Tom Naughton writes on statins.
==========================================================
Athletes And Statins
from Fat Head by Tom Naughton
I spent a good chunk of today dealing with computer issues — both PC and Mac, so while I agree that Macs are generally more stable, the belief that they’re trouble-free has more to do with good advertising than with reality. Anyway, because so much of my day was eaten up, this will be a brief post.
It was yet another bang-up Super Bowl. I love it when the game is in doubt until the very end … although as a Bears fan, I didn’t mind seeing them blow away the Patriots back in 1986. I like the pomp of the Super Bowl, the hype, the buzz, the commercials, the halftime shows, the whole experience. And of course I enjoy the game itself, watching athletes at the very top of their games giving it everything they’ve got.
As I was watching recaps of the game today, it occurred to me that I recently downloaded an article from the British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology on how statins affect professional athletes. I think the title pretty much says it all:
Professional athletes suffering from familial hypercholesterolaemia rarely tolerate statin treatment because of muscular problems
The paper’s authors are from Austria and examined case histories of Austrian professional athletes who attempted to go on statin therapy to treat genetically high cholesterol. Out of 22 athletes, only three were able to tolerate the first statin they were prescribed. Three more were able to eventually tolerate a statin other than the first one prescribed. The remaining 16 — 72% of the total — ended up refusing statin therapy. You can probably guess what it was about statins that most of the athletes couldn’t tolerate: muscle pain and muscle weakness.
The authors noted that in reviews of multiple clinical trials, muscle problems were reported in 5% of those taking statins on average. They also noted that in a study of statin-takers who engage in strenuous exercise, muscle problems affected closer to 25%. Now in this study we’ve got 72% of professional athletes (in an admittedly small sample size) saying they can’t tolerate statins because of muscle problems.
So here’s what I think is happening: statins are probably causing at least some degree of muscle weakness in a large percentage of those taking them. But not everyone whose muscles are weakened will feel pain or even notice the damage, as Dr. Duane Graveline wrote in an article on his web site:
In the Journal of Pathology 210: 94-102, 2006, Draeger A and others of the University of Bern, Switzerland report: Statin therapy induces ultrastructural damage in skeletal muscle in patients without myalgia.
Draeger’s group did skeletal muscle biopsies from statin treated and non-statin treated patients and examined them using electron microscopy and biochemical approaches. They reported clear evidence of skeletal muscle damage in statin treated patients despite their being asymptomatic. Although the degree of overall damage was minimal, it was the characteristic pattern of damage, including rupture of critical structures that caught the attention of the investigators.
The more you depend on your muscles, the more likely you are to notice minor damage. Most people who sit for a living and aren’t dedicated to exercising could probably become a bit weaker without ever noticing, which would explain why only 5% percent of all statin-takers report muscle problems. But if you limit the study to people who engage in strenuous exercise — and are therefore more likely to track their speed or strength — the number goes up to 25%. Limit the study to professional athletes, and now you’re looking at 72% reporting muscle problems.
For professional athletes, an almost-imperceptible loss of muscular ability can mean the difference between winning and losing. Think about some of the key plays in last night’s Super Bowl, if you watched. A wide receiver catches a pass because he managed to outrun a cornerback by an extra six inches over the course of 30 yards. A linebacker misses a tackle because the tailback was a split-second quicker. “It’s a game of inches” is a cliché in sports, but it’s a cliché because it’s true. The professional athlete who loses a tiny fraction of his speed or strength can find himself sitting on the bench or looking for another job.
So I don’t think professional athletes are especially vulnerable to statin-induced muscle damage. I think they’re just far more likely to notice that damage is being done.
========================================================
Check out his web site for the latest here.
Monday, February 7, 2011
The Growth of Cardiovascular Disease
The rest of the story...
By Jon Barron - health researcher.
========================================
Published on The Baseline Of Health Foundation (http://www.jonbarron.org)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Growth of Cardiovascular Disease -- Heart Health Newsletter
By jonbarron Created 02/01/2011 - 8:36pm
Heart Health Program & Cardiovascular Disease
Natural Health Newsletter
The Growth of Cardiovascular Disease
Earlier this month, the American Heart Association in its official journal, Circulation, published its forecast of "The Future of Cardiovascular Disease in the United States." For anyone who takes the time to look it over, it makes for depressing reading. According to the forecast, one in three Americans has been diagnosed with some form of heart disease. We're talking about high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke, among others. By 2030, the cost to treat heart disease in the United States (in real 2008 dollars) will triple, rising from $273 billion to $818 billion. In addition, it is also estimated that the costs resulting from lost productivity due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) will climb by 61% in that same time period from $172 billion to $276 billion.
That means that the costs of heart disease alone in the United States will climb to over $1 trillion dollars a year. Forget cancer. Forget diabetes. Forget Alzheimer's. Forget hospital errors. Heart disease alone will cost over $1 trillion dollars a year in the US. Needless to say, the AHA report concluded by saying, "Effective prevention strategies are needed if we are to limit the growing burden of CVD."
As the study went on to explain, currently, CVD is the leading cause of death in the United States and constitutes 17% of overall national health expenditures. Even more significant, though, was the study's statement that US medical expenditures are the highest in the world and rose from 10% of the Gross Domestic Product in 1985 to 15% of the Gross Domestic Product in 2008. And in just the last decade, the medical costs of CVD have grown at an average annual rate of 6% and have accounted for 15% of the increase in medical spending. (This is something to think about as Republicans in the House of Representatives promise to return us to the "best healthcare system in the world." As I've said before, the current healthcare bill is terrible, but it's far better than the status quo. Keeping the current system in place is guaranteed bankruptcy. Obamacare needs to be drastically overhauled, not repealed.)
According to the study, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease will increase, based on the status quo, by 10% over the next 20 years assuming there is no change in current policy or lifestyle across the general public, whereas the direct costs will increase almost 3-fold. By 2030, the study estimates, 40% of US adults, or 116 million people, will have one or more forms of CVD.
The report speculated that the largest increases will be in the rate of stroke and heart failure, which will climb to 24.9 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The aging of the population (the elderly are more susceptible to heart disease) combined with the growth in per capita medical spending are the primary drivers of increased CVD costs, which are expected to grow the fastest for ages 65 and over. "These increases translate to an additional 27 million people with hypertension [we'll talk more about that later], eight million with CHD [coronary heart disease], four million with stroke, and three million with heart failure in 2030 relative to 2010."
The costs related to hypertension alone are set to increase $130.4 billion (in 2008 dollars), with a total projected annual cost of $200.3 billion by 2030. If the costs of hypertension are expanded to include how much the presence of hypertension adds to the treatment of other diseases and conditions triggered by hypertension, the increase in annual spending from 2010 to 2030 is $258.3 billion, with a projected annual total cost of $389.0 billion by 2030. All in all, the researchers note, the real medical costs of CHD and heart failure are estimated to increase by 200 percent over the next 20 years with stroke having the highest cost increase in real annual medical costs of 238 percent.
Commenting on the study, Paul Heidenreich, MD, the chair of the AHA expert panel that conducted the study, said, "Despite the successes in reducing and treating heart disease over the last half century, even if we just maintain our current rates, we will have an enormous financial burden on top of the disease itself."
The study's recommendations
So how did the study suggest we cope with this financial tsunami? Its authors, not surprisingly, recommended throwing even more money into the mix. They said that what was needed were more personalized, medically-based approaches to prevention that include assessments of genetic variants, biomarkers, and imaging modalities that could help tailor prevention methods and recommendations to specific individuals. On the other hand, the researchers qualified their recommendation and said, "Despite the great enthusiasm for personalized medicine, further studies are needed to determine whether these personalized approaches are superior (or complementary) to population-based approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention."
The authors also suggested that population-based strategies such as decreasing smoking rates, reducing dietary fat intakes, and improving lipid levels, among others, have in the past, and can continue in the future, help treat high-risk individuals and help prevent their risk for cardiovascular disease. Expanding on this idea, they stated, "Although these projections are sobering, they need not become reality, because CVD is largely preventable. Several studies have demonstrated that individuals with favorable levels of major atherosclerotic risks have a marked reduction in the onset of CHD and heart failure. Similarly, people who follow a healthy lifestyle experience a comparably reduced risk of CHD and stroke. Therefore, a greater focus on prevention may alter these CVD projections in the future."
Why is it that whenever I hear the medical community talk about diet and lifestyle, I'm always reminded of the cholesterol ads that conclude with, "When diet and exercise aren't enough, adding Vytorin can help." In other words, there's always an undertone from the medical community that diet and lifestyle are okay choices if you don't have a serious problem, but drugs and surgery are the only "serious" options when life and death are on the line. As if!
In conclusion, the report stated, "In the public health arena, more evidence-based effective policy, combined with systems and environmental approaches should be applied in the prevention, early detection, and management of cardiovascular disease risk factors…Through a combination of improved prevention of risk factors, and treatment of established risk factors, the dire projection of the health and economic impact of cardiovascular disease can be diminished."
Questioning the study's assumptions
First, let me explain that I have no complaints with the study's primary assumptions:
•That the costs of heart disease are increasing dramatically over the next several decades. (Heck, I've been saying the same thing for the past several decades.)
•There are steps that can be taken that can lower these costs. (No argument here. The whole purpose of the Baseline of Health Foundation is to report on those steps.)
So which assumptions do I have a problem with?
•The study's basic, underlying assumption is that medical care has already dramatically impacted the incidence and mortality rates associated with heart disease (as in Dr. Heidenreich's statement regarding the medical community's "successes in reducing and treating heart disease over the last half century").
•Thus the study also projects that improvements in medical care can further improve patient outcomes and bring costs down…As long as we continue to head down that road, but at an accelerated rate??!
Unfortunately, the simple truth is that the facts on the ground do not support these two assumptions.
On a quick reading, the study might seem to downplay the role of drugs and medical intervention in lowering cholesterol VS the benefits of dietary changes. For example, the study says, "Modest improvements in risk factors earlier in life can have a greater impact than more substantial reductions later in life." Reading further would seem to support the assumption, "If everyone received the 11 recommended prevention activities, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced by 63% and 31%, respectively, in the next 30 years. At more feasible levels of performance, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced by 36% and 20%. Unfortunately, the current use of these prevention activities is suboptimal."
Now you might think these prevention activities refer to diet and lifestyle, but you would be mistaken. A good hint lies in the use of the word "received."
So what, one might ask, are these magical 11 prevention activities? Are they the diet and lifestyle associations we might first have surmised the study seemed to be alluding to or are they medical interventions as I am suggesting? Interestingly, one has to go to another study, also published in Circulation some two years earlier, entitled The Impact of Prevention on Reducing the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease, to find the answer. And what we learn from this study is, "Of the specific prevention activities, the greatest benefits to the US population come from providing aspirin to high-risk individuals, controlling pre-diabetes [two activities that involve controlling blood sugar with medication], weight reduction in obese individuals, lowering blood pressure in people with diabetes [two separate pharmaceutical activities], and lowering LDL cholesterol [four pharmaceutical activities] in people with existing coronary artery disease (CAD)." Not surprisingly, with its heavy emphasis on doctor visits, testing, and lifelong medication, the study also concluded, "As currently delivered and at current prices, most prevention activities are expensive when considering direct medical costs; smoking cessation is the only prevention strategy that is cost-saving over 30 years." How expensive are we talking about? We'll touch on that a bit later.
The bottom line is that the facts on the ground don't support the study's conclusions. No, I'm not saying that high blood pressure isn't a problem -- just that drug "prevention activities" may not be the best way to lower it. And no, I'm not saying that thick, clotty blood is not a problem -- just that aspirin may not be the best way to alleviate it. And likewise for diabetes and cholesterol. Let's examine.
High blood pressure
According to the Future of Cardiovascular Disease study, "Overall, hypertension has the greatest projected medical cost. The increased prevalence of hypertension is in part attributable to the aging of the population." The study also states that, "Increasing body mass index contributed to 50% of the increase in hypertension. Reversing the obesity epidemic will play a pivotal role in favorably impacting the projected hypertension trends."
That said, the primary recommendation for dealing with high blood pressure (based on the 11 prevention activities), other than weight-loss, is the use of pharmaceuticals -- notably:
•Diuretics, which reduce blood pressure by making you eliminate water from your body. Reduce the volume of fluid in the blood, and you reduce the pressure. Unfortunately, side effects can include dizziness, weakness, and impotence. (Not to worry, there are more medications to alleviate these side effects.) It's also probably worth mentioning that a recent analysis of hypertension drugs found that hydrochlorothiazide, the diuretic of choice for most physicians, actually doesn't even work that well. Now, that's an effective strategy!
•Calcium channel blockers, which work to relax and widen the arteries, thus reducing blood pressure. Unfortunately, studies consistently show an increased risk of heart attacks associated with all types of calcium channel blockers, including short, intermediate, and long acting. Another effective strategy!
•Beta blockers, which work by weakening the heart so it won't pump as strongly, thereby reducing blood pressure. What genius thought this one up? Several major problems associated with beta blockers, in addition to the fact that they don't work that well, is the increased risk of diabetes, sudden and profound weight gain, and increased risk of heart attack during the first two-three months of use. Nevertheless, despite these risks, leading doctors have recommended putting every single heart attack survivor on beta blockers. Brilliant!
•ACE inhibitors (the new drug of choice), which like calcium channel blockers also work to relax and widen the arteries, but with fewer side effects (just "minor" things such as kidney impairment, upper respiratory problems, headache, dizziness, and congenital "anomalies").
Keep in mind that, in addition to all of the side effects that these drugs cause, which require further medication, there is a fundamental flaw in these pharmaceutical treatments. All that these drugs do is treat the "manifest" symptom -- high blood pressure -- but do nothing to deal with the underlying cause -- clogged or hardened arteries. So, eventually, as your arteries continue to clog and harden to the point where even the medication no longer helps, you start getting the inevitable chest pains. Your doctor then chases the next set of symptoms and performs a coronary bypass or angioplasty to relieve those symptoms -- until the next, even more radical, intervention.
As a side note, a study published in 2007 found that angioplasties did not save lives or prevent heart attacks in non-emergency patients. In fact, the study showed angioplasties only give slight and temporary relief from chest pain, and by five years, there was no significant difference in symptoms. Oh yes, we spend $48 billion a year on angioplasties in the U.S. alone.
Then again, in addition to all of the side effects, complications, and dangers of surgery, we are once more presented with yet another fundamental flaw in your doctor's treatment. If all your doctor does is bypass or clear the arteries supplying blood to your heart, doesn't that mean that all of the other arteries in your body are still clogged, including the arteries that supply blood to your brain? You bet it does. Isn't that going to be a problem? Since the arteries are narrowed, won't it be more likely that a small blood clot will get lodged in your brain and cause a stroke? Absolutely! But that's a different "symptom." At this point, your doctor once again prescribes another drug or more dangerous surgery to deal with this problem. . .
Cholesterol
I've covered the issue of cholesterol in detail in my newsletter, The Cholesterol Myth. To better understand the entire issue, check it out. But for now, the following should suffice.
In January of 2008, I wrote about the results from a study sponsored by Merck and Schering-Plough that found that after several years on two types of cholesterol-lowering medications, patients reduced their cholesterol level, but they reaped no significant health benefit at all unless they already had heart disease. (Note: Merck delayed releasing the results for two years, and only when finally pressed to do so.)
But that's not the worst of it. Just a few months later in October 2008, I reported on the results of a study that found that Vytorin may increase the risk of cancer by 50 percent. In fact, this study found that Vytorin increased the risk of cancer in all major areas of the body. In addition, it found that among those who developed cancer, those taking Vytorin had a much higher rate of death than those taking a placebo.
And the bad news on statins just keeps rolling in like the tide in the Bay of Fundy. In July 2009, I talked about a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that confirmed that statin drugs cause structural damage to muscles. Even worse, the study found that muscle damage can continue to progress even after patients stop taking the drugs.
And how much do we pay for these dazzling results? In the US alone, sales of statin drugs generated approximately $19.7 billion in 2005, or about $120 billion when averaged out over a decade.
Aspirin
Even aspirin, the most innocuous of all medications recommended for the prevention of heart attacks, kills. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, "anti-inflammatory drugs (prescription and over-the-counter, which include Advil®, Motrin®, Aleve®, Ordus®, aspirin, and over 20 others) alone cause over 16,500 deaths and over 103,000 hospitalizations per year in the U.S." The simple fact is that even the smallest amount of aspirin, a child's dose, causes at least some degree of intestinal bleeding. In fact, nearly 70% of those taking aspirin daily show a blood loss of ½ to 1½ teaspoons per day, and 10% lose as much as 2 teaspoons per day.
And why would you use aspirin anyway? Proteolytic enzymes such as nattokinase, Endonase, and Seaprose-S are far more effective and far safer. And they do so much more than aspirin, which merely improves the ability of blood to flow. A good proteolytic enzyme formula will:
•Improve the ability of blood to flow.
•Dissolve plaque in the arterial walls by breaking down the protein based fibrin that holds the plaque together.
•Reduce systemic inflammation in the body and in the circulatory system, thus eliminating the prime cause of plaque build-up in the first place.
•And help break down scar tissue in the arterial walls.
And while you're at it, why not significantly reduce consumption of Omega-6 vegetable oils, which includes virtually all of the vegetable oils (corn, safflower, etc.) you buy in the supermarket other than olive oil. If not balanced by sufficient Omega-3 oils in the diet, Omega-6's cause a build-up of non-esterified fatty acids, also known as NEFAs, a significant independent risk factor for sudden death from heart attacks. Switching to more balanced oils costs about the same, not to mention the fact that they actually taste better. It's not like being forced to eat health-food cookies. In fact, the only advantage to using highly processed polyunsaturated cooking oils is that they never go rancid. You can keep them in your cabinet for as long as you live, and they will never go bad. But when you think about it, how comfortable should you feel about eating a food that can "never die?" Does it even qualify as a food anymore?
Diabetes medications
Controlling blood sugar levels makes all the sense in the world. Drugs such as metformin are both reasonably effective and reasonably benign. Insulin injections, not so much. But natural sugar metabolic enhancement formulas are at least as effective, and even more benign, than either medical approach.
But even more important, suppressing high blood sugar numbers addresses neither the cause of the disease nor the other issues associated with it, including insulin resistance, damage from excess insulin, destruction of beta cells, and damage to organs. These are all part of diabetes' "echo effect," and must be addressed if you ultimately want to reverse the disease. In effect, any viable alternative needs to stop all of the echoes -- all of them without exception -- so that nothing bounces back to retrigger problems. Drugs do not do that, which is why diabetes tends to progress over the years, even if you use drugs. Yes, the drugs slow down the progression of the disease, but it still progresses -- unless you actually reverse the cause of the disease itself.
Costs
Amusingly, the cost savings presumed if the medical community gets its way and can implement the 11 prevention activities recommended in both studies with complete success over the next 30 years, would not only not save money -- it would bankrupt us. As the The Impact of Prevention on Reducing the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease study says, "The cost of caring for CVD, diabetes, and CHD over the coming 30 years will be in the order of $9.5 trillion. If all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100% success, those costs would be reduced by ∼$904 billion, or almost 10%. However, assuming the costs shown in Table 2, the prevention activities themselves would cost ∼$8.5 trillion, offsetting the savings by a factor of almost 10 and increasing total medical costs by ∼$7.6 trillion (162%).
Now that's a brilliant plan!
Salt
And no, I'm not talking about Angelina Jolie's latest movie.
The Forecasting study says, "A reduction in sodium intake is a promising goal for prevention and treatment of hypertension. A recent analysis using the Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model estimated that reducing dietary salt by 3 g per day per person would reduce the annual number of new cases of CHD by 60,000 to 120,000, stroke by 32,000 to 66,000, and myocardial infarction by 54,000 to 99,000 and reduce the annual number of deaths from any cause by 44,000 to 92,000."
At first glance, that statement might seem pretty innocuous and downright commonsensical, but reread it. It talks about reducing dietary salt intake by 3 grams, or 3,000 mg! The United States recommendation for the daily maximum intake of salt is 2,400 mg. Most health experts recommend only 1,500-1,800 mg a day. So what are they talking about? How much salt is actually making its way into people's diets for a recommendation that people reduce consumption by 100-200% of the maximum daily allowance?
Check out this quote from the European Public Health Alliance:
"The current public health recommendations suggest that salt intake should be reduced from 9-12 to 5-6 grams per day for adults. Clinical trials demonstrate a clear link between salt reduction and the fall in blood pressure. A conservative estimate indicates that a reduction of 3 grams per day would reduce strokes by 13% and ischemic heart disease by 10%. The effects would be almost doubled with a 6-gram reduction and tripled with a 9-gram one."
Holy salted beef, Batman! It seems that large numbers of people have become walking salt licks.
All kidding aside, anyone consuming 9-12 g of sodium a day has a problem and is pretty much a walking coronary. But that said, an equally important factor is what type of salt are you consuming? As I've discussed previously, there is a huge difference in how your body handles refined salt and how it handles unrefined, natural sea or Himalayan salt. And be careful, many, many companies are now jumping on the bandwagon and promoting their use of sea salt -- but in many cases, they are using refined sea salt, which is sea salt in name only. Once refined, it is no different from any other commercial salt you can buy...and equally harmful to your body. Make sure that you (or any products you buy) use only unrefined sea or Himalayan salt.
Conclusion
All in all, the report from the American Heart Association on the future of heart disease in the United States (and by extrapolation, anywhere else in the world) is not a bad one. It contains more truth than nonsense -- and when's the last time you heard me say that about a medical study? Unfortunately, it ultimately succumbs to the weight of its medical bias -- the bias that says you can control disease by managing and/or suppressing symptoms. In truth, cardiovascular disease will never truly be controlled (and within any affordable budget for future health care) until medical doctors think more like holistic physicians and deal with the causes of disease rather than just the symptoms.
For more on exactly how the cardiovascular system works, what causes heart disease, and how to reverse it, click here to start reading my series of newsletters on the anatomy and physiology of the cardiovascular system. Also check out our Heart Health page for other related newsletters and blogs
=============================================
Please visit Jon's site here
By Jon Barron - health researcher.
========================================
Published on The Baseline Of Health Foundation (http://www.jonbarron.org)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Growth of Cardiovascular Disease -- Heart Health Newsletter
By jonbarron Created 02/01/2011 - 8:36pm
Heart Health Program & Cardiovascular Disease
Natural Health Newsletter
The Growth of Cardiovascular Disease
Earlier this month, the American Heart Association in its official journal, Circulation, published its forecast of "The Future of Cardiovascular Disease in the United States." For anyone who takes the time to look it over, it makes for depressing reading. According to the forecast, one in three Americans has been diagnosed with some form of heart disease. We're talking about high blood pressure, coronary heart disease, heart failure and stroke, among others. By 2030, the cost to treat heart disease in the United States (in real 2008 dollars) will triple, rising from $273 billion to $818 billion. In addition, it is also estimated that the costs resulting from lost productivity due to cardiovascular disease (CVD) will climb by 61% in that same time period from $172 billion to $276 billion.
That means that the costs of heart disease alone in the United States will climb to over $1 trillion dollars a year. Forget cancer. Forget diabetes. Forget Alzheimer's. Forget hospital errors. Heart disease alone will cost over $1 trillion dollars a year in the US. Needless to say, the AHA report concluded by saying, "Effective prevention strategies are needed if we are to limit the growing burden of CVD."
As the study went on to explain, currently, CVD is the leading cause of death in the United States and constitutes 17% of overall national health expenditures. Even more significant, though, was the study's statement that US medical expenditures are the highest in the world and rose from 10% of the Gross Domestic Product in 1985 to 15% of the Gross Domestic Product in 2008. And in just the last decade, the medical costs of CVD have grown at an average annual rate of 6% and have accounted for 15% of the increase in medical spending. (This is something to think about as Republicans in the House of Representatives promise to return us to the "best healthcare system in the world." As I've said before, the current healthcare bill is terrible, but it's far better than the status quo. Keeping the current system in place is guaranteed bankruptcy. Obamacare needs to be drastically overhauled, not repealed.)
According to the study, the prevalence of cardiovascular disease will increase, based on the status quo, by 10% over the next 20 years assuming there is no change in current policy or lifestyle across the general public, whereas the direct costs will increase almost 3-fold. By 2030, the study estimates, 40% of US adults, or 116 million people, will have one or more forms of CVD.
The report speculated that the largest increases will be in the rate of stroke and heart failure, which will climb to 24.9 percent and 25 percent, respectively. The aging of the population (the elderly are more susceptible to heart disease) combined with the growth in per capita medical spending are the primary drivers of increased CVD costs, which are expected to grow the fastest for ages 65 and over. "These increases translate to an additional 27 million people with hypertension [we'll talk more about that later], eight million with CHD [coronary heart disease], four million with stroke, and three million with heart failure in 2030 relative to 2010."
The costs related to hypertension alone are set to increase $130.4 billion (in 2008 dollars), with a total projected annual cost of $200.3 billion by 2030. If the costs of hypertension are expanded to include how much the presence of hypertension adds to the treatment of other diseases and conditions triggered by hypertension, the increase in annual spending from 2010 to 2030 is $258.3 billion, with a projected annual total cost of $389.0 billion by 2030. All in all, the researchers note, the real medical costs of CHD and heart failure are estimated to increase by 200 percent over the next 20 years with stroke having the highest cost increase in real annual medical costs of 238 percent.
