Slog
News & ArtsSaturday, August 18, 2012
News The Saturday Morning News
Posted by Unpaid Intern on Sat, Aug 18, 2012 at 8:55 AM
Posted by news intern Mike Gore
Eggs are Just as Bad as Smoking (!!!) Some study shows that eating the yolks of eggs hardens your arteries with plaque. Quote of the article: "It's more than the cholesterol in a Hardee's monster thick burger which is two-thirds of a pound of beef, three slices of cheese and four slices of bacon." That's just for ONE EGG!!
Fewer Teenage Blowjobs: Study shows that teens are not having as much oral sex as they were a few years ago.
Easy Catch: Bellingham man backs into police car, gets arrested for DUI.
Ryan Uses Mom to Convince Elderly: Paul Ryan visits some retirement homes (speak up!) to talk about Medicare. Next, he'll be visiting a baptist church with his "black friend" to stump about the voting rights act.
Taylor Bridge Fire: Some people allowed to return home now that the fire is 40% contained. In five days, it has burned nearly 22,000 acres and destroyed about 70 buildings.
Men's Birth Control Might Happen: Reversible sperm-busting pill could be an awesome way to keep from getting knocked up. And it's easy! Use it when (if?) it comes, straight guys.
Fluoride News of The Day: James Robert Deal would be up in arms over this attempt to fluoridate the waters of Portland.
Now here's a two-year-old video of a bird dancing to some song.
1
People have been eating eggs for a million years. But we never had access to so much. It's got to be about moderation.
2
Speaking of eggs, that fine breakfast spot Silver Fork? Turns out the owner was thinking of closing anyway, and doesn't particularly want to stay in that spot even if Safeway doesn't buy the land:
More...
A community effort to save The Silver Fork restaurant is in full swing, but the restaurant's owner said she was thinking of closing it anyway.http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/lo…
"I was relieved when I found out, to be honest," said Johnson, 51, who took over running the restaurant from her ailing parents five years ago. "It's been really, really, really stressful for me, doing this."
Johnson's mother, Estella Potts, opened The Silver Fork in March 1989 after years of operating a diner in the Central District. There was talk about a decade ago of buying the building, at the corner of Rainier Avenue South and South Charlestown Street, from the family that owns it, but the decision was to stick with a lease.
[...[
Johnson plans to meet with Safeway representatives, at their request. She doesn't blame them, she said. Why wouldn't they want to expand their business? That's what they do.
The grocery chain says the gas station is not a done deal, but the property has been on the market for two years. Safeway spokeswoman Sara Osborne said the company was told Johnson planned to retire.
"We don't want to buy a property and then evict somebody who wants to be there," she said.
The sale is not complete. The Seattle Department of Planning and Development is accepting comments about the gas-station proposal through Wednesday. A gas station is consistent with the land's commercial zoning, said spokesman Bryan Stevens.
The property's owners could not be reached Friday. Johnson is upset she didn't know sooner about their plans to sell. Still, she doesn't want to stay in the restaurant's current location.
She would consider moving, she said, "but only if it's beneficial to me."
"Everybody's pushing me to keep it open, but ... I don't know if I would want to stay here if Safeway did back out," she said. "I understand everybody wants to have The Silver Fork. It has made me feel so good, because what has kept me coming here seven days a week ... is my customers."
4
The egg article has already been debunked:
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2…
I'm sure that any number of paleo bloggers have done so as well.
The anti-egg study is an observational study, not a clinical one, so it can't really prove anything. Also, it is based on interviewing people who have had strokes. Can you remember how many eggs you have eaten over the last 20 years? Since the data is suspect, so is the conclusion.
After reading up on paleo and low carb diets, I'm questioning whether dietary fat is all that bad, and whether dietary cholesterol is related to blood cholesterol, and whether blood cholesterol raises the risk for heart attacks. It looks more likely that arterial plaque is caused by a diet high in suger.
http://www.fathead-movie.com/index.php/2…
I'm sure that any number of paleo bloggers have done so as well.
