What are you reading in 2023?

[JaneV2.0]

The Dietitian's Dilemma, by Michelle Hurn, in which an iconoclastic professional takes on the establishment with mixed results. One of the more interesting facts I learned while reading it is that LDL is a powerful promoter of a healthy immune system. "There are several studies that suggest higher levels of LDL actually protect us against infection. As we age, preventing infection is one component to ensuring longevity."

Further, "Let’s take a look at what the data says. A study involving 347 individuals, all older than 65 years of age, found that low total cholesterol was a significant predictor of death due to nonvascular causes. Those with high cholesterol had half the risk of dying within the referenced population. (12) Higher cholesterol levels were directly related to elderly people living longer. This is the opposite of what we are taught in our health care system."

[catherine]

So, non-vascular causes are what? Cancer? What else?

If you compared vascular causes of death with non-vascular and analyzed the LDL/HDL/Triglycerides, I wonder what the results would be. Does the lower risk of non-vascular causes outweigh the higher risk of vascular causes? What is the higher cholesterol numbers a function of? I have very high HDL and borderline high LDL. What if the numbers were reversed?

[JaneV2.0]

So, non-vascular causes are what? Cancer? What else?

If you compared vascular causes of death with non-vascular and analyzed the LDL/HDL/Triglycerides, I wonder what the results would be. Does the lower risk of non-vascular causes outweigh the higher risk of vascular causes? What is the higher cholesterol numbers a function of? I have very high HDL and borderline high LDL. What if the numbers were reversed?

"Higher cholesterol levels were directly related to elderly people living longer." This suggests that non-vascular disease is reduced as well.

Dr. Thomas Seyfried wrote a book called Cancer as a metabolic disease: On the origin, management and prevention of cancer in which he outlines a potential treatment, starting with "avoid sugar in all its forms" (credit Dr. Otto Warburg). The medical professionals I respect see metabolic syndrome* (aka hyperinsulinemia, insulin resistance, etc.) as the preeminent driver of most non-infectious disease, and few of them credit the persistent cholesterol foofaraw infecting medical practice today with being much use, except in selling more and more drugs..

*It is estimated that around 85% of Americans are metabolically unfit.

[rosarugosa]

Jane: Thanks for bringing us into the current year.
I recently finished two pretty quick reads:
The Brilliant Life of Eudora Honeysett - this was a lot like A Man Called Ove. If you liked Ove, you would probably like Eudora.
The Girl in the Blue Coat - more WW2 and Nazis, but it was a good read with an interesting plot.

[Yppej]

I liked Eudora.

Now I am reading The Stranger in the Woods about a hermit in Maine. Talk about simple living!

[iris lilies]

I finished a book about a murder in New Hampshire. I don’t read murder mysteries or most true murder stuff, but my friend in New Hampshire knew the main character and wanted me to read it.

“Love Lies and murder: a killing in a small New Hampshire town

I truly disliked everyone in this book, except​ for the person who is dead

[JaneV2.0]

So, non-vascular causes are what? Cancer? What else?

If you compared vascular causes of death with non-vascular and analyzed the LDL/HDL/Triglycerides, I wonder what the results would be. Does the lower risk of non-vascular causes outweigh the higher risk of vascular causes? What is the higher cholesterol numbers a function of? I have very high HDL and borderline high LDL. What if the numbers were reversed?

Cholesterol numbers as markers for heart disease are pretty weak, except for a high triglyceride number, which usually correlates to metabolic syndrome. HbA1c, CRP, fasting glucose--any of the usual tests for metabolic fitness, plus a CAC image of your coronary arteries are more useful indicators of potential risk, IMO. Metabolic syndrome is nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, and it--not the cholesterol that makes up more than half your nervous system, your cell membranes, etc.--is the problem.

[catherine]

Cholesterol numbers as markers for heart disease are pretty weak, except for a high triglyceride number, which usually correlates to metabolic syndrome. HbA1c, CRP, fasting glucose--any of the usual tests for metabolic fitness, plus a CAC image of your coronary arteries are more useful indicators of potential risk, IMO. Metabolic syndrome is nearly ubiquitous in the modern world, and it--not the cholesterol that makes up more than half your nervous system, your cell membranes, etc.--is the problem.

I think there are enough studies out there that can and do argue for both sides of the coin with regard to the link between the lipoproteins, cholesterol, and heart disease.

And in terms of metabolic syndrome, my suspicion it's the processed food, including sugar, that we eat that has contributed to the massive surge in obesity. There was recently a study that showed that ultra-processed foods was also linked to cancer and other diseases. Some feel sugar fuels cancer growth indicating that cancer may be a metabolic disease.

But I'm not a clinical researcher, just a lowly market researcher. I can have my own opinion, and for years, my opinion has been pretty much the same as Michael Pollan. If you want to eat wisely and avoid some unhealthy outcomes, simply "eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." And, like Pollan, I would define food as real food, not the frankenfood that's been consumed in earnest since the dawn of TV dinners and mac and cheese in a box.

[JaneV2.0]

I think there are enough studies out there that can and do argue for both sides of the coin with regard to the link between the lipoproteins, cholesterol, and heart disease.

...
But I'm not a clinical researcher, just a lowly market researcher. I can have my own opinion, and for years, my opinion has been pretty much the same as Michael Pollan. If you want to eat wisely and avoid some unhealthy outcomes, simply "eat food. Not too much. Mostly plants." And, like Pollan, I would define food as real food, not the frankenfood that's been consumed in earnest since the dawn of TV dinners and mac and cheese in a box.

I share Michael Pollan's view of psychedelic drugs (How to Change Your Mind), but otherwise think of him as kind of a smug elitist. And a lot of people are sensitive to the anti-nutrients in plants, so there's that. I do agree that the quality of what passes for food today is abysmal, and I lament that nourishing food like fatty meats have been drummed out of favor, much to our detriment.

[catherine]

I share Michael Pollan's view of psychedelic drugs (How to Change Your Mind), but otherwise think of him as kind of a smug elitist. And a lot of people are sensitive to the anti-nutrients in plants, so there's that. I do agree that the quality of what passes for food today is abysmal, and I lament that nourishing food like fatty meats have been drummed out of favor, much to our detriment.

Yeah, while I tend to follow the mainstream wisdom of what healthy foods are and aren't, I'm the one who has told DH that he is NOT being "bad" by loving his liverwurst sandwiches.Liverwurst actually has some good things going for it.