Cholesterol Lie Q & A

Dear Dr. Jonny,

Following your suggestion, I just finished reading "The Great Cholesterol Lie"! What an eye-opener.

But I recently read in the mainstream media about a study called the JUPITER Study that showed the benefit of statin drugs even for people with normal cholesterol! How can this be?

Well, I can certainly see why my reader was confused. So let's try to sort it out.

In the JUPITER study, people with normal cholesterol were given statin drugs. But these people didn't just have normal cholesterol- they also had elevated levels of a blood protein called C-reactive Protein (CRP).

When this group of people took statin drugs (specifically Crestor), their risk factors did indeed improve.

The question is, "Why?"

Here's the answer- and it's not nearly as confusing as the results might seem at first.

Statin drugs are mildly anti-inflammatory. I believe- and I'm quite sure Dr. Lundell would agree with me- that any good that statin drugs do is solely because of their ability to reduce inflammation. In the JUPITER Study, statins lowered CRP, which is- guess what- a measure of systemic inflammation!

And here's what backfired for the pharmaceutical company. This study confirmed the fact that cholesterol is largely irrelevant. The patients in the JUPITER Study were at risk not because their cholesterol was high (it wasn't) but because they had high levels of inflammation.

The statin drug lowered their inflammation, and any lowering of inflammation improves risk factors for heart disease, not to mention overall health. Let's not forget those nasty side effects of painful muscle cramping and recent studies that show extreme cognitive dysfunction from statins.

Wouldn't an aspirin be better? And better yet, Omega-3?

Statins are the "Frankenstein" medication of our time. And Dr. Lundell exposes the reasons why in his excellent book.

The bottom line is that Inflammation is a very, very serious thing—it's a silent killer.

Cholesterol is not. My advice? Take Omega-3 fish oil, the most anti-inflammatory compound on the planet and one that has exactly zero side effects. With fish oil available, why in the world would someone choose a statin as their anti-inflammatory drug of choice?

The simple steps to begin healing your heart outlined in Dr. Lundell's book, "The Great Cholesterol Lie" will absolutely astonish you.

Go here now and silence that deadly killer - inflammation.

Are Stress Hormones Ruining Your Health?

Save $30 on My Personal Anti-Aging Program

This is a sample from The 7 Pillars of Longevity, Pillar V: Stress.

Normally $99, you can get this learning system for just $69 in September when you use coupon code YOUNGER.

Do you want to know my secrets for looking younger, feeling younger, and living longer? If so, check out The 7 Pillars of Longevity »

A Smarter Way to Reduce Heart Attack Risk

Think the best way to predict heart attacks is by knowing your cholesterol?

Think again.

Researchers from the Hanyang University in Seoul, matched 50 men and women who had experienced a non-fatal heart attack with 50 age and gender-matched controls who did not have a history of heart attack. The researchers analyzed the red blood cells of both groups and measured their levels of both trans-fatty acids and omega-3's. (As readers of this newsletter know, trans-fatty acids are those spawn-of-Satan fats made by hydrogenating or partially hydrogenating vegetable oil; omega-3's are the wonderful anti-inflammatory fatty acids EPA and DHA found in fish and ALA found in flax and hemp.)

The researchers wanted to see how well blood levels of trans-fatty acids and blood levels of omega-3's could predict heart attack. Specifically, they wanted to see if these two measures- trans-fats and omega 3's-- did any better in predicting cardiovascular disease than the "standard" Framingham risk scores.

Framingham risk scores- named after the famous study of adults in Framingham Massachusetts that began in 1948- are calculated using age, gender, smoking status, total cholesterol levels, HDL-cholesterol levels, diabetes history and hypertension history.

While an individual's Framingham score is 70 to 80 percent accurate in predicting coronary heart disease risk, it fails to take into account more recently recognized risk factors that could improve its predictive value.

The current research-- published online on June 9, 2009 in the British Journal of Nutrition-- found that the new measures did even better than the Framingham measures in predicting heart attacks. Those who had the lowest levels of omega-3's in their blood had the greatest risk of heart attack as did those who had the highest levels of trans-fats.

Specifically, the omega-3 fatty acid index-- which is the sum of red blood cell EPA and DHA-- was significantly lower in heart attack patients compared with controls, while total trans-fatty acids were significantly higher. Those whose omega-3 fatty acid index was among the top third of participants had an amazing 92 percent lower risk of heart attack than those whose levels were in the lowest third.

