Tuesday, April 29, 2025
4-29-25
6min amrap
Max ub strict ring dips
12 cal bike
Dips: 12,10,8,8
Finished 9 cals in 4th bike
25min cap
20-18-16-14-12
Hang powerclean 135#
Wallball 20#
5-4-3-2-1
Wall walk
50 DUs after each round
Time: 18:58
135#
12-8, 9-5-4, 9-4-3, 6-4-4, 6-3-3
wb unbroken
wall walks consistent
dus consistent.
Wednesday, August 28, 2024
8-28-24
Strict press
15 light reps, 75#
12 reps with 3 sec negative, 75#
8 reps of 1/2 up then full up (totals 1 rep) with 3 sec negative, 75#
10 reps, 115#
8 reps, 115#
21min cap
36 cal bike
36 burpees
Rest to 7min
30 cal bike
30 burpees over the line
Rest to 14min
24 cal bike
24 burpee broad jump, 4 ft
Time: 17:19
5min cap on each piece.
Rounds were 3:44, 3:55, 3:19. 2nd round could've been 3:44 but I didn't get in my burpee groove until rep 13.
1st bike was 75 rpm, others were 70 rpm.
5min z2 bike
49 rpm avg
26 cals
Sunday, April 18, 2010
Wellness Lifestyle Implementation Steps 4/18/10
Did You Know???: Chiropractic care sees remarkable results with ADD/ADHD? How? Chiropractic adjustments stimulate an area of the brain called the Vermis. The Vermis is the starting point of the Movement-Learning Pathway in the brain. What does this mean? Movement-Learning Pathway. It means that proper spinal joint movement (which stimulates the Vermis) is a necessary requirement for us to learn at our full potential. When our spine is aligned properly, it moves properly, providing proper stimulation to the brain, allowing it to function properly. Misalignments in the spine occur in 95% of child births, and continue to occur throughout life as they learn to crawl, walk, run, ride a bike, play sports, etc. Before the age of 6, the average child suffers 2,000 falls, 200 of which are considered serious. If your child has never been checked for spinal misalignments, now is the time to get them checked and corrected to unleash their full health and learning potential.
Book Of The Week: Health And Nutrition Secrets That Could Save Your Life by: Russell Blaylock, MD
Recipe Of The Week: Robert's Greens
1 onion, chopped
many cloves of garlic, chopped
1 carrot, chopped fine
1 1/2 long andouille sausage, sliced or chopped
1 large can chicken broth
1 cup canned tomato chunks
2 bunches kale, spines removed, coarsely chopped
olive oil
pepper
hot peppers, fresh (chopped) or dried flakes
Sauté first three ingredients in olive oil until onion is transparent.
Add andouille and cook for a few minutes. Add the broth and tomato and
bring to a boil. Add kale and peppers. Turn heat to very low and
simmer until done. Will be fairly soupy.
Quote Of The Week: "The human brain is unique in that it is the only container of which it can be said that the more you put into it, the more it will hold."
-- Glenn Doman
-- Glenn Doman
Goal Of The Week: Eat Fresh Fiber First at every meal. Begin each meal with fiber in the form of salad, fresh fruit, or vegetables. Fiber cleanses your intestines of toxins and gives your body the feeling of fullness faster, preventing you from over-eating.
Top Article From This Week
The FDA Shuts Down Common Infant Vaccine After Startling Discovery Become Empowered Here
Doctor's Soapbox
This vaccine with Pig Virus DNA in it was approved by the FDA in 2008. Over 1 million US children have been subjected to the vaccine, and over 30 million worldwide. Dr. Margaret Hamburg, Commissioner of the FDA is quoted as saying to CNN, ""It [Pig virus DNA] should not be in this vaccine product and we want to understand how it got there."
It's a little late, don't you think? Don't you think you should have tested the vaccine for these contaminants before approving it in 2008? That seems logical to me. But hey, that would slow down the profits for the pharmaceutical industry, GlaxoSmithKline and Merck, in this case. Why not poison people worldwide for 2 years, make our money, and determine it's safety in the process? And that's exactly what has happened. The corrupt collusion of our federal government and Big Pharma continues to destroy the American people while fattening the wallets of the elite and their payroll. No wonder this generation of children is the first predicted to not outlive their parents. It's designed to be that way by those in control!!!
