Septiembre 02, 2014, 03:45:47 am

Autor Tema: El colesterol malo no existe!  (Leído 2598 veces)

Elohim

  • Gran Colaborador
  • *
  • Mensajes: 835
  • La verdad esta dentro de ti, en la conciencia
    • Ver Perfil
El colesterol malo no existe!
« en: Abril 21, 2012, 11:17:44 pm »
There Is No Such Thing As Bad Cholesterol

13 March 2012

from OfficeOfMedicalAndScientificJustice Website

http://www.omsj.org/

 Perhaps one of the biggest health myths propagated in western culture and certainly in the United States, is the correlation between elevated cholesterol and cardiovascular disease (CVD).

 

Unfortunately, despite dozens of studies, cholesterol has not been shown to actually cause CVD. To the contrary, cholesterol is vital to our survival, and trying to artificially lower it can have detrimental effects, particularly as we age.

Cholesterol seems to be one of those things that strikes fear into the hearts of many, so to speak. We have become obsessed with eating foods low in cholesterol and fat. Ask almost anyone, and they can tell you their cholesterol levels.

What is certain is that the 'little knowledge' that the media often imparts means many folks assume cholesterol is simply a 'bad' thing.

 

Alternately, a good number of us may have heard the terms 'good' cholesterol and 'bad' cholesterol bandied about without knowing much about what this really means. In fact it is a fairly safe bet that if you asked anyone on the street for his or her instinctive response, if asked about cholesterol, they would probably say that we simply need to 'reduce it'.

The 'noddy-science' offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help 'reduce cholesterol'.

 

Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a 'typical ordinary' product might cost. But is this apparent 'blanket need' to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy?

For anyone who has had the official diagnosis of 'high cholesterol' in their bloodstream, they may even have embarked upon a program of medicinal intervention. In fact it is quite likely that they may have joined the legions of long-term pill-poppers who are already lining the pockets of the profit-oriented pharmaceutical giants.

But let's take a moment, now, to review some of the facts and fallacies about the much-maligned substance: cholesterol.

Cholesterol is needed to make hormones.

Without it we would not produce estrogen, progesterone or testosterone.

It is vital for the functioning of nerve synapses and provides the structural integrity for our cell membranes.

Cholesterol is used by the skin to help prevent water evaporation and to make our skin waterproof.

Vitamin D is synthesized from cholesterol.

And bile, used for fat digestion, consists mostly of cholesterol.

The liver produces about 90 percent of the cholesterol in our bodies; only 10 percent comes from diet.

If we eat too much cholesterol, the liver decreases the output of cholesterol.

Cholesterol is a naturally occurring lipid.

 

This means it is a type of fat or oil and it is in fact an essential component in creating and sustaining the membranes of the cells of all bodily tissues. So this alone means we need cholesterol to survive! Most of the cholesterol that is found in our bodies is actually naturally manufactured within our own cells.

 

However there is also an additional contribution that we get from external 'nutritional' sources - the foods we consume.

 

In a typical diet providing around 400mg of cholesterol per day from food sources, about half to two-thirds of this amount is actually absorbed through the process of digestion. The body will normally secrete about a gram (1000mg) of cholesterol per day into the bile via the ducts, and approximately three-fifths of this is then re-absorbed.

Where our tissues or organs are a particularly dense complex of cells, which have closely packed cell membranes, there will naturally be higher levels of cholesterol. The key organs that need, and contain, these higher amounts of cholesterol include the liver, the brain and the spinal cord - none of which would work well if we reduced cholesterol too much!

In effect cholesterol plays an essential role in the development and maintenance of healthy cell walls. It is also a critical factor in the synthesizing of steroid hormones, which are a key factor in our natural physical development.

Being a lipid, cholesterol is fat-soluble, but it is not soluble in blood. However it needs to be transported around the body to the places where it can be utilized.

 

This is why, in order to be moved around, it must become 'associated' with certain lipoproteins which feature a water-soluble (therefore 'blood transportable') coat of proteins.

 

There are two key types of lipoproteins that transport cholesterol around the body: low-density and high-density variants. The essential cellular function of cholesterol requires that sufficient amounts are manufactured by specialized sub-systems (or organelles) within the body's cells called the endoplasmic reticulum. Alternatively, the cholesterol we need must be derived from our diet.

 

During the process of 'digestion and assimilation' of foods, it is the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) that carries dietary cholesterol from the liver to various parts of the body.

When there is sufficient cholesterol for cellular needs, the other key transport mechanism in this amazing 'logistics system' - high-density lipoprotein (HDL) - can take cholesterol back to the liver from where any unnecessary excess can be processed for excretion.

The 'noddy-science' of the so-called 'functional food' manufacturers would have us believe that there is such a thing as 'bad' cholesterol and 'good' cholesterol. This is, in fact, totally untrue. The cholesterol itself, whether being transported by LDL or HDL, is exactly the same.

 

Cholesterol is simply a necessary ingredient that is required to be regularly delivered around the body for the efficient healthy development, maintenance and functioning of our cells. The difference is in the 'transporters' (the lipoproteins HDL and LDL) and both types are essential for the human body's delivery logistics to work effectively.

Problems can occur, however, when the LDL particles are both small and their carrying capacity outweighs the transportation potential of available HDL. This can lead to more cholesterol being 'delivered' around the body with lower resources for returning excess capacity to the liver.

LDL can vary in its structure and occur in particles of varying size. It is the smaller LDL particle sizes that can easily become 'trapped' in the arteries by proteoglycans, which is, itself, a kind of 'filler' found between the cells in all animal and human bodies. This can then cause the cholesterol the LDL carries to contribute to the formation of fatty deposits called 'plaques' (a process known as atherogenesis).

 

As these deposits build up, they restrict the arteries' width and flexibility. This causes an increase in blood pressure and can also lead to other cardiovascular problems such as heart attacks or strokes.

The LDL itself is consequently sometimes referred to as 'bad cholesterol', but you can now appreciate the fact that this is simply incorrect. In fact LDL, HDL and cholesterol are all essential to our health.

 

However, it seems that it has become common for humans to have a preponderance of 'unhealthily' small LDL particles, which can become a precursor to heart and arterial disease due to the mechanisms described. It is apparently healthier to have a smaller number of larger LDL particles carrying the same quantity of cholesterol than a large number of small LDL particles might transport, but for some reason this is less common. This is an interesting area that demands more research.

When LDL becomes retained by the glycol-proteins in the arteries it is subject to being oxidized by 'free radicals'.

 

This is when the process can become health threatening. It has therefore been suggested that increasing the amount of antioxidants in our diet might effectively 'mop up' free radicals, and consequently reduce this harmful oxidation. Although the idea of consuming foods rich in antioxidants, or even using supplements, is now widely promoted, the scientific evidence for their efficacy still remains to be fully established.

Another point to consider is the occurrence of substances called 'very-low-density-lipids' or VLDL, also known as triglycerides. VLDL is converted to LDL in the bloodstream and therefore contributes towards increased levels of LDL and to subsequent potential cholesterol-related health problems.

 

This is why triglycerides are usually measured when a cholesterol test of your blood is undertaken.

The production of VLDL in the liver - which amounts to a combination of cholesterol and low-density apolipoprotein - is exacerbated by the intake of fructose. Fructose is the type of sugar found in many fruits, it is also a component of sucrose and of the widely used food ingredient high-fructose corn syrup.

 

This implies that anyone whose LDL or triglyceride levels are unduly high should cut back on those sweet sugary snacks, and even on the sweeter, fructose laden fruits; not simply reduce their intake of fatty foods!

Vitamin B3, otherwise known as niacin, on the other hand, actually lowers the amount of VLDL, and therefore also LDL. In addition, niacin helps to stimulate the production of helpful HDL, the lipoprotein that carries excess cholesterol back to the liver for excretion.

 

However, in keeping with the best traditions of consuming 'all things in moderation', currently recommended upper limits for daily intake of niacin is 35mg, given that it can have toxic effects in larger amounts.

 

Even so, medical professionals have been known to prescribe niacin in doses as high as 2g, up to three times a day, for treatment of those with dangerously high blood cholesterol levels. Naturally you should never self-medicate with high doses of niacin without taking appropriate medical advice.

Niacin in the diet is typically derived from high protein foods including liver and other meats, as well as significant amounts being found in certain nuts and whole grains.

However one of the fashionable types of pharmaceutical drugs of recent times, introduced to treat the apparently increasing incidence of high cholesterol levels particularly in the West, are Statins.

 

Most likely you have a friend or relative taking these useless drugs (Lipitor, Mevecor, Crestor, etc.) to lower cholesterol. Statin medications are the number-one-selling drugs in the world. They work by interfering with the liver function and reducing the production of LDL.

 

But Statins are a questionable innovation on at least a couple of accounts. Firstly they are not without side-effects: they can, for example, lead to the breakdown of major muscular material, which can ultimately overwhelm the kidneys and even cause acute renal failure.

Statins also appear to reduce the body's natural levels of the vitamin-like, cellular protection agent known as Co-enzyme Q10. This benzoquinone plays an important role in cellular energy release, particularly in hard worked areas like the lungs, liver and heart.

 

CoQ10 (as it is sometimes called) has also been shown to protect the brain against neurological degeneration. But perhaps most interestingly, with respect to cholesterol, CoQ10 also acts as an antioxidant, particularly active in protecting the system against LDL oxidation and the potential problems associated with this as described above.

 

So whilst Statins might provide a reduction in LDL per se, they might also be causing more problems in the long-term. Naturally, as with many modern drugs, they generally have to be taken for the long-term by anyone who has been prescribed them.

What is particularly disturbing about Statins is, perhaps, the fact that they may be seen as a 'quick fix' for unhealthily high LDL, and consequently cholesterol levels throughout the body. They need to be taken over a long period - which makes them very profitable for drugs manufacturers.

 

But they may also be prescribed without the over-arching message that in order to address any cholesterol problem 'naturally', the sufferer must change their lifestyle and diet.

 

Statins can seem an easy option but may indeed merely be the beginning of a process where the 'negative health pay-off' is simply delayed rather than actively defused!

 

That is not to say that in extreme cases of high blood cholesterol, or hypercholesterolemia, there may not be a useful role for Statin therapy when natural strategies fail or do not prove effective, or feasible.

In truth, and in summary, cholesterol is an important and essential substance that we need for health at a cellular level.

 

It is most likely that any imbalance in our cholesterol transport system comes down to long-term poor dietary and exercise habits. Ensuring that we consume some extra anti-oxidant foods, along with including niacin rich foods, might well be of benefit.

 

But it is perhaps most important to recognize that deliberate and continued levels of activity and the consumption of a healthful diet is a better solution than questionable quick-fix drugs, if we ever are diagnosed with levels of cholesterol and triglycerides that might give cause for concern.


Dr. Ron Rosedale On The Facts About Cholesterol

Dr. Ron Rosedale talks about common cholesterol myths, and exposes the deceptions and misconceptions that most people have been told.

(Interview with Dr. Mercola).

Exposing the Cholesterol Myth



Elohim

  • Gran Colaborador
  • *
  • Mensajes: 835
  • La verdad esta dentro de ti, en la conciencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:El colesterol malo no existe!
« Respuesta #1 en: Abril 21, 2012, 11:21:32 pm »
'Bad' Cholesterol Not As Bad as People Think

-   Shows Texas A&M Study   -

May 4, 2011

from TexasA&MUniversity Website

 Contact

Steve Riechman at (979) 862-3213 or sriechman@hlkn.tamu.edu

or Keith Randall, News & Information Services, at (979) 845-4644 or keith-randall@tamu.edu

COLLEGE STATION

The so-called “bad cholesterol” - low-density lipoprotein commonly called LDL - may not be so bad after all, shows a Texas A&M University study that casts new light on the cholesterol debate, particularly among adults who exercise.

Steve Riechman, a researcher in the Department of Health and Kinesiology, says the study reveals that LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years and that new attitudes need to be adopted in regards to the substance.

 

His work, with help from colleagues from,

the University of Pittsburgh

Kent State University

the Johns Hopkins Weight Management Center

the Northern Ontario School of Medicine,

...is published in the Journal of Gerontology.

Riechman and colleagues examined 52 adults from ages to 60 to 69 who were in generally good health but not physically active, and none of them were participating in a training program.

 

The study showed that after fairly vigorous workouts, participants who had gained the most muscle mass also had the highest levels of LDL (bad) cholesterol,

“a very unexpected result and one that surprised us."

 

“It shows that you do need a certain amount of LDL to gain more muscle mass. There’s no doubt you need both - the LDL and the HDL - and the truth is, it (cholesterol) is all good. You simply can’t remove all the ‘bad’ cholesterol from your body without serious problems occurring."

It's perhaps one of the biggest health myths propagated in western culture and certainly in the United States.

 

Unfortunately, despite dozens of studies, cholesterol has not been shown to actually cause cardiovascular disease as doctors tell us. To the contrary, cholesterol is vital to our survival, and trying to artificially lower it can have detrimental effects, particularly as we age.

The 'noddy-science' offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help 'reduce cholesterol'. Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a 'typical ordinary' product might cost.

 

But is this apparent 'blanket need' to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified? And, indeed, is it healthy? For anyone who has had the official diagnosis of 'high cholesterol' in their bloodstream, they may even have embarked upon a program of medicinal intervention.

 

In fact it is quite likely that they may have joined the legions of long-term pill-poppers who are already lining the pockets of the profit-oriented pharmaceutical giants.
 



cholesterol plaque in an artery

 
Cholesterol is found in all humans and is a type of fat around the body.

 A person’s total cholesterol level is comprised of LDL (low-density lipoprotein) and HDL (high-density lipoprotein) cholesterol.

HDL, usually called the “good cholesterol,” often helps remove cholesterol from arteries.

“But here is where people tend to get things wrong,” Riechman says.

“LDL serves a very useful purpose. It acts as a warning sign that something is wrong and it signals the body to these warning signs. It does its job the way it is supposed to.

“People often say, ‘I want to get rid of all my bad (LDL) cholesterol,’ but the fact is, if you did so, you would die,” the Texas A&M professor adds.

 

“Everyone needs a certain amount of both LDL and HDL in their bodies. We need to change this idea of LDL always being the evil thing - we all need it, and we need it to do its job.”

According to the American Heart Association, about 36 million American adults have high cholesterol levels.

“Our tissues need cholesterol, and LDL delivers it,” he notes. “HDL, the good cholesterol, cleans up after the repair is done. And the more LDL you have in your blood, the better you are able to build muscle during resistance training.”

Riechman says the study could be helpful in looking at a condition called sarcopenia, which is muscle loss due to aging.

 

 

Huffines Discussion 2011

Dr. Steve Riechman, Texas A&M University
by Tim Lightfoot

September 9, 2011

from HuffinesInstitute Website


The Huffines Discussion is where great speakers and leaders in Sports Medicine talk about the future in a manner understandable to all.

Today's talk is from Dr. Steve Riechman, Texas A&M University, who talks about "Eat More Cholesterol for Your Health and Strength". This is a great talk that may challenge many of the beliefs you may have about cholesterol.

 

Click here for Dr. Riechman's bio.


http://blip.tv/almck/riechman_cholesterol-6078281

 
Previous studies show muscle is usually lost at a rate of 5 percent per decade after the age of 40, a huge concern since muscle mass is the major determinant of physical strength.

 

After the age of 60, the prevalence of moderate to severe sarcopenia is found in about 65 percent of all men and about 30 percent of all women, and it accounts for more than $18 billion of health care costs in the United States.

“The bottom line is that LDL - the bad cholesterol - serves as a reminder that something is wrong and we need to find out what it is,” Riechman says.

“It gives us warning signs. Is smoking the problem, is it diet, is it lack of exercise that a person’s cholesterol is too high? It plays a very useful role, does the job it was intended to do, and we need to back off by always calling it ‘bad’ cholesterol because it is not totally bad.”

Elohim

  • Gran Colaborador
  • *
  • Mensajes: 835
  • La verdad esta dentro de ti, en la conciencia
    • Ver Perfil
Re:El colesterol malo no existe!
« Respuesta #2 en: Abril 21, 2012, 11:24:01 pm »


by Marco Torres

April 10, 2012
from PreventDisease Website

We have become a culture so obsessed with eating foods low in cholesterol and fat that many health experts are now questioning the consequences.

 Could we really maintain a dietary lifestyle that was so foreign to many of our ancestral populations without any ill effects on our health? Many researchers are now concluding that the answer to that question is "NO."

 Current data is now suggesting that lower cholesterol levels predate the development of cancer.

What is certain is that the 'little knowledge' that the media often imparts means many folks assume cholesterol is simply a 'bad' thing. Alternately, a good number of us may have heard the terms 'good' cholesterol and 'bad' cholesterol bandied about without knowing much about what this really means.

In fact it is a fairly safe bet that if you asked anyone on the street for his or her instinctive response, if asked about cholesterol, they would probably say that we simply need to 'reduce it'.
 

Noddy Science

The 'noddy-science' offered by marketing men to a generally scientifically-naive public has led many people to believe that we should replace certain food choices with specially developed products that can help 'reduce cholesterol'.

Naturally this comes at a price and requires those who can afford it to pay maybe four or five times what a 'typical ordinary' product might cost.

But is this apparent 'blanket need' to strive towards lowering our cholesterol justified?

And, indeed, is it healthy?

Steve Riechman, a researcher in the Department of Health and Kinesiology, says the study reveals that LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years and that new attitudes need to be adopted in regards to the substance.


Cancer

Does cancer cause low levels of LDL cholesterol, or are lower levels of LDL cholesterol a precursor to the development of cancer?

 New data from the Framingham Heart Study (FHS) offspring cohort help shed light on the question, mainly by eliminating the reverse-causality hypothesis that cancer is responsible for significantly lower serum concentrations of LDL cholesterol.

"The question we wanted to address is whether low cholesterol happens when the cancer is already there or is it there before the cancer develops," lead investigator Dr Paul Michael Lavigne (Tufts Medical Center, Boston, MA) told heartwire.

"Based on these data, it would suggest that lower cholesterol predated the development of cancer by quite a long time. Now, that doesn't necessarily speak to [low cholesterol] causing the cancer; it could have been related to something else altogether, but it's not supportive of the hypothesis that cancer caused the low levels of LDL cholesterol. We don't know why it predates cancer, but it would be premature to attribute it to the cancer itself."

Presenting at the American College of Cardiology 2012 Scientific Sessions, Lavigne said the association between serum cholesterol levels and cancer incidence was first documented more than 30 years ago.

 More recently, a 2007 meta-analysis by Drs Alawi Alsheikh-Ali and Richard Karas (Tufts University School of Medicine, Boston, MA) showed there was a "significant and linear relationship" between LDL levels achieved and risk of new cancer cases.

Another study published in 2008 by the same researchers showed a similar relationship between low LDL-cholesterol levels and incident cancer.

"Most of the studies that have previously addressed this issue have looked at the relationship at one point in time," said Lavigne. "It's really difficult to trend the values to determine, for instance, if the cancer and control patients had cholesterol values that were the same, but then there was a preclinical cancer that caused a divergence.

 In our study, while the difference between the two groups was relatively modest, the relationship between [controls and cancer patients] was consistent, which means that whatever relationship was there was likely present before any cancer would have developed. In a sense, the lower LDL-cholesterol levels that were there predate any occurrence of cancer."


http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/salud/salud_cholesterol01.htm#There Is No Such Thing As Bad Cholesterol