36 replies to this topic

[VictorBjoerk]

Today when shopping at the local mall you could have your blood drawn and your cholesterol checked for free. I tested and found my total cholesterol was 3.79.

They said it should absolutely not exceed 5.0 mmol/L so I assume it was within the acceptable range.

However I wonder, what is the optimal cholesterol for longevity? I mean those seen in very healthy people like some hunter-gatherers etc.. What kind of cholesterol does eg long-term CR human experiments have?

And what do you people here who exercise, take supplements, restrict calories etc have?

[Matt]

MIT links longevity gene SIRT1 to cholesterol
http://www.eurekaler...t-mlg101007.php
CAMBRIDGE, MA--MIT researchers have discovered a link between a gene believed to promote long lifespan and a pathway that flushes cholesterol from the body. The finding could help researchers create drugs that lower the risk of diseases associated with high cholesterol, including atherosclerosis (clogged arteries) and Alzheimer's disease. The study focused on a gene called SIRT1, which the researchers found prevents cholesterol buildup by activating a cellular pathway that expels cholesterol from the body via HDL (high density lipoprotein or “good cholesterol”).

“SIRT1 is an important mediator of cholesterol efflux, and as such it's predicted to play a role in the development of age-associated diseases where cholesterol is a contributing factor,” said Leonard Guarente, MIT professor of biology and senior author of a paper on the work to be published in the Oct. 12 issue of Molecular Cell. Drugs that enhance the effects of SIRT1 could lower the risk of cholesterol-related diseases, Guarente said. Potential drugs could be based on polyphenols, which are found in red wine and have been shown to enhance SIRT1. However, the quantities naturally found in red wine are not large enough to have a significant impact on cholesterol levels. In earlier studies, Guarente has shown that high levels of SIRT1 can be achieved with extreme calorie restriction, but that is unappealing for most people.

“If you had a drug that could increase expression of SIRT1, that could replicate the effects of calorie restriction,” Guarente said. “This is not going to replace the need for a healthy lifestyle, but it's a supplement that could potentially make you healthier.”

SIRT1 is the mammalian homologue to SIR2, a gene that has been shown to slow aging in yeast and roundworms. Researchers have been curious to find out whether SIRT1 has similar effects. In the new MIT study, researchers found that low SIRT1 levels in mice lead to cholesterol buildup in cells such as macrophages, a type of immune cell, due to reduced activity of a protein called LXR (liver X receptor). LXR is responsible for transporting cholesterol out of macrophage cells. When full of cholesterol, the macrophages can generate plaques that clog arteries. SIRT1 boosts LXR activity, so that cholesterol is expelled from macrophages and out of the body by HDL.

Edited by Matt, 14 October 2008 - 10:47 PM.

[Matt]

Warren at the CRS provided all values after the first 3.

From the CR society

Matthew Lake (myself)
Total : 3.7 (144mg/dl)
HDL: 1.5 (59mg/dl)
LDL: 1.9 (74mg/dl
Triglycerides: 0.6 (53mg/dl)

Arturo
Cholesterol 100mg/dl
Triglycerides 61
HDL 50
VLDL 12
LDL 38

Willie
Total Cholesterol: 150 mg/dl
HDL: 54 mg/dl
LDL: 80 mg/dl
Triglycerides: 79 mg/dl (


Saul [Zone diet]

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 23 < 200
Direct HDL 81 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.28 < 2.0

-------------------------------------------
Dean [Zone diet]:

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 49 < 200
Direct HDL 68 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.72 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was ???].

-------------------------------------------
Saul [Zone diet]:

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 35 < 200
Direct HDL 74 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.47 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was ???].

-------------------------------------------
Warren [Zone diet]

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 33 < 200
Direct HDL 54 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.61 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was 2.38].

-------------------------------------------
Khurram [Zone diet]

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 39 < 200
Direct HDL 53 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.74 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was 1.79].

-------------------------------------------
Phil [Zone diet]
Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 45 < 200
Direct HDL 92 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.49 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was 2.67].

--------------------------------------------
Michael [Walford diet]

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 49 < 200
Direct HDL 74 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.66 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was 7.52 (316/42)].

--------------------------------------------
Greg [Zone diet]

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 55 < 200
Direct HDL 71 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.77 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was ???].

--------------------------------------------
Larry [Zone diet]

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 67 < 200
Direct HDL 101 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.66 < 2.0

[Previous to CR, ratio value was 2.06 (128/62)].