The anti-egg study is an observational study, not a clinical one, so it can't really prove anything. Also, it is based on interviewing people who have had strokes. Can you remember how many eggs you have eaten over the last 20 years? Since the data is suspect, so is the conclusion.
After reading up on paleo and low carb diets, I'm questioning whether dietary fat is all that bad, and whether dietary cholesterol is related to blood cholesterol, and whether blood cholesterol raises the risk for heart attacks. It looks more likely that arterial plaque is caused by a diet high in suger.
5
@1 read my mind (my initial reaction was, yes, literally, "people have been eating eggs for many millenia")... it's not about this food or that - it's about the complete picture of a person's diet - the totality of the described Hardee's burger is far more damaging than an egg, or two (and a person likely to order a burger like that is significantly less likely to be a moderate eater).
A runny yolk is one of the great and simple joys of eating.
A runny yolk is one of the great and simple joys of eating.
6
Pay no mind sweet eggs! I'll keep eating you despite the many spurious and inflammatory "studies"...gotcha back my little unborn friends! Word. Delicious, delicious word...
7
Another great story this morning (for us fags of a certain age, anyway) is the New York Times style section's in-depth look at men's shorts. They lead with a quote from our friend the Fashion Anti-Hero:
EARLIER this season on the MTV series “Savage U,” Dan Savage, the syndicated sex columnist, was asked if he wears shorts. His response was as immediate as it was dismissive: “No, no. I’m a grown-up.”http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/19/fashio…
It’s a sentiment echoed by many style arbiters: men of a certain age and distinction, the thinking goes, cannot wear shorts and be taken seriously. This applies not only to the workplace, but also in social settings.
Much of the fashion establishment seems to agree. “I avoid them,” said Glenn O’Brien, the fashion editor and writer of GQ magazine’s “Style Guy.” “If it’s like 100 degrees, or if I’m just going to Whole Foods, I will break down and wear shorts, but I try to avoid them for business.”
Tom Ford put it this way, in a guide on “how to be a modern gentleman” in AnOther Magazine: “Rule No. 5: A man should never wear shorts in the city.”
But there are dissenters, including notable figures in men’s fashion, who are chipping away at the pant-hem bias, and working to give short pants more respect.
8
@7 Gloomy: That is bullshit! :)
A pair of shorts is basicly what saves me from dying from a heat stroke every damn summer (and summers in West Sweden are colder and wetter than the ones in Seattle).
Plus beyond saving my life - they can look... not "good" but acceptable. It depends on the length and model of the shorts I think.
See if you start trying to cover up your pasty legs with knee-or-longer-length shorts you look like a prat. Simple nice 1950's length shorts in one, non-patterned colour. Or slim jeans shorts. Just longer than a pair of hot-pants and shorter than your knee - and aslong as they sit well over your arse its fine.
... and to be honest I'd rather wear a chiffon tu-tu than a pair of good long jeans in the summer because lying down, bright red, swearing in Swedish and hardly being able to breath will fuck up any look I may be going for with them.
A pair of shorts is basicly what saves me from dying from a heat stroke every damn summer (and summers in West Sweden are colder and wetter than the ones in Seattle).
Plus beyond saving my life - they can look... not "good" but acceptable. It depends on the length and model of the shorts I think.
See if you start trying to cover up your pasty legs with knee-or-longer-length shorts you look like a prat. Simple nice 1950's length shorts in one, non-patterned colour. Or slim jeans shorts. Just longer than a pair of hot-pants and shorter than your knee - and aslong as they sit well over your arse its fine.
... and to be honest I'd rather wear a chiffon tu-tu than a pair of good long jeans in the summer because lying down, bright red, swearing in Swedish and hardly being able to breath will fuck up any look I may be going for with them.
9
At #4: eggzactly; check out the book "Ultrametabolism" for good info on fat and cholesterol. That egg article is baloney.
12
Important article to be read:
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/17/m…
This week's most important vids:
http://lookatluca.tumblr.com/post/296858…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/video/20…
Most important political comment:
The voice of the people: vote Dr. Jill Stein in 2012.
