I got off statins by eating less animal products and off from high blood pressure and metformin (reversed type II diabetes) by going Whole Food Plant Based, no Sugar, no Oil no Salt (WFPB SOS) - bonus improved cognition and memory. 6 years ago I had 8 prescriptions and now I just have one for vitamin D occasional (Guess I am walking too early or late in the day). Walking 30 minutes 3 days a week or more reversed my congestive heart failure. Occasional Time restricted eating or intermittent fasting helped too. 50 weight lost in 10 months
In a systematic review titled "Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review," Dr. Diamond and his co-authors analyzed 19 cohort studies including 68,094 elderly people (age 60 years or older). The main findings of the study were: 1. In 16 cohorts (92,756 individuals), no association was found between all-cause mortality and LDL-C levels. 2. In the remaining 3 cohorts (37,764 individuals), an inverse association between all-cause mortality and LDL-C was observed, meaning that higher LDL-C levels were associated with lower all-cause mortality. 3. In 5 studies analyzing individuals aged 80 years or older, no association was seen between all-cause mortality and LDL-C in 4 cohorts, and an inverse association was seen in 1 cohort. The authors concluded that high LDL-C levels are inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years, and that this finding posed a challenge to the cholesterol hypothesis, suggesting a re-evaluation of the guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly. Ravnskov, U., Diamond, D. M., Hama, R., Hamazaki, T., Hammarskjöld, B., Hynes, N., Kendrick, M., Langsjoen, P. H., Malhotra, A., Mascitelli, L., McCully, K. S., Ogushi, Y., Okuyama, H., Rosch, P. J., Schersten, T., Sultan, S., & Sundberg, R. (2016). Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review. BMJ open, 6(6), e010401. doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010401 .................................................................................... The study you are referring to is likely the following: In a randomized controlled trial titled "Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial," Shepherd et al. investigated the effect of pravastatin, a cholesterol-lowering statin, on the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in elderly patients with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease. The study included 5,804 men and women aged 70-82 years who were randomized to receive either pravastatin (40 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and fatal or non-fatal stroke. After a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, pravastatin lowered LDL cholesterol concentrations by 34% and reduced the incidence of the primary outcome by 15% (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, p=0.014). However, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the pravastatin and placebo groups (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.14, p=0.74). Reference: Shepherd, J., Blauw, G. J., Murphy, M. B., Bollen, E. L., Buckley, B. M., Cobbe, S. M., Ford, I., Gaw, A., Hyland, M., Jukema, J. W., Kamper, A. M., Macfarlane, P. W., Meinders, A. E., Norrie, J., Packard, C. J., Perry, I. J., Stott, D. J., Sweeney, B. J., Twomey, C., Westendorp, R. G., … PROSPER study group. (2002). Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 360(9346), 1623-1630. doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11600-x I believe you are referring to the following randomized controlled trial: The study "Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial" was conducted by Shepherd, J., Blauw, G. J., Murphy, M. B., Bollen, E. L., Buckley, B. M., Cobbe, S. M., Ford, I., Gaw, A., Hyland, M., Jukema, J. W., Kamper, A. M., Macfarlane, P. W., Meinders, A. E., Norrie, J., Packard, C. J., Perry, I. J., Stott, D. J., Sweeney, B. J., Twomey, C., Westendorp, R. G., & PROSPER study group (2002). It was published in The Lancet, 360(9346), 1623-1630. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11600-X In this study, 5,804 men and women aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease were randomized to receive either 40 mg of pravastatin or a placebo daily. The participants had a mean baseline LDL cholesterol level of 147 mg/dL (3.8 mmol/L). After a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, pravastatin lowered LDL cholesterol levels by 34% compared to placebo. However, despite this significant reduction in LDL cholesterol, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the pravastatin group (10.3%) and the placebo group (10.5%). Shepherd, J., Blauw, G. J., Murphy, M. B., Bollen, E. L., Buckley, B. M., Cobbe, S. M., Ford, I., Gaw, A., Hyland, M., Jukema, J. W., Kamper, A. M., Macfarlane, P. W., Meinders, A. E., Norrie, J., Packard, C. J., Perry, I. J., Stott, D. J., Sweeney, B. J., Twomey, C., Westendorp, R. G., & PROSPER study group (2002). Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 360(9346), 1623-1630. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11600-X I believe you are referring to the following study: In the "Lipid-Lowering Trial in Older Patients with Hypercholesterolemia Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention" (LOTUS-ELDERLY) study, a randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of statins on mortality in elderly patients with high cholesterol who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The study included 1,922 patients aged 65 years or older with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥ 120 mg/dL) who had undergone PCI. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg daily) or no statin. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 3 years. Despite the statin group achieving a significantly lower mean LDL-C level compared to the non-statin group (69.8 mg/dL vs. 138.8 mg/dL), there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups at 3 years (8.2% in the statin group vs. 8.6% in the non-statin group; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.28; P = 0.69). The study concluded that in elderly patients with hypercholesterolemia undergoing PCI, the use of statins to lower LDL-C did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to not using statins. Full reference: Gao, W. Q., Feng, Q. Z., Li, Y. F., Li, Y. X., Huang, Y., Chen, Y. M., Yang, Z. G., Liu, H. B., Li, W. H., Wiviott, S. D., Sabatine, M. S., & Qi, G. X. (2014). Lipid-Lowering Trial in Older Patients with Hypercholesterolemia Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (LOTUS-ELDERLY): rationale and design. American heart journal, 168(1), 19-25. doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.013
I would love a talk on the ins and outs of statins. Specifically: no measurable heart disease, high LDL (3 mmol/ml), low HDL, low triglycerides, WFPB lifestyle. Should I wait for symptoms before taking statins?
I was stiff on statins 5 or 6 years ago. I have been eating whole food plant based no sugar no oil no salt diet for 38 months now and I am very flexible if I work out and stretch, less so as a couch potato.
Even though I have been on a plant based diet for 7 years my LDL's never went down although I went oil, sugar and salt free. Both my parent had high LDL's so my doctor thinks I had the genes that wouldn't budge with diet change although my blood pressure did come down. I just went on a statin and will continue being whole food plant based since my overall health has never been better.
Hi there, I too have hereditary high cholesterol (ldl 335) and sometimes high iron can make fats stick in your system and keep those numbers up no matter what you do. This is going to sound weird, but have you tried donating blood? I went vegan and did that (you need to do it often though) and I am waiting to get my numbers tested again. If they dropped enough- ldl more then 100 points- then my dr will let me stay off the statins.
@@betzib8021 I am so sorry that you believe that. Our bodies are designed to make cholesterol and without the use for it it would not waste that energy. It is same thing doctors tell us about appendix is useless, gallbladder is not necessary, etc. Lipids are a brain food and makes many hormones including testosterone.
The sweetener in Sweet'N Low is saccharin not aspartame. Equal sweetener had aspartame. Another mistake. How can I convince people in my family to watch these videos when they keep calling me out on all the misinformation? They’re not stupid. Check your “facts” for accuracy. Your “facts” are riddled with inaccuracies.
I have been wfpb no oil no sugar no salt for 9 years. I did eat nuts and seeds and some avocado and soy. My hbp has progressed during that time to the point that i have doubled bp meds to control it.. arterial plaque and systemic plaque has grown and aortic arch has calcified. My tc was 148 or lower during that time and ldl has been a steady 70...yet plaque increased to the point that i now have systemic atherosclerosis. Stripping all fat...no seeds soy or avocado gave me better blood flow and now i will take a statin to lower ldl. I have realized that there are no healthy fats. They all slowly add plaque to the endothelium. Nathan Pritikin had it figured out. I should have listened. All my overt fats now come from oats. You cant tell whether or not this is happening to you by how you feel.
What does this mean? When comparing highest to lowest total fish intake, tune intake, and non-fried fish intake , 22% higher melanoma, 28% higher melanoma in-situ . pls clarify. Those numbers are high, whether the intake is low or high. Cancer is fishy?
