Discussion of dietary cholesterol and cardiovascular disease

(Robin) #121

Hey, @Geezy56… Are you and yours safe from all the fires?

(Geoffrey) #122

Yes ma’am, they are up in the panhandle and we are a long ways away from there. I do have friends up there though. I’ve checked on them and they are in no danger at this time.
Three big fires going in different directions. Over a million acres have been burned. Whole towns evacuated and hundreds of homes are gone. As of right now this is listed as the second worst fire we’ve had in Texas. This one just may break the record.
Thank you for checking up on me. That was sweet of you. :heart:

(B Creighton) #123

High oxLDL is highly correlative to heart disease, but it does seem it is not the only cause… I agree that high blood sugar is damaging to the endothelium, and guess what? It is also damaging to the LDL, which damaged LDL seem to find their way under the damaged endothemlium… oxLDL is virtually always there where the plaque process starts. I’m not sure the reasons for the seeming resistance to the evidence. Maybe they are stuck on looking for a single bullet? When it took 3 in some cases? Still oxLDL is seemingly almost always there…

(Bacon is a many-splendoured thing) #124

I like to believe that every observed correlation constitutes proof of a causal relationship.

For example, shoe size correlates extremely strongly with reading comprehension. This means, of course, that if we want our feet to grow, we need to learn to read better. Or possibly that buying bigger shoes will improve our reading. Or something like that.

Arguments by analogy also work extremely well. For example, fat clogs pipes when we pour it down the drain, so obviously it must clog our arteries in the same way. And because we can burn food in calorimeters, that means that the body burns food in exactly the same way.

Oh, wait . . . .

(B Creighton) #125

Well, I believe it is more than just correlative, the problem is, it is not the only cause. That is why I used that language. I cannot say it is THE cause, because I believe there is more than one. It is highly correlative, because it is one of the causes, but apparently you can find cases of CAD where oxLDL is low. High blood sugar can contribute, smoking… Lp(a), stress… etc, but in actuality it seems to me that most of these factors lead to oxidative stress which again leads to oxLDL. For those who want a good study, one of the better ones I have found to explain this is:


This study shows how the oxLDL gets into the endothelium… and yes it is right through the cell wall. The cells form LOX-1 receptors which suck the oxLDL into the cell. The smooth muscle cells of the arteries can also do the same thing. The monocytes also have these receptors, because their job is to clean up the oxLDL. So how do you stop it? You decrease the oxLDL through lowering blood sugar, stopping smoking, avoiding oxidized seed oils, avoiding oxidized foods and cooking methods. That is my strong belief for at least 90% of the cases out there. The plaques can go away, but it will take time for the body to heal, but it won’t if it keeps getting overwhelmed with oxLDL.

(B Creighton) #126

As I recall 200 was fine, and 300 was the upper limit at which they began to lecture you. With the advent of statins that got lowered to 200… So 200 is no longer “fine” but is considered too high, and they want to recommend a statin because that is what is in their guidelines… IOWs big pharma got it lowered so they can get more statins prescribed. No thanks. Not doing it. Now if my oxLDL was 200, I would be worried(yeah, I know it’s on a different scale). Now, they are trying to make everyone worry about apoB… Pffff. That is just another name for LDL levels really. LDL-C is finally getting dethroned, so they are just replacing it with apoB I think to try to forestall the inevitable truth that statins are not only a complete waste of money, but are not particularly healthful, except maybe in somewhat rare cases of hypercholesterolemia.

(Geoffrey) #127

Oh 200 has been considered high for a long time. Mine was at 200 back in the 90’s and my doc was wanting me on a statin. I turned it down.

(B Creighton) #128

Bingo. I bolded the magic word for you. Again, it went from 300 to 200 soon after the advent of statins. You reached 200, and statins were around so they got recommended… before that 300 was the upper limit.