Cholesterol lowering harmful in Chronic heart failure patients--excluded from statin trials
mfg
(Yes)
And why wasn't this known before statins were marketed? Because,
according to www.theheart.org "CHF patients were excluded from
landmark statin trials."
(And here's another non-sequitor from the article for you):
"Perhaps we need a statin that doesn't have the unfortunate side
effect of reducing cholesterol." said study author Dr. Andrew Clark,
University of Hull, UK.
London, UK A new study has added to evidence suggesting a link
between lower cholesterol levels and higher mortality in heart-failure
patients and suggests that lowering cholesterol levels in CHF patients
may actually be deleterious.[1]
The study, published in the December 3, 2003 issue of the Journal of
the American College of Cardiology, was conducted by a group from the
UK and Germany. They show a relationship between higher levels of
cholesterol and increased survival in heart-failure patients,
independent of other factors. They say the findings have implications
for the treatment of CHF, with the need for caution in using
cholesterol-lowering drugs in this population. However, they add that
statins may have other beneficial effects independent of cholesterol
lowering that may outweigh this possible risk and that controlled
trials of statin therapy in CHF patients are needed. At least one such
trial is now under way.
One of the authors, Dr Andrew Clark (University of Hull, UK) commented
to heartwire: "In heart failure, the fatter you are and the higher
your cholesterol, the better off you will be. This raises the
possibility that statins may be dangerous in these patients, but I
couldn't state that categorically. We need controlled trials to make
such definite statements." But he is not treating his heart-failure
patients with statins. "My recommendation at the moment is not to use
statins in heart-failure patients. I have no evidence to believe that
they are good and quite a lot of suspicious evidence that they are
bad," he said.
CHF patients were excluded from landmark statin trials
In the paper, the researchers note that although statins have been
shown to prevent the development of new-onset heart failure, there is
no evidence of benefit of statin therapy in patients who have already
developed heart failure. They point out that there are theoretical
concerns about statins in CHF, and the presence of CHF was an
exclusion criterion in all the landmark statin studies, but that many
clinicians have applied the results of these clinical trials to
heart-failure patients. They further note that preliminary reports
have suggested an increased mortality in CHF patients with low
cholesterol, and a more recent article has confirmed these findings in
a larger population.
In heart failure, the fatter you are and the higher your cholesterol,
the better off you will be.
They therefore performed the present study to explore and validate the
relationship between cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality in CHF
patients from the Royal Brompton Chronic Heart Failure Clinic in
London. They first investigated this relationship in a group of 114
patients with moderate to severe heart failure (the derivation study)
and then applied the results to a second group of 303 unselected
patients with mild to moderate CHF (validation study).
In the first study, survival at one year was 78% and at three years
was 56%. Increasing total serum cholesterol was found to be a
predictor of survival (hazard ratio 0.64) independent of the etiology
of CHF, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, and exercise
capacity, with a 36% increase in the risk of death within three years
for every mmol/L decrease in serum cholesterol. In the validation
population, one-year survival was 88% and three-year survival was 68%.
The chance of survival increased 25% for each mmol/L increment in
total cholesterol.
In trying to explain these results, the researchers note that chronic
heart failure is a metabolically demanding condition, and a higher
cholesterol level may represent a greater metabolic reserve to deal
with the CHF syndrome. Clark commented: "On the face of it, the result
seems quite surprising, given the strong association between
cholesterol and vascular disease. However, we have been developing for
some time the notion that heart failure is a metabolically stressful
illness. In this light, a high cholesterol level can be seen as
beneficial, as it indicates a greater reserve to deal with metabolic
stress. This fits with other studies we have conducted showing a
greater survival with increasing body weight in heart failure and
following heart surgery."
Lipoproteins have a specific protective role?
But the group also believes that lipoproteins may have a specific
protective role in heart failure, by combating the immune-system
activation that occurs in these patients. Clark explains this
hypothesis as follows: "Lipoproteins are good at absorbing bacterial
endotoxin. An intriguing notion is that the reason for the
immune-system activation seen in heart-failure patients is related to
bowel-wall edema, allowing bacterial translocation into the body. It
may be that lipoproteins mediate a beneficial effect by mopping up any
bacterial proteins before they cause immune-system activation."
Perhaps we need a statin that doesn't have the unfortunate side effect
of reducing cholesterol.
The authors note that survival, in general, is a result of a balance
of risks. "Cholesterol is still likely to be a proatherosclerotic
factor in CHF, but the risk associated with this mechanism is unlikely
to affect the prognosis over the relatively short follow-up relevant
to heart failure. If cholesterol does limit production of cytokines,
then high levels of cholesterol may have a strongly positive effect on
survival. Thus, the balance of risk attributable to cholesterol favors
high levels in patients with CHF, even with an ischemic etiology,"
they write.
However, they caution that this observational study cannot establish
that low cholesterol is the cause of the increased mortality seen;
that can be established only by controlled trials of statins in heart
failure. They also note that other research has suggested that statins
might be beneficial in heart failure, independent of their
cholesterol-lowering effects, by mediating antithrombotic and
anti-inflammatory effects. "Perhaps we need a statin that doesn't have
the unfortunate side effect of reducing cholesterol," Clark said.
A "surprising and counterintuitive finding"
In an accompanying editorial, two of the researchers who originally
reported a link between lower cholesterol and higher mortality in
heart failure say this latest study supports their findings.[2]
Drs Gregg Fonarow and Tamara Horwich (Ahmanson-UCLA Cardiomyopathy
Center, Los Angeles, CA), say this "surprising and counterintuitive
finding" of an inverse relationship between mortality and lipid levels
has been observed in other disease states, such as trauma, surgical
illness, multiple organ failure, dialysis patients, and sepsis. "With
the onset of critical disease, including HF, the classic relationship
between elevated cholesterol and increased mortality no longer
applies," they write.
What are the practical implications?
They note that serum total cholesterol can now provide independent
risk prediction for mortality in patients with chronic heart failure,
adding that "heart-failure patients with total cholesterol levels of
below 190 to 200 mg/dL are at 1.5 to 3 times the risk of dying as
those with higher levels of total cholesterol."
But Fonarow and Horwich say that the implications from a treatment
standpoint are less clear, and they do not go as far as Clark in
recommending that statins be withheld from heart-failure patients.
"This research has not established whether low cholesterol is merely a
prognostic marker or is playing a causative role in mortality. As
such, the results of these observational studies should not
necessarily be interpreted as scientific justification to avoid the
use of lipid-lowering medications in patients with heart failure who
have other indications for treatment."
Both groups agree, however, that results of large-scale randomized
trials of statins in heart-failure patients are needed before making
any definite clinical recommendations on this issue.
CORONA should provide the answers
One such trial is under way with AstraZeneca's rosuvastatin. The
Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA)
includes 4950 patients with chronic symptomatic systolic heart failure
due to coronary artery disease who are being randomized to
rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily or placebo. The primary outcome is a
composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI or stroke. Describing
the trial in a letter in the November 29, 2003 issue of the Lancet,
the steering committee of the CORONA trial, led by Dr Peter Dunselman
(St Ignatius Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands), notes that there is
much uncertainty about the role of statins in heart failure and a
clinical outcome study with a statin in this population has long been
called for.[3]
Related links
1. Short-term statin therapy improves cardiac function in patients
with nonischemic heart failure [HeartWire > News; Jul 28, 2003 ]
2. Statins and immune modulation therapy show promise for heart
failure [HeartWire > News; Sep 26, 2002 ]
Sources
1. Rauchhaus M, Clark AL, Doehner W, et al. The relationship between
cholesterol and survival in patients with chronic heart failure. J Am
Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:1933-1940.
2. Fonarow GC and Horwich TB. Cholesterol and mortality in heart
failure: the bad gone good? J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 42:1941-1943.
3. Dunselman P, Hjalmarson A, Kjekshus J et al. Correspondence. Lancet
2003; 362:1854.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Could lowering cholesterol be harmful in heart failure?
>
> (Yes)
But this is not proven.
> And why wasn't this known before statins were marketed? Because,
> according to www.theheart.org "CHF patients were excluded from
> landmark statin trials."
>
> (And here's another non-sequitor from the article for you):
>
> "Perhaps we need a statin that doesn't have the unfortunate side
> effect of reducing cholesterol." said study author Dr. Andrew Clark,
> University of Hull, UK.
>
>
> London, UK A new study has added to evidence suggesting a link
> between lower cholesterol levels and higher mortality in heart-failure
> patients and suggests that lowering cholesterol levels in CHF patients
> may actually be deleterious.[1]
Suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt.
> The study, published in the December 3, 2003 issue of the Journal of
> the American College of Cardiology, was conducted by a group from the
> UK and Germany. They show a relationship between higher levels of
> cholesterol and increased survival in heart-failure patients,
> independent of other factors.
This could be explained by the fact that folks with really bad heart
failure have difficulty with simple things like eating.
> They say the findings have implications
> for the treatment of CHF, with the need for caution in using
> cholesterol-lowering drugs in this population. However, they add that
> statins may have other beneficial effects independent of cholesterol
> lowering that may outweigh this possible risk and that controlled
> trials of statin therapy in CHF patients are needed. At least one such
> trial is now under way.
Would suggest folks wait for the results of the trial.
> One of the authors, Dr Andrew Clark (University of Hull, UK) commented
> to heartwire: "In heart failure, the fatter you are and the higher
> your cholesterol, the better off you will be.
Or more likely, it indicates your heart failure is not that bad since
you have enough stamina for eating.
> This raises the
> possibility that statins may be dangerous in these patients, but I
> couldn't state that categorically.
And one shouldn't.
> We need controlled trials to make
> such definite statements."
Correct.
> But he is not treating his heart-failure
> patients with statins. "My recommendation at the moment is not to use
> statins in heart-failure patients. I have no evidence to believe that
> they are good and quite a lot of suspicious evidence that they are
> bad," he said.
Imho, that would have to depend on what caused the heart failure in
the first place. If the cause is ischemia from atherosclerotic
coronary disease, taking folks off statins might cause harm
(progression of atherosclerosis).
> CHF patients were excluded from landmark statin trials
> In the paper, the researchers note that although statins have been
> shown to prevent the development of new-onset heart failure,
And common sense tells us that should also apply to worsening heart
failure when atherosclerosis is the cause of the development of
new-onset heart failure.
> there is
> no evidence of benefit of statin therapy in patients who have already
> developed heart failure. They point out that there are theoretical
> concerns about statins in CHF,
Theories are fine, evidence is better.
> and the presence of CHF was an
> exclusion criterion in all the landmark statin studies, but that many
> clinicians have applied the results of these clinical trials to
> heart-failure patients. They further note that preliminary reports
> have suggested an increased mortality in CHF patients with low
> cholesterol, and a more recent article has confirmed these findings in
> a larger population.
Eat less --> lower your cholesterol.
>
> In heart failure, the fatter you are and the higher your cholesterol,
> the better off you will be.
Or the fatter you are, the more we can be certain that you are eating.
> They therefore performed the present study to explore and validate the
> relationship between cholesterol levels and all-cause mortality in CHF
> patients from the Royal Brompton Chronic Heart Failure Clinic in
> London. They first investigated this relationship in a group of 114
> patients with moderate to severe heart failure (the derivation study)
> and then applied the results to a second group of 303 unselected
> patients with mild to moderate CHF (validation study).
>
> In the first study, survival at one year was 78% and at three years
> was 56%. Increasing total serum cholesterol was found to be a
> predictor of survival (hazard ratio 0.64) independent of the etiology
> of CHF, age, left ventricular ejection fraction, and exercise
> capacity, with a 36% increase in the risk of death within three years
> for every mmol/L decrease in serum cholesterol. In the validation
> population, one-year survival was 88% and three-year survival was 68%.
> The chance of survival increased 25% for each mmol/L increment in
> total cholesterol.
Suspect it is a marker of eating well (too well).
> In trying to explain these results, the researchers note that chronic
> heart failure is a metabolically demanding condition, and a higher
> cholesterol level may represent a greater metabolic reserve to deal
> with the CHF syndrome.
Or the eating well itself, represents a greater metabolic reserve.
Eating well --> higher cholesterol.
> Clark commented: "On the face of it, the result
> seems quite surprising, given the strong association between
> cholesterol and vascular disease. However, we have been developing for
> some time the notion that heart failure is a metabolically stressful
> illness. In this light, a high cholesterol level can be seen as
> beneficial,
I suspect this will be shown to be erroneous.
> as it indicates a greater reserve to deal with metabolic
> stress.
And that reserve is being frittered away by folks eating more.
> This fits with other studies we have conducted showing a
> greater survival with increasing body weight in heart failure and
> following heart surgery."
Folks who lose weight unintentionally after heart surgery are "failing
to thrive." Often these folks have had complicated peri-operative
courses with wound infections and wound dehiscence. One would expect
mortality/morbidity to be higher for these folks. The "failure to
thrive" is a marker here rather than cause.
> Lipoproteins have a specific protective role?
Unlikely in excess.
> But the group also believes that lipoproteins may have a specific
> protective role in heart failure, by combating the immune-system
> activation that occurs in these patients. Clark explains this
> hypothesis as follows: "Lipoproteins are good at absorbing bacterial
> endotoxin. An intriguing notion is that the reason for the
> immune-system activation seen in heart-failure patients is related to
> bowel-wall edema, allowing bacterial translocation into the body. It
> may be that lipoproteins mediate a beneficial effect by mopping up any
> bacterial proteins before they cause immune-system activation."
Sounds like wild speculation to me.
>
> Perhaps we need a statin that doesn't have the unfortunate side effect
> of reducing cholesterol.
>
>
>
> The authors note that survival, in general, is a result of a balance
> of risks. "Cholesterol is still likely to be a proatherosclerotic
> factor in CHF, but the risk associated with this mechanism is unlikely
> to affect the prognosis over the relatively short follow-up relevant
> to heart failure. If cholesterol does limit production of cytokines,
> then high levels of cholesterol may have a strongly positive effect on
> survival. Thus, the balance of risk attributable to cholesterol favors
> high levels in patients with CHF, even with an ischemic etiology,"
> they write.
>
> However, they caution that this observational study cannot establish
> that low cholesterol is the cause of the increased mortality seen;
Correct.
> that can be established only by controlled trials of statins in heart
> failure.
Correct.
I would tend to favor the former hypothesis.
> As
> such, the results of these observational studies should not
> necessarily be interpreted as scientific justification to avoid the
> use of lipid-lowering medications in patients with heart failure who
> have other indications for treatment."
Correct.
> Both groups agree, however, that results of large-scale randomized
> trials of statins in heart-failure patients are needed before making
> any definite clinical recommendations on this issue.
Good.
> CORONA should provide the answers
> One such trial is under way with AstraZeneca's rosuvastatin. The
> Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA)
> includes 4950 patients with chronic symptomatic systolic heart failure
> due to coronary artery disease who are being randomized to
> rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily or placebo. The primary outcome is a
> composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI or stroke. Describing
> the trial in a letter in the November 29, 2003 issue of the Lancet,
> the steering committee of the CORONA trial, led by Dr Peter Dunselman
> (St Ignatius Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands), notes that there is
> much uncertainty about the role of statins in heart failure and a
> clinical outcome study with a statin in this population has long been
> called for.[3]
Folks should wait.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Bob Pastorio
A lotta stuff, but I just edited it so we could be sure of his
position on 2PD. Here are his views on unsubstantiated offerings from
medical folks.
> But this is not proven.
> Suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt.
> Would suggest folks wait for the results of the trial.
>>We need controlled trials to make such definite statements."
>
> Correct.
> Theories are fine, evidence is better.
> Eat less --> lower your cholesterol.
> Eating well --> higher cholesterol.
> I suspect this will be shown to be erroneous.
> Sounds like wild speculation to me.
> Folks should wait.
Questions? Ask Chung.
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
<snip>
> > > CORONA should provide the answers
> > > One such trial is under way with AstraZeneca's rosuvastatin. The
> > > Controlled Rosuvastatin Multinational Trial in Heart Failure (CORONA)
> > > includes 4950 patients with chronic symptomatic systolic heart failure
> > > due to coronary artery disease who are being randomized to
> > > rosuvastatin 10 mg once daily or placebo. The primary outcome is a
> > > composite of cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI or stroke. Describing
> > > the trial in a letter in the November 29, 2003 issue of the Lancet,
> > > the steering committee of the CORONA trial, led by Dr Peter Dunselman
> > > (St Ignatius Hospital, Breda, the Netherlands), notes that there is
> > > much uncertainty about the role of statins in heart failure and a
> > > clinical outcome study with a statin in this population has long been
> > > called for.[3]
> >
> > Folks should wait.
> >
> > Humbly,
> >
> > Andrew
>
> should wait until more definitive studies are done regarding any
> number of drugs and treatments.) What I find interesting about this
> study is that it has been done at all. This means the bleating of
> persons like me has been listened to, and the statin dogma is at last
> being questioned.
For heart failure patients, yes.
> And that is all any study is, or should be, isn't
> it? Something being questioned.
>
> I shall refuse a statin if and when I am in such a position. As I do
> now. (Latest test: TC 12.59, ldl 11, hdl and tris normal. No
> cardiovascular disease. None. Nada.)
But you don't have heart failure now do you?
My guess is that your doctor has recommended a statin based on
evidence but you are refusing because of your fear that there will be
side effects.
> Kind regards
> MFG
Similar regards.
Brian Sandle
>> Folks should wait.
> Questions? Ask Chung.
Have you driven an old car in which the speedometer may not be indicating
your speed properly?
Have you seen the advertisements encouraging lower speeds to reduce accident
injury?
Say you were driving at the speed limit on your old car's speedo. Then you
saw the advertisement to reduce speed. Maybe you were already a little under
the speed limit because your speedo was reading too fast. Now you take the
medicine of slower speed and slow down. Maybe you will cause crashes as other
cars try to overtake you.
I think advice in medicine needs to be tailored more to the individual and
their circumstances. We may take the advice to increase selenium, or iodine,
minerals which may be short in the average diet in several countries. But it
is rather easy to overdo it and get into toxicity, especially with selenium.
So we need to look for ways to tailor statin advice to the individual. I
think Chung is giving out the message reduce *everybody* till the crashes
happen and you know the gauge was wrong.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Bob Pastorio
> Bob Pastorio <past...@nospam.rica.net> wrote:
>
>>Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD wrote:
>
>>A lotta stuff, but I just edited it so we could be sure of his
>>position on 2PD. Here are his views on unsubstantiated offerings from
>>medical folks.
>
>>>But this is not proven.
>
>>>Suggestions should be taken with a grain of salt.
>
>>>Would suggest folks wait for the results of the trial.
>
>>>>We need controlled trials to make such definite statements."
>>>
>>>Correct.
>
>>>Theories are fine, evidence is better.
>
>>>Eat less --> lower your cholesterol.
>
>>>Eating well --> higher cholesterol.
>
>>>I suspect this will be shown to be erroneous.
>
>>>Sounds like wild speculation to me.
>
>>>Folks should wait.
>
>>Questions? Ask Chung.
> I think advice in medicine needs to be tailored more to the individual and
> their circumstances.
> I think Chung is giving out the message reduce *everybody* till the crashes
> happen and you know the gauge was wrong.
I absolutely agree that due speed and careful evaluation are
necessary. I was pointing out the vast discrepancy between the advice
he's giving about the issue you raised and his advice about his 2PD.
There, no moderation, no research, no studies, no peer review.
Seems kinda strange and a bit less than rigorous. Not particularly
scientific.
Pastorio
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Here's the message:
If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
If your home scale is broken, get a new one.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
[...]
> Here's the message:
>
> If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
>
Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
of than 20 is overweight?
Usually people are only considered to be overweight when their BMI
reaches or exceeds 25.
Thorsten
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"
(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Andrew:
> No and that's my point. I don't have cardiovascular disease yet
Not that you know of.
> I and
> millions are being prescribed a drug for something we MIGHT get.
>
Or may well possibly already have.
> >
> > My guess is that your doctor has recommended a statin based on
> > evidence but you are refusing because of your fear that there will be
> > side effects.
>
> There is no evidence in my body for cardiovascular disease.
By evidence, I mean clinical research evidence.
> My point
> is--taking pills for something I don't have is stupid. There is no
> good evidence, and Mr. Lohse has proven that time
Mr. Lohse has not done any research to prove anything.
> and again on this
> newsgroup, for high cholesterol in and of itself causing heart
> disease.
>
Mr. Lohse is not a doctor.
>
> I was given drugs for prevention of illness that caused me illness.
Side effects are hardly illnesses.
> I
> am here Andrew, as witness (excuse my terminology, but it fits) that
> high cholesterol is not a disease.
Sorry, but high cholesterol remains a major risk factor for the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
> I have posted my numbers so others
> can see.
>
You remain at high risk.
>
> I_ have_ no_cardiovascular_disease.
>
... that you know of.
>
> My total cholesterol in American numbers is over 500.
>
> Others in my family with extraordinarily high cholesterol who are in
> their 7th and 8th decades also do not have cardiovascular disease.
>
..that you know of.
>
> The study I have posted says cardiovascular disease can be worsened by
> giving someone statins.
>
Not ime.
>
> So for all those who are taking a drug to prevent a disease they don't
> have: THINK. For all those who have been told high cholesterol is a
> disease: THINK. For all those who have cardiomyopathy and are being
> told they should take a statin: THINK.
>
> And for physicians who reach for the prescription pad to medicate for
> something that is not there: THINK.
>
And what if it is there?
>
> MFG
Thank you for your comments and concerns.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
[...]
> Here's the message:
>
> If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
>
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
>
> If your home scale is broken, get a new one.
>
Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
of greater than 20 is overweight?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> [...]
> > Here's the message:
> >
> > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> >
>
> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> of than 20 is overweight?
>
Start here and click on related links:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
>
> Usually people are only considered to be overweight when their BMI
> reaches or exceeds 25.
>
Definitely not when there is diabetes and/or hypertension.
If your BMI is 24 and you believe you are *not* overweight, simply put on a bikini and
ask someone if you look good in it.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> [...]
> > Here's the message:
> >
> > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> >
> > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> >
> > If your home scale is broken, get a new one.
> >
>
> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> of greater than 20 is overweight?
>
> Usually people are only considered to be overweight when their BMI
> reaches or exceeds 25.
>
> Thorsten
>
Asked and answered already. Why did you ask again?
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com/
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > [...]
> > > Here's the message:
> > >
> > > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> > > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> > >
> > > http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
> > >
> > > If your home scale is broken, get a new one.
> > >
> >
> > Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> > of greater than 20 is overweight?
> >
> > Usually people are only considered to be overweight when their BMI
> > reaches or exceeds 25.
> >
> > Thorsten
> >
>
> Asked and answered already. Why did you ask again?
>
Sorry about that. I made a mistake in the posting which you answered
(forgot a word) and cancelled the post a few minutes after I posted and
replaced it by a new version. Obviously your server didn't heed my
request to cancel the old post.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in part:
>
> >> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> >> of than 20 is overweight?
> >>
> >
> >Start here and click on related links:
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
> >
> >Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
> >
> >Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
>
> There are some hard data at http://tinyurl.com/2u7dk
>
Actually the data were quite "soft" (all derived from surveys).
>
> Note the finding: "Among whites, a J- or U-shaped association was found
> between overweight or obesity and YLL. The optimal BMI (associated with the
> least YLL or greatest longevity) is approximately 23 to 25 for whites and 23
> to 30 for blacks." (YLL= Years of life lost to non-optimal BMI)
I am familiar with the study.
Aside from survey data, the study was also flawed because the investigators
used:
"A BMI of 24 was used as the reference category"
The assumption was essentially made a priori that a BMI=24 would be optimal.
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > >
> > [...]
> > > Here's the message:
> > >
> > > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> > > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> > >
> >
> > Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> > of than 20 is overweight?
> >
>
> Start here and click on related links:
>
> http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
Could you please point to a concrete article? Most of the related
articles concerning BMI at all are about children.
>
> Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
>
> Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
To call a person with a BMI of 21 "mildly obese" seems to be highly
unusal. Can you point to any peer reviewed article that uses this
terminology?
> >
> > Usually people are only considered to be overweight when their BMI
> > reaches or exceeds 25.
> >
>
> Definitely not when there is diabetes and/or hypertension.
Whether diabetics might benefit from a weight reduction from, say, 21 to
19 is another question entirely. Also I would like to see some evidence
for that, too.
> If your BMI is 24 and you believe you are *not* overweight, simply put on a bikini and
> ask someone if you look good in it.
>
The test cannot be made, as my BMI is not 24. Hopefully, some day it
will be, and then perhaps I will do it.
Matti Narkia
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>> >
>> [...]
>> > Here's the message:
>> >
>> > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
>> > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
>> >
>>
>> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
>> of than 20 is overweight?
>
>Start here and click on related links:
>
>http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
>
>Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
>
>Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
>
This is absolute Chung invented bullshit! Even Chung's reference does not say
that "Mild obesity is BMI 21-25". Instead it mentions:
"... Specifically, BMI tends to increase with time for younger people with
relatively moderate obesity (25 BMI <30) but decrease for older people
regardless of degree of obesity. ..."
So BMI tends to _decrease for older people regardless of degree of obesity.
That's probably caused by loss of muscle and bone tissue, not by loss of fat.
BMI categories are defined as:
Underweight = <18.5
Normal weight = 18.5-24.9
Overweight = 25-29.9
Obesity = BMI of 30 or greater
Many muscular athletes can have BMI > 25 even they don't seem to have any fat
at all on them! Easily available examples are top class NHL ice hockey
players, whose bodily (and other) statistics can be found at
<URL:http://nhl.com/lineups/player/index.html>
A few examples:
Peter Forsberg, center forward, regarded generally as the world's best ice
hockey player currently, BMI=27.0
<URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458520.html>
Joe Sakic, center forward, Olympic gold metal winner in team Canada in 2002,
BMI=27.2
<URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8451101.html>
Markus Naslund, left wing (forward), the current NHL points leader, BMI=26.4
<URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458530.html>
Rick Nash, left wing (forward), the current NHL leader in goals , BMI=25.1
<URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8470041.html>
Alex Tanquay, left wing (forward), the current NHL leader in assists, BMI=25.1
<URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8467338.html
All these guys look _very_ lean and fit! And lean and fit they must be to be
able carry on doing their strenuous duties day after day.
See also
Wang J, Thornton JC, Russell M, Burastero S, Heymsfield S, Pierson RN Jr.
Asians have lower body mass index (BMI) but higher percent body fat than do
whites: comparisons of anthropometric measurements.
Am J Clin Nutr. 1994 Jul; 60(1): 23-8.
PMID: 8017333 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8017333&dopt=Abstract>
Based on the above study, I think that Chung's delusions about BMI may be
partially based on his observations about Asian populations, which are not
applicable to Caucasian populations, for example.
There's more:
Jacobson BH, Cook D, Redus B.
Correlation between body mass index and percent body fat of trained body
builders.
Percept Mot Skills. 2003 Jun; 96(3 Pt 1): 931-2.
PMID: 12831273 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12831273&dopt=Abstract>
"For 109 young male body builders the correlation for the Quetelet measure
of Body Mass Index with percent fat was .43, suggesting the Body Mass
Index is a very weak estimate of percent body fat for a group who engage
in vigorous resistance training."
Gippini A, Mato A, Peino R, Lage M, Dieguez C, Casanueva FF. R
Effect of resistance exercise (body building) training on serum leptin levels
in young men. Implications for relationship between body mass index and serum
leptin.
J Endocrinol Invest. 1999 Dec; 22(11): 824-8.
PMID: 10710268 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10710268&dopt=Abstract>
Wittich A, Mautalen CA, Oliveri MB, Bagur A, Somoza F, Rotemberg E. R
Professional football (soccer) players have a markedly greater skeletal
mineral content, density and size than age- and BMI-matched controls.
Calcif Tissue Int. 1998 Aug; 63(2): 112-7.
PMID: 9685514 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9685514&dopt=Abstract>
Deurenberg P, Deurenberg Yap M, Wang J, Lin FP, Schmidt G.
The impact of body build on the relationship between body mass index and
percent body fat.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1999 May; 23(5): 537-42.
PMID: 10375058 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10375058&dopt=Abstract>
Craig P, Samaras K, Freund J, Culton N, Halavatau V, Campbell L.
BMI inaccurately reflects total body and abdominal fat in Tongans.
Acta Diabetol. 2003 Oct; 40 Suppl 1: S282-5.
PMID: 14618494 [PubMed - in process]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14618494&dopt=Abstract>
Craig P, Halavatau V, Comino E, Caterson I.
Differences in body composition between Tongans and Australians: time to
rethink the healthy weight ranges?
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 2001 Dec; 25(12): 1806-14.
PMID: 11781762 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11781762&dopt=Abstract>
Deurenberg P, Yap M, van Staveren WA.
Body mass index and percent body fat: a meta analysis among different ethnic
groups.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1998 Dec; 22(12): 1164-71.
PMID: 9877251 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=9877251&dopt=Abstract>
Swinburn BA, Craig PL, Daniel R, Dent DP, Strauss BJ. R
Body composition differences between Polynesians and Caucasians assessed by
bioelectrical impedance.
Int J Obes Relat Metab Disord. 1996 Oct; 20(10): 889-94.
PMID: 8910091 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8910091&dopt=Abstract>
Rantanen T, Harris T, Leveille SG, Visser M, Foley D, Masaki K, Guralnik JM.
Muscle strength and body mass index as long-term predictors of mortality in
initially healthy men.
J Gerontol A Biol Sci Med Sci. 2000 Mar; 55(3): M168-73.
PMID: 10795731 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10795731&dopt=Abstract>
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > Here's the message:
> > > >
> > > > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> > > > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> > > >
> > >
> > > Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> > > of than 20 is overweight?
> > >
> >
> > Start here and click on related links:
> >
> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
>
> Could you please point to a concrete article? Most of the related
> articles concerning BMI at all are about children.
>
> >
> > Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
> >
> > Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
>
> To call a person with a BMI of 21 "mildly obese" seems to be highly
> unusal.
Not when there is type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension.
> Can you point to any peer reviewed article that uses this
> terminology?
>
This has been discussed before here on SMC.
>
> > >
> > > Usually people are only considered to be overweight when their BMI
> > > reaches or exceeds 25.
> > >
> >
> > Definitely not when there is diabetes and/or hypertension.
>
> Whether diabetics might benefit from a weight reduction from, say, 21 to
> 19 is another question entirely. Also I would like to see some evidence
> for that, too.
>
This has been discussed before on SMC. Would suggest you Google SMC for BMI and diabetes.
>
> > If your BMI is 24 and you believe you are *not* overweight, simply put on a bikini and
> > ask someone if you look good in it.
> >
>
> The test cannot be made, as my BMI is not 24. Hopefully, some day it
> will be, and then perhaps I will do it.
>
Would suggest you ask your doctor about the 2PD approach then.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:36:08 -0500 in article <40098098...@heartmdphd.com>
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >> >
> >> [...]
> >> > Here's the message:
> >> >
> >> > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> >> > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> >> >
> >>
> >> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> >> of than 20 is overweight?
> >
> >Start here and click on related links:
> >
> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
> >
> >Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
> >
> >Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
> >
> This is absolute Chung invented bullshit!
Curious reaction.
This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
> Even Chung's reference does not say
> that "Mild obesity is BMI 21-25".
The abstract does say moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
> Instead it mentions:
>
> "... Specifically, BMI tends to increase with time for younger people with
> relatively moderate obesity (25 BMI <30) but decrease for older people
> regardless of degree of obesity. ..."
>
Would suggest you read the article rather than just the abstract, Matti.
>
> So BMI tends to _decrease for older people regardless of degree of obesity.
> That's probably caused by loss of muscle and bone tissue, not by loss of fat.
>
BMI is blind to body composition, Matti. Would suggest you look up the formula and learn how BMI is
calculated.
Btw, folks (myself included) are still waiting for your answer to the question:
"What is you occupation?"
Because you have been reluctant to answer this fair question, I have a follow-up.
"Why do you think you are afraid?"
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
May you someday accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Matti Narkia
<2f8c3820af48f481...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:36:08 -0500 in article <40098098...@heartmdphd.com>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Thorsten Schier wrote:
>> >
>> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>> >> >
>> >> [...]
>> >> > Here's the message:
>> >> >
>> >> > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
>> >> > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
>> >> of than 20 is overweight?
>> >
>> >Start here and click on related links:
>> >
>> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
>> >
>> >Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
>> >
>> >Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
>> >
>> This is absolute Chung invented bullshit!
>
>Curious reaction.
>
But still a valid statement. Your definition of "mild obesity" is just that,
_your_ definition only. And bullshit.
>
>This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
>
As I've mentioned earlier (please google away), my BMI is 20.2, which is a way
too skinny for my body structure, IMHO.
>
>BMI is blind to body composition, Matti. Would suggest you look up the formula and learn how BMI is
>calculated.
>
I'd suggest you'd learn:
a) the definition of a normal BMI. Hint: have a look at my previous message in
this thread)
b) limitations of BMI. You can start with the references I provided.
>Btw, folks (myself included) are still waiting for your answer to the question:
>
>"What is you occupation?"
>
You can wait until hell freezes over. That is off-topic, and has nothing to do
with cardiology. What folks really want to know is:
1) Do you have hospital privileges?
2) If you do have, where?
3) If you don't,
a) Why not?
b) Why did you submit false information about your hospital privileges to
AMA database?
In addition I'm still waiting your comments about BMI related references which
debunk your delusions about BMI? What's the matter, what part in them you
didn't understand?
--
Matti Narkia
Thorsten Schier
Google yields 93 references for this. I looked at some of them but
didn't find any evidence that people with a BMI of 21 might profit from
weightloss, be they diabetics or not.
You stated quite often that everyone with a BMI greater than 20 is
overweight and should lose weight.
I would think there must be quite a lot of evidence that a person with a
BMI of 21 might profit from weight loss if you repeat it that often,
almost like a mantra. Would be nice if you shared some of the knowledge
about this evidence with us. Would be nice if you could point to a
concrete article.
> >
> > > If your BMI is 24 and you believe you are *not* overweight, simply put on a bikini and
> > > ask someone if you look good in it.
> > >
> >
> > The test cannot be made, as my BMI is not 24. Hopefully, some day it
> > will be, and then perhaps I will do it.
> >
>
> Would suggest you ask your doctor about the 2PD approach then.
>
This has been discussed on SMC before.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:58:51 GMT in article
> <2f8c3820af48f481...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:36:08 -0500 in article <40098098...@heartmdphd.com>
> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >> >> >
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> > Here's the message:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> >> >> > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
> >> >> of than 20 is overweight?
> >> >
> >> >Start here and click on related links:
> >> >
> >> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
> >> >
> >> >Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
> >> >
> >> >Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
> >> >
> >> This is absolute Chung invented bullshit!
> >
> >Curious reaction.
> >
> But still a valid statement.
Still curious.
> Your definition of "mild obesity" is just that,
> _your_ definition only. And bullshit.
>
Hmmm.
> >
> >This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
> >
> As I've mentioned earlier (please google away), my BMI is 20.2, which is a way
> too skinny for my body structure, IMHO.
You've been less than truthful in the past... much less.
>
> >
> >BMI is blind to body composition, Matti. Would suggest you look up the formula and learn how BMI is
> >calculated.
> >
> I'd suggest you'd learn:
>
> a) the definition of a normal BMI. Hint: have a look at my previous message in
> this thread)
>
We have been discussing "ideal" body weight... and the BMI that represents this "ideal."
Remembering that English is your *fifth* language, perhaps we should pause here and let you look up the
word "ideal."
>
> b) limitations of BMI. You can start with the references I provided.
>
We are not discussing the limitations of BMI but how to calculate it. Did you not claim earlier that
body composition will change BMI?
>
> >Btw, folks (myself included) are still waiting for your answer to the question:
> >
> >"What is you occupation?"
> >
> You can wait until hell freezes over.
Curious reaction.
> That is off-topic, and has nothing to do
> with cardiology.
So what?
Look around, do you think anyone will mind that you go off-topic to answer this fair question?
> What folks really want to know is:
>
> 1) Do you have hospital privileges?
>
They can find that answer with the on-line resources that are readily available.
>
> 2) If you do have, where?
>
Asked and answered.
>
> 3) If you don't,
>
> a) Why not?
>
My choice either way.
>
> b) Why did you submit false information about your hospital privileges to
> AMA database?
>
Haven't.
>
> In addition I'm still waiting your comments about BMI related references which
> debunk your delusions about BMI?
Those references are not worthy of my comments, sorry.
> What's the matter, what part in them you
> didn't understand?
>
No part.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
You poor guy.
Hope by example, I have taught you how to answer questions truthfully.
It remains my suspicion that you sell vitamin supplements as your occupation.
May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior someday.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
One can lead a horse to water but that won't mean he will drink.
>
> You stated quite often that everyone with a BMI greater than 20 is
> overweight and should lose weight.
>
What I have written is that anyone whose BMI is greater than 20 *may* be overweight.
>
> I would think there must be quite a lot of evidence that a person with a
> BMI of 21 might profit from weight loss if you repeat it that often,
> almost like a mantra.
Try being truthful.
> Would be nice if you shared some of the knowledge
> about this evidence with us. Would be nice if you could point to a
> concrete article.
>
I am not here to spoon feed you.
>
> > >
> > > > If your BMI is 24 and you believe you are *not* overweight, simply put on a bikini and
> > > > ask someone if you look good in it.
> > > >
> > >
> > > The test cannot be made, as my BMI is not 24. Hopefully, some day it
> > > will be, and then perhaps I will do it.
> > >
> >
> > Would suggest you ask your doctor about the 2PD approach then.
> >
>
> This has been discussed on SMC before.
>
That it has.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message news:<40096CD8...@heartmdphd.com>...
> Not that anyone of my physician's knows of, Andrew. I don't have the
> signs or symptoms that would send me for invasive testing. In Canada,
> we don't do that on demand. There has to be evidence. And apparently,
> I don't have any evidence of heart disease. Now yes a body can have
> disease that is not evident. Does that mean we make a list of every
> disease one MIGHT get and start medicating.
No. However, we do try to prevent some diseases. Coronary atherosclerosis, being the prevalent killer that it is, would be a good
example of one that we would try to prevent.
Perhaps you should visit Dr. Patrick Blanchard for a CIMT measurement. This would be an instance where I would change my position about
this being a waste of money.
>
> >
> > > I and
> > > millions are being prescribed a drug for something we MIGHT get.
> > >
> >
> > Or may well possibly already have.
>
> Possibly being the operative word Andrew. Again, you are advocating
> medicating me on what I don't have.
What I would suggest is that you discuss this with your doctor.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > My guess is that your doctor has recommended a statin based on
> > > > evidence but you are refusing because of your fear that there will be
> > > > side effects.
> > >
> > > There is no evidence in my body for cardiovascular disease.
> >
> > By evidence, I mean clinical research evidence.
>
> By evidence, I mean clinical research evidence too Andrew. None. Nada.
> Nyet. Zip.
>
There is clinical research evidence that cholesterol-lowering has benefits in primary prevention of cardiovascular disease.
> >
> >
> > > My point
> > > is--taking pills for something I don't have is stupid. There is no
> > > good evidence, and Mr. Lohse has proven that time
> >
> > Mr. Lohse has not done any research to prove anything.
>
> Mr. Lohse has proven to the irrationality of several studies in this
> forum.
>
My ignoring Mr. Lohse is not proof of anything. Look around. Do you see others who are being ignored?
>
> >
> > > and again on this
> > > newsgroup, for high cholesterol in and of itself causing heart
> > > disease.
> > >
> >
> > Mr. Lohse is not a doctor.
>
> Mr. Lohse is a scientist.
Actually he is an engineer.
> A thinking, rational, logical scientist.
In your opinion.
>
> Something many doctors are not.
And something that many doctors are.
> Yes. Mr. Lohse is an engineer. Do we
> then muzzle him on other scientific topics? (Careful, Andrew.....).
No. Have we muzzled him?
>
> >
> > >
> > > I was given drugs for prevention of illness that caused me illness.
> >
> > Side effects are hardly illnesses.
>
> Side effects that are debilitating, life-altering and cause me
> illness: what do you imagine might happen to a person with my
> cholesterol level who cannot exercise, or look after herself, or
> afford to eat properly because she cannot work to support herself?
If you have side effects, the medication should be discontinued and something else should be tried.
>
> Just answer within the context Andrew. Do you think it might push me
> into cardiovascular disease. What do physicians advocate, first for
> prevention of cardiovascular disease: eat properly,
If overweight, eat less plus low fat/cholesterol for elevated serum cholesterol.
> exercise,
Does lower LDL and raise HDL.
> lose
> weight (back to exercise...).
>
Exercise is not essential for weight loss. Eating less is.
>
> >
> > > I
> > > am here Andrew, as witness (excuse my terminology, but it fits) that
> > > high cholesterol is not a disease.
> >
> > Sorry, but high cholesterol remains a major risk factor for the development of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease.
> >
> > > I have posted my numbers so others
> > > can see.
> > >
> >
> > You remain at high risk.
>
> I am at higher risk because I am unable to exercise to reduce my
> cholesterol levels, disabled by side effects which have caused
> seemingly intractable damage.
>
mfg,
Which drug (circumstances) and what side effects?
>
> Exercise is what you would have me do, is it not Andrew, lower my body
> mass index (which was by the way just dandy before I was put on
> statins). Exercise, especially aerobic exercise, which I cannot NOW
> do, would improve my cardiovascular health, reduces my cholesterol,
> improve my homocysteine level, raise serotonins and endorphins, raise
> hdl....
>
mfg,
Again, exercise is not essential for weight loss. That is why it is a "hint" for the 2PD approach.
> >
> > >
> > > I_ have_ no_cardiovascular_disease.
> > >
> >
> > ... that you know of.
> >
> > >
> > > My total cholesterol in American numbers is over 500.
> > >
> > > Others in my family with extraordinarily high cholesterol who are in
> > > their 7th and 8th decades also do not have cardiovascular disease.
> > >
> >
> > ..that you know of.
>
> Those of my family who have very high cholesterol age from 17 to 93.
> My high cholesterol was first diagnosed when I was 27.
>
Why was it checked?
> > >
> > > The study I have posted says cardiovascular disease can be worsened by
> > > giving someone statins.
> > >
> >
> > Not ime.
>
> You have admitted it has merit. You have admitted there is some
> possibility, in the study authors minds and in yours, that giving
> statins to those with cardiomyopathy is problematic. You say, wait for
> the trials.
Yes, I have. Acquired CoQ10 deficiency remains a concern.
>
> >
> > >
> > > So for all those who are taking a drug to prevent a disease they don't
> > > have: THINK. For all those who have been told high cholesterol is a
> > > disease: THINK. For all those who have cardiomyopathy and are being
> > > told they should take a statin: THINK.
> > >
> > > And for physicians who reach for the prescription pad to medicate for
> > > something that is not there: THINK.
> > >
> >
> > And what if it is there?
>
> What if ..... ? You're a scientist, are you not?
Yes, but also a doctor.
>
> >
> > >
> > > MFG
> >
> > Thank you for your comments and concerns.
> >
> > Humbly,
> >
> > Andrew
>
> Thank you too.
You are welcome.
> Now go change a diaper somewhere.
>
?
>
> MFG
May God heal you, in Christ's name.
Matti Narkia
<757cb9e5f87f629e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:58:51 GMT in article
>> <2f8c3820af48f481...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
>> >
>> As I've mentioned earlier (please google away), my BMI is 20.2, which is a way
>> too skinny for my body structure, IMHO.
>
>You've been less than truthful in the past... much less.
>
I've always been truthful. I wish I could say the same about you.
>>
>> >
>> >BMI is blind to body composition, Matti. Would suggest you look up the formula and learn how BMI is
>> >calculated.
>> >
>> I'd suggest you'd learn:
>>
>> a) the definition of a normal BMI. Hint: have a look at my previous message in
>> this thread)
>
>We have been discussing "ideal" body weight... and the BMI that represents this "ideal."
>
You defined BMI 21-25 as "mild obesity is". That's in conflict with the
official definitions and you have provided absolutely nothing to justify your
definition.
As for the "ideal" weight, the world's best ice
hockey player
Peter Forsberg
<URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458520.html>
is 6'1" tall, weighs 205 pounds and has BMI of 27.0. His weight and BMI seem
to be ideal for him, he doesn't have a gram of excess fat in him.
>>
>We are not discussing the limitations of BMI but how to calculate it. Did you not claim earlier that
>body composition will change BMI?
>
BMI is calculated solely as a function of height and weight. BMI based
definitions of under-, normal, and overweight are probably based on average
caucasian person. However, as the references I've provided show, some caution
should be exercised when using these definitions for people who are not
caucasian or whose body composition is not "average", i.e. people like
athletes such as body builders, weight lifters, ice hockey players etc...
Some of these people have an "ideal" weight (meaning very low percentage of
body fat) although BMI > 25.
>
>Hope by example, I have taught you how to answer questions truthfully.
>
Don't ridicule yourself more than you already have.
>
>> In addition I'm still waiting your comments about BMI related references which
>> debunk your delusions about BMI?
>Those references are not worthy of my comments, sorry.
>
Meaning that you don't want to comment them, because they prove you wrong.
>
>> What's the matter, what part in them you
>> didn't understand?
>
>No part.
>
You understood nothing at all?
>
>It remains my suspicion that you sell vitamin supplements as your occupation.
>
Coming from a proven liar, who cares?
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:25:22 GMT in article
> <757cb9e5f87f629e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:58:51 GMT in article
> >> <2f8c3820af48f481...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >> >This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
> >> >
> >> As I've mentioned earlier (please google away), my BMI is 20.2, which is a way
> >> too skinny for my body structure, IMHO.
> >
> >You've been less than truthful in the past... much less.
> >
> I've always been truthful.
Have you been successful in you "search for the truth" ?
> I wish I could say the same about you.
I am sure you could though you choose not to.
>
> >>
> >> >
> >> >BMI is blind to body composition, Matti. Would suggest you look up the formula and learn how BMI is
> >> >calculated.
> >> >
> >> I'd suggest you'd learn:
> >>
> >> a) the definition of a normal BMI. Hint: have a look at my previous message in
> >> this thread)
> >
> >We have been discussing "ideal" body weight... and the BMI that represents this "ideal."
> >
> You defined BMI 21-25 as "mild obesity is". That's in conflict with the
> official definitions and you have provided absolutely nothing to justify your
> definition.
>
> As for the "ideal" weight, the world's best ice
> hockey player
>
> Peter Forsberg
> <URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458520.html>
>
> is 6'1" tall, weighs 205 pounds and has BMI of 27.0. His weight and BMI seem
> to be ideal for him, he doesn't have a gram of excess fat in him.
How would you know? Are you his doctor?
>
> >>
> >We are not discussing the limitations of BMI but how to calculate it. Did you not claim earlier that
> >body composition will change BMI?
> >
> BMI is calculated solely as a function of height and weight.
Correct. I am glad you finally looked it up.
> BMI based
> definitions of under-, normal, and overweight are probably based on average
> caucasian person.
Correct.
> However, as the references I've provided show, some caution
> should be exercised when using these definitions for people who are not
> caucasian or whose body composition is not "average", i.e. people like
> athletes such as body builders, weight lifters, ice hockey players etc...
> Some of these people have an "ideal" weight (meaning very low percentage of
> body fat) although BMI > 25.
Again, correct. Now go back and answer the question.
>
> >
> >Hope by example, I have taught you how to answer questions truthfully.
> >
> Don't ridicule yourself more than you already have.
Your being able to learn does appear to be laughable.
>
> >
> >> In addition I'm still waiting your comments about BMI related references which
> >> debunk your delusions about BMI?
>
> >Those references are not worthy of my comments, sorry.
> >
> Meaning that you don't want to comment them, because they prove you wrong.
>
Meaning that those references do little to support your arguments.
> >
> >> What's the matter, what part in them you
> >> didn't understand?
> >
> >No part.
> >
> You understood nothing at all?
>
It would seem that you probably are again having comprehension problems arising from English being your
*fifth* language.
>
> >It remains my suspicion that you sell vitamin supplements as your occupation.
> >
> Coming from a proven liar,
Is it now your claim that English is your first language? Didn't think so.
> who cares?
>
There are probably those in this newsgroup who would like a good price on the fish oil you seem to be
peddling. It is probably quite inexpensive over there in Finland.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
May you accept Christ as your Lord and Savior, someday.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Matti Narkia
<531c482dc0312ec2...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:25:22 GMT in article
>> <757cb9e5f87f629e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:58:51 GMT in article
>> >> <2f8c3820af48f481...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >> >This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
>> >> >
>> >> As I've mentioned earlier (please google away), my BMI is 20.2, which is a way
>> >> too skinny for my body structure, IMHO.
>> >
>> >You've been less than truthful in the past... much less.
>> >
>> I've always been truthful.
>
>Have you been successful in you "search for the truth" ?
>
Often enough.
>
>> I wish I could say the same about you.
>
>I am sure you could though you choose not to.
>
Being a truthful person I choose not to tell a lie about you.
>>
>> As for the "ideal" weight, the world's best ice
>> hockey player
>>
>> Peter Forsberg
>> <URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458520.html>
>>
>> is 6'1" tall, weighs 205 pounds and has BMI of 27.0. His weight and BMI seem
>> to be ideal for him, he doesn't have a gram of excess fat in him.
>
>How would you know? Are you his doctor?
>
He is a very famous person. Practically everything about him has been reported
publicly.
>>
>> However, as the references I've provided show, some caution
>> should be exercised when using these definitions for people who are not
>> caucasian or whose body composition is not "average", i.e. people like
>> athletes such as body builders, weight lifters, ice hockey players etc...
>> Some of these people have an "ideal" weight (meaning very low percentage of
>> body fat) although BMI > 25.
>
>Again, correct.
>>
I'm glad you've abandoned your earlier misconceptions about BMI. Now, do you
still claim categorically that "mild obesity is BMI 21-25"?
>>
>> Meaning that you don't want to comment them, because they prove you wrong.
>>
>Meaning that those references do little to support your arguments.
>
My only argument was that your categorical statement "mild obesity is BMI
21-25" is bullshit. My references and links do give support for that argument.
--
Matti Narkia
Bill
"mfg" <mfgj...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:21749773.04011...@posting.google.com...
MFG, I'm concerned about you. I understand you don't want to go near statins.
Based on your previous posts, concerning difficulty walking, I assume you get
little exercise. I hope at least you take some supplements that have been
discussed here such as niacin, fish oil, aspirin, garlic, etc. Diet, of
course, is important too.
Take care.
Bill
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:26:14 GMT in article
> <531c482dc0312ec2...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 22:25:22 GMT in article
> >> <757cb9e5f87f629e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:58:51 GMT in article
> >> >> <2f8c3820af48f481...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >> >> >This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
> >> >> >
> >> >> As I've mentioned earlier (please google away), my BMI is 20.2, which is a way
> >> >> too skinny for my body structure, IMHO.
> >> >
> >> >You've been less than truthful in the past... much less.
> >> >
> >> I've always been truthful.
> >
> >Have you been successful in you "search for the truth" ?
> >
> Often enough.
Ok, where's the truth, Matti?
>
> >
> >> I wish I could say the same about you.
> >
> >I am sure you could though you choose not to.
> >
> Being a truthful person I choose not to tell a lie about you.
>
Too bad the Google archives betray you.
> >>
> >> As for the "ideal" weight, the world's best ice
> >> hockey player
> >>
> >> Peter Forsberg
> >> <URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458520.html>
> >>
> >> is 6'1" tall, weighs 205 pounds and has BMI of 27.0. His weight and BMI seem
> >> to be ideal for him, he doesn't have a gram of excess fat in him.
> >
> >How would you know? Are you his doctor?
> >
> He is a very famous person. Practically everything about him has been reported
> publicly.
Looks like you are still looking for the truth.
>
> >>
> >> However, as the references I've provided show, some caution
> >> should be exercised when using these definitions for people who are not
> >> caucasian or whose body composition is not "average", i.e. people like
> >> athletes such as body builders, weight lifters, ice hockey players etc...
> >> Some of these people have an "ideal" weight (meaning very low percentage of
> >> body fat) although BMI > 25.
> >
> >Again, correct.
> >>
> I'm glad you've abandoned your earlier misconceptions about BMI.
Haven't.
> Now, do you
> still claim categorically that "mild obesity is BMI 21-25"?
Yes. But, it is to be expected that every rule will have its exceptions.
>
> >>
> >> Meaning that you don't want to comment them, because they prove you wrong.
> >>
> >Meaning that those references do little to support your arguments.
> >
> My only argument was that your categorical statement "mild obesity is BMI
> 21-25" is bullshit. My references and links do give support for that argument.
>
Hardly.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
Would suggest you stick with what you do best (selling vitamin D and fish oil?)
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Matti Narkia
<24ij00d316jf7u9j5...@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
wrote:
>Sat, 17 Jan 2004 23:26:14 GMT in article
><531c482dc0312ec2...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
>>Matti Narkia wrote:
>>
>>> As for the "ideal" weight, the world's best ice
>>> hockey player
>>>
>>> Peter Forsberg
>>> <URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8458520.html>
>>>
>>> is 6'1" tall, weighs 205 pounds and has BMI of 27.0. His weight and BMI seem
>>> to be ideal for him, he doesn't have a gram of excess fat in him.
>>
>>How would you know? Are you his doctor?
>>
>He is a very famous person. Practically everything about him has been reported
>publicly.
>
If I remember correctly, his body fat percentage has been reported to be in
the region of 6-8% in hockey magazines. Let's also have a look at another
hockey player:
Brad Richards
<URL:http://www.nhl.com/lineups/player/8467389.html>
His height is 6' 1" and weight 194 pounds, which gives BMI=25.6. According to
the article
Lightning's Richards doesn't lack ambition
<URL:http://www.sptimes.com/2002/09/18/Lightning/Lightning_s_Richards_.shtml>
he weighed 1 pound more, 195 pounds, in 2002, which then gave BMI=25.7. Yet
according to the same article, his body fat percentage in 2002 was only 6.2%,
which according to the article
Understanding Your Body Fat Percentage
<URL:http://www.healthchecksystems.com/bodyfat.htm>
is lowish even for athletes (usually 6-13%); for fitness enthusiasts the range
is 14-17%, and 18-25% is still regarded acceptable, over 25% defines obese.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<0b476686665da76e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Now, do you
>> still claim categorically that "mild obesity is BMI 21-25"?
>
>Yes. But, it is to be expected that every rule will have its exceptions.
>
I'm glad that you now have agreed to accept that even the official BMI-based
definitions of under- normal and overweight are not universally valid. As for
your very own "rule" it's not a rule at all, just your misconception, probably
based on observations on people originating from Asian populations.
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:19:09 GMT in article
> <0b476686665da76e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Now, do you
> >> still claim categorically that "mild obesity is BMI 21-25"?
> >
> >Yes. But, it is to be expected that every rule will have its exceptions.
> >
> I'm glad that you now have agreed to accept that even the official BMI-based
> definitions of under- normal and overweight are not universally valid.
You seem to be fighting terribly hard for every possible concession.
Why the desperation?
> As for
> your very own "rule" it's not a rule at all,
Of course it is. When you hear someone saying their BMI is between 21 and 25
(especially if they have diabetes and/or hypertension), think about mild obesity.
> just your misconception,
Looks like your are still searching for the truth.
> probably
> based on observations on people originating from Asian populations.
>
Truth be told, most of my patients are non-asian.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Matti Narkia
<85143c578e209046...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:19:09 GMT in article
>> <0b476686665da76e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> Now, do you
>
>> As for
>> your very own "rule" it's not a rule at all,
>
>Of course it is.
It's nobody else's rule. Besides, you have been unable to provide any evidence
justifying this your very own "rule".
> When you hear someone saying their BMI is between 21 and 25
>(especially if they have diabetes and/or hypertension), think about mild obesity.
>
We already know that _you_ think about it. No one else seems to.
>
>> probably
>> based on observations on people originating from Asian populations.
>
>Truth be told, most of my patients are non-asian.
>
No offense, but I find that _very_ hard to believe.
--
Matti Narkia
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > >
[...]
> > > This has been discussed before on SMC. Would suggest you Google SMC for BMI and diabetes.
> >
> > Google yields 93 references for this. I looked at some of them but
> > didn't find any evidence that people with a BMI of 21 might profit from
> > weightloss, be they diabetics or not.
> >
>
> One can lead a horse to water but that won't mean he will drink.
I take it their is no such evidence, then.
> >
> > You stated quite often that everyone with a BMI greater than 20 is
> > overweight and should lose weight.
> >
>
> What I have written is that anyone whose BMI is greater than 20 *may* be overweight.
You wrote that a BMI from 21 to 25 is "mildly obese". No *may*.
> >
> > I would think there must be quite a lot of evidence that a person with a
> > BMI of 21 might profit from weight loss if you repeat it that often,
> > almost like a mantra.
>
> Try being truthful.
Would suggest you google about what you wrote if your memory fails you.
> > Would be nice if you shared some of the knowledge
> > about this evidence with us. Would be nice if you could point to a
> > concrete article.
> >
>
> I am not here to spoon feed you.
In a scientific discussion, the participants should be able to back up
their opinions with references to scientific research. "Look it up on
google" doesn't qualify as such. Most people here don't have a problem
with citing studies supporting their opinions. How come you have such a
problem?
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:42:18 GMT in article
> <85143c578e209046...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:19:09 GMT in article
> >> <0b476686665da76e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Now, do you
> >
> >> As for
> >> your very own "rule" it's not a rule at all,
> >
> >Of course it is.
>
> It's nobody else's rule.
What happened to your search for the truth.
> Besides, you have been unable to provide any evidence
> justifying this your very own "rule".
>
Your memory seems to be faulty.
>
> > When you hear someone saying their BMI is between 21 and 25
> >(especially if they have diabetes and/or hypertension), think about mild obesity.
> >
> We already know that _you_ think about it. No one else seems to.
>
Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
Savior.
> >
> >> probably
> >> based on observations on people originating from Asian populations.
> >
> >Truth be told, most of my patients are non-asian.
> >
> No offense, but I find that _very_ hard to believe.
>
This would explain your continued search for the truth though the truth is in front of
you.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
...who according to Google once wrote that he had killfiled me.
May Christ help him be more truthful when he accepts Him as his personal Lord and
Savior someday.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Brian Sandle
>> So we need to look for ways to tailor statin advice to the individual. I
>> think Chung is giving out the message reduce *everybody* till the crashes
>> happen and you know the gauge was wrong.
> Here's the message:
> If you are overweight (BMI more than 20),
about 22.6 or 22.7 if my scales are any good.
ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
> as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> http://www.heartmdphd.com/wtloss.asp
Interesting.
I do think this is a safer approach than taking a statin.
Even then, as some of the others have also said, individual things
have to be taken into account. Women have more fat than men. The
same quantity of alcohol administered to a woman and man of equal
weight will have more affect on the woman on average.
