So interestingly, we generally don't test for the small particles although that is the proven good marker for a possible heart attack. http://www.prevention.com/health/health-concerns/cholesterol-numbers-truth-about-ldl "1. Size matters. Most of us check our cholesterol levels every year and can readily recite our good and bad cholesterol numbers. But very few of us get tested for particle size, even though the tests have been available clinically since the mid-1990s--and widely available in the past five years. These tests are generally covered by insurance, so tell your doctor you want one. They're graded in different ways, but most tell you if your particle size is small, medium, or large." I really like the beach ball analogy: Your arteries are the window. The big particles are the beach ball, the small, heavy particles are the golf ball. If you throw them at the window, which one will cause damage and break it? Obviously not the beach ball. Also, inflammation is like a window already weakened,cracked so the golf balls can break it easier...
Actually the dialogue I posted was simply facetious. When I had my annual earlier this year, the doc asked if there were any issues. I told him I had some thoracic discomfort which I was pretty certain was muscular. We did an x-ray to check the spine which showed no issues. He wrote a prescription and I asked what it was and he answered that it was an anti-inflammatory and should make me feel better. I chose not to get it filled as the pain had already begun to subside. I didn't want to paint my internist as a crank.
Just found this: (was looking for the study proving the no effect over 55) Statin increases the risk of diabetes in older women by 33%: http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/877626 And this was the summary of my original claim, that although statin slightly decreased heart disease in women over 55, but it also increased diabetes rate. The 2 canceled each other out, so the over all mortality rate was unchanged in women over 55, when taking statins. I guess it is a choice of dying of diabetes or heart attack. If it is up to me, I take the quick death... Here it is: https://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/05/05/a-new-womens-issue-statins/ "But the recommendations don’t distinguish patients by gender, and a small, increasingly vocal group of cardiologists believe that’s a mistake. “You can have high cholesterol and still be really healthy and have a low risk of heart disease,” she said. Women tend to develop heart disease about 10 years later in life on average than men; women’s risk begins to equal that of men when they reach their mid-70s. the absolute number of these health setbacks was small, and there was no significant reduction in heart attacks, strokes and deaths among these women. By contrast, male participants on statins had significantly fewer heart attacks and strokes. “The data are underwhelming, to say the least,” said Dr. Barbara Roberts, The drugs have long been known to cause muscle pain in some people and, more rarely, liver and kidney damage, as well as cognitive side effects like memory loss and confusion."
And the philosophical question of, what is high? "“I have women come to me who were put on statins in their 30s by their physician because their cholesterol was a point or two above what’s said to be normal,” Dr. Roberts said. “This is insane.”
Pekelo's shower thought of the day: I don't even want to live in this world, where Ozzy with his decades long alcohol and drug abuse (not to mention smoking) is pushing 70 and I eat 2 slice of bacons and kick the bucket in my 50s...
I am going to make a couple comments because I want to weigh in on this discussion - but I probably will not follow up with further comments because I dont want to do any back and forth. The situation with eggs is complicated. Medical researchers and physicians often develop theories based on extremely good logic- which is all for the good- except mother nature and reality get to weigh in. First of all, egg yolks contain lots of cholesterol so it is logical to assume that ingesting eggs will raise cholesterol levels will significantly increase serum cholesterol. That's fine. Except there is not good or conflicting evidence that it does and when it does it is often the "good cholesterol." Second, arterial plaque causes heart disease and cholesterol can convert to plaque so the logic is that the higher the level of serum cholesterol a person has, the more plaque and heart attacks they have. That's good login. Except the data on that is not clear at all. One study I read looked at the cholesterol levels of people being admitted to the emergency room or cardiac care units and compared it to the general population while controlling for age, other health factors etc. Plenty of patients had high cholesterol and plenty did not. Just about the same as the general population. Another lab study of rabbits fed the same diet high in cholesterol had high plaque and others did not. The mind boggler was that the rabbits in the upper level cages had lower plaque than the ones at floor level. A repeat of the experiment showed the same thing. Researchers found that the differentiating factor was that those on the upper cages were consistently being patted, stroked, and treated like pets because they were at eye level whereas the ones lower down tended to be ignored. The conclusion or theory was that the attention and care they got lowered their stress level and that stress sets a different chemistry in motion - including inflammation- which is a necessary component in converting cholesterol to plaque. Third, it is important to remember that even if you can reduce your dietary cholesterol, there is always going to be lots and lots of cholesterol in your body because 75% of your cholesterol does not come from diet- it is produced by your own liver. Don't misread what I am saying. I am not saying you can just dismiss it. I am saying that there is always going to be a lot of cholesterol floating around so you have to reduce the factors that convert cholesterol to plaque rather trying to reduce your total cholesterol level. Your body will always find enough to product plaque- it is the conversion factors that need to be reduce. Bottom line for me, and my view based on recent research (although google will always let you find 100 opposing studies on any subject) is that time and effort are better spent following an anti-inflammatory diet and reducing stress rather than worrying about egg consumption which is a negligible factor- if even a factor. Taking statins is bullfeathers and taking statins for slightly elevated cholesterol is bullfeathers on steroids. The lab test that measures inflammation levels is c-reactive protein test. It's not the cholesterol. It's all the damn inflammation and stress converting cholesterol to plaque. Be a rabbit in the top cage. That's why meditation, running, having friends etc all seem to have a physiological impact. Oh and one other thing, since there some traders here. Don't automatically assume that you are screwed because you are a trader. Most of the research also shows that stress alone is not the problem. It is bitterness, seething anger, resentment and hating your job that does the real damage- which traders may or may not have and workers anywhere may or may not have as much as traders. My view. I have no follow up comments. -TFT
Let's assume it's (healthy longevity) a genetics type of thing. Imagine if those of us with 'weak' genes were allowed to die early/naturally, instead of our lives being extended (and thus, creating offspring potentially having that same bad gene) by modern 'medicines.' Imagine the resulting health of the average human in that case. The more 'advanced' medicine becomes, the more likely 'bad' genes are allowed to remain in the DNA of future generations. (Until the day comes whereby genes are manipulated/'corrected' as a matter of course. A slippery slope indeed.) Allowing bad genes to continue is not how it should work naturally, imo. And this is not how it works in the wild animal kingdom. I'm not taking sides...just making an observation as a genetic algorithm user.