Dr's Orders
- Thread starter tmfast
- Start date
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tmfast:
Damn it,
Doc says I have high cholesterol & thyroid problems. What to do, what to do. I love pork ribs, butts & beef briskett. Does this mean goodbye to all that?? I tried to argue that the fat is broken down, but that battle was lost. How far into denial can I go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cut back and eat them in moderation. Be good day in and day out, but once a month cook one of the loved items on the WSM.
Damn it,
Doc says I have high cholesterol & thyroid problems. What to do, what to do. I love pork ribs, butts & beef briskett. Does this mean goodbye to all that?? I tried to argue that the fat is broken down, but that battle was lost. How far into denial can I go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Cut back and eat them in moderation. Be good day in and day out, but once a month cook one of the loved items on the WSM.
Everything in moderation....including moderation
I still bbq, but give most of it away, this way you get the enjoyment of the cook, the smells and a bit of the taste. Plus I do more lower fat stuff like chickens.
As Bryan said, once a month or so is not too bad...plus serve it with a side of Lipitor...
I still bbq, but give most of it away, this way you get the enjoyment of the cook, the smells and a bit of the taste. Plus I do more lower fat stuff like chickens.
As Bryan said, once a month or so is not too bad...plus serve it with a side of Lipitor...
Steve Cole
TVWBB Super Fan
Take inventory, do your homework and know how much cholesterol is in the foods you normally eat. Cut back where you can. Different meats contain different amounts of cholesterol. Beef, pork and shell fish are high in cholesterol. Shrimp is high. Chicken and turkey have much less. Lean meat has nearly as much as fatty meat so don't think eating round vs. chuck is significantly better. Eat more vegies, cut back on animal, but you don't have to give it up.
Gary Bramley
TVWBB Pro
Hypo or hyperthyroid? I have hypo. The thyroid screws with everything... including cholesterol. If you have not found the following sites they are full of info..... tsh, American Thyroid Assn. and Autoimmune-disease My numbers are good right now, and seem to be settling in a bit....
As Bryan suggests, I do not I eliminated those things that are "bad", but cut back on portion size and really mix things up. I simply incorporate more good with the "not so good." Personally, I think the biggest help has been reducing portion size...... perhaps the hardest too.
Good luck to you!
Gary
As Bryan suggests, I do not I eliminated those things that are "bad", but cut back on portion size and really mix things up. I simply incorporate more good with the "not so good." Personally, I think the biggest help has been reducing portion size...... perhaps the hardest too.
Good luck to you!
Gary
Gary Michael
TVWBB Pro
Invite your DR over, and make him some good Q...and ask...how can I give this up? But seriously..health is nothing to play with. I love to cook....love to eat, as most of us do on the forums. There are many other options...like lean cuts for grilling. I now have two kettles and use them 5 days a week. lean sirloin, fillets, spatchcoked chickens, alder plank salmon...so much good grub to eat. I actually got burned out of the "normal" Q menu. My pallet is thankful to experiment a little bit more. Just becuae its healthy..doesnt mean it is not good. I highly reccomend Webers cookbook..."charcoal grilling, the art to cooking with live fire" tons of killer recipes.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
I wouldn't tell anyone what to do in regards to this issue but for me, well, the political nature of medicine makes me distrust doctors in general, and with issues such as this then more specifically. The notion that high cholesterol = an increased chance of coronary heart disease and/or that dietary cholesterol = an increased chance of higher blood cholesterol is just that--a notion. Despite years of feeding us this <STRIKE>crap</STRIKE> 'information', this notion is unsupported by science.
Again, not telling anyone else what to do, but I ignore the cholesterol doom-and-gloomers.
Again, not telling anyone else what to do, but I ignore the cholesterol doom-and-gloomers.
Steve Forwe
TVWBB Fan
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by tmfast:
Damn it,
Doc says I have high cholesterol & thyroid problems. What to do, what to do. I love pork ribs, butts & beef briskett. Does this mean goodbye to all that?? I tried to argue that the fat is broken down, but that battle was lost. How far into denial can I go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you have any specific symtoms to make you go to the Doctor?
Damn it,
Doc says I have high cholesterol & thyroid problems. What to do, what to do. I love pork ribs, butts & beef briskett. Does this mean goodbye to all that?? I tried to argue that the fat is broken down, but that battle was lost. How far into denial can I go. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Did you have any specific symtoms to make you go to the Doctor?
Steve Rabin
TVWBB Member
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">Originally posted by K Kruger:
I wouldn't tell anyone what to do in regards to this issue but for me, well, the political nature of medicine makes me distrust doctors in general, and with issues such as this then more specifically. The notion that high cholesterol = an increased chance of coronary heart disease and/or that dietary cholesterol = an increased chance of higher blood cholesterol is just that--a notion. Despite years of feeding us this <STRIKE>crap</STRIKE> 'information', this notion is unsupported by science.
Again, not telling anyone else what to do, but I ignore the cholesterol doom-and-gloomers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevin,
No offense, but you are just plain wrong. I could do a pubmed search and produce you a ream of studies that are quite scientific, repeatable, and truthful.
I feel I'm quite qualified to talk on this subject as I am an anesthesia provider, and had a heart attck at the ripe old age of 37. At the time I had it I was out on a 30 mile bike ride. I'm quite fit and still enjoy fatty foods in moderation.
Everyone needs to make there own choices on how to manage their diet, I'm not here to preach. However, I'm pretty sure it's not grains and fruits clogging our arteries.
I wouldn't tell anyone what to do in regards to this issue but for me, well, the political nature of medicine makes me distrust doctors in general, and with issues such as this then more specifically. The notion that high cholesterol = an increased chance of coronary heart disease and/or that dietary cholesterol = an increased chance of higher blood cholesterol is just that--a notion. Despite years of feeding us this <STRIKE>crap</STRIKE> 'information', this notion is unsupported by science.
Again, not telling anyone else what to do, but I ignore the cholesterol doom-and-gloomers. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
Kevin,
No offense, but you are just plain wrong. I could do a pubmed search and produce you a ream of studies that are quite scientific, repeatable, and truthful.
I feel I'm quite qualified to talk on this subject as I am an anesthesia provider, and had a heart attck at the ripe old age of 37. At the time I had it I was out on a 30 mile bike ride. I'm quite fit and still enjoy fatty foods in moderation.
Everyone needs to make there own choices on how to manage their diet, I'm not here to preach. However, I'm pretty sure it's not grains and fruits clogging our arteries.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
No offense taken but, no, I'm not wrong. That 'it's not grains and fruit clogging our arteries' is not disputed. That high cholesterol categorically means an increased possibility of CHD very much is. Read the meta-analyses--there are plenty out there. Also read the analyses and articles on cholesterol, studies, dietary fat, and politicization by Anthony Colpo, Uffe Ravnskof, Gary Taube, Mary Enig and Sally Fallon, Fred and Alice Ottoboni, Steven Milloy, among many others. Here, this piece, by Colpo, published in the Journal of American Physicians and Surgeons will get you started.
Both of you are correct to a degree. Your points are valid, and there is a great deal of research to support both arguments.
There is a good deal of research that is emerging that shows a link to inflammation associated with atherosclerosis developing in our arteries. The western diet as it is today is the main culprit, as well as our sedentary lifestyle.
I hope this thread doesn't devolve into a pissing match.
There is a good deal of research that is emerging that shows a link to inflammation associated with atherosclerosis developing in our arteries. The western diet as it is today is the main culprit, as well as our sedentary lifestyle.
I hope this thread doesn't devolve into a pissing match.
Cholesterol is also genetic, just like high blood pressure and gum disease. You can have high cholesterol because one or both of your parents have or had it. My thirty year old daughter-in-law has a very high count. She walks or runs every single day, hardly ever eats red meat and weighs 110lbs. soaking wet. She is also on meds. for it and it's still high. Her count is higher than mine and I can't walk or run for exercise due to a disability. I'm a little bit overweight and eat pretty much everything in moderation. If you are born with it you have to live with it.
Gary Bramley
TVWBB Pro
It doesn’t matter what side you lean towards, one thing is for sure, we are all going to die! We might as well enjoy ourselves little until then. Eat some Q.
tmfast, are you going to a general practitioner, endocrinologist or cardiologist? My experience proved that an aggressive endo. was a big help.
Gary
tmfast, are you going to a general practitioner, endocrinologist or cardiologist? My experience proved that an aggressive endo. was a big help.
Gary
Steve Rabin
TVWBB Member
No pissing contest by me, my bladder is quite small
Kevin, keep your stick on the ice. I'm not here to start a war. You believe your dogma and I'll believe mine.
However, I'm going to pass on taking my cholesterol advice from Anthony Colpo, fitness consultant. Nice article though. There is some truth to it. If you can point me to any double blind scientific studies that support your arguement I'd be glad to read them. Feel free to PM me with them.
I'm open to new ideas, but my experience, education, and the histories of the peoeple I've taken care of all show me that there is clearly a correlation between a cholesterol rich diet and atherosclerosis. Clearly other mitigating factors such as comorbidities, genetics, and environment play a role too. I'm living proof! Had my MI while at the peak of health.
People can make up their own minds with their health care providers.
Kevin, keep your stick on the ice. I'm not here to start a war. You believe your dogma and I'll believe mine.
However, I'm going to pass on taking my cholesterol advice from Anthony Colpo, fitness consultant. Nice article though. There is some truth to it. If you can point me to any double blind scientific studies that support your arguement I'd be glad to read them. Feel free to PM me with them.
I'm open to new ideas, but my experience, education, and the histories of the peoeple I've taken care of all show me that there is clearly a correlation between a cholesterol rich diet and atherosclerosis. Clearly other mitigating factors such as comorbidities, genetics, and environment play a role too. I'm living proof! Had my MI while at the peak of health.
People can make up their own minds with their health care providers.
<BLOCKQUOTE class="ip-ubbcode-quote"><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-title">quote:</div><div class="ip-ubbcode-quote-content">I actually got burned out of the "normal" Q menu. </div></BLOCKQUOTE>
How true that is. When I first got my WSM, it was all butts & brisket.
After a while, I discovered that one of the best ways to use the Bullet is as a hi-heat charcoal oven. Opens up a whole new menu, with results that make my doctor happier too
How true that is. When I first got my WSM, it was all butts & brisket.
After a while, I discovered that one of the best ways to use the Bullet is as a hi-heat charcoal oven. Opens up a whole new menu, with results that make my doctor happier too
Wow Kev, your position is surprising. I consider you an intelligent man. I mean c'mon, Ravnsko(v) lacks a clear understanding of the Scientific Method, has been openly criticized by his peers for his "research" methods, and simply chooses to ignore contradicting data.
Taube is a great writer, but lacks any formal medical or nutritional training. Enig pushes coconuts and Fallon's claim to fame is a cookbook?
It's pretty clear that more and more CREDIBLE studies suggest that elevated blood levels of cholesterol are the principle -- but not the only -- factors in atherosclerosis. The unifying position of the folks you mention borders on conspiracy theory.
Steven Milloy? Are you serious? Isn't he the same guy from Fox TV that denied ANY human involvement in global warming? Oh, and he's a lobbyist too -- paid by the tobacco industry -- who denies any ill effects of secondhand smoke. Imagine that. I know when I want an unbiased scientific opinion I'll go right to Fox and listen to their talking head. The same one collecting checks from the chemical, manufacturing, and tobacco industries.
No, Kev, "That high cholesterol categorically means an increased possibility of CHD very much is" is wrong. CREDIBLE sources say otherwise. You need to recheck your data, PubMed will get you started.
Taube is a great writer, but lacks any formal medical or nutritional training. Enig pushes coconuts and Fallon's claim to fame is a cookbook?
It's pretty clear that more and more CREDIBLE studies suggest that elevated blood levels of cholesterol are the principle -- but not the only -- factors in atherosclerosis. The unifying position of the folks you mention borders on conspiracy theory.
Steven Milloy? Are you serious? Isn't he the same guy from Fox TV that denied ANY human involvement in global warming? Oh, and he's a lobbyist too -- paid by the tobacco industry -- who denies any ill effects of secondhand smoke. Imagine that. I know when I want an unbiased scientific opinion I'll go right to Fox and listen to their talking head. The same one collecting checks from the chemical, manufacturing, and tobacco industries.
No, Kev, "That high cholesterol categorically means an increased possibility of CHD very much is" is wrong. CREDIBLE sources say otherwise. You need to recheck your data, PubMed will get you started.
K Kruger
TVWBB 1-Star Olympian
Ooo, seems I've stirred up a tempest. And the condescension palpably drips.
