Moderators: JeffN, carolve, Heather McDougall
Jeff,Also, in regard to the often quoted 150 as the ideal, this is not true. While it may reduce your risk to the lowers level we know, it does not guarantee you are free from risk.
There have been heart attacks in people with cholesterol under 150 even in the famous Framingham trial, which is often used as a example to defend the 150 level. I talked to Dr Castelli about this and at the time (early 1990's), he told me there had been 5 heart attacks in those with cholesterol under 150, of which, 3 they could account for but not the other two.
I am a little confused. How does this match up with what you have understood in terms of the Framingham data?Perhaps the most important was the Framingham Heart Study, the fifty-year project - run the National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute, Boston University, and other academic collaboraters - that has collected and analyzed medical data from several generations of residents of Framingham, Massachusetts. Dr. William Castelli, former director of the study, put it quite baldly: over all the those years, no one in Framingham who maintained a cholesterol level lower than 150 mg/dL has had a heart attack.
Spiral wrote: it seems that you don't believe that there is any such thing as an ideal cholesterol level.
Spiral wrote:You do not believe that there is any serum cholesterol level, no matter how low, that should be considered 100 percent protective against heart attacks.
Spiral wrote:However you do believe that, as a general rule, lower is better when it comes to total serum cholesterol.
Spiral wrote:How does this match up with what you have understood in terms of the Framingham data?
Spiral wrote:He actually goes into the percent risk for heart attack in 26 years by cholesterol level. 20 out of 100 for those with 150 to 200;
Spiral wrote:did sound like for those with cholesterol levels below 150 the percentage was very, very tiny.
Spiral wrote:And he seemed to imply that between 100 and 130 it was just impossible to create enough plaque to get a heart attack.
Spiral wrote:Jeff,
it seems that you don't believe that there is any such thing as an ideal cholesterol level. You do not believe that there is any serum cholesterol level, no matter how low, that should be considered 100 percent protective against heart attacks. However you do believe that, as a general rule, lower is better when it comes to total serum cholesterol.
Is that right?
JeffN wrote:It is not about belief but about statistics.
What I am saying is that statistically speaking, there are levels that are known to have lower risks associated with them. However, the word "ideal" is never used in statistics and these numbers are all based on statistical analysis of risk factors.
DR. WILLIAM CASTELLI: wrote:Nothing is ever 100%.
Spiral wrote:At least that's how I might interpret was Dr. Castelli said.
JeffN wrote: But what is more important and what I feel to be the most important test, is what I call the "plate test." Very few people know about it yet it is one of the most effective tests and simple and easy to do and very inexpensive. You can even do it at home.
Here is how you do it.
When you sit down to eat each meal, look at your "plate" and see if it passes this "test", the "Plate Test."
Are at least 95% of the calories on your plate coming from unrefined unprocessed fruits, vegetables, starchy vegetables, intact whole grains and/or legumes? Are there at least 12-15 grams of fiber coming from whole natural foods? Does it meet my guidelines for sodium? Are any "exceptions" being kept to less than 5% of calories?
If your meal passes this "Plate Test", then I think that is the most effective test you can ever have done and the best indicator of your future health and longevity.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest