Canadian docs misclassifying two-thirds of patients at high risk for cardiovascular events
http://www.theheart.org/article/1155979.do
Nov 23, 2010 11:45 EST "Canadian primary-care physicians are not accurately assessing cardiovascular risk in
middle-aged adults, a particular concern for high-risk patients classified as low risk.
The implications of the study are that a sizable proportion of these patients might not be
prescribed lipid-lowering therapy, say researchers."
Here is the Medscape link (login required):
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733136?sssdmh=dm1.651082&src=nldne&uac=14...
Cam's Comment: THANK GOD FOR CANADA! The doctors are NOT misclassifying! They are
correctly saying that people do NOT need "lipid-lowering therapy" (i.e. cholesterol
lowering drugs). I hope that this stupid stupid news article gets either buried, or the
Canadian doctors get praised for not succumbing to Big Pharma and researchers who are
getting paid through the nose to promote the Pharma agendas. The author, Michael O'Riordan
is a complete FOOL. For starters, the JUPITER study he uses for reference basically proves
the absolute FAILURE of cholesterol-lowering drugs, not their "success" as everyone is
parrotting (thanks to Big Pharma twisting the statistics to meet their needs). Wake up
people! Cholesterol drugs will KILL YOU! If you want to read about this, find it on Brian
Peskin's website where he shows beyond the shadow of a doubt how JUPITER FAILED. *************** Higher-Protein/Low-GI Diet Best for Maintaining Weight Loss Heartwire (login required)
http://mp.medscape.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/eDAzW0XLW6e0F6A0uVf0GF&uac=143390MN "November 26, 2010 (Copenhagen, Denmark) - A new study looking at ways of maintaining
weight loss in subjects who've successfully shed pounds through a restricted-calorie diet
has found that a higher-protein, lower glycemic index (GI) diet was significantly better
than other diets either lower in protein, or with a higher glycemic index, or both."
I post a link to the original Journal of New England Medicine for easier access:
Diets with High or Low Protein Content and Glycemic Index for Weight-Loss Maintenance
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1007137
"Studies of weight-control diets that are high in protein or low in glycemic index have
reached varied conclusions, probably owing to the fact that the studies had insufficient
power. In this large European study, a modest increase in protein content and a modest
reduction in the glycemic index led to an improvement in study completion and maintenance
of weight loss."
Cam's Comment: This is good to see, however the study is too short. It covers only six
months. Many studies have found that after one year, most of those who lost or maintained
lower weights on higher protein/lower carb diets returned to their original weights after
a year. Does that sound like I am contradicting my own evangelism? Well, actually, I've known this
for some time, and thanks to Brian Peskin have been able to predict it for some time now.
This happened to a good portion of the "Atkins Diet" people, and it led to some
discreditation of that "high protein" diet, and was fodder for all of the Weight Watchers
people and "calorie restrictors". The problem with the above study is that the proteins
and foods we get now are DEFICIENT in the PARENT ESSENTIAL OILS (ALA, and LA, or Parent
Omega 3 and Parent Omega 6). DHA and EPA are present in fish, and they are "omega 3" but
they are DERIVATIVES. Our bodies do not need the derivatives, because we can make our own
derivatives from the parents. What we need are the parent essential omega-6 and the parent
omega-3s (LA, and ALA respectively) and we need them in the proper combination and ratio.
What does this mean in layman terms? It means that this study will also get defeated by
another study that goes longer and shows that the people who maintained for six months,
regained or mostly regained in about a year, thus once again, damaging the reality that
lower carbohydrates and higher amounts of proteins are what our bodies really require.
In the end, this debate will never clarify, and will continue to be murky, like "colloidal
minerals" (which are another farce re. mineral supplementation). Both sides will continue
to "post", and "counterpost" ad infinitum. Why? Because they are ALL missing the crucial
key point: we NEED the right amount of PARENT ESSENTIAL OILS and that is extremely
difficult to do with food.
Have a great day.
I love you!
Cam
http://www.theheart.org/article/1155979.do
Nov 23, 2010 11:45 EST "Canadian primary-care physicians are not accurately assessing cardiovascular risk in
middle-aged adults, a particular concern for high-risk patients classified as low risk.
The implications of the study are that a sizable proportion of these patients might not be
prescribed lipid-lowering therapy, say researchers."
Here is the Medscape link (login required):
http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/733136?sssdmh=dm1.651082&src=nldne&uac=14...
Cam's Comment: THANK GOD FOR CANADA! The doctors are NOT misclassifying! They are
correctly saying that people do NOT need "lipid-lowering therapy" (i.e. cholesterol
lowering drugs). I hope that this stupid stupid news article gets either buried, or the
Canadian doctors get praised for not succumbing to Big Pharma and researchers who are
getting paid through the nose to promote the Pharma agendas. The author, Michael O'Riordan
is a complete FOOL. For starters, the JUPITER study he uses for reference basically proves
the absolute FAILURE of cholesterol-lowering drugs, not their "success" as everyone is
parrotting (thanks to Big Pharma twisting the statistics to meet their needs). Wake up
people! Cholesterol drugs will KILL YOU! If you want to read about this, find it on Brian
Peskin's website where he shows beyond the shadow of a doubt how JUPITER FAILED. *************** Higher-Protein/Low-GI Diet Best for Maintaining Weight Loss Heartwire (login required)
http://mp.medscape.com/cgi-bin1/DM/t/eDAzW0XLW6e0F6A0uVf0GF&uac=143390MN "November 26, 2010 (Copenhagen, Denmark) - A new study looking at ways of maintaining
weight loss in subjects who've successfully shed pounds through a restricted-calorie diet
has found that a higher-protein, lower glycemic index (GI) diet was significantly better
than other diets either lower in protein, or with a higher glycemic index, or both."
I post a link to the original Journal of New England Medicine for easier access:
Diets with High or Low Protein Content and Glycemic Index for Weight-Loss Maintenance
http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJMoa1007137
"Studies of weight-control diets that are high in protein or low in glycemic index have
reached varied conclusions, probably owing to the fact that the studies had insufficient
power. In this large European study, a modest increase in protein content and a modest
reduction in the glycemic index led to an improvement in study completion and maintenance
of weight loss."
Cam's Comment: This is good to see, however the study is too short. It covers only six
months. Many studies have found that after one year, most of those who lost or maintained
lower weights on higher protein/lower carb diets returned to their original weights after
a year. Does that sound like I am contradicting my own evangelism? Well, actually, I've known this
for some time, and thanks to Brian Peskin have been able to predict it for some time now.
This happened to a good portion of the "Atkins Diet" people, and it led to some
discreditation of that "high protein" diet, and was fodder for all of the Weight Watchers
people and "calorie restrictors". The problem with the above study is that the proteins
and foods we get now are DEFICIENT in the PARENT ESSENTIAL OILS (ALA, and LA, or Parent
Omega 3 and Parent Omega 6). DHA and EPA are present in fish, and they are "omega 3" but
they are DERIVATIVES. Our bodies do not need the derivatives, because we can make our own
derivatives from the parents. What we need are the parent essential omega-6 and the parent
omega-3s (LA, and ALA respectively) and we need them in the proper combination and ratio.
What does this mean in layman terms? It means that this study will also get defeated by
another study that goes longer and shows that the people who maintained for six months,
regained or mostly regained in about a year, thus once again, damaging the reality that
lower carbohydrates and higher amounts of proteins are what our bodies really require.
In the end, this debate will never clarify, and will continue to be murky, like "colloidal
minerals" (which are another farce re. mineral supplementation). Both sides will continue
to "post", and "counterpost" ad infinitum. Why? Because they are ALL missing the crucial
key point: we NEED the right amount of PARENT ESSENTIAL OILS and that is extremely
difficult to do with food.
Have a great day.
I love you!
Cam
No comments:
Post a Comment