I believe that Omega oils are good for you, as is CoQ-10, as is Resveratol. I can't exhaustively prove it. But all of the doctors doing research on these supplements seem to be taking them. It's like talking to any doc who is over 50 years old. I bet 100% that he or she is taking a statin. Why? Because the research supports good outcomes, and the side effects are minimal.
You're kidding, right? http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2010/07/20/the-truth-about-statin-drugs-revealed.aspx "I see two to three new statin cardiomyopathies per week in my practice" http://www.dcnutrition.com/news/Detail.CFM?RecordNumber=637 http://www.whale.to/b/cassel3.html In the new study researchers found that statins activate a gene signal in muscles called atrogen-1. When this gene activates it targets key muscle proteins for destruction. The activation of this gene drives the process of muscle atrophy and muscle wasting. It is induced in cardiac muscle in failing hearts. Why on earth would any person want this gene activated by a drug? http://www.newswithviews.com/Richards/byron44.htm Besides, cholesterol isn't the issue: http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2005/05/28/cholesterol-heart.aspx Wes
Thanks, Wes. That one link was excellent. Dr. Joe Maroon expressed his outrage that more doctors weren't recommending CoQ10 together with a statin. And no, I'm not joking. I assume you're not a doc; correct me if I'm wrong. But if you go to any AMA function, and ask who there is over 50 and on a statin, every single one will raise his hand. Try it.
And that's why America is sick. What I meant by the "you're joking" comment was not the suggestion that many people are on it, but that you assert there are meaningful benefits and virtually zero side effects. That I take exception to. But that people would take a drug for something they can cure better with a natural product, which has no side effects, just makes me sad. Wes
Nope, exercize is not a "product"...try again. Besides....Exercise Doesnt Prevent heart Disease. http://www.brianpeskin.com/BP.com/reports/ExerciseMyth-CAMB.pdf Wes
No, and good thing too! Otherwise I too might be peddling outdated advice, like this what killed Tim Russert! Tim Russert's Fatal Heart Attack Was Preventable, He Followed Antiquated Advice http://livinlavidalocarb.blogspot.com/2008/06/tim-russerts-fatal-heart-attack-was.html "It's amazing to hear his doctor basically say that Tim did everything he was "supposed" to do and yet it wasn't enough to save his life. Wanna know what the scariest part of this story is? Check out Tim Russert's lipid profile: LDL--68 HDL--37 (up from the lower 20's) Total Cholesterol--105 Did you see that? Most doctors would look at those numbers and say, "See how healthy this person is because we lowered his cholesterol." And they would pound their chest with pride at putting someone like Tim Russert on a statin drug to artificially make this happen. But what good did it do him in the end?" Wes
^ Interesting blurb on Russert's bad heart health. When he keeled over, I wasn't one bit surprised. Obvious to me(even before the heart attack) that he was on the wrong kind of diet. Way too fat, especially the 'abdominal' type fat that has entered mainstream media in the last year or two. You can also often see some bad signs in a person's eyes, as they often reflect one's overall health. 'Warmed over death' appearance comes to mind here... This stuff ain't rocket science - if you're FAT, either get it fixed or experiment with some combo of diet+exercise to get it under control. There's been so much info published in recent years about glycemic impact and the benefits of a low or rather slow carb diet that there's really no reason for most people to die of a heart attack. Now, the -rare- person with bad genes may be up the creek(any old farts here remember Jim Fixx?), but for most there's no substitute for common sense eating(or lack thereof) and a little bit of exercise.
