To All: A nine month clinical trial has demonstrated the following great news: 'Lean red meat was just as effective in lowering cholesterol as chicken.' - cardiologist Michael Davidson of the Chicago Center for Clinical Research. This was announced after a nine month clinical trial that also included the Johns Hopkins Lipid Clinic and the University of Minnesota Hospitals and Clinics.
It must be true!!! Can 'Chi' measurement be far behind?
A note to Mattson sensei: I seem to remember a thread not too long ago where you stated you were holding out for this finding. Who'd have thought it would happen so soon.
------------------
Rich in Richmond on the James
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Moderator: Available
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
-
Robb in Sacramento
- Posts: 181
- Joined: Fri Sep 25, 1998 6:01 am
- Location: Sacramento, California, USA
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Rich on the James:
I was reading something about that over breakfast (the usual, eggs, bacon, heavily buttered toast, coffee etc.) when it was brought to my attention funding for the study came from the beef industry. So I thought, hey cowboy, who knows beef better than the industry. If the industry bringing you the product says its good for you, it must be true...say, doesn't the Korean government have a study in the works showing TKD is the most ancient and effective martial art? My only concern is that now that it is good for us, will it start tasting bad?
Peace
Robb in Sacramento
I was reading something about that over breakfast (the usual, eggs, bacon, heavily buttered toast, coffee etc.) when it was brought to my attention funding for the study came from the beef industry. So I thought, hey cowboy, who knows beef better than the industry. If the industry bringing you the product says its good for you, it must be true...say, doesn't the Korean government have a study in the works showing TKD is the most ancient and effective martial art? My only concern is that now that it is good for us, will it start tasting bad?
Peace
Robb in Sacramento
-
Allen M.
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
I often wonder if it is not the meat rather the chemicals injected into the live animal to make him grow faster and fatter and make him reproduce more is the main curlprit behind the associated 'ills' ascribed to eating red meat.
Personally, I'll take my steak rare while the animal is still alive. That's FRESH!
------------------
Allen - [email]uechi@ici.net">uechi@ici.net</A> - <A HREF="http://www.uechi-ryu.org[/email]
Personally, I'll take my steak rare while the animal is still alive. That's FRESH!
------------------
Allen - [email]uechi@ici.net">uechi@ici.net</A> - <A HREF="http://www.uechi-ryu.org[/email]
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Rich
I don't mean to rain on the parade, but here goes.
You stated: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
* The major issue here is the amount of saturated animal fat. There really isn't much difference between chicken fat and beef fat in terms of its effect on your level of cholesterol. There are a few fatty acids in one that are not in the other and vice versa, but the net effect is the same. We know that already. So if you are talking about comparing chicken and beef with equal fat content, then the response of the subjects in terms of cholesterol (only) would be identical.
* The reason why you would choose to eat a lot of chicken as opposed to a lot of beef has nothing to do with the type of fat. The amount, maybe, but you could just consume lean cuts of beef. The reason has to do with the amount of iron. It has been shown in a number of studies that iron is one of those oxidizing substances where you can have too much of a good thing. Women suffer less from its ill effects because of their monthly shedding of blood. And men who give blood live longer (on average) than men who don't. Really! So the key is keeping the iron content of your blood from getting too high.
If you really like beef, then eat lean cuts and give blood regularly. Both your taste buds and the Red Cross will thank you.
- Bill
I don't mean to rain on the parade, but here goes.
You stated: <BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote
My reaction to this is Duh! Please read this statement very carefully. This study was set up to succeed, and it is obvious to me that it was funded by the beef industry. Let's look closer at the facts:Lean red meat was just as effective in lowering cholesterol as chicken.
* The major issue here is the amount of saturated animal fat. There really isn't much difference between chicken fat and beef fat in terms of its effect on your level of cholesterol. There are a few fatty acids in one that are not in the other and vice versa, but the net effect is the same. We know that already. So if you are talking about comparing chicken and beef with equal fat content, then the response of the subjects in terms of cholesterol (only) would be identical.
* The reason why you would choose to eat a lot of chicken as opposed to a lot of beef has nothing to do with the type of fat. The amount, maybe, but you could just consume lean cuts of beef. The reason has to do with the amount of iron. It has been shown in a number of studies that iron is one of those oxidizing substances where you can have too much of a good thing. Women suffer less from its ill effects because of their monthly shedding of blood. And men who give blood live longer (on average) than men who don't. Really! So the key is keeping the iron content of your blood from getting too high.
If you really like beef, then eat lean cuts and give blood regularly. Both your taste buds and the Red Cross will thank you.
- Bill
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Hushhhhhhhh disbelievers. I stand my ground, USA Today article in hand, getting ready to grill red meat over the weekend to celebrate the 4th of July holiday. Yummmmm.
Quality of life now! Who the hell wants to be a hundred years old anyway.
Rich
Quality of life now! Who the hell wants to be a hundred years old anyway.
Rich
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Rich
The information is there for people to do as they choose. Just be careful with this tidbit. As you recall, the article talked about "lean red meat". Now a connoisseur of beef like yourself knows that "lean" red meat is "inferior". To get something that has lots of taste (since most of the flavor molecules in beef are fat soluble) and tender (since fat is a tenderizer), you want marbled beef. This means high fat. The "lean" stuff often has less flavor and the texture of shoe leather. There are ways to get around it, but you have to know your food chemistry in the kitchen.
So....beware the bait and switch.
If you want to eat a marbled piece of beef cooked rare, well by god call a steak a steak and eat for god sake. Life is a series of choices. If you are lucky, you can make informed choices. Obsessing about what you eat is in itself a disorder. In my many years in the gym, I have run across more than a few cases (usually women) of people who obsess about food to the point that they don't enjoy life and pick up pathologic habits. Fortunately we now have drugs for some of those people. Better living through modern chemistry!
J.D.
You make a good point about the validity of my statement about iron. I have picked that tidbit up from numerous sources. Used to be that "iron poor blood" was the cause of all problems, and a little Geritol would make you have just about everything. Certainly women and people who are ill need to look at their iron levels. But now there are a number of epidemiologic studies that have come out which show relationships between high iron content in the blood of males and risk for a host of illnesses including cardiac disease.
I'm one of those people who, since I was very young, have taken my daily vitamin. I've always kept up on my research and usually pay a bit extra for the name brand and the one that offers me the "shotgun approach" to nutrition (a little bit of everything in a balanced formula). Most of these concoctions (recently) have come under the category of "antioxidant" forumlas. In the last 5 years or so I've noted that these formulas now come without iron, and those that have iron have less than 100% of the RDA. So...it seems the word is out.
I agree that the best way to prove the relationship is with a randomized trial and I'm not sure that any have been done. (I'll scan the literature) However the strong epidemiologic evidence along with the first principles understanding of the oxidative properties of iron have convinced most people that - like a lot of nutritive substances - you can get too much of a good thing.
In general
As more and more people are applying the "more is better" philosophy with their personal experimentation, more and more information is piling in about the toxic effects of high doses of many popular substances. This includes (but is not limited to):
* liver toxicity (and an occasional death) with high doses of vitamin A
* kidney stones with high doses (greater than 2000 mg) of vitamin C
* nerve damage with mega doses of B6
* mineral imbalances when you get your ratio of calcium to phosphorous to magnesium screwed up.
As J.D. said, be careful and do things in moderation.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 07-02-99).]
The information is there for people to do as they choose. Just be careful with this tidbit. As you recall, the article talked about "lean red meat". Now a connoisseur of beef like yourself knows that "lean" red meat is "inferior". To get something that has lots of taste (since most of the flavor molecules in beef are fat soluble) and tender (since fat is a tenderizer), you want marbled beef. This means high fat. The "lean" stuff often has less flavor and the texture of shoe leather. There are ways to get around it, but you have to know your food chemistry in the kitchen.
So....beware the bait and switch.
If you want to eat a marbled piece of beef cooked rare, well by god call a steak a steak and eat for god sake. Life is a series of choices. If you are lucky, you can make informed choices. Obsessing about what you eat is in itself a disorder. In my many years in the gym, I have run across more than a few cases (usually women) of people who obsess about food to the point that they don't enjoy life and pick up pathologic habits. Fortunately we now have drugs for some of those people. Better living through modern chemistry!
J.D.
You make a good point about the validity of my statement about iron. I have picked that tidbit up from numerous sources. Used to be that "iron poor blood" was the cause of all problems, and a little Geritol would make you have just about everything. Certainly women and people who are ill need to look at their iron levels. But now there are a number of epidemiologic studies that have come out which show relationships between high iron content in the blood of males and risk for a host of illnesses including cardiac disease.
I'm one of those people who, since I was very young, have taken my daily vitamin. I've always kept up on my research and usually pay a bit extra for the name brand and the one that offers me the "shotgun approach" to nutrition (a little bit of everything in a balanced formula). Most of these concoctions (recently) have come under the category of "antioxidant" forumlas. In the last 5 years or so I've noted that these formulas now come without iron, and those that have iron have less than 100% of the RDA. So...it seems the word is out.
I agree that the best way to prove the relationship is with a randomized trial and I'm not sure that any have been done. (I'll scan the literature) However the strong epidemiologic evidence along with the first principles understanding of the oxidative properties of iron have convinced most people that - like a lot of nutritive substances - you can get too much of a good thing.
In general
As more and more people are applying the "more is better" philosophy with their personal experimentation, more and more information is piling in about the toxic effects of high doses of many popular substances. This includes (but is not limited to):
* liver toxicity (and an occasional death) with high doses of vitamin A
* kidney stones with high doses (greater than 2000 mg) of vitamin C
* nerve damage with mega doses of B6
* mineral imbalances when you get your ratio of calcium to phosphorous to magnesium screwed up.
As J.D. said, be careful and do things in moderation.
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 07-02-99).]
-
Susie Harrison
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Sun Jan 17, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Indialantic, FL, USA
- Contact:
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
I would definitely agree with the findings that lean red meat is just as effective at lowering cholesterol levels as chicken. That's what I have been telling my patients and clients for years. The key is LEAN red meats (not bacon, sausage, hamburger, prime rib, etc.).
For example, 3 oz. of roasted eye of round contains 133 calories, 3 grams of total fat, 1.3 grams of saturated fat, and 59 mg of cholesterol. Compare that to 3 oz. of skinless chicken breast: 140 calories, 3 grams of total fat, 0.9 grams of saturated fat, and 72 mg of cholesterol.
It is the saturated fat and cholesterol that are reponsible for raising cholesterol levels. Even though the lean beef may have a bit more saturated fat, a portion of that is represented by stearic acid, which is a lipid-neutral fatty acid (meaning that it doesn't raise cholesterol levels).
As far as the iron issue, I don't see moderate consumption of red meat as an issue. A small percentage of the population has an inborn tendency to store iron in excessive amounts. These people have to be careful to avoid iron-containing dietary supplements, and to avoid over-consumption of high-iron foods (like liver). In cases of hemochromatosis, occasional blood-letting is a part of their on-going therapy, but I would not agree that regular blood donation is necessary for the average person consuming red meat.
Keeping things in perspective, iron-deficiency is one of the more common nutritional deficiencies in our country. The fact that red meat contains more iron and zinc than chicken and fish represents an advantage, not a disadvantage.
As the old saying goes, "variety and moderation" - moderate consumption of red meat (3 times a week) is not a bad thing.
------------------
Susie Harrison
Email: <A HREF="mailto:Sharriso@health-first.org">Sharriso@health-first.org</A>
For example, 3 oz. of roasted eye of round contains 133 calories, 3 grams of total fat, 1.3 grams of saturated fat, and 59 mg of cholesterol. Compare that to 3 oz. of skinless chicken breast: 140 calories, 3 grams of total fat, 0.9 grams of saturated fat, and 72 mg of cholesterol.
It is the saturated fat and cholesterol that are reponsible for raising cholesterol levels. Even though the lean beef may have a bit more saturated fat, a portion of that is represented by stearic acid, which is a lipid-neutral fatty acid (meaning that it doesn't raise cholesterol levels).
As far as the iron issue, I don't see moderate consumption of red meat as an issue. A small percentage of the population has an inborn tendency to store iron in excessive amounts. These people have to be careful to avoid iron-containing dietary supplements, and to avoid over-consumption of high-iron foods (like liver). In cases of hemochromatosis, occasional blood-letting is a part of their on-going therapy, but I would not agree that regular blood donation is necessary for the average person consuming red meat.
Keeping things in perspective, iron-deficiency is one of the more common nutritional deficiencies in our country. The fact that red meat contains more iron and zinc than chicken and fish represents an advantage, not a disadvantage.
As the old saying goes, "variety and moderation" - moderate consumption of red meat (3 times a week) is not a bad thing.
------------------
Susie Harrison
Email: <A HREF="mailto:Sharriso@health-first.org">Sharriso@health-first.org</A>
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
J.D.
Points about antioxidents well taken.
But.... As I said, the vitamin/mineral concoctions I like to take just happen to be called antioxidant formulas. That does not mean that I seek out those formulas because of the antioxidant hype.
Another point... Just because an antioxidant of a particular kind doesn't work in one application (e.g. would healing) doesn't mean that other exogenous (consumed from the outside) antioxidants don't work in other applications. I need to call you here on something that is actually a very complex set of issues that people are putting a single label on. It's the "chi" phenomenon, you know. As an example, there are a lot of studies now showing benefits of lycopene. This is the stuff in tomatoes that give them their red color. Remember all those admonitions about eating "orangy" veggies as well as the dark green ones? Well this chemical falls in the former variety. It is in the carotenoid family, along with other ones that we know well such as beta carotene. Both epidemiologic and now randomized clinical studies show lycopene to both reduce the risk of prostate cancer as well as actually reduce the size of prostate cancer lesions. It happens to be an antioxidant. It happens to be in all the good antioxidant formulas. It also, now, is in many of the good health food store prostate formulas, in there with the saw palmetto and pygeum and beta sitisterol.
Of course there's always finasteride for the BPH. Gotta keep the Merke stock price up, no?
Once again, listen to your mother when she tells you to eat your fruits and vegetables.
Susie
Good to hear from you, as always.
Agreed about the stearic acid. And as I recall this is one of the few saturated fatty acids that is good for you. For what it's worth, food chemists have been looking for years for how to have a healthy fat that is a solid at room temperature. Saturated fatty acids are; all the healhty polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids are not. Chemists went from butter (with saturated fats) to margerine, which is hydrogenated polyunsaturated fatty acids. Problem is, the hydrogenated FAs are just as unhealthy. This also affects things like your ability to make a flaky pie crust and a cookie with the proper texture. Stearic acid may indeed be the natural solution. Some enterprising young chemist just needs to be able to figure out how to manufacture it.
The problem with beef is that it also has palmitic acid, and that cancels out all the good benefits of stearic acid. Bummer!
Rich
Neither red meat nor poultry can hold a candle to good fish. The fats in both beef and chicken are bad for you, period. Fish oils, on the other hand, are actually heart healthy. One FA in particular, eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) - an omega 3 fatty acid - is excellent for your lipids (good an bad cholesterol balance) and is an anticoagulant and antiinflammatory (has the "good" benefits of aspirin). It also has docosahexanoic acid (DHA) which is - in short - good brain food.
But you can't make a flaky pie crust from fish oil.
Just stay away from those James River catfish. They love to forage along the bottom where all that nasty kepone is. Once again, better living through modern chemistry, eh?
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 07-02-99).]
Points about antioxidents well taken.
But.... As I said, the vitamin/mineral concoctions I like to take just happen to be called antioxidant formulas. That does not mean that I seek out those formulas because of the antioxidant hype.
Another point... Just because an antioxidant of a particular kind doesn't work in one application (e.g. would healing) doesn't mean that other exogenous (consumed from the outside) antioxidants don't work in other applications. I need to call you here on something that is actually a very complex set of issues that people are putting a single label on. It's the "chi" phenomenon, you know. As an example, there are a lot of studies now showing benefits of lycopene. This is the stuff in tomatoes that give them their red color. Remember all those admonitions about eating "orangy" veggies as well as the dark green ones? Well this chemical falls in the former variety. It is in the carotenoid family, along with other ones that we know well such as beta carotene. Both epidemiologic and now randomized clinical studies show lycopene to both reduce the risk of prostate cancer as well as actually reduce the size of prostate cancer lesions. It happens to be an antioxidant. It happens to be in all the good antioxidant formulas. It also, now, is in many of the good health food store prostate formulas, in there with the saw palmetto and pygeum and beta sitisterol.
Of course there's always finasteride for the BPH. Gotta keep the Merke stock price up, no?
Once again, listen to your mother when she tells you to eat your fruits and vegetables.
Susie
Good to hear from you, as always.
Agreed about the stearic acid. And as I recall this is one of the few saturated fatty acids that is good for you. For what it's worth, food chemists have been looking for years for how to have a healthy fat that is a solid at room temperature. Saturated fatty acids are; all the healhty polyunsaturated and monounsaturated fatty acids are not. Chemists went from butter (with saturated fats) to margerine, which is hydrogenated polyunsaturated fatty acids. Problem is, the hydrogenated FAs are just as unhealthy. This also affects things like your ability to make a flaky pie crust and a cookie with the proper texture. Stearic acid may indeed be the natural solution. Some enterprising young chemist just needs to be able to figure out how to manufacture it.
The problem with beef is that it also has palmitic acid, and that cancels out all the good benefits of stearic acid. Bummer!
Rich
Neither red meat nor poultry can hold a candle to good fish. The fats in both beef and chicken are bad for you, period. Fish oils, on the other hand, are actually heart healthy. One FA in particular, eicosapentanoic acid (EPA) - an omega 3 fatty acid - is excellent for your lipids (good an bad cholesterol balance) and is an anticoagulant and antiinflammatory (has the "good" benefits of aspirin). It also has docosahexanoic acid (DHA) which is - in short - good brain food.
But you can't make a flaky pie crust from fish oil.
Just stay away from those James River catfish. They love to forage along the bottom where all that nasty kepone is. Once again, better living through modern chemistry, eh?
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 07-02-99).]
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
For what it's worth...I've made a few modifications and additions in my post above.
Susie
Now that we have you on board I can get into some of these gory details. Haven't the more recent studies (such as with eggs) shown a relatively lesser importance of consumed cholesterol on your blood cholesterol levels?
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 07-02-99).]
Susie
Now that we have you on board I can get into some of these gory details. Haven't the more recent studies (such as with eggs) shown a relatively lesser importance of consumed cholesterol on your blood cholesterol levels?
- Bill
[This message has been edited by Bill Glasheen (edited 07-02-99).]
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
I am enjoying not only your topics but the demeanor of all who comment. A most enjoyable column.
There has never been a study published that shows really dietary cholesterol has an impact on blood cholesterol (I can cite references to those interested). You could chug an 8 oz tumbler of cholesterol and it would have negligible impact on serum levels. If a person has abnormal cholesterol they have a sick liver. Almost all serum cholesterol comes straight from your liver. Cholesterol lowering medications do not work by stopping cholesterol from coming out of your food...they punch your liver around so that it does not produce as much cholesterol.
The livers role in the production of cholesterol is very valuable. This is because most of the worlds history has been marked by starvation and this allows the body to still produce enough of this valuable substance. As well otherwise vegetarians would be low on cholesterol.
Cholesterol is needed to make up our enzymes, hormones and antibodies. It is not rat poison. Recent studies show that low cholesterol is as bad as high cholesterol - the key is balance. Both low and high cholesterol is associated with increase risk of strokes - high cholesterol = occlusive strokes and low cholesterol = hemorrhagic strokes. Japan has many people with low cholesterol, and many people with hemorrhagic strokes. This is thought to be due to cholesterol's importance in the make up of cell membranes (such as the lining of blood vessels).
As important and perhaps more important that cholesterol is measurements of homocysteine and non specific inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein. I have seen someone with cholesterol over 300 who had minimal plaqueing of the carotid artery and someone with cholesterol of 156 with a great deal of blockage including over 90% blockage of the coronary arteries. Cholesterol is the Monica Lewinsky of cardiac disease - it gets too much attention.
As far as nutritional supplements - the strongest thing ever tested to lower cholesterol is the vitamin niacin (about 33% stronger than any medications such as the famed statins) - see the 1975 Coronary Drug Project published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. A 15 year follow up found that the group that took the vitamin Niacin was the only group that had a better mortality - in fact some of the drug groups had a much reduced mortality ( again see the 1990 Journal of the American Medical Journal).
The Feb 1993 J. of the Am. Med. Ass. stated that ' the expensive technologically advanced treatments for cardiovascular disease such as pacemakers, thrombolytic therapy, antiarrythmic drugs, and by pass surgery are all palliative, not curative, because they do nothing about the underlying arteriosclerotic problem'
We know that only one thing actually has an impact on athero and arteriosclerosis - diet and lifestyle. As well if it was not so late I could find numerous studies supporting anti-oxidants in preventing and reversing vascular disease. And the experts know it - which brings us to one last point : a November 1997 edition of the Am. J of Cardiology found that more cardiologists take vitamin E than aspirin to prevent their own heart attacks...but recommend aspirin more often to their patients than vitamin E. Hhhmmm, can you trust your doctor to treat you the way they would treat themselves? Apparently not!
There has never been a study published that shows really dietary cholesterol has an impact on blood cholesterol (I can cite references to those interested). You could chug an 8 oz tumbler of cholesterol and it would have negligible impact on serum levels. If a person has abnormal cholesterol they have a sick liver. Almost all serum cholesterol comes straight from your liver. Cholesterol lowering medications do not work by stopping cholesterol from coming out of your food...they punch your liver around so that it does not produce as much cholesterol.
The livers role in the production of cholesterol is very valuable. This is because most of the worlds history has been marked by starvation and this allows the body to still produce enough of this valuable substance. As well otherwise vegetarians would be low on cholesterol.
Cholesterol is needed to make up our enzymes, hormones and antibodies. It is not rat poison. Recent studies show that low cholesterol is as bad as high cholesterol - the key is balance. Both low and high cholesterol is associated with increase risk of strokes - high cholesterol = occlusive strokes and low cholesterol = hemorrhagic strokes. Japan has many people with low cholesterol, and many people with hemorrhagic strokes. This is thought to be due to cholesterol's importance in the make up of cell membranes (such as the lining of blood vessels).
As important and perhaps more important that cholesterol is measurements of homocysteine and non specific inflammatory markers such as C-reactive protein. I have seen someone with cholesterol over 300 who had minimal plaqueing of the carotid artery and someone with cholesterol of 156 with a great deal of blockage including over 90% blockage of the coronary arteries. Cholesterol is the Monica Lewinsky of cardiac disease - it gets too much attention.
As far as nutritional supplements - the strongest thing ever tested to lower cholesterol is the vitamin niacin (about 33% stronger than any medications such as the famed statins) - see the 1975 Coronary Drug Project published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. A 15 year follow up found that the group that took the vitamin Niacin was the only group that had a better mortality - in fact some of the drug groups had a much reduced mortality ( again see the 1990 Journal of the American Medical Journal).
The Feb 1993 J. of the Am. Med. Ass. stated that ' the expensive technologically advanced treatments for cardiovascular disease such as pacemakers, thrombolytic therapy, antiarrythmic drugs, and by pass surgery are all palliative, not curative, because they do nothing about the underlying arteriosclerotic problem'
We know that only one thing actually has an impact on athero and arteriosclerosis - diet and lifestyle. As well if it was not so late I could find numerous studies supporting anti-oxidants in preventing and reversing vascular disease. And the experts know it - which brings us to one last point : a November 1997 edition of the Am. J of Cardiology found that more cardiologists take vitamin E than aspirin to prevent their own heart attacks...but recommend aspirin more often to their patients than vitamin E. Hhhmmm, can you trust your doctor to treat you the way they would treat themselves? Apparently not!
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Dr. X - some great humorous lines in your reply. Perhaps laughter is the best medicine.
[This message has been edited by Bob (edited 07-03-99).]
[This message has been edited by Bob (edited 07-03-99).]
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Back around 1981 I thought I was a pretty tuff guy. I had trained in martial arts for about 11 years. I use to bounce in a country bar called the RoadApple. For those of you unfamiliar with country life a roadapple is a substance that is left by horses as they walk down country roads - and it is a substance that you would not want to eat if you could stand the smell. The name aptly describes the establishment. Anyway to make a long dull story longer, one night I was bragging abut my ability - and drinking. A bad mix. The more I drank the more I bragged, the more I bragged the more I drank. At one point the back door was broken into by a group of guys. Now to make a long story short although I survived intact the next day I had bruises literally head to toe. The lesson? Sgut up and quit drinking.
The same may be true here. I got carried away. There is no such thing as unrefuted research - any study can be refuted. As well may I add that all my claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. My discussion is for educational and informational purpose only. Any information mentioned is not meant to suggest cure of disease and is not meant to replace traditional medical care. If you do have a problem, please see a qualified physician.
The same may be true here. I got carried away. There is no such thing as unrefuted research - any study can be refuted. As well may I add that all my claims have not been evaluated by the FDA. My discussion is for educational and informational purpose only. Any information mentioned is not meant to suggest cure of disease and is not meant to replace traditional medical care. If you do have a problem, please see a qualified physician.
-
Bill Glasheen
- Posts: 17299
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA --- Louisville, KY
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Bob, J.D.
Agree about the "skin flushing" effect of Niacin. One of the multivitamins I used to take (a TwinLab antioxidant formula) had a lot of niacin in it. I used to get that nasty effect; scared the crap out of me first time it happened. It makes you feel itchy all over wherever the flushing occurs. However they now have time-released niacin. In the mean time, just about all the multivitamin/multimineral formulas have switched from niacin to niaciamide to avoid this side effect (and I expect the cholesterol benefit).
About total cholesterol, etc. and risk of coronary artery disease.... Bottom line is that this is a multifactorial issue. Blood pressure, heart rate, ratio of bad to good cholesterol (much more important than total cholesterol), smoking history, homocisteine levels, presence of certain bacterial infections, exercise, ect ALL come into play. And I'm sure I missed a few factors.
By the way, I've read the same studies showing the tendency mentioned: high cholesterol -> occlusive stroke, low cholesterol -> hemmorhagic stroke.
Plus we all must remember that cholesterol is needed to form all our sex hormones.
Are the steaks done yet, Rich?
- Bill
Agree about the "skin flushing" effect of Niacin. One of the multivitamins I used to take (a TwinLab antioxidant formula) had a lot of niacin in it. I used to get that nasty effect; scared the crap out of me first time it happened. It makes you feel itchy all over wherever the flushing occurs. However they now have time-released niacin. In the mean time, just about all the multivitamin/multimineral formulas have switched from niacin to niaciamide to avoid this side effect (and I expect the cholesterol benefit).
About total cholesterol, etc. and risk of coronary artery disease.... Bottom line is that this is a multifactorial issue. Blood pressure, heart rate, ratio of bad to good cholesterol (much more important than total cholesterol), smoking history, homocisteine levels, presence of certain bacterial infections, exercise, ect ALL come into play. And I'm sure I missed a few factors.
By the way, I've read the same studies showing the tendency mentioned: high cholesterol -> occlusive stroke, low cholesterol -> hemmorhagic stroke.
Plus we all must remember that cholesterol is needed to form all our sex hormones.
Are the steaks done yet, Rich?
- Bill
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Yep, ate 'em up earlier today. Hmmm.... Red meat- cholesteral- sex hormones. So that is what is doing it!
Rich
Rich
-
RACastanet
- Posts: 3744
- Joined: Thu Mar 11, 1999 6:01 am
- Location: Richmond, VA
'Neither fish nor fowl beats lean red meat.'
Dr. X: Viagra? I'm saving that stuff in case I actually live to be 100 because of the red meat in my diet. I may need it then.
Red wines are another story. I have an allergic (?) reaction and get flushed and uncomfortable when I drink red wine. Nitrates perhaps? A good cold 'Sam Adams' is my choice of adult beverage. Oh, and as a chaser to Jack Daniels. Do you have any background in reactions such as I have?
Rich
Red wines are another story. I have an allergic (?) reaction and get flushed and uncomfortable when I drink red wine. Nitrates perhaps? A good cold 'Sam Adams' is my choice of adult beverage. Oh, and as a chaser to Jack Daniels. Do you have any background in reactions such as I have?
Rich
