High Cholesterol - any tips?
Replies
-
livenfree45 wrote: »I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
These do help, When I stopped exercising regularly, I was put on something, my cholesterol dropped quite a bit
By not helping women, I meant they do not seem to help reduce CVD or lower mortality. They may lower cholesterol but i have seem no evidence that they help women, especially post menopausal women.
Statins do appear to help middle aged men, who have already suffered a heart attack, to live longer though.
1 -
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you provided, you'll see they do very little. It says there is something like a 27% reduction in events but your chance of having a heart attack each year is something like 2-5% depending on age. 27% of 2-5% puts your risk at something like 2.5 - 6.3%. Not much, especially when you factor in the serious side effects some get.
Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.0 -
After many years on Pravastatin, in 2015 I switched to the following:
- instead of dairy milk, I use almond milk or coconut milk or cashew milk, etc
- instead of meat of any color/kind, I eat mostly fish mostly baked never fried. Now and then baked chicken
- occasionally at my mom's I'd have pork, beef or chicken
- olive oil instead of butter/margerine
That's really all I did for my lipid panel/cholesterol and my numbers have remained just as good and stable as if I'd been still taking Pravastatin.
I hope you find this useful.
Regards,
habrownnyc2 -
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.4 -
They do, no matter how many times you repeat this, it's still not true.livenfree45 wrote: »I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
These do help, When I stopped exercising regularly, I was put on something, my cholesterol dropped quite a bit
By not helping women, I meant they do not seem to help reduce CVD or lower mortality.
You mean you ignore the evidence that it helps women. But let's be real, you have never looked for such evidence, your happy to just regurgitate what's spoonfed to you on your favorite keto propaganda websites.They may lower cholesterol but i have seem no evidence that they help women, especially post menopausal women.
3 -
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...
The links you shared do not show much effectiveness. Sort of like the statistic from a year or so ago showing that eating processed meats raises your risk of cancer 20%... from 5 to 6%. That's not much of a difference. Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Diet and exercise are much much more effective at lowering CVD risk.
This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins. People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
They do, no matter how many times you repeat this, it's still not true.livenfree45 wrote: »I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
These do help, When I stopped exercising regularly, I was put on something, my cholesterol dropped quite a bit
By not helping women, I meant they do not seem to help reduce CVD or lower mortality.
You mean you ignore the evidence that it helps women. But let's be real, you have never looked for such evidence, your happy to just regurgitate what's spoonfed to you on your favorite keto propaganda websites.They may lower cholesterol but i have seem no evidence that they help women, especially post menopausal women.
I've read a fair bit on this topic. Jibes don't change that.
I have my opinion based on the facts. You have a different take on those same stats. You can take the statins if you wish. Me? I'd skip them unless I had a really good reason to take them, and not just because cholesterol is a bit high.0 -
Nope, just dispelling your misinformation.
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...The links you shared do not show much effectiveness.
True, the effect may be small, but they are effective. Which is much different from you original baseless assertion that "they don't seem to help women at all"Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Ahh, herein lies your problem. Chris Kresser is a quack, about as far removed from science as you can get, up there with Oz, Mercola and Food Babe. He's a acupuncturist, that right there is red flag numero uno. He also claims to be an expert in Functional and Integrative medicine, which is quackery. He also believes in Leaky Gut. The fact you would link to him says a lot about your inability to separate fact from fiction and science from pseudoscience.This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
Oh great, first trying to explain statins with a link to a known quack and now a completely on sided cherry picked book. Do you actually have any misinterpreted research you can post?This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
Let's see, you link to a quack and a book, both fundamentally misleading. I link to research.And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins.
Again another one of your problems. You think a weekend of Google U and few reads of some one sided books accounts for research and makes you an expert, it doesn't. Its called confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger, you are a prime example of both. You do realize its a very complex topic, missing from the side of the quacks is nuance and understanding.People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
3 -
Nope, just dispelling your misinformation.
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...The links you shared do not show much effectiveness.
True, the effect may be small, but they are effective. Which is much different from you original baseless assertion that "they don't seem to help women at all"Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Ahh, herein lies your problem. Chris Kresser is a quack, about as far removed from science as you can get, up there with Oz, Mercola and Food Babe. He's a acupuncturist, that right there is red flag numero uno. He also claims to be an expert in Functional and Integrative medicine, which is quackery. He also believes in Leaky Gut. The fact you would link to him says a lot about your inability to separate fact from fiction and science from pseudoscience.This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
Oh great, first trying to explain statins with a link to a known quack and now a completely on sided cherry picked book. Do you actually have any misinterpreted research you can post?This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
Let's see, you link to a quack and a book, both fundamentally misleading. I link to research.And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins.
