'Doctors Want Heart Pills on Menu'.

[MrPlum]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2010/ ... rt-disease

I once looked in astonishment at an overweight Portuguese heart attack victim tucking into burgers and fries with gusto. He was happy as Larry because next to his plate was a side dish of pills. In fact, I've joked with others, since, about the bizarre idea of having a Big Mac in one hand and a pill in the other, as if one balances the other.

I'm sure there are forum members who want to believe this is true, to allow them to enjoy their favourite artery-clogging dishes. But does good health really work like this?

A pill for every ill?

[Spitfire]

A pill for every ill?

Sums up the general medical situation in Thailand well MrP, very much the case.

The problem I think in Thailand is that quite a few medical professionals that graduate here just slide slowly into being a pharmacist that gives out pills at their "clinic" to the worried well that can pay instead of becoming really good surgeons or practicing specialists in needed fields. This probably happens due to a lack of government intervention or financial incentives etc to become what they truly can.

Not all of course, but I sometimes wonder how much talent is wasted.

No offense Doc Mike, BBK hospital is in a different league and excluded, you've got to be very good to work there, just mentioning it on a wide scale situation here, such as in the places away from major cities etc.

[lindosfan1]

Also in the article was this paragraph

The idea was criticised by leading doctors, who said the study could encourage ill-health by prompting even greater consumption of junk food and increasing the belief in "a pill for every ill".

[Dr Mike]

And perhaps a syringe full of Insulin, so you can inject yourself and get your blood sugar down

[Amarita]

Dear dr. Mike,

this is not a good advice unless you have diabetes ?

[MrPlum]

Dear dr. Mike,
this is not a good advice unless you have diabetes ?

He's joking.

Also in the article was this paragraph

The idea was criticised by leading doctors, who said the study could encourage ill-health by prompting even greater consumption of junk food and increasing the belief in "a pill for every ill".

He IS a leading doctor, a Fellow of the Royal College of Physicians and he also worked with other Drs on the study, who have received expensive and lengthy educations and impressive qualifications, which, as usual, don't include the elephant in the room. Nutrition.

Every person, in every country, over thousands of years, knows that 'you are what you eat'. At least they used to before an army of meat and dairy industry brain-washers turned nature on its head. These 'scientists' are still feeding chicken s**t to cows and allowing diseased animals in closed pens and into the food chain.

'Dr Francis and his colleagues used data from a previous large cohort study to quantify how a person's heart attack risk increases with their daily intake of total fat and trans fat. He compared this with the decrease in risk from various statins, based on a meta-analysis of seven randomised controlled trials.'

In his defence, the suggestion was for those who won't, or can't, give up these harmful foods. There is a precedent. We already have fluoride in every glass of water and we ingest veterinary drug residues in our meat and poultry. At least Dr Francis gives you a choice.

The biggest omission from this drug-friendly kite-flying exercise, was the risk from Statins.

"Laydeeeze an Gennelmeennnn.....! Hear ye! Hear ye! Hear ye!" "To protect your heart, we are going to sacrifice your liver and kidneys."

[Takiap]

I'm sure if the entire world consumed the same identical healthy diet, some would die young, and some would live long. Not knocking you here plum, but I don't think it took any industry to convince humans to eat meat. After all, we are not herbivores. A quick look at you teeth in the mirror will confirm that beyond all doubt.

Sure a healthy diet helps, but if you ask me, I think over indulgence is the greater culprit. Many people go on to reach old age despite the fact that they eat exactly what the general population eats.

Be a vegetarian and live to 100, or eat meat and die at 50? I guess I would have to settle for 50 because I'm not giving up meat - industry or no industry.

[MrPlum]

Not knocking you here plum, but I don't think it took any industry to convince humans to eat meat.

I don't have an issue with meat. Just contaminated meat. You get bloody cold just eating lettuce in Siberia. My concerns are the same whether meat, fruit or veg.

Sure a healthy diet helps, but if you ask me, I think over indulgence is the greater culprit.

Agree with this too. There are diseases of affluence and diseases of paucity. However, when you constantly douse your insides and outsides with chemicals, and eat 'food' that is basically synthetic, there are bound to be consequences. The body doesn't care about our justifications.