--------------------------------------------
Larry [Zone diet]

Item Value Range
------------ ----- ------
Triglycerides 69 < 200
Direct HDL 108 > 35
Fast Tri/HDL Ratio 0.64 < 2.0

From Fontana study

Long-term calorie restriction is highly effective in reducing the risk for atherosclerosis in humans
http://www.pubmedcen...bmedid=15096581

Edited by Matt, 14 October 2008 - 10:58 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

If converting 3.79 to american standards you get 146 mg/ dl. So therefore I conclude that my cholesterol are as low as some CR people which is good.

The problem is just to keep it the same as the years roll on.

Matt: do you have any statistics about the typical cholesterol levels for 20-year olds?

[s123]

Sven (CR for 2 years):
Total: 152 mg/dl
Cholesterol/HDL: 1,95
HDL: 76mg/dl
LDL: 66mg/dl
Triglycerides: 42mg/dl

Edited by s123, 14 October 2008 - 11:30 PM.

[Matt]

I have some older data, I'm sure more upto date figures are available.

Source: Okinawa Diet Plan

Okinawa Centenarians
Total Cholesterol 152mg/dl
HDL 49.8mg/dl
Ratio 3.1

< 1% are overweight and <1% have diabetes

Okinawan Elders
Total cholesterol 212
HDL 57
Ratio 3.7

26% overweight 8% Diabetes


Source: 120 year diet R. Walford

Blood Cholesterol of American Men and Women 1983

20-24 years

MEN
Average = 167 mg/dl
Lowest 5% = 124 mg/dl
Highest 5% = 218 mg/dl

WOMEN
Average = 164 mg/dl
Lowest 5% = 122 mg/dl
Highest 5% = 216mg/dl

Edited by Matt, 14 October 2008 - 11:38 PM.

[VictorBjoerk]

I have some older data, I'm sure more upto date figures are available.

Source: Okinawa Diet Plan

Okinawa Centenarians
Total Cholesterol 152mg/dl
HDL 49.8mg/dl
Ratio 3.1

< 1% are overweight and <1% have diabetes

Okinawan Elders
Total cholesterol 212
HDL 57
Ratio 3.7

26% overweight 8% Diabetes


Source: 120 year diet R. Walford

Blood Cholesterol of American Men and Women 1983

20-24 years

MEN
Average = 167 mg/dl
Lowest 5% = 124 mg/dl
Highest 5% = 218 mg/dl

WOMEN
Average = 164 mg/dl
Lowest 5% = 122 mg/dl
Highest 5% = 216mg/dl

It should likely be slightly higher now 25 years later.

Okinawa centenarians aren't they known to have about the same cholesterol levels through out their lives?, I mean they don't start out VERY low and gradually increase but rather keep the same value of around 150 mmol/l throughout their lives?

[Matt]

I read from netdoctor that in the UK the average Cholesterol is now 222mg/dl (5.7 mmol/l). Obviously as we disucssed in the other thread, total cholesterol on its own don't really mean a lot. However in the framingham study no one with a total cholesterol cholesterol below 150mg/dl died... so it does tell you something. I think 120-150mg/dl is where humans SHOULD be around, this is the kind of cholesterol levels people have who don't eat a western diet, but a natural diet and avoiding processed foods. The lowest my total cholesterol got down to was 109mg/dl!

But I think CRONies are proof of just how much you can change risk factors, and don't let doctors put it in your head that there is nothing you can do and its just unlucky genes. Some people in the CRS had high cholesterol before starting CR! It would definitely be a 'very rare' event for a CRONie to suffer a heart attack, I think. We can probably safely say that our risk is pretty much close to Zero. Because lets not forget, whatever risk factor you look at, CRONies are low on all of them.

Edited by Matt, 15 October 2008 - 08:33 PM.

[aikikai]

My total cholesterol is 3.0 (European measurement).

[RickSantos]

The Okinawans love their pork and pork fat and certainly do not shun meat. They eat an overall balanced diet.

Here is a picture of Okinawan cuisine that does not seem to jibe with Buettner's bull. Notice eggs WITH THE YOLK, meat and BEER (along with vegetables etc)

http://en.wikipedia....ya_chanpuru.jpg

WHOOOOPS!

AVOID books like The Okinawan Program - they are agenda driven fraud, just like ANCEL KEYS AND HIS LIES about the REAL Mediterranean Diet and saturated fat and cholesterol causing CAD.

Edited by RickSantos, 15 December 2009 - 05:46 PM.

[Matt]

yeah sure they are. 30 year study, interviewed over 900 centenarians... right.... I believe everything you say. Not :-) Okinawan elders eat low fat, low calorie low meat diet... they do eat meat but not that often. Have you read the okinawan program or okinawa diet plan? have you read the food tables from okinawa surveys?

Edited by Matt, 15 December 2009 - 06:18 PM.

[kismet]

AVOID books like The Okinawan Program - they are agenda driven fraud, just like ANCEL KEYS AND HIS LIES about the REAL Mediterranean Diet and saturated fat and cholesterol causing CAD.

Refrain from using caps, provide citations... and we're talking.

[Jay]

yeah sure they are. 30 year study, interviewed over 900 centenarians... right.... I believe everything you say. Not :-) Okinawan elders eat low fat, low calorie low meat diet... they do eat meat but not that often. Have you read the okinawan program or okinawa diet plan? have you read the food tables from okinawa surveys?

Matt, what about this study? Here's the abstract:

Nutrition for the Japanese elderly.
Shibata H et al Nutr Health. 1992;8(2-3):165-75.

The present paper examines the relationship of nutritional status to further life expectancy and health status in the Japanese elderly based on 3 epidemiological studies.

1. Nutrient intakes in 94 Japanese centenarians investigated between 1972 and 1973 showed a higher proportion of ANIMAL PROTEIN to total proteins than in contemporary average Japanese.

2. High intakes of MILK and FATS and OILS had favorable effects on 10-year (1976-1986) survivorship in 422 urban residents aged 69-71. The survivors revealed a longitudinal INCREASE in intakes of ANIMAL foods such as EGGS, MILK, FISH and MEAT over the 10 years.

3. Nutrient intakes were compared, based on 24-hour dietary records, between a sample from OKINAWA Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and 65 were the LONGEST in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. Intakes of Ca, Fe, vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy from PROTEINS and FATS were SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER in the former than in the latter. Intakes of CARBOHYDRATES and NaCl were LOWER.

PMID: 1407826

[kismet]

2. High intakes of MILK and FATS and OILS had favorable effects on 10-year (1976-1986) survivorship in 422 urban residents aged 69-71. The survivors revealed a longitudinal INCREASE in intakes of ANIMAL foods such as EGGS, MILK, FISH and MEAT over the 10 years.

Socioeconomic factors?

3. Nutrient intakes were compared, based on 24-hour dietary records, between a sample from OKINAWA Prefecture where life expectancies at birth and 65 were the LONGEST in Japan, and a sample from Akita Prefecture where the life expectancies were much shorter. Intakes of Ca, Fe, vitamins A, B1, B2, C, and the proportion of energy from PROTEINS and FATS were SIGNIFICANTLY HIGHER in the former than in the latter. Intakes of CARBOHYDRATES and NaCl were LOWER.

Irrelevant. It's not about cholesterol nor about animal protein per se. We've known for a long time that trading CHO for protein and fat is probably healthy. And I do remember that MR once argued that okinawans eat more zone than low fat. 

[Jay]

Not irrelevant to the discussion about the Okinawan diet. I think it's pretty spot on relevant to that discussion as it shows that they ate more fat and fewer carbs than other Japanese people.

Okinawan longevity relative to other Japanese people could be due to other factors of course - joie de vivre, sunshine, exercise, socioeconomic, CR, etc. By the way, how confident are we anyway that the Okinawans ate a CR diet? Even if there are studies that show it, it strikes me as so unlikely that any group would eat a CR diet, unless faced with food shortages, that I just sort of doubt it anyway.

Edited by Jay, 17 December 2009 - 06:19 PM.

[Luna]

the doctor here called me medical anomaly and said my cholesterol is too good :D other than the hdl which could still be improved ("but it doesn't really matter because of the trigs and ldl levels according to her)

Total: 114
LDL: 71
HDL: 35

I have no idea where the other 8 went too but it's not in ldl or hdl O_o

Edited by Luna, 22 December 2009 - 04:43 PM.

[Jay]

[quote name='Luna' date='Dec 22 2009, 11:42 AM' post='371055']
Total: 114
LDL: 71
HDL: 35
quote]

It seems too low to be. Optimal mortality seems to be associated with higher total cholesterol and certainly with higher HDL. I would recommend adding saturated fat to your diet.

