The great Cholesterol Myth
- Thread starter Mojave
- Start date
Without question.
If you are using steroids and or TRT or any other treatment that can effect your cholesterol, you must understand the truth and what is the difference.
For instance. Did you know there is Good and Bad HDL? And Good and Bad LDL?
In fact the whole good and bad Cholesterol is bogus. There are type A and Type B. There are a multitude of totally wrong medical directives that have guys on drugs they don't even need.
The very word Steroid is derived from Cholesterol so it seems prescient to understand it.
The four horseman of aging are Inflammation, Oxidation, Stress and Sugar. Cholesterol is not the enemy. Oxidized Cholesterol is definitely not good but what causes it to become oxidized and the inflammation that causes the Cholesterol to try and repair the inflamed cracked areas is the real problem.
Don't waste your time worrying about Cholesterol until you understand this topic. This is a MUST READ for anyone dealing with blood work and getting beat up on LDL or HDL readings by the doctor. Armed with an understanding of the differences, Type A and Type B as well as the other factors such as the ratio of triglyceride to HDL is an excellent way of determining risk of heart disease.
My ratio is just about 2 to 1. That is excellent. As you go higher you are more at risk. That would likely mean higher triglyceride and lower HDL. Keeping the triglyceride low and doing your best to keep your HDL up is the best strategy. If the HDL is low for instance because of Deca or the likes, then keeping the triglyceride low is imperative.
I'm not a physician, I am simply paraphrasing from the book what I gleaned. I hope that makes sense and helps to uncover what this book offers.
I wanted to mention, this book is available in audio format so those who are driving and can use the time during travel will benefit getting the reading while working.
If you are using steroids and or TRT or any other treatment that can effect your cholesterol, you must understand the truth and what is the difference.
For instance. Did you know there is Good and Bad HDL? And Good and Bad LDL?
In fact the whole good and bad Cholesterol is bogus. There are type A and Type B. There are a multitude of totally wrong medical directives that have guys on drugs they don't even need.
The very word Steroid is derived from Cholesterol so it seems prescient to understand it.
The four horseman of aging are Inflammation, Oxidation, Stress and Sugar. Cholesterol is not the enemy. Oxidized Cholesterol is definitely not good but what causes it to become oxidized and the inflammation that causes the Cholesterol to try and repair the inflamed cracked areas is the real problem.
Don't waste your time worrying about Cholesterol until you understand this topic. This is a MUST READ for anyone dealing with blood work and getting beat up on LDL or HDL readings by the doctor. Armed with an understanding of the differences, Type A and Type B as well as the other factors such as the ratio of triglyceride to HDL is an excellent way of determining risk of heart disease.
My ratio is just about 2 to 1. That is excellent. As you go higher you are more at risk. That would likely mean higher triglyceride and lower HDL. Keeping the triglyceride low and doing your best to keep your HDL up is the best strategy. If the HDL is low for instance because of Deca or the likes, then keeping the triglyceride low is imperative.
I'm not a physician, I am simply paraphrasing from the book what I gleaned. I hope that makes sense and helps to uncover what this book offers.
I wanted to mention, this book is available in audio format so those who are driving and can use the time during travel will benefit getting the reading while working.
Last edited:
Excellent,
The more I read, the better I have gained control over my health and less worry I have with labs and uneducated doctors. I know that saying the words "uneducated Doctors" sounds like an oxymoron but can anyone here attest to dealing with medical people that really don't know? Those who do like those with Defy are rare.
The more I read, the better I have gained control over my health and less worry I have with labs and uneducated doctors. I know that saying the words "uneducated Doctors" sounds like an oxymoron but can anyone here attest to dealing with medical people that really don't know? Those who do like those with Defy are rare.
glintcranium
Banned
I have this book but I haven't really open it. Will try to this weekend this post made me curious.
Lancealot
New Member
Without a doubt its worth your time to read. Let us know what you think of it.
coolzoey11
New Member
great info.
I just read this book. Good book with an awful title.
"Stop worrying about it" is NOT the conclusion to draw from this book, and not the path forward to safeguarding your own health. In contrast, we should all be paying MORE attention to our types of cholesterol and the ratios between them.
Yes, the "high cholesterol equals heart attack" is 40 year old advice that is too simplistic. That was all debunked years ago and no physician today thinks that way (unless they are very old and refuse to read literature).
My doctor was testing my LDL particles well before this book was ever published, so they waste a lot of time tilting at windmills.
Other books and resources that come to the same conclusions as this book include:
Wheat Belly - William Davis M.D.
The End of Heart Disease - Joel Fuhrman M.D.
Ford Brewer's YouTube channel (often linked here)
And you could read the Atkins and South Beach diet books, for that matter.
The authors should have spent more time talking about one thing, which is that the reason cholesterol is so crucial is that it is difficult to know what is going on in regards to heart disease -- cholesterol was the only marker we had. Well, guess what, it is 2018 now and we can actually LOOK. Go get a CT scan of your heart, or a carotid-artery ultrasound. You can look and see whether you have calcified plaques (I do, already, in my mid-40s!) and gauge your risk that way. A lot of people like me are fit, healthy, with so-so levels or mixed health markers, and have no idea of the condition of their epithelial tissues. Basically, if you tell me you have no heart disease or are "low risk" and you haven't' gotten a heart scan of some kind, you are lying to others and fooling yourself.
This is why dietary articles and books like this are no substitute for having a good doctor and using the available resources to monitor your own health.
