Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Distortion on information concerning heart disease risk factors and prevention ^ | May 2, 2007 | Sandy Szwarc, BSN, RN, CCP

Posted on 11/01/2009 1:58:02 PM PST by Pining_4_TX

A major medical paper on primary heart disease prevention admitted that cardiovascular disease risk factors have proven useless for predicting heart disease among our population and that reducing risks factors doesn’t translate into reduced clinical disease or fewer premature deaths.

But the solutions to this conundrum were the most unbelievable examples of ad-hoc reasoning.

(Excerpt) Read more at ...

TOPICS: Science
KEYWORDS: heartdisease; statins; statistics
From the post:

While it’s become popular to believe that certain health indices (BMI, blood “cholesterol,” blood sugar, or blood pressure) and lifestyles can predict who will succumb to disease or premature death, it’s not supported in the medical literature. As Dr. P.K. Shah, director of cardiology at Cedars-Sinai Medical Center explained to the Los Angeles Times on February 28, 2005, people with risk factors don’t all have a heart attack. “Our traditional risk factors are very weak overall predictors of future risk.” --------------------------------------------------

Today’s health risk-frenzied environment promotes the idea that people are responsible (and to blame) for their health problems and have significant control over their health indices. But the simple fact is, such beliefs, including the belief in an ideal way of eating, are far out of proportion to the evidence. Attempting to put the influence of lifestyle factors on health into more reasoned perspectives, New England Journal of Medicine editors, Drs. Jerome Kassirer and Marcia Angell wrote:

Although we would all like to believe that changes in diet or lifestyle can greatly improve our health, the likelihood is that, with few exceptions such as smoking cessation, many if not most such changes will produce only small effects. And the effects may not be consistent. A diet that is harmful to one person may be consumed with impunity by others. -----------------------------------------------

Since this post looking at the American Heart Association's guidelines on preventive health for women, an interesting debate has been raging at the British Medical Journal on the use of statins in women. The letter by Dr. Malcolm Kendrick brought up additional arguments that may be of interest to women who might be considering statins for "high" cholesterol. He writes:

As no other cholesterol lowering drug has been shown to improve survival, this discussion is effectively about the use of statins. To date, none of the large trials of secondary prevention with statins has shown a reduction in overall mortality in women. Perhaps more critically, the primary prevention trials have shown neither an overall mortality benefit, nor even a reduction in cardiovascular end points in women. This raises the important question whether women should be prescribed statins at all. I believe that the answer is clearly no....

The Scandinavian simvastatin survival study found the biggest effects of all statin trials—in men. However, what is less publicised is that, overall, three more women died in the statin arm than in the placebo arm. The more recent heart protection study was hailed as a major success for men and women, but despite the hype there was no effect on overall mortality in women.

In the studies of primary prevention neither total mortality nor serious adverse events have been reduced. A meta-analysis published in the Lancet found that statins even failed to reduce coronary heart disease events in women. Of greater concern is that a further meta-analysis of statins in primary prevention suggested that overall mortality may actually be increased by 1% over 10 years (in both men and women).

1 posted on 11/01/2009 1:58:02 PM PST by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

Pfizer is getting out of the cholesteral drug business.....heart problems are likely more related to hormones and vitamin deficiencies.....

2 posted on 11/01/2009 2:05:44 PM PST by goodnesswins (Tagline, oh tagline, whereart thou?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins

AND...excessive weight, (fat?)probably.

3 posted on 11/01/2009 2:06:16 PM PST by goodnesswins (Tagline, oh tagline, whereart thou?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: goodnesswins
AND...excessive weight, (fat?)probably.

Excessive weight and fat can be reduced
by lowering carbohydrate intake
and raising good fat intake.
Omega-3 fish oil.
shalom b'SHEM Yah'shua HaMashiach
4 posted on 11/01/2009 2:26:02 PM PST by Uri’el-2012 (Psalm 119:174 I long for Your salvation, YHvH, Your law is my delight.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: UriĀ’el-2012

Yep...that’s why I take 2 TBSP of cod liver oil a day....and vit d....and try to eat a Neaderthin diet....

5 posted on 11/01/2009 2:40:23 PM PST by goodnesswins (Tagline, oh tagline, whereart thou?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX

I think this indicates something that the doctors do not want to hear—that cardiovascular risk factors are far less voluntary than they are involuntary.

To start with, genetics and metabolism. If people in your family have a habit of dying of cardiovascular problems, you will likely die of them as well, no matter what you do. Likely, severely restricting your lifestyle, eating unpleasant foods, exercising a lot, and avoiding pleasure at all costs will probably buy you a little time, but not much. Is a lifetime of misery worth a few extra months?

Equally important, and interrelated, people vary tremendously in their metabolism. Some people get married at 17, are grandparents at 36, and are old at 50, right when some of their peers are finally getting married for the first time. It is far better to plan your life based on your metabolism than to hope that medical science allows you to see your great-great grandchildren.

Far less fair are diseases and pathogens. It is known that some common viruses will quietly live in your body for years, before nailing you with secondary, and sometimes deadly effects when you are older. An excellent example of this is Shingles. But there are viruses that can mess up your heart many years later. Lifestyle changes will have little or no effect on this.

Youthful excess will catch up with you, even if you live a healthy life after 30. Drinking, smoking and drugs have done their damage, and weakened you in ways that won’t show up for many years. Even over-exercise that causes hidden damage can kill you years later.

And then, of course, there is “bad luck”. Lifestyle changes will again be useless against this.

6 posted on 11/01/2009 2:43:31 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

They also always ignore the #1 risk factor for heart disease, cancer, and many other diseases - aging! Everyone will die of something eventually. The idea that we can all be 95 and as healthy and spry as we were at 20 is absurd.

7 posted on 11/01/2009 2:49:13 PM PST by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: Pining_4_TX
My cholesterol was 240 in 1999...With no pills and 10 years later AND NO DIET CHANGES, it's 230 with a high good cholesterol.

My doctor wants me on meds. I'm 65 years old. Doc...leave me alone!!

From day 1, we are not all equal.

8 posted on 11/01/2009 3:01:25 PM PST by Sacajaweau
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: yefragetuwrabrumuy

Married at 18, never divorced, grandma at 46, not old by any standards now that I’m 50. My loving family keeps me young, happy and content. What kills you is stress. Those common viruses that you talk about will attack when you are under extreme stress. I have seen the effects of stress and healthy eating and exercise don’t seem to make a difference.
If the hot dog I eat today means one less day in the nursing home, so be it!

9 posted on 11/01/2009 3:35:09 PM PST by GrannyAnn
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]

To: GrannyAnn

I got an interesting lesson about this in high school. A typical teen student, athletic even, popular, and since he was a child, one of the last of the polio victims, his doctors told him he would be dead by 25, so to plan accordingly. He did.

He had scheduled his life around a 25 year life expectancy, eliminating a lot of what normal people do. His parents had no problem with him underage drinking, though he didn’t care for smoking. They would buy him anything he wanted, as it was his “inheritance”. He went to school to socialize with those his own age, though no pressure about grades.

All his friends and even girlfriends knew about it, and it was surprising how mature everybody was. No morbidity, no fretting, no fussing. For being able to do most anything he wanted to, he still acted normally, and actually graduated with his class.

And, his doctors were right to within a few months. He even arranged a wake for himself, so he could be honest with everyone and so that there would be no bad feelings or memories after he died.

He died in his sleep, and was buried in his letter sweater.

10 posted on 11/01/2009 3:51:08 PM PST by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794 is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson