Should I Lower my Cholesterol?

A slim and perfectly athletic young woman once told me that she was worried about her high cholesterol numbers in the last test. I laughed the issue off.

‘Labs make mistakes’ – I said – ‘Do you feel well? If yes, forget about it’.

Another 27-year-old ballerina-type was recommended by a doctor to cut down on… egg yolks.

We both found it funny.

But then my doctor called me just to say:
- Your current cholesterol level is not acceptable. You must be put on medications.

I did not feel like laughing. The fact that he did not even consider a non-medical alternative somehow felt especially upsetting.

I received it as the message to stop my 'natural, drug-free' nonsense and become like everyone else – passive and submissive to whatever doctor orders me to do.

When things like this happen, I first panic and think ‘Maybe it is time to change my ways. He (she) sounds so confident, and who am I to dispute a professional?’

But then I eventually calm down and start thinking straight. I ask myself:

-     Is there anything wrong with me (dizziness, fatigue, or pain)? Maybe I   feel weaker than in my 40s or 30s?

-     No; and actually, since yoga, - even better and stronger.

-     But can I trust my body? Every day people are urged to trust nothing but medical tests.  You hear countless stories about perfectly healthy individuals suddenly dropped dead with massive stroke or cardiac arrest.

-     Well, I doubt these stories are accurate.

-     Then why should I be scared of heart attack?

Currently doctors push young and old to lower blood cholesterol though its nature is not exactly clear (some say it depends on the amount of fat you eat; others – that consuming fat is irrelevant). These recommendations are based on the opinion that elevated level of LDL (bad) cholesterol is  one of the factors (family history, obesity, etc.) that in combination might be strong indicators of heart vulnerability. Yet again, many doctors advise to be ‘on the safe side’ and to lower it even if you have no relevant history or weight issues.

Being confused by all this controversy I felt like additionally researching the subject. Having high levels throughout my life and no heart problems ever, I grew a strong suspicion that the role of cholesterol in heart conditions is somewhat overrated. Thus I was looking specifically for the relevant studies that would prove or refute this hypothesis.

As usual, the first round was totally fruitless, though quite educational as I had been flooded with indisputable recommendations to lower cholesterol regardless of anything else.

I changed the inquiry to “cholesterol, study, controversial” and this is what I found:

1 – The clinical study led to a scandal in the medical world had found that an expensive anti-cholesterol drag and a much cheaper one (that included only one of the counterpart’s many components) perform the same. In fact the data for the cheaper one shows even slightly more benefits.

2 – The basic ingredient - statin reliably lowers cholesterol and was proven to bring benefits against heart conditions.  However it is not clear yet if the benefits observed were provided by lowering cholesterol or due to other healing mechanisms.

3 – The recommendations regarding cholesterol by everyone familiar with the results of this and similar studies are extremely cautious.

(The ENHANCE Trial and What It Means, By Richard N. Fogoros, M.D., http://heartdisease.about.com/cs/cholesterol/a/statins.htm;

CLEARING UP THE CHOLESTEROL CONFUSION! by Dr. Robert Preston, N.D.,  http://www.vitality-corp.com/)

  

I am thinking about changing the doctor.

Borsch - as Promised

After the success of the raw celery soup I was determined to make raw borsch from the same book (Sergey and Valya Boutenko, Fresh. The Ultimate Live-Food Cookbook).

Here is the recipe:

3 cups water

3 beets

1 small gingerroot, sliced

3-4 large garlic cloves

6-7 bay leaves

2 cups water

2 carrots

2 stalks celery

1 tablespoon apple cider vinegar

3 peeled oranges with seeds removed (to avoid bitterness)

1 tablespoon honey

¼ cup olive oil

1 teaspoon sea salt

½ cup walnuts

¼ head cabbage grated

1-2 carrots grated

½ bunch parsley chopped

The first 5 of these ingredients must be blended, others – finely chopped and it serves up to 6 people.

The celery soup had been gone so fast that my confidence in the ‘Borsch project’ grew real strong. I decided this time to make a full portion.

I cut beets into large chunks and felt already happy for not being asked to grate them. ( Raw beets are extremely good for your blood, but grating them takes some effort and is quite messy!) I also put only two oranges instead of three, because mine were large. Other than that I followed the instruction.  

Here is the result

For some reasons, though, I misjudged  the '6 people' mentioned in the recipe. I took them for rather moderate eaters, probably trying to lose weight and watching their portions.  My husband’s guess is that I was just hungry at the moment.

Well, I definitely  underestimated them!

The borsch poured out from the Vitamix filled the large salad bowl which I use for Thanksgiving dinners.  We started tasting it already anxious of not being able to eat it all. And what would I do with the rest? I cannot throw such a good thing away.

These thoughts were not exactly appetite – boosting. Still we liked it a lot!  

We ate two servings each and then I had one more out of guilty conscience.   The rest was put into the fridge to delay uncomfortable decisions.

The next day, however, I changed my mind and after warming it up a little, finished the borsch. By keeping it for so long and heating slightly, I probably lost some nutrients but still as the soup was never boiled, there must’ve been plenty of nutrients left.

And it was as good  and fresh the next day as it was the first day.

Who is Afraid of Suzanne Somers

Before we discontinued cable TV I saw her quite often, mostly on QVC or some other shopping network.  Then she was on Oprah show describing her anti-aging regimen.  The camera had shown a battery of plastic cups filled with pills that she took regularly and sworn by.  It looked slightly odd but I deeply sympathize with a cancer survivor on her journey to sustaining health. 

Suzanne Somers on the Oprah show

Lately I saw Somers again in “60 minutes” that was dedicated to her book ‘Knockout’ about doctors providing alternative cancer cures. Though being not a fan or follower, I was still struck by the attermost rejection of it by conventional medicine.

Our praised political correctness was nowhere in sight.

The representatives of the mainstream medical science interviewed in the episode explained that no success story can prove effectiveness of the treatment or approach, because all these successes are subjective, and could’ve been resulted from other factors (misdiagnosis, other treatments taken in parallel, etc.) Personal success stories are usually called anecdotes and are not admitted as scientific evidence. Only clinical studies can be admitted as such.

Not trusting my amateur understanding I checked the term in several dictionaries and on relevant Internet sites. According to them a clinical study (trial or protocol) is a thoroughly documented testing provided on a group of volunteers. The results are obtained via monitoring certain measurable parameters and comparing them to similar parameters in the group taking placebo.

It looks like such an approach excludes subjective judgment and coincidental reactions. But does it really?

Is the possibility of misdiagnosis not applicable to participants in a clinical study, or a possibility of alternative (or other) treatment taken in parallel clandestinely or unconsciously?

 We know that emotional support can be a powerful weapon against despair and thus, - a contributor to successful healing. But is it possible to make all the participants in a trial getting such support in equal (measurable) portions?  How about different lifestyles and medical history that are also difficult to reliably measure? Besides, there are multiple evidences of placebo being as effective as the tested drug.

And to make things worse we hear all too often of drugs thoroughly tested and FDA approved yet shown in years of application no sizable benefits (though caused dangerous side-effects.)

All these weaknesses of even the most unbiased medical trials are well known, still the representatives of mainstream science  demonstrate unshakable superiority. They are science. Others are charlatans.  

...The actress who usually projects a rather gregarious and flamboyant personality this time was uncommonly reserved. In response to accusations in incompetency she did not mention any of the issues above, just asked:

‘Why then so little success is gained against cancer in almost a century of research?’ 

Somers’ opponents were not intimidated by the question. They looked confident and comfortable replying that some progress had been made, in particular, not all (?!) the drugs of the 70s are still in use today. 

Indeed with no goals or timelines ever been set and no real competition to mind such a progress may qualify as totally fine.

And feeling so, the major scholarly concern is not about lack of their achievements but rather with the possibility of people being misguided by the books like Somers’. They worry that some of her readers might decide against conventional treatment and that would be detrimental to their health. 

Here I would like some help to check the logic. Please, tell me where I make a mistake:

      Cancer is one of the deadliest diseases in our part of the world.

      Success of modern science against it is still modest, which means that MANY PATIENTS DIE AFTER CONVENTIONAL TREATMENTS.

 Why then the decision to do something else is considered fatal?

Mrs. Somers did what all of us do when we straggled for a solution (medical, or other) for a long time, and finally found it – we rush to share the good news with our family and friends. By doing so we expect no other rewards than seeing someone else benefited from it. Today with the advantages of the Internet we can share our little victories with virtually the entire world.

There must be something good in this!

Of course, no health-related information should be trusted without questioning. And Somers’ book is no exception from this rule.  But nowadays we all need to learn processing information and taking the responsibility for our decisions.

Because, frankly, no one else would.

So here is the link to another information  regarding healing cancer naturally:

http://greensmoothiesblog.com/cancer/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreenSmoothiesBlog+%28Green+Smoothies+Blog+by+Victoria+Boutenko%29

It is from the blog that I follow. Check it if you know someone who may need it.