Exercising without a gym

[Hamburger]

Wheat raises blood glucose higher than almost all other foods, higher than a Milky Way bar, higher than a Snickers bar.

why........why does it have to be my wholemeal bread ...........

[Sith]

Hi guys,

 

wanted to check with you if this program will have any effects on those with fatty liver condition? Or is this program is suitable only for a certain generic class of people of certain blood type?

 

I'm on the borderline of fatty and inflammed liver. Wanted to follow this program but need some feedback from you.

 

Much appreciated! Cheers.

 

[Hamburger]

best person to answer your question is CBS. I believed he was in a more critical health hazard than you before switching over to panu. now he is our idol and role model and MO our muscle man....

[Chickenbackside]

Hi guys,

 

wanted to check with you if this program will have any effects on those with fatty liver condition? Or is this program is suitable only for a certain generic class of people of certain blood type?

 

I'm on the borderline of fatty and inflammed liver. Wanted to follow this program but need some feedback from you.

 

Much appreciated! Cheers.

Well, look at it this way. Before I started, my waistline was 40 inches. Fatty liver? I definitely had it and it showed on the visceral fat mostly accumulated around my liver, kidneys, basically my mid section. Blood tests showed impaired liver and kidney function. My doctor said people usually don't get their numbers back up to normal, even with diet and exercise and drugs.

 

Today, my waist is 28 inches (29 after a nice big meal). Visceral fat is mostly gone. I safely say that because I can see my abdominal muscles. Blood tests show my liver and kidney function are back to normal. My doctor cannot explain, and asked me how I did it. I told him, he couldn't believe it.

 

Within my own circle of friends who are living this way, those who bother to do blood tests experience the same things. Liver and kidney functions improve, triglycerides drastically decrease (from 300-500 to < 50), HDL doubles, LDL decrease, blood pressure normalises, fat loss (not muscle), reversal of tooth decay, better emotional health (being able to deal with stress much better)...etc.

 

It's very difficult during the first stage when you're training your body to use your stored body fat for energy (instead of regular doses of starch/sugar). Your body will protest, you will crave carbs and sweets, feel light headed..etc.

 

Persist.

 

When you get past what they call the "carb flu", the transformation will be tremendous.

 

Just remember, EAT REAL FOOD.

[Chickenbackside]

Eat FOOD, not food-like substances.

 

 

 

 

http://www.geekologie.com/2010/03/year_old..._looks_as_g.php

 

Year Old Happy Meal Looks As Good As New

 

 

 

 

 

 

You see that picture? It's a Happy Meal saved by writer Joann Brusco for a year as part of a scientific experiment involving WTF. You'd think it would have turned into a Not So Happy Meal in that time, right? Think again -- Ronald knows how to survive an apocalypse.

 

"My Happy Meal is one year old today and it looks pretty good. It NEVER smelled bad. The food did NOT decompose. It did NOT get moldy, at all.

 

This morning, I took it off my shelf to take a birthday photo. The first year is always a milestone. I gave it one of my world famous nonna hugs as we've been office mates for a year now! (Okay, maybe my sanity is in question.)"

 

Jesus, you left a Happy Meal on your office shelf for a year and nobody ate it? I can't leave a f***ing Subway 6-inch in the office fridge for an afternoon without somebody stealing it. Which is exactly why I -- HEY JOANN WHAT'S THAT?! *OM NOM NOM* Mmmm, vintage burger. Also, this toy sucks.

 

McDonald's Happy Meals Evidently Invincible [treehugger]

and

This 1-Year-Old Happy Meal Has Aged Surprisingly Well [consumerist]

 

Thanks to Lana, Taylor and Korey, who have all eaten year-old Whoppers and puked uncontrollably.

 

 

 

BTW, this is the Happy Meal on the day that it was bought:

Edited August 12, 2010 by Chickenbackside

[Premsingh]

do interval exercises (10 mins and you are done!)

[Chickenbackside]

Here's an interesting article written by Clarence Bass for those interested on working out and gaining muscle mass.

 

This kinda explains my gains despite not stepping into a gym. When I tell people I don't lift weights (except for squats where I fill up my old Samsonite suitcase with tiles leftover from my bathroom renovation and lift it above my head during the squats), no one ever believes me.

 

All I do to keep my pull ups, push ups, dips...etc challenging is to slow waaaayy down and change up the variation while trying to keep perfect form. But whatever it is, be it 15 reps of pullups or 60 reps decline push ups, the last few reps are pure pain zones. Out of breath, running on pure will power type of effort.

 

Speeding through 100 standard pushups is very different from doing 50 diamond pushups at a very slow speed with full range of motion and perfect form. It has yielded pretty good results for me so far. Muscles look striated and not puffy. They aren't very big like body builders, but good enough for people to think I lift weights.

 

 

Anyway, here's the article:

 

 

http://www.cbass.com/Carpinelli.htm

 

 

Forget Heavy, Think Effort

 

Muscle Fiber Activation and Rep Range

 

The health establishment struggles mightily to persuade people to exercise regularly with mixed results at best. The latest scientific findings and government guidelines say that strength training should be part of the mix at least twice a week http://www.cbass.com/GetMoving.htm . Many people, including those that need it most, are turned off by weight training. They imagine themselves having to lift heavy weights, and that turns them away.

 

Is that true? Do they have to lift very heavy weights? An eye-opening new study says "NO." The study has the potential to change how strength training is perceived--and get many more people, perhaps millions more, pumping iron.

 

The study could revolutionize strength training for everyone, from pencil necks to muscle heads.

 

I'm eager to tell you about it. Pour yourself a cup of coffee and pull up a chair.

 

We have been told that heavier resistance produces greater gains in size and strength. “Only the heaviest possible weight will bring the maximum number of muscle fibers into action,” I wrote in Ripped 2. The underlying idea is correct—but there's more to the story. It turns out that many experts in the field have made the same error.

 

Dr Ralph N. Carpinelli, Human Performance Laboratory at Adelphi University in Garden City, New York, has made an exhaustive review of the scientific literature on this issue and reported his findings in the Journal of Exercise Science and Fitness, volume 6, number 2, 2008. His report is important, exciting, and complicated. I’m going to summarize and, where necessary, explain the results. Please bear with me. You’ll be glad you did.

 

Carpinelli’s analysis turns on the size principle, which governs how muscle fibers are recruited. Carpinelli says the size principle is “perhaps the most supported principle in neurophysiology.” So let’s start there. What is it?

 

 

 

The Size Principle

 

The size principle is a law that explains the order in which muscle fibers contract. In a nut shell, it says small fibers contract before large fibers.

 

The small fibers are slow-twitch, and the large fibers are fast-twitch. The slow-twitch fibers are the endurance fibers, which predominate in marathon runners and other endurance athletes. Like the Energizer Bunny, they don’t give out, they keep on contracting. They don’t generate much force, however. Fast-twitch fibers are the strength fibers, which rule the roost in sprinters, weight lifters, and other strength athletes. They are strong, but fatigue rapidly. Most of us are born with a roughly equal balance of slow/small and fast/large fibers. (Some fast fibers, which we’ll come to later, are intermediate in strength and endurance.)