Commenting on the study, Paul Heidenreich, MD, the chair of the AHA expert panel that conducted the study, said, "Despite the successes in reducing and treating heart disease over the last half century, even if we just maintain our current rates, we will have an enormous financial burden on top of the disease itself."
The study's recommendations
So how did the study suggest we cope with this financial tsunami? Its authors, not surprisingly, recommended throwing even more money into the mix. They said that what was needed were more personalized, medically-based approaches to prevention that include assessments of genetic variants, biomarkers, and imaging modalities that could help tailor prevention methods and recommendations to specific individuals. On the other hand, the researchers qualified their recommendation and said, "Despite the great enthusiasm for personalized medicine, further studies are needed to determine whether these personalized approaches are superior (or complementary) to population-based approaches to cardiovascular disease prevention."
The authors also suggested that population-based strategies such as decreasing smoking rates, reducing dietary fat intakes, and improving lipid levels, among others, have in the past, and can continue in the future, help treat high-risk individuals and help prevent their risk for cardiovascular disease. Expanding on this idea, they stated, "Although these projections are sobering, they need not become reality, because CVD is largely preventable. Several studies have demonstrated that individuals with favorable levels of major atherosclerotic risks have a marked reduction in the onset of CHD and heart failure. Similarly, people who follow a healthy lifestyle experience a comparably reduced risk of CHD and stroke. Therefore, a greater focus on prevention may alter these CVD projections in the future."
Why is it that whenever I hear the medical community talk about diet and lifestyle, I'm always reminded of the cholesterol ads that conclude with, "When diet and exercise aren't enough, adding Vytorin can help." In other words, there's always an undertone from the medical community that diet and lifestyle are okay choices if you don't have a serious problem, but drugs and surgery are the only "serious" options when life and death are on the line. As if!
In conclusion, the report stated, "In the public health arena, more evidence-based effective policy, combined with systems and environmental approaches should be applied in the prevention, early detection, and management of cardiovascular disease risk factors…Through a combination of improved prevention of risk factors, and treatment of established risk factors, the dire projection of the health and economic impact of cardiovascular disease can be diminished."
Questioning the study's assumptions
First, let me explain that I have no complaints with the study's primary assumptions:
•That the costs of heart disease are increasing dramatically over the next several decades. (Heck, I've been saying the same thing for the past several decades.)
•There are steps that can be taken that can lower these costs. (No argument here. The whole purpose of the Baseline of Health Foundation is to report on those steps.)
So which assumptions do I have a problem with?
•The study's basic, underlying assumption is that medical care has already dramatically impacted the incidence and mortality rates associated with heart disease (as in Dr. Heidenreich's statement regarding the medical community's "successes in reducing and treating heart disease over the last half century").
•Thus the study also projects that improvements in medical care can further improve patient outcomes and bring costs down…As long as we continue to head down that road, but at an accelerated rate??!
Unfortunately, the simple truth is that the facts on the ground do not support these two assumptions.
On a quick reading, the study might seem to downplay the role of drugs and medical intervention in lowering cholesterol VS the benefits of dietary changes. For example, the study says, "Modest improvements in risk factors earlier in life can have a greater impact than more substantial reductions later in life." Reading further would seem to support the assumption, "If everyone received the 11 recommended prevention activities, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced by 63% and 31%, respectively, in the next 30 years. At more feasible levels of performance, myocardial infarctions and strokes would be reduced by 36% and 20%. Unfortunately, the current use of these prevention activities is suboptimal."
Now you might think these prevention activities refer to diet and lifestyle, but you would be mistaken. A good hint lies in the use of the word "received."
So what, one might ask, are these magical 11 prevention activities? Are they the diet and lifestyle associations we might first have surmised the study seemed to be alluding to or are they medical interventions as I am suggesting? Interestingly, one has to go to another study, also published in Circulation some two years earlier, entitled The Impact of Prevention on Reducing the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease, to find the answer. And what we learn from this study is, "Of the specific prevention activities, the greatest benefits to the US population come from providing aspirin to high-risk individuals, controlling pre-diabetes [two activities that involve controlling blood sugar with medication], weight reduction in obese individuals, lowering blood pressure in people with diabetes [two separate pharmaceutical activities], and lowering LDL cholesterol [four pharmaceutical activities] in people with existing coronary artery disease (CAD)." Not surprisingly, with its heavy emphasis on doctor visits, testing, and lifelong medication, the study also concluded, "As currently delivered and at current prices, most prevention activities are expensive when considering direct medical costs; smoking cessation is the only prevention strategy that is cost-saving over 30 years." How expensive are we talking about? We'll touch on that a bit later.
The bottom line is that the facts on the ground don't support the study's conclusions. No, I'm not saying that high blood pressure isn't a problem -- just that drug "prevention activities" may not be the best way to lower it. And no, I'm not saying that thick, clotty blood is not a problem -- just that aspirin may not be the best way to alleviate it. And likewise for diabetes and cholesterol. Let's examine.
High blood pressure
According to the Future of Cardiovascular Disease study, "Overall, hypertension has the greatest projected medical cost. The increased prevalence of hypertension is in part attributable to the aging of the population." The study also states that, "Increasing body mass index contributed to 50% of the increase in hypertension. Reversing the obesity epidemic will play a pivotal role in favorably impacting the projected hypertension trends."
That said, the primary recommendation for dealing with high blood pressure (based on the 11 prevention activities), other than weight-loss, is the use of pharmaceuticals -- notably:
•Diuretics, which reduce blood pressure by making you eliminate water from your body. Reduce the volume of fluid in the blood, and you reduce the pressure. Unfortunately, side effects can include dizziness, weakness, and impotence. (Not to worry, there are more medications to alleviate these side effects.) It's also probably worth mentioning that a recent analysis of hypertension drugs found that hydrochlorothiazide, the diuretic of choice for most physicians, actually doesn't even work that well. Now, that's an effective strategy!
•Calcium channel blockers, which work to relax and widen the arteries, thus reducing blood pressure. Unfortunately, studies consistently show an increased risk of heart attacks associated with all types of calcium channel blockers, including short, intermediate, and long acting. Another effective strategy!
•Beta blockers, which work by weakening the heart so it won't pump as strongly, thereby reducing blood pressure. What genius thought this one up? Several major problems associated with beta blockers, in addition to the fact that they don't work that well, is the increased risk of diabetes, sudden and profound weight gain, and increased risk of heart attack during the first two-three months of use. Nevertheless, despite these risks, leading doctors have recommended putting every single heart attack survivor on beta blockers. Brilliant!
•ACE inhibitors (the new drug of choice), which like calcium channel blockers also work to relax and widen the arteries, but with fewer side effects (just "minor" things such as kidney impairment, upper respiratory problems, headache, dizziness, and congenital "anomalies").
Keep in mind that, in addition to all of the side effects that these drugs cause, which require further medication, there is a fundamental flaw in these pharmaceutical treatments. All that these drugs do is treat the "manifest" symptom -- high blood pressure -- but do nothing to deal with the underlying cause -- clogged or hardened arteries. So, eventually, as your arteries continue to clog and harden to the point where even the medication no longer helps, you start getting the inevitable chest pains. Your doctor then chases the next set of symptoms and performs a coronary bypass or angioplasty to relieve those symptoms -- until the next, even more radical, intervention.
As a side note, a study published in 2007 found that angioplasties did not save lives or prevent heart attacks in non-emergency patients. In fact, the study showed angioplasties only give slight and temporary relief from chest pain, and by five years, there was no significant difference in symptoms. Oh yes, we spend $48 billion a year on angioplasties in the U.S. alone.
Then again, in addition to all of the side effects, complications, and dangers of surgery, we are once more presented with yet another fundamental flaw in your doctor's treatment. If all your doctor does is bypass or clear the arteries supplying blood to your heart, doesn't that mean that all of the other arteries in your body are still clogged, including the arteries that supply blood to your brain? You bet it does. Isn't that going to be a problem? Since the arteries are narrowed, won't it be more likely that a small blood clot will get lodged in your brain and cause a stroke? Absolutely! But that's a different "symptom." At this point, your doctor once again prescribes another drug or more dangerous surgery to deal with this problem. . .
Cholesterol
I've covered the issue of cholesterol in detail in my newsletter, The Cholesterol Myth. To better understand the entire issue, check it out. But for now, the following should suffice.
In January of 2008, I wrote about the results from a study sponsored by Merck and Schering-Plough that found that after several years on two types of cholesterol-lowering medications, patients reduced their cholesterol level, but they reaped no significant health benefit at all unless they already had heart disease. (Note: Merck delayed releasing the results for two years, and only when finally pressed to do so.)
But that's not the worst of it. Just a few months later in October 2008, I reported on the results of a study that found that Vytorin may increase the risk of cancer by 50 percent. In fact, this study found that Vytorin increased the risk of cancer in all major areas of the body. In addition, it found that among those who developed cancer, those taking Vytorin had a much higher rate of death than those taking a placebo.
And the bad news on statins just keeps rolling in like the tide in the Bay of Fundy. In July 2009, I talked about a study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal that confirmed that statin drugs cause structural damage to muscles. Even worse, the study found that muscle damage can continue to progress even after patients stop taking the drugs.
And how much do we pay for these dazzling results? In the US alone, sales of statin drugs generated approximately $19.7 billion in 2005, or about $120 billion when averaged out over a decade.
Aspirin
Even aspirin, the most innocuous of all medications recommended for the prevention of heart attacks, kills. According to the New England Journal of Medicine, "anti-inflammatory drugs (prescription and over-the-counter, which include Advil®, Motrin®, Aleve®, Ordus®, aspirin, and over 20 others) alone cause over 16,500 deaths and over 103,000 hospitalizations per year in the U.S." The simple fact is that even the smallest amount of aspirin, a child's dose, causes at least some degree of intestinal bleeding. In fact, nearly 70% of those taking aspirin daily show a blood loss of ½ to 1½ teaspoons per day, and 10% lose as much as 2 teaspoons per day.
And why would you use aspirin anyway? Proteolytic enzymes such as nattokinase, Endonase, and Seaprose-S are far more effective and far safer. And they do so much more than aspirin, which merely improves the ability of blood to flow. A good proteolytic enzyme formula will:
•Improve the ability of blood to flow.
•Dissolve plaque in the arterial walls by breaking down the protein based fibrin that holds the plaque together.
•Reduce systemic inflammation in the body and in the circulatory system, thus eliminating the prime cause of plaque build-up in the first place.
•And help break down scar tissue in the arterial walls.
And while you're at it, why not significantly reduce consumption of Omega-6 vegetable oils, which includes virtually all of the vegetable oils (corn, safflower, etc.) you buy in the supermarket other than olive oil. If not balanced by sufficient Omega-3 oils in the diet, Omega-6's cause a build-up of non-esterified fatty acids, also known as NEFAs, a significant independent risk factor for sudden death from heart attacks. Switching to more balanced oils costs about the same, not to mention the fact that they actually taste better. It's not like being forced to eat health-food cookies. In fact, the only advantage to using highly processed polyunsaturated cooking oils is that they never go rancid. You can keep them in your cabinet for as long as you live, and they will never go bad. But when you think about it, how comfortable should you feel about eating a food that can "never die?" Does it even qualify as a food anymore?
Diabetes medications
Controlling blood sugar levels makes all the sense in the world. Drugs such as metformin are both reasonably effective and reasonably benign. Insulin injections, not so much. But natural sugar metabolic enhancement formulas are at least as effective, and even more benign, than either medical approach.
But even more important, suppressing high blood sugar numbers addresses neither the cause of the disease nor the other issues associated with it, including insulin resistance, damage from excess insulin, destruction of beta cells, and damage to organs. These are all part of diabetes' "echo effect," and must be addressed if you ultimately want to reverse the disease. In effect, any viable alternative needs to stop all of the echoes -- all of them without exception -- so that nothing bounces back to retrigger problems. Drugs do not do that, which is why diabetes tends to progress over the years, even if you use drugs. Yes, the drugs slow down the progression of the disease, but it still progresses -- unless you actually reverse the cause of the disease itself.
Costs
Amusingly, the cost savings presumed if the medical community gets its way and can implement the 11 prevention activities recommended in both studies with complete success over the next 30 years, would not only not save money -- it would bankrupt us. As the The Impact of Prevention on Reducing the Burden of Cardiovascular Disease study says, "The cost of caring for CVD, diabetes, and CHD over the coming 30 years will be in the order of $9.5 trillion. If all the recommended prevention activities were applied with 100% success, those costs would be reduced by ∼$904 billion, or almost 10%. However, assuming the costs shown in Table 2, the prevention activities themselves would cost ∼$8.5 trillion, offsetting the savings by a factor of almost 10 and increasing total medical costs by ∼$7.6 trillion (162%).
Now that's a brilliant plan!
Salt
And no, I'm not talking about Angelina Jolie's latest movie.