Besides, reducing food intake, especially in races who have a
genetic history of famine, makes genes kick in which economise
energy use. Also food goes to fat store faster. I think carbohydrate
is the key to that.
> If your home scale is broken, get a new one.
The scale - speedo reading analogy is to how to know what
cholesterol should be for the individual. I may come from a familial
hypercholesterolaemic environment but I am about 4.2 mMol/litre on a
fish, veges and fruit and nuts diet.
If I had 1/2 pound of chocolate daily, well within your 2PD? it
might rise to 5.2.
There is the question of cholesterol as a healer. For one thing it
is the basis of vitamin D. I have reported before how one person
claimed it is what the body lays down in the arteries to overcome
the damage done by xanthine oxidase from homogenised milk, (which
reduced fat milk is).
Just look into this: a person comes to you all bandaged and with a
high temperature. You say on average they can be cured by
restricting the supply of bandages. Better look at why they are
bandaged.
-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----
Matti Narkia
<92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:42:18 GMT in article
>> <85143c578e209046...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:19:09 GMT in article
>> >> <0b476686665da76e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Now, do you
>> >
>> >> As for
>> >> your very own "rule" it's not a rule at all,
>> >
>> >Of course it is.
>>
>> It's nobody else's rule.
>
>What happened to your search for the truth.
>
Nothing. Can you name any medical or nutritional authority or peer-reviewed
document accepting your "rule"?
>
>> Besides, you have been unable to provide any evidence
>> justifying this your very own "rule".
>>
>Your memory seems to be faulty.
>
Evidence is not memory-based, it is documented in peer-reviewed publication.
Where are your documents?
>>
>> > When you hear someone saying their BMI is between 21 and 25
>> >(especially if they have diabetes and/or hypertension), think about mild obesity.
>> >
>> We already know that _you_ think about it. No one else seems to.
>>
>Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
>Savior.
>
Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter. In this
newsgroup no one, not even a single lay person, seems to share your thinking
(regardless of what Mu "thinks", his "thinking" doesn't count).
--
Matti Narkia
John
wrote:
>>Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
>>Savior.
>>
>Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter. In this
>newsgroup no one, not even a single lay person, seems to share your thinking
>(regardless of what Mu "thinks", his "thinking" doesn't count).
Are you asking for a role call? If so,
"John:" (me) "Here."
So much for "not even a single lay person."
---
John
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > >
> [...]
> > > > This has been discussed before on SMC. Would suggest you Google SMC for BMI and diabetes.
> > >
> > > Google yields 93 references for this. I looked at some of them but
> > > didn't find any evidence that people with a BMI of 21 might profit from
> > > weightloss, be they diabetics or not.
> > >
> >
> > One can lead a horse to water but that won't mean he will drink.
>
> I take it their is no such evidence, then.
>
Is there water?
>
> > >
> > > You stated quite often that everyone with a BMI greater than 20 is
> > > overweight and should lose weight.
> > >
> >
> > What I have written is that anyone whose BMI is greater than 20 *may* be overweight.
>
> You wrote that a BMI from 21 to 25 is "mildly obese". No *may*.
>
...and I also cited a reference that describes a BMI from 25 to 30 as moderately obese.
>
> > >
> > > I would think there must be quite a lot of evidence that a person with a
> > > BMI of 21 might profit from weight loss if you repeat it that often,
> > > almost like a mantra.
> >
> > Try being truthful.
>
> Would suggest you google about what you wrote if your memory fails you.
>
My memory does not fail me.
>
> > > Would be nice if you shared some of the knowledge
> > > about this evidence with us. Would be nice if you could point to a
> > > concrete article.
> > >
> >
> > I am not here to spoon feed you.
>
> In a scientific discussion, the participants should be able to back up
> their opinions with references to scientific research. "Look it up on
> google" doesn't qualify as such. Most people here don't have a problem
> with citing studies supporting their opinions. How come you have such a
> problem?
>
I don't.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Being bandaged is not a disease.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:42:18 GMT in article
> >> <85143c578e209046...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 00:19:09 GMT in article
> >> >> <0b476686665da76e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >> >> >
> >> >> >> Now, do you
> >> >
> >> >> As for
> >> >> your very own "rule" it's not a rule at all,
> >> >
> >> >Of course it is.
> >>
> >> It's nobody else's rule.
> >
> >What happened to your search for the truth.
> >
> Nothing. Can you name any medical or nutritional authority or peer-reviewed
> document accepting your "rule"?
>
Just one? Then simply read the peer-reviewed article described earlier in this thread that
defines moderate obesity by a BMI between 25 and 30.
> >
> >> Besides, you have been unable to provide any evidence
> >> justifying this your very own "rule".
> >>
> >Your memory seems to be faulty.
> >
> Evidence is not memory-based, it is documented in peer-reviewed publication.
> Where are your documents?
However, your claim is memory-based.
>
> >>
> >> > When you hear someone saying their BMI is between 21 and 25
> >> >(especially if they have diabetes and/or hypertension), think about mild obesity.
> >> >
> >> We already know that _you_ think about it. No one else seems to.
> >>
> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
> >Savior.
> >
> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
Just one?
How about Gregor Mendel, the famed geneticist?
> In this
> newsgroup no one, not even a single lay person, seems to share your thinking
> (regardless of what Mu "thinks", his "thinking" doesn't count).
>
Being truthful again, I see.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
> >Savior.
> >
> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
Here's a few:
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Brian Sandle
No but is cholesterol, or is it a bandage?
The clot on a cut is not a disease and should be left there. But you
do look at what caused the cut and try to prevent it happening
again.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> > Brian Sandle wrote:
> >
> >> There is the question of cholesterol as a healer. For one thing it
> >> is the basis of vitamin D. I have reported before how one person
> >> claimed it is what the body lays down in the arteries to overcome
> >> the damage done by xanthine oxidase from homogenised milk, (which
> >> reduced fat milk is).
> >>
> >> Just look into this: a person comes to you all bandaged and with a
> >> high temperature. You say on average they can be cured by
> >> restricting the supply of bandages. Better look at why they are
> >> bandaged.
> >>
>
> > Being bandaged is not a disease.
>
> No but is cholesterol, or is it a bandage?
>
Hypercholesterolemia is a disease condition. Most people don't have it.
>
> The clot on a cut is not a disease and should be left there.
The clot is a reaction to the cut which is the "disease."
> But you
> do look at what caused the cut and try to prevent it happening
> again.
>
Look at diabetes. The elevated glucose is a problem.
This would be the more appropriate analogy.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Brian Sandle
> Brian Sandle wrote:
>> Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> > Brian Sandle wrote:
>> >
>> >> There is the question of cholesterol as a healer. For one thing it
>> >> is the basis of vitamin D. I have reported before how one person
>> >> claimed it is what the body lays down in the arteries to overcome
>> >> the damage done by xanthine oxidase from homogenised milk, (which
>> >> reduced fat milk is).
>> >>
>> >> Just look into this: a person comes to you all bandaged and with a
>> >> high temperature. You say on average they can be cured by
>> >> restricting the supply of bandages. Better look at why they are
>> >> bandaged.
>> >>
>>
>> > Being bandaged is not a disease.
>>
>> No but is cholesterol, or is it a bandage?
>>
> Hypercholesterolemia is a disease condition. Most people don't have it.
But is it like a whole lot of clots on a person who has been
severely injured?
>>
>> The clot on a cut is not a disease and should be left there.
> The clot is a reaction to the cut which is the "disease."
Yes, so let's look for it.
>> But you
>> do look at what caused the cut and try to prevent it happening
>> again.
>>
> Look at diabetes. The elevated glucose is a problem.
> This would be the more appropriate analogy.
Maybe the pancreas is damaged so it cannot produce sufficient
insulin.
Insulin is necessary to degrade adrenalin. We need it to calm down.
But we can get `insulin resistance'. Insulin at the same level is
not causing the effect it should. So we go for more glucose (the
bandage) to pump up the insulin level.
The other way is to reduce carbohydrate intake, maybe as part of
your method, reducing total food intake, so the body hopefully can
retrieve some of its insulin sensitivity.
(Though with your method we have to be careful to get enough food to
sieve the minerals out of. Zinc is necessary to ward off diabetes.)
So we need to look at why cholesterol deposits in artery walls. Is
it pasting over a damaged area of artery? A recent idea is that
larger cholesterol particles are less of a risk. So someone should
be looking at the patients who have apparently benefited from statin
therapy, and see if they are the ones with a particular size of
cholesterol particles. Of course there is the risk it may reduce
statin sales. And statin sales are a tremendous earner for the
company producing them.
Bob Pastorio
No, "John," Matti meant "real person."
That you, M_uscletissue? <LOL>
HTH
Pastorio
Bob Pastorio
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>>>>You stated quite often that everyone with a BMI greater than 20 is
>>>>overweight and should lose weight.
>>>>
>>>What I have written is that anyone whose BMI is greater than 20 *may* be overweight.
>>
>>You wrote that a BMI from 21 to 25 is "mildly obese". No *may*.
>>
> ...and I also cited a reference that describes a BMI from 25 to 30 as moderately obese.
So Chung the literary wizard and medical quack implies that between 20
and 25 is "mildly obese" as though the scale began there with another
adverb. So I guess he's trying to posit a scale that looks like less
than about BMI 15 is mildly underweight. Less than 10 is morbidly
underweight. Less than 5...
So in Chungian medicine, BMI 20 is The Truthful, Perfect BMI with no
exceptions and that one size fits all.
But like everybody else has said in more polite terms, "put up or shut
up." Chung of course does his Henny Chungman one-liners with
hair-splitting pedantry to avoid having to concede that he's as full
of crap as the evidence of his words demonstrates.
>>>>I would think there must be quite a lot of evidence that a person with a
>>>>BMI of 21 might profit from weight loss if you repeat it that often,
>>>>almost like a mantra.
>>>
>>>Try being truthful.
One-liners like this one. Avoids dealing with the subject and makes a
slimy innuendo. Class act.
>>>>Would be nice if you shared some of the knowledge
>>>>about this evidence with us. Would be nice if you could point to a
>>>>concrete article.
>>>>
>>>I am not here to spoon feed you.
It's the old "I said it but I don't have to offer any substantiation"
argument from the (would-be) master of deception.
>>In a scientific discussion, the participants should be able to back up
>>their opinions with references to scientific research. "Look it up on
>>google" doesn't qualify as such. Most people here don't have a problem
>>with citing studies supporting their opinions. How come you have such a
>>problem?
>>
> I don't.
But since actions speak louder than words, it certainly looks as
though Chung has nothing to support his position.
What a shock.
Pastorio
Stephen Nagler
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote (in part):
>Hypercholesterolemia is a disease condition.
.................
Hypernatremia (elevated sodium) is a laboratory finding, not a disease
condition.
Hyperkalemia (elevated potassium) is a laboratory finding, not a
disease condition.
Hypercalcemia (elevated calcium) is a laboratory finding, not a
disease condition.
Hyperglycemia (elevated glucose) is a laboratory finding, not a
disease condition.
Hypercholesterolemia (elevated cholesterol) is a laboratory finding,
not a disease condition. Please, let's not make a disease out of
something that isn't.
smn
John
Bob,
All you need to know is:
"I post, therefor I am."
John
(Would it make you feel any better if I made up a last name?)
mfg
A web site I posted didn't come out properly:
Dr. Ravnskov also has a web site:
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm
MFG
Matti Narkia
<girj00t9gf2d2qm0n...@4ax.com> John <john9...@aol.com> wrote:
As soon as I had posted my message I remembered that I had forgotten John with
the numbers, the other official sock puppet, but it was too late to make write
another message, I had powered off my computer, and I desperately needed sleep
:-). So let's add the amendment now retroactively: none of the Chung's sock
puppets count. That should have been clear for everyone without a major brain
injury anyway! Hell, we even don't know if you and Mu are diffrenet persons!
Taking that into account it should also be clear that only non-anonymous
posters with a veriable identity count.