Thank you.
http://www.counterpunch.org/2012/08/17/m…
This week's most important vids:
http://lookatluca.tumblr.com/post/296858…
http://www.guardian.co.uk/music/video/20…
Most important political comment:
The voice of the people: vote Dr. Jill Stein in 2012.
Thank you.
13
Protect your fluids people! As General Jack Ripper told us Fluoride is a foreign substance that is introduced into our precious bodily fluids without the knowledge of the individual. Certainly without any choice. That's the way your hard-core Commie works.
16
Favorite egg-study debunk so far: Yale School of Medicine academic clinical neurologist Steven Novella, MD. "Overall the data are not very compelling. The lack of correlation with cholesterol is most damning, in my opinion."
Overall, if you have a balanced diet and avoid extremes and exercise regularly you are probably OK. Further tweaking your diet is unlikely to produce large health benefits. If you are in a high risk group, such as diabetics, you need to be more specific about your eating habits, and should consult with your physician.http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/inde…
With respect to eggs specifically, it seems that moderate consumption of eggs are not a health risk and may even be beneficial. It is reasonable, based on the data, to avoid extreme high egg consumption – but you can probably say that about most things.
When it comes to diet the rule of thumb, everything in moderation, seems to be a good first approximation of the scientific data.
17
Yes, Dr. Jill Stein all the way!!!!
Who's Dr. Jill Stein?
(yes. I know who she is, and she seems like a wonderful, articulate woman. But the adolescent nature of the Green Party, with their every-four-years-smugnesss-in-the-face-of-defeat, turns me off. As do you, sgt. doom, you big old Nihilist, you.)
Who's Dr. Jill Stein?
(yes. I know who she is, and she seems like a wonderful, articulate woman. But the adolescent nature of the Green Party, with their every-four-years-smugnesss-in-the-face-of-defeat, turns me off. As do you, sgt. doom, you big old Nihilist, you.)
18
@17: Huh, you don't like them cuz they seem smug. I don't like the Dems because of the things they actually do.
20
But at least the Democrats actually manage to get people elected to Congress, instead of showing up with some nobody every four years and expecting everyone to genuflect.
21
The problem with a male birth control control is no sane woman is going to believe a man who says "It's OK I'm on the pill." That said I am thrilled at this medical advancement.
@7
Right on, and a big right on to Dan Savage too. No grown man should wear shorts when not engaging in serious physical activity. Pic related: http://selousscouts.tripod.com/rivercros…
@7
Right on, and a big right on to Dan Savage too. No grown man should wear shorts when not engaging in serious physical activity. Pic related: http://selousscouts.tripod.com/rivercros…
23
@21, Don't get me wrong. Men who look great in shorts ought to wear them. I yank them on whenever the sun peeps out for even a moment.
25
Just because a male birth control drug might become available doesn't mean it's the only thing that should be used. People should always use multiple birth control since nothing is 100% reliable.
Parachutists still take a reserve.
And men wearing shorts? I don't give a damn if it's not fashionable. I refuse to die of heatstroke just so somebody can think I'm a 'grownup.'
Parachutists still take a reserve.
And men wearing shorts? I don't give a damn if it's not fashionable. I refuse to die of heatstroke just so somebody can think I'm a 'grownup.'
26
I love my upper-middle class organic cotton Patagonia shorts. I refuse to take them off until mid October.
32
I haven't heard an explanation of why shorts are bad on adults. Can someone enlighten this fashion-challenged guy? (I don't wear them myself, as I'm shy about my legs, but I don't see the problem with them for others). This "one should not wear shorts!" decree just seems awfully victorian and uptight to me.
34
@32 because its clothes that makes you look infantile. I mean don't get me wrong - I wear them myself (although with care (see my post #8 above)). Its like horizontally striped t-shirts - you look like an adult trying to look like Dennis the Menace. They are too connected to "being a child" in our collective imagery. What you wear is what you convey to others at a glance. Shorts are, for many, just a very strong signal of "not fashionable on men" or "infantile". Its like short sleeved shirts and a tie.