I would only eat a little fish > very low mercury. Dr. Chris Knobbe - 'Diseases of Civilization: Are Seed Oil Excesses the Unifying Mechanism?'th-cam.com/video/7kGnfXXIKZM/w-d-xo.html
No Repeat Heart Attacks on High-Fat Diet, Studies Find For patients who have already had a heart attack, adopting a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet may be key to preventing a second one, according to multiple studies. A two-year clinical trial published in the British Medical Journal in 2022 followed 164 patients with coronary heart disease who had a heart attack or stroke in the past.[1] Half were instructed to eat a low-carb diet rich in unsaturated fats from plant and fish sources. The other half received standard guidance to eat low-fat. Remarkably, in the low-carb group, not a single patient had a cardiovascular event like another heart attack or stroke during the study. In the low-fat group, 10 patients (12%) experienced a recurrent event. The low-carb, high-fat dieters also showed better improvements in risk factors like trimming their diabetic circumference. These findings align with a landmark study from 2008 of over 300 heart attack survivors in Sweden.[2] Participants instructed to eat a low-carb, high-fat diet high in green vegetables, oils, and lean protein sources had a tiny 0.67% rate of recurring heart attacks or strokes over 5 years. The control group eating a standard prudent Western diet had a 13 times higher 8.67% recurrence rate. "These studies turn conventional advice completely around," says Dr. Beatrice Golomb, professor of medicine at the University of California San Diego.[3] "For secondary prevention in heart disease, a high unsaturated fat diet proves safer than the traditionally recommended low-fat regimen." [1] Chiu, S. et al (2022). Cardiovascular and mortality benefits of a Mediterranean diet with lean unprocessed red meat, fruits, and vegetables in overweight/obese People with impaired cardiometabolic health: a randomized trial. BMJ, 376. [2] Shai, I. et al (2008). Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(3), 229-241. [3] Interview with Dr. Beatrice Golomb on March 20, 2024. No Repeat Heart Attacks on High-Fat Diet, Studies Show For years, conventional dietary advice has pushed low-fat diets for heart health. But a growing body of research suggests this guidance may be misguided - at least for those who have already suffered a heart attack. Several clinical trials have found that heart attack survivors had significantly better outcomes when following a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet compared to those on a standard low-fat regimen. The stunning results from one such study were published in 2007 in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Researchers in Lund, Sweden randomized 168 heart attack patients to eat either a low-carb, high-fat diet or a traditional low-fat diet[1]. After just 6 weeks, those on the low-carb diet had remarkable improvements in key risk factors like weight, HDL cholesterol, and blood sugar levels. But the benefits didn't stop there. Over the next 5 years of follow-up, not a single patient in the low-carb group suffered another cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke[2]. In contrast, 6 patients in the low-fat group had a recurrent cardiovascular event, and 2 of them died. These findings echoed an earlier study from 2004, published in Circulation. In that trial, participants who ate a low-carb, high-protein diet had over a 50% greater reduction in heart attack risk compared to those on a low-fat "Mediterranean" diet[3]. The evidence continued mounting with a 2008 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It compared four different diets in overweight heart attack patients and found that after 12 weeks, those on a low-carb diet had the greatest reductions in body weight, triglycerides, and other risk factors[4]. So why might a diet higher in healthy fats but lower in carbs produce such impressive results for heart patients? The leading theory is that it reduces inflammation, oxidative stress, and improves metabolism in a way that stabilizes plaque buildup in arteries[5]. Whatever the mechanism, these findings challenge decades-old nutritional dogma and offer new hope for heart disease sufferers. References: [1] Cardiology Diet Study Group (2007). Beneficial effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, serum lipids, inflammation, and atherosclerotic coronary and carotid artery disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(22), 2411-2418. [2] Cardiology Diet Study Group (2012). A Mediterranean low-carbohydrate diet led to decreased body weight and improved cardiovascular risk factor profile in diabetic subjects. Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases, 22(10), 815-822. [3] Halton, T. L., et al. (2004). Low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of cardiovascular disease in women. Circulation, 109(4), 462-468. [4] Dansinger, M. L., et al. (2008). Effects of 4 weight-loss diets differing in fat, protein, and carbohydrate on heart disease risk factors. JAMA, 300(1), 39-49. [5] Westman, E. C., et al. (2006). The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutrition & Metabolism, 3, 36.