Again another one of your problems. You think a weekend of Google U and few reads of some one sided books accounts for research and makes you an expert, it doesn't. Its called confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger, you are a prime example of both. You do realize its a very complex topic, missing from the side of the quacks is nuance and understanding.People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
Your arguments are getting to be about word choices (For example, I consider a 0.50% in CVD reduction to be not much at all) and seem snarky so I'll bow out now. You appear to have your mind made up and are not interested in opposing viewpoints. Good luck with your health care choices.1 -
Nope, just dispelling your misinformation.
You can't be serious? You telling anyone how to interpret research is hysterical.
Do you enjoy repeating dogma that is completely false? It's really not a good quality.I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.
http://circoutcomes.ahajournals.org/content/4/3/328#sec-18
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/m/pubmed/25579834/
The
I would avoid these books, complete one sided, cherry picked drivel.Try the books Cholesterol Clarity, The Great Cholesterol Myth, and Cholesterol Con.
If you properly interpret the stats in the links you providedyou'll see they do very little.
From the first link:In addition to the 25% reduction in the prespecified primary end point of the PROVE IT-TIMI 22 trial in women, we found consistent beneficial effects of high-dose atorvastatin on cardiovascular events in women, with 30% to 47% relative reductions in the risks for death, MI, and UA; UA; heart failure, and the combination of primary end point with heart failure.
Let's keep in mind your original claim:
Which you then moved the goalposts to this:I would be leery of statins too - there do not appear to help women at all.you'll see they do very little.
Hmm... reduction in death and MI. Yeah, I guess they do very little and don't appear to help women at all.Even though some of those books were written decades apart, they all say the same thing... There is a reason for that.
The reason is that they completely one sided. The authors cherry picked the research to fit their fixed delusion.
You seem very emotionally invested in justifying statin use...The links you shared do not show much effectiveness.
True, the effect may be small, but they are effective. Which is much different from you original baseless assertion that "they don't seem to help women at all"Likewise, statins don't do much for most people. Men who already have CVD have a small chance of benefiting. Women? It's smaller.
Ahh, herein lies your problem. Chris Kresser is a quack, about as far removed from science as you can get, up there with Oz, Mercola and Food Babe. He's a acupuncturist, that right there is red flag numero uno. He also claims to be an expert in Functional and Integrative medicine, which is quackery. He also believes in Leaky Gut. The fact you would link to him says a lot about your inability to separate fact from fiction and science from pseudoscience.This is an easy and simplistic look at the stats:
https://chriskresser.com/the-diet-heart-myth-statins-dont-save-lives-in-people-without-heart-disease/
Oh great, first trying to explain statins with a link to a known quack and now a completely on sided cherry picked book. Do you actually have any misinterpreted research you can post?This is a longer discussion, well, a book. Page 115 starts getting into statins.
http://www.ravnskov.nu/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/CM.pdf
Let's see, you link to a quack and a book, both fundamentally misleading. I link to research.And yes, these are both biased away from statins. You are balancing that out with quotes in favor of statins.
Again another one of your problems. You think a weekend of Google U and few reads of some one sided books accounts for research and makes you an expert, it doesn't. Its called confirmation bias and Dunning-Kruger, you are a prime example of both. You do realize its a very complex topic, missing from the side of the quacks is nuance and understanding.People can make up their own minds by educating themselves.
Your arguments are getting to be about word choices (For example, I consider a 0.50% in CVD reduction to be not much at all) and seem snarky so I'll bow out now. You appear to have your mind made up and are not interested in opposing viewpoints. Good luck with your health care choices.
There are viewpoints and there are facts. Some do not understand the difference. My viewpoint will never change unless there is solid science to justify a different stance.1
This discussion has been closed.
Categories
- All Categories
- 1.4M Health, Wellness and Goals
- 393.6K Introduce Yourself
- 43.8K Getting Started
- 260.3K Health and Weight Loss
- 175.9K Food and Nutrition
- 47.5K Recipes
- 232.5K Fitness and Exercise
- 430 Sleep, Mindfulness and Overall Wellness
- 6.5K Goal: Maintaining Weight
- 8.5K Goal: Gaining Weight and Body Building
- 153K Motivation and Support
- 8K Challenges
- 1.3K Debate Club
- 96.3K Chit-Chat
- 2.5K Fun and Games
- 3.8K MyFitnessPal Information
- 24 News and Announcements
- 1.1K Feature Suggestions and Ideas
- 2.6K MyFitnessPal Tech Support Questions