Also when guys starts wearing shorts they tend to lose all concepts of what does and what does not fit. They've just crossed rubicon, fashion wise, and seem to care fuck-all about all the other details. Like how they fit on you and how the material fall.
But that said: who gives a holy hell what other people think? I mean your not applying for a bank loan - so go forth wearing shorts. Alea Iacta Est and all that.
Also when guys starts wearing shorts they tend to lose all concepts of what does and what does not fit. They've just crossed rubicon, fashion wise, and seem to care fuck-all about all the other details. Like how they fit on you and how the material fall.
But that said: who gives a holy hell what other people think? I mean your not applying for a bank loan - so go forth wearing shorts. Alea Iacta Est and all that.
35
@2,
Capitalism.
The end result of capitalism is one mega corporation that controls everything. Capitalism is its own worst enemy. Capitalism is ultimately self-destructive.
The idea of capitalism is cute... consumer choice, competition, etc. The reality is horrific... slavery, corruption, monopoly.
Capitalism truly is a snake eating its own tail.
Capitalism.
The end result of capitalism is one mega corporation that controls everything. Capitalism is its own worst enemy. Capitalism is ultimately self-destructive.
The idea of capitalism is cute... consumer choice, competition, etc. The reality is horrific... slavery, corruption, monopoly.
Capitalism truly is a snake eating its own tail.
36
I know it's way too late to be responding to this post, but I just wanted to post this observation somewhere.
Re the egg link: I've read a lot of comment streams to a lot of newspaper and broadcast stories, but I've never seen a clearer illustration of the difference between Americans and our northern neighbors. Why do we Americans have so many stupid people who feel entitled to share their stupidity on websites? The comments on that article are intelligent, witty, generally good-natured, largely unpolitical (or at least more subtle about it), and indicative of a higher national level of literacy.
It fills me with despair about our own country. Can we address this with a better educational system alone, or is there something else going on here?
Re the egg link: I've read a lot of comment streams to a lot of newspaper and broadcast stories, but I've never seen a clearer illustration of the difference between Americans and our northern neighbors. Why do we Americans have so many stupid people who feel entitled to share their stupidity on websites? The comments on that article are intelligent, witty, generally good-natured, largely unpolitical (or at least more subtle about it), and indicative of a higher national level of literacy.
It fills me with despair about our own country. Can we address this with a better educational system alone, or is there something else going on here?
37
@35 - Unless the Government steps in the save the market from itself via vigorously enforced anti-monopoly laws.
38
@13 - I applaud the civic-minded people of Portland in their quest to protect their precious bodily solids from the forces of decay. Only together can we overcome the enemy!
40
I'm sure you guys up in Seattle love your "fluoride" don't ya? It explains a lot. Because gee, what could possibly be the harm with the practice of water fluoridation? I mean other than the fact that it's force medicating the population without their consent, and without regard to the case history or medical circumstances of any of the people who are exposed to this “medication.”
The fluoride added to drinking water is in fact NOT not some carefully controlled, pharmaceutical grade substance. It is NOT sodium fluoride! It is hydrofluosilicic acid, industrial waste and a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing.
The toxic soup of fluoride chemicals are a cumulative poisen linked to irreversible dis-coloration of teeth in 1 out of every 3 children, dental fluorosis, severe pitting of the enamel in children, stiff joints, bone abnormalities, bone cancer, is a potent hormone disruptor that effects the thyroid, and let's not forget it can lower the IQ in children.
Fluoridation chemicals are allowed to contain trace amounts of lead and have been found to increase children’s blood lead levels.
The EPA has NO mandate for water fluoridation and fluoridation chemicals are NOT regulated by the FDA or the EPA, but a private agency called NSF (National Sanitary Foundation, International), who is utterly un-accountable as a regulatory body and allows for numerous impurities within the fluoridation chemicals including arsenic and lead.
Fluoride can move into ground water and the run-off may enter streams and disrupt life cycle of salmon, a particular concern here in the northwest.