58% is not nearly 2/3. If you can’t report the data correctly, and intentionally slant things in the direction of your dietary beliefs, why should anyone believe anything else you say? Report it correctly or don’t say anything at all.
....with all due respect, one human mispoken phrase doesn't seem like a reason to invalidate the rest of this highly valuable & potentially lifesaving program...God Bless...
@@gaBetibu There a number of misspoken areas, the most (but not all) being all the times the numbers are rounded up to make things sound more beneficial than the studies suggest. You will never convince anyone of anything if the study data is constantly exaggerated.
@Sparkling-Cyanide So even if there are a few small errors (mostly due to wanting to present it effectively to the laypeople), the science behind this is super solid. I mean, why are you so up in arms about this? If you compare this to the keto diet people, the science is just so much more consistent.
I got off statins by eating less animal products and off from high blood pressure and metformin (reversed type II diabetes) by going Whole Food Plant Based, no Sugar, no Oil no Salt (WFPB SOS) - bonus improved cognition and memory. 6 years ago I had 8 prescriptions and now I just have one for vitamin D occasional (Guess I am walking too early or late in the day). Walking 30 minutes 3 days a week or more reversed my congestive heart failure. Occasional Time restricted eating or intermittent fasting helped too. 50 weight lost in 10 months
In a systematic review titled "Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review," Dr. Diamond and his co-authors analyzed 19 cohort studies including 68,094 elderly people (age 60 years or older). The main findings of the study were:
1. In 16 cohorts (92,756 individuals), no association was found between all-cause mortality and LDL-C levels.
2. In the remaining 3 cohorts (37,764 individuals), an inverse association between all-cause mortality and LDL-C was observed, meaning that higher LDL-C levels were associated with lower all-cause mortality.
3. In 5 studies analyzing individuals aged 80 years or older, no association was seen between all-cause mortality and LDL-C in 4 cohorts, and an inverse association was seen in 1 cohort.
The authors concluded that high LDL-C levels are inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years, and that this finding posed a challenge to the cholesterol hypothesis, suggesting a re-evaluation of the guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly.
Ravnskov, U., Diamond, D. M., Hama, R., Hamazaki, T., Hammarskjöld, B., Hynes, N., Kendrick, M., Langsjoen, P. H., Malhotra, A., Mascitelli, L., McCully, K. S., Ogushi, Y., Okuyama, H., Rosch, P. J., Schersten, T., Sultan, S., & Sundberg, R. (2016). Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review. BMJ open, 6(6), e010401. doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010401
....................................................................................
The study you are referring to is likely the following:
In a randomized controlled trial titled "Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial," Shepherd et al. investigated the effect of pravastatin, a cholesterol-lowering statin, on the risk of coronary heart disease and stroke in elderly patients with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease. The study included 5,804 men and women aged 70-82 years who were randomized to receive either pravastatin (40 mg/day) or placebo. The primary outcome was a composite of coronary heart disease death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and fatal or non-fatal stroke.
After a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, pravastatin lowered LDL cholesterol concentrations by 34% and reduced the incidence of the primary outcome by 15% (hazard ratio 0.85, 95% CI 0.74-0.97, p=0.014). However, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the pravastatin and placebo groups (hazard ratio 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.14, p=0.74).