 

Muscle fiber activation begins with a signal from the brain to motor units, which include a nerve and a companion group of muscle fibers. Fast-twitch and slow-twitch motor units operate separately; motor units are either slow or fast. Identical-twitch fibers are serviced by a single motor nerve that comes down into the muscle like an electrical wire. Slow-twitch units have approximately 100 fibers. Fast-twitch units may have as many as 10,000 fibers. Slow-twitch units, therefore, take up less space and have many more connecting wires or nerve branches than do fast-twitch units. Consequentially, many more slow-twitch motor units are likely to be triggered than larger fast-twitch units. You might have 1,000 slow units activated compared to only 50 to 100 fast units.

 

Importantly, motor units operate on an all-or-none basis. For a unit to be recruited, the nerve impulse must be strong enough to activate all of the muscle fibers in the unit maximally. If that threshold is not met, no fibers in the unit contract. Motor units contract for all they’re worth or not at all.

 

The bottom line is that it’s much harder to trigger fast motor units than it is slow units; it takes a lot more current or stimulus, more intensity.

 

With that background, we’re ready to sum up the size principle, which Carpinelli expresses as follows: “The size principle states that when the central nervous system recruits motor units for a specific activity, it begins with the smallest, more easily excited, least powerful motor units and progresses to the larger, more difficult to excite, more powerful motor units to maintain or increase force.”

 

In summarizing orderly motor unit recruitment, Jack Wilmore and David Costill drop the reference to size and say it more directly in the third edition of their highly regarded textbook Physiology of Sports and Exercise: “In low-intensity activity, most muscle force is generated by slow-twitch fibers. As the intensity increases, fast-twitch fibers are recruited, and at the higher intensities, the fast-twitch fibers are activated.”

 

Strange as it may seem, speed makes no difference. Motor units are recruited in an orderly sequence, slow to fast, no matter what the speed of the movement. Speed of action does, however, affect the amount of force developed. Slow movements generate more force. “The closer you get to zero velocity, the more force can be generated,” say Wilmore and Costill. Slow motion dampens momentum; at zero speed force is maximized.

 

Force, however, is not the variable that triggers muscle fiber contractions. I'll say that again, because it's very important. Force is not the kick off factor.

 

As Carpinelli writes in his report, “Force [is] not the prerequisite for recruitment; force [is] the result of a more intense stimulus.” He continues, “The level of effort…determines the degree of motor unit activity.” Effort, of course, begins in the brain.

 

Keep the distinction between force and effort in mind, because we’ll be coming back to it over and over. Effort generates force, not the reverse.

 

That brings us to the big question that every weight trainer wants answered: What’s the best and safest way to stimulate and build the maximum number of muscle fibers?

 

Is heavier better?

 

The studies that Dr. Carpinelli reviewed attempt to answer that question. But do they succeed? Do the findings support the conclusions? Where do the well designed studies come down? Read on and find out.

 

Some studies have misapplied the size principle, according to Carpinelli. We’ll look at those studies first.

 

 

 

Misunderstanding the Size Principle

 

Dr. Carpinelli analyzes more than 30 specific studies and, in some cases, books in this section of his report. I will summarize representative studies and explain how Carpinelli says the size principle was misapplied or bypassed.

 

Here’s the problem, as Carpinelli sees it: “Although the size principle is described reasonably accurately, it is often followed by a misunderstanding of the underlying neurophysiological concept and its practical application.” For example, many authors conclude that maximum or near maximum force—very heavy resistance—is necessary in order to recruit the large motor units and maximize strength gains. In other words, they decide that heavier is better.

 

“[That] is an invalid reverse inference of the size principle,” says Carpinelli. As noted above, force or resistance is not the controlling factor.

 

For example, the authors claim, citing the size principle, that heavier resistance (3 to 5 rep max) recruits higher-threshold motor units than lighter resistance (12 to15 rep max). Force or resistance, they assert, is the factor that determines whether high- or low-threshold motor units are recruited.

 

That’s demonstrably wrong, according to Carpinelli. Resistance (poundage) makes little difference, says Carpinelli, as long as the last few reps are at or near maximum. Effort, not force, is the controlling factor.

 

The simplest example, says Carpinelli, is an isometric muscle action. “If a person is holding a 20 kg [about 45 lbs] dumbbell at an elbow angle of 90 degrees…the first 10 seconds may feel relatively easy. After about 60 seconds [however] the person will no longer be able to hold the 20 kg mass.”

 

What changed? The force, the weight, remained the same, so force was not the controlling factor. It was the effort that changed, the required effort, wasn’t it? The weight felt heavier and heavier as time passed, until the person was no longer able to hold it at a right angle.

 

“Despite the increasing effort throughout the 60 seconds duration, the muscular force remained constant until it decreased at 60 seconds when the individual was no longer capable of producing [the] muscular force [necessary to hold the weight],” Carpinelli explained. “At the point of maximal effort (~60 seconds), all the motor units in the pool were recruited [including the large/fast motor units] for that specific isometric muscle action.”

 

He’s right, isn’t he?

 

Other studies claim that heavier resistance produces greater strength gains, but provide no credible supporting evidence. Often citations are provided which offer no actual support. Some references allude to the size principle and others make claims or recommendations without supporting evidence.

 

Carpinelli methodically dissects study after study showing specifically how each author’s citations failed to support their claims or recommendations. This is “important,” he maintains. “It is not sufficient simply to cite the reference without noting exactly what the authors of those studies and reviews report.”

 

Several studies claim that advanced weightlifters may be able to override the orderly recruitment of the size principle because they “can inhibit the lower-threshold motor units and preferentially activate the higher-threshold motor units.” In other words, they are somehow able to recruit the large motor units first. No citation or other evidence is offered in support of the assertion that the size principle can be violated. This is unsubstantiated opinion.

 

One author claimed that a 10 RM (repetition maximum) builds strength slower than a 5 RM. The reference cited, however, was a training study which compared 6-8 RM, 30-40 RM, and 100-150 RM. The study did not include 5 or 10 RM protocols. (We’ll discuss the drawbacks of very high reps below.)

 

Other authors claimed that “high-velocity movements” skip over the smaller motor units so that the larger units can be recruited first. Again, no supporting evidence was offered. By the same token, another author claimed that slow movements cannot generate enough force to trigger the larger motor units. As before, no training studies or other evidence was offered in support.

 

Still another author claimed that 5 RM is more effective for the bench press and squat, while 10-15 RM is most productive for other exercises such as the thigh curl. “No rationale was presented for this apparent incorrect interpretation of the size principle,” Carpinelli states, “or why the hamstrings and quadriceps would require a different range of repetitions.”

 

Here’s another recommendation guaranteed to make you scratch your head: RM loads 6-8 are best for building maximum strength, while 10-12 RM are better for muscular hypertrophy. “He cited no references to support his recommendations or his erroneous interpretation of the size principle,” Carpinelli writes. “In fact, there is very little evidence to suggest that his recommended differences in the range of repetitions elicit different outcomes.”

 

There’s more, but you get the idea loud and clear. Let’s move on to studies supported by solid evidence. Happily, there are plenty of studies that pass the test.

 

Let’s start with a study of motor unit activation.

 

 

 

Effort and Motor Unit Activation

 

Again, Carpinelli maintains effort drives motor unit activation. Fortunately, scientists have devised a test to measure the effect of effort on activation level.

 

Motor unit activation level (AL) can be measured by comparing voluntary and induced response. “During an MVC [maximal voluntary contraction], a supramaximal [greater than maximum] electrical stimulus is superimposed with surface electrodes onto a muscle or its nerve,” Carpinelli explains. “When the superimposed twitch technique is applied properly, the electrical stimulus fully activates all the motor units in the pool. If all the motor units have been recruited [voluntarily] and are firing at optimal frequencies, no additional force will be detected [as a result of the electrical stimulus].”

 

AL is expressed as a percentage of the evoked response. If the voluntary response matches the electrical response, AL is 100%. If the voluntary response is less, the shortfall will be expressed as a percentage of the induced response.

 

Like body fat measurement, AL testing is indirect and not perfect. “Although there are some questions,” says Carpinelli, this type of testing “is capable of detecting decrements in voluntary activation of less than 1%.”

 

AL studies provide an objective measurement and are clearly more credible than unsupported claims or recommendations.

 

Motor unit activation studies, writes Carpinelli, “strongly support” the size principle. “It is the intensity of effort that determines the AL of motor units and the resultant force output. A greater effort produces greater motor unit activation. Maximal effort produces maximal, or near maximal, activation of motor units. The resultant force, which is the dependent variable—not the independent variable—is a maximal force produced in a specific individual for a specific exercise. It is entirely dependent on the intensity of effort. However, it is important to recognize that none of the [AL] studies speculate on a minimal recruitment threshold for strength gains…A maximal effort only insures maximal voluntary motor unit activation.”

 

Carpinelli describes what he considers to be the “most relevant [AL] study with the greatest practical application to resistance training.”

 

Researchers measured voluntary and evoked motor unit recruitment in 14 resistance trained males (age ~ 21) before and after 5, 10 and 20 RM (repetition maximum) dumbbell curls. They found was no significant difference in voluntary motor unit AL after 5 RM (95.5%), 10 RM (93.5%), and 20 RM (95.1%).

 

They concluded: “The commonly repeated suggestion that maximal strength methods (resistance heavier than a 6 RM) produce greater neural adaptations or increases in neural drive was not substantiated in this study.”

 

“In fact,” Carpinelli adds, “their study unequivocally demonstrates the direct relationship between intensity of effort—not the amount of resistance or time under tension—and voluntary motor unit activation.”

 

Now, let’s look at studies that measured strength gains using different reps and resistance.

 

 

 

Support for Heavier-is-Better

 

Although not cited in any of the studies we’ve been discussing, Dr. Carpinelli did find one study that reported some strength advantages for low reps and heavy resistance.

 

The 2002 study had previously untrained males (age ~22 years) perform the leg press, squat, and knee extension for 4 sets of 3-5 RM or 3 sets of 9-11 RM for 8 weeks. The subjects doing 3-5 reps increased strength (1 RM) significantly more than those doing 9-11 reps in the squat (61% compared to 31%) and leg press (100% vs. 81%), but not in the knee extension (67% and 56%, respectively).

 

Interestingly, muscle hypertrophy gains (slow-twitch and fast-twitch fibers) were similar for both rep ranges. Muscle size increased significantly in both groups, with no significant difference between groups.

 

The authors concluded: “It has often been accepted that improved strength/power results from high intensity/low volume training, whereas low intensity/high volume training maximizes muscle hypertrophy. Based on data from the present investigation, this may not be entirely true. Indeed, data from the present investigation suggest low and intermediate RM training induces similar muscular adaptations, at least after short-term training in previously untrained subjects.”

 

They did not attempt to explain why there was no significant difference in knee-extension strength. No mention was made of the size principle.

 

Perhaps it should come as no surprise that supporters of heavier-is-better training do not cite this inconclusive study.

 

Importantly, Carpinelli found many studies showing no advantage for heavier-is-better training.

 

 

 

No Support for Heavier-is-Better

 

“Studies that report the effects of training with different amounts of resistance…strongly support the ,” states Carpinelli.

 

He lists 20 resistance training studies that reported no significant difference in strength gains for 2 to 20 RM.

 

Carpinelli singles out a study of 10 pairs of identical twins as especially “noteworthy.” Identical twins are ideal subjects for study because they have exactly the same genetic make-up. They take the “nature” out of the “nature-or-nurture” question. They lay bare the difference between training protocols. If heavier is better, comparison of identical twins should show it.

 

Carpinelli relates the results of the study: “After training two times a week for 10 weeks, increases in isometric strength (averaged for the eight positions tested) were significant in both groups. However, there was no significant difference in the strength gain as a result of training with 7-10 RM (13.2%), or 15-20 RM (12.8%).”

 

 

 

Why Moderate Weights and Reps Are Best

 

I promised that we’d talk about the drawbacks of very high reps. Let’s do that before we discuss Dr. Carpinelli’s conclusions.

 

Both high and low reps are problematic. Moderate reps, 6 to 20, are probably best—for practical and scientific reasons.

 

From the practical standpoint, very high reps are unpleasant. For most people (me included), they’re mind-numbing, a drag. Low reps, on the other hand, are cumbersome and potentially dangerous. Except for competitive power or Olympic lifters, as we’ve seen, there’s little or no reason to do low reps.

 

“Very high RMs (loads lighter than 20 RM),” says Carpinelli, “may involve mechanisms of fatigue that are not conducive to stimulate optimal increases in muscular strength.”

 

Body by Science, an important book by Doug McGuff, MD, and John Little (2009), explains the problem: “If you use a weight that is too light….you will recruit the slow-twitch fibers into service, but because they fatigue so slowly, by the time you have started to recruit the intermediate fibers, some of the same slow-twitch motor units will have started to recover. They will then recycle back into the contraction process, thus preventing you from ever engaging the higher-order muscle fibers.”

 

McGuff and Little say the problem is similar with a weight that allows only one or two reps: All motor units (slow and fast) are activated, but the fast-twitch units fatigue so fast that “the set will terminate before you’ve had the opportunity to thoroughly involve and stimulate the bulk of your slow- and intermediate-twitch fibers.”

 

Dr. Carpinelli might say it’s supposition, but McGuff and Little argue that a moderately heavy weight allows you recruit the full range of motor units, “but not so quickly that only the fast-twitch fibers receive the bulk of the stimulation, and not so slowly that the slow- and/or intermediate-twitch motor units can recover and you end up cycling through the same lower-order motor units again.”

 

Makes sense, doesn’t it? Moderation in all things.

 

 

 

Carpinelli’s Conclusions—and Mine

 

“Recommendations to train with very heavy resistance (loads heavier than 6 RM), because they purportedly result in superior strength gains, are based on a faulty [understanding of the size principle] and have very little supporting evidence,” Carpinelli concluded.

 

Resistance is largely a matter of “personal preference,” says Dr. Carpinelli. “If a maximal—or near maximal—effort is applied at the end of a set of repetitions, the evidence strongly suggests that the different external forces produced with different amounts of resistance elicit similar outcomes.”

 

That’s it. So simple, yet so meaningful—and potentially influential.

 

“If the size principle was correctly applied, effective resistance training may appeal to a larger proportion of the population,” Carpinelli opines. “This would include competitive and recreational athletes as well as those in the general population who perceive resistance exercise as the lifting of very heavy weights and therefore potentially dangerous.” He continues, “Because some people may have a fear of injury—that need not exist—the heavier-is-better perception may actually be a deterrent to resistance training, which deprives those most in need of health-related benefits.”

 

Reducing resistance by even a little can be the difference between satisfaction and aversion. I know from my own experience.

 

The dumbbell bench press is one of my favorite exercises, but getting the bells in position is a big problem. I have to psyche up more to get the dumbbells in position than to do the presses. If I miss the groove and fail to get the weights in position, it jams my shoulder and hurts like hell. While writing this article I decided to drop each dumbbell by five pounds, and do slower more controlled reps. Wow, it made all the difference. Getting the dumbbells in position was no longer an ordeal--and the muscle response was much better. I could feel every muscle fiber in my chest working. The movement was a joy again.

 

If ever there was a landmark review study in the resistance training field, this is it. Dr. Carpinelli’s impressive—and bold—effort has the potential to open the door to the health and fitness benefits of resistance training for millions of additional people. Let’s hope the powers that be are listening—and that the many who can benefit get the message.

 

BRAVO, Ralph.

 

 

 

Editor’s Note: Checkout Dr. Carpinelli’s earlier review of studies on the volume issue: One Set or Many? http://cbass.com/ONESET.HTM

 

See also Challenge Yourself on volume versus high-intensity training (HIT): http://www.cbass.com/CHALLENG.HTM

Edited August 12, 2010 by Chickenbackside

[Chickenbackside]

http://www.reuters.com/article/idAFN021083...Ab36304944%3Az0

 

 

Cancer cells slurp up fructose, US study finds

 

* Study shows fructose used differently from glucose

 

* Findings challenge common wisdom about sugars

 

 

Aug 2 (Reuters) - Pancreatic tumor cells use fructose to divide and proliferate, U.S. researchers said on Monday in a study that challenges the common wisdom that all sugars are the same.

 

Tumor cells fed both glucose and fructose used the two sugars in two different ways, the team at the University of California Los Angeles found.

 

They said their finding, published in the journal Cancer Research, may help explain other studies that have linked fructose intake with pancreatic cancer, one of the deadliest cancer types.

 

"These findings show that cancer cells can readily metabolize fructose to increase proliferation," Dr. Anthony Heaney of UCLA's Jonsson Cancer Center and colleagues wrote.

 

"They have major significance for cancer patients given dietary refined fructose consumption, and indicate that efforts to reduce refined fructose intake or inhibit fructose-mediated actions may disrupt cancer growth."

 

Americans take in large amounts of fructose, mainly in high fructose corn syrup, a mix of fructose and glucose that is used in soft drinks, bread and a range of other foods.

 

Politicians, regulators, health experts and the industry have debated whether high fructose corn syrup and other ingredients have been helping make Americans fatter and less healthy.

 

Too much sugar of any kind not only adds pounds, but is also a key culprit in diabetes, heart disease and stroke, according to the American Heart Association.

 

Several states, including New York and California, have weighed a tax on sweetened soft drinks to defray the cost of treating obesity-related diseases such as heart disease, diabetes and cancer.

 

The American Beverage Association, whose members include Coca-Cola (KO.N) and Kraft Foods (KFT.N) have strongly, and successfully, opposed efforts to tax soda. [iD:nN12233126]

 

The industry has also argued that sugar is sugar.

 

Heaney said his team found otherwise. They grew pancreatic cancer cells in lab dishes and fed them both glucose and fructose.

 

Tumor cells thrive on sugar but they used the fructose to proliferate. "Importantly, fructose and glucose metabolism are quite different," Heaney's team wrote.

 

"I think this paper has a lot of public health implications. Hopefully, at the federal level there will be some effort to step back on the amount of high fructose corn syrup in our diets," Heaney said in a statement.

 

Now the team hopes to develop a drug that might stop tumor cells from making use of fructose.

 

U.S. consumption of high fructose corn syrup went up 1,000 percent between 1970 and 1990, researchers reported in 2004 in the American Journal of Clinical Nutrition.

[Mazdaowner]

I'm not muscle man..........I was..........just.....born....BIG. [bigcry]

best person to answer your question is CBS. I believed he was in a more critical health hazard than you before switching over to panu. now he is our idol and role model and MO our muscle man....

 

[Mazdaowner]

Bro. I've been saying this over before. Do to PERFECT FORM, no jerks, no half way, no short cuts,

and do to failure. Hypertrophy.

[Chickenbackside]

Yup, I've slowly come to realize that. I stopped making gains despite being able to knock out 120 pushups at a time. But once I slowed down and made sure I lock out my elbows at every rep, I could only manage 50 before I wanted to faint from the pain. Shouders and chest are stimulated after every slow workout. I know cos pain like hell for a whole week!

[Parkingidiot]

you guys inspire me.. I shall fine tune my workout now.. so far only been doing planks, some jogging, some brisk walking, sit ups, push ups, skipping, torso twists.. but just aiming for reps instead of considering the form.

[Mazdaowner]

Yeah Bro, you can do 200 but not to perfect form, is just wasting effort.

Like n the gym, champions come and go, "I can BENCH 100kgs you know??"

yeah, sure, smartass, but when he really does it, the elbow only bends so little,

and he considers it one rep. Yeah, sure, try having the bar touch your chest, wise guy,

and then you see the guy almost kill himself, cos he can even push it up back again.

I have always advocated and believed in perfect form, cos without perfect form,

injury will set in as well. Imagine doing lats pulldown, heavy weights, you drag your back into play

jerking backwards to pull down, yes...guess what happens after, back injury.

 

In perfect form, you will do lesser, gain more. Bro. fasting mode I did lats pull downs, at 150kgs,

no loss in power plus did extra 3 sets x 5. total 8 sets. Yeah, sore like hell, but I love the pain.

:wub:

 

Yup, I've slowly come to realize that. I stopped making gains despite being able to knock out 120 pushups at a time. But once I slowed down and made sure I lock out my elbows at every rep, I could only manage 50 before I wanted to faint from the pain. Shouders and chest are stimulated after every slow workout. I know cos pain like hell for a whole week!

 

[Ahleon]

bro, for perfect form does it matters how many i start with? i tried...i can do only 5 pushup

 

Bro. I've been saying this over before. Do to PERFECT FORM, no jerks, no half way, no short cuts,

and do to failure. Hypertrophy.

Edited August 12, 2010 by Ahleon

[Mazdaowner]

Ok, number f times doesn't mater it's the form you want done proper.

Eg. Pushup, military pushups are the best perfect form, meaning, chest 2" away from the ground, hold for a count of 5secs then push up and lock elbows, count as ONE, and then same thing again.

Squats will be squat till backside slightly below knee level, back straight, and then come up again.

so long as you do till you buay tahan, got burning feeling in your muscle and do till really cannot do, you can call that one good workout.

 

I hate it when Topgun comes in and says sheet about what I say, when he knows nuts, I have been training for more then half my lifetime, weights, runs, ironman etc. Topgun, sorry but I hate to say this brother, "Don't come and teach me how to fug when you donno how ok?" I'm here to help you if you need it, but never will I ever be anyone's trainer, I don't have the time either, as I have my own training to concentrate on plus my son and wife. Like I said, you want serious advice, I will give, but you start nonsense and come say stupid things, I will for sure fug you off. I'm a straight forward person, I tell you off, and that's it, no grudges.

 

That is one reason why I couldn't be bothered to answer you sometimes.

 

Ok Bro Ahleon, if you going to hit the gym, let me give you some basic exercises that will cover full body workout, aka compound exercises to save you time, but also give you results.

Interested, you know how to find me.

 

bro, for perfect form does it matters how many i start with? i tried...i can do only 5 pushup

 

[Chickenbackside]

http://www.fitnessspotlight.com/2007/09/22...nd-fatty-liver/

 

 

Carbs and Fatty Liver

 

 

I saw this article on Eurekalert yesterday: Quick-burning carbs may cause fatty liver

 

 

"Diets rich in rapidly-digested carbohydrates not only expand waistlines, but may also cause fatty liver, a condition that can lead to liver failure and death, finds a new study in mice.

 

[Chickenbackside]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dr-mercola/t...t_b_676817.html

 

 

 

Dr. Joseph Mercola, Physician and author

Posted: August 12, 2010 07:00 AM

 

 

The Cholesterol Myth That Could Be Harming Your Health

 

 

Cholesterol could easily be described as the smoking gun of the last two decades.

 

It's been responsible for demonizing entire categories of foods (like eggs and saturated fats) and blamed for just about every case of heart disease in the last 20 years.

 

Yet when I first opened my medical practice in the mid 80s, cholesterol, and the fear that yours was too high was rarely talked about.

 

Somewhere along the way however, cholesterol became a household word -- something that you must keep as low as possible, or suffer the consequences.

 

You are probably aware that there are many myths that portray fat and cholesterol as one of the worst foods you can consume. Please understand that these myths are actually harming your health.

 

Not only is cholesterol most likely not going to destroy your health (as you have been led to believe), but it is also not the cause of heart disease. And for those of you taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, the information that follows could not have been given to you fast enough. But before I delve into this life-changing information, let's get some basics down first.

 

 

 

What is Cholesterol, and Why Do You Need It?

 

That's right, you do need cholesterol.

 

This soft, waxy substance is found not only in your bloodstream, but also in every cell in your body, where it helps to produce cell membranes, hormones, vitamin D and bile acids that help you to digest fat. Cholesterol also helps in the formation of your memories and is vital for neurological function.

 

Your liver makes about 75 percent of your body's cholesterol ,and according to conventional medicine, there are two types:

 

High-density lipoprotein, or HDL: This is the "good" cholesterol that helps to keep cholesterol away from your arteries and remove any excess from arterial plaque, which may help to prevent heart disease.

 

Low-density lipoprotein, or LDL: This "bad" cholesterol circulates in your blood and, according to conventional thinking, may build up in your arteries, forming plaque that makes your arteries narrow and less flexible (a condition called atherosclerosis). If a clot forms in one of these narrowed arteries leading to your heart or brain, a heart attack or stroke may result.

 

Also making up your total cholesterol count are:

 

-- Triglycerides: Elevated levels of this dangerous fat have been linked to heart disease and diabetes. Triglyceride levels are known to rise from eating too many grains and sugars, being physically inactive, smoking cigarettes, drinking alcohol excessively and being overweight or obese.

 

-- Lipoprotein (a), or Lp(a): Lp(a) is a substance that is made up of an LDL "bad cholesterol" part plus a protein (apoprotein a). Elevated Lp(a) levels are a very strong risk factor for heart disease. This has been well established, yet very few physicians check for it in their patients.

 

Understand this:

 

Your Total Cholesterol Level is NOT a Great Indicator of Your Heart Disease Risk

 

Health officials in the United States urge everyone over the age of 20 to have their cholesterol tested once every five years. Part of this test is your total cholesterol, or the sum of your blood's cholesterol content, including HDL, LDLs and VLDLs.

 

The American Heart Association recommends that your total cholesterol is less than 200 mg/dL, but what they do not tell you is that total cholesterol level is just about worthless in determining your risk for heart disease, unless it is above 330.

 

In addition, the AHA updated their guidelines in 2004, lowering the recommended level of LDL cholesterol from 130 to LDL to less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

 

In order to achieve these outrageous and dangerously low targets, you typically need to take multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs. So the guidelines instantly increased the market for these dangerous drugs. Now, with testing children's cholesterol levels, they're increasing their market even more.

 

I have seen a number of people with total cholesterol levels over 250 who actually were at low heart disease risk due to their HDL levels. Conversely, I have seen even more who had cholesterol levels under 200 that were at a very high risk of heart disease based on the following additional tests:

 

-- HDL/Cholesterol ratio

 

-- Triglyceride/HDL ratios

 

HDL percentage is a very potent heart disease risk factor. Just divide your HDL level by your cholesterol. That percentage should ideally be above 24 percent.

 

You can also do the same thing with your triglycerides and HDL ratio. That percentage should be below 2.

 

Keep in mind, however, that these are still simply guidelines, and there's a lot more that goes into your risk of heart disease than any one of these numbers. In fact, it was only after word got out that total cholesterol is a poor predictor of heart disease that HDL and LDL cholesterol were brought into the picture.

 

They give you a closer idea of what's going on, but they still do not show you everything.

 

 

 

Cholesterol is Neither "Good" Nor "Bad"

 

Now that we've defined good and bad cholesterol, it has to be said that there is actually only one type of cholesterol. Ron Rosedale, MD, who is widely considered to be one of the leading anti-aging doctor in the United States, does an excellent job of explaining this concept :[ii]

 

"Notice please that LDL and HDL are lipoproteins -- fats combined with proteins. There is only one cholesterol. There is no such thing as "good" or "bad" cholesterol.

Cholesterol is just cholesterol.

 

It combines with other fats and proteins to be carried through the bloodstream, since fat and our watery blood do not mix very well.

 

Fatty substances therefore must be shuttled to and from our tissues and cells using proteins. LDL and HDL are forms of proteins and are far from being just cholesterol.

 

In fact we now know there are many types of these fat and protein particles. LDL particles come in many sizes and large LDL particles are not a problem. Only the so-called small dense LDL particles can potentially be a problem, because they can squeeze through the lining of the arteries and if they oxidize, otherwise known as turning rancid, they can cause damage and inflammation.

 

Thus, you might say that there is "good LDL" and "bad LDL."

 

Also, some HDL particles are better than others. Knowing just your total cholesterol tells you very little. Even knowing your LDL and HDL levels will not tell you very much."

 

 

 

Cholesterol is Your Friend, Not Your Enemy

 

Before we continue, I really would like you to get your mind around this concept.

 

In the United States, the idea that cholesterol is evil is very much engrained in most people's minds. But this is a very harmful myth that needs to be put to rest right now.

 

"First and foremost," Dr. Rosedale points out, "cholesterol is a vital component of every cell membrane on Earth. In other words, there is no life on Earth that can live without cholesterol.

That will automatically tell you that, in and of itself, it cannot be evil. In fact, it is one of our best friends.

 

We would not be here without it. No wonder lowering cholesterol too much increases one's risk of dying. Cholesterol is also a precursor to all of the steroid hormones. You cannot make estrogen, testosterone, cortisone and a host of other vital hormones without cholesterol."

 

 

 

Vitamin D and Your Cholesterol

 

You probably are aware of the incredible influence of vitamin D on your health. If you aren't, or need a refresher, you can visit my vitamin D page.

 

What most people do not realize is that the best way to obtain your vitamin D is from safe exposure to sun on your skin. The UVB rays in sunlight interact with the cholesterol on your skin and convert it to vitamin D.

 

Bottom line?

 

If your cholesterol level is too low you will not be able to use the sun to generate sufficient levels of vitamin D.

 

Additionally, it provides some intuitive feedback that if cholesterol were so dangerous, why would your body use it as precursor for vitamin D and virtually all of the steroid hormones in your body?

 

Other "evidence" that cholesterol is good for you?

 

Consider the role of "good" HDL cholesterol. Essentially, HDL takes cholesterol from your body's tissues and arteries, and brings it back to your liver, where most of your cholesterol is produced. If the purpose of this was to eliminate cholesterol from your body, it would make sense that the cholesterol would be shuttled back to your kidneys or intestines so your body could remove it.

 

Instead, it goes back to your liver. Why?

 

Because your liver is going to reuse it.

 

"It is taking it back to your liver so that your liver can recycle it; put it back into other particles to be taken to tissues and cells that need it," Dr. Rosedale explains. "Your body is trying to make and conserve the cholesterol for the precise reason that it is so important, indeed vital, for health."

 

 

 

 

Cholesterol and Inflammation - What's the Connection?

 

Inflammation has become a bit of a buzzword in the medical field because it has been linked to so many different diseases. And one of those diseases is heart disease ... the same heart disease that cholesterol is often blamed for.

 

What am I getting at?

 

Well, first consider the role of inflammation in your body. In many respects, it's a good thing as it's your body's natural response to invaders it perceives as threats. If you get a cut for instance, the process of inflammation is what allows you to heal.

 

Specifically during inflammation:

 

-- Your blood vessels constrict to keep you from bleeding to death

 

-- Your blood becomes thicker so it can clot

 

-- Your immune system sends cells and chemicals to fight viruses, bacteria and other "bad guys" that could infect the area

 

-- Cells multiply to repair the damage

 

Ultimately, the cut is healed and a protective scar may form over the area.

 

If your arteries are damaged, a very similar process occurs inside of your body, except that a "scar" in your artery is known as plaque.

 

This plaque, along with the thickening of your blood and constricting of your blood vessels that normally occur during the inflammatory process, can indeed increase your risk of high blood pressure and heart attacks.

 

Notice that cholesterol has yet to even enter the picture.

 

Cholesterol comes in because, in order to replace your damaged cells, it is necessary.

 

Remember that no cell can form without it.

 

So if you have damaged cells that need to be replaced, your liver will be notified to make more cholesterol and release it into your bloodstream. This is a deliberate process that takes place in order for your body to produce new, healthy cells.

 

It's also possible, and quite common, for damage to occur in your body on a regular basis. In this case, you will be in a dangerous state of chronic inflammation.

 

The test usually used to determine if you have chronic inflammation is a C-reactive protein (CRP) blood test. CRP level is used as a marker of inflammation in your arteries.

 

Generally speaking:

 

-- A CRP level under 1 milligrams per liter of blood means you have a low risk for cardiovascular disease

 

-- 1 to 3 milligrams means your risk is intermediate

 

-- More than 3 milligrams is high risk

 

Even conventional medicine is warming up to the idea that chronic inflammation can trigger heart attacks. But they stop short of seeing the big picture.

 

In the eyes of conventional medicine, when they see increased cholesterol circulating in your bloodstream, they conclude that it -- not the underlying damage to your arteries -- is the cause of heart attacks.

 

Which brings me to my next point.

 

 

 

The Insanity of Lowering Cholesterol

 

Sally Fallon, the president of the Weston A. Price Foundation, and Mary Enig, Ph.D, an expert in lipid biochemistry, have gone so far as to call high cholesterol "an invented disease, a 'problem' that emerged when health professionals learned how to measure cholesterol levels in the blood."[iii]

 

And this explanation is spot on.

 

If you have increased levels of cholesterol, it is at least in part because of increased inflammation in your body. The cholesterol is there to do a job: help your body to heal and repair.

 

Conventional medicine misses the boat entirely when they dangerously recommend that lowering cholesterol with drugs is the way to reduce your risk of heart attacks, because what is actually needed is to address whatever is causing your body damage -- and leading to increased inflammation and then increased cholesterol.

 

As Dr. Rosedale so rightly points out:

 

"If excessive damage is occurring such that it is necessary to distribute extra cholesterol through the bloodstream, it would not seem very wise to merely lower the cholesterol and forget about why it is there in the first place.

 

It would seem much smarter to reduce the extra need for the cholesterol -- the excessive damage that is occurring, the reason for the chronic inflammation."

 

I'll discuss how to do this later in the report, but first let's take a look at the dangers of low cholesterol -- and how it came to be that cholesterol levels needed to be so low in the first place.

 

 

 

If Your Cholesterol is Too Low ...

 

All kinds of nasty things can happen to your body. Remember, every single one of your cells needs cholesterol to thrive -- including those in your brain. Perhaps this is why low cholesterol wreaks havoc on your psyche.

 

One large study conducted by Dutch researchers found that men with chronically low cholesterol levels showed a consistently higher risk of having depressive symptoms.[iv]

 

This may be because cholesterol affects the metabolism of serotonin, a substance involved in the regulation of your mood. On a similar note, Canadian researchers found that those in the lowest quarter of total cholesterol concentration had more than six times the risk of committing suicide as did those in the highest quarter. [v]

 

Dozens of studies also support a connection between low or lowered cholesterol levels and violent behavior, through this same pathway: lowered cholesterol levels may lead to lowered brain serotonin activity, which may, in turn, lead to increased violence and aggression. [vi]

 

And one meta-analysis of over 41,000 patient records found that people who take statin drugs to lower their cholesterol as much as possible may have a higher risk of cancer, [vii] while other studies have linked low cholesterol to Parkinson's disease.

 

What cholesterol level is too low? Brace yourself.

 

Probably any level much under 150 -- an optimum would be more like 200.

 

Now I know what you are thinking: "But my doctor tells me my cholesterol needs to be under 200 to be healthy." Well let me enlighten you about how these cholesterol recommendations came to be. And I warn you, it is not a pretty story.

 

This is a significant issue. I have seen large numbers of people who have their cholesterol lowered below 150, and there is little question in my mind that it is causing far more harm than any benefit they are receiving by lowering their cholesterol this low.

 

 

 

Who Decided What Cholesterol Levels are Healthy or Harmful?

 

In 2004, the U.S. government's National Cholesterol Education Program panel advised those at risk for heart disease to attempt to reduce their LDL cholesterol to specific, very low, levels.

 

Before 2004, a 130-milligram LDL cholesterol level was considered healthy. The updated guidelines, however, recommended levels of less than 100, or even less than 70 for patients at very high risk.

 

Keep in mind that these extremely low targets often require multiple cholesterol-lowering drugs to achieve.

 

Fortunately, in 2006 a review in the Annals of Internal Medicine [viii] found that there is insufficient evidence to support the target numbers outlined by the panel. The authors of the review were unable to find research providing evidence that achieving a specific LDL target level was important in and of itself, and found that the studies attempting to do so suffered from major flaws.

 

Several of the scientists who helped develop the guidelines even admitted that the scientific evidence supporting the less-than-70 recommendation was not very strong.

 

So how did these excessively low cholesterol guidelines come about?

 

Eight of the nine doctors on the panel that developed the new cholesterol guidelines had been making money from the drug companies that manufacture statin cholesterol-lowering drugs.[ix]

 

The same drugs that the new guidelines suddenly created a huge new market for in the United States.

 

Coincidence? I think not.

 

Now, despite the finding that there is absolutely NO evidence to show that lowering your LDL cholesterol to 100 or below is good for you, what do you think the American Heart Association STILL recommends?

 

Lowering your LDL cholesterol levels to less than 100. [x]

 

And to make matters worse, the standard recommendation to get to that level almost always includes one or more cholesterol-lowering drugs.

 

 

 

The Dangers of Cholesterol-Lowering Medications

 

If you are concerned about your cholesterol levels, taking a drug should be your absolute last resort. And when I say last resort, I'm saying the odds are very high, greater than 100 to 1, that you don't need drugs to lower your cholesterol.

 

To put it another way, among the more than 20,000 patients who have come to my clinic, only four or five of them truly needed these drugs, as they had genetic challenges of familial hypercholesterolemia that required it..

 

Contrast this to what is going on in the general population. According to data from Medco Health Solutions Inc., more than half of insured Americans are taking drugs for chronic health conditions. And cholesterol-lowering medications are the second most common variety among this group, with nearly 15 percent of chronic medication users taking them (high blood pressure medications -- another vastly over-prescribed category -- were first). [xi]

 

Disturbingly, as written in BusinessWeek early in 2008, "Some researchers have even suggested -- half-jokingly -- that the medications should be put in the water supply." [xii]

 

Count yourself lucky that you probably do NOT need to take cholesterol-lowering medications, because these are some nasty little pills.

 

Statin drugs work by inhibiting an enzyme in your liver that's needed to manufacture cholesterol. What is so concerning about this is that when you go tinkering around with the delicate workings of the human body, you risk throwing everything off kilter.

 

Case in point, "statin drugs inhibit not just the production of cholesterol, but a whole family of intermediary substances, many if not all of which have important biochemical functions in their own right," say Enig and Fallon.3

 

For starters, statin drugs deplete your body of Coenzyme Q10 (CoQ10), which is beneficial to heart health and muscle function. Because doctors rarely inform people of this risk and advise them to take a CoQ10 supplement, this depletion leads to fatigue, muscle weakness, soreness, and eventually heart failure.

 

Muscle pain and weakness, a condition called rhabdomyolysis, is actually the most common side effect of statin drugs, which is thought to occur because statins activate the atrogin-1 gene, which plays a key role in muscle atrophy. [xiii]

 

By the way, muscle pain and weakness may be an indication that your body tissues are actually breaking down -- a condition that can cause kidney damage.

 

Statin drugs have also been linked to:

 

-- An increased risk of polyneuropathy (nerve damage that causes pain in the hands and feet and trouble walking)

 

-- Dizziness

 

-- Cognitive impairment, including memory loss [xiv]

 

-- A potential increased risk of cancer [xv]

 

-- Decreased function of the immune system[xvi]

 

-- Depression

 

-- Liver problems, including a potential increase in liver enzymes (so people taking statins must be regularly monitored for normal liver function)

 

And recently a possible association was found between statins and an increased risk of Lou Gehrig's disease. [xvii]

 

Other cholesterol-lowering drugs besides statins also have side effects, most notably muscle pain and weakness.

 

 

 

IMPORTANT NOTE

 

If, for whatever reason, you or someone you know or love does not believe the information in this report and chooses to stay on statin drugs, then please make sure they at least take one to two Ubiquinols per day.

 

This will help prevent all the side effects mentioned above.

 

Ubiquinol is the reduced version of Coenzyme Q-10 and is far more effective if you are over 35-40 years old. It is the form of the supplement that actually works, and if you take CoQ-10 and your body can't reduce it to uniquinol you are just fooling yourself and wasting your money.

 

 

 

Are Cholesterol Drugs Even Effective?

 

With all of these risks, the drugs had better be effective, right? Well, even this is questionable. At least, it depends on how you look at it.

 

Most cholesterol lowering drugs can effectively lower your cholesterol numbers, but are they actually making you any healthier, and do they help prevent heart disease?

 

Have you ever heard of the statistic known as NNT, or number needed to treat?

 

I didn't think so. In fact, most doctors haven't either. And herein lies the problem.

 

NNT answers the question: How many people have to take a particular drug to avoid one incidence of a medical issue (such as a heart attack)?

 

For example, if a drug had an NNT of 50 for heart attacks, then 50 people have to take the drug in order to prevent one heart attack.

 

Easy enough, right?

 

Well, drug companies would rather that you not focus on NNT, because when you do, you get an entirely different picture of their "miracle" drugs. Take, for instance, Pfizer's Lipitor, which is the most prescribed cholesterol medication in the world and has been prescribed to more than 26 million Americans. [xviii]

 

According to Lipitor's own Web site, Lipitor is clinically proven to lower bad cholesterol 39-60 percent, depending on the dose. Sounds fairly effective, right?

 

Well, BusinessWeek actually did an excellent story on this very topic earlier this year, [xix] and they found the REAL numbers right on Pfizer's own newspaper ad for Lipitor.

 

Upon first glance, the ad boasts that Lipitor reduces heart attacks by 36 percent. But there is an asterisk. And when you follow the asterisk, you find the following in much smaller type:

 

"That means in a large clinical study, 3% of patients taking a sugar pill or placebo had a heart attack compared to 2% of patients taking Lipitor."

 

What this means is that for every 100 people who took the drug over 3.3 years, three people on placebos, and two people on Lipitor, had heart attacks. That means that taking Lipitor resulted in just one fewer heart attack per 100 people.

 

The NNT, in this case, is 100. One hundred people have to take Lipitor for more than three years to prevent one heart attack. And the other 99 people, well, they've just dished out hundreds of dollars and increased their risk of a multitude of side effects for nothing.

 

So you can see how the true effectiveness of cholesterol drugs like Lipitor is hidden behind a smokescreen.

 

Or in some cases, not hidden at all.

 

 

 

Zetia and Vytorin: No Medical Benefits

 

Early in 2008, it came out that Zetia, which works by inhibiting absorption of cholesterol from your intestines, and Vytorin, which is a combination of Zetia and Zocor (a statin drug), do not work.

 

This was discovered AFTER the drugs acquired close to 20 percent of the U.S. market for cholesterol-lowering drugs. And also after close to 1 million prescriptions for the drugs were being written each week in the United States, bringing in close to $4 billion in 2007. [xx]

 

It was only after the results of a trial by the drugs' makers, Merck and Schering-Plough, were released that this was found out. Never mind that the trial was completed in April 2006, and results were not released until January 2008.

 

And it's no wonder the drug companies wanted to hide these results.

 

While Zetia does lower cholesterol by 15 percent to 20 percent, trials did not show that it reduces heart attacks or strokes, or that it reduces plaques in arteries that can lead to heart problems.

 

The trial by the drugs' makers, which studied whether Zetia could reduce the growth of plaques, found that plaques grew nearly twice as fast in patients taking Zetia along with Zocor (Vytorin) than in those taking Zocor alone. [xxi]

 

Of course, the answer is not to turn back to typical statin drugs to lower your cholesterol, as many of the so-called experts would have you believe.

 

You see, statins are thought to have a beneficial effect on inflammation in your body, thereby lowering your risk of heart attack and stroke.

 

But you can lower inflammation in your body naturally, without risking any of the numerous side effects of statin drugs. This should also explain why my guidelines for lowering cholesterol are identical to those to lower inflammation.

 

For more in-depth information about cholesterol-lowering drugs, please see my recently updated statin drug index page.

 

 

 

How to Lower Inflammation, and Thereby Your Risk of Heart Disease, Naturally

 

There is a major misconception that you must avoid foods like eggs and saturated fat to protect your heart. While it's true that fats from animal sources contain cholesterol, I've explained earlier in this article why this should not scare you -- but I'll explain even further here.

 

This misguided principle is based on the "lipid hypothesis" -- developed in the 1950s by nutrition pioneer Ancel Keys -- that linked dietary fat to coronary heart disease.

 

The nutrition community of that time completely accepted the hypothesis, and encouraged the public to cut out butter, red meat, animal fats, eggs, dairy and other "artery clogging" fats from their diets -- a radical change at that time.

 

What you may not know is that when Keys published his analysis that claimed to prove the link between dietary fats and coronary heart disease, he selectively analyzed information from only six countries to prove his correlation, rather than comparing all the data available at the time -- from 22 countries.

 

As a result of this "cherry-picked" data, government health organizations began bombarding the public with advice that has contributed to the diabetes and obesity epidemics going on today: eat a low-fat diet.

 

Not surprisingly, numerous studies have actually shown that Keys' theory was wrong and saturated fats are healthy, including these studies from Fallon and Enig's classic article The Skinny on Fats: [xxii]

 

A survey of South Carolina adults found no correlation of blood cholesterol levels with "bad" dietary habits, such as use of red meat, animal fats, fried foods, butter, eggs, whole milk, bacon, sausage and cheese. [xxiii]

A Medical Research Council survey showed that men eating butter ran half the risk of developing heart disease as those using margarine. [xxiv]

Of course, as Americans cut out nutritious animal fats from their diets, they were left hungry. So they began eating more processed grains, more vegetable oils, and more high-fructose corn syrup, all of which are nutritional disasters.

 

It is this latter type of diet that will eventually lead to increased inflammation, and therefore cholesterol, in your body. So don't let anyone scare you away from saturated fat anymore.

 

Chronic inflammation is actually caused by a laundry list of items such as:

 

-- Oxidized cholesterol (cholesterol that has gone rancid, such as that from overcooked, scrambled eggs)

 

-- Eating lots of sugar and grains

 

-- Eating foods cooked at high temperatures

 

-- Eating trans fats

 

-- A sedentary lifestyle

 

-- Smoking

 

-- Emotional stress

 

So to sum it all up, in order to lower your inflammation and cholesterol levels naturally, you must address the items on this list.

 

 

 

How to Lower Your Cholesterol Naturally...

 

1. Make sure you're getting plenty of high-quality, animal-based omega3-fats. I prefer those from krill oil. New research suggests that as little as 500 mg may lower your total cholesterol and triglycerides and will likely increase your HDL cholesterol.

 

2. Reduce, with the plan of eliminating, grains and sugars in your daily diet. It is especially important to eliminate dangerous sugars such as fructose. If your HDL/Cholesterol ratio is abnormal and needs to be improved it would also serve you well to virtually eliminate fruits from your diet, as that it also a source of fructose. Once your cholesterol improves you can gradually reintroduce it to levels that don't raise your cholesterol.

 

3. Eat the right foods for your nutritional type. You can learn your nutritional type by taking our FREE test.

 

4. Eat a good portion of your food raw.

 

5. Eat healthy, preferably raw, fats that correspond to your nutritional type. This includes:

 

-- Olive oil

 

-- Coconut and coconut oil

 

-- Organic raw dairy products (including butter, cream, sour cream, cheese, etc.)

 

-- Avocados

 

-- Raw nuts

 

-- Seeds

 

-- Eggs (lightly cooked with yolks intact or raw)

 

-- Organic, grass-fed meats

 

6. Get the right amount of exercise, especially Peak Fitness type of exercise. When you exercise you increase your circulation and the blood flow throughout your body. The components of your immune system are also better circulated, which means your immune system has a better chance of fighting an illness before it has the opportunity to spread.

 

7. Avoid smoking and drinking excessive amounts of alcohol.

 

8. Address your emotional challenges. I particularly love the Emotional Freedom Technique (EFT) for stress management.

 

So there you have it; the reasons why high cholesterol is a worry that many of you simply do not need to have, along with a simple plan to optimize yours.

 

If someone you love is currently taking cholesterol-lowering drugs, I urge you to share this information with them as well, and take advantage of the thousands of free pages of information on www.Mercola.com.

 

For the majority of you reading this right now, there's no reason to risk your health with cholesterol-lowering drugs. With the plan I've just outlined, you'll achieve the cholesterol levels you were meant to have, along with the very welcome "side effects" of increased energy, mood and mental clarity.

 

Too good to be true?

 

Hardly.

 

For the vast majority of people, making a few lifestyle changes causes healthy cholesterol levels to naturally occur.

 

As always, your health really is in your hands. Now it's up to you to take control -- and shape it into something great.

 

Dr. Joseph Mercola is the founder and director of Mercola.com. Become a fan of Dr. Mercola on Facebook, on Twitter and check out Dr. Mercola's report on sun exposure!

 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

References

 

 

American Heart Association January 23, 2008

 

[ii] Mercola.com, Cholesterol is NOT the Cause of Heart Disease, Ron Rosedale May 28, 2005

 

[iii] Fallon, S. and Mary Enig. "Dangers of Statin Drugs: What You Haven't Been Told About Popular Cholesterol-Lowering Medicines," The Weston A. Price Foundation

 

[iv] Psychosomatic Medicine 2000;62.

 

[v] Epidemiology 2001 Mar;12:168-72

 

[vi] Annals of Internal Medicine (1998;128(6):478-487) The Journal of the American Medical Association (1997;278:313-321)

 

[vii] Journal of the American College of Cardiology July 31, 2007; 50:409-418

 

[viii] Annals of Internal Medicine October 3, 2006; 145(7): 520-530

 

[ix] USAToday.com October 16, 2004

 

[x] American Heart Association, "What Your Cholesterol Level Means," accessed May 22, 2008

 

[xi] MSNBC.com More than half of Americans on chronic meds May 14, 2008(accessed June 9, 2008)

 

[xii] BusinessWeek Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good? January 17, 2008 (accessed June 9, 2008)

 

[xiii] The Journal of Clinical Investigation December 2007; 117(12):3940-51

 

[xiv] Mercola.com Sudden Memory Loss Linked to Cholesterol Drugs

 

[xv] Nature Medicine September, 2000;6:965-966, 1004-1010.

 

[xvi] Nature Medicine, December, 2000; 6: 1311-1312, 1399-1402

 

[xvii] Edwards, I. Ralph; Star, Kristina; Kiuru, Anne, "Statins, Neuromuscular Degenerative Disease and an Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis-Like Syndrome," Drug Safety, Volume 30, Number 6, 2007 , pp. 515-525(11)

 

[xviii] IMS Heallth. IMS National Prescription Audit Plus July 2007.

 

[xix] BusinessWeek.com, "Do Cholesterol Drugs Do Any Good?" January 17, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

 

[xx] New York Times, "Cardiologists Question Delay of Data on 2 Drugs," November 21, 2007 (accessed June 10, 2008)

 

[xxi] New York Times, "Drug Has No Benefit in Trial, Makers Say," January 14, 2008 (accessed June 10, 2008)

 

[xxii] Enig, M and Sally Fallon, "The Skinny on Fats," The Weston A. Price Foundation,

 

[xxiii] Lackland, D T, et al, J Nutr, Nov 1990, 120:11S:1433-1436

 

[xxiv] Nutr Week, Mar 22, 1991, 21:12:2-3

Edited August 13, 2010 by Chickenbackside

[Hamburger]

lengthy to read but really informative.......basically sums up whats keeping this thread going.

...... thks for the input