[Matt]

okinawan centenarians (30 year study) average total cholesterol was 150mg/dl.

Luna you're doing well, but eventually you want to get that HDL up. Forget saturated fat, there are better and safer ways to do it.

also there is no increased mortality from those that have low cholesterol from a young age (under 50). Also retain better cognitive function in later life. Will supply references in the morning, tired now :-)

Even low cholesterol is part of CR, it doesn't result in higher mortality in animals. My total cholesterol went as low as 109mg/dl!

Edited by Matt, 22 December 2009 - 06:56 PM.

[kismet]

It seems too low to be. Optimal mortality seems to be associated with higher total cholesterol and certainly with higher HDL. I would recommend adding saturated fat to your diet.

Prove it. Until then I say stop dispensing darn dangerous advice!

[NeverSayDie]

Drug companies collectively continue to "re-write" the standards for cholesterol medication. The lower limits of what is considered normal cholesterol levels continue to drop lower and lower, meaning that people that were once within the normal range are now considered high risk and are being put on statin drugs by their physicians. It rather obvious to most (other than the patently naive) that drug companies continue to decrease the lower limits of cholesterol in order that more people should become medicated and their profits should increase. Cha-Ching.

AstraZeneca is now marketing a statin cholesterol med for children and some children as young as 5 years old are being put on these drugs.

Statin side effects include:

rhabdomyolysis
acute kidney failure
memory loss and other neurological damage
liver damage
nerve damage

www.statinanswers.com/effects.htm

Hmmm, why not try dietary modifications and nutrients that have shown success with lowering cholesterol before resorting to drugs which can cause these problems.

That might be an option if it weren't for that fact that doctors take one single class in nutrition.

I have an friend who graduated from med school 3 years ago. He said that they had a one single short class in nutrition throughout all of med school. He was pretty shocked. I guess he thought that nutrition played more of a role in health than mainstream medicine does. He learned that its all about the marketing and sale of high profit drugs, and he was the salesman.

Edited by NeverSayDie, 22 December 2009 - 08:19 PM.

[kismet]

Drug companies collectively continue to "re-write" the standards for cholesterol medication. The lower limits of what is considered normal cholesterol levels continue to drop lower and lower, meaning that people that were once within the normal range are now considered high risk and are being put on statin drugs by their physicians. It rather obvious to most (other than the patently naive) that drug companies continue to decrease the lower limits of cholesterol in order that more people should become medicated and their profits should increase. Cha-Ching.

Prove it (i.e. refute the consensus). Until then I say stop dispensing darn dangerous advice!

Hmmm, why not try dietary modifications and nutrients that have shown success with lowering cholesterol before resorting to drugs which can cause these problems.

Or why not do both, if and as necessary -- instead you are implying a false dichotomy where there is none. Are you doing this on purpose?

That might be an option if it weren't for that fact that doctors take one single class in nutrition.

Which is true but does not offset the other misconceptions you are spreading.

[Jay]

Prove it. Until then I say stop dispensing darn dangerous advice!

What about this? There are many other such studies. I look forward to Matt's reference showing that low cholesterol is not associated with higher rates of mortality in people who have had low cholesterol from a young age.

Kismet, on one of the nutrition threads, I saw that you recently criticized Stephan's coverage of saturated fat by saying that he only compared it to PUFAs and not MUFAs. I wonder what you think about his most recent post - here.

Also, can you prove that my advice to eat more saturated fat is dangerous? I don't think so. Since the whole diet/health paradigm for the past 50 years has revolved around proving just that, it's worse for you that you can't prove it is dangerous than it is for me that I can't prove it is safe (on a western diet). By the way, I can prove it is safe on a Tokelau or Masai diet. Also, in addition to recommending more saturated fat, I would recommend avoiding sugar, industrial fats (i.e., excess PUFAs and trans fat), getting plenty of vitamin D, getting some fish oil, and ensuring adequate mineral intake. Why not try to fit within the four corners of known success stories instead of putzing around trying to tweak the SAD so it doesn't kill you quite so fast?

Edited by Jay, 22 December 2009 - 11:05 PM.

[Jay]

I did a little digging. Matt, were you referring to this? What then about this large study of Korean men in their mid 40s? It shows the opposite - low cholesterol associated with higher mortality.