And right now you may be offended that I even offer up that idea. If so, try and explain this, why did the independent team of scientists, who found the contamination, notify the vaccine manufacturer first rather than also immediately reporting their finding directly to the FDA? So they can get their cover-up story ready, perhaps?
The point of all of this is I, YOU, WE, need to become accountable for our health and the health of our innocent and vulnerable children. You cannot trust the government and definitely not the pharmaceutical companies to give you truthful, non-biased information. Do your research before subjecting your children to vaccines. The best site on the web to provide you with non-biased information that will allow you to make your OWN DECISION as to vaccinate your children or not is The National Vaccine Information Center. Please make it a priority to become empowered with the information necessary to make an intelligent decision. Your child's life depends on it.
A long, happy life requires TLC
Labels:
Barbara Lo Fisher,
FDA,
health,
transcendent lifestyle center,
vaccines
Thursday, January 21, 2010
Too Much Sitting Shortens Lives
Below is an article I ran across today in the New York Times and I was far from surprised about the findings considering that 70% of Americans don't get 30 minutes of moderate exercise per day and 24% get no physical activity at all in the day. As more and more pills are produced to fix heart disease, diabetes, cancer, osteoporosis, and stroke I ask how are they ever going to fix a movement deficiency problem? Just like if you get scurvy from a vitamin C deficiency or rickets from a vitamin D deficiency, you'll get obesity, heart disease, cancer, and stroke from a movement deficiency. Chronic disease isn't a genetic problem, it's a lifestyle problem and they only way to fix that problem is to change how you eat, move, and think.
Behavior: Too Much Sitting Shortens Lives, Study Suggests
By RONI CARYN RABIN
A new study from Australia suggests that couch potatoes live shorter lives.
The study followed 8,800 adults ages 25 and older for six and a half years and found that each daily hour of television viewing was associated with an 18 percent increase in deaths from heart disease and an 11 percent increase in overall mortality.
Those who watched television four hours or more per day were 80 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than those who watched two hours or less, and 46 percent more likely to die of any cause. And it did not matter whether they were overweight, according to the study, which appeared Jan. 11 in the online edition of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
Although it is possible that people who were already ill watched more television than those who were healthy, the researchers tried to rule that out by excluding subjects who already had heart disease and by adjusting for differences in risk factors like diet and smoking.
While the benefits of physical activity have been well studied, there is growing interest among researchers in assessing the effects of being sedentary.
“For many people, on a daily basis, they simply shift from one chair to another — from the chair in the car to the chair in the office to the chair in front of the television,” said the study’s lead author, David Dunstan of the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Victoria, Australia. “Even if someone has a healthy body weight, sitting for long periods still has an unhealthy influence on blood sugar and blood fats.”
Behavior: Too Much Sitting Shortens Lives, Study Suggests
By RONI CARYN RABIN
A new study from Australia suggests that couch potatoes live shorter lives.
The study followed 8,800 adults ages 25 and older for six and a half years and found that each daily hour of television viewing was associated with an 18 percent increase in deaths from heart disease and an 11 percent increase in overall mortality.
Those who watched television four hours or more per day were 80 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than those who watched two hours or less, and 46 percent more likely to die of any cause. And it did not matter whether they were overweight, according to the study, which appeared Jan. 11 in the online edition of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.
Although it is possible that people who were already ill watched more television than those who were healthy, the researchers tried to rule that out by excluding subjects who already had heart disease and by adjusting for differences in risk factors like diet and smoking.
While the benefits of physical activity have been well studied, there is growing interest among researchers in assessing the effects of being sedentary.
“For many people, on a daily basis, they simply shift from one chair to another — from the chair in the car to the chair in the office to the chair in front of the television,” said the study’s lead author, David Dunstan of the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Victoria, Australia. “Even if someone has a healthy body weight, sitting for long periods still has an unhealthy influence on blood sugar and blood fats.”
Thursday, December 3, 2009
What does a mammogram have to do with prevention?
I was recently reading an article in the New York Times about the safety of mammograms for women with a high risk of breast cancer as a preventative strategy. What does getting a mammogram have to do with prevention? If cancer shows up on the mammogram does that not mean that the patient already has cancer? I don't see any prevention in that scenario at all. The same geos for the "preventative" screenings for heart disease, colon cancer, and diabetes. It's far from prevention and it's ridiculuos to use the word.
The other question is how many doctors are looking that the research on how lifestyle choices are showing up as causal factors for breast cancer? There's A LOT of it and if you make bad lifestyle choices daily of course your risk for cancer is going to go up. It would make more sense to educate these "high risk" women at a young age about how their lifestyle can increase their risk of breast as opposed to starting mammograms early. This is absolutely why doctors need to stop focusing on drugs and surgery and instead start educating their patients on lifestyle. Is your doctor offering you lifestyle solutions? Eat Well--Move Well--Think Well.
The other question is how many doctors are looking that the research on how lifestyle choices are showing up as causal factors for breast cancer? There's A LOT of it and if you make bad lifestyle choices daily of course your risk for cancer is going to go up. It would make more sense to educate these "high risk" women at a young age about how their lifestyle can increase their risk of breast as opposed to starting mammograms early. This is absolutely why doctors need to stop focusing on drugs and surgery and instead start educating their patients on lifestyle. Is your doctor offering you lifestyle solutions? Eat Well--Move Well--Think Well.
Labels:
breast cancer,
eat well,
mammograms,
move well,
think well
Saturday, November 28, 2009
Do you really need dairy for strong bones?
The more investigating that I do I wonder where in the world did the notion came about that we need dairy products to have strong bones? The sexy celebrity ad "Got Milk?" would probably be a great place to start. But do Hayden Panettiere, Mischa Barton, or any other celebrity know anything about what it really takes to have "strong bones?" The ad campaign is very successful because 90% of Americans when asked how to have strong bones answer with, "drink milk." When I tell friends and family that I avoid dairy they look at me and always ask, "where do you get your calcium." My response is, "fruits and vegetables." They look at me baffled and then always ask this follow up, "there's calcium in fruits and vegetables?"
The crazy thing is that currently we're consuming more milk, yogurt, and chesse in the U.S. than ever before in history and rates of osteoporosis are on the rise. Osteoporosis costs the American health care system about 38 million dollars per day and that number is growing every year. So who are the experts on strong bones? Osteoporosis was non existent in hunter gatherer populations and there wasn't a single hunter gatherer population that ate dairy. They ate a lot of fruits and vegetables and they did a tremendous amount of weight bearing exercise. But instead of our doctors giving patients more exercise and more fruits and veggies they often give a pill or recommend calcium supplements. This might be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard/seen. Giving people calcium supplements without telling them they need at least 30 minutes of weight bearing exercise every day is the equivalent of telling people to drink protein shakes to get big biceps. It just won't work.
The other science that is coming out about how diet affects bones is the acid/alkaline information. I found the article from the New York Time below to be very interesting:
November 24, 2009
Personal Health
Exploring a Low-Acid Diet for Bone Health
By JANE E. BRODY
The science of osteoporosis and its resultant fractures has long been plagued by some vexing observations. Why, for example, are osteoporotic fractures relatively rare in Asian countries like Japan, where people live as long or longer than Americans and consume almost no calcium-rich dairy products? Why, in Western countries that consume the most dairy foods, are rates of osteoporotic fractures among the highest in the world? And why has no consistent link been found between the amount of calcium people consume and protection against osteoporosis?
An alternative theory of bone health may — or may not — explain these apparent contradictions. It is the theory of low-acid eating, a diet laden with fruits and vegetables but relatively low in acid-producing protein and moderate in cereal grains. Its proponents suggest that this menu plan could lead to stronger bones than the typical American diet rich in dairy products and animal protein, often enhanced by calcium supplements.
These dietary changes might even prevent or delay other chronic conditions that rob far too many people of a wholesome old age.
The low-acid theory was first fully promulgated in 1968 by two American doctors in the leading medical journal The Lancet and has since been the subject of much debate and confusion among bone specialists.
The science behind low-acid eating and the research findings that do, and do not, support it have been spelled out in a new book, “Building Bone Vitality,” by Amy Joy Lanou, an assistant professor of health and wellness at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, and Michael Castleman, a health writer.
At the same time, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine are studying the possible bone benefits of adding protein supplements to the diets of older Americans who habitually consume low levels of protein.
Dr. Karl Insogna, a professor of internal medicine directing the study, said in an interview that the 18-month placebo-controlled study would determine whether raising protein intake to a more normal range could increase bone mineral density and help prevent osteoporosis in people over age 60.
Science of the Skeleton
Bones are not immutable. Rather, they are continually being broken down and rebuilt, and when breakdown exceeds buildup, they get progressively weaker. Vital to the solid framework of the body, bones play an equally important metabolic role hidden from casual observation.
Bones are the storage tank for calcium compounds that regulate the acid-base balance of the blood, which must be maintained within a very narrow range. When the blood becomes even slightly too acid, alkaline calcium compounds — like calcium carbonate, the acid-neutralizer in Tums — are leached from bones to reduce the acidity.
Studies by Dr. Bess Dawson-Hughes, at the Jean Mayer U.S.D.A. Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, and collaborators have demonstrated the acid-neutralizing ability of fruits and vegetables and the crucial role they can play in maintaining healthy bones.
The researchers note that fruits and vegetables are predominantly metabolized to alkaline bicarbonate, whereas proteins and cereal grains are metabolized to acids. The more protein people consume beyond the body’s true needs, the more acidic their blood can become and the more alkaline compounds are needed to neutralize the acid.
In one study by Dr. Dawson-Hughes and colleagues, published in January in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 171 healthy men and women age 50 and older were treated with either bicarbonate or no bicarbonate. Those receiving bicarbonate, in an amount equivalent to nine servings of fruits and vegetables daily, experienced much lower levels of calcium loss in the urine, as well as a loss of N-telopeptide, the biochemical marker of bone resorption.
(By contrast, Dr. Insogna said that although eating more protein raised the loss of calcium in urine, it also improved intestinal absorption of calcium and thus might not result in bone loss.)
The Dawson-Hughes team concluded that increasing the alkaline content of the diet by eating more fruits and vegetables should be studied as a safe and low-cost approach to preventing osteoporosis and improving bone health in older Americans.
The finding is consistent with current recommendations from several federal health agencies to consume nine servings daily of fruits and vegetables. That amount has been shown to lower blood pressure and has been linked to a reduced risk of developing heart disease, stroke, diabetes, some cancers and Alzheimer’s disease. Now prevention of osteoporosis might be added to the list.
As the book authors point out, “animal foods, especially cheeses and meats, don’t contain much alkaline material” and hardly enough to “neutralize all the acids they introduce into the bloodstream; the body must draw calcium compounds from bone to restore optimal blood pH,” a measure of acidity. On the other hand, the alkaline material in fruits and vegetables, which are low in protein, can buffer that acidity.
Except for hard cheeses, which are acid-producing, most dairy foods, including milk, are “metabolized to compounds that are essentially neutral,” Dr. Dawson-Hughes said.
In their exhaustive review of the scientific literature, Dr. Lanou and Mr. Castleman found that “two-thirds of clinical trials show that milk, dairy foods and calcium supplements do not prevent fractures.” They conclude that the high fracture rate in countries that consume the most milk and dairy products results from the fact that “these affluent Western countries also consume the most meat, poultry and fish.”
Lessons From Research
This does not mean that older people, many of whom chronically consume too little protein, should avoid this essential nutrient, which helps prevent frailty and the falls that result in fractures. Nor must people become vegetarians to maintain strong bones.
But it does suggest that those at the high end of protein consumption may be better off eating less protein in general and less animal protein in particular and replacing it with more fruits and vegetables. Consider adhering to the amount of protein that health experts recommend, which has a built-in safety factor of 45 percent above the minimum daily requirement and is based on ideal (not actual) body weight and age.
For an adult, that amount in grams is 0.36 multiplied by ideal body weight. Thus, a woman who should weigh 120 pounds needs only 44 grams of protein a day, the amount in 3 ounces of flounder, one piece of tofu and a cup of cooked bulgur. A 60-pound 8-year-old (the multiplier is 0.55) would need only 2 ounces of chicken and one-half cup of cottage cheese to get the recommended 32 grams of protein.
