Lol
I have a physical job...outside and moving all day everyday...but probably only 3-4 hours a day on the weekends.
I get plenty of exercise...treadmill every morning starts my day.
Non-fishing related
I have a physical job...outside and moving all day everyday...but probably only 3-4 hours a day on the weekends.
I get plenty of exercise...treadmill every morning starts my day.
I take 5 different pills from my health checkups. 2 blood pressure pills, One for Cholesterol, one for gout, and one for hand cramps. Plus vitamins. I have excellent blood pressure My numbers in Cholesterol are in the ball park. I feel fine for an old man.If you weren't so darn heart healthy you would already know.
A
Anonymous member 148
Guest
Salt and sex, I'm totally going on this diet
Yhandi
Steelhead
tasty food doesn't have to go. If you want to lose calories, eat 300-400 fewer calories than you burn. This deficit will force your body to burn your fat. If you want to lower cholesterol, you only need to change the way you eat. There are so many good options, check out this cookbook by Greg Doucet. He was a professional bodybuilder and powerlifter and he knows his stuff. I hope this helps as this book has a ton of amazing recipes that are good for you. I myself have been involved in fitness since 15, it is a fun and highly beneficial trait to implicate into your life.200 in 3 months??? Wow. Ok looks like my youth is over.. Goodbye tasty food
good luck. You only live once so take care.
https://archive.org/details/the-ultimate-anabolic-cookbook-by-greg-doucette <--- cook book
Chris Bellows
Steelhead
I have a family history of high cholesterol and lifestyle will trump genetics in most cases. Family members on statins and I have low cholesterol without any meds. I also used to weigh 300+ pounds in my late 20's / early 30's and now I'm pushing 50 years old being in the best health of my life. Changes are possible but can be really fucking hard and will limit the things you put in your mouth which also craters social activities since so much of modern social life revolves around really unhealthy things (eating garbage and drinking alcohol). Luckily I hate most people and no longer give a shit what anyone thinks of my life or lifestyle... but for those whose lives revolve around going out to restaurants and bars, being healthy is crazy hard.
Evaluating the Association Between Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol Reduction and Relative and Absolute Effects of Statin Treatment A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis - JAMA March 14, 2022
Question What is the association between statin-induced reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute and relative reductions in individual clinical outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke?
Findings In this meta-analysis of 21 randomized clinical trials in primary and secondary prevention that examined the efficacy of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, there was significant heterogeneity but also reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% for all-cause mortality, 1.3% for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins compared with control, with relative risk reductions of 9%, 29%, and 14%, respectively. A meta-regression was inconclusive regarding the association between the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke.
Meaning The study results suggest that the absolute benefits of statins are modest, may not be strongly mediated through the degree of LDL-C reduction, and should be communicated to patients as part of informed clinical decision-making as well as to inform clinical guidelines and policy.
Abstract
Importance The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.
Objective To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.
Data Sources PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.
Study Selection Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.
Data Extraction and Synthesis Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.
Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.
Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.
Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.
Question What is the association between statin-induced reductions in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute and relative reductions in individual clinical outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke?
Findings In this meta-analysis of 21 randomized clinical trials in primary and secondary prevention that examined the efficacy of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes, there was significant heterogeneity but also reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% for all-cause mortality, 1.3% for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins compared with control, with relative risk reductions of 9%, 29%, and 14%, respectively. A meta-regression was inconclusive regarding the association between the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke.
Meaning The study results suggest that the absolute benefits of statins are modest, may not be strongly mediated through the degree of LDL-C reduction, and should be communicated to patients as part of informed clinical decision-making as well as to inform clinical guidelines and policy.
Abstract
Importance The association between statin-induced reduction in low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) levels and the absolute risk reduction of individual, rather than composite, outcomes, such as all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, or stroke, is unclear.
Objective To assess the association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels with treatment with statin therapy and all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke to facilitate shared decision-making between clinicians and patients and inform clinical guidelines and policy.
Data Sources PubMed and Embase were searched to identify eligible trials from January 1987 to June 2021.
Study Selection Large randomized clinical trials that examined the effectiveness of statins in reducing total mortality and cardiovascular outcomes with a planned duration of 2 or more years and that reported absolute changes in LDL-C levels. Interventions were treatment with statins (3-hydroxy-3-methylglutaryl coenzyme A reductase inhibitors) vs placebo or usual care. Participants were men and women older than 18 years.
Data Extraction and Synthesis Three independent reviewers extracted data and/or assessed the methodological quality and certainty of the evidence using the risk of bias 2 tool and Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation. Any differences in opinion were resolved by consensus. Meta-analyses and a meta-regression were undertaken.
Main Outcomes and Measures Primary outcome: all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes: myocardial infarction, stroke.
Findings Twenty-one trials were included in the analysis. Meta-analyses showed reductions in the absolute risk of 0.8% (95% CI, 0.4%-1.2%) for all-cause mortality, 1.3% (95% CI, 0.9%-1.7%) for myocardial infarction, and 0.4% (95% CI, 0.2%-0.6%) for stroke in those randomized to treatment with statins, with associated relative risk reductions of 9% (95% CI, 5%-14%), 29% (95% CI, 22%-34%), and 14% (95% CI, 5%-22%) respectively. A meta-regression exploring the potential mediating association of the magnitude of statin-induced LDL-C reduction with outcomes was inconclusive.
Conclusions and Relevance The results of this meta-analysis suggest that the absolute risk reductions of treatment with statins in terms of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke are modest compared with the relative risk reductions, and the presence of significant heterogeneity reduces the certainty of the evidence. A conclusive association between absolute reductions in LDL-C levels and individual clinical outcomes was not established, and these findings underscore the importance of discussing absolute risk reductions when making informed clinical decisions with individual patients.
Wayne Kohan
Life of the Party
This study seems to concur with what we already know, that the mortality/morbidity reductions with statins are above what could be explained just by the reduction we get in the LDL cholesterol levels. The issue I have with this meta-analysis is that they lumped in primary prevention and secondary prevention, and it would be more reasonable to look at the higher risk patients alone, which is what the AHA is now recommending, that we just treat the higher risk patients. This group overall seems to be low risk. If the absolute risk reduction for MI was 1.3 and it was a 29% relative risk reduction, then that says that the overall risk of MI in this group was 1.83%, which is very low. The AHA does not recommend treatment unless your risk is more than 7.5% in the next 10 years.
So do not interpret this meta-analysis to say that statins don't do much, it says that statins don't do much if you are low risk of disease.
I do think that statins are overused overall, gets back to my original post that you need to treat people and real outcomes like mortality and MI, don't treat your lab values just to make them look good.
Wayne Kohan
Life of the Party
If your risk of disease is 10% and a treatment lowers it to 5%, then that is an absolute risk reduction of 5%, but a relative risk reduction of 50%.
To put it another way, if your risk of a certain terminal disease is 1 out of 1 million, and I cut your risk by 50% (relative risk reduction), then your risk goes to 1 out of 2 million. So for 2 million people, I save one life. If your risk of a terminal disease is 1 out of 10, and I cut your risk by 10%, then your risk goes to 1 out of 9. So for 2 million people I save 20,000 lives.
Family Medicine literature has gone to a term called NNT, or number needed to treat. There is actually a website called theNNT.com. It is very useful. The NNT says that treating low risk patients with statins shows no statistical mortality benefit, and I would have to treat 217 patients to prevent one non-fatal MI. They suggest against statin use, again for low risk individuals. The real question becomes what is your definition of a good treatment? If the NNT is just 2 or 10, or 40 or 100, or a 1000?
By the way, if you have known heart disease, it is recommended by them to treat with statins:
Benefits in NNT
- 1 in 83 were helped (life saved)
- 1 in 39 were helped (preventing non-fatal heart attack)
- 1 in 125 were helped (preventing stroke)
When I graduated from high school in 1955 I was 6' tall and weighed 155#-a string bean. Today nearing 67 years later I am 5' 10 1/2'' and weigh 162. Still kinda string beany. It has been fairly easy to maintain my weight as I have been gifted with a high level of self discipline over the years and an absolute dread of becoming overweight. That self discipline is being somewhat compromised these days, a result of being an old man living alone and cooking for himself. Being 45 miles from a decent supermarket restricts the amount of fresh food I get to eat so I have to compromise by buying frozen. About every 2 weeks I get to the market then binge on fresh food and salads for a few days before resorting to the freezer again.