I believe toxicity within the body is one of the major causes of increased cancer, which, despite the trillion dollar and largely phoney 'war on cancer', like the phoney 'war on drugs', is rising, not reducing. In the Indian system of medicine known as Ayurveda it has long been recognized and is known as 'Ama'.

Many people go on to reach old age despite the fact that they eat exactly what the general population eats.

Is this still true? How many people do you know die peacefully in their sleep? Diabetes, arthritis, heart disease, cancer and a myriad of other conditions destroy your quality of life. I try to defend against this. However, worrying too much about it is going to kill me before bad food kills you.

Be a vegetarian and live to 100, or eat meat and die at 50? I guess I would have to settle for 50 because I'm not giving up meat - industry or no industry.

My posts are not meant for people like you. You need Dr Mike.

[Dr Mike]

What is ludicrous is this. If you need a medication then you need it on a continuous basis--If it is decided that your cholesterol is dangerously high and that you need a med to reduce it, you need the pill everyday. The cocept that, Oh I have just overeaten, I'll take a pill now to counteract it is just plain stupid.

[hhfarang]

'you are what you eat'

Moooo! Oink! Cock-a-doodle-doooo!

On the subject of statins, and I think we hashed this out before; I was diagnosed with cholesterol problems in my mid thirties; total cholesterol 280, HDL very low, LDL very high. My doctor gave me a diet to try (actually gave me a list of foods to eat and not to eat), which did include some meat, but only lean red meats in small portions infrequently, all the fish I wanted, and chicken if it was a lean light meat cut without the skin. The information also contained preferred cooking methods (obviously, I had to put the deep fryer away!) and an aerobic exercise recommendation.

I followed his instructions religiously, both diet and exercise for several months and went back for another check. Total cholesterol had gone down a whopping 10 points and the HDL was still low, LDL still high. He then put me on daily Zocor which I have been taking ever since (Thai copy now, called Bestatin). My total cholesterol is now around 180 (within specified healthy range) but even with the drug, although not so much as before, my HDL is still too low (but within range) and LDL borderline high (right on the upper suggested limit).

With some people I believe you cannot overcome heredity with healthy living alone and those people must take medication.

[splitlid]

'you are what you eat'

Cock-a-doodle-doooo

sometimes, the quote function can be real fun.

[MrPlum]

My doctor gave me a diet to try (actually gave me a list of foods to eat and not to eat), which did include some meat, but only lean red meats in small portions infrequently, all the fish I wanted, and chicken if it was a lean light meat cut without the skin. The information also contained preferred cooking methods (obviously, I had to put the deep fryer away!) and an aerobic exercise recommendation.

Allow me to offer an expert diagnosis. You are suffering badly from 'cholesterol-phobia'. A stubborn condition brought about by decades of fear-mongering and doctors who do not understand nutrition and don't have time to investigate outside of medical journals.

The high cholesterol=heart disease theory has been sold to us for decades until it is has become accepted 'fact' yet how has it actually impacted heart disease rates? They have INCREASED to epidemic proportions. Could it be that by influencing homeostasis we are creating the very condition we are trying to prevent?

Doctors are just as susceptible to junk science as we are. Perhaps even more so since, how can their expensive education be wrong?

When your Doctor says cut the rind off your bacon butty he is showing ignorance. A lack of good fats in your diet can cause the very diseases you are trying to prevent. The body NEEDS good fat, not LOW fat. Just look at Thailand. When the diet included animal fat and coconut oil the population was skinny! Heart disease was rare. Likewise cancer. So what does that say about the fear of saturated fat, which was created to drive people away from natural oils and towards industrial. Isn't it irrational? IMO the problem is not fat. It is processed fat and oils, along with excess sugar. Homogonization, pasteurization, rancidity.

Who stands to gain? You? Are you sure?

Billions have been made from selling low-fat and cholesterol-free foods. That's a mighty strong incentive to maintain the high cholesterol theory, even though it has been challenged. Every time they lower the Cholesterol threshold, they bring millions more paying customers through the doors.

Do a search for 'high cholesterol theory' and read a few of the articles. Those pills you are taking, far from protecting you, might actually be increasing your risk.

