Argan oil has a light yellow colour with a strong flavour and is extracted from the seeds containing the bones inside the fruit. These seeds are roasted and ground to achieve a kind of honey, which is kept for a week until it dries. After this, oil pulp is extracted. This work is usually done on a small scale by women. The most common method is to collect the ripe fruits under the tree when they have already fallen.
The cholesterol debate
- Thread starter Syzygys
- Start date
Yes you are making progeress. Your old ratio was 288/63 = 4.57 but now is 201/64 = 3.14 so you have gone from slightly more than average risk to less than half the average male's risk
Note also that as usual they only calculate your total. I.e. (74/5) + 64 +122 = 200.8 which they made 201.
Note also the ratio is 1+ LdL/HdL +TriG./(5HdL) so getting much lower than mine is very hard. As the last term is small* the ratio is approximately 1+ LdL/HdL for people doing well.
* In your latest data case, only 0.23 of your 3.14 ratio. I.e. that last term is less than 8% so approximate value is a good quick index you can do in your head. Even easier is to note that half the risk level of ratio is 3.4 so if LdL/HdL is less than 2.4 you are doing very well (~ half the male risk of less)
I am doing research and ran into this I posted 2 years ago. Since it deserves its own thread, I might start a new one about it, but right now I am very intrigued of the prospect of naturally decreasing plaque build up...
Whats your hold up ? Start the thread
Well, I have found a European researcher (not a doctor) who claims to have vaccination against Atherosclerosis. Mind you he calims that this actually not just stops the plaque build up but reverses the process. i am still investigating the claim and I also found Americans who claim at least stopping it. The interesting thing is that nobody has
followed up on this Iodo-niacin and all the quotes refer to the same study, but it is hard to find the original study.
followed up on this Iodo-niacin and all the quotes refer to the same study, but it is hard to find the original study.
So the numbers 6 months ago were:
This time the nurse only gave me the Tryg and the total number so the other 2 were guessed:
Total: 231
Tryg:95
LDL: 152
HDL: 60
I ran out of Lovaza 3 weeks before the test and substituted it with normal fish oil, so I was expecting worse results than the previous one. Still, the really important tryg number is still nicely down, although the total went up by 15%, but as we know that is a rather meaningless number....
This time the nurse only gave me the Tryg and the total number so the other 2 were guessed:
Total: 231
Tryg:95
LDL: 152
HDL: 60
I ran out of Lovaza 3 weeks before the test and substituted it with normal fish oil, so I was expecting worse results than the previous one. Still, the really important tryg number is still nicely down, although the total went up by 15%, but as we know that is a rather meaningless number....
from post 46 (or 47?): More important than cholesterol, for all ages, is the ratio of total cholesterol to HDL. If this ratio is 3.4 a male has half the average risk of coronary heart disease. Less is even better. My TC/HDL ratio about a year ago was only 2.86. If ratio is 4.4 your risk is average for males. If it is 7.1 your risk is twice the average of males."
Thus 224 /65 = 3.446 so that is slightly more than half the average risk of males.
Less, not more. 3.4 is less than 4.4 So I am on the right side of average males.
By the way making a ratio of components containing both sides is not particulary smart. An LDL/HDL ratio makes sense but a TC/HDL doesn't because there is the HDL component in the TC side too.
In addition:
"According to the American Heart Association (AHA), you should keep your cholesterol ratio at or below 5:1. The ideal cholesterol ratio is about 3.5:1."
http://www.webmd.com/cholesterol-management/finding-the-ideal-cholesterol-ratio?page=2
Mine is below that, so no problem with the ratio...
You are correct of course. My error.
It is not a question of "smart" or "making sense." The study it was based on just had that ratio as the best predictor. The study was by far the larges and longest ever done. The whole town, almost, was followed in some cases for 3+ decades! (as I recall -too lazy to review it again), but I still have the published paper it closed with.
From post 47:"This data is based on huge (5,127 people mostly men - 50% of the town´s population) long-term (started in 1949) study of most males living in an English town (Framingham). The paper giving results has more than 300 citations by other reserachers. The study, briefly called "population at risk" or "the Framingham study" was published here:
Am. J. Medicine. 1986 vol. 80 (sup A2) by W.P.Castelli & K. Anderson."