Ok, kismet, time for you to show some evidence! What is dangerous is to advise people to keep doing the same low saturated fat thing that hasn't been working for 50 years.

Edited by Jay, 22 December 2009 - 11:07 PM.

[NeverSayDie]

Prove it (i.e. refute the consensus). Until then I say stop dispensing darn dangerous advice!

"Prove it. Until then I say stop dispensing darn dangerous advice!"

Seems to be your catch phrase, huh? Nice exclamation point...a little sensational, wouldn't you say? LOL

You might want to re-read that paragraph to which you are referring. No advice was given. I was making a statement. I did not advise anything.

Or why not do both, if and as necessary -- instead you are implying a false dichotomy where there is none. Are you doing this on purpose?

Why not do both?

It seems blatantly obvious. To avoid the following potential problems:

rhabdomyolysis
acute kidney failure
memory loss and other neurological damage
liver damage
nerve damage

The last time I checked, sensible dietary changes and the use of whole food based supplementation will not result in such potentially life-threatening effects like kidney failure, liver failure, nerve damage, neurological problems, etc. If one can reduce the LDL cholesterol levels without using a compound that has the very real potential of causing these complications, why not seek out the non-toxic alternatives first. Yes,there absolutely is a dichotomy- toxic vs. nontoxic.

Are you seriously being this obtuse on purpose?

Which is true but does not offset the other misconceptions you are spreading.

What misconceptions? That taking statin drugs can potentially cause life threatening complications while dietary changes/food-based supplements are likely to be as (or more) effective without the potential for multiple organ failure?

I'm no expert, but multiple organ failure just may put a kink is one's plans for life extension. Yeah, I know..."Prove it. Until then I say stop dispensing darn dangerous advice!"

Edited by NeverSayDie, 22 December 2009 - 11:00 PM.

[kismet]

It seems blatantly obvious. To avoid the following potential problems:

Avoiding the well-established statin benefit on all-cause and CVD mortality (in the target population: secondary/primary prevention & hypercholesterolemia)?

Are you seriously being this obtuse on purpose?

Ok, you really are dispensing that propaganda on purpose? I've already explained what a risk:benefit ratio is in the other thread; I've explained that harm does not matter if benefits predominate by far. I thought you were just ignorant of the evidence (which is perfectly fine and excusable), but now I see you are willfully ignorant.

What misconceptions? That taking statin drugs can potentially cause life threatening complications while dietary changes/food-based supplements are likely to be as (or more) effective without the potential for multiple organ failure?

You're right, not misconceptions; as we just established you are willfully spreading lies and using the most blatant, rhetorical tricks. You don't seem to ever respond to my points, requests and explanations, either. So henceforth I recommend anyone interested in keeping up the quality of this forum to put 'NeverSayDie' on your ignore list.

Ok, kismet, time for you to show some evidence! What is dangerous is to advise people to keep doing the same low saturated fat thing that hasn't been working for 50 years.

Low SaFa and lower of LDL-C/increasing HDL-C is consensus advice. You need to disprove the consensus which is based on hundreds of studies. I do appreciate that you provided a study for a start. However, cherry picking evidence is sometimes as bad as making up stuff. Outliers are expected. You need to provide a review of all evidence (or link to systematic review, meta-analyses, etc). Most of the discussion is taking place in the nutrition subforum, however.
Addendum: I am not sure if you are aware, but studies on total cholesterol are completely irrelevant. As pointed out we're talking LDL/HDL.

Edited by kismet, 23 December 2009 - 01:14 PM.

[Jay]

Low SaFa and lower of LDL-C/increasing HDL-C is consensus advice. You need to disprove the consensus which is based on hundreds of studies. I do appreciate that you provided a study for a start. However, cherry picking evidence is sometimes as bad as making up stuff. Outliers are expected. You need to provide a review of all evidence (or link to systematic review, meta-analyses, etc). Most of the discussion is taking place in the nutrition subforum, however.
Addendum: I am not sure if you are aware, but studies on total cholesterol are completely irrelevant. As pointed out we're talking LDL/HDL.

Nice punt! However, I think the burden of proof is on you as are arguing to limit a basic component of human nutrition that has likely been in the human diet in high proportions for 2 million years. Regarding the mainstream advice, for 50 years it has been to so limit SaFa and there have been no astouding successes depite great interest in finding them. Moreover, in recent years, that concensus that you speak of has been eroding and now I'm not sure I would agree that the consensus, among those on the cutting edge, is that lower SaFa is better. If you polled doctors, sure, SaFa are bad. But then again, most doctors think heart disease is caused by a statin deficicency. If you polled professional researchers below the age of 50, my guess is thta the consensus would be more agnostic at this point. Lastly, I did provide a link to wholehealthsource blog, where Stephan does a good job of evaluating the evidence (his, now, second to last post is what I referred in my previous comment).

Edited by Jay, 23 December 2009 - 02:17 PM.

[NeverSayDie]

I've already explained what a risk:benefit ratio is in the other thread; I've explained that harm does not matter if benefits predominate by far.

Tell that to the person that develops kidney failure as a result of statin drugs.

This is the point I am trying to make. The risks of diet modification and whole food supplementation are essentially non-existent. Therefore, your risk/benefit ratio is completely different with an essentially zero chance of risk (from the treatment itslef- ie, diet modification and whole food based supplementation). This has been the point I am positing, yet you continue to say that I have no position and that I am not responding to your argument. Nonsense.

You honestly don't see this?

Or are you just willfully being a puppet for big pharma??

you are willfully spreading lies

Prove it.

Prove that diet modification/whole food based supplementation carries the same risk that statin drugs do. Prove to me that these modes of of treatment carry the same level of risk for organ failure/damage that statin drugs do. Until then I say stop dispensing darn dangerous advice!

So henceforth I recommend anyone interested in keeping up the quality of this forum to put 'NeverSayDie' on your ignore list.

Isn't funny how people get when they are challenged with an argument that simply cannot be refuted. They resort to forms of censorship. The same patterns are always followed. It's so predictable.

I'm glad everyone on the forum has Kismet around to tell them what they should believe and who they should ignore. Do we really need you to police these forums trying to get an individual "ignored" because you don't agree with them?

Why don't we let people decide for themselves on what mode of treatment carries more inherent risk.

Another silly attempt at distraction...

Edited by NeverSayDie, 23 December 2009 - 03:29 PM.

[NeverSayDie]

Why not do both?

It seems blatantly obvious. To avoid the following potential problems:

rhabdomyolysis
acute kidney failure
memory loss and other neurological damage
liver damage
nerve damage

Avoiding the well-established statin benefit on all-cause and CVD mortality (in the target population: secondary/primary prevention & hypercholesterolemia)?

You talk about me using rhetorical tricks?

What about the trick of completely ignoring what I was referencing and manipulating the conversation to make it seem that I am denying that there is a perceived benefit of this drug. Sure, there are apparent symptom-masking benefits of the drug, I do not deny that. That was a nice political tactic...

Diet/food based supplementation can similarly affect cholesterol levels and with nearly zero risk (from the treatment itself). It should be overtly self-evident to any thinking person which is approach is more prudent.

Lifestyle based changes in diet/nutrition (including food based nutritional supplements) tend to treat the cause rather than an isolated set of effects (symptoms). Drugs tend to treat the effects (symptoms) with little or no attention given to apprehending the fundamental physiological cause of such symptoms. A pharmaceutical based approach attempts to reduce the manifestations of disease rather than reversing the disease process itself. Sorry, but that's just the way it is.

Edited by NeverSayDie, 23 December 2009 - 03:32 PM.

[NeverSayDie]

But then again, most doctors think heart disease is caused by a statin deficicency.

Haha...so true isn't it.

[niner]

NeverSayDie, Kismet's point is that you are ignoring the majority of the data. If I presented you with a Master Control Panel that had two buttons, and told you that if you pressed button A, 9,900,000 people would die, and if you pressed button B, 9,900,000 people would be saved, which button would you push? Unless you are extremely evil, which I don't think you are, you would press button B, and save all those lives. You might ask, "What are these buttons connected to, an atomic bomb?" I would answer, "Button A causes all pharmaceuticals to disappear. Button B maintains the status quo. On the basis of your posts here, you might find this hard to believe. You claim that pharmaceuticals only kill people; 106,000 a year. But you are forgetting the ten million lives that are saved. That's where the 9.9 million people come from- The difference between lives lost by drugs and lives saved by drugs. Medicine is about balancing risk against favorable outcome. The present system has a lot of flaws. It could be a lot better. But you are simply being disingenuous in your analysis.

Edited by niner, 24 December 2009 - 05:58 AM.