So OK, read this book and enjoy it, then go get a heart scan.
The authors spend a lot of time trying to tear down statin drugs as dangerous, but don't do very much diligence when recommending expensive and ineffective supplements like resveratrol, Niacin, and several others that sound good, but aren't actually linked with any studies about cardiac events. My doc stopped recommending niacin years ago, in fact, because of lack of results and lack of good studies.
For people like me who have a family history and genetic predisposition for a disease, diet and exercise only do so much. To their credit, the authors do recommend statins in low doses for high-risk patients (white male, middle-aged, history or high risk of heart disease). So, I guess that is potentially me, but I'm still trying to get to good levels without statins.
Good post Dave. One comment I want to make, and it is open for correction, is that from reading and talking to others, IMO heart disease is a bit miss leading. The real issues is cardovacular (veins, artery) health. Namely, stopping plaque build up and maintain flexibility (no cracking) of the vessels. I think that people who have heart attacks do so due to blocked vessels and plaque build up in the blood vessels. I consider the heart to be a muscle and often does fine if given adequate blood flow, exercise and diet. I think we are still learning about vessel health. Correct me if I am off base on this. I have also read and been told that maintaining low blood pressure is important to vessel health.
Deleted member 16042
Member
Saul, a few random things in relation to your post:
Re: the vascular side of things; Yes in concept, and you might just want to term them "vascular" since cardio means heart. In general the same things that affect the vascular system as a whole affect the coronary arteries. The term cardiovascular is common since the health of the vascular system affects the heart muscle too. CAD (coronary artery disease) is probably most relevant to vascular disease of the coronary arteries.
CAD is not the be all end all of cardiac morbity and mortality, but statistically THE major player.
The heart is predominantly muscle, but that too is not the end of what comprises the heart. It is a biomechanical pumping system with valves, bioelectrical control, neurological feedback systems etc where many other things can go wrong besides just CAD leading to heart attack. Muscle is only part of that system.
There is an idiosyncrasy with the coronary arteries that makes them different than other arteries in the body. I don;t know definitely whether this contributes to higher incidence of vascular problems in the coronary vs other arteries in the body: Whereas the typical artery is under systolic pressure when the heart contracts and squirts blood into the aorta, due to their physical location wrapped around the contracting muscle, the coronary arteries do not receive that systolic pressure. They actually undergo what's called myocardial extravascular compression which prevents them from filling; They fill when the heart muscle relaxes and the relative pressure in the coronary artery drops relative to pressure in the aorta. Blood is thus pulled into the coronary artery rather than having it pumped into it. This filling is a low pressure rather than high pressure function, kind of backwards from the other arteries in the body. As such the hydraulics are different which is at least theorized to contribute to the more common incidence of coronary artery pathology. And, when these things happen in the coronary artery, the consequences are greater than in say an arm or leg!
There are also other cardiac anomalies like problems with electric signalling and conduction, arrhtymias including commonly atrial fibrillation, artery spasms, and mechanical problems like valve regurgitation etc. Some vascular issues can contribute to these, for example if a portion of heart muscle is not receiving enough oxygenated blood due to reduced blood flow from a diseased artery it's electrical conductivity can change and result in arrhythmia. This can happen at levels shy of full fledged heart attack, but the relationship between the vascular issue and the cardiac result is intertwined.
Re: the vascular side of things; Yes in concept, and you might just want to term them "vascular" since cardio means heart. In general the same things that affect the vascular system as a whole affect the coronary arteries. The term cardiovascular is common since the health of the vascular system affects the heart muscle too. CAD (coronary artery disease) is probably most relevant to vascular disease of the coronary arteries.
CAD is not the be all end all of cardiac morbity and mortality, but statistically THE major player.
The heart is predominantly muscle, but that too is not the end of what comprises the heart. It is a biomechanical pumping system with valves, bioelectrical control, neurological feedback systems etc where many other things can go wrong besides just CAD leading to heart attack. Muscle is only part of that system.
There is an idiosyncrasy with the coronary arteries that makes them different than other arteries in the body. I don;t know definitely whether this contributes to higher incidence of vascular problems in the coronary vs other arteries in the body: Whereas the typical artery is under systolic pressure when the heart contracts and squirts blood into the aorta, due to their physical location wrapped around the contracting muscle, the coronary arteries do not receive that systolic pressure. They actually undergo what's called myocardial extravascular compression which prevents them from filling; They fill when the heart muscle relaxes and the relative pressure in the coronary artery drops relative to pressure in the aorta. Blood is thus pulled into the coronary artery rather than having it pumped into it. This filling is a low pressure rather than high pressure function, kind of backwards from the other arteries in the body. As such the hydraulics are different which is at least theorized to contribute to the more common incidence of coronary artery pathology. And, when these things happen in the coronary artery, the consequences are greater than in say an arm or leg!
There are also other cardiac anomalies like problems with electric signalling and conduction, arrhtymias including commonly atrial fibrillation, artery spasms, and mechanical problems like valve regurgitation etc. Some vascular issues can contribute to these, for example if a portion of heart muscle is not receiving enough oxygenated blood due to reduced blood flow from a diseased artery it's electrical conductivity can change and result in arrhythmia. This can happen at levels shy of full fledged heart attack, but the relationship between the vascular issue and the cardiac result is intertwined.
Similar threads
Share this page
Sponsors
Online statistics
- Members online
- 2
- Guests online
- 288
- Total visitors
- 290