"The great tragedy of Science-the slaying of a beautiful hypothesis by an ugly fact." - Thomas Huxley

[Spitfire]

Think the main problem is that everyone thinks it's a problem for others until they hit the critical mass point and their attention is sharpened because it becomes a current problem for them. If you had been paying attention when you were in your late twenties to late thirties and enacted preventive measures then it might not have of arisen in the first place, due to diligence, hindsight is a wonderful thing, of course.

Admittedly, there was not the same kind of nutritional info around 30 years ago as there is now, but the people that read up on it should be able to, at the very least influence the future outcome. Some people are more biologically/genetically predisposed to cancer and other conditions than others but you can do much to negate a negative outcome through diet and exercise and a reasonably positive diet.

You don't have to go health food crazy, but they are a few easy/basic steps that can help.

Don't wait until it's too late before you act, by the time many physical symptoms manifest themselves, it's almost too late.

Don't want to sound too negative, just speaking my mind, which is no expert.

[Takiap]

Well Mr.P, I agree 100% with your last post. The entire cholesterol thing has been blown completely out of proportion.

[hhfarang]

Some interesting research on the subject published last year...

Cholesterol's Link to Heart Disease Gets Clearer and More Complicated

ScienceDaily (Feb. 7, 2010) — By considering molecular-level events on a broader scale, researchers now have a clearer, if more complicated, picture of how one class of immune cells goes wrong when loaded with cholesterol. The findings reported in the February 3rd issue of Cell Metabolism, show that, when it comes to the development of atherosclerosis and heart disease, it's not about any one bad actor -- it's about a network gone awry.

The new findings also highlight a pretty remarkable thing, Heinecke says: "Despite 30 years of study, we still don't know how cholesterol causes heart disease." But, with the new findings, scientists are getting closer.

Earlier studies had shown that heart disease is about more than just high LDL ("bad") cholesterol. Cells known as macrophages also play a critical role. Macrophages are part of the innate immune system that typically gobble up pathogens and clear away dead cells. But they also take up and degrade cholesterol derivatives. When they get overloaded with those lipoproteins, they take on a foamy appearance under the microscope to become what scientists aptly refer to as foam cells. Those foam cells are the ones that seem to have critical importance in the development of atherosclerosis.

People had typically thought about this problem in terms of linear pathways, Heinecke explained. In essence, macrophages end up with too much cholesterol going in and not enough coming out. The macrophages get overwhelmed and trapped in the artery wall, and somehow plaques form as a result.

But the new results show that it isn't really about simple paths in and out; rather, there is an integrated network of macrophage proteins involved. When that network gets disrupted, as it does when too much cholesterol comes in, atherosclerosis forms. "It's definitely a different way to think about what is going on," Heinecke says.

Heinecke's group applied sophisticated technologies and statistical tools to get a global view of what happens to macrophage proteins when they turn into foam cells. Their analysis revealed what they call a macrophage sterol-responsive network (MSRN), including proteins already known to work together. Most of them are also found in one place, within microvesicles outside the macrophage cells.

The researchers further found that drugs used to lower cholesterol and inflammation, including statins and rosiglitazone, restore the macrophage network to almost normal, even in mice that don't have the LDL receptors that are considered the usual targets of the drugs. On the other hand, mice lacking single proteins in the network, including APOE and so-called complement proteins of the immune system, have macrophages that look like foam cells even when they aren't loaded with cholesterol.

The findings suggest that anything that sends the macrophage network off kilter could promote heart disease, Heinecke said. They also change the way researchers should think about how heart disease is treated. The key may be how to best restore the function of an integrated network rather than to lower cholesterol levels or ratchet individual proteins up or down.
"We propose that the atherogenic actions of cholesterol-loaded macrophages are an emergent property that results when the normal balance of MSRN proteins in microvesicles is perturbed," the researchers conclude. "We further suggest that certain dietary factors or genetic variations can disturb this network, thereby promoting vascular disease. By integrating mouse and human data, we hope to better understand the MSRN's role in foam cell formation, with the long-term goal of identifying therapeutic interventions for targeting networks rather than individual proteins."

The researchers include Lev Becker, Sina A. Gharib, Angela D. Irwin, Ellen Wijsman, Tomas Vaisar, John F. Oram, and Jay W. Heinecke, of University of Washington, Seattle, WA.