--
Matti Narkia
Bob
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:19:56 -0500, Bob Pastorio
> <past...@nospam.rica.net> wrote:
>
>>John wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:54:10 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter. In this
>>>>newsgroup no one, not even a single lay person, seems to share your thinking
>>>>(regardless of what Mu "thinks", his "thinking" doesn't count).
>>>
>>>Are you asking for a role call? If so,
>>>
>>>"John:" (me) "Here."
>>>
>>>So much for "not even a single lay person."
>>
>>No, "John," Matti meant "real person."
>>
>>That you, M_uscletissue? <LOL>
>>
>>HTH
>>
>>Pastorio
>
> Bob,
>
> All you need to know is:
> "I post, therefor I am."
Wrong again, "John." Three or six or ten votes from one person still
come to only one vote.
> John
>
> (Would it make you feel any better if I made up a last name?)
Not really. It would make me feel better if you posted under a real
name and posted honestly. But, unfortunately, you're two for two.
Pastorio
Matti Narkia
<246c42edc45c5f34...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
>> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's nobody else's rule.
>> >
>> >What happened to your search for the truth.
>> >
>> Nothing. Can you name any medical or nutritional authority or peer-reviewed
>> document accepting your "rule"?
>
>Just one? Then simply read the peer-reviewed article described earlier in this thread that
>defines moderate obesity by a BMI between 25 and 30.
>
LOL. You shouldn't show your desperation so openly, it's truly embarrassing.
The article you referred is in accordance with the official definition that
BMI > 25 means obesity (generally, for average build Caucasians), and adds the
qualifier "mild" to the range 25-30. This implies that in their opinion BMI >
30 means obesity, which is no longer considered mild. That is perfectly
logical, acceptable and in accordance with the official definition, I don't
think that anyone has any problems with that. Some others define the BMI
subrange 25-30 as "pre-obese", see
<URL:http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/23dd7a.htm>. But I do think that everyone
without a major brain damage has a big problem with _your_ _interpretation_
that the article also would imply a complete redefinition for the meaning of
the subrange 21-25 of the normal BMI range 18.5-25. No way, that kind of
thinking is only allowed in the Chungish logic of desperation.
>
>> >> Besides, you have been unable to provide any evidence
>> >> justifying this your very own "rule".
>> >>
>> >Your memory seems to be faulty.
>> >
>> Evidence is not memory-based, it is documented in peer-reviewed publication.
>> Where are your documents?
>
>However, your claim is memory-based.
>
But where is your evidence?
>>
>> >>
>> >> > When you hear someone saying their BMI is between 21 and 25
>> >> >(especially if they have diabetes and/or hypertension), think about mild obesity.
>> >> >
>> >> We already know that _you_ think about it. No one else seems to.
>> >>
>> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
>> >Savior.
>> >
>> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
>
>Just one?
>
>How about Gregor Mendel, the famed geneticist?
>
LOL. First, Gregor Mendel was an Austrian _botanist_, not a medical
professional, who died 1884. You have huge gaps in your knowledge of the
history of science. Secondly, where exactly has he said that BMI between 21
and 25 means "mild obesity"? For goodness sake, the whole concept of BMI has
most likely been invented long after his death.
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<19878776272caa30...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
>> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
>> >Savior.
>> >
>> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
>
>Here's a few:
>
>http://www.cmdahome.org/
>
And who are those "a few". Do they have names?
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<bahk00pmp2jvnacum...@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
wrote:
>Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT in article
><246c42edc45c5f34...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
>>Matti Narkia wrote:
>>
>>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
>>> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> It's nobody else's rule.
>>> >
>>> >What happened to your search for the truth.
>>> >
>>> Nothing. Can you name any medical or nutritional authority or peer-reviewed
>>> document accepting your "rule"?
>>
>>Just one? Then simply read the peer-reviewed article described earlier in this thread that
>>defines moderate obesity by a BMI between 25 and 30.
>>
>LOL. You shouldn't show your desperation so openly, it's truly embarrassing.
>The article you referred is in accordance with the official definition that
>BMI > 25 means obesity (generally, for average build Caucasians), and adds the
>qualifier "mild" to the range 25-30. This implies that in their opinion BMI >
Chung's inappropriate use of the words "mild obesity" seems to be contagious,
causing typo on the above line. The word mild should be replaced with the word
"moderate", and therefore the line should look as follows:
"qualifier "moderate" to the range 25-30. This implies that in their opinion
BMI"
>30 means obesity, which is no longer considered mild. That is perfectly
Same typo here. The line should look:
"30 means obesity, which is no longer considered moderate. That is perfectly"
>logical, acceptable and in accordance with the official definition, I don't
>think that anyone has any problems with that. Some others define the BMI
>subrange 25-30 as "pre-obese", see
><URL:http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/23dd7a.htm>. But I do think that everyone
>without a major brain damage has a big problem with _your_ _interpretation_
>that the article also would imply a complete redefinition for the meaning of
>the subrange 21-25 of the normal BMI range 18.5-25. No way, that kind of
>thinking is only allowed in the Chungish logic of desperation.
>>
So, after the above corrections the whole above paragraph should look as
follows:
"LOL. You shouldn't show your desperation so openly, it's truly embarrassing.
The article you referred is in accordance with the official definition that
BMI > 25 means obesity (generally, for average build Caucasians), and adds the
qualifier "moderate" to the range 25-30. This implies that in their opinion
BMI > 30 means obesity, which is no longer considered moderate. That is
perfectly logical, acceptable and in accordance with the official definition,
I don't think that anyone has any problems with that. Some others define the
BMI subrange 25-30 as "pre-obese", see
<URL:http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/23dd7a.htm>. But I do think that everyone
without a major brain damage has a big problem with _your_ _interpretation_
that the article also would imply a complete redefinition for the meaning of
the subrange 21-25 of the normal BMI range 18.5-25. No way, that kind of
thinking is only allowed in the Chungish logic of desperation."
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<1da44f656c37aad8...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
>> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>> >
>> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
>> >
>> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>> > > >
>> > > [...]
>> > > > Here's the message:
>> > > >
>> > > > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about the 2PD approach
>> > > > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
>> > >
>> > > Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a BMI
>> > > of than 20 is overweight?
>> >
>> > Start here and click on related links:
>> >
>> > http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
>>
>> Could you please point to a concrete article? Most of the related
>> articles concerning BMI at all are about children.
>>
>> >
>> > Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
>> >
>> > Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
>>
>> To call a person with a BMI of 21 "mildly obese" seems to be highly
>> unusal.
>
>Not when there is type 2 diabetes and/or hypertension.
>
Using BMI to define obesity may not be good idea at all. As I have shown,
muscular and fit persons with low body fat percentage may be wrongly
classified as obese, and lightly built persons with little muscle tissue, but
a highish body fat percentage, may be classified as normal, when in fact they
are obese. As I also have shown, there are interracial differences concerning
the validity of the definitions based on BMI. A much better instrument for the
definition of obesity is the measurement of body fat percentage, IMHO. See the
abstract
De Lorenzo A, Deurenberg P, Pietrantuono M, Di Daniele N, Cervelli V,
Andreoli A.
How fat is obese?
Acta Diabetol. 2003 Oct; 40 Suppl 1: S254-7.
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14618486&dopt=Abstract>
"The aim of the study was a comparison between body fat measurements and
body mass index. We analyzed the data of 890 subjects, 596 females and 294
males, ranging in age from 18 to 83 years, in body mass index (BMI) from
14 to 54 kg/m(2), and in body fat percentage (BF%) from 4% to 57%. A
considerable number of subjects, both males and females, could not be
classified as obese based on their BMI alone. Such a misclassification is
undesirable, especially in general practice, and it calls for diagnostic
criteria other than the BMI alone to be used for obesity."
>
>> Can you point to any peer reviewed article that uses this
>> terminology?
>
>This has been discussed before here on SMC.
>
He didn't ask for that, he was requesting a peer reviewed article proving the
validity of your _personal_ redefinition of the normal BMI range. You haven't
named any such article. Are you aware of any?
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
Engeland A, Bjorge T, Selmer RM, Tverdal A.
Height and body mass index in relation to total mortality.
Epidemiology. 2003 May; 14(3): 293-9.
PMID: 12859029 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12859029&dopt=Abstract>
"BACKGROUND: The relation between body mass index (BMI)
and mortality is not clear in the literature. An inverse
relation between height and mortality has been
suggested. We explore these relations in a very large
cohort in Norway. METHODS: We studied two million men
and women, age 20-74 years, who were measured during
1963-2000. These persons were followed for an average of
22.1 years. We used Cox proportional hazard models in
the analyses. Also, the optimal BMI (the BMI at the time
of measurement that was subsequently related to the
lowest mortality) was estimated. RESULTS: Over the study
period, 723,000 deaths were registered. The relative
risk of death by BMI showed a J- or U-shaped curve, with
the lowest rates of death at BMI between 22.5 and 25.0.
In men, the optimal BMI increased from 21.6 when
measured at age 20-29 to 24.0 when measured at age
70-74. In women, the optimal BMI was consistently
higher, increasing from 22.2 to 25.7. Mortality
decreased with increased height in men; in women,
mortality decreased with height only up to heights of
about 160-164 cm and then increased among the tallest
women. CONCLUSIONS: The relation between BMI and
mortality was J- or U-shaped, with the "optimal" BMI
varying by age and sex. Height was inversely related to
mortality in men and in women up to a height of 165 cm.
Note especially that
"... The relative risk of death by BMI showed a J- or U-shaped
curve, with the lowest rates of death at BMI between 22.5 and
25.0. ..."
The lowest risk of death fell into BMI range, which you claim to be "mild
obesity". Now how do you explain that? And you still haven't provided any peer
reviewed article as supporting evidence for your very own redefinition of the
BMI normal range.
A different matter is that there are better ways to define obesity than using
BMI alone. Body fat percentage measurement gives more accurate definitions.
See
De Lorenzo A, Deurenberg P, Pietrantuono M, Di Daniele N, Cervelli V,
Andreoli A.
How fat is obese?
Acta Diabetol. 2003 Oct; 40 Suppl 1: S254-7.
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=14618486&dopt=Abstract>
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
>> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> It's nobody else's rule.
>> >
>> >What happened to your search for the truth.
>> >
>> Nothing. Can you name any medical or nutritional authority or peer-reviewed
>> document accepting your "rule"?
>
>Just one? Then simply read the peer-reviewed article described earlier in this thread that
>defines moderate obesity by a BMI between 25 and 30.
>
LOL. You shouldn't show your desperation so openly, it's truly embarrassing.
The article you referred is in accordance with the official definition that
BMI > 25 means obesity (generally, for average built Caucasians), and adds the
qualifier "moderate" to the range 25-30. This implies that in their opinion
BMI > 30 means obesity, which is no longer considered moderate. That is
perfectly logical, acceptable and in accordance with the official definition,
I don't think that anyone has any problems with that. Some others define the
BMI subrange 25-30 as "pre-obese", see
<URL:http://www.pslgroup.com/dg/23dd7a.htm>. But I do think that everyone
without a major brain damage has a big problem with _your_ _interpretation_
that the article also would imply a complete redefinition for the meaning of
the subrange 21-25 of the normal BMI range 18.5-25. No way, that kind of
thinking is only allowed in the Chungish logic of desperation.
>
>> >> Besides, you have been unable to provide any evidence
>> >> justifying this your very own "rule".
>> >>
>> >Your memory seems to be faulty.
>> >
>> Evidence is not memory-based, it is documented in peer-reviewed publication.
>> Where are your documents?
>
>However, your claim is memory-based.
>
But where is your evidence?
>>
>> >>
>> >> > When you hear someone saying their BMI is between 21 and 25
>> >> >(especially if they have diabetes and/or hypertension), think about mild obesity.
>> >> >
>> >> We already know that _you_ think about it. No one else seems to.
>> >>
>> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
>> >Savior.
>> >
>> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
>
>Just one?
>
>How about Gregor Mendel, the famed geneticist?