I am basically a meat and potatoes guy that thrives on carbohydrates. For years I had an aversion to vegetables and although everyone said I should eat them they often repulsed me or made me sick to my stomach. I never understood this until about 10 years ago when my wife discovered a book titled: Eat Right For Your Blood Type. After reading that the lights went on as to why my blood type was averse to vegetables. By now I have learned to incorporate veges into a more balanced diet and can cook them to my liking which wasn't always done before.
I don't pay any attention to cholesterol and am on no medication other than the obligatory help for an enlarged prostate but I do have some do's and don't's. I only eat two meals a day with a good and large breakfast being the most important. Healthy cereals and oatmeal fortified with raisins, bananas, strawberries and blueberries are accompanied by fresh baked bread toast and coffee. About once a week I do the big breakfast on the griddle with bacon, hash browns, eggs, toast with orange marmalade and coffee.
Then only one other meal for the day, usually a meat and potatoes dish with whatever vegetable I have on hand. An ale or a glass of wine with dinner and only 3 or 4 times a year do I ever have more than one drink a day and I never touch the hard stuff. Snacks are not an option, I don't buy them and eating or drinking anything past 6:00pm never happens. Going to bed with a stomach lined with snack food is a direct route to obesity.
The air fryer, Insantpot and sous vide cooker have made life much easier for me resulting in healthier eating and easier cleanup. The more you enjoy cooking the better your food will probably be and your body will thank you for it. Don't eat for recreation!
I am basically a meat and potatoes guy that thrives on carbohydrates. For years I had an aversion to vegetables and although everyone said I should eat them they often repulsed me or made me sick to my stomach. I never understood this until about 10 years ago when my wife discovered a book titled: Eat Right For Your Blood Type. After reading that the lights went on as to why my blood type was averse to vegetables. By now I have learned to incorporate veges into a more balanced diet and can cook them to my liking which wasn't always done before.
I don't pay any attention to cholesterol and am on no medication other than the obligatory help for an enlarged prostate but I do have some do's and don't's. I only eat two meals a day with a good and large breakfast being the most important. Healthy cereals and oatmeal fortified with raisins, bananas, strawberries and blueberries are accompanied by fresh baked bread toast and coffee. About once a week I do the big breakfast on the griddle with bacon, hash browns, eggs, toast with orange marmalade and coffee.
Then only one other meal for the day, usually a meat and potatoes dish with whatever vegetable I have on hand. An ale or a glass of wine with dinner and only 3 or 4 times a year do I ever have more than one drink a day and I never touch the hard stuff. Snacks are not an option, I don't buy them and eating or drinking anything past 6:00pm never happens. Going to bed with a stomach lined with snack food is a direct route to obesity.
The air fryer, Insantpot and sous vide cooker have made life much easier for me resulting in healthier eating and easier cleanup. The more you enjoy cooking the better your food will probably be and your body will thank you for it. Don't eat for recreation!
A
Anonymous member 148
Guest
I was up till 1 am BBQing chicken breasts to cut up on salads for the week.
I was 6'1 and 160's in high school 20 years ago, I'm 6'0" now and 199lb
I was 6'1 and 160's in high school 20 years ago, I'm 6'0" now and 199lb
Had my annual checkup with my cardiologist today. I'm almost 5 years post 4 way emergency bypass. I'm taking a high dose of atorvastatin AND I'm eating heart healthy and working out now...about 30 lbs lower than I was pre-surgery and very stable over the last four years. I learned something new from my doc today that is important to know. My cholesterol is way down, but just as importantly, my "good cholesterol", the HDLs, is way UP and exceeds my LDLs for the first time ever. My doc says the terrific increase in HDLs is all due to my diet and exercise, not the statins. So when you consider the benefit of statins, please know that it is only 1/2 of the equation. Your lifestyle is the other 1/2. You need both to have the maximum benefit to your health. Do it, and your loved ones will be grateful you did. And you'll enjoy more time on streams and lakes as you get older! Cheers!!
I got my cholesterol checked after my brother had a fatal heart attack at age 34 on the racketball court. My father did the same one year later.54. This was in 1993. Sure enough, total C was over 300. I was in good, active physical condition, as was he. Doctors started me on niacin. God it was horrible though effective. After a few years I started a statin and have been there since. 30 years and still kicking. I have an exam every year and all is well. So I'm grateful for modern medicine. Sometimes it works just fine.