Ravnskov 'lacks a clear understanding of the Scientific Method'? Please. Perhaps you should take that up with the peer reviewers his papers are submitted to before being accepted for publication in the journals. Ditto for Colpo. If you and Steve want to play the shoot-the-messenger game I'm sure you'll have company, but that's hardly in keeping with the scientific method you cite. And, Steve, double blind studies are not used to prove a negative (why do I need to point this out?). The studies on the positive side are there aplenty. It is the meta-analyses which call the inferences into question. You can stick with the dogma of which you seem so fond (it is my dislike of ideologues that caused me to research this and other topics in the first place) or you can seek or or do your own metas.
I am quite familiar with PubMed. It is how I found Ravnskov in the first place. (Love their Rapid Response feature--saves tons of time.) If either or both of you are actually interested in the topic then pick some relevant studies and review the postulates, methodologies and results, and any relevant citations. Review the contervailing or contradictory studies, reviews or analyses and, especially, the arguments and the citations used to form them, and then email me with your opinions to continue the discussion. Intellectual rigor required.
Or, if you'd prefer, you can simply continue to dismiss or belittle me. I've had a lifetime of defending myself so I'm used to it; my armor is pretty strong. But without substantive arguments with which to engage, I'm afraid I'm not very interested.
Ravnskov 'lacks a clear understanding of the Scientific Method'? Please. Perhaps you should take that up with the peer reviewers his papers are submitted to before being accepted for publication in the journals. Ditto for Colpo. If you and Steve want to play the shoot-the-messenger game I'm sure you'll have company, but that's hardly in keeping with the scientific method you cite. And, Steve, double blind studies are not used to prove a negative (why do I need to point this out?). The studies on the positive side are there aplenty. It is the meta-analyses which call the inferences into question. You can stick with the dogma of which you seem so fond (it is my dislike of ideologues that caused me to research this and other topics in the first place) or you can seek or or do your own metas.
I am quite familiar with PubMed. It is how I found Ravnskov in the first place. (Love their Rapid Response feature--saves tons of time.) If either or both of you are actually interested in the topic then pick some relevant studies and review the postulates, methodologies and results, and any relevant citations. Review the contervailing or contradictory studies, reviews or analyses and, especially, the arguments and the citations used to form them, and then email me with your opinions to continue the discussion. Intellectual rigor required.
Or, if you'd prefer, you can simply continue to dismiss or belittle me. I've had a lifetime of defending myself so I'm used to it; my armor is pretty strong. But without substantive arguments with which to engage, I'm afraid I'm not very interested.
Tom Burrus
TVWBB Fan
Kevin is not wrong. Large, well-controlled clinical trials are biased by design and by funding. Consider sources of funding when reviewing study reports and consider the required bias of the study design (you can't get this reading the abstract or a published article; it requires analysis of the actual study protocol and report.) Sadly, the ultimate source of funding is often obscured by foundation names or even government entities who are eternally budget-challenged. Some "key opinion-leader" investigators are paid more for one single completed patient than most middle-class American families gross in a year; and they often enroll many patients. Clinical trials are just a sideline to their core business but the competition for their opinions and their time is fierce. In addition to paying the investigator cash per patient, sponsors pay for patient visits, lab work, nurse coordinator salaries, drugs, IV pumps, controllers, computers, refrigerators, trips, dinners, and other study-related expenses as well. Sponsors even ghost-write articles for publication and fund speaking tours for the highly regarded docs. NIH and NIAID are no less driven by money but they get to deal with the political whims of the current congress and administration. Viewpoints that question the status quo haven't a chance of challenging that well-funded juggernaut. They resort to meta analyses of pooled data and other retrospective reviews to find the chinks in the armor. Apparently some of you guys believe this is blasphemy.
Is this science? Nope, it is business. Is there bias? Absolutely. Studies are extremely expensive. Someone has to pay big and sponsors intend to recover their R&D expenses and then make a profit. Antihyperlipidemia treatment is a huge business. It is a not a fair game. You are at the mercy of physicians who gets much of their most current information from drug reps. Reps only show their physicians those studies that support their products. Oh, sponsors only fund studies that support their products and agenda.