The crazy thing is that currently we're consuming more milk, yogurt, and chesse in the U.S. than ever before in history and rates of osteoporosis are on the rise. Osteoporosis costs the American health care system about 38 million dollars per day and that number is growing every year. So who are the experts on strong bones? Osteoporosis was non existent in hunter gatherer populations and there wasn't a single hunter gatherer population that ate dairy. They ate a lot of fruits and vegetables and they did a tremendous amount of weight bearing exercise. But instead of our doctors giving patients more exercise and more fruits and veggies they often give a pill or recommend calcium supplements. This might be one of the most ridiculous things I have heard/seen. Giving people calcium supplements without telling them they need at least 30 minutes of weight bearing exercise every day is the equivalent of telling people to drink protein shakes to get big biceps. It just won't work.
The other science that is coming out about how diet affects bones is the acid/alkaline information. I found the article from the New York Time below to be very interesting:
November 24, 2009
Personal Health
Exploring a Low-Acid Diet for Bone Health
By JANE E. BRODY
The science of osteoporosis and its resultant fractures has long been plagued by some vexing observations. Why, for example, are osteoporotic fractures relatively rare in Asian countries like Japan, where people live as long or longer than Americans and consume almost no calcium-rich dairy products? Why, in Western countries that consume the most dairy foods, are rates of osteoporotic fractures among the highest in the world? And why has no consistent link been found between the amount of calcium people consume and protection against osteoporosis?
An alternative theory of bone health may — or may not — explain these apparent contradictions. It is the theory of low-acid eating, a diet laden with fruits and vegetables but relatively low in acid-producing protein and moderate in cereal grains. Its proponents suggest that this menu plan could lead to stronger bones than the typical American diet rich in dairy products and animal protein, often enhanced by calcium supplements.
These dietary changes might even prevent or delay other chronic conditions that rob far too many people of a wholesome old age.
The low-acid theory was first fully promulgated in 1968 by two American doctors in the leading medical journal The Lancet and has since been the subject of much debate and confusion among bone specialists.
The science behind low-acid eating and the research findings that do, and do not, support it have been spelled out in a new book, “Building Bone Vitality,” by Amy Joy Lanou, an assistant professor of health and wellness at the University of North Carolina at Asheville, and Michael Castleman, a health writer.
At the same time, researchers at the Yale School of Medicine are studying the possible bone benefits of adding protein supplements to the diets of older Americans who habitually consume low levels of protein.
Dr. Karl Insogna, a professor of internal medicine directing the study, said in an interview that the 18-month placebo-controlled study would determine whether raising protein intake to a more normal range could increase bone mineral density and help prevent osteoporosis in people over age 60.
Science of the Skeleton
Bones are not immutable. Rather, they are continually being broken down and rebuilt, and when breakdown exceeds buildup, they get progressively weaker. Vital to the solid framework of the body, bones play an equally important metabolic role hidden from casual observation.
Bones are the storage tank for calcium compounds that regulate the acid-base balance of the blood, which must be maintained within a very narrow range. When the blood becomes even slightly too acid, alkaline calcium compounds — like calcium carbonate, the acid-neutralizer in Tums — are leached from bones to reduce the acidity.
Studies by Dr. Bess Dawson-Hughes, at the Jean Mayer U.S.D.A. Human Nutrition Research Center on Aging at Tufts University, and collaborators have demonstrated the acid-neutralizing ability of fruits and vegetables and the crucial role they can play in maintaining healthy bones.
The researchers note that fruits and vegetables are predominantly metabolized to alkaline bicarbonate, whereas proteins and cereal grains are metabolized to acids. The more protein people consume beyond the body’s true needs, the more acidic their blood can become and the more alkaline compounds are needed to neutralize the acid.
In one study by Dr. Dawson-Hughes and colleagues, published in January in The Journal of Clinical Endocrinology and Metabolism, 171 healthy men and women age 50 and older were treated with either bicarbonate or no bicarbonate. Those receiving bicarbonate, in an amount equivalent to nine servings of fruits and vegetables daily, experienced much lower levels of calcium loss in the urine, as well as a loss of N-telopeptide, the biochemical marker of bone resorption.