Meanwhile, when it came to trans-fats, the exact opposite was true. For those whose total trans-fatty acids were in the top third, the risk of heart attack was a whopping 72.67 percent higher than subjects in the lowest third.

The authors note that omega-3 fatty acids are associated with decreased blood viscosity, and have anti-inflammatory, anti-thrombotic, anti-arrhythmic, lipid lowering and vasodilatory effects. Conversely, trans-fatty acids have been associated with an increased risk of coronary heart disease.

The researchers wrote that "the fatty acid profile is more powerful than the Framingham risk score for identifying patients" with non-fatal heart attacks.

There are two take-home points here:

1. keep your man-made trans-fat intake as close to zero as possible
   
2. keep your omega-3 intake nice and high. You can do this by eating cold-water fish (like the virtually toxin-free cold-water fish available frozen and in cans from Vital Choice) and/or by taking fish oil on a daily basis.
   

Vegetarians can get omega-3's from flaxseeds and flaxseed oil, but to make sure you're getting enough of the all-important EPA and DHA that were measured in the study (and that are found naturally in fish) be sure to take at least two tablespoons or more a day of flaxseed oil.

Take Two Walks and Call Me in the Morning

It's no secret that many people don't exercise, even though they know they should. (Not you of course- but maybe someone you know.) Recent studies show that a written prescription for exercise from a doctor might just help motivate people to get off the couch and start moving!

Professor Miriam Morey led the most recent study on prescribing exercise, which was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association. She focused on cancer survivors like Joe Collie, who had surgery for prostate cancer. "The operation was in July of '93, so it's been 16 years since I had that procedure," explains Collie.

Collie and more than 600 other cancer survivors went on diets and exercise programs tailored to their needs. They also spoke with counselors over the telephone on a regular basis.

After 12 months, researchers were surprised to find that those who participated in the diet and exercise program increased their physical activity, lost weight and reported less physical decline than those in a control group.

Professor Morey says the study's results should help change patient care. "We can deliver this intervention to your home. You don't have to go anywhere. You can be on a mountaintop living by yourself, or in another country, and we can deliver this intervention," she said.

Professor Loretta DiPietro heads George Washington University's Department of Exercise Science. She says she was not surprised by the results of Morey's study. "We've been working with physicians for years and years to get them to discuss exercise with their patients," DiPietro states.

She says it is easier to prevent disease with exercise than it is to use exercise as part of treatment after the illness is diagnosed.

"Exercise has its greatest benefits on the prevention end of the equation," PiPietro adds. "It's much more effective in preventing excessive weight gain or excessive rises in blood sugar and cholesterol."

But she also says different exercises can help people with different diseases. For example, people at risk for osteoporosis benefit from weight bearing exercise. People with high blood sugar benefit the most when they exercise after a meal.

And Professor Morey says her study proves that cancer survivors suffer less decline in mobility when they get exercise tailored to their needs.

Joe Collie sums it up like this: "You've got to be able to get up and move around."

Researchers are not only discovering which exercises are best, but how often, how intense and how much time per week exercises should be done to maximize the benefit.

But you don't have to wait while they figure out all the details, which would be like waiting for a study to show that water puts out fire.

Exercise is the single best predictor of good health outcomes that I know of. It almost doesn't matter what you do-- just do something. In my book, The Most Effective Natural Cures on Earth I had to give "exercise" a special place simply because I was unable to find any "treatment" or "intervention" or "supplement" or "diet" that had as far-ranging and profound effects on human health and longevity.

Great if doctors start "prescribing" this info for their patients, just as other health professionals have been doing for decades.

Even better if we start listening to them!

25 Year Heart Surgeon Reveals The Statin Scam

Guest article by Dr. Dwight Lundell:

Television ads featuring artificial heart inventor Dr. Robert Jarvik (who never practiced medicine) claims that Lipitor will lower heart attack risk by 36%.

Now, who wouldn't want that? Let's look at the fine print...

"in a large clinical study 3% of people taking a placebo had a heart attack and 2% of those taking Lipitor had a heart attack."

Let's do the math...

