FB-TW

Thursday, September 13, 2012

Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation & Risk of Major Cardiovasular Disease - Harris

Comment On JAMA publication by Rizo et.al: Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation & Risk of Major Cardiovasular Disease

Response on the JAMA publication: Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Risk of Cardiovascular Disease Events: On September 12, 2012 Rizos et al. published a meta-analysis titled: “Association Between Omega-3 Fatty Acid Supplementation and Risk of Major Cardiovascular Disease Events” on fish oil and concluded no benefit. Spokespeople from the AHA have been on TV saying that omega-3 supplements clearly don’t ‘work’. here are some of my thoughts…

Positve view of the study

They included all relevant studies; they did not exclude (like the previous meta-analysis (Kwak) did) the non-placebo controlled trials (GISSI-Prevenzione and JELIS)

First negative view about the study


They showed in Figure 3 that there was a significant benefit of omega-3 on cardiac death, and trends towards benefit in total mortality, sudden death and MI (plus trends towards increased stroke). But in the text, they said that there was NO significant effect on cardiac death – this is because they set the p-value for significance at 0.006, a much higher hurdle (than the usual 0.05) for concluding benefit. In my view, this is completely inappropriate and excessively conservative, especially for a very safe intervention. In other words, if you are testing a new drug that has potential benefits AND side/adverse effects, then you want to be very conservative in concluding “benefit” (i.e., you want to require a very small p-value) since – if you’re wrong and the drug really isn’t helpful (false positive) - your ‘endorsement’ of the drug will lead to increased use and thus the potential for increased adverse effects. However, for very low risk interventions (n-3 fatty acids), you don’t worry about adverse effects… you want people to use the treatment even if there is only a trend towards benefit. A favorable benefit-risk ratio. (I’d even suggest that in this setting, a p-value for ‘significant effect’ should be 0.1 instead of the traditional 0.05). In addition, nobody I know of ever adjusts for multiple testing (sets a lower p-value than 0.05 as the target for significance) in a meta-analysis. Therefore, I believe that the authors were far too conservative in this analysis, which led to their “no benefit” conclusion.

Second negative view about the sudy


They should have been much more nuanced in their conclusions. They said, “Our findings do not justify the use of omega-3 in structured [?] intervention in everyday clinical practice or guidelines supporting dietary omega-3 PUFA administration.” They should have said, “In patients of average age 63, with existing cardiovascular disease and under optimal medical care (which, by the way, is very UNcommon), the administration of about 1 g of EPA+DHA for 4 years will not affect major clinical outcomes.” Their study does NOT show that treating with a higher dose for a longer period of time, or treating patients earlier in the disease process or those who are not receiving “optimal medical therapy” will NOT be beneficial.

There may (or may not!) be a slight silver lining to all of this: Here is what Tom Barringer and I ended a chapter on n3 and CVD with in an upcoming book on “Omega-3 Deficiency”:
It should be stressed that future research will be significantly hampered if clinicians and patients are dogmatic in their belief that the value of n-3 fatty acids in CVD is already well-established. If such unfounded certainty is widespread, it will become very difficult to find patients (and investigators and IRBs) willing to participate in or approve the placebo-controlled clinical trials that are so desperately needed to properly evaluate the value of these nutrients in the treatment and prevention of CVD.”
Clearly with Rizos’ paper, we now won’t have any problem convincing the world that the question of omega-3s and CHD risk is still open.

In summary, they were too conservative in their analysis and they were not thoughtful in drawing their conclusions. It’s quite likely true that 1 g of EPA+DHA won’t affect outcomes over a few years in older people started later in life who are well-treated pharmacologically – but that’s a far cry from USA Today’s Headline “Fish oil pills with omega-3 don’t help against disease”
==================================================================

William Harris PhDWilliam Harris PhD
Senior Scientist
William Harris holds a PhD in Nutritional Biochemistry from the University of Minnesota, and did 4 years of post-doctoral research at the Oregon Health Sciences University. He was Director of the Lipid Research Laboratories at the University of Kansas Medical Center (KUMC) and at the Mid America Heart Institute, both in Kansas City, MO, for 22 years, and was on the faculty at KUMC and at the University of Missouri-Kansas City School of Medicine. Between 2006 and 2011 was the Director of the Cardiovascular Health Research Center at Sanford Research/USD (Sioux Falls, SD).
============================================================

Read the complete article here.

Tuesday, September 11, 2012

Among the most ignorant about wheat? Celiac experts!

Among the most ignorant about wheat? Celiac experts!


The University of Chicago Celiac Center’s Facebook page contained this response to my CBS This Morning interview from a Dr. Stefano Guandalini:

I was quite surprised to see that CBS news would provide unquestioned credibility to Dr. Davis, the author of Wheat Belly, on CBS This Morning on September 3rd, with no knowledgeable physician on the program to present a more accurate, balanced viewpoint on such an important issue as the role of wheat in nutrition and disease.

The assertions made by Dr. Davis (a cardiologist, not a nutritionist nor a gastroenterologist) are not grounded in fact, let alone any evidence-based research. Gliadin a new protein? Gliadin proteins are major components of gluten and their existence has been known since Dicke and Van de Kamer studied wheat in the 1940s. It is not a new protein created by genetic modifications; and it is indeed a poison, but only for those with celiac disease. Gliadin an opioid that binds to the brain? Sure this is a stunning statement. What is the evidence? Aside from an obscure article that appeared almost 30 years ago reporting an opioid-like activity for some gliadin fractions, nothing else is available in the literature and certainly no data are there to show any binding to the brain.

There is enough confusion around celiac disease, non-celiac gluten sensitivity and the issue of who benefits from a gluten-free diet (only those with wheat allergy, celiac disease or non-celiac gluten sensitivity, I might add). Regrettably, CBS This Morning has added to the confusion and did a disservice to its viewership to allow such questionable information be portrayed as fact.


I have no ties at all to the wheat industry, nor do I have any interest in “protecting” it. My interest, as a physician and specialist in celiac disease lies only in protecting my patients and the public from those who would perpetuate unsubstantiated health claims as fact.


Stefano Guandalini, MD
Professor and Chief, Section of Pediatric Gastroenterology
University of Chicago
Founder and Medical Director, Celiac Disease Center”


This is the nonsense that comes from an “expert” in celiac disease, the very same people who advocate that people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity to consume gluten-free foods made with cornstarch, rice starch, tapioca starch, and potato starch.

Here’s the problem: It’s NOT about gluten, nor is my primary concern people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivty. I am primarily address the other 90% of people who have problems with:

1) The new forms of gliadin–Dr. Guandalini is correct on one account: Gliadin is not entirely new–it’s the forms of gliadin (the amino acid sequences) that are new. But we should not be surprised at his ignorance of this well-documented fact, as he would only know this if he were to read the agricultural genetics research and/or talk to agricultural geneticists. The gliadins of 2012 are NOT the gliadins of 1960, nor are they the gliadins of the 19th century, the Bible, or of pre-Biblical times.

2) Shall we ignore the opiate effects of the new gliadin proteins that stimulate appetite to consume 440 more calories per day? This has nothing to do with celiac disease nor gluten sensitivity. It just makes us eat and eat and eat, makes us hungry much of the day, and makes a major contribution to the diabetes and obesity epidemic. The very same new and unique gliadin proteins also cause behavioral outbursts in children with ADHD and autism, paranoia in schizophrenics, mania in bipolar illness, and food obsessions in people with susceptibilty to bulimia, anorexia, and binge eating. None of these people have celiac disease. Exposing his ignorance, Dr. Guandalini claims that only one study documented this effect 30 years ago. He must have missed the other several hundred studies, the very same studies that have explored the area of opiate/opioid brain receptors that has culminated in an FDA application for naltrexone, the opiate-blocking drug, for a weight loss and appetite-reducing indication.
 
3) How about the direct intestinal destruction wrought by the lectin protein in wheat, wheat germ agglutinin? Unlike the indirect immunologic activation triggered by gluten, wheat germ agglutinin directly damages the intestinal lining. That’s why experimental animals fed purified wheat germ agglutinin develop extensive destruction of the lining of the small intestine. And what about the Trojan horse effect of wheat germ agglutinin that allows foreign substances to gain entry to the bloodstream, likely underlying the activation of immunologic and inflammatory diseases like lupus, rheumatoid arthritis, polymyositis, polymyalgia rheumatica, and Sjogren’s disease? None of these people have celiac disease.

4) And what about the high glycemic index of wheat products that explain why two slices of whole wheat bread raise blood sugar higher than 6 teaspoons of table sugar? High blood sugar is followed by high blood insulin, the cascade that leads to insulin resistance, visceral fat accumulation, inflammation, and diabetes–no celiac disease required!

5) Shall we ignore the explosion in wheat allergies in children, likely due to the unique alpha amylase inhibitors of modern semi-dwarf wheat? These kids get rashes, diarrhea, asthma and other allergic phenomena–none have celiac disease.

In other words, I’m sure Dr. Guandalini is a very nice guy and means well. (“Protecting his patients”? Don’t know what the heck he’s getting at there.) But I fear he has blinders on and has fallen for the nonsense that whole grains like wheat are good for you and only pose a problem to people with celiac disease or gluten sensitivity.

Nope, sorry. Get your nose out of the gastroenterology books and open your eyes to the changes introduced into the entire plant. You will find that celiac disease and gluten sensitivity are only a small part of the problem. I am sure he is doing a capable job in “protecting his patients” from gluten. But I am talking to the other 90% of the population that he chooses to ignore and consign to a lifetime of wheat consumption.

Want wisdom on wheat? Don’t ask a celiac expert, because he will likely tell you to eat it. Wheat elimination is not only for the gluten-sensitive. Wheat elimination is for EVERYONE.
=================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Saturday, September 8, 2012

Statins: why you should think twice - Jerome Burne

Great Review of NATION by Award-Winning medical Journalist Jerome Burne:

Statins: why you should think twice

 
If you’re over 45 there’s a good chance that you are taking or have at least been offered a statin drug to lower your cholesterol and so cut your risk of heart disease but is it good idea? Your doctor obviously thinks it is, but there is another side to the statin story. The link between cholesterol and heart disease is not as strong or as simple as the familiar statin story suggests.

For instance, the UK is quite high in the international heart attack league table but on a table ranking countries average cholesterol level, it’s quite far down. If high cholesterol equalled high heart attack risk, the two should match. What’s more the number of people in the UK with high cholesterol has been falling for several decades but during that time the rate of heart attacks has been flatlining. Likewise you’d expect the two to come down together.

And there are more examples where the population-wide figures don’t match the theory. One big study found that the average cholesterol level of over 100,000 people admitted to hospital in the States with a heart attack was actually lower than the level in the general population.
High risk but low cholesterol
Or this one: your social class is one of the best predictors of your risk of a heart attack – if you’re a fairly well off ABC1 it’s much lower than if you’re a poorer C2, D or E. There are all sorts of reasons for this – diet, access to information etc – but if cholesterol was a key factor you’d expect the As to have low levels and C2s to be high. Actually it is the other way around.

These are just a few of the points made in a very watchable new video called $tatin Nation which combines interviews with a number of cholesterol sceptical doctors and researchers with clips and strong graphics. By the end, at the very least, you are going to have a lot more questions to ask your doctor.

The video come at a time when the debate over statins is hotting up. In the last couple of years several large trials have concluded that if you are healthy, but just have some risk factors – being over 55 is one – then statin benefits are vanishingly small.
Give them to everyone
But in the last few weeks, two more big studies have come out claiming that statins are safe and well-worth taking whatever your cholesterol level. Their message is that giving them to everyone over 55 would greatly cut premature heart disease deaths saving the NHS billions.

So what to do? The case for statins is available on every official website about heart disease while sceptical case is spread across dozens of sites. $tatin Nation saves you an impossible hunt by summarising the sceptical case in one place. It’s worth finding out what it is.

Here are a few more pointers from the video. You might ask: how come lots of reports say statins cut the risk of heart disease by 30%, 40% even 50%. How can that be bad? The short answer is clever marketing and a nifty way with statistics. Here’s how it works.

A couple of years ago a statin trial called Jupiter came out with a remarkable result: statins cut the chance of a heart attack by 54%. To understand why that is not exactly a lie but is astoundingly misleading, you have to look deeper into the results than the drug company’s own summary – the one used by nearly all the newspaper and media reports – which is where the 54% figure came from.

3/1000 chance

What you are interested in is the difference between those getting the drug and those getting a placebo. This shows that 0.35% of those taking statins had a heart attack compared with 0.7 of those on a placebo. In other words, out of 1000 people who had no treatment. 7 had a heart attack.

There were certainly fewer heart attacks in the statin group – only 3.5 people out of 1000 had one. Now that is a 54% improvement, so no lies are being told, but it means that a thousand people have to take statins for just three to avoid a heart attack. Taking statins does seem less appealing doesn’t it?
And then there are the side-effects such as diabetes which showed up as a risk in the Jupiter trial. The figures aren’t precise but there could be one extra case of diabetes for every 200 people on the drug.
That’s not far off the number who can expect to benefit.

But diabetes isn’t the only possibly side effect. There is a frightening section in the film where patients describe the range of nasty effects linked with statins – muscle pain is by far the most common, other include fatigue, memory loss and brain fog. A common theme is how uninterested and unhelpful doctors are when told about them.

Several of the experts estimate that between 10% and 20% of patients suffer some sort of side-effect. That’s 100 to 200 people having unpleasant or possibly disabling symptoms for every three people who avoid a heart attack.

There’s lots more in $tatin Nation, such as clear links between stress, loneliness and heart disease that has been largely side-lined by the heavy concentration on cholesterol lowering. And then there is CoQ10, an enzyme and anti-oxidant called CoQ10 that’s vital for energy production in both the muscles and in the heart. As well as cutting cholesterol production, statins also cut CoQ10 production.

Do have a look at it.
==================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Friday, September 7, 2012

Vascular Calcification Is Increased With Statin - ADA

Progression of Vascular Calcification Is Increased With Statin Use in the Veterans Affairs Diabetes Trial (VADT)

 
 Author Affiliations
  1. 1Phoenix VA Health Care System, Phoenix, Arizona
  2. 2Cooperative Studies Program Coordinating Center, Hines, Illinois
Corresponding author: Aramesh Saremi, Aramesh.Saremi@va.gov.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE To determine the effect of statin use on progression of vascular calcification in type 2 diabetes (T2DM).
                   
RESEARCH DESIGN AND METHODS Progression of coronary artery calcification (CAC) and abdominal aortic artery calcification (AAC) was assessed according to the frequency of statin use in 197 participants with T2DM.
                   
RESULTS After adjustment for baseline CAC and other confounders, progression of CAC was significantly higher in more frequent statin users than in less frequent users (mean ± SE, 8.2 ± 0.5 mm3 vs. 4.2 ± 1.1 mm3; P < 0.01). AAC progression was in general not significantly increased with more frequent statin use; in a subgroup of participants initially not receiving statins, however, progression of both CAC and AAC was significantly increased in frequent statin users.
                   
CONCLUSION More frequent statin use is associated with accelerated coronary artery calcification in T2DM patients with advanced atherosclerosis.
 
© 2012 by the American Diabetes Association.
=========================================================
Read the full article here.

Thursday, September 6, 2012

Low-Fat Diet a Dud for Women's Heart Disease - Jancin

Low-Fat Diet a Dud for Women's Heart Disease



ESTES PARK, COLO. – Perhaps the least-known finding of the landmark Women’s Health Initiative was the complete failure of a structured low-fat diet intervention to lower the risks of coronary heart disease, stroke, or colon cancer.
 
"This has gotten very little press. But the results made me very happy because it gave me one less thing to worry about, which is eating a low-fat diet. It doesn’t seem to have the same magnitude of effect in women as it does in men," Dr. Nanette Santoro said at a conference on internal medicine sponsored by the University of Colorado.


Dr. Nanette Santoro
The Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial involved 48,835 postmenopausal women aged 50-79 at 40 U.S. centers who were randomized 40/60 to a low-fat diet intervention or a control group.
 
During a mean follow-up of 8.1 years, the diet intervention and control groups didn’t show any significant differences in rates of coronary heart disease (hazard ratio, 0.97); stroke (1.02); or cardiovascular disease (0.98) (JAMA 2006;295:655-66).
 
Similarly, the event-rate curves for cardiovascular outcomes as well as for colon cancer in the intervention and control arms were virtually identical the entire time, with no hint of either early or late benefit for the low-fat diet (JAMA 2006;295:643-54).
 
There was a nonsignificant trend for less invasive breast cancer in the low-fat diet group, where the annualized incidence rate was 0.42%, a 9% relative risk reduction compared with the 0.45% rate in controls (JAMA 2006;295:629-42).
 
"So if there’s any possible benefit to a low-fat diet, there might be some for breast cancer," commented Dr. Santoro, professor and chair of the department of ob.gyn. at the university.
The diet intervention entailed an intensive behavioral modification program with 18 group sessions during year 1 and quarterly maintenance sessions thereafter, with supplemental individualized contact. The goal was to reduce dietary fat intake by boosting consumption of fruits and vegetables to at least five servings daily, along with at least six servings of grains daily. Weight loss goals weren’t part of the study, which was designed in the 1990s before the obesity epidemic was apparent.
 
The intervention was effective in terms of accomplishing lasting dietary change. At baseline, fat accounted for about 38% of total daily energy intake. After 1 year, this figure dropped to 24% in the diet intervention arm. At year 6, fat accounted for 29% of daily energy intake in the diet group compared with 37% in controls, a difference Dr. Santoro called "huge" in light of the enormous number of participants and the women’s diverse ethnicities and backgrounds.
 
The intervention group averaged 3.6 servings per day of fruits and vegetables at baseline and 4.9 by year 6, compared with 3.8 in controls. Efforts to increase consumption of grains were unsuccessful, however. The intervention group averaged 4.7 servings per day at baseline and 4.3 at year 6, compared with 3.8 in controls.
 
The Women’s Health Initiative Randomized Controlled Dietary Modification Trial was funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute. Dr. Santoro reported that she has a research grant from Bayer.
=========================================================
Read the full article here.

Tuesday, September 4, 2012

Cholesterol Good; Statins Bad - Naughton

Cholesterol Good; Statins Bad

Tom Naughton podcast on The Lew Rockwell Show

Filmmaker, comedian Tom Naughton talks to Lew Rockwell about ignoring government food advice.

Monday, September 3, 2012

Statins linked with development of cataracts - O'Riordan

Statins linked with development of cataracts
Waterloo, ON - Statin users are more than 50% likelier to develop age-related cataracts, according to the results of a new study. And type 2 diabetics who use statins are at even greater risk of cataracts, report investigators.
 
"The bioplausibility of these results lies in the fact that the crystalline lens membrane requires high cholesterol for proper epithelial cell development and lens transparency," write Dr Carolyn Machan (University of Waterloo, ON) and colleagues in the August 2012 issue of Optometry and Vision Science. "Increased cataract formation has been seen in both animals and humans with hereditary cholesterol deficiency, and the risk exists that statins can inhibit cholesterol biosynthesis in the human lens."
 
Asked to comment on the paper for heartwire, Dr Richard Karas (Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA), called the findings "an interesting observation [that] isn't alarmist." There is, he says, a "suggestion" here that statins may increase the risk of cataracts, but this visual problem eventually afflicts everyone of a certain age anyhow, he says, adding that further study of this association will be required.
.
.
.
=============================================
Read complete article here.

Wednesday, August 29, 2012

There Is No Such Thing As Bad Cholesterol

Putting The Myth To Rest: There Is No Such Thing As Bad Cholesterol
Perhaps one of the biggest health myths propagated in western culture and certainly in the United States, is the correlation between elevated cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD). Unfortunately, despite dozens of studies, cholesterol has not been shown to actually cause CVD. To the contrary, cholesterol is vital to our survival, and trying to artificially lower it can have detrimental effects, particularly as we age.

Cholesterol seems to be one of those things that strikes fear into the hearts of many, so to speak. We have become obsessed with eating foods low in cholesterol and fat. Ask almost anyone, and they can tell you their cholesterol levels.

What is certain is that the 'little knowledge' that the media often imparts means many folks assume cholesterol is simply a 'bad' thing. Alternately, a good number of us may have heard the terms 'good' cholesterol and 'bad' cholesterol bandied about without knowing much about what this really means. In fact it is a fairly safe bet that if you asked anyone on the street for his or her instinctive response, if asked about cholesterol, they would probably say that we simply need to 'reduce it'.

The 'noddy-science' offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help 'reduce cholesterol'. Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a 'typical ordinary' product might cost. But is this apparent 'blanket need' to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy?

For anyone who has had the official diagnosis of 'high cholesterol' in their bloodstream, they may even have embarked upon a program of medicinal intervention. In fact it is quite likely that they may have joined the legions of long-term pill-poppers who are already lining the pockets of the profit-oriented pharmaceutical giants.

But let's take a moment, now, to review some of the facts and fallacies about the much-maligned substance: cholesterol.

Cholesterol is needed to make hormones. Without it we would not produce estrogen, progesterone or testosterone. It is vital for the functioning of nerve synapses and provides the structural integrity for our cell membranes. Cholesterol is used by the skin to help prevent water evaporation and to make our skin waterproof. Vitamin D is synthesized from cholesterol. And bile, used for fat digestion, consists mostly of cholesterol. The liver produces about 90 percent of the cholesterol in our bodies; only 10 percent comes from diet. If we eat too much cholesterol, the liver decreases the output of cholesterol.


Cholesterol is a naturally occurring lipid. This means it is a type of fat or oil and it is in fact an essential component in creating and sustaining the membranes of the cells of all bodily tissues. So this alone means we need cholesterol to survive! Most of the cholesterol that is found in our bodies is actually naturally manufactured within our own cells. However there is also an additional contribution that we get from external 'nutritional' sources - the foods we consume. In a typical diet providing around 400mg of cholesterol per day from food sources, about half to two-thirds of this amount is actually absorbed through the process of digestion. The body will normally secrete about a gram (1000mg) of cholesterol per day into the bile via the ducts, and approximately three-fifths of this is then re-absorbed.

Where our tissues or organs are a particularly dense complex of cells, which have closely packed cell membranes, there will naturally be higher levels of cholesterol. The key organs that need, and contain, these higher amounts of cholesterol include the liver, the brain and the spinal cord - none of which would work well if we reduced cholesterol too much!

In effect cholesterol plays an essential role in the development and maintenance of healthy cell walls. It is also a critical factor in the synthesizing of steroid hormones, which are a key factor in our natural physical development.

Being a lipid, cholesterol is fat-soluble, but it is not soluble in blood. However it needs to be transported around the body to the places where it can be utilized. This is why, in order to be moved around, it must become 'associated' with certain lipoproteins which feature a water-soluble (therefore 'blood transportable') coat of proteins. There are two key types of lipoproteins that transport cholesterol around the body: low-density and high-density variants. The essential cellular function of cholesterol requires that sufficient amounts are manufactured by specialized sub-systems (or organelles) within the body's cells called the endoplasmic reticulum. Alternatively, the cholesterol we need must be derived from our diet. During the process of 'digestion and assimilation' of foods, it is the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) that carries dietary cholesterol from the liver to various parts of the body.

When there is sufficient cholesterol for cellular needs, the other key transport mechanism in this amazing 'logistics system' - high-density lipoprotein (HDL) - can take cholesterol back to the liver from where any unnecessary excess can be processed for excretion.

The 'noddy-science' of the so-called 'functional food' manufacturers would have us believe that there is such a thing as 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol. This is, in fact, totally untrue. The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same. Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the 'transporters' (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body's delivery logistics to work effectively.

Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being 'delivered' around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.

LDL can vary in its structure and occur in particles of varying size. It is the smaller LDL particle sizes that can easily become 'trapped' in the arteries by proteoglycans, which is, itself, a kind of 'filler' found between the cells in all animal and human bodies. This can then cause the cholesterol the LDL carries to contribute to the formation of fatty deposits called 'plaques' (a process known as atherogenesis). As these deposits build up, they restrict the arteries' width and flexibility. This causes an increase in blood pressure and can also lead to other cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks or strokes.

The LDL itself is consequently sometimes referred to as 'bad cholesterol', but you can now appreciate the fact that this is simply incorrect. In fact LDL, HDL and cholesterol are all essential to our health. However, it seems that it has become common for humans to have a preponderance of 'unhealthily' small LDL particles, which can become a precursor to heart and arterial disease due to the mechanisms described. It is apparently healthier to have a smaller number of larger LDL particles carrying the same quantity of cholesterol than a large number of small LDL particles might transport, but for some reason this is less common. This is an interesting area that demands more research.

When LDL becomes retained by the glycol-proteins in the arteries it is subject to being oxidized by 'free radicals'. This is when the process can become health threatening. It has therefore been suggested that increasing the amount of antioxidants in our diet might effectively 'mop up' free radicals, and consequently reduce this harmful oxidation. Although the idea of consuming foods rich in antioxidants, or even using supplements, is now widely promoted, the scientific evidence for their efficacy still remains to be fully established.

Another point to consider is the occurrence of substances called 'very-low-density-lipids' or VLDL, also known as triglycerides. VLDL is converted to LDL in the bloodstream and therefore contributes towards increased levels of LDL and to subsequent potential cholesterol-related health problems. This is why triglycerides are usually measured when a cholesterol test of your blood is undertaken.

The production of VLDL in the liver - which amounts to a combination of cholesterol and low-density apolipoprotein - is exacerbated by the intake of fructose. Fructose is the type of sugar found in many fruits, it is also a component of sucrose and of the widely used food ingredient high-fructose corn syrup. This implies that anyone whose LDL or triglyceride levels are unduly high should cut back on those sweet sugary snacks, and even on the sweeter, fructose laden fruits; not simply reduce their intake of fatty foods!

Vitamin B3, otherwise known as niacin, on the other hand, actually lowers the amount of VLDL, and therefore also LDL. In addition, niacin helps to stimulate the production of helpful HDL, the lipoprotein that carries excess cholesterol back to the liver for excretion. However, in keeping with the best traditions of consuming 'all things in moderation', currently recommended upper limits for daily intake of niacin is 35mg, given that it can have toxic effects in larger amounts. Even so, medical professionals have been known to prescribe niacin in doses as high as 2g, up to three times a day, for treatment of those with dangerously high blood cholesterol levels. Naturally you should never self-medicate with high doses of niacin without taking appropriate medical advice.

Niacin in the diet is typically derived from high protein foods including liver and other meats, as well as significant amounts being found in certain nuts and whole grains.

However one of the fashionable types of pharmaceutical drugs of recent times, introduced to treat the apparently increasing incidence of high cholesterol levels particularly in the West, are Statins. Most likely you have a friend or relative taking these useless drugs (Lipitor, Mevecor, Crestor, etc.) to lower cholesterol. Statin medications are the number-one-selling drugs in the world.
They work by interfering with the liver function and reducing the production of LDL. But Statins are a questionable innovation on at least a couple of accounts. Firstly they are not without side-effects: they can, for example, lead to the breakdown of major muscular material, which can ultimately overwhelm the kidneys and even cause acute renal failure.

Statins also appear to reduce the body's natural levels of the vitamin-like, cellular protection agent known as Co-enzyme Q10. This benzoquinone plays an important role in cellular energy release, particularly in hard worked areas like the lungs, liver and heart. CoQ10 (as it is sometimes called) has also been shown to protect the brain against neurological degeneration. But perhaps most interestingly, with respect to cholesterol, CoQ10 also acts as an antioxidant, particularly active in protecting the system against LDL oxidation and the potential problems associated with this as described above. So whilst Statins might provide a reduction in LDL per se, they might also be causing more problems in the long-term. Naturally, as with many modern drugs, they generally have to be taken for the long-term by anyone who has been prescribed them.

What is particularly disturbing about Statins is, perhaps, the fact that they may be seen as a 'quick fix' for unhealthily high LDL, and consequently cholesterol levels throughout the body. They need to be taken over a long period - which makes them very profitable for drugs manufacturers. But they may also be prescribed without the over-arching message that in order to address any cholesterol problem 'naturally', the sufferer must change their lifestyle and diet. Statins can seem an easy option but may indeed merely be the beginning of a process where the 'negative health pay-off' is simply delayed rather than actively defused! That is not to say that in extreme cases of high blood cholesterol, or hypercholesterolemia, there may not be a useful role for Statin therapy when natural strategies fail or do not prove effective, or feasible.

In truth, and in summary, cholesterol is an important and essential substance that we need for health at a cellular level. It is most likely that any imbalance in our cholesterol transport system comes down to long-term poor dietary and exercise habits. Ensuring that we consume some extra anti-oxidant foods, along with including niacin rich foods, might well be of benefit. But it is perhaps most important to recognize that deliberate and continued levels of activity and the consumption of a healthful diet is a better solution than questionable quick-fix drugs, if we ever are diagnosed with levels of cholesterol and triglycerides that might give cause for concern.


Reference Sources 114, 136, 151, 158
============================================================================================
Read the full article here.

The Straight Dope on Cholesterol: 10 Things You Need to Know - Attia

The Straight Dope on Cholesterol: 10 Things You Need to Know


cholesterol4
This is a guest post by Peter Attia and is a summary based on a 10-part series of the same name that you can find at The Eating Academy
 
To put this summary post and, more importantly, this 10-part series in perspective, let’s examine one of the most pervasive pieces of dietary advice given to people worldwide:

“Eating foods that contain any cholesterol above 0 mg is unhealthy.”
- T. Colin Campbell, PhD, author of The China Study.

No summary of this length can begin to fully address a topic as comprehensive as cholesterol metabolism and the pathogenesis of atherosclerosis. In fact, those of us who challenge conventional wisdom often find ourselves needing to do exactly what Frederic Bastiat suggested:

“We must admit that our opponents in this argument have a marked advantage over us. They need only a few words to set forth a half-truth; whereas, in order to show that it is a half-truth, we have to resort to long and arid dissertations.”

So, at the risk of trying to minimize the “long and arid” part of this process, below are the 10 things you need to know to be the judge – for yourself – if the conventional advice about cholesterol is correct.

1. The sine qua non of atherosclerosis is the presence of a sterol in an artery wall. How it gets there is the only thing we should be worrying about.

Contrary to popular belief, atherosclerosis is not caused by many of things we think of, such as smoking, high blood pressure, diabetes, high LDL (the so-called “bad” cholesterol), or low HDL (the so-called “good” cholesterol). Some of these are certainly markers of risk – low HDL, for example – while others accelerate the process – smoking, for example – but none of these are the direct cause of atherosclerosis.

The sine qua non of atherosclerosis is the presence of sterols (cholesterol or phytosterol) in arterial wall macrophages. Sterols are delivered to the arterial wall by the penetration of the endothelium by an apoB-containing lipoprotein, which transport the sterols. In other words, unless an apoB-containing lipoprotein particle violates the border created by an endothelium cell and the layer it protects, the media layer, there is no way atherogenesis occurs. If this is a bit confusing, don’t worry. It’s all made clear below.

2. Cholesterol is vital for life; no cholesterol = no life.

Cholesterol is a 27-carbon molecule shown in the figure below. Each line in this figure represents a bond between two carbon atoms. That’s it. Mystery over.

All this talk about “cholesterol” and most people don’t actually know what it is. So, there you have it. Cholesterol is “just” another organic molecule in our body.

I need to make one distinction that will be very important later. Cholesterol, a steroid alcohol, can be “free” or “unesterified” (“UC” as we say, which stands for unesterified cholesterol) which is its active form, or it can exist in its “esterified” or storage form which we call a cholesterol ester (“CE”). The diagram below shows a free (i.e., UC) molecule of cholesterol. An esterified variant (i.e., CE) would have an “attachment” where the arrow is pointing to the hydroxyl group on carbon #3, aptly named the “esterification site.”
Cholesterol 1
One of the biggest misconceptions is that cholesterol is “bad.” This could not be further from the truth. Cholesterol is very good! In fact, there are (fortunately rare) genetic disorders in which people cannot properly synthesize cholesterol. One such disease is Smith-Lemli-Opitz syndrome (also called “SLOS,” or 7-dehydrocholesterol reductase deficiency) which is a metabolic and congenital disorder leading to a number of problems including autism, mental retardation, lack of muscle, and many others.

Cholesterol is absolutely vital for our existence. Every cell in our body is surrounded by a membrane. These membranes are largely responsible for fluidity and permeability, which essentially control how a cell moves, how it interacts with other cells, and how it transports “important” things in and out. Cholesterol is one of the main building blocks used to make cell membranes (in particular, the ever-important “lipid bilayer” of the cell membrane).

Beyond cholesterol’s role in allowing cells to even exist, it also serves an important role in the synthesis of vitamins and steroid hormones, including sex hormones and bile acids. Make sure you take a look at the picture of steroid hormones synthesis and compare it to that of cholesterol (above). If this comparison doesn’t convince you of the vital importance of cholesterol, nothing I say will.
One of the unfortunate results of the eternal need to simplify everything is that we (i.e., the medical establishment) have done the public a disservice by failing to communicate that there is no such thing as “bad” cholesterol or “good” cholesterol. All cholesterol is imperative for life to exist!

The only “bad” outcome is when cholesterol ends up inside of the wall of an artery, most famously the inside of a coronary artery or a carotid artery, AND leads to an inflammatory cascade which results in the obstruction of that artery (make sure you check out the pictures in the links above). When one measures cholesterol in the blood we really do not know the final destination of those cholesterol molecules!

3. The cholesterol we eat has little to do with the cholesterol we measure in our bloodstream.

We ingest (i.e., take in) cholesterol in many of the foods we eat and our body produces (“synthesizes”) cholesterol de novo from various precursors. About 25% of our daily “intake” of cholesterol – roughly 300 to 500 mg – comes from what we eat (called exogenous cholesterol), and the remaining 75% of our “intake” of cholesterol – roughly 800 to 1,200 mg – is made by our body (called endogenous production). To put these amounts in context, consider that total body stores of cholesterol are about 30 to 40 gm (i.e., 30,000 to 40,000 mg) and most of this resides within our cell membranes. Nearly every cell in the body can produce cholesterol, and thus very few cells actually require a delivery of cholesterol. Cholesterol is required by all cell membranes and to produce steroid hormones and bile acids.

Of this “made” or “synthesized” cholesterol, our liver synthesizes about 20% of it and the remaining 80% is synthesized by other cells in our bodies. The synthesis of cholesterol is a complex four-step process (with 37 individual steps) that I will not cover here, but I want to point out how tightly regulated this process is, with multiple feedback loops. In other words, the body works very hard (and very “smart”) to ensure cellular cholesterol levels are within a pretty narrow band (the overall process is called cholesterol homeostasis). Excess cellular cholesterol will crystalize and cause cellular apoptosis (programmed cell death). Plasma cholesterol levels (which is what clinicians measure with standard cholesterol tests) often have little to do with cellular cholesterol, especially artery cholesterol, which is what we really care about. For example, when cholesterol intake is decreased, the body will synthesize more cholesterol and/or absorb (i.e., recycle) more cholesterol from our gut. The way our body absorbs and regulates cholesterol is really amazing, so I want to spend a bit of time discussing it.

Enterocyte
  • The blue circle in this figure represents something called a Niemann-Pick C1-like 1 protein (NPC1L1). It sits at the apical surface of enterocytes and it promotes active influx (i.e., bringing in) of gut luminal unesterified cholesterol (UC) as well as unesterified phytosterols into the enterocyte. Think of this NPC1L1 as the ticket-taker at the door of the bar (where the enterocyte is the “bar”); he lets most cholesterol (“people”) in. However, NPC1L1 cannot distinguish between cholesterol (“good people”) and phytosterol (“bad people” – for reasons I won’t discuss here) or even too much cholesterol (“too many people”).

  • The pink circle in this figure represents a structure called the adenosine triphosphate (ATP)-binding cassette (ABC) transporters ABCG5 and ABCG8. This structure promotes active efflux (i.e., kicking out) of unesterified sterols (cholesterol and plant sterols – of which over 40 exist) from enterocytes back into the intestinal lumen for excretion. Think of ABCG5/G8 as the bouncer at the bar; he gets rid of the really bad people (e.g., phytosterols, as they serve no purpose in humans) you don’t want in the bar who snuck past the ticket-taker (NPC1L1). Of course, in cases of hyperabsorption (i.e., where the gut absorbs too much of a good thing) they can also efflux out un-needed cholesterol. Along this analogy, once too many “good people” get in the bar, fire laws are violated and some have to go. The enterocyte has “sterol-excess sensors” (a nuclear transcription factor called LXR) that do the monitoring, and these sensors activate the genes that regulate NPC1L1 and ABCG5/G8.
There is another nuance to this, which is where the CE versus UC distinction comes in:
  • Only free or unesterified cholesterol (UC) can be absorbed through gut enterocytes. In other words, cholesterol esters (CE) cannot be absorbed because of the bulky side chains they carry.
  • Much (> 50%) of the cholesterol we ingest from food is esterified (CE), hence we don’t actually absorb much, if any, exogenous cholesterol (i.e., cholesterol in food).
  • Furthermore, most of the unesterified cholesterol (UC) in our gut (on the order of about 85%) is actually of endogenous origin (meaning it was synthesized in bodily cells and returned to the liver), which ends up in the gut via biliary secretion and ultimately gets re-absorbed by the gut enterocyte. The liver is only able to efflux (send out via bile into the gut) UC, but not CE, from hepatocytes (liver cells) to the biliary system. Liver CE cannot be excreted into bile. So, if the liver is going to excrete CE into bile and ultimately the gut, it needs to de-esterify it using enzymes called cholesterol esterolases which can convert liver CE to UC.

4. The cholesterol in our bloodstream has little to do with the cholesterol in our artery walls (i.e., atherosclerosis).

To understand how cholesterol travels around our body requires some understanding of the distinction between hydrophobic and hydrophilic. A molecule is said to be hydrophobic (also called nonpolar) if it repels water, while a molecule is said to be hydrophilic (also called polar) if it attracts water. Think of your veins, arteries, and capillaries as the “waterways” or rivers of your body. Cholesterol is precious “cargo” that needs to move around, but it needs a “boat” to carry it.
The proteins that traffic collections of lipids are called apoproteins. Once bound to lipids they are called apolipoproteins, and the protein wrapped “vehicle” that transports the lipids are called lipoproteins. Many of you have probably heard this term before, but I’d like to ensure everyone really understands their important features. A crucial concept is that, for the most part, lipids go nowhere in the human body unless they are a passenger inside a protein wrapped vehicle called a lipoprotein. As their name suggests, lipoproteins are part lipid and part protein. They are mostly spherical structures which are held together by a phospholipid membrane (which, of course, contains free cholesterol). The figure below shows a schematic of a lipoprotein.
lipoprotein2
You will also notice variable-sized proteins on the surface of the lipid membrane that holds the structure together. The most important of these proteins are called apolipoproteins, as I alluded to above. The apolipoproteins on the surface of lipoprotein molecules serve several purposes including:
  1. Assisting in the structural integrity and solubility of the lipoprotein;
  2. Serving as co-factors in enzymatic reactions;
  3. Acting as ligands (i.e., structures that help with binding) for situations when the lipoprotein needs to interact with a receptor on a cell.
Apolipoproteins come in different shapes and sizes which determine their “class.” Without getting into the details of protein structure and folding, let me focus on two important classes: apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B. ApoA-I is the apolipoprotein that wraps HDL particles. ApoB is the apolipoprotein that wraps VLDL, IDL, and LDL particles.

5. The only way sterols end up in artery walls – the one place we don’t want them to be – is if the sterols are carried there by an apoB-containing lipoprotein particle.

So what drives a LDL particle to do something as sinister as to leave the waterway (i.e., the bloodstream) and “illegally” try to park at a dock (i.e., behind an endothelial cell)? Well, it is a gradient driven process which is why particle number is the key driving parameter.

As it turns out, this is probably a slightly less important question than the next one: what causes the LDL particle to stay there? In the parlance of our metaphor, not only do we want to know why the boat leaves the waterway to illegally park in the dock with its precious cargo, but why does it stay parked there? This phenomenon is called “retention” in lipidology-speak.

Finally, if there was some way a LDL particle could violate the endothelium, AND be retained in the space behind the cell (away from the lumen on the side aptly called the sub-endothelial space) BUT not elicit an inflammatory (i.e., immune) response, would it matter?

I don’t know. But it seems that not long after a LDL particle gets into the sub-endothelial space and takes up “illegal” residence (i.e., binds to arterial wall proteoglycans), it is subject to oxidative forces, and as one would expect an inflammatory response is initiated. The result is full blown mayhem. Immunologic gang warfare breaks out and cells called monocytes and macrophages and mast cells show up to investigate. When they arrive and find the LDL particle, they do all they can to remove it. In some cases, when there are few LDL particles, the normal immune response is successful. But, it’s a numbers game. When LDL particle invasion becomes incessant, even if the immune cells can remove some of them, it becomes a losing proposition and the actual immune response to the initial problem becomes chronic and maladaptive and expands into the space between the endothelium and the media.

The multiple-sterol-laden macrophages or foam cells coalesce, recruit smooth muscle cells, induce microvascularization, and before you know it complex, inflamed plaque occurs. Microhemorrhages and microthrombus formations occur within the plaque. Ultimately the growing plaque invades the arterial lumen or ruptures into the lumen inducing luminal thrombosis. Direct luminal encroachment by plaque expansion or thrombus formation causes the lumen of the artery to narrow, which may or may not cause ischemia.


Read more: http://www.marksdailyapple.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-10-things-you-need-to-know-part-1/#ixzz24wyQCVFe
=====================================================================
Read the complete article here.

Friday, August 24, 2012

Triglycerides: Mother of Meddlesome Particles - Davis

Triglycerides: Mother of Meddlesome Particles



Triglycerides are a crucial risk factor for coronary plaque growth, even at levels previously thought to be normal. Dr. Davis discusses why and how this oft-neglected factor can be harnessed to strengthen your program.

While the world obsesses over cholesterol, a potent stimulator of plaque growth is frequently ignored—triglycerides. A subject of controversy in past, the data are now clear: triglycerides spawn unwanted lipoprotein particles that trigger plaque growth. Track Your Plaque members are advised that control of triglycerides is essential to everyone’s plaque control program.

Triglyceride control is crucial if you are interested in gaining control over coronary plaque. Triglycerides should be brought under control at the start of your program. If you are experiencing plaque growth (increasing heart scan scores), seriously reining in triglycerides should be considered.
How important are triglycerides?
 
For years, the relationship between coronary heart disease and triglycerides remained muddled by the confounding effects of low HDL. In other words, increased triglycerides tend to occur alongside low HDL. This caused many to dismiss the importance of triglycerides. To make matters even murkier, high triglycerides in some situations generated high risk for heart disease, while in others it appeared unrelated to heart disease, even when markedly elevated (in the thousands!).

Thanks to the evolving science of lipoproteins, the issues are crystallizing. One important fact has emerged: triglycerides are a critical risk factor for coronary plaque growth, even at levels previously thought to be normal. Yes, high triglycerides frequently occur with low HDL, but they also behave independently. High triglycerides are a common cause of heart disease, even in people with low or normal cholesterol values. It is crucial that you (and your doctor) pay close attention to triglycerides if you are to succeed in controlling your plaque. We urge Members to make triglyceride control a priority in their program.
 
Where do triglycerides come from?
 
The liver produces a particle called “very low-density lipoprotein”, or VLDL, packed full of triglycerides. The higher your triglycerides, the more VLDL you will have. Sometimes triglycerides are increased due to genetic factors. More commonly, triglycerides are high due to excess weight, indulging in processed carbohydrates, and resistance to insulin (metabolic syndrome).

VLDL is like that bad kid on the block you want your kids to avoid. VLDL particles in the blood come into contact with LDL and HDL particles and they’re never quite the same. When a LDL or HDL particle meet VLDL, the triglycerides of VLDL are passed on. The result: LDL and HDL become bloated with triglycerides. Triglyceride-loaded LDL and HDL are a ready target for a set of enzymes in the blood and liver that reconfigure these particles into smaller versions, small LDL and small HDL. Recall that both small LDL and HDL are highly undesirable particles that stimulate plaque growth.

Although “official” (ATP-III) guidelines suggest that triglycerides over 150 mg are undesirable, we regard any value over 60 mg as high. An ideal level for an intensive Track Your Plaque approach is <45 font="font" mg.="mg.">
 
How will I know if I have this pattern?
 
On a conventional cholesterol panel, increased triglycerides and low HDL are tip-offs that excess VLDL are available to contribute to coronary plaque growth. At what triglyceride level does this cascade begin to take effect and create this collection of particles? Levels of 45 mg/dl or greater. In the Track Your Plaque program, we aim for zero plaque growth or reduction, and so we target triglyceride levels of 60 mg/dl or less.

You’ll notice that low HDL and increased triglycerides are also patterns that characterize the metabolic syndrome. In our experience, over 50% of adults show at least some of the characteristics of the metabolic syndrome. In our society of inactive, sedentary lifestyles and packaged, processed foods, metabolic syndrome is rampant. That means increased triglycerides from VLDL are also running rampant. The result: a 3 to 7-fold increase in risk for heart attack. Eliminating the metabolic syndrome is another battle we need to fight to conquer plaque. (See Shutting Off the Metabolic Syndrome.)
 
How can triglycerides be reduced?
 
Our triglyceride target of 60 mg or less dramatically reduces triglyceride availability. Without triglycerides, LDL and HDL can’t be processed into undesirable small particles. Among the strategies we use to reach our triglyceride target of 60 mg or less:

  • Fish oil—The omega-3 fatty acids in fish oil are our number one choice for substantially reducing triglycerides. Fish oil, 4000 mg per day, is a good starting dose (providing 1200 mg EPA+DHA); higher doses should be discussed with your physician, though we commonly use 6000–10,000 mg per day without ill-effect. Flaxseed oil, while beneficial for health, does not correct lipoprotein patterns. Consider a concentrated fish oil preparation (e.g., Omacor™, a prescription preparation, or “pharmaceutical grade” preparations from the health food store) if you and your doctor decide a high dose is necessary.
  • Weight loss to ideal weight or ideal BMI (25). If achieved with a reduction in processed carbohydrates, the effect will be especially significant. Exercise will compound the benefits of weight loss, triggering an even larger drop in triglycerides.
  • Reduction in processed carbohydrates—especially snacks; wheat-flour containing foods like breads, pasta, pretzels, chips, bagels, and breakfast cereals; white and brown rice; white potatoes. The reduction of high- and moderate-glycemic index foods is the factor that reduces triglycerides. High triglycerides are therefore a pattern that develops when someone follows a low-fat diet. For this reason, we do not advocate low-fat diets like the Ornish program. Reducing your exposure to wheat-containing snacks and processed foods is an especially useful and easy-to-remember strategy that dramatically reduces triglycerides.
  • Elimination of high-fructose corn syrup—This ubiquitous sweetener is found in everything from beer to bread. High-fructose corn syrup causes triglycerides to skyrocket 30% or more.
  • Niacin in doses of 500–1500 mg is an effective method of reducing triglycerides. Niacin also raises HDL, increases large HDL, reduces the number of small LDL particles, reduces VLDL, and modestly reduces total LDL. The preferred forms are over-the-counter Slo-Niacin® and prescription Niaspan®, the safest and best tolerated. Immediate-release niacin (just called niacin or nicotinic acid on the label) can also be taken safely, provided it is taken no more frequently than twice per day. Total daily doses of >500 mg should only be taken under medical supervision. Avoid nicotinamide and “no-flush niacin” (inositol hexaniacinate), neither of which have any effect whatsoever.
  • Green tea—The catechins (flavonoids) in green tea can reduce triglycerides by 20%. Approximately 600–700 mg of green tea catechins are required for this effect, the equivalent of 6–12 servings of brewed tea. (Tea varies widely in catechin content.) Nutritional supplements are also available that provide green tea catechins at this dose. The weight loss accelerating effect of green tea may add to its triglyceride-reducing power.
  • The thiazolidinediones (Actos®, or pioglitazone, and Avandia®, or rosiglitazone), usually prescribed for pre-diabetes or diabetes, can reduce triglycerides by 30%; Actos may be more effective than Avandia in this regard. However, these agents are accompanied by weight gain.
  • The fibrate class of prescription drugs (fenofibrate, or Tricor®, and gemfibrozil®, or Lopid) reduce triglycerides 30–40%, i.e., almost as effectively as fish oil.


The evil influences of VLDL and triglycerides are therefore erased from your risk profile by achieving the Track Your Plaque target of triglycerides 60 mg/dl or less. One or more of these strategies are usually required to bring your triglycerides to target. 

        William Davis, MD


Selected references:

Packard CJ. Understanding coronary heart disease as a consequence of defective regulation of apolipoprotein B metabolism. Curr Opin Lipidol 1999; 10:237–244.

Otvos J. Measurement of triglyceride-rich lipoproteins by nuclear magnetic resonance spectroscopy Clin Cardiol 1999;22 (Suppl II) II-21–II-27.

Grundy SM. Hypertriglyceridemia, atherogenic dyslipidemia, and the metabolic syndrome. Am J Cardiol 1998;81(4A):18B–25B.

Zilversmit DB. Atherogenic nature of triglycerides, postprandial lipidemia, and triglyceride-rich remnant lipoproteins. Clin Chem 1995;41(1):153–158.