America is in the minority of countries that allow for fluoridation of the water, and in many countries that have no industrial, or monetary incentive to fluoridate have found links to the toxic health effects of fluoride. Some countries with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in their water from mineral deposits have been obligated to install fluoride removal plants, like India.
But no, it's all just a kookie conspiracy theory that was brought about by Dr. Strangelove. There's just so much to be gained, consequence free, by spending millions of dollars to fluoridate our water like the rest of the country. You certainly shouldn't look into the voluminous amount of research about the fluoridation process by going to http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-da…… or watching this video of former Senior Vice President of EPA Headquarters Union testifying before the Senate about fluoride way back in 2000: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lD…
Hurray Sam Adams and City Council!
More...
The fluoride added to drinking water is in fact NOT not some carefully controlled, pharmaceutical grade substance. It is NOT sodium fluoride! It is hydrofluosilicic acid, industrial waste and a byproduct of phosphate fertilizer manufacturing.
The toxic soup of fluoride chemicals are a cumulative poisen linked to irreversible dis-coloration of teeth in 1 out of every 3 children, dental fluorosis, severe pitting of the enamel in children, stiff joints, bone abnormalities, bone cancer, is a potent hormone disruptor that effects the thyroid, and let's not forget it can lower the IQ in children.
Fluoridation chemicals are allowed to contain trace amounts of lead and have been found to increase children’s blood lead levels.
The EPA has NO mandate for water fluoridation and fluoridation chemicals are NOT regulated by the FDA or the EPA, but a private agency called NSF (National Sanitary Foundation, International), who is utterly un-accountable as a regulatory body and allows for numerous impurities within the fluoridation chemicals including arsenic and lead.
Fluoride can move into ground water and the run-off may enter streams and disrupt life cycle of salmon, a particular concern here in the northwest.
America is in the minority of countries that allow for fluoridation of the water, and in many countries that have no industrial, or monetary incentive to fluoridate have found links to the toxic health effects of fluoride. Some countries with high levels of naturally occurring fluoride in their water from mineral deposits have been obligated to install fluoride removal plants, like India.
But no, it's all just a kookie conspiracy theory that was brought about by Dr. Strangelove. There's just so much to be gained, consequence free, by spending millions of dollars to fluoridate our water like the rest of the country. You certainly shouldn't look into the voluminous amount of research about the fluoridation process by going to http://www.fluoridealert.org/fluoride-da…… or watching this video of former Senior Vice President of EPA Headquarters Union testifying before the Senate about fluoride way back in 2000: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hRLz4a7lD…
Hurray Sam Adams and City Council!
43
TL;DR: as @4 explains, the egg story is bogus and contradicts known science. Ignore it.
Your body makes its own cholesterol, to the tune of 1000mg/day, versus a typical dietary intake in the US of 200-300mg/day. (Thanks, Wikipedia!) That is, your own body pumps five egg yolks a day of cholesterol into your blood. That cholesterol is necessary for you to live: it's a vital component of your cell membranes, allowing your cells to grow and divide, and it's also used to make steroid hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Since cholesterol itself is basically a wax, which doesn't like watery liquids e.g. blood, the body wraps it in protein to make it dissolve in the blood so it can be shipped to where it's needed. Protein-wrapped cholesterol basically falls into two categories: LDL (thin protein cage) and HDL (thick protein cage).
Your body's cholesterol production is supposed to be tuned so that your body produces the correct amount of cholesterol with a good economic balance between LDL (fast and cheap but bad for you) versus HDL (slow and expensive but harmless), but for whatever reason some substances like saturated fat (not dietary cholesterol, as was once believed ~20 years ago) changes the LDL:HDL ratio in favor of LDL. We know for sure that high LDL levels are a bad sign and correlated with atherosclerosis and heart attacks, but we aren't 100% sure why. Since LDLs don't have as much protective protein around them, the rough guess is that LDLs leak more cholesterol into the blood, where it pretty much immediately finds a nice shady spot in your arteries where it can avoid touching water as much as possible. If any existing waxy globs of cholesterol have already landed on the artery walls, wax + wax = no water, so the process becomes self-accelerating and the glob grows. At that point, the artery walls harden under the wax (AFAIK we don't know why) and you end up with heart and vascular problems as the stiff arteries slowly clog themselves. (I'm oversimplifying a lot, as the arterial plaques contain a complex mélange of proteins as well.)
Among the few treatments that have a clinically proven effect, statins are pretty much at the top of the list. They definitely reduce the amount of cholesterol your body produces, and they definitely reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke by improving cardiovascular health. Presumably when they reduce cholesterol production they ensure that a given HDL or LDL packet spends less time in transit and has less time to leak all over the place. In this view, it might make sense to cut dietary cholesterol in tandem with statins so that the drugs are more effective, but for the most part reducing dietary cholesterol intake to improve cardiovascular health is approximately as useful as pissing in the wind.
(Suppose, for sake of argument, that statins cut cholesterol production in half, to 500mg/day. Now your 200mg/day dietary cholesterol has gone from 16.7% to 28.6% of what's in your blood, so any change in diet has its effect nearly doubled while on statins. I don't think real-world statins actually cause that big an effect, but the general point remains.)
Dietary fiber, specifically soluble dietary fiber, is just about the only other thing besides statins that has improves blood cholesterol levels and cardiovascular health. In the list above, I neglected to mention one of the body's other uses for cholesterol: making bile. Bile is secreted into the intestine to digest and absorb fat; without bile, fat slides through and comes out the other end. By default, the bile itself is reabsorbed along with the fat and recycled. However, soluble fiber can bind to bile, carrying the bile out without being absorbed, and this forces a net reduction in the body's cholesterol levels. (ISTR that soluble fiber changes the LDL:HDL ratio slightly in favor of HDL, suggesting that bile production is preferentially using up the LDL.)
It's worth noting that the LDL-is-bad hypothesis is a bit of a mess right now. Some non-statin trial drugs were found to increase heart attack rates despite provably reducing LDL in the blood. Maybe we're right about LDL, but the trial drugs had negative side effects that outweighed the good; or maybe our whole model is wrong, LDLs are actually good for you, and the statins happen to be "wonder drugs" that reduce heart attacks despite the handicap of LDL reduction. We don't know, but last I looked the smart money is still on the first guess. (Incidentally, the latter scenario reminds me of how aspirin is now recognized as one of the few COX inhibitors a.k.a. NSAIDs that doesn't cause heart attacks, probably by virtue of aspirin itself being a "wonder drug" that overcomes the harm by sheer usefulness of its blood thinning side effect. It was something of a shock when we found out a few years ago that all the existing "safe" COX-1/COX-2 inhibitors, like ibuprofen and naproxen, have always had exactly the same cardiovascular risks found in the COX-2 inhibitors like Celebrex and Vioxx.)
More...
Your body makes its own cholesterol, to the tune of 1000mg/day, versus a typical dietary intake in the US of 200-300mg/day. (Thanks, Wikipedia!) That is, your own body pumps five egg yolks a day of cholesterol into your blood. That cholesterol is necessary for you to live: it's a vital component of your cell membranes, allowing your cells to grow and divide, and it's also used to make steroid hormones like estrogen and testosterone. Since cholesterol itself is basically a wax, which doesn't like watery liquids e.g. blood, the body wraps it in protein to make it dissolve in the blood so it can be shipped to where it's needed. Protein-wrapped cholesterol basically falls into two categories: LDL (thin protein cage) and HDL (thick protein cage).
Your body's cholesterol production is supposed to be tuned so that your body produces the correct amount of cholesterol with a good economic balance between LDL (fast and cheap but bad for you) versus HDL (slow and expensive but harmless), but for whatever reason some substances like saturated fat (not dietary cholesterol, as was once believed ~20 years ago) changes the LDL:HDL ratio in favor of LDL. We know for sure that high LDL levels are a bad sign and correlated with atherosclerosis and heart attacks, but we aren't 100% sure why. Since LDLs don't have as much protective protein around them, the rough guess is that LDLs leak more cholesterol into the blood, where it pretty much immediately finds a nice shady spot in your arteries where it can avoid touching water as much as possible. If any existing waxy globs of cholesterol have already landed on the artery walls, wax + wax = no water, so the process becomes self-accelerating and the glob grows. At that point, the artery walls harden under the wax (AFAIK we don't know why) and you end up with heart and vascular problems as the stiff arteries slowly clog themselves. (I'm oversimplifying a lot, as the arterial plaques contain a complex mélange of proteins as well.)