I know about the Framingham study. To counter that, let's throw this fact in: Half of the people suffering CHD has normal or low cholesterol numbers.
So go figure...
My Framingham Risk Score for the next 10 years is 3%... (this is not a prediction, just a probability)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Risk_Score#Framingham_Risk_Score_for_Men
So go figure...
My Framingham Risk Score for the next 10 years is 3%... (this is not a prediction, just a probability)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Framingham_Risk_Score#Framingham_Risk_Score_for_Men
Now they are saying, women have a higher risk than men:
http://www.healthcentral.com/dailyd...disease_risk_factors_greater_for_women_blacks
"A new study from the American Heart Association highlights who is at risk for cardiovascular disease. The results, published in Circulation, show women are at a higher risk for heart disease than men, and African-Americans have an increased risk compared to white people."
The Framingham study said the opposite, a 60 years old man had the same chance for heart attack as an 80 years old woman... By the way, interesting note but Framingham has a quite big Brazilian population...
http://www.healthcentral.com/dailyd...disease_risk_factors_greater_for_women_blacks
"A new study from the American Heart Association highlights who is at risk for cardiovascular disease. The results, published in Circulation, show women are at a higher risk for heart disease than men, and African-Americans have an increased risk compared to white people."
The Framingham study said the opposite, a 60 years old man had the same chance for heart attack as an 80 years old woman... By the way, interesting note but Framingham has a quite big Brazilian population...
New year, new check up, pretty much the same numbers:
Total: 230
LDL: 147
HDL: 69
Tryg: 69
Doctor tried to push the statin solution, I politely pushed it back. The ratio is excellent, the trygs number is low, nothing to worry about.
One thing occurred to me about Lovaza usage, because it does rise the "bad" LDL. Since the tryg number divided by 5 added into the total cholesterol number and Lovaza drops the tryg number but increases LDL, the math is pretty simple:
The increase in LDL has to be less than the drop in Tryg/5 to make it worthwhile, if one just looks at the total. Since I care less about the total and more about the Tryg, I am happy, but this is something to keep in mind. Also there is a competitor to Lovaza that doesn't increase LDL...
Total: 230
LDL: 147
HDL: 69
Tryg: 69
Doctor tried to push the statin solution, I politely pushed it back. The ratio is excellent, the trygs number is low, nothing to worry about.
One thing occurred to me about Lovaza usage, because it does rise the "bad" LDL. Since the tryg number divided by 5 added into the total cholesterol number and Lovaza drops the tryg number but increases LDL, the math is pretty simple:
The increase in LDL has to be less than the drop in Tryg/5 to make it worthwhile, if one just looks at the total. Since I care less about the total and more about the Tryg, I am happy, but this is something to keep in mind. Also there is a competitor to Lovaza that doesn't increase LDL...
Great. Even better than your pot 61 data in the most important ratio: Total /HDL = 3&1/3 now. I'm with you: "If ain't broke don't fix it." Doctors and drug companies are not "disinterested" advice givers.*
that Total /HDL ratio for me on 19 May 2014 was slightly better than yours: At 3.18 but much worse than several years ago when it was 2.86 - see earlier post but still we have less than half the males's risk. I will need to dig my copy of the study to see is getting worse as I age is standard.
* I'm reminded of what daddy doctor said to recent MD son (also a dermatologist) when he return from month's vacation for first time he could take long one and leave his son in charge of the office.
Son greeted Dad with: "Guess what: I cured rich Mr. Jones's chronic problem."
Dad to son: "You idiot! Who do you think paid for your MD degree? My retirement yacht was next."
Before I decided I did not want to take over my MD's father's financially poor practice** but study physic in college instead, he had told me I should become a dermatologist, as their patient never dies of a skin disease and never get well with normal care.
** He was a very good "God fearing " man*** and doctor - half his patient in West Virginia paid in jars of pickles, etc but in deer season he got so much venison that it filled a rented cold storage locker with meat for the year. He only paid for the parts if car needed service, etc. In his younger days, rode horse back into the hills to treat the sick or deliver a baby. Most in US now go into medicine as it is a sure fire path to wealth. Not so in most advanced countires where doctors are more like my dad - Want to serve the sick and know they will be working on salary for the public health system, but can take 15 or 20 minutes to carefully examine the patient, with no financial loss. In US most doctors use many assistants so they can spend less than 6 minutes per patient and "treat" about 12 per hour as that is directly reflected in in their pay. The AMA limits the supply of doctors as they have gotten most (all I think) state legislature to require the AMA to certify "need" of new medical school before one can be built - Even then, it would be nearly impossible to staff it with teachers, except foreign trained MDs who can not legally practice in the USA, as not trained in AMA certified Med school.
