Just how long?

January 28, 2010 · From http://ecowomen.net/

The Eco Women are constantly encouraging their fellow Eco Warriors to recycle, recycle, recycle.  If, for some reason, you haven’t been recycling — or perhaps you have a weak moment in which you decide to trash that glass bottle — here’s a list of easily-recyclable materials and how long it takes for them to break down in a landfill:

Glass bottle — 1 million years
Styrofoam container — 1 million years
Plastic bag — 500+ years
Plastic bottle — 500+ years
Aluminum can — 80-200 years

Sobering, no?

Cholesterol, "High"

Here is an article from The Weston Price Foundation;

Question: I have a female patient in her thirties who has been following your recommended regimen of eating mostly raw dairy (or at least non-homogenized), complex carbohydrates, bone broths, moderate amounts of various types of organic meat and organic vegetables and fruits. She avoids all processed foods and is healthy and of normal weight. However, she is concerned about her latest lipid panel, which showed a total cholesterol of 290, LDL of 200 and HDL of 79. The rest of her blood work looks all within normal limits. Hypothyroidism was ruled out but she does have a family history of hypercholesterolemia and coronary heart disease.

I have made similar observations with other patients. With the introduction of healthy unprocessed foods they are getting healthier, however, some patients’ lipid panels become more elevated while others are lowered.

While I have reviewed the research analysis in The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD, and I agree with him that the current interpretations of lipid panels are overrated, but what should a practitioner say to his patients who are told that their cholesterol is too high? It is still unclear which mechanisms raise or lower cholesterol, particularly LDL cholesterol, and what the consequences are, if any. Unfortunately, we currently live in a world of the lowfat paradigm where patients are inundated with cholesterol-free and lowfat food choices and easy prescriptions for statin drugs. Perhaps you can offer an answer to these complex questions.

—Dagmar Ehling, DOM, Durham, NC

Answer: Thank you for your very interesting question. This same issue also comes up a lot in my practice, and is probably on the minds of many of our readers. As Dr. Ehling suggests, the first step in answering this question is to read the book The Cholesterol Myths by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov. In it he describes all the recent studies on the connection between heart disease and cholesterol. His basic conclusion is that there is no connection between cholesterol, lipid levels, coronary artery disease and intake of traditional fats. Interestingly, even in orthodox medical circles one hears a lot of moaning about how "nonspecific" these numbers are in predicting coronary artery disease. What that means is that the various cholesterol levels measured in the blood do not tell us whether or not the patient is prone to heart disease. Those with low total levels of cholesterol are just as likely to have a heart attack as those with high total cholesterol.

I do, however, feel it is good to go over the lipid panels with my patients from a "conventional" point of view, mostly to show them that by assuming the numbers are relevant, we can show that, in fact, their "diet" is working. This is also the case with the patient you presented. What we are taught in the most contemporary school of lipidology is that there are four independent ways of reading these numbers, each with increasing relevance. For each marker you can divide people into "no risk," "low risk," "medium risk," and "high risk." So for total cholesterol you have the following assessment:

Total Cholesterol

• No risk: less than 150
• Low risk: 150 – 200
• Medium risk: 200 – 250
• High risk: greater than 250

Your patient’s level of 290 would put her in the "high risk" category. Please remember, though, that having a total cholesterol of less than 150 puts you in the highest risk category for cancer and early death and lots of people with cholesterol levels over 250 live long healthy lives. This is an extremely insensitive test.

The next, slightly more specific test is for total Low Density Lipoprotein or LDL, the so-called "bad" cholesterol. This type of lipid is thought to be made in your liver and to contribute to the development of coronary artery disease. Here, we have the following:

LDL Cholesterol

• No risk: less than 100
• Low risk: 100 -130
• Medium risk: 130 – 160
• High risk: greater than 160

Your patient’s level of 200 again puts her in the highest risk category. What this probably means is that her liver senses a need for a lot of this type of lipid in her system. Sometimes, this can arise from a liver imbalance or some sort of chronic oxidative stress.

The third way of evaluating lipids are the levels of High Density Lipoproteins or HDLs, the so-called good guys. These compounds are said to direct supposedly atherogenic fats away from the blood vessels and to the liver for processing. It is generally conceded that the HDLs are more specific for risk assessment than the above two values. Here we see the following:

HDL Cholesterol

• No risk: greater than 75
• Low risk: 60 -75
• Medium risk: 40 – 60
• High risk: less than 40

Here we find that your patient’s level of 79 puts her in the lowest risk category. The final and by far the most sensitive way of assessing these numbers is the ratio of total cholesterol/HDL. This gives you a sense of how much of a contribution the good HDL is to the total. This is considered the gold standard of evaluating lipid levels. Here we have the following:

Total Cholesterol/HDL

• No risk: less than 3.5
• Low risk: 3.5 – 4.5
• Medium risk: 4.5 – 5.5
• High risk: greater than 5.5

Your patient’s ratio is 290/79 or 3.7. Thus, the best test that we have for assessing your patient’s risk puts her in the low risk category even on her supposedly high-fat, atherogenic diet. In other words, your patient is fine, and, in fact, has an enviable lipid profile. I find this again and again with my patients. This dietary approach seems to put their physiology in balance, leading to true robust health.

Just a final few words on lipid levels and their "management." The most important thing for your patient and many others is their positive protective HDL levels. It is known and has been repeatedly borne out in my personal experience that the HDL level is inversely related to the triglyceride level. For me, the triglyceride level is a key indicator because it is directly related to the amount of carbohydrates consumed as a function of exercise. The more carbohydrates, of any kind, the patient consumes, the higher the triglyceride levels and the lower the HDL. So, I use lipid panels to tell me whether my patients are consuming too many carbohydrates for their activity level. If they are, the total cholesterol level will be more than double the triglycerides and the HDL will be low. I vigorously correct this by suggesting lower carbohydrate intake (yes, even grains and fruit) and encouraging more exercise or physical activity.

Finally, while I am not convinced this is related to coronary artery disease, very high LDL levels often tell me there is oxidative stress or a liver imbalance in the patient. For this condition I give 1 capsule per day of OPC synergy, a food-based antioxidant, from Standard Process and 1 teaspoon/day of an herbal bitter tonic, the best being Globe Artichoke Extract from MediHerb. This intervention will usually lower the LDL by 10-20 percent.

Note:

• The Cholesterol Myths by Uffe Ravnskov is available from New Trends Publishing, (877) 707-1776 or www.newtrendspublishing.com.
• Standard Process supplements are available through health care practitioners.
• Globe Artichoke Extract from MediHerb is available from Standard Process.

This article appeared in Wise Traditions in Food, Farming and the Healing Arts, the quarterly magazine of the Weston A. Price Foundation, Winter 2001.

About the Author

Thomas Cowan, MD, discovered the work of the two men who would have the most influence on his career while teaching gardening as a Peace Corps volunteer in Swaziland, South Africa. He read Nutrition and Physical Degeneration by Weston Price and a fellow volunteer explained the arcane principles of Rudolf Steiner’s biodynamic agriculture. These events inspired him to pursue a medical degree. Cowan graduated from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine in 1984. After his residency in Family Practice at Johnson City Hospital in Johnson City, New York, he set up an anthroposophical medical practice in Peterborough, New Hampshire. Dr. Cowan has served as vice president of the Physicians Association for Anthroposophical Medicine and is a founding board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation.

Dr. Cowan is the author of The Fourfold Path to Healing (New Trends Publishing), a companion book to Nourishing Traditions by Sally Fallon. He a board member of the Weston A. Price Foundation, a regular contributor to our "Ask the Doctor" column and the Foundation’s quarterly journal, and has lectured throughout the US and Canada. He has three grown children and currently practices medicine in San Francisco where he resides with his wife Lynda Smith Cowan.

His book The Fourfold Path to Healing is now available from NewTrends Publishing, http://www.newtrendspublishing.com/. Visit Dr. Cowan’s website at http://www.fourfoldhealing.com.

More awful “dietary” Advice from the NYTimes

From the advice to get your Vitamin D from supplements to condoning a cereal for breakfast, and still pushing low fat…this author is WAY off base.

Dietary Dilemma

By C. CLAIBORNE RAY

Q. Since vitamin D is a fat-soluble vitamin, is the supplement I take with my low-fat breakfast being absorbed? I eat half a grapefruit, shredded wheat with banana, nonfat yogurt and nonfat milk.

A. “Yes, so long as you continue to include the yogurt and milk,” said Dr. Sheldon S. Hendler, co-editor of the “PDR for Nutritional Supplements,” the standard reference in the field.

Vitamin D binds to certain proteins as well as to fats, Dr. Hendler said by e-mail, and yogurt and milk fill the bill. These are the same proteins that bind to vitamin D in D-fortified nonfat milk, he said. D supplements are well absorbed when accompanied by foods rich in oils, including fatty fish like salmon and tuna and olive oil dressings.

“Typically,” he said, “a generous splash of olive oil would be enough to promote good absorption.”

There is wisdom in including healthy fats even in a low-fat diet, he said. “Although fats typically are thought of negatively (e.g., trans fats), there are some that are truly healthy and that may decrease the risk of cardiovascular and other degenerative diseases,” he said. “These include the omega-3 fish oils DHA (docosahexaenoic acid) and EPA (eicosapentaenoic acid); the omega-3 plant fats such as alpha-linolenic acid (ALA), found in flaxseed oil; olive oil; and phytosterols and phytostanols, derived from plants, which are known to lower cholesterol levels.”

Millie;  This is such an important, and complex subject that I am going to refer you to the article written by Krispin Sullivan, CN, on the Weston Price Foundation website;

The Miracle of Vitamin D

Here’s an article about supplements;

Dietary Supplements: What the Industry does NOT want you to know

Here’s an article about the dangers of a low fat diet;

Taking the Fear out of Eating Fat

An article I wrote about Cereals;

Breakfast Cereals (and grains in general) are Not Fit for Human Consumption

Behavior: Too Much Sitting Shortens Lives, Study Suggests

By RONI CARYN RABIN

Published: January 19, 2010 in the NYTimes

A new study from Australia suggests that couch potatoes live shorter lives.

The study followed 8,800 adults ages 25 and older for six and a half years and found that each daily hour of television viewing was associated with an 18 percent increase in deaths from heart disease and an 11 percent increase in overall mortality.

Those who watched television four hours or more a day were 80 percent more likely to die of cardiovascular disease than those who watched two hours or less, and 46 percent more likely to die of any cause. And it did not matter whether they were overweight, according to the study, which appeared Jan. 11 in the online edition of Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.

Although it is possible that people who were already ill watched more television than those who were healthy, the researchers tried to rule that out by excluding subjects who already had heart disease and by adjusting for differences in risk factors like diet and smoking.

While the benefits of physical activity have been well studied, there is growing interest among researchers in assessing the effects of being sedentary.

“For many people, on a daily basis, they simply shift from one chair to another — from the chair in the car to the chair in the office to the chair in front of the television,” said the study’s lead author, David Dunstan of the Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute in Victoria, Australia. “Even if someone has a healthy body weight, sitting for long periods still has an unhealthy influence on blood sugar and blood fats.”