Cholesterol?

nozh2002

nozh2002

BANNED
Joined
Jun 9, 2003
Messages
5,736
There are many data on statistic showing correlation on hard attack possibility and cholesterol level.

But is there any statistic data showing that lowering cholesterol level also lovering hard attack possibility?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
Coincidentally I recieved this email from a friend just recently.

I'm not sure it's exactly the question you want answrred but I hope it gives another point of view or something to think about regarding cholesterol level, eatinf fat and health.

What if bad fat isn’t so bad?
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22116724/

Personally, ..I'm really leaning towards thinking genetic predesposition AND physical activity has more to do with physical health than does the cholesterol level or eating habit (unless your eating habit is REALLY REALLY bad).

But that's just MY view and I have no background in the medical field.
 
nozh2002 said:
There are many data on statistic showing correlation on hard attack possibility and cholesterol level.

But is there any statistic data showing that lowering cholesterol level also lovering hard attack possibility?

Thanks, Vassili.
Click to expand...
The answer is yes.
 
Yes there is for sure! Lowering cholesterol (LDL that is) will generally cause a deminish in atherosclerotic plaques that cause coronary artery disease and lead to a heart attack.

As said above though other factors do play large parts also including genetics and physical activity. Coronary artery disease leading to heart attack is a mulifactorial disease in which much is still being found out.
 
I had five bypasses in 1994. I have been on a strict low fat and exercise regimen since then. I lowered my cholesterol to the 130's by diet alone. I don't worry about cholesterol in my diet. I worry about fat. What fat I eat is the "good" fats from olive oil, nuts, and fish, and that in moderation. i am now 61 years old.

I had an arteriogram yesterday because of some irregularities in a stress test. The results?

Doc says:
1. My 13 year old bypasses look like new;
2. I have a "magnificent" heart muscle with an 80% expulsion rate (whatever that is, he seemed to be pleased with it);
3. Everything looks great;
4. The nuclear stress test was apparently an abberation;
5. We are not going to rely on stress test data for me any more;
6. Whatever I'm doing, keep on doing it.

My family genetics tend strongly toward heart problems, yet I have had these results.

I have heard all of the rationalizations and self-deception from friends and co-workers about why they don't control their weight, exercise, eat right, etc. I don't buy any of it.

I have read the articles about low fat diets being ineffective. I am glad that I didn't know this before I lost 65 pounds eating low-fat.

Only one man's experience, but I plan to keep up the low-fat lifestyle for the rest of my life.
 
MikeH said:
I had five bypasses in 1994. I have been on a strict low fat and exercise regimen since then. I lowered my cholesterol to the 130's by diet alone. I don't worry about cholesterol in my diet. I worry about fat. What fat I eat is the "good" fats from olive oil, nuts, and fish, and that in moderation. i am now 61 years old.

I had an arteriogram yesterday because of some irregularities in a stress test. The results?

Doc says:
1. My 13 year old bypasses look like new;
2. I have a "magnificent" heart muscle with an 80% expulsion rate (whatever that is, he seemed to be pleased with it);
3. Everything looks great;
4. The nuclear stress test was apparently an abberation;
5. We are not going to rely on stress test data for me any more;
6. Whatever I'm doing, keep on doing it.

My family genetics tend strongly toward heart problems, yet I have had these results.

I have heard all of the rationalizations and self-deception from friends and co-workers about why they don't control their weight, exercise, eat right, etc. I don't buy any of it.

I have read the articles about low fat diets being ineffective. I am glad that I didn't know this before I lost 65 pounds eating low-fat.

Only one man's experience, but I plan to keep up the low-fat lifestyle for the rest of my life.
Click to expand...

Good news to hear. Now some musings from my experience:
1) Never put 100% trust a stress test. Especially a nuclear thallium study, where they inject the radioisotope and image the heart. Large people, ie women with a lot of breast tissue, and large muscular men are more prone to "false positives". Ultimately the only way to be sure is to visualize the vessel angiographically. So skip the stress test and have a cath.

2) From my experience, graphs are either going to last a long period of time or close off almost immediately (within a year) post surgery. Glad to hear your's are holding up well.

3) The expulsion rate: That's the ejection fraction or a measure of the amount of contractility that the heart muscle has. The larger the number the better the squeeze. Basically you take a heart at rest (diastole) and it will be at it's largest size because it's filling with blood. Then you look at maximum squeeze (systole) then compare the two to see what percentage you have. The average healthy adult should be between 55-75%. Anything lower than 40% and the patient is considered in heart failure.

4) Family History: My personal opinion is that some family history can be skewed in the wrong direction. Take my wife, for example. Her dad had a 4 way bypass at 49. Her maternal grandfather had a single bypass in his seventies. So she has a family history on both sides. Now the question is, is this congenital or social? Her dad was a 2 pack/day smoker for 35 years. As a midnight shift cop he drank 25 cups of coffee per day and ate at greasy spoon all night diners. Her grandfather smoked also. So at what point do you elimate personal lifestyle choices as a part of determing a family history?

Don't get me wrong I've seen a 28 year old who has had multiple stent procedures. His dad had a heart attack in his thirties as did most males in that family. No social issues ie smoking, drugs or alcohol. So in cases like that I have strong faith in the family history being a predictor of future events.

5) Diet and exercise are two of the easiest things a person can do to reduce the risk of heart disease. Also consider that with proper diet and exercise you reduce the risks of other diseases, such as diabetes. Also cutting down of intake of certain foods can increase the function of other organs. An example is protein intake. Excessive protein is very hard on the kidneys long term. If your friends choose to lead unhealthy lifestyles then ultimately they will face reality.

Sorry to sound so long winded. I work in a Cardiac Cath Lab and deal with with heart disease daily. Our lab averages about 7000 cases a year and I would wager that well over half of these end up with some Interventional action, either coronary stenting or coronary artery bypass grafting.
 
After reading the first post, I researched that question on the net. I was surprised that there is much conflicting information in the studies regarding the correlation between cholesterol and heart attacks.

The key factor that I gained is the difference between HDL (good) and LDL (bad) cholesterol.

There are numerous studies showing that an increase in HDL does reduce your risk of a heart attack and stroke. Most of the studies are showing the results of statins like Lipitor that reduce the serum cholesterol and how they do seem to reduce the likelihood of a heart attack and stroke.

Just looking at the level of cholesterol by itself is not a necessarily a indicator of the risk of an attack. You have to look at the types of cholesterol, triglycerides and the other risk factors.

There is noted evidence that the bacteria that causes tooth decay has a correlation to heart attacks, also.

Google it and be as confused as I am!
 
I learned some numbers. So getting on medicine reduce risk on 30%.

However this mean that if in certain age probability that you will have trouble in next 10 years came from 6% to 4% (not lethal, fatality from 0.7% to 0.5%?). And to have this 2% less for 10 years you need to take twice a day some pills for life? And diet and exercises give you same or better reduction of this already low probability?

But if I am older then this probability is higher 15% - may be it worse to take this pills to decrease it for 15% to 10%... Depends in what group am I in.

Am I wrong in this somehow?
Are those numbers correct?

Thanks, Vassili.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top