*** not like agnostic fun-loving me. We were so "cash poor" that I earned a "full needs" scholarship to Cornell, and washed dishes in a frat house for my meals. Earned some pocket money by baby sitting (great job you can study at)**** and some repair of lab equipment. Once I was "practiced dunked" under water in a metal chair for less than a minute each time and earned $50 in a few hours! Some grad students were going to weigh old people above and below the water to measure their fat content accurately. They needed to practice and make a brief movie to show the old people. I smiled smiled and said "that was fun / easy" when pulled up. Same group wanted to exclusively feed me for a month, but I said no - I'll continue to wash dishes, rather than bring each shit back to them.
**** My POV was: "Hell, if any thing serious were wrong, the baby would cry louder than that," I'll check soon if it dose not stop. My clients, lived in an apartment complex just across the street. They liked me as they could call at last minute and I would come immediately, or send an also poor fraternity brother I paid extra too, if need be.
Last edited by a moderator:
Beside the statin she also tried to push a blood pressure lowering med. First the nurse measure my BP, and it was like 125/80 perfectly normal. Then when the doctor showed up like 10 minutes later she measured it too, but I was talking during the procedure and probably I was enthusiastic, since I only see her once a year. Anyhow of course the BP was higher for the second time. I still don't get why she measured if the nurse already did it.
By the way there are perfectly natural BP lowering supplements, like Hawthorn...Cheap, and no side effects...
By the way there are perfectly natural BP lowering supplements, like Hawthorn...Cheap, and no side effects...
My, my my.... The government is finally changing its view on dietary cholesterol and going to drop the food guidelines. What we have been saying in this thread years ago...
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...gstanding-warnings-about-dietary-cholesterol/
As the man famously said before stepping out in front of a speeding truck...
The article you referenced doesn't negate government warnings about the dangers of high cholesterol. It simply acknowledges what has been suspected and commonly accepted, that blood cholesterol levels are not correlated with diet but with genetics. My physician has long held that hyperlipidemia is more genetic than dietary. For those who have problems with taking Lipitor, there is a new generation of drugs coming onto the market which address the short comings found in Lipitor and other statin drugs. I have been on Lipitor for more than a decade and have been just fine with it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/pharmalot/2014/09/02/what-doctors-are-saying-about-those-new-cholesterol-meds/
Last edited:
Well, the government had dietary guidelines. My doctor 2 years ago gave me a list of foods to be avoided. That list goes out the window. Not to mention that the ass responsible for the whole lipid theory Ancel Keys even acknowledged back in the 90s that "dietary cholesterol has no effect on blood serum cholesterol levels."
So why the hell did we have these government guidelines in the first place???
And yes, high cholesterol itself is not a tracer for CVD. High Tryg with high low density LDL (almost never measured) are...
Instead of Lipitor, you could have taken an anti-inflammatory suppliment, that would have been cheaper and healthier for you. Statins mostly work because they do have anti-inflammatory properties, not because they lower Cholesterol.
If you still taking Lipitor, I advise you to take CoQ10 enzime with it. Now even big pharma recognized that statins take away this important enzime from the heart muscle, thus making you more suspectible to heart disease. So they are selling statins WITH CoQ10 included. Most doctors never heard of this....
http://www.healthline.com/health/coq10-and-statins#Overview1
So why the hell did we have these government guidelines in the first place???
And yes, high cholesterol itself is not a tracer for CVD. High Tryg with high low density LDL (almost never measured) are...
Instead of Lipitor, you could have taken an anti-inflammatory suppliment, that would have been cheaper and healthier for you. Statins mostly work because they do have anti-inflammatory properties, not because they lower Cholesterol.
If you still taking Lipitor, I advise you to take CoQ10 enzime with it. Now even big pharma recognized that statins take away this important enzime from the heart muscle, thus making you more suspectible to heart disease. So they are selling statins WITH CoQ10 included. Most doctors never heard of this....
http://www.healthline.com/health/coq10-and-statins#Overview1