481–490 of 501 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
ApoB is a better indicator of heart problems and his ApoB was bad, unlike his LDL-C. ApoB is not some imaginary thing made up by a quack doctor.
Even his LDL-C is bad. 116/119 are both out of range by most lab testing standards and the top end of range already allows for plaque deposition.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
note: > individuals at low risk of cardiovascular disease
Yes, you're right. I pointed to this BMJ reference because in the article there is the following: "To help drive down our ApoB, we have statins which do miracles for lipid management. Some people believe that everyone should be on a statin so long as they don’t have adverse side effects." Most statins prescribed today are not for secondary prevention. A lot of doctors prescribe a statin immediately on seeing just one…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Fiere-lmsaho says >Bonus tip: alcohol free beer is really good these days. Could you recommendation some good alcohol-free beers, please?!
Sure: [ https://luckysaint.co ] [ https://brewdog.com/collections/alcohol-free ] [ https://www.majestic.co.uk/beer/peroni-0-0-4x330ml-bottles-7... ] Note that not all "zero %" beers are actually zero %... some have 0.5% alcohol.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seriously there is too much shit to worry about to micro manage each facet, unless your like a Bryan Johnson billionaire with a staff. Beyond just heart disease & cancer taking you out entirely its: my eyesight is going, my hearing, every joint in my body could fail, my brain is slowing, etc. There is just way too much shit to do anything other than be like: sleep, exercise, eat better and don't drink too much.
And even him doesn’t know what’s working and what’s making things worse. He claims to have really good biomarkers but that’s when cherry-picking numbers from studies made in a range of more than two years (!!). You’ll never see a published set of tests from him. What you’ll see is ads to buy his supplements.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Most people aren't on and don't need statins. Everyone would be well served to eat well and exercise regularly. It's not a replacement.
You right. You don't need statins. Nobody does. But look at the statistics. You might also drop dead tomorrow. It's hard to know. If you think eating and exercising would solve heart disease, you are mis-informed. It's the number one killer. If we all died at 30, the drugs would not need to exist. I'm sure you would like to live as long as you can. Taking statins is cheap and simple for most people.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Thanks for the astute and informed comment. So re-reading that portion of the article, it seems to me the answer to my question is not that any general or consensus guidelines are wrong, but that a company called Forward Health is doing lipid panels and providing an incorrect interpretation of the results. OP's LDL-C was 116 and this is on the very top end of what Forward Health's report says is OK, their report is w…
I would agree that this article overstates a lot of things. ApoB is still a reasonable thing to check though, at least once - Lp(a) is the primary cause of atherogenic particle counts being high when LDL-C isn't the culprit, and it's usually a genetic factor. Having a high Lp(a) will bounce your ApoB up and give you a better understanding of the total atherogenic particle load. You could have fine LDL-C or Lp(a) on t…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Plaque won't show as calcium until it has been in your arteries for decades and has calcified. It is a delayed indicator. For anyone under 40, it's expected to have zero calcium. Even a measure of 1 or 2 when you're below 40 would be a bad sign.
Is there any way to get rid of the calcification? Experimental techniques?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Even his LDL-C is bad. 116/119 are both out of range by most lab testing standards and the top end of range already allows for plaque deposition.
That LDL-C is considered normal, what are you talking about. 160 is when doctors start being concerned.
https://testdirectory.questdiagnostics.com/test/test-detail/...
https://www.labcorp.com/tests/120295/low-density-lipoprotein...
If you think a 100+ LDL-C is normal you're basing things off of significantly outdated information.
Expect the normal range to drop in the coming years as well - the AHA and NLA have both been talking about how this needs to go lower, and the science is robust. See my other comments for study links, the NLA's latest guidance, etc.
If your doctor is only getting concerned at 160+, find a new doctor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Memory loss and confusion have been reported with statin use. People reporting things doesn't mean much, because as your own original link mentions, people tend to overreport stuff when they are going to the doctor already for other things. What do actual studies that have controls show? We have human RCTs here that have looked at this very thing - and found no evidence of it. A random article on webmd also says ve…
You can do a "study" to prove anything you want. And study outcomes often do vary depending on who is paying for it. The FDA is a neutral party. I recommend prioritizing the FDA warnings over "studies".
If you want to trust individual anecdotes over RCTs while scare quoting the primary way we advance science in these fields, be my guest.