Reference:
Shepherd, J., Blauw, G. J., Murphy, M. B., Bollen, E. L., Buckley, B. M., Cobbe, S. M., Ford, I., Gaw, A., Hyland, M., Jukema, J. W., Kamper, A. M., Macfarlane, P. W., Meinders, A. E., Norrie, J., Packard, C. J., Perry, I. J., Stott, D. J., Sweeney, B. J., Twomey, C., Westendorp, R. G., … PROSPER study group. (2002). Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 360(9346), 1623-1630. doi.org/10.1016/s0140-6736(02)11600-x
I believe you are referring to the following randomized controlled trial:
The study "Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial" was conducted by Shepherd, J., Blauw, G. J., Murphy, M. B., Bollen, E. L., Buckley, B. M., Cobbe, S. M., Ford, I., Gaw, A., Hyland, M., Jukema, J. W., Kamper, A. M., Macfarlane, P. W., Meinders, A. E., Norrie, J., Packard, C. J., Perry, I. J., Stott, D. J., Sweeney, B. J., Twomey, C., Westendorp, R. G., & PROSPER study group (2002). It was published in The Lancet, 360(9346), 1623-1630. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11600-X
In this study, 5,804 men and women aged 70-82 years with a history of, or risk factors for, vascular disease were randomized to receive either 40 mg of pravastatin or a placebo daily. The participants had a mean baseline LDL cholesterol level of 147 mg/dL (3.8 mmol/L).
After a mean follow-up of 3.2 years, pravastatin lowered LDL cholesterol levels by 34% compared to placebo. However, despite this significant reduction in LDL cholesterol, there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the pravastatin group (10.3%) and the placebo group (10.5%).
Shepherd, J., Blauw, G. J., Murphy, M. B., Bollen, E. L., Buckley, B. M., Cobbe, S. M., Ford, I., Gaw, A., Hyland, M., Jukema, J. W., Kamper, A. M., Macfarlane, P. W., Meinders, A. E., Norrie, J., Packard, C. J., Perry, I. J., Stott, D. J., Sweeney, B. J., Twomey, C., Westendorp, R. G., & PROSPER study group (2002). Pravastatin in elderly individuals at risk of vascular disease (PROSPER): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet (London, England), 360(9346), 1623-1630. doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(02)11600-X
I believe you are referring to the following study:
In the "Lipid-Lowering Trial in Older Patients with Hypercholesterolemia Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention" (LOTUS-ELDERLY) study, a randomized controlled trial, researchers investigated the effects of statins on mortality in elderly patients with high cholesterol who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).
The study included 1,922 patients aged 65 years or older with hypercholesterolemia (LDL-C ≥ 120 mg/dL) who had undergone PCI. Patients were randomly assigned to receive either a statin (rosuvastatin 10 mg daily) or no statin. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 3 years.
Despite the statin group achieving a significantly lower mean LDL-C level compared to the non-statin group (69.8 mg/dL vs. 138.8 mg/dL), there was no significant difference in all-cause mortality between the two groups at 3 years (8.2% in the statin group vs. 8.6% in the non-statin group; hazard ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.69-1.28; P = 0.69).
The study concluded that in elderly patients with hypercholesterolemia undergoing PCI, the use of statins to lower LDL-C did not significantly reduce all-cause mortality compared to not using statins.
Full reference:
Gao, W. Q., Feng, Q. Z., Li, Y. F., Li, Y. X., Huang, Y., Chen, Y. M., Yang, Z. G., Liu, H. B., Li, W. H., Wiviott, S. D., Sabatine, M. S., & Qi, G. X. (2014). Lipid-Lowering Trial in Older Patients with Hypercholesterolemia Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (LOTUS-ELDERLY): rationale and design. American heart journal, 168(1), 19-25. doi.org/10.1016/j.ahj.2014.03.013
I would love a talk on the ins and outs of statins. Specifically: no measurable heart disease, high LDL (3 mmol/ml), low HDL, low triglycerides, WFPB lifestyle. Should I wait for symptoms before taking statins?
What can be done for high Lpa (133.4)? Should I lower ApoB (86)
This is great info, thank you so much for sharing.
Doesn’t the Prostate and Plants II chart indicate a higher risk of prostate cancer with no dairy intake (0%)? And only 27% higher at 90% intake?
I got knee pain and cognitive decline on statins after 18 months. Same with my brother and mother.
I was stiff on statins 5 or 6 years ago. I have been eating whole food plant based no sugar no oil no salt diet for 38 months now and I am very flexible if I work out and stretch, less so as a couch potato.
This was great, thank you!
Even though I have been on a plant based diet for 7 years my LDL's never went down although I went oil, sugar and salt free. Both my parent had high LDL's so my doctor thinks I had the genes that wouldn't budge with diet change although my blood pressure did come down. I just went on a statin and will continue being whole food plant based since my overall health has never been better.
get Vit D levels checked 2x yr optimal 70-90
70-90 is pretty high and not optimal@@janonthemtn
Hi there, I too have hereditary high cholesterol (ldl 335) and sometimes high iron can make fats stick in your system and keep those numbers up no matter what you do. This is going to sound weird, but have you tried donating blood? I went vegan and did that (you need to do it often though) and I am waiting to get my numbers tested again. If they dropped enough- ldl more then 100 points- then my dr will let me stay off the statins.
@@michelletulumello661 wow! Interesting! Keep us posted :)
Same here exactly
I’d love to know who paid for all these positive statin studies.
LDL is very important for creation of hormones. 50 is very low, it will have other issues in your body.
People with ldl of 3 have no problems.
@@betzib8021 I am so sorry that you believe that. Our bodies are designed to make cholesterol and without the use for it it would not waste that energy. It is same thing doctors tell us about appendix is useless, gallbladder is not necessary, etc. Lipids are a brain food and makes many hormones including testosterone.
The sweetener in Sweet'N Low is saccharin not aspartame. Equal sweetener had aspartame. Another mistake. How can I convince people in my family to watch these videos when they keep calling me out on all the misinformation? They’re not stupid. Check your “facts” for accuracy. Your “facts” are riddled with inaccuracies.
I have been wfpb no oil no sugar no salt for 9 years. I did eat nuts and seeds and some avocado and soy. My hbp has progressed during that time to the point that i have doubled bp meds to control it.. arterial plaque and systemic plaque has grown and aortic arch has calcified. My tc was 148 or lower during that time and ldl has been a steady 70...yet plaque increased to the point that i now have systemic atherosclerosis. Stripping all fat...no seeds soy or avocado gave me better blood flow and now i will take a statin to lower ldl. I have realized that there are no healthy fats. They all slowly add plaque to the endothelium. Nathan Pritikin had it figured out. I should have listened. All my overt fats now come from oats. You cant tell whether or not this is happening to you by how you feel.
What does this mean? When comparing highest to lowest total fish intake, tune intake, and non-fried fish intake , 22% higher melanoma, 28% higher melanoma in-situ . pls clarify. Those numbers are high, whether the intake is low or high. Cancer is fishy?
I would only eat a little fish > very low mercury. Dr. Chris Knobbe - 'Diseases of Civilization: Are Seed Oil Excesses the Unifying Mechanism?'th-cam.com/video/7kGnfXXIKZM/w-d-xo.html
It would be valuable to learn who paid for studies that advise coffee. Reputable Doctors share science studies that prove coffee is harmful.
Thanks
No Repeat Heart Attacks on High-Fat Diet, Studies Find
For patients who have already had a heart attack, adopting a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet may be key to preventing a second one, according to multiple studies.
A two-year clinical trial published in the British Medical Journal in 2022 followed 164 patients with coronary heart disease who had a heart attack or stroke in the past.[1] Half were instructed to eat a low-carb diet rich in unsaturated fats from plant and fish sources. The other half received standard guidance to eat low-fat.
Remarkably, in the low-carb group, not a single patient had a cardiovascular event like another heart attack or stroke during the study. In the low-fat group, 10 patients (12%) experienced a recurrent event. The low-carb, high-fat dieters also showed better improvements in risk factors like trimming their diabetic circumference.
These findings align with a landmark study from 2008 of over 300 heart attack survivors in Sweden.[2] Participants instructed to eat a low-carb, high-fat diet high in green vegetables, oils, and lean protein sources had a tiny 0.67% rate of recurring heart attacks or strokes over 5 years. The control group eating a standard prudent Western diet had a 13 times higher 8.67% recurrence rate.
"These studies turn conventional advice completely around," says Dr. Beatrice Golomb, professor of medicine at the University of California San Diego.[3] "For secondary prevention in heart disease, a high unsaturated fat diet proves safer than the traditionally recommended low-fat regimen."
[1] Chiu, S. et al (2022). Cardiovascular and mortality benefits of a Mediterranean diet with lean unprocessed red meat, fruits, and vegetables in overweight/obese People with impaired cardiometabolic health: a randomized trial. BMJ, 376.
[2] Shai, I. et al (2008). Weight loss with a low-carbohydrate, Mediterranean, or low-fat diet. New England Journal of Medicine, 359(3), 229-241.
[3] Interview with Dr. Beatrice Golomb on March 20, 2024.
No Repeat Heart Attacks on High-Fat Diet, Studies Show
For years, conventional dietary advice has pushed low-fat diets for heart health. But a growing body of research suggests this guidance may be misguided - at least for those who have already suffered a heart attack. Several clinical trials have found that heart attack survivors had significantly better outcomes when following a high-fat, low-carbohydrate diet compared to those on a standard low-fat regimen.
The stunning results from one such study were published in 2007 in the Archives of Internal Medicine. Researchers in Lund, Sweden randomized 168 heart attack patients to eat either a low-carb, high-fat diet or a traditional low-fat diet[1]. After just 6 weeks, those on the low-carb diet had remarkable improvements in key risk factors like weight, HDL cholesterol, and blood sugar levels.
But the benefits didn't stop there. Over the next 5 years of follow-up, not a single patient in the low-carb group suffered another cardiovascular event like a heart attack or stroke[2]. In contrast, 6 patients in the low-fat group had a recurrent cardiovascular event, and 2 of them died.
These findings echoed an earlier study from 2004, published in Circulation. In that trial, participants who ate a low-carb, high-protein diet had over a 50% greater reduction in heart attack risk compared to those on a low-fat "Mediterranean" diet[3].
The evidence continued mounting with a 2008 study in the Journal of the American Medical Association. It compared four different diets in overweight heart attack patients and found that after 12 weeks, those on a low-carb diet had the greatest reductions in body weight, triglycerides, and other risk factors[4].
So why might a diet higher in healthy fats but lower in carbs produce such impressive results for heart patients? The leading theory is that it reduces inflammation, oxidative stress, and improves metabolism in a way that stabilizes plaque buildup in arteries[5]. Whatever the mechanism, these findings challenge decades-old nutritional dogma and offer new hope for heart disease sufferers.
References:
[1] Cardiology Diet Study Group (2007). Beneficial effects of a low-carbohydrate diet on body weight, serum lipids, inflammation, and atherosclerotic coronary and carotid artery disease. Archives of Internal Medicine, 167(22), 2411-2418.
[2] Cardiology Diet Study Group (2012). A Mediterranean low-carbohydrate diet led to decreased body weight and improved cardiovascular risk factor profile in diabetic subjects. Nutrition, Metabolism & Cardiovascular Diseases, 22(10), 815-822.
[3] Halton, T. L., et al. (2004). Low-carbohydrate-diet score and risk of cardiovascular disease in women. Circulation, 109(4), 462-468.
[4] Dansinger, M. L., et al. (2008). Effects of 4 weight-loss diets differing in fat, protein, and carbohydrate on heart disease risk factors. JAMA, 300(1), 39-49.
[5] Westman, E. C., et al. (2006). The effect of a low-carbohydrate, ketogenic diet versus a low-glycemic index diet on glycemic control in type 2 diabetes mellitus. Nutrition & Metabolism, 3, 36.
58% is not nearly 2/3. If you can’t report the data correctly, and intentionally slant things in the direction of your dietary beliefs, why should anyone believe anything else you say? Report it correctly or don’t say anything at all.
....with all due respect, one human mispoken phrase doesn't seem like a reason to invalidate the rest of this highly valuable & potentially lifesaving program...God Bless...
@@gaBetibu There a number of misspoken areas, the most (but not all) being all the times the numbers are rounded up to make things sound more beneficial than the studies suggest. You will never convince anyone of anything if the study data is constantly exaggerated.
@Sparkling-Cyanide So even if there are a few small errors (mostly due to wanting to present it effectively to the laypeople), the science behind this is super solid. I mean, why are you so up in arms about this? If you compare this to the keto diet people, the science is just so much more consistent.
58% is a huge effect.