>
Matti Narkia
<7auk005jm0ohemojc...@4ax.com> Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
wrote:
More evidence that BMI range 21-25 includes the optimal BMI range in terms of
the lowest mortality, at least for men; for women the optimal range could be
wider, including even higher BMI values:
Zhu S, Heo M, Plankey M, Faith MS, Allison DB.
Associations of body mass index and anthropometric indicators of fat mass and
fat free mass with all-cause mortality among women in the first and second
National Health and Nutrition Examination Surveys follow-up studies.
Ann Epidemiol. 2003 Apr; 13(4): 286-93.
PMID: 12684196 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12684196&dopt=Abstract>
"... RESULTS: BMI had a U-shaped relationship with mortality with a nadir
of approximately 27 kg/m. ..."
Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CW Jr.
Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults.
N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7; 341(15): 1097-105.
PMID: 10511607 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10511607&dopt=Abstract
"... In healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for
body-mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to
24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. ..."
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:19:56 -0500, Bob Pastorio
> <past...@nospam.rica.net> wrote:
>
> >John wrote:
> >
> >> On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:54:10 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>>Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter. In this
> >>>newsgroup no one, not even a single lay person, seems to share your thinking
> >>>(regardless of what Mu "thinks", his "thinking" doesn't count).
> >>
> >> Are you asking for a role call? If so,
> >>
> >> "John:" (me) "Here."
> >>
> >> So much for "not even a single lay person."
> >
> >No, "John," Matti meant "real person."
> >
> >That you, M_uscletissue? <LOL>
> >
> >HTH
> >
> >Pastorio
> Bob,
>
> All you need to know is:
> "I post, therefor I am."
>
> John
>
> (Would it make you feel any better if I made up a last name?)
Remember Psalm 37, brother John.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Bill" <x...@yy.zz> wrote in message news:<OckOb.57956$Qy6....@newssvr31.news.prodigy.com>...
> > "mfg" <mfgj...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> > news:21749773.04011...@posting.google.com...
> >
> >
> > MFG, I'm concerned about you. I understand you don't want to go near statins.
> > Based on your previous posts, concerning difficulty walking, I assume you get
> > little exercise. I hope at least you take some supplements that have been
> > discussed here such as niacin, fish oil, aspirin, garlic, etc. Diet, of
> > course, is important too.
> >
> > Take care.
> >
> > Bill
>
> Thank you Bill that is very kind of you. I get little exercise, true.
> I will see a physiatrist this month for possible referral to an
> exercise based rehabilitation.
> I do take aspirin. Why I don't know. The latest studies I have read
> say it does not protect the heart.
Which studies are these, MFG?
> I took folate for three months, it
> did not lower my homocysteine. No I don't take fish oil. I eat fatty
> fish, whole grains, flax seed and fresh garlic. I cook whole foods,
> including omega eggs and meat broths. I eat a lot of fresh vegetables
> and fruits. I drink cocoa. Niacin causes liver toxicity and anyway is
> not indicated for my particular type of FH. My hdl is good to quite
> good, and my tris excellent.
>
> With familial hypercholesterolemia one cannot lower levels except
> minimally by diet and exercise. And even statins only lowered it
> another 2 or 3 points, with all the damage they did. I have never had
> a level lower than 6.9 TC. However, Dr. Ravnskov and others at
> www.thincs.org, and Eddie Vos at www.health-heart say diet will lower
> cholesterol very little, and perhaps cholesterol doesn't need to be
> lowered.
>
How's the weight?
>
> I certainly know, among other physical sigsn, the more I eat normal
> fats, and cholesterol, the better I think. Cholesterol is very
> important for the brain. When I attempt to lower cholesterol, even
> though it doesn't reach low by anyone else's standards, I get
> language, learning and memory problems.
>
> The reason I post all this personal stuff here, under a pseudonym, is
> because I want you and others to know there may be more going on with
> cholesterol than meets the eye. I don't know. I just know I'm still
> here, and so are most of my relatives with the same high cholesterol
> 'problem'.
>
> Also, those who took statins had similar negative reactions and do not
> now attempt to lower cholesterol by any means. Just sensible eating.
>
> Thanks again for your concern.
>
You're welcome.
>
> MFG
May God heal you, in Christ's name.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 19:26:25 -0700 in article
> <girj00t9gf2d2qm0n...@4ax.com> John <john9...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >On Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:54:10 +0200, Matti Narkia <mn...@despammed.com>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>>Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
> >>>Savior.
> >>>
> >>Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter. In this
> >>newsgroup no one, not even a single lay person, seems to share your thinking
> >>(regardless of what Mu "thinks", his "thinking" doesn't count).
> >
> >Are you asking for a role call? If so,
> >
> >"John:" (me) "Here."
> >
> >So much for "not even a single lay person."
> >
> As soon as I had posted my message I remembered that I had forgotten John with
> the numbers, the other official sock puppet, but it was too late to make write
> another message, I had powered off my computer, and I desperately needed sleep
> :-). So let's add the amendment now retroactively: none of the Chung's sock
> puppets count.
Then you should count Mu and John, for they are not my sock puppets.
Since you claim to to seek the truth, congratulations on finding it.
> That should have been clear for everyone without a major brain
> injury anyway!
Why insult those who can read?
> Hell,
You seem familiar with this place you seem to be headed to.
> we even don't know if you and Mu are diffrenet persons!
Just as we don't know if Mattb, Matti, Bob, Stephen, Steve, and Satan are different.
>
> Taking that into account it should also be clear that only non-anonymous
> posters with a veriable identity count.
>
Is CarolT anonymous? Didn't think so.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
You poor guy.
May God help you be more truthful by helping you aceept Christ as your Lord and Savior
someday.
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT in article
> <246c42edc45c5f34...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
> >> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> It's nobody else's rule.
> >> >
> >> >What happened to your search for the truth.
> >> >
> >> Nothing. Can you name any medical or nutritional authority or peer-reviewed
> >> document accepting your "rule"?
> >
> >Just one? Then simply read the peer-reviewed article described earlier in this thread that
> >defines moderate obesity by a BMI between 25 and 30.
> >
> LOL. You shouldn't show your desperation so openly, it's truly embarrassing.
> The article you referred is in accordance with the official definition that
> BMI > 25 means obesity (generally, for average build Caucasians), and adds the
> qualifier "mild" to the range 25-30.
The adjective used was "moderate" and not "mild".
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:22:08 GMT in article
> <19878776272caa30...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
> >> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
> >> >Savior.
> >> >
> >> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
> >
> >Here's a few:
> >
> >http://www.cmdahome.org/
> >
> And who are those "a few". Do they have names?
>
>
Yes. Simply enter in the geographical location you are interested and you can pull them up.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Matti Narkia
<467e2b6f84fb647e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:17:53 GMT in article
>> <246c42edc45c5f34...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
>> >> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> It's nobody else's rule.
>> >> >
>> >> >What happened to your search for the truth.
>> >> >
>> >> Nothing. Can you name any medical or nutritional authority or peer-reviewed
>> >> document accepting your "rule"?
>> >
>> >Just one? Then simply read the peer-reviewed article described earlier in this thread that
>> >defines moderate obesity by a BMI between 25 and 30.
>> >
>> LOL. You shouldn't show your desperation so openly, it's truly embarrassing.
>> The article you referred is in accordance with the official definition that
>> BMI > 25 means obesity (generally, for average build Caucasians), and adds the
>> qualifier "mild" to the range 25-30.
>
>The adjective used was "moderate" and not "mild".
>
Just read my corrected version .
--
Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<19c3c73c1612dc71...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:22:08 GMT in article
>> <19878776272caa30...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
>> >> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
>> >> >Savior.
>> >> >
>> >> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
>> >
>> >Here's a few:
>> >
>> >http://www.cmdahome.org/
>> >
>> And who are those "a few". Do they have names?
>>
>
>Yes. Simply enter in the geographical location you are interested and you can pull them up.
>
But you don't know their names?
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:52:01 GMT in article
> <19c3c73c1612dc71...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:22:08 GMT in article
> >> <19878776272caa30...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
> >> >> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> >> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
> >> >> >Savior.
> >> >> >
> >> >> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
> >> >
> >> >Here's a few:
> >> >
> >> >http://www.cmdahome.org/
> >> >
> >> And who are those "a few". Do they have names?
> >>
> >
> >Yes. Simply enter in the geographical location you are interested and you can pull them up.
> >
> But you don't know their names?
>
I do.
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Matti Narkia
<43eef9c474f4656b...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Matti Narkia wrote:
>
>> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 17:52:01 GMT in article
>> <19c3c73c1612dc71...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >
>> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 03:22:08 GMT in article
>> >> <19878776272caa30...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Matti Narkia wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >> Sun, 18 Jan 2004 01:23:45 GMT in article
>> >> >> <92191334474ff362...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
>> >> >> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> >Kind of similar to your belief that no one else believes that Christ is their Lord and
>> >> >> >Savior.
>> >> >> >
>> >> >> Name any medical professional who shares your thinking in this matter.
>> >> >
>> >> >Here's a few:
>> >> >
>> >> >http://www.cmdahome.org/
>> >> >
>> >> And who are those "a few". Do they have names?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes. Simply enter in the geographical location you are interested and you can pull them up.
>> >
>> But you don't know their names?
>>
>
>I do.
>
But you don't want to tell us ;-).
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Did not want to insult you by presuming you could not read (even if English is truly your fifth
language ;-)
How many bottles of vitamin D supplements have you sold today to Finland citizens, Matti?
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
May you someday accept Christ as your Lord and Savior.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
mfg
The FDA recently turned down Bayer who wanted a statement about
aspirin helping heart health on the Aspirin label. FDA said there was
a paucity of evidence for that.
Also, I am posting below an article suggesting it is the magnesium in
the Buffered aspirin coating which actually does the protecting.
(I apologize if the way I have snipped bothers anyone. I get lost in
these long threads which I read only on google.
MFG
There Should Not Be Any Long-Term Use of Aspirin to Prevent Heart
Failure
by Joel M. Kauffman, Ph. D.
Too many physicians still recommend long-term use of aspirin
for primary prevention of stroke and myocardial infarction (MI) based
on incomplete reporting of results in the media from the Physicians
Health Group (PHG) trial in the USA. While the incidence of acute MI
in the "aspirin" group was reduced by 69%, which was significant,
total deaths were reduced by 4% (RR = 0.96); and neither this nor
total cardiovascular deaths nor total stroke were reduced
significantly. Moreover, there is little attention paid to the use of
aspirin containing calcium and magnesium in this trial (Kauffman,
2000) — it was actually Bufferin™.
Reported in 1998 in Lancet, the Medical Research Council (MRC in
the UK) trial on 5500 physicians with plain aspirin for 7 years gave a
32% reduction in non-fatal MI, a 12% increase in fatal MI, and a 6%
increase (RR = 1.06) in total death rates. For secondary protection
the benefits of aspirin taken for about 5 weeks were modest (RR =
0.80), but significant; and one would think that the short exposure
period would hold side-effects to a minimum (Meade, 1998). It would
seem that the meta-analysis of Derry and Loke (2000) was carried out
in vain, and that the concerns and conclusions of Tramér (2000) were
well taken.
Cogent argument has been made that the 52 mg of magnesium ion in
a Bufferin tablet could account for the superior results in the PHG
trial (Kauffman, 2000). A recent study from the Centers for Disease
Control reconfirms the inverse relationship between serum magnesium
and ischaemic heart disease, as well as total death rates (Ford,
1999).
The authors of a recent paper in JAMA on all-cause mortality
according to aspirin use in a prospective, observational, 3.1-year
study came to the conclusion that aspirin use was strongly protective,
cutting the death rate from 8% to 4% absolute (Gum et al., 2001).
This contradicts both the conclusions of a recent review (Kauffman,
2000) and the arguments of JGF Cleland (Cleland 2002a, 2002b). In the
JAMA paper, Gum et al. continued to perpetuate the myth that the PHG
trial used aspirin (their Ref. 1), when, in fact it used buