Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18893)	8/21/2010 9:14:03 PM
From: Brumar89	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

You berate her for alleged amateur analysis: If you want to manage your health with amateur analysis, be my guest... after having given your own amateur advice: You want to boost your HDL?.., exercise and red wine I guess that means walk home from the liquor store and only buy the red wine: ghettowine.com drinksmixer.com "Purple Jesus"! - now I get your crack from last week about getting drunk on Jesus meant: drinksmixer.com Message 26755510 From: J_F_Shepard Read Replies (2) of 582007 Drunk on Jesus....

To: J_F_Shepard who wrote (18893)	8/22/2010 9:34:32 AM
From: Lane3	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

"although it is losing ground to HDL" you have a source on this?? Everything I have written on this topic is off the top of my head. I have been closely following this topic for years by reviewing new information contemporaneously. I carefully evaluate every source I read before I store any conclusions. While I don't bother to retain the underlying detail, including the sources, I do remember the broad factors because that's what's useful to me. I don't store up the evidence for purpose of persuading anyone else and I understand that my writings aren't adequate to support an alternative path, only to disturb the standard path. It is not my place to influence others, only to make my own best determinations for my own health and to make my own judgments on the effects on public policy. What you personally choose to do is none of my business or concern. I already gave you the best evidence I have in my memory banks for the change in focus from LDL to HDL--the fact that the criteria for metabolic syndrome have changed fairly recently. The lipid element therein is no longer based on LDL but on HDL. You can find the competing sets of criteria for metabolic syndrome on Wiki. You won't find LDL mentioned. You'll just have to take my word for it that they once referenced LDL. Or not. I don't care. I'm not going to retrospectively research this just so that I can give you links. If anything I have written gives you pause, then look into it, otherwise you can continue to genuflect in front of the message on your doctor's wall. If you do decide to look into it, you might start by looking at the sub-elements of LDL and the tests for them, as I have already mentioned. Just as total cholesterol, the original bugaboo, has been set aside in favor of its sub-elements, including HDL and LDL, the sub-elements of LDL are now getting the attention. Turns out that, just as there is "good" and "bad" cholesterol, there is better and worse LDL. Further, it matters whether the LDL is oxidized or not. If all you're getting back from your blood tests is total LDL, and a roughly calculated LDL rather than measured LDL to boot, then you and your doctor don't have all the facts. Saturated fat raises HDL?? That's what I wrote; that's what I meant. Did a quick google and found a source in the very first link returned. Don't know if it's the best source, only that it popped up first. It's from a metastudy of 27 studies. "All fatty acids elevated HDL cholesterol when substituted for carbohydrates, but the effect diminished with increasing unsaturation of the fatty acids." ncbi.nlm.nih.gov I'm getting the impression you're objective here is to be a contrarian, with little value added... If you want to manage your health with amateur analysis, be my guest... "...you're objective here..."--nice Freudian slip. Yes, I think I'm pretty objective most of the time. <g> But I'm sure you meant "..your objective here..." Whether being contrarian is of value is a function of whether or not the standard being contradicted is valid or not. Sure, being contrary for the sake of being contrary is of no value. But if a challenge highlights a wrong path, then it is of great value. As for my objective, it's definitely not to give you medical advice. This colloquy started when I made a simple statement on the topic of public policy, the topic of this thread, regarding the overuse of some drugs in establishment medicine and you challenged my conclusion of overuse. All I have since written was to be as responsive as I could be to your questions (without doing a lot of useless work) by explaining my reasoning. I made a statement and I have responded to defend the reasonableness of said statement, nothing more. If you want to manage your health with amateur analysis, be my guest... If you want to follow the pied piper, so be it.