• For every 100 people in the trial that lasted 3 l/2 years, 3 people on the placebo and 2 people on Lipitor had heart attacks. That is one less heart attack for every 100 people.
• In other words, 100 people had to take Lipitor for 3 l/2 years
• to prevent one heart attack.
• What this really means is, 99 out of 100 people taking Lipitor received no benefit.

There is a little known statistic, "Number Needed To Treat," (NNT) defined as the number of patients who need to be treated in order to prevent one bad outcome. In the case of Lipitor, 100 patients needed to be treated for 3 l/2 years to possibly eliminate one heart attack.

Let's compare that number to today's antibiotic treatment to eradicate ulcer causing H. pylori stomach bacteria. The Number Needed To Treat H. pylori is 1:1. That means if you give the antibiotic to 11 people, 10 will be cured.

Several recent scientific papers peg the NNT for statin medications at 250. That means 249 of 250 would receive no benefit.

Dr. Jerome R. Hoffman, Professor of Clinical Medicine at UCLA asks:

"What if you put 250 people in a room and told them they would have to pay over $1,000 per year for a medicine they must take every day that might give them diarrhea and muscle pain and that 249 of those people would get no benefit, how many would take that?"

Very, very few.

Drug companies have a responsibility to their shareholders to make a profit. We need drug companies to develop new medicines; however, when they grossly overstate benefits and spend enormous dollars influencing physicians, it leads to potential corruption.

The National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) 2004 guidelines lowered the targets for cholesterol treatment and recommended more Americans take statins. The panel that issued the guidelines was comprised of 9 experts, 8 of which had ties to the drug industry.

Physicians who speak out take great risks as medicine and government agencies do not like criticism. For example, Dr. Henry C. Barry of the Michigan State University College of Medicine recently stated, "The NCEP guideline and process went awry."

Dr. Barry and 34 other experts sent a petition of protest to the National Institutes of Health saying the evidence was weak and the panel biased because of its ties to the drug industry. Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, Professor of Internal Medicine at the University of Michigan Medical school said, "current evidence supports ignoring LDL cholesterol altogether."

In response to these statements The National Cholesterol Education Program stated strongly, "Dr. Hayward should be held accountable in a court of law for doing things to kill people."

We might expect this kind of harsh response from zealots and extremists but not from government agencies or scientists. If we spent just a fraction of the money we now do on cholesterol testing, cholesterol lowering drugs and doctors visits, on educating people about proper diet, exercise and weight loss, we'd be far healthier.

Dr. Lundell's New Book Backs What I've Been Saying About Cholesterol for Years!

The Great Cholesterol Lie Why Everything You Learned About Cholesterol Is A Lie, How It Began in 1948 And Why It Continues. Why Statin Medications Will Not Reduce Your Risk Of Heart Disease, And What Will. Extraordinary Simple Steps That Prevent And Reverse Heart Disease Without Medication. Learn More

Cut Calories, Improve Memory!

There've been a ton of studies on "calorie restriction" as an anti-aging strategy. Cutting calories- even by 25%- 33%- has been shown to extend life of every life form tested so far, from fruit flies and yeast to monkeys. Now a new study (published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences) shows that in addition to extending life, calorie cutting may also improve your memory.

Researchers took 50 men and women ages 50-72 who ranged from normal weight to overweight. One group was told to cut calories by 30 percent, mainly by eating smaller portions. A second group was told to leave their calories the same but change the proportion coming from fat, and a third group was told to make no dietary changes.

After three months, the subjects took tests involving memorizing words.

The calorie-cutting group averaged a respectable 20% improvement in memory performance. (The second and the third group showed no change whatsoever.)

Lead researcher Agnes Floel of the University of Munster in Germany said that the memory improvement might be linked to a decrease in insulin and inflammation in the reduced- calorie group.

Changes in insulin levels have also been postulated as one of the reasons calorie restriction may extend life. One 1992 study investigated people who were both mentally and physically fit and were at least 100 years old. The three factors they all had in common were: high HDL cholesterol, low triglycerides and… wait for it… low levels of fasting insulin!

Dr. Floel also said that lower insulin levels might "increase the sensitivity of receptors" in the brain and improve insulin signaling, allowing memories to be maintained longer. The reduced calorie diet also seemed to improve inflammation, a known robber of brain function and a contributing factor to every major disease.

In my DVD program The 7 Pillars of Longevity I talk about hara hachi bu, a saying in Okinawa inspired by Confucious. Okinawas believe hara hachi bu is one of the secrets to a long healthy life.

Want to know what it means?

"Eat until you are 80% full".

Wise advice, not only if you want to live long, but also if you want to keep your brain sharp and your memory intact!

Exercise Lowers Breast Cancer Risk

A new study by University of South Carolina researchers indicates aerobically fit women are three times less likely to die of breast cancer than those who seldom exercise.

The latest addition to the growing evidence on the benefits of aerobic exercise is reported in the April issue of the scientific journal Medicine & Science in Sports & Exercise.

Researchers from USC's Arnold School of Public Health studied 14,000 women who were given preventive medical exams and treadmill tests at the Cooper Clinic in Houston from 1970-2001. At the time of their exams, the women, ages 20 through 83, had no history of breast cancer.

Based on the treadmill tests, the women's fitness was classified as low, moderate or high. Researchers compared the fitness levels of the 68 women in the study group who had died of breast cancer through 2003.

"Women in the study's lowest fitness category were nearly three times more likely to die from breast cancer than women in the most fit group," said Dr. Steve Blair, a USC researcher and a past president of the American College of Sports Medicine.

To reach the moderate fitness category, women need to exercise about 150 minutes per week. High fitness translates to 300 minutes per week.

"With more than 40,000 women dying each year from this disease, finding a strong association between fitness, which can be improved by the relatively inexpensive lifestyle intervention of regular physical activity, such as walking, is exciting," Blair said.

Exercise should be a standard part of preventive treatment for a number of health problems, according to the American College of Sports Medicine.

The new study also backed up previous findings that exercise helps control cholesterol levels, lowers blood pressure and lessens the likelihood for diabetes and heart disease.

The Top 7 Stories of 2008

This is the time of year when all the health websites put out their “Top Stories of The Year” compilations, so we figured we’d do something we almost never do- join the crowd!

Here’s a recap of the most popular stories on my blog during 2008:

1. The Real Skinny on Flaxseed


2. Good News for Starbucks Lovers!


3. Another Look at Soy


4. Read this if you care about your Bones


5. The Truth about the recent Cholesterol Drug Story


6. Scrambled Eggs at the Buffet? Not so fast


7. Woman Loses 160 pounds on a Raw Foods Diet

The Truth About the Recent Cholesterol Drug Study

Last week, the results of a new study on a cholesterol-lowering drug were released generating a ton of press attention. The study (the JUPITER study) made the front page of the NY Times, was featured on just about every television news show, and generally created a lot of buzz. Even if you weren't paying too much attention- and it was hard not to- you might have heard that the study showed that a cholesterol-lowering medication (Crestor) lowered the risk for heart disease by over 40% in people who did not have high cholesterol in the first place!

The Wall Street Journal was practically salivating in its predictions. "The findings could substantially broaden the market for statins, the world's best-selling class of medicines", they panted. "Morgan Stanley analysts predicted Crestor revenue could rise to as much as 8 billion and 18% of the global statin market in 2014".

OK let's take a look at what actually happened before we start putting statins in the water supply.

Approximately 17,000 participants were enrolled in the study, all at "prime heart attack age" (over 50 for men, over 60 for women). But none had either high cholesterol levels nor evidence of serious heart disease. By all traditional measures, they were a healthy men and women.

What they did have was elevated inflammation.

We know this because the researchers measured their blood levels for CRP (C-Reactive Protein) an excellent marker for inflammation in the body. For years and years I- and many other nutritionists and doctors- have been warning that inflammation is the real danger for heart disease and that cholesterol is a red herring. Inflammation is the silent killer. Inflammation is what we should be paying attention to. C-Reactive Protein is an important measure to know, even though most docs have scoffed at it and told us it's not that important. (Besides, they were too busy focusing on cholesterol.)

For years I've also been saying that any benefit that might be had by taking statin drugs has nothing to do with lowering cholesterol. But statin drugs have an interesting little "side effect": they happen to lower inflammation.

So here's this study when people with completely normal cholesterol (but elevated inflammation) benefit from a statin drug. Think they'd figure out that maybe cholesterol wasn't the issue in the first place?

Oh no. What you'll probably see is a movement to lower the "normal" cholesterol levels even further down so that even more people can be put on these drugs.

Which, by the way, are far from perfectly safe. Though the mainstream establishment downplays their side effects, most knowledgeable clinicians will tell you that side effects like muscle pain and fatigue are far more common than widely believed and that they see these side effects in about 15% of patients. And the drug costs $3.50 a day, if you care.

So what we have here is a study that showed a very very modest reduction in risk for heart disease, using a drug that accomplished that not by lowering cholesterol but by lowering inflammation. The benefit of the drug-- such as it was (and it was modest to say the least)--- clearly had nothing to do whatsoever with lowering cholesterol.

By the way, how can I say that the benefit was modest when it was reported as a whopping 44% reduction in risk?

Simple. Because the percentages don't tell the whole story.

The real numbers were as follows: In the non-treated group, about 14 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (in other words 1.4 percent of the group). In the treated group, only 8 in 1000 developed cardiovascular disease (.8 percent). Tiny numbers- but reducing 14 to 8 does produce a "44% reduction" (just as reducing 3-in-a-million to 2-in-a-million produces a 33% reduction!)

Inflammation truly is an important health issue, and anything that reduces inflammation should be paid attention to. The sad part of all this is that there are so many ways to reduce inflammation naturally without drugs. Fish oil is one of the most anti-inflammatory substances on the plant. So are the myriad of natural anti-inflammatories (like the quercetin found in apples and onions, and the hundreds of other flavonoids in the plant kingdom).

But of course none of those are 20 billion dollar-a-year businesses.

cholesterol and the subprime mortgage crisis

First things first: The term "meme" (which originated with the biologist/philosopher Richard Dawkins) means a "unit of cultural transmission"- in other words, a shared cultural concept or notion that everyone basically buys into and is in the general storehouse of "common knowledge".

One "meme" is the idea that home ownership is always better than renting. Think of all the things you've heard over the years: renting is like throwing money away. You'll make more money on your home. The real estate market always goes up. Owners are always better off than renters.

Another "meme" is that cholesterol causes heart disease and lowering cholesterol saves lives.

Today's Wall Street Journal did a great piece on the first meme: The idea that home ownership is always a good idea. Carolina Katz Reid, a grad student at the University of Washington, did a 2004 study in which she found:

1) 36% of low income people who became homeowners returned to renting in 2 years, and over 50% returned to renting in 5 years. Most never went back to homeowning later on.

2) The average price appreciation gain of their homes was under what it would have been if they'd invested the money in plain old Treasury bills.

3) The typical low-income household spent half the family income on mortgage, leaving less money for education or a rainy day

4) The typical low-income homeowner saddled with a home was less than half as likely to move when a better job opportunity came up in another city

5) The so called "tax advantage" disappeared when people had little money to "shelter" from taxes.

The "meme" that home ownership, under all conditions- especially for low income people- turned out to be a huge case of "the emperor has no clothes".

Which brings us to cholesterol.

Maybe it's time to get serious about blowing holes in the "meme" that cholesterol causes heart disease or death or that lowering cholesterol does much of anything.

This meme is so entrenched in our society, in our economy, in our way of doing business, that dislodging it is going to be Herculean task, and we may not see it accomplished in our lifetime. That doesn't mean we shouldn't try.

Jane Brody is the nutrition columnist for the NY Times, has been for years. Why a person of this monumental cluelessness should occupy a place of such importance, respect and distinction is completely beyond me. Yesterday she published her own "cholesterol odyssey". You can read it here.

I sent it on to my good friend Michael Eades, MD who wrote a reply to it on his blog. I can't do much better than he did, so I'm just going to point you there.

Let's review for the record:

1) Cholesterol does not cause heart disease
2) Lowering cholesterol does not save lives except in a very very specific select sub-population (middle aged men who have already had a heart attack)- and even then the number it saves is miniscule
3) Statins have a number of serious side effects and they are under-reported
4) To the extent that statins do any good, it is not by lowering cholesterol, but by lowering inflammation (a far more important goal than lowering cholesterol)
5) There has never been one single study- ever- of the effect of statin drugs on women


Please read Mike's blog today for a fuller report. And don't think for a moment that he's the only qualified MD who is saying this stuff. If you're up for it, you can explore the International Network for Cholesterol Skeptics website. Especially recommended: This (and other) essays by Malcolm Kendrik, MD.