The Forecasting study says, "A reduction in sodium intake is a promising goal for prevention and treatment of hypertension. A recent analysis using the Coronary Heart Disease Policy Model estimated that reducing dietary salt by 3 g per day per person would reduce the annual number of new cases of CHD by 60,000 to 120,000, stroke by 32,000 to 66,000, and myocardial infarction by 54,000 to 99,000 and reduce the annual number of deaths from any cause by 44,000 to 92,000."
At first glance, that statement might seem pretty innocuous and downright commonsensical, but reread it. It talks about reducing dietary salt intake by 3 grams, or 3,000 mg! The United States recommendation for the daily maximum intake of salt is 2,400 mg. Most health experts recommend only 1,500-1,800 mg a day. So what are they talking about? How much salt is actually making its way into people's diets for a recommendation that people reduce consumption by 100-200% of the maximum daily allowance?
Check out this quote from the European Public Health Alliance:
"The current public health recommendations suggest that salt intake should be reduced from 9-12 to 5-6 grams per day for adults. Clinical trials demonstrate a clear link between salt reduction and the fall in blood pressure. A conservative estimate indicates that a reduction of 3 grams per day would reduce strokes by 13% and ischemic heart disease by 10%. The effects would be almost doubled with a 6-gram reduction and tripled with a 9-gram one."
Holy salted beef, Batman! It seems that large numbers of people have become walking salt licks.
All kidding aside, anyone consuming 9-12 g of sodium a day has a problem and is pretty much a walking coronary. But that said, an equally important factor is what type of salt are you consuming? As I've discussed previously, there is a huge difference in how your body handles refined salt and how it handles unrefined, natural sea or Himalayan salt. And be careful, many, many companies are now jumping on the bandwagon and promoting their use of sea salt -- but in many cases, they are using refined sea salt, which is sea salt in name only. Once refined, it is no different from any other commercial salt you can buy...and equally harmful to your body. Make sure that you (or any products you buy) use only unrefined sea or Himalayan salt.
Conclusion
All in all, the report from the American Heart Association on the future of heart disease in the United States (and by extrapolation, anywhere else in the world) is not a bad one. It contains more truth than nonsense -- and when's the last time you heard me say that about a medical study? Unfortunately, it ultimately succumbs to the weight of its medical bias -- the bias that says you can control disease by managing and/or suppressing symptoms. In truth, cardiovascular disease will never truly be controlled (and within any affordable budget for future health care) until medical doctors think more like holistic physicians and deal with the causes of disease rather than just the symptoms.
For more on exactly how the cardiovascular system works, what causes heart disease, and how to reverse it, click here to start reading my series of newsletters on the anatomy and physiology of the cardiovascular system. Also check out our Heart Health page for other related newsletters and blogs
=============================================
Please visit Jon's site here
Saturday, February 5, 2011
Assorted Thoughts About the 2010 Dietary Guidelines
I just had my sixth heart attack less than one week ago - one week ago come tomorrow morning at 1:30AM, to be more precise.
What did I do about it? A long story but I in the short term I called my wife who was 450 miles away (or more clearly I was 450 miles away from her on a trip), then proceeded to get care (not much available where I was so that was a task). In the long term I think I will mostly proceed the direction I was going but with more focus and rigor making some course corrections but not sharp turns. And I will basically continue to live my life as I have been.
For sometime the 'direction I was going' (bad english) has been to become more proactive in matters of my health. I have come to the view that what I can do mostly effectively involves my diet. I read and sift a lot of information related to cardiovascular health and have chosen my course.
Am I right? Can't say with 100% certainty. But I have come to strongly believe there is Credible Evidence to support my position. Hence this blog.
The following article I believe speaks clearly to a significant aspect to diet. And I want to share it.
====================================================
Assorted Thoughts About the 2010 Dietary Guidelines
from Whole Health Source by wholehealthsource@yahoo.com (Stephan)
In the past week, I've been rooting through the USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Here are a few of my thoughts.
Positive
One of the things I've been enjoying recently is watching health authorities shift away from a nutrient-oriented philosophy in favor of a more food-oriented philosophy. For example, I recently read a nice editorial by Drs. Dariush Mozaffarian and David S. Ludwig that encapsulates this (2). Here's a quote:
Nutritional science has advanced rapidly, and the evidence now demonstrates the major limitations of nutrient-based metrics for prevention of chronic disease. The proportion of total energy from fat appears largely unrelated to risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or obesity. Saturated fat—targeted by nearly all nutrition-related professional organizations and governmental agencies—has little relation to heart disease within most prevailing dietary patterns. Typical recommendations to consume at least half of total energy as carbohydrate, a nutrient for which humans have no absolute requirement, conflate foods with widely divergent physiologic effects (eg, brown rice, white bread, apples). Foods are grouped based on protein content (chicken, fish, beans, nuts) despite demonstrably different health effects. With few exceptions (eg, omega-3 fats, trans fat, salt), individual compounds in isolation have small effects on chronic diseases. Thus, little of the information found on food labels’ “nutrition facts” panels provides useful guidance for selecting healthier foods to prevent chronic disease.
In contrast with discrete nutrients, specific foods and dietary patterns substantially affect chronic disease risk, as shown by controlled trials of risk factors and prospective cohorts of disease end points
Although this approach may seem radical, it actually represents a return to more traditional, time-tested ways of eating. Healthier food-based dietary patterns have existed for generations among some populations.
Tell it! Although he doesn't use the word nutritionism, that's basically what he's arguing against. Dr. Mozaffarian seems to represent the less reductionist school of nutrition, which is a more informed version of what nutrition pioneers such as Sir Edward Mellanby, Dr. May Mellanby, Dr. Weston Price and Sir Robert McCarrison advocated.
Although the 2010 guidelines are too focused on nutrients for my taste (see below), they do spend some time talking about food groups and eating patterns, for example, recommending an increase in the consumption of vegetables, fruit, whole grains and seafood. They also recommend Mediterranean and plant-focused eating patterns. Although I don't think their recommendations quite hit the mark, they do reflect a shift in thinking.
Another thing I enjoyed about the Guidelines is the table on page 12 of chapter 2, which shows just how messed up the average American diet is. The number one source of calories in all age groups is "grain-based desserts". The next five in adults are yeast breads, chicken dishes, soda/sports drinks, alcohol and pizza. To see typical American food habits presented like this just blows me away. They call this the "obesogenic environment"; the idea that we're surrounded by tasty but unhealthy food and situations that favor the consumption of it. I agree.
The Guidelines also contain a surprisingly accurate one-sentence review of the glycemic index literature:
Strong evidence shows that glycemic index and/or glycemic load are not associated with body weight; thus, it is not necessary to consider these measures when selecting carbohydrate foods and beverages for weight management.Negative
The first problem is the creation of the category "solid fats and added sugars", abbreviated SoFAS. With the creation of this term, they lump pastured butter together with Crisco and Red Hots. If they've been hiding the evidence that pastured butter, virgin coconut oil or red palm oil contribute to heart disease, I'd like to see it so I can stop eating them!
Another problem is their list of recommendations to curb the obesity epidemic. They say:
The current high rates of overweight and obesity among virtually all subgroups of the population in the United States demonstrate that many Americans are in calorie imbalance—that is, they consume more calories than they expend. To curb the obesity epidemic and improve their health, Americans need to make significant efforts to decrease the total number of calories they consume from foods and beverages and increase calorie expenditure through physical activity.
Looks like we have Sherlock Holmes on the case. Now that we have this information, all we have to do is tell overweight people to eat less and they'll be lean again! What's that, they already know and it's not working?? Someone should tell the USDA.
Jokes aside, I do think energy balance is a huge issue, perhaps even the central issue in chronic disease risk in affluent nations. The basic problem is that Americans are eating more calories than is optimal, and they have a very hard time stopping. It's not because they have less willpower than their stoic ancestors, it's because their bodies have decided that overweight/obesity is the new lean, and they defend that higher level of fat mass against changes. Simply telling an overweight person to eat fewer calories, without changing the dietary context, is not very effective in the long term, due to compensatory mechanisms including hunger and increased metabolic efficiency (fewer calories burned for the same muscular exertion).
What does the USDA recommend to lose fat or maintain leanness?
•Count calories. Doesn't work for most people, although I acknowledge that it is physically possible to lose fat (and lean mass) by restricting calories.
•Reduce sweetened beverages. Thumbs up.
•Serve smaller portions. As far as I know, this rests exclusively on very short-term studies that showed that food consumed at a single meal or three is reduced if portion size is smaller. I guess it can't hurt to try it, but I'm not convinced it will have any effect on long-term body fatness. I think restaurant portion sizes have probably increased because people eat more, rather than the other way around, although both could be true.
•Eat foods that are less calorie dense. I think vegetables are healthy, but is it because they're less calorie-dense? Why is dietary fat intake generally not associated with obesity if it's the most calorie-dense substance? Why do may people lose body fat eating energy-dense low-carbohydrate diets? Not convinced, but I'm feeling open minded about this one.
•Exercise more and watch less TV. Exercise is good. But don't let it make you hungry, because then you'll eat more!
Overall, I think their recommendations for fat loss are not very satisfying because they don't address the core reasons Americans aren't in energy balance. Eliminating sweetened beverages and exercising are the most solid advice they offered in my opinion. The rest strikes me as wishy-washy advice that's offered because they have to say something.
At one point, they talk about changes in the US diet that have corresponded with the obesity epidemic:
Average daily calories available per person in the marketplace increased approximately 600 calories, with the greatest increases in the availability of added fats and oils, grains, milk and milk products, and caloric sweeteners.
Let me edit that so it's more complete:
Average daily calories available per person in the marketplace increased approximately 600 calories per day, 250 calories of which were actually consumed (USDA and NHANES). Added fats increased, due to a large increase in seed oil intake, but total fat intake remained approximately the same because of a roughly equal decrease in fatty meat and whole milk consumption (USDA and NHANES). Grain intake, predominantly wheat, increased, as did the consumption of refined sweeteners, predominantly high-fructose corn syrup (USDA).
It reads a bit differently once you have a little more information, doesn't it? Animal fat intake declined considerably, and was replaced by seed oils, in parallel with the obesity and diabetes epidemics. Maybe it contributed, maybe it didn't, but why not just be forthright about it? People appreciate honesty.
Conclusion
Although the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines show some promising trends, and contain some good information, I hope you can find a better source than the USDA for your nutrition advice.
===============================================
Thank You Stephan Guyenet for your thoughts. Read the article at his Whole Health Source web site here.
What did I do about it? A long story but I in the short term I called my wife who was 450 miles away (or more clearly I was 450 miles away from her on a trip), then proceeded to get care (not much available where I was so that was a task). In the long term I think I will mostly proceed the direction I was going but with more focus and rigor making some course corrections but not sharp turns. And I will basically continue to live my life as I have been.
For sometime the 'direction I was going' (bad english) has been to become more proactive in matters of my health. I have come to the view that what I can do mostly effectively involves my diet. I read and sift a lot of information related to cardiovascular health and have chosen my course.
Am I right? Can't say with 100% certainty. But I have come to strongly believe there is Credible Evidence to support my position. Hence this blog.
The following article I believe speaks clearly to a significant aspect to diet. And I want to share it.
====================================================
Assorted Thoughts About the 2010 Dietary Guidelines
from Whole Health Source by wholehealthsource@yahoo.com (Stephan)
In the past week, I've been rooting through the USDA's 2010 Dietary Guidelines. Here are a few of my thoughts.
Positive
One of the things I've been enjoying recently is watching health authorities shift away from a nutrient-oriented philosophy in favor of a more food-oriented philosophy. For example, I recently read a nice editorial by Drs. Dariush Mozaffarian and David S. Ludwig that encapsulates this (2). Here's a quote:
Nutritional science has advanced rapidly, and the evidence now demonstrates the major limitations of nutrient-based metrics for prevention of chronic disease. The proportion of total energy from fat appears largely unrelated to risk of cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, or obesity. Saturated fat—targeted by nearly all nutrition-related professional organizations and governmental agencies—has little relation to heart disease within most prevailing dietary patterns. Typical recommendations to consume at least half of total energy as carbohydrate, a nutrient for which humans have no absolute requirement, conflate foods with widely divergent physiologic effects (eg, brown rice, white bread, apples). Foods are grouped based on protein content (chicken, fish, beans, nuts) despite demonstrably different health effects. With few exceptions (eg, omega-3 fats, trans fat, salt), individual compounds in isolation have small effects on chronic diseases. Thus, little of the information found on food labels’ “nutrition facts” panels provides useful guidance for selecting healthier foods to prevent chronic disease.
In contrast with discrete nutrients, specific foods and dietary patterns substantially affect chronic disease risk, as shown by controlled trials of risk factors and prospective cohorts of disease end points
Although this approach may seem radical, it actually represents a return to more traditional, time-tested ways of eating. Healthier food-based dietary patterns have existed for generations among some populations.
