Sorry. That was a much too flippant response. Yes, the claims were
that the HDL/LDL ratio was important since HDL was supposed to scavenge
the LDL from the sites of potential arterial plaques. That has since
changed to place the blame on not just any LDL but on "small particle"
LDL. For a rebuttal of the LDL hypothesis I give you Dr. Malcolm
Kendrick. A very irreverent Scottish physician.
<http://www.thincs.org/Malcolm.choltheory.htm>
Chuck Norcutt
On 9/19/2011 12:23 PM, Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> Good! Prove it!
>
> Chuck Norcutt
>
>
> On 9/19/2011 10:58 AM, Chris Trask wrote:
>> <<SNIP>>
>>
>>>
>>> But she is correct for all women of any age and for all men of
>>> other than middle age. That is, there is no study anywhere the
>>> shows that women of any age benefit from reduction of cholesterol.
>>> Likewise, there is no study anywhere that shows a benefit from
>>> reduction of cholesterol for the elderly, ie; above the age of
>>> 60-65. In fact, the available studies I'm aware of (Univ.
>>> California at San Diego and Univ. of Hawaii, Leiden Univ.) show
>>> exactly the opposite... the higher your cholesterol the longer you
>>> live. But Univ. of Hawaii remains at least politically correct.
>>>
>>
>> <<SNIP>>
>>
>> Do these studies break the cholesterol down into HDL and LDL? There
>> is a significant difference in health and longevity on the basis of
>> these two groups.
>>
>> Chris
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|