesterol, as well, if I'm not mistaken. That's true, there are no references, but I do think that diet plays a huge role, as well as genetics, since so many of my patients say they take their meds religiously, and stick to a much healthier diet, and still come back.

Then as a nurse, you'd know that patients aren't always honest about compliance and diet/exercise habits at home. Those patients that say they are, aren't a reliable source of information either, even though they should be for their own sake.

Yeah, those patients are filthy liars. No way those meds might actually be useless.

No one's saying the meds are the end-all, be-all. But I can tell you from experience (clinical research) that people lie their butts off about whether they're taking their meds, and whether they are following the correct protocol for taking their meds - even meds that have few if any side effects and have a definite positive effect on symptoms. The worse the drug is perceived, the worse compliance becomes. It's common enough that many trials pay for additional blood or urine testing every visit to confirm that the appropriate levels of meds are found.