Tell it! Although he doesn't use the word nutritionism, that's basically what he's arguing against. Dr. Mozaffarian seems to represent the less reductionist school of nutrition, which is a more informed version of what nutrition pioneers such as Sir Edward Mellanby, Dr. May Mellanby, Dr. Weston Price and Sir Robert McCarrison advocated.
Although the 2010 guidelines are too focused on nutrients for my taste (see below), they do spend some time talking about food groups and eating patterns, for example, recommending an increase in the consumption of vegetables, fruit, whole grains and seafood. They also recommend Mediterranean and plant-focused eating patterns. Although I don't think their recommendations quite hit the mark, they do reflect a shift in thinking.
Another thing I enjoyed about the Guidelines is the table on page 12 of chapter 2, which shows just how messed up the average American diet is. The number one source of calories in all age groups is "grain-based desserts". The next five in adults are yeast breads, chicken dishes, soda/sports drinks, alcohol and pizza. To see typical American food habits presented like this just blows me away. They call this the "obesogenic environment"; the idea that we're surrounded by tasty but unhealthy food and situations that favor the consumption of it. I agree.
The Guidelines also contain a surprisingly accurate one-sentence review of the glycemic index literature:
Strong evidence shows that glycemic index and/or glycemic load are not associated with body weight; thus, it is not necessary to consider these measures when selecting carbohydrate foods and beverages for weight management.Negative
The first problem is the creation of the category "solid fats and added sugars", abbreviated SoFAS. With the creation of this term, they lump pastured butter together with Crisco and Red Hots. If they've been hiding the evidence that pastured butter, virgin coconut oil or red palm oil contribute to heart disease, I'd like to see it so I can stop eating them!
Another problem is their list of recommendations to curb the obesity epidemic. They say:
The current high rates of overweight and obesity among virtually all subgroups of the population in the United States demonstrate that many Americans are in calorie imbalance—that is, they consume more calories than they expend. To curb the obesity epidemic and improve their health, Americans need to make significant efforts to decrease the total number of calories they consume from foods and beverages and increase calorie expenditure through physical activity.
Looks like we have Sherlock Holmes on the case. Now that we have this information, all we have to do is tell overweight people to eat less and they'll be lean again! What's that, they already know and it's not working?? Someone should tell the USDA.
Jokes aside, I do think energy balance is a huge issue, perhaps even the central issue in chronic disease risk in affluent nations. The basic problem is that Americans are eating more calories than is optimal, and they have a very hard time stopping. It's not because they have less willpower than their stoic ancestors, it's because their bodies have decided that overweight/obesity is the new lean, and they defend that higher level of fat mass against changes. Simply telling an overweight person to eat fewer calories, without changing the dietary context, is not very effective in the long term, due to compensatory mechanisms including hunger and increased metabolic efficiency (fewer calories burned for the same muscular exertion).
What does the USDA recommend to lose fat or maintain leanness?
•Count calories. Doesn't work for most people, although I acknowledge that it is physically possible to lose fat (and lean mass) by restricting calories.
•Reduce sweetened beverages. Thumbs up.
•Serve smaller portions. As far as I know, this rests exclusively on very short-term studies that showed that food consumed at a single meal or three is reduced if portion size is smaller. I guess it can't hurt to try it, but I'm not convinced it will have any effect on long-term body fatness. I think restaurant portion sizes have probably increased because people eat more, rather than the other way around, although both could be true.
•Eat foods that are less calorie dense. I think vegetables are healthy, but is it because they're less calorie-dense? Why is dietary fat intake generally not associated with obesity if it's the most calorie-dense substance? Why do may people lose body fat eating energy-dense low-carbohydrate diets? Not convinced, but I'm feeling open minded about this one.
•Exercise more and watch less TV. Exercise is good. But don't let it make you hungry, because then you'll eat more!
Overall, I think their recommendations for fat loss are not very satisfying because they don't address the core reasons Americans aren't in energy balance. Eliminating sweetened beverages and exercising are the most solid advice they offered in my opinion. The rest strikes me as wishy-washy advice that's offered because they have to say something.
At one point, they talk about changes in the US diet that have corresponded with the obesity epidemic:
Average daily calories available per person in the marketplace increased approximately 600 calories, with the greatest increases in the availability of added fats and oils, grains, milk and milk products, and caloric sweeteners.
Let me edit that so it's more complete:
Average daily calories available per person in the marketplace increased approximately 600 calories per day, 250 calories of which were actually consumed (USDA and NHANES). Added fats increased, due to a large increase in seed oil intake, but total fat intake remained approximately the same because of a roughly equal decrease in fatty meat and whole milk consumption (USDA and NHANES). Grain intake, predominantly wheat, increased, as did the consumption of refined sweeteners, predominantly high-fructose corn syrup (USDA).
It reads a bit differently once you have a little more information, doesn't it? Animal fat intake declined considerably, and was replaced by seed oils, in parallel with the obesity and diabetes epidemics. Maybe it contributed, maybe it didn't, but why not just be forthright about it? People appreciate honesty.
Conclusion
Although the 2010 USDA Dietary Guidelines show some promising trends, and contain some good information, I hope you can find a better source than the USDA for your nutrition advice.
===============================================
Thank You Stephan Guyenet for your thoughts. Read the article at his Whole Health Source web site here.
Thursday, February 3, 2011
My Thanks To The Dietary Guidelines Committee
This is not about heart disease (or maybe it is indirectly?) I believe there is a strong connection between heart disease (and other diseases as well ) and diet. This article is about diet! Thanks Tom!
=======================================================
My Thanks To The Dietary Guidelines Committee from Fat Head by Tom Naughton
Dear Members of the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee:
I’m writing to thank you and all the members of the previous committees for your tireless work on the USDA’s dietary guidelines. You’ve made my job as a parent quite a bit easier.
I came to that conclusion yesterday when my wife and I joined our seven-year-old for lunch in her school cafeteria. My wife sends our girls to school with lunches she packs at home … usually some kind of meat or meaty stew accompanied by cheese sticks, carrots, apple slices, or olives. She also puts small bottles of water in their lunchboxes.
Most of the other kids eat lunches prepared in the cafeteria, which of course is required to follow the USDA guidelines. Yesterday’s government-approved lunch consisted of chicken nuggets (battered and deep-fried in vegetable oil), macaroni and cheese, mandarin oranges in some kind of syrup, and a drink. Some kids chose juice boxes for their drinks, others chose 1% or 2% milk, but the most popular choice was the 1% chocolate milk.
Naturally, I was horrified to see kids eating a meal consisting primarily of processed grains and sugar, and only slightly less horrified to realize that the meal was nearly devoid of natural fats. When I observed how many kids seemed to prefer the chocolate milk, my wife informed me that since the new USDA guidelines call for restricting fat even more, the school will soon limit its milk offerings to 1% white milk, skim white milk, and skim chocolate milk.
That’s when I realized what a huge favor you’ve done me.
Like any other father, I want my kids to succeed in life. I want them to win scholarships, attend the best colleges, and excel in whatever fields they choose to study. According to their teachers, they’re both bright girls. However, their school district is the highest-ranked in Tennessee and also one of the higher-ranked districts in the country, which means there are a lot of other bright kids in their classes. The competition to win scholarships some years from now ought to be fierce — but I don’t think it will be, at least not by the time my girls are in high school.
In an otherwise equal competition, there are two ways to gain an advantage: make yourself stronger, or find a way to weaken your opponents. We’re helping our daughters become as strong and as smart as we possibly can, but that may not be enough. Luckily for us, your dietary guidelines will simultaneously weaken the competition … sort of like a federally-funded Tonya Harding conspiring to give a whack to Nancy Kerrigan’s knees.
A growing human brain needs plenty of natural saturated fat and cholesterol, which is why Mother Nature was smart enough to put rather a lot of both in breast milk. Unlike their classmates, my girls have no idea what skim milk tastes like, because we never buy any. In fact, my daughters sometimes ask for extra cream in their whole milk, and we give it to them. They also eat lots of Kerry Gold butter, egg yolks, bacon fat, and marrow fat whenever my wife makes a stew.
Your committee and the previous committees have scared most parents away from serving kids these amazingly nutritious foods, which means my girls will have an advantage in cognitive development — especially now that you’ve instructed schools to remove what little natural fat was left in the milk. It may take some time for the difference in cognitive development to manifest, but the high concentrations of grains and fructose in the government-approved meals are already working to our benefit. While my girls are both alert and calm in class, other kids are already exhibiting signs of hyperactivity or difficulty concentrating.
When my seven-year-old was a toddler, she had occasional play dates with a boy her age who struck me as bright at the time. The boy’s mother served him fruit-spread sandwiches and juice for lunch and proudly informed us that she kept the boy on a low-fat diet. We learned recently that the boy — now a seven-year-old — is in a special class at school because he’s been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Multiply him by several million, and you can see why I’m confident your dietary guidelines are giving my daughters a leg up on the academic competition. I don’t expect all kids who follow your recommended diet to be quite so hampered, but frankly, even a minor deceleration in cognitive growth will push my girls that much higher on the curve.
And if for some reason my daughters don’t reach the top academically, I think it’s possible they’ll nonetheless surpass their peers physically and win some kind of athletic scholarship. The kids in my daughter’s second-grade class are all lean at this point, but when I looked over to where the fifth-graders were eating, I saw several examples of what just a few extra years of a government-approved diet can accomplish. It’s kind of depressing to see 11-year-old girls with pretty faces and protruding bellies, but when I reminded myself that young women with fatty livers aren’t going to beat my daughters out of starting positions on the college track or basketball teams, my spirits were lifted.
So again, my sincere thanks for all the work you put into the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. I don’t know how much interaction you have with similar committees in other countries, but I urge you to do whatever you can to promote these guidelines around the world. After all, my girls will someday need to compete in a global economy.
=============================================
Please visit Tom's web site if you like what you read here. He's got lots of insite.
http://www.fathead-movie.com/
=======================================================
My Thanks To The Dietary Guidelines Committee from Fat Head by Tom Naughton
Dear Members of the USDA Dietary Guidelines Committee:
I’m writing to thank you and all the members of the previous committees for your tireless work on the USDA’s dietary guidelines. You’ve made my job as a parent quite a bit easier.
I came to that conclusion yesterday when my wife and I joined our seven-year-old for lunch in her school cafeteria. My wife sends our girls to school with lunches she packs at home … usually some kind of meat or meaty stew accompanied by cheese sticks, carrots, apple slices, or olives. She also puts small bottles of water in their lunchboxes.
Most of the other kids eat lunches prepared in the cafeteria, which of course is required to follow the USDA guidelines. Yesterday’s government-approved lunch consisted of chicken nuggets (battered and deep-fried in vegetable oil), macaroni and cheese, mandarin oranges in some kind of syrup, and a drink. Some kids chose juice boxes for their drinks, others chose 1% or 2% milk, but the most popular choice was the 1% chocolate milk.
Naturally, I was horrified to see kids eating a meal consisting primarily of processed grains and sugar, and only slightly less horrified to realize that the meal was nearly devoid of natural fats. When I observed how many kids seemed to prefer the chocolate milk, my wife informed me that since the new USDA guidelines call for restricting fat even more, the school will soon limit its milk offerings to 1% white milk, skim white milk, and skim chocolate milk.
That’s when I realized what a huge favor you’ve done me.
Like any other father, I want my kids to succeed in life. I want them to win scholarships, attend the best colleges, and excel in whatever fields they choose to study. According to their teachers, they’re both bright girls. However, their school district is the highest-ranked in Tennessee and also one of the higher-ranked districts in the country, which means there are a lot of other bright kids in their classes. The competition to win scholarships some years from now ought to be fierce — but I don’t think it will be, at least not by the time my girls are in high school.
In an otherwise equal competition, there are two ways to gain an advantage: make yourself stronger, or find a way to weaken your opponents. We’re helping our daughters become as strong and as smart as we possibly can, but that may not be enough. Luckily for us, your dietary guidelines will simultaneously weaken the competition … sort of like a federally-funded Tonya Harding conspiring to give a whack to Nancy Kerrigan’s knees.
A growing human brain needs plenty of natural saturated fat and cholesterol, which is why Mother Nature was smart enough to put rather a lot of both in breast milk. Unlike their classmates, my girls have no idea what skim milk tastes like, because we never buy any. In fact, my daughters sometimes ask for extra cream in their whole milk, and we give it to them. They also eat lots of Kerry Gold butter, egg yolks, bacon fat, and marrow fat whenever my wife makes a stew.
Your committee and the previous committees have scared most parents away from serving kids these amazingly nutritious foods, which means my girls will have an advantage in cognitive development — especially now that you’ve instructed schools to remove what little natural fat was left in the milk. It may take some time for the difference in cognitive development to manifest, but the high concentrations of grains and fructose in the government-approved meals are already working to our benefit. While my girls are both alert and calm in class, other kids are already exhibiting signs of hyperactivity or difficulty concentrating.
When my seven-year-old was a toddler, she had occasional play dates with a boy her age who struck me as bright at the time. The boy’s mother served him fruit-spread sandwiches and juice for lunch and proudly informed us that she kept the boy on a low-fat diet. We learned recently that the boy — now a seven-year-old — is in a special class at school because he’s been diagnosed with attention deficit disorder. Multiply him by several million, and you can see why I’m confident your dietary guidelines are giving my daughters a leg up on the academic competition. I don’t expect all kids who follow your recommended diet to be quite so hampered, but frankly, even a minor deceleration in cognitive growth will push my girls that much higher on the curve.
And if for some reason my daughters don’t reach the top academically, I think it’s possible they’ll nonetheless surpass their peers physically and win some kind of athletic scholarship. The kids in my daughter’s second-grade class are all lean at this point, but when I looked over to where the fifth-graders were eating, I saw several examples of what just a few extra years of a government-approved diet can accomplish. It’s kind of depressing to see 11-year-old girls with pretty faces and protruding bellies, but when I reminded myself that young women with fatty livers aren’t going to beat my daughters out of starting positions on the college track or basketball teams, my spirits were lifted.
So again, my sincere thanks for all the work you put into the 2010 Dietary Guidelines. I don’t know how much interaction you have with similar committees in other countries, but I urge you to do whatever you can to promote these guidelines around the world. After all, my girls will someday need to compete in a global economy.
=============================================
Please visit Tom's web site if you like what you read here. He's got lots of insite.
http://www.fathead-movie.com/
Dr Mercola on Cholesterol medications.
Dr Mercola 's article nearly a year ago has some good points in this whole issue.
I have said that the only statin proven to actually prevent heart attacks is high dose Baycol. You die of liver failure before you have the chance to have the heart attack!
======================================================
Tens of millions of Americans are taking cholesterol-lowering drugs—mostly statins—and some "experts" claim that many millions more should be taking them.
I couldn't disagree more.
Statins are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, that is, they act by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase). The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are now 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk.
For starters, reported side effects include:
•Muscle problems, polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet), and rhabdomyolysis (a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition)
•Anemia
•Acidosis
•Sexual dysfunction
•Immune depression
•Pancreas or liver dysfunction, including a potential increase in liver enzymes
•Cataracts
Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive problems and memory loss are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur. There is evidence that taking statins may even increase your risk for Lou Gehrig's disease.
Statins currently available on the U.S. market are:
•Advicor (lovastatin with niacin) – Abbott
•Altoprev (lovastatin) – Shionogi Pharma
•Caduet [atorvastatin with amlodipine (Norvasc)] – Pfizer
•Crestor (rosuvastatin) - AstraZeneca
•Lescol (fluvastatin) – Novartis
•Lipitor (atorvastatin) - Pfizer
•Mevacor (lovastatin) – Merck
•Pravachol (pravastatin) -- Bristol-Myers Squibb
•Simcor (niacin/imvastatin) – Abbott
•Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) – Merck/Schering-Plough
•Zocor (simvastatin) – Merck
Ninety-Nine Out of 100 People do Not Need Statin Drugs
That these drugs have proliferated the market the way they have is a testimony to the power of marketing, corruption and corporate greed, because the odds are very high— greater than 100 to 1—that if you're taking a statin, you don't really need it.
The ONLY subgroup that might benefit are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, as this makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol.
And, even more importantly, cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease.
If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher.
HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:
1.HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.
2.Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.
I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who were actually at low risk for heart disease due to their elevated HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen many people with cholesterol levels under 200 who had a very high risk of heart disease, based on their low HDL.
Your body NEEDS cholesterol—it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function.
There is also strong evidence that having too little cholesterol INCREASES your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.
Parents Beware: Outrageous New Push to Put Kids on Statin Drugs!
In a bold attempt to increase profits before the patent runs out, Pfizer has now introduced a chewable kid-friendly version of Lipitor. Its US patent for Lipitor expires in November 2011, and seeking to boost sales of the drug, children have become the new target market, and the conventional medical establishment is more than happy to oblige.
Researchers and many doctors are now calling for universal school screening of children to check for high cholesterol, to find those "in need of treatment." In addition, older siblings, parents and other family members might be prompted to get screened as well, the researchers say, which would uncover additional, previously undiagnosed adults in need of the drug.
This is clearly NOT the way to improve public health. On the contrary, it could produce a new, massive wave of extremely dire health consequences in just a few years time.
So rather than improving school lunches, which would cost about a dollar a day per child, they'd rather "invest" ten times that for tests and drugs that in no way, shape, or form address the root cause, which is an improper, unhealthy diet!
All they're doing is allowing all the industries to maintain or increase their profits: Big Pharma; Big Sugar; Big Corn and the processed food industry.
Who pays?
You, and your children! And in far more ways than one!
I will address this issue in depth in a future article, so please stay tuned…
If You Take Statins, You MUST Take CoQ10
If you take statin drugs without taking CoQ10, your health is at serious risk. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States.
CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly.
Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results.
Physicians rarely inform people of this risk and only occasionally advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement. As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure.
Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA.
If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it is important to choose the reduced version, called ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form—I personally take 1-3 a day since it has such far ranging benefits.
Optimizing Your Cholesterol Levels, Naturally
There's really no reason to take statins and suffer the damaging health effects from these dangerous drugs.
The fact is that 75 percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol.
It follows, then, that my primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol have to do with modifying your diet and lifestyle:
•Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your diet. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type, and consume a good portion of your food raw.
•Make sure you are getting plenty of high quality, animal-based omega 3 fats, such as krill oil.
•Other heart-healthy foods include olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats as appropriate for your nutritional type.
•Exercise daily. Make sure you incorporate peak fitness exercises, which also optimizes your human growth hormone (HGH) production.
•Address your emotional challenges. My favorite technique for stress management is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
•Avoid smoking or drinking alcohol excessively.
•Be sure to get plenty of good, restorative sleep.
Unlike statin drugs, which lower your cholesterol at the expense of your health, these lifestyle strategies represent a holistic approach that will benefit your overall health—which includes a healthy cardiovascular system.
GET THIS FREE REPORT NOW!Download my FREE guide on The Low-down on Cholesterol: Why You Need It - and The Real Methods to Get Your Levels Right. Enter your email address to download the FREE report right now.
You also get FREE access to more than 250,000 health articles from Mercola.com and a FREE subscription to my Natural Health newsletter! You can unsubscribe any time and I guarantee your email privacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Articles:
New Bombshell of Disastrous Side Effects from Statins
The number of people on these hazardous drugs is staggering – as is the mounting evidence of catastrophic side effects… 900 studies so far. Cognitive decline, muscle decline, pancreatic and liver damage… which are you in line for?
Does High Cholesterol REALLY Cause HeartDisease
Eye-opening interview with Swedish health expert reveals the truth behind the cholesterol myth.
Can it Get Much Worse? Drug Company Now Claims Statins Recommended for Swine Flu
Has the drug company marketing machine gone into overdrive with their new onslaught of misinformation and confusion?
Why You Should Avoid Red Rice Yeast
This natural "supplement" may be just as hazardous to your heath as other prescription medications to lower cholesterol.
900 Studies Show Statin Drugs are Dangerous
6 Ways to Reduce Inflammation -- Without a Statin Drug
The science behind statin drugs is failing to prove a benefit; here's what can really do the trick.
Statin Drugs: Another Industry-Sponsored Study, Another Deceptive Result
Is it true that statin drugs can lower your risk of heart attacks by over 50 percent, or is this simply another deceptive marketing ploy?
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs Will Wreck Your Muscles
Researchers continue to find more reasons to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Cholesterol Pill Taken by Thousands Causes Cancer
Why increase your risk of dying from cancer when treating high cholesterol has nothing to do with taking a drug?
Why are Cholesterol Drugs Being Recommended for 8 Year Olds?
Are these dangerous drugs ever really necessary to protect kids' hearts?
1.5 Million More People to Be Prescribed Useless Cholesterol Drugs
Are you on the new drug "hit" list?
How You Have Been Fooled By Good and Bad Cholesterol
Even most physicians are confused about this important health concern.
How Statin Drugs Wreck Your Muscles
Yet another reason to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Popular Cholesterol Drug Found to Have No Medical Benefits
Lipitor Ads Spark Congressional Probe
Drug giant Pfizer is in hot water again over fraudulent peddling of their unnecessary, toxic solutions.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs: What Are Drugmakers Hiding?
Another $4-billion scam resulting in nearly 1 million unnecessary prescriptions.
Why Doctors Often Dismiss Drug Side Effects
What Happens When Your Cholesterol Goes Too Low?
The Next Statin Scam: Preventing Strokes
Even if statin drugs prevent strokes from recurring, you'll still die earlier from other causes.
Fish Oil Works Better Than Statins at Improving HDL Cholesterol
Omega-3 fats do more to normalize your cholesterol than Lipitor and the other statin drugs, and are safer and less expensive as well.
Lawsuits Debate Lasting Lipitor Damage
Why use dangerous statin drugs when simple, highly effective alternatives that treat the true cause are readily available?
Will Statins Help ''Cure'' ED?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Could a Generic Zocor ''Hurt'' The Statin Market?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Statin Drugs do NOT Prevent Cancer
It has now been conclusively shown that the cholesterol-lowering drugs have no effect whatsoever on cancer, despite previous arguments to the contrary.
FDA Screws Up Again
The FDA rejected a petition to have the controversial cholesterol drug Crestor, linked to serious muscle damage, withdrawn from the market. How can this...
Lipitor, Severe Diabetes a Fatal Combination
If you struggle with high cholesterol, you will certainly want to review my latest comments on using Lipitor to treat it.
Generic or Name Brand: Do You Really Need a Statin Drug?
Cheaper statin drugs are not good news for you, even if they paid you to take these drugs you should refuse.
Lipitor No Better Than Other Cholesterol Drugs
In spite of the manufacturer's claims, Lipitor is not only not as effective but may also have worse side effects.
Statins do Absolutely Nothing for Alzheimer's & Dementia
Cholesterol's Contribution to Prostate Cancer
High cholesterol is likely to increases your risk of prostate cancer. Although statin drugs lower cholesterol levels, they are not your best option to reduce...
Crestor and Other Statins: Are They Really Worth the Risk?
The statin Crestor is being promoted as the "best" statin drug on the market, but are any of these cholesterol-lowering drugs worth the serious risks they pose? And, is lowering cholesterol really the best way to prevent heart disease in the first place?
Will Statins Become OTC Drugs in the U.S.?
Merck's attempt to sell their cholesterol-lowering drug Mevacor over the counter has some experts worried. Find out why this attempt has been called "a very bad idea."
More Insane Uses for Statin Drugs
Do you have statins in your medicine cabinet? Find out which statins were removed from pharmacy shelves because of dangerous side effects.
The Truth About Crestor: Is Crestor Dangerous And, if so, Why?
The intensive marketing of the super-strong cholesterol-lowering statin drug is setting off warning bells among many doctors and patients. Is Crestor putting you at risk?
The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Cholesterol-Lowering Medication
If you're one of the millions of Americans currently taking statin drugs, don't miss this important and revealing article. Find out what you haven't been told about statin drugs to lower cholesterol that could dramatically affect your health today and in the future.
Statins, Calcium a Deadly Mix
Even if cholesterol levels are under control with taking statins, you still might be at risk of having a heart attack. Find out how calcium build-up in the coronary arteries is counteracting the benefits of statins.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs to Go Over the Counter
Some of the world's biggest drug companies have been busy trying to convince regulators to allow cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to be sold over the counter. See how the United States could be next in line after Britain in making the move to selling cholesterol-lowering drugs over the counter
Will Cholesterol Drugs go Over the Counter Soon?
Dangerous statin drugs, used by millions of Americans to lower cholesterol, may soon be available over the counter. Find out why these drugs are not a good way to normalize your cholesterol.
Safety Concerns Surround the Latest Statin, Crestor
Some experts are concerned by this drug's potential serious side effects. Find out how to lower your cholesterol naturally and avoid dangerous statin drugs.
Cholesterol Drugs Actually Cause Heart Disease
Cholesterol drugs are prescribed for millions of people even though they lead to a life-threatening deficiency of CoQ10, which can actually cause heart failure.
'Experts' Recommend Higher Doses of Cholesterol Drugs
'Experts' say using high doses of cholesterol drugs can reduce the risk of heart attack, bypass surgery and chest pains. Find out how this could affect your physical and financial status.
The Cure for High Cholesterol--Hint it is NOT a Drug
Avoid using statin drugs to lower cholesterol levels with these natural solutions and reap great health as a side effect. If you or someone you know has high cholesterol this is a must read.
New Cholesterol Guidelines Issued
New federal guidelines have changed the "normal" range for cholesterol so now even more people will be put on cholesterol-lowering drugs.
New Cholesterol Guidelines for Converting Healthy People into Patients
Instead of preventing cardiovascular disease, the new guidelines may transform healthy individuals into unhappy hypochondriacs obsessed with the chemical composition of their food and their blood, destroy the joy of eating, and divert health care money from the sick and the poor to the rich and the healthy.
Cholesterol Guidelines Fraught With Massive Conflict of Interest
Eight of the nine influential doctors responsible for forming new cholesterol guidelines may be blinded by dollar signs. It seems they have been making money from drug companies by urging patients to take their drugs.
Lunatic Recommendations For Statin Drug Use
"Experts" from the American College of Physicians recommended that most diabetics should be taking cholesterol-lowering medication to reduce their risk of having a heart attack--even if their cholesterol levels fell in the normal range.
More Reasons to Avoid Statin Drugs / Does Lipitor Raise Lp(a)?
Lipoprotein (a) is one of the strongest indicators for heart disease, yet very few doctors check their patients' Lp(a) levels. What's worse is that when they do, they often prescribe statin drugs as a solution to elevated levels.
Common Cholesterol Drug Lowers Cholesterol but Not Death Rate
In one of the largest cholesterol-drug trials ever conducted, statins did not lower death rates. Find out what you can do to lower your risk of heart disease, the number one killer in the United States.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs are Less Effective in Reality than in Trials
Cholesterol levels dropped one-third less than expected among statin users. People must take the pills in order for them to be effective and many forget or choose not to.
Cholesterol Drugs: How Expensive is Too Expensive?
It may be too expensive to treat every person who has high cholesterol with cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. Better alternatives reviewed.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs Suppress Immune System
Statins, have been found to suppress the immune system. In an interesting twist on the findings of this adverse effect, however, it is being hailed as a benefit. The researchers have focused on the fact that the drugs may be useful for treating transplant patients. However, how this immune suppression could affect the vast majority of patients taking the drugs is not discussed.
Low Cholesterol Causes Aggressive Behavior
Despite the fact that most people are worried about having cholesterol levels that are too high, yet another study has found that low cholesterol is actually associated with adverse behavioral effects such as aggression and depression.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Depression
Results of a study conducted by Dutch researchers provide additional evidence for a link between low cholesterol levels and an increased risk of depression in men.
HALF the population will be taking Statins
A prominent medical authority announced his prediction that 50 percent of the entire U.S. population could be taking statin medication.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Stroke Risk
If your cholesterol levels are too low, it may increase your risk of stroke.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Violence
Lowering cholesterol could trigger changes in brain chemistry that encourage violent behavior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Baycol Statin Recall and Safety Issue:
In August 2001, Bayer AG, the maker of Baycol (cerivastatin), a popular cholesterol-lowering drug used by about 700,000 Americans, pulled the medicine off the market after 31 people died from severe muscle breakdown, a well-recognized side effect of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Related articles follow:
Statins: Is the Danger in the Dose?
Here is the hard data on Baycol-associated adverse reactions. If you or someone you know is taking one of the statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, this is a "must-read" article by Jay Cohen, MD to help you understand the potential dangers that this exposes you to.
Baycol Pulled From Market as Numerous Deaths Linked to It
Baycol, a cholestrol-lowering drug (statin), has been voluntarily pulled off the market because of numerous deaths associated with its use.
The Baycol Recall: How Safe is Your Statin?
With the recall of Baycol, patients are now searching out a new drug to take its place, but are other statins really safe? Here are some precautions necessary for anyone taking Baycol or any statin.
Baycol: Another Fluoride Drug Bites the Dust
Baycol is just one of many fluoride drugs to be pulled from the market due to health hazards posed. Read about this and some of the others in this informative article written by Andreas Schuld and Wendy Small.
BMJ: Bayer faces potential fine over cholesterol lowering drug
Bayer might have to pay a fine to the German government of about $23,400 for withholding from the German authorities information on the drug's potentially fatal interaction with another drug.
Lipitor Tied to Liver, Kidney Injury, as Well as Muscle Damage.
It seems that Baycol is not alone among cholesterol lowering drugs in posing serious dangers to the public. A number of legal actions are also being pursued against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the Lipitor.
Excerpts from Public Citizen's Health Research Group's Petition to Require a Box Warning on All HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ("Statins"):
" ... Public Citizen, representing 135,000 consumers nationwide, hereby petitions the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21, U.S.C. Section 355(e)(3), and C.F.R. 10.30, to add a black box warning and additional consistent bolded warnings about this serious problem to the label of all statins marketed in the United States."
"Doctors and the public must be warned to immediately discontinue use of statin drugs at the onset of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness."
"Prompt cessation of the use of statins at the first sign of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness and prompt evaluation by a physician including a blood test for creatine phosphokinase (a measure of muscle destruction) may avoid the progression to more extensive muscle damage, rhabdomyolysis and death.
"Rhabdomyolysis has been reported with all statins currently marketed in the United States."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Experts
Joseph Mercola, DO
Medical Director of the Natural Health Center and Mercola.com. Read about my complete background information.
Uffe Ravnskov, MD
Born 1934 in Copenhagen, Denmark Graduated 1961 from the University of Copenhagen with an M.D. 1961-1967: Various appointments at surgical, roentgenological, neurological, pediatric and medical departments in Denmark and Sweden. 1968-1979: Various appointments at the Department of Nephrology, and the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 1975-79: As an assistant professor at the Department of Nephrology. 1973: PhD at the University of Lund. 1979-2000: A private practitioner. Since 1979 an independent researcher. A specialist in internal medicine and nephrology. Honored by the Skrabanek Award 1998.
For more information about him, see Dr. Ravnskov's Web site.
Jay Cohen, M.D
Jay Cohen, M.D., is an associate professor of Family and Preventative Medicine and of Psychiatry at the University of California in San Diego. He is the author of two books and has numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals. His book, Over Dose: The Case Against the Drug Companies, is an outstanding read.
=================================================================
Read it at Dr Mercola's site here
I have said that the only statin proven to actually prevent heart attacks is high dose Baycol. You die of liver failure before you have the chance to have the heart attack!
======================================================
Tens of millions of Americans are taking cholesterol-lowering drugs—mostly statins—and some "experts" claim that many millions more should be taking them.
I couldn't disagree more.
Statins are HMG-CoA reductase inhibitors, that is, they act by blocking the enzyme in your liver that is responsible for making cholesterol (HMG-CoA reductase). The fact that statin drugs cause side effects is well established—there are now 900 studies proving their adverse effects, which run the gamut from muscle problems to increased cancer risk.
For starters, reported side effects include:
•Muscle problems, polyneuropathy (nerve damage in the hands and feet), and rhabdomyolysis (a serious degenerative muscle tissue condition)
•Anemia
•Acidosis
•Sexual dysfunction
•Immune depression
•Pancreas or liver dysfunction, including a potential increase in liver enzymes
•Cataracts
Muscle problems are the best known of statin drugs' adverse side effects, but cognitive problems and memory loss are also widely reported. A spectrum of other problems, ranging from blood glucose elevations to tendon problems, can also occur. There is evidence that taking statins may even increase your risk for Lou Gehrig's disease.
Statins currently available on the U.S. market are:
•Advicor (lovastatin with niacin) – Abbott
•Altoprev (lovastatin) – Shionogi Pharma
•Caduet [atorvastatin with amlodipine (Norvasc)] – Pfizer
•Crestor (rosuvastatin) - AstraZeneca
•Lescol (fluvastatin) – Novartis
•Lipitor (atorvastatin) - Pfizer
•Mevacor (lovastatin) – Merck
•Pravachol (pravastatin) -- Bristol-Myers Squibb
•Simcor (niacin/imvastatin) – Abbott
•Vytorin (ezetimibe/simvastatin) – Merck/Schering-Plough
•Zocor (simvastatin) – Merck
Ninety-Nine Out of 100 People do Not Need Statin Drugs
That these drugs have proliferated the market the way they have is a testimony to the power of marketing, corruption and corporate greed, because the odds are very high— greater than 100 to 1—that if you're taking a statin, you don't really need it.
The ONLY subgroup that might benefit are those born with a genetic defect called familial hypercholesterolemia, as this makes them resistant to traditional measures of normalizing cholesterol.
And, even more importantly, cholesterol is NOT the cause of heart disease.
If your physician is urging you to check your total cholesterol, then you should know that this test will tell you virtually nothing about your risk of heart disease, unless it is 330 or higher.
HDL percentage is a far more potent indicator for heart disease risk. Here are the two ratios you should pay attention to:
1.HDL/Total Cholesterol Ratio: Should ideally be above 24 percent. If below 10 percent, you have a significantly elevated risk for heart disease.
2.Triglyceride/HDL Ratio: Should be below 2.
I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who were actually at low risk for heart disease due to their elevated HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen many people with cholesterol levels under 200 who had a very high risk of heart disease, based on their low HDL.
Your body NEEDS cholesterol—it is important in the production of cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps your brain form memories and is vital to your neurological function.
There is also strong evidence that having too little cholesterol INCREASES your risk for cancer, memory loss, Parkinson's disease, hormonal imbalances, stroke, depression, suicide, and violent behavior.
Parents Beware: Outrageous New Push to Put Kids on Statin Drugs!
In a bold attempt to increase profits before the patent runs out, Pfizer has now introduced a chewable kid-friendly version of Lipitor. Its US patent for Lipitor expires in November 2011, and seeking to boost sales of the drug, children have become the new target market, and the conventional medical establishment is more than happy to oblige.
Researchers and many doctors are now calling for universal school screening of children to check for high cholesterol, to find those "in need of treatment." In addition, older siblings, parents and other family members might be prompted to get screened as well, the researchers say, which would uncover additional, previously undiagnosed adults in need of the drug.
This is clearly NOT the way to improve public health. On the contrary, it could produce a new, massive wave of extremely dire health consequences in just a few years time.
So rather than improving school lunches, which would cost about a dollar a day per child, they'd rather "invest" ten times that for tests and drugs that in no way, shape, or form address the root cause, which is an improper, unhealthy diet!
All they're doing is allowing all the industries to maintain or increase their profits: Big Pharma; Big Sugar; Big Corn and the processed food industry.
Who pays?
You, and your children! And in far more ways than one!
I will address this issue in depth in a future article, so please stay tuned…
If You Take Statins, You MUST Take CoQ10
If you take statin drugs without taking CoQ10, your health is at serious risk. Unfortunately, this describes the majority of people who take them in the United States.
CoQ10 is a cofactor (co-enzyme) that is essential for the creation of ATP molecules, which you need for cellular energy production. Organs such as your heart have higher energy requirements, and therefore require more CoQ10 to function properly.
Statins deplete your body of CoQ10, which can have devastating results.
Physicians rarely inform people of this risk and only occasionally advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement. As your body gets more and more depleted of CoQ10, you may suffer from fatigue, muscle weakness and soreness, and eventually heart failure.
Coenzyme Q10 is also very important in the process of neutralizing free radicals. So when your CoQ10 is depleted, you enter a vicious cycle of increased free radicals, loss of cellular energy, and damaged mitochondrial DNA.
If you decide to take a CoQ10 supplement and are over the age of 40, it is important to choose the reduced version, called ubiquinol. Ubiquinol is a FAR more effective form—I personally take 1-3 a day since it has such far ranging benefits.
Optimizing Your Cholesterol Levels, Naturally
There's really no reason to take statins and suffer the damaging health effects from these dangerous drugs.
The fact is that 75 percent of your cholesterol is produced by your liver, which is influenced by your insulin levels. Therefore, if you optimize your insulin level, you will automatically optimize your cholesterol.
It follows, then, that my primary recommendations for safely regulating your cholesterol have to do with modifying your diet and lifestyle:
•Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your diet. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type, and consume a good portion of your food raw.
•Make sure you are getting plenty of high quality, animal-based omega 3 fats, such as krill oil.
•Other heart-healthy foods include olive oil, coconut and coconut oil, organic raw dairy products and eggs, avocados, raw nuts and seeds, and organic grass-fed meats as appropriate for your nutritional type.
•Exercise daily. Make sure you incorporate peak fitness exercises, which also optimizes your human growth hormone (HGH) production.
•Address your emotional challenges. My favorite technique for stress management is the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT).
•Avoid smoking or drinking alcohol excessively.
•Be sure to get plenty of good, restorative sleep.
Unlike statin drugs, which lower your cholesterol at the expense of your health, these lifestyle strategies represent a holistic approach that will benefit your overall health—which includes a healthy cardiovascular system.
GET THIS FREE REPORT NOW!Download my FREE guide on The Low-down on Cholesterol: Why You Need It - and The Real Methods to Get Your Levels Right. Enter your email address to download the FREE report right now.
You also get FREE access to more than 250,000 health articles from Mercola.com and a FREE subscription to my Natural Health newsletter! You can unsubscribe any time and I guarantee your email privacy.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Related Articles:
New Bombshell of Disastrous Side Effects from Statins
The number of people on these hazardous drugs is staggering – as is the mounting evidence of catastrophic side effects… 900 studies so far. Cognitive decline, muscle decline, pancreatic and liver damage… which are you in line for?
Does High Cholesterol REALLY Cause HeartDisease
Eye-opening interview with Swedish health expert reveals the truth behind the cholesterol myth.
Can it Get Much Worse? Drug Company Now Claims Statins Recommended for Swine Flu
Has the drug company marketing machine gone into overdrive with their new onslaught of misinformation and confusion?
Why You Should Avoid Red Rice Yeast
This natural "supplement" may be just as hazardous to your heath as other prescription medications to lower cholesterol.
900 Studies Show Statin Drugs are Dangerous
6 Ways to Reduce Inflammation -- Without a Statin Drug
The science behind statin drugs is failing to prove a benefit; here's what can really do the trick.
Statin Drugs: Another Industry-Sponsored Study, Another Deceptive Result
Is it true that statin drugs can lower your risk of heart attacks by over 50 percent, or is this simply another deceptive marketing ploy?
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs Will Wreck Your Muscles
Researchers continue to find more reasons to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Cholesterol Pill Taken by Thousands Causes Cancer
Why increase your risk of dying from cancer when treating high cholesterol has nothing to do with taking a drug?
Why are Cholesterol Drugs Being Recommended for 8 Year Olds?
Are these dangerous drugs ever really necessary to protect kids' hearts?
1.5 Million More People to Be Prescribed Useless Cholesterol Drugs
Are you on the new drug "hit" list?
How You Have Been Fooled By Good and Bad Cholesterol
Even most physicians are confused about this important health concern.
How Statin Drugs Wreck Your Muscles
Yet another reason to avoid these drugs like the plague.
Popular Cholesterol Drug Found to Have No Medical Benefits
Lipitor Ads Spark Congressional Probe
Drug giant Pfizer is in hot water again over fraudulent peddling of their unnecessary, toxic solutions.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs: What Are Drugmakers Hiding?
Another $4-billion scam resulting in nearly 1 million unnecessary prescriptions.
Why Doctors Often Dismiss Drug Side Effects
What Happens When Your Cholesterol Goes Too Low?
The Next Statin Scam: Preventing Strokes
Even if statin drugs prevent strokes from recurring, you'll still die earlier from other causes.
Fish Oil Works Better Than Statins at Improving HDL Cholesterol
Omega-3 fats do more to normalize your cholesterol than Lipitor and the other statin drugs, and are safer and less expensive as well.
Lawsuits Debate Lasting Lipitor Damage
Why use dangerous statin drugs when simple, highly effective alternatives that treat the true cause are readily available?
Will Statins Help ''Cure'' ED?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Could a Generic Zocor ''Hurt'' The Statin Market?
Statin drugs could improve ED -- but the solution is worse than the disease.
Statin Drugs do NOT Prevent Cancer
It has now been conclusively shown that the cholesterol-lowering drugs have no effect whatsoever on cancer, despite previous arguments to the contrary.
FDA Screws Up Again
The FDA rejected a petition to have the controversial cholesterol drug Crestor, linked to serious muscle damage, withdrawn from the market. How can this...
Lipitor, Severe Diabetes a Fatal Combination
If you struggle with high cholesterol, you will certainly want to review my latest comments on using Lipitor to treat it.
Generic or Name Brand: Do You Really Need a Statin Drug?
Cheaper statin drugs are not good news for you, even if they paid you to take these drugs you should refuse.
Lipitor No Better Than Other Cholesterol Drugs
In spite of the manufacturer's claims, Lipitor is not only not as effective but may also have worse side effects.
Statins do Absolutely Nothing for Alzheimer's & Dementia
Cholesterol's Contribution to Prostate Cancer
High cholesterol is likely to increases your risk of prostate cancer. Although statin drugs lower cholesterol levels, they are not your best option to reduce...
Crestor and Other Statins: Are They Really Worth the Risk?
The statin Crestor is being promoted as the "best" statin drug on the market, but are any of these cholesterol-lowering drugs worth the serious risks they pose? And, is lowering cholesterol really the best way to prevent heart disease in the first place?
Will Statins Become OTC Drugs in the U.S.?
Merck's attempt to sell their cholesterol-lowering drug Mevacor over the counter has some experts worried. Find out why this attempt has been called "a very bad idea."
More Insane Uses for Statin Drugs
Do you have statins in your medicine cabinet? Find out which statins were removed from pharmacy shelves because of dangerous side effects.
The Truth About Crestor: Is Crestor Dangerous And, if so, Why?
The intensive marketing of the super-strong cholesterol-lowering statin drug is setting off warning bells among many doctors and patients. Is Crestor putting you at risk?
The Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Cholesterol-Lowering Medication
If you're one of the millions of Americans currently taking statin drugs, don't miss this important and revealing article. Find out what you haven't been told about statin drugs to lower cholesterol that could dramatically affect your health today and in the future.
Statins, Calcium a Deadly Mix
Even if cholesterol levels are under control with taking statins, you still might be at risk of having a heart attack. Find out how calcium build-up in the coronary arteries is counteracting the benefits of statins.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs to Go Over the Counter
Some of the world's biggest drug companies have been busy trying to convince regulators to allow cholesterol-lowering statin drugs to be sold over the counter. See how the United States could be next in line after Britain in making the move to selling cholesterol-lowering drugs over the counter
Will Cholesterol Drugs go Over the Counter Soon?
Dangerous statin drugs, used by millions of Americans to lower cholesterol, may soon be available over the counter. Find out why these drugs are not a good way to normalize your cholesterol.
Safety Concerns Surround the Latest Statin, Crestor
Some experts are concerned by this drug's potential serious side effects. Find out how to lower your cholesterol naturally and avoid dangerous statin drugs.
Cholesterol Drugs Actually Cause Heart Disease
Cholesterol drugs are prescribed for millions of people even though they lead to a life-threatening deficiency of CoQ10, which can actually cause heart failure.
'Experts' Recommend Higher Doses of Cholesterol Drugs
'Experts' say using high doses of cholesterol drugs can reduce the risk of heart attack, bypass surgery and chest pains. Find out how this could affect your physical and financial status.
The Cure for High Cholesterol--Hint it is NOT a Drug
Avoid using statin drugs to lower cholesterol levels with these natural solutions and reap great health as a side effect. If you or someone you know has high cholesterol this is a must read.
New Cholesterol Guidelines Issued
New federal guidelines have changed the "normal" range for cholesterol so now even more people will be put on cholesterol-lowering drugs.
New Cholesterol Guidelines for Converting Healthy People into Patients
Instead of preventing cardiovascular disease, the new guidelines may transform healthy individuals into unhappy hypochondriacs obsessed with the chemical composition of their food and their blood, destroy the joy of eating, and divert health care money from the sick and the poor to the rich and the healthy.
Cholesterol Guidelines Fraught With Massive Conflict of Interest
Eight of the nine influential doctors responsible for forming new cholesterol guidelines may be blinded by dollar signs. It seems they have been making money from drug companies by urging patients to take their drugs.
Lunatic Recommendations For Statin Drug Use
"Experts" from the American College of Physicians recommended that most diabetics should be taking cholesterol-lowering medication to reduce their risk of having a heart attack--even if their cholesterol levels fell in the normal range.
More Reasons to Avoid Statin Drugs / Does Lipitor Raise Lp(a)?
Lipoprotein (a) is one of the strongest indicators for heart disease, yet very few doctors check their patients' Lp(a) levels. What's worse is that when they do, they often prescribe statin drugs as a solution to elevated levels.
Common Cholesterol Drug Lowers Cholesterol but Not Death Rate
In one of the largest cholesterol-drug trials ever conducted, statins did not lower death rates. Find out what you can do to lower your risk of heart disease, the number one killer in the United States.
Cholesterol-Lowering Drugs are Less Effective in Reality than in Trials
Cholesterol levels dropped one-third less than expected among statin users. People must take the pills in order for them to be effective and many forget or choose not to.
Cholesterol Drugs: How Expensive is Too Expensive?
It may be too expensive to treat every person who has high cholesterol with cholesterol-lowering statin drugs. Better alternatives reviewed.
Cholesterol Lowering Drugs Suppress Immune System
Statins, have been found to suppress the immune system. In an interesting twist on the findings of this adverse effect, however, it is being hailed as a benefit. The researchers have focused on the fact that the drugs may be useful for treating transplant patients. However, how this immune suppression could affect the vast majority of patients taking the drugs is not discussed.
Low Cholesterol Causes Aggressive Behavior
Despite the fact that most people are worried about having cholesterol levels that are too high, yet another study has found that low cholesterol is actually associated with adverse behavioral effects such as aggression and depression.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Depression
Results of a study conducted by Dutch researchers provide additional evidence for a link between low cholesterol levels and an increased risk of depression in men.
HALF the population will be taking Statins
A prominent medical authority announced his prediction that 50 percent of the entire U.S. population could be taking statin medication.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Stroke Risk
If your cholesterol levels are too low, it may increase your risk of stroke.
Low Cholesterol Linked to Violence
Lowering cholesterol could trigger changes in brain chemistry that encourage violent behavior
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Baycol Statin Recall and Safety Issue:
In August 2001, Bayer AG, the maker of Baycol (cerivastatin), a popular cholesterol-lowering drug used by about 700,000 Americans, pulled the medicine off the market after 31 people died from severe muscle breakdown, a well-recognized side effect of cholesterol-lowering drugs. Related articles follow:
Statins: Is the Danger in the Dose?
Here is the hard data on Baycol-associated adverse reactions. If you or someone you know is taking one of the statin cholesterol-lowering drugs, this is a "must-read" article by Jay Cohen, MD to help you understand the potential dangers that this exposes you to.
Baycol Pulled From Market as Numerous Deaths Linked to It
Baycol, a cholestrol-lowering drug (statin), has been voluntarily pulled off the market because of numerous deaths associated with its use.
The Baycol Recall: How Safe is Your Statin?
With the recall of Baycol, patients are now searching out a new drug to take its place, but are other statins really safe? Here are some precautions necessary for anyone taking Baycol or any statin.
Baycol: Another Fluoride Drug Bites the Dust
Baycol is just one of many fluoride drugs to be pulled from the market due to health hazards posed. Read about this and some of the others in this informative article written by Andreas Schuld and Wendy Small.
BMJ: Bayer faces potential fine over cholesterol lowering drug
Bayer might have to pay a fine to the German government of about $23,400 for withholding from the German authorities information on the drug's potentially fatal interaction with another drug.
Lipitor Tied to Liver, Kidney Injury, as Well as Muscle Damage.
It seems that Baycol is not alone among cholesterol lowering drugs in posing serious dangers to the public. A number of legal actions are also being pursued against Pfizer Inc., the manufacturer of the Lipitor.
Excerpts from Public Citizen's Health Research Group's Petition to Require a Box Warning on All HMG-CoA Reductase Inhibitors ("Statins"):
" ... Public Citizen, representing 135,000 consumers nationwide, hereby petitions the FDA pursuant to the Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetic Act 21, U.S.C. Section 355(e)(3), and C.F.R. 10.30, to add a black box warning and additional consistent bolded warnings about this serious problem to the label of all statins marketed in the United States."
"Doctors and the public must be warned to immediately discontinue use of statin drugs at the onset of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness."
"Prompt cessation of the use of statins at the first sign of muscle pain, muscle tenderness, muscle weakness or tiredness and prompt evaluation by a physician including a blood test for creatine phosphokinase (a measure of muscle destruction) may avoid the progression to more extensive muscle damage, rhabdomyolysis and death.
"Rhabdomyolysis has been reported with all statins currently marketed in the United States."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
About the Experts
Joseph Mercola, DO
Medical Director of the Natural Health Center and Mercola.com. Read about my complete background information.
Uffe Ravnskov, MD
Born 1934 in Copenhagen, Denmark Graduated 1961 from the University of Copenhagen with an M.D. 1961-1967: Various appointments at surgical, roentgenological, neurological, pediatric and medical departments in Denmark and Sweden. 1968-1979: Various appointments at the Department of Nephrology, and the Department of Clinical Chemistry, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden. 1975-79: As an assistant professor at the Department of Nephrology. 1973: PhD at the University of Lund. 1979-2000: A private practitioner. Since 1979 an independent researcher. A specialist in internal medicine and nephrology. Honored by the Skrabanek Award 1998.
For more information about him, see Dr. Ravnskov's Web site.
Jay Cohen, M.D
Jay Cohen, M.D., is an associate professor of Family and Preventative Medicine and of Psychiatry at the University of California in San Diego. He is the author of two books and has numerous papers published in peer-reviewed journals. His book, Over Dose: The Case Against the Drug Companies, is an outstanding read.
=================================================================
Read it at Dr Mercola's site here
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)