Among the few treatments that have a clinically proven effect, statins are pretty much at the top of the list. They definitely reduce the amount of cholesterol your body produces, and they definitely reduce the risk of heart attack and stroke by improving cardiovascular health. Presumably when they reduce cholesterol production they ensure that a given HDL or LDL packet spends less time in transit and has less time to leak all over the place. In this view, it might make sense to cut dietary cholesterol in tandem with statins so that the drugs are more effective, but for the most part reducing dietary cholesterol intake to improve cardiovascular health is approximately as useful as pissing in the wind.
(Suppose, for sake of argument, that statins cut cholesterol production in half, to 500mg/day. Now your 200mg/day dietary cholesterol has gone from 16.7% to 28.6% of what's in your blood, so any change in diet has its effect nearly doubled while on statins. I don't think real-world statins actually cause that big an effect, but the general point remains.)
Dietary fiber, specifically soluble dietary fiber, is just about the only other thing besides statins that has improves blood cholesterol levels and cardiovascular health. In the list above, I neglected to mention one of the body's other uses for cholesterol: making bile. Bile is secreted into the intestine to digest and absorb fat; without bile, fat slides through and comes out the other end. By default, the bile itself is reabsorbed along with the fat and recycled. However, soluble fiber can bind to bile, carrying the bile out without being absorbed, and this forces a net reduction in the body's cholesterol levels. (ISTR that soluble fiber changes the LDL:HDL ratio slightly in favor of HDL, suggesting that bile production is preferentially using up the LDL.)
It's worth noting that the LDL-is-bad hypothesis is a bit of a mess right now. Some non-statin trial drugs were found to increase heart attack rates despite provably reducing LDL in the blood. Maybe we're right about LDL, but the trial drugs had negative side effects that outweighed the good; or maybe our whole model is wrong, LDLs are actually good for you, and the statins happen to be "wonder drugs" that reduce heart attacks despite the handicap of LDL reduction. We don't know, but last I looked the smart money is still on the first guess. (Incidentally, the latter scenario reminds me of how aspirin is now recognized as one of the few COX inhibitors a.k.a. NSAIDs that doesn't cause heart attacks, probably by virtue of aspirin itself being a "wonder drug" that overcomes the harm by sheer usefulness of its blood thinning side effect. It was something of a shock when we found out a few years ago that all the existing "safe" COX-1/COX-2 inhibitors, like ibuprofen and naproxen, have always had exactly the same cardiovascular risks found in the COX-2 inhibitors like Celebrex and Vioxx.)
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
All You Motherfuckers Complaining That aPodments Are Too Small at 200 Square Feet by Dominic Holden
-
Portland Voters Are Stoopid by Goldy
-
SL Letter of the Day: Did You Think I Was Going To Tell You Not To Come Out? (PLUS: Help Free Kate!) by Dan Savage
-
Rightwing Anti-Gay French Activist Commits Suicide at Notre Dame Cathedral by Dan Savage
-
Spoiled Rotten: Star Trek Into Darkness by Paul Constant
-
There Are No Atheists In Foxholes by Dan Savage
-
Tornado Truthers by Dan Savage
-
Saint Genet Re-Creates "Shoot" by Brendan Kiley
-
America's Epidemic of Toddler-on-Toddler Gun Violence Continues by Goldy
-
Listen Up, Gays: They're Coming to Recruit You by Cienna Madrid
Stranger Personals
The Stranger
RSSSeattle Art & Performance Quarterly
A complete guide to Seattle's current art, film, dance, and theater season.
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (43) RSS