(By contrast, Dr. Insogna said that although eating more protein raised the loss of calcium in urine, it also improved intestinal absorption of calcium and thus might not result in bone loss.)
The Dawson-Hughes team concluded that increasing the alkaline content of the diet by eating more fruits and vegetables should be studied as a safe and low-cost approach to preventing osteoporosis and improving bone health in older Americans.
The finding is consistent with current recommendations from several federal health agencies to consume nine servings daily of fruits and vegetables. That amount has been shown to lower blood pressure and has been linked to a reduced risk of developing heart disease, stroke, diabetes, some cancers and Alzheimer’s disease. Now prevention of osteoporosis might be added to the list.
As the book authors point out, “animal foods, especially cheeses and meats, don’t contain much alkaline material” and hardly enough to “neutralize all the acids they introduce into the bloodstream; the body must draw calcium compounds from bone to restore optimal blood pH,” a measure of acidity. On the other hand, the alkaline material in fruits and vegetables, which are low in protein, can buffer that acidity.
Except for hard cheeses, which are acid-producing, most dairy foods, including milk, are “metabolized to compounds that are essentially neutral,” Dr. Dawson-Hughes said.
In their exhaustive review of the scientific literature, Dr. Lanou and Mr. Castleman found that “two-thirds of clinical trials show that milk, dairy foods and calcium supplements do not prevent fractures.” They conclude that the high fracture rate in countries that consume the most milk and dairy products results from the fact that “these affluent Western countries also consume the most meat, poultry and fish.”
Lessons From Research
This does not mean that older people, many of whom chronically consume too little protein, should avoid this essential nutrient, which helps prevent frailty and the falls that result in fractures. Nor must people become vegetarians to maintain strong bones.
But it does suggest that those at the high end of protein consumption may be better off eating less protein in general and less animal protein in particular and replacing it with more fruits and vegetables. Consider adhering to the amount of protein that health experts recommend, which has a built-in safety factor of 45 percent above the minimum daily requirement and is based on ideal (not actual) body weight and age.
For an adult, that amount in grams is 0.36 multiplied by ideal body weight. Thus, a woman who should weigh 120 pounds needs only 44 grams of protein a day, the amount in 3 ounces of flounder, one piece of tofu and a cup of cooked bulgur. A 60-pound 8-year-old (the multiplier is 0.55) would need only 2 ounces of chicken and one-half cup of cottage cheese to get the recommended 32 grams of protein.
Labels:
calcium supplements,
dairy,
eat well,
fruits,
move well,
osteoporosis,
think well,
vegetables
Tuesday, November 17, 2009
U.S. Cholesterol Levels Going Down, Heart Disease Still on The Rise
U.S. cholesterol levels are going down according to a recent study in Journal of the American Medical Association. This should mean that there are less cases of heart disease in the US as well right? Oops that's not happening and in fact there are more diagnosed cases of new heart disease in the US. The scary thing about this journal article is that the authors actually talk about requiring people to take statin drugs based on their age to reduce their "bad" cholesterol and improve their "good" cholesterol. This is insane. Drugs and surgery don't treat lifestyle problems and abdicate all responsibility from the patient. High cholesterol, high blood pressure, heart disease, some cancers, stroke are all examples of chronic preventable diseases that need a lifestyle solution. Eat Well, Move Well, Think Well. We are currently feeding the United States more drugs than we have ever anyone in the history of the world and we are getting sicker. We are in a health crisis and the root cause of this health crisis isn't being talked about. People are more stressed out than ever before, living in toxic environments, eating foods that are totally deficient in the nutrients, and we are more sedentary than ever before.
U.S. cholesterol levels going down
November 17, 2009 | 1:00 pm
Statins
The development of statins, a class of drugs that lower bad cholesterol, have made a big effect. A study published today found that the prevalence of American adults with high levels of LDL cholesterol (that's the bad kind) fell by about one-third from 1999 to 2006. Paradoxically, the study also found that a huge number of people still have excessively high levels of bad cholesterol, are not being treated for it or may even be unaware of their levels.
The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., examined LDL cholesterol levels among more than 7,000 men and women across four study cycles: 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. Rates of high LDL cholesterol decreased from 31.5% in 1999-2000 to 21.2% in 2005-2006.
