If you have issues with cholesterol, your doctor will most likely prescribe LIPITOR rather than discuss diet an exercise. But read this straight from Pfizer about LIPITOR: "The effect of 10 mg/day of LIPITOR on lipid levels was similar to that seen in previous clinical trials. LIPITOR significantly reduced the rate of coronary events [either fatal coronary heart disease (46 events in the placebo group vs. 40 events in the LIPITOR group) or non-fatal MI (108 events in the placebo group vs. 60 events in the LIPITOR group)] with a relative risk reduction of 36% [(based on incidences of 1.9% for LIPITOR vs. 3.0% for placebo), p=0.0005 (see Figure 1)]. The risk reduction was consistent regardless of age, smoking status, obesity, or presence of renal dysfunction. The effect of LIPITOR was seen regardless of baseline LDL levels." In advertising what number do you think Pfizer uses to promote LIPITOR? That 36% number. But what dos PFIZER leave out? In the placebo group there was an incidence rate of 3% of coronory events. If you did nothing the chance of you getting a coronary event was 3%. In the LIPITOR group the incidence rate was 1.9%..... WOW.....major difference? NOT. The side effects of LIPITOR and other statin drugs are really bad (like chopping down the whole tree when one branch is broken) and they are marketing this for a group with an already significantly low incidence rate with the tiniest margin of improvement. You have a better chance to survive coronary event by changing diet and exercise to improve from the 3% rate (which is tiny to begin with) then take a drug that destroys your body. Drug companies get away with this shit with support from the FDA by claiming 36% rate reduction of risk. What bullshit.
Well my point is shoudl you even be taking the statins if the actual effectiveness is really that small but comes with a lot of bad side effects. Except for the very small group of those people with previous coronary histories and extremely at high risk, I don't see the research to support taking that medicine. Moreover, the fact that the study I cited (used/funded by Pfizer) is how it got FDA approval is appalling. The fact that a control group had 3% incidence with no detail of diet/exercise as adjunt treatment tedns to prove that also the link between elevated cholesterol and coronary events is extremely small. Not to mention LDL/HDL ratios nor LDL particle size were even studied. I am working on my cholesterol issues and several non-medical people and family members are telling me take Lipitor and they really just follow blindly what their doctor said who was sold on the drug by sales rep. Most people do not even read the research and take it.
VLDL is the primary cause of atherosclerosis. Reducing sugar is really all you need, and you’re already keto.
Well I think I am a natural over producer of cholesterol with some family history so I am going to adjust my saturated fats down a bit and do a full lipid panel in 6 weeks to see...
Adherence is related to the structure of the fat. Animal fats are not the culprit. Google VLDL & atherosclerosis.
I tend to agree with your point. Additional points: 1. NMR measurement of the NUMBER of LDL particles (not just their size or density) is the cutting edge of lipidology. Some research shows that, compared to old-school blood tests, the particle counts of the various LDL species have a greater correlation with the occurrence of atherosclerosis. 2. I am seeing some disturbing studies where there is no MORTALITY benefit of taking statins (even if there is an amelioration of cardiovascular disease); people die of other things. It is believable on a simplistic level (thats me, simple) because cholesterol is a key macromolecule in human physiology that serves important functions. 3. The basic issue is that the cause of atherosclerosis is unknown; there is circumstantial evidence that cholesterol is involved. But the mechanisms remain mysterious. People with "normal" blood panels do die of cardiovascular disease. 4. So while I am informing an MD about theses points, I usually then mention that eating a lot of fat is much less risky than eating a lot of carbs. If I want to make a new friend, I go on about my opinion that the low-fat mantra that has been pushed for years is probably responsible for the current diabetes epidemic and ineffective in touching cardiovascular disease. Then we are off to the races.....
Earlier this year I had a blood test done and the outcome was that my cholesterol level had gone up and was too high. My doctor did not mention any medicines, but instead focused on eating habits. He told me to reduce the amount of pork meat and red meat (e.g. beef), and increase the amount of fish. I followed his advice and went for a blood test three months later. The result: no elevated cholesterol level any more.
I assume you are saying that it is not the LDL number absolute but the make up of the dense or fluffy LDLs that are more linked to atherosclerosis so I should focus on that rather than the total number. Also I agree it is not a pure animal fat argument but I believe I can reduce the quantity of saturated fat a bit to aid in the process (not eliminate it entirely).