Once a notion is generally accepted as fact, more money is made and more studies are funded to more firmly embed the "fact." The world view becomes so powerful that we stop looking elsewhere for answers and those patients who do not conform are considered outliers and their data discarded or ignored. Patients like Tim Russert. No question that a clot killed him, but his lipid profile was well controlled on a statin. He is one of many outliers of the Lipitor generation that is failing us.
You should make your own choices but please do not assume that the conclusions you or your physician glean from "well-controlled clinical trials" are unbiased and scientific. High cholesterol and CVD/CAD are only statistically linked and the physical mechanism that attempts to explain that statistic is tentative at best and certainly not well understood. Yes, there are perhaps thousands of studies that "confirm" the statistics but repeating misinformation does not make it true. Figures lie and liars figure. Dismissing critics of those trials is the pot calling the kettle black and not in keeping with the open mind of true science.
By the way, I am a Pharmacist with 17 years experience as clinical project leader and director within Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Compliance (R&D) for the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world, 10 years of which I was directly involved in clinical trial design. Prior to that I was a clinical pharmacist in the Investigational Drug Service at a large teaching hospital. I have extensive experience on both sides of the clinical trial checkbook. I have interacted with FDA frequently and have directly influenced changes in FDA opinion and legislation relating to control of clinical trial data.
OK, I'm done now; no more on the subject from me. Apologies for the long post; it is a subject for which I am slightly passionate.
Is this science? Nope, it is business. Is there bias? Absolutely. Studies are extremely expensive. Someone has to pay big and sponsors intend to recover their R&D expenses and then make a profit. Antihyperlipidemia treatment is a huge business. It is a not a fair game. You are at the mercy of physicians who gets much of their most current information from drug reps. Reps only show their physicians those studies that support their products. Oh, sponsors only fund studies that support their products and agenda.
Once a notion is generally accepted as fact, more money is made and more studies are funded to more firmly embed the "fact." The world view becomes so powerful that we stop looking elsewhere for answers and those patients who do not conform are considered outliers and their data discarded or ignored. Patients like Tim Russert. No question that a clot killed him, but his lipid profile was well controlled on a statin. He is one of many outliers of the Lipitor generation that is failing us.
You should make your own choices but please do not assume that the conclusions you or your physician glean from "well-controlled clinical trials" are unbiased and scientific. High cholesterol and CVD/CAD are only statistically linked and the physical mechanism that attempts to explain that statistic is tentative at best and certainly not well understood. Yes, there are perhaps thousands of studies that "confirm" the statistics but repeating misinformation does not make it true. Figures lie and liars figure. Dismissing critics of those trials is the pot calling the kettle black and not in keeping with the open mind of true science.
By the way, I am a Pharmacist with 17 years experience as clinical project leader and director within Pharmaceutical Development and Regulatory Compliance (R&D) for the second largest pharmaceutical company in the world, 10 years of which I was directly involved in clinical trial design. Prior to that I was a clinical pharmacist in the Investigational Drug Service at a large teaching hospital. I have extensive experience on both sides of the clinical trial checkbook. I have interacted with FDA frequently and have directly influenced changes in FDA opinion and legislation relating to control of clinical trial data.
OK, I'm done now; no more on the subject from me. Apologies for the long post; it is a subject for which I am slightly passionate.
I see. So it's a global, multinational, fully cooperative conspiracy of drug manufacturers, universities, and health researchers? And our only hope at the truth is via a small collection of rogue, underfunded outliers who perform clinically relevant research when they're not writing cookbooks or performing on television? Oh, and apparently bias and profit motives are only in the interest of the status quo, and not those trying to sell the books and entertainment. Sounds good to me.
And Kev, there's no shooting-the-messenger or belittlement intended. I like you waaaay too much. There's no need to defend yourself either, as you're not under attack. I'm just not impressed with those you chose to cite. It's just too difficult not to dismiss critics who so clearly lack either the credentials or credibility to be taken seriously. I mean, really, Steven Milloy?
Now before this gets too political, let's just agree to disagree... and eat some great BBQ.
Peace.
And Kev, there's no shooting-the-messenger or belittlement intended. I like you waaaay too much. There's no need to defend yourself either, as you're not under attack. I'm just not impressed with those you chose to cite. It's just too difficult not to dismiss critics who so clearly lack either the credentials or credibility to be taken seriously. I mean, really, Steven Milloy?
Now before this gets too political, let's just agree to disagree... and eat some great BBQ.
Peace.