Yet researchers from the federal government found that many people had elevated rates of bad cholesterol, particularly those at the highest risk for developing heart disease. Fewer than 70% of adults nationwide were screened for cholesterol levels in the 2005-2006 period. During that time period of the study, 64.5% of people received cholesterol screening, 39.6% were screened but were untreated or inadequately treated and 24.9% were not told the results of screening.
In two commentaries accompanying the study, experts noted that cholesterol screening guidelines have become too complex and should be simplified so that more people receive statins. Dr. J. Michael Gaziano and Dr. Thomas A. Gaziano noted in one editorial that the last set of cholesterol guidelines, published in 2002, was 280 pages long. The guidelines are not only complicated, they are far from perfect, sometimes leading doctors to prescribe statins to someone with elevated LDL cholesterol but who has an overall low risk of heart disease and not prescribing drugs to someone with normal LDL cholesterol but who has an overall high risk of developing heart disease.
Another approach to treating cholesterol, said the authors of the other commentary, is to prescribe generic statins to all adults based on age. This approach may be justified, they said, in light of the large number of people who could benefit from statins but are not getting the medication; because statins have been shown to be safe and because generic versions of the medications are inexpensive.
However, that approach may overly simplistic, said Michael Gaziano and Thomas Gaziano. Arbitrary, fixed LDL thresholds for prescribing statins should be abandoned, they said.
"The guideline should begin with simple risk assessment with the goal of classifying patients into only two strata: those for whom lipid-lowering therapy should be considered and those for whom it is not warranted," they wrote. "The use of a simplified risk-based approach could increase the ease of implementation of treatment and increase the number of patients receiving beneficial lipid-lowering therapy."
-- Shari Roan
U.S. cholesterol levels going down
November 17, 2009 | 1:00 pm
Statins
The development of statins, a class of drugs that lower bad cholesterol, have made a big effect. A study published today found that the prevalence of American adults with high levels of LDL cholesterol (that's the bad kind) fell by about one-third from 1999 to 2006. Paradoxically, the study also found that a huge number of people still have excessively high levels of bad cholesterol, are not being treated for it or may even be unaware of their levels.
The study, published in the Journal of the American Medical Assn., examined LDL cholesterol levels among more than 7,000 men and women across four study cycles: 1999-2000, 2001-2002, 2003-2004 and 2005-2006. Rates of high LDL cholesterol decreased from 31.5% in 1999-2000 to 21.2% in 2005-2006.
Yet researchers from the federal government found that many people had elevated rates of bad cholesterol, particularly those at the highest risk for developing heart disease. Fewer than 70% of adults nationwide were screened for cholesterol levels in the 2005-2006 period. During that time period of the study, 64.5% of people received cholesterol screening, 39.6% were screened but were untreated or inadequately treated and 24.9% were not told the results of screening.
In two commentaries accompanying the study, experts noted that cholesterol screening guidelines have become too complex and should be simplified so that more people receive statins. Dr. J. Michael Gaziano and Dr. Thomas A. Gaziano noted in one editorial that the last set of cholesterol guidelines, published in 2002, was 280 pages long. The guidelines are not only complicated, they are far from perfect, sometimes leading doctors to prescribe statins to someone with elevated LDL cholesterol but who has an overall low risk of heart disease and not prescribing drugs to someone with normal LDL cholesterol but who has an overall high risk of developing heart disease.
Another approach to treating cholesterol, said the authors of the other commentary, is to prescribe generic statins to all adults based on age. This approach may be justified, they said, in light of the large number of people who could benefit from statins but are not getting the medication; because statins have been shown to be safe and because generic versions of the medications are inexpensive.
However, that approach may overly simplistic, said Michael Gaziano and Thomas Gaziano. Arbitrary, fixed LDL thresholds for prescribing statins should be abandoned, they said.
"The guideline should begin with simple risk assessment with the goal of classifying patients into only two strata: those for whom lipid-lowering therapy should be considered and those for whom it is not warranted," they wrote. "The use of a simplified risk-based approach could increase the ease of implementation of treatment and increase the number of patients receiving beneficial lipid-lowering therapy."
-- Shari Roan
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)