Regarding CRP, the big Jupiter trial that all the statin companies cite when trying to add statins to our water supply had one HUGE variable they don't discuss which is that all the participants had CRP of 2.0 or greater. This is an inflammation marker that is highly correlated to CVD. So when they say it helps people with "normal" cholesterol, they are being quite sly since, by all measures, 2.0 is considered above optimal. I have seen 3 levels called optimal <0.5, <1.0 and <2.0.

Mine was listed as <0.2 on my latest blood work, which I took to mean that was the lower limit of what they could report.

RalfLott wrote: »

cstehansen wrote: »

There is much talk from others about how eating this way will kill you because of we all "know" eating fat is bad for you. The link below is for a test which has shown to be far more accurate than just looking at total cholesterol and LDL in determining CVD risk.

http://www.reynoldsriskscore.org/default.aspx

If you go to the FAQ you will see there is a validation paper in JAMA on the women's version of this. I read part of it. In short, this improved the accuracy between 30% and 50% over older models.

It looks rather simplistic. Plus, my risk rose when I raised my total cholesterol from 160 to 190. ??

You will notice on here that the total will affect it, but not nearly as much as raising your CRP or systolic BP numbers. Both of those seem to have a much heavier effect. My total is 259, but the CRP of 0.2 and systolic of 105 kept me at 1% risk.

If I didn't have real world responsibilities, I think I probably could based on all the studies out there. I am pretty good at reading and understanding research and am VERY good at analyzing data and putting it into formats to be easily understood and in ways that help with predictability of outcomes based on different variables. That is actually a part of my job and has been for the better part of 25 years.

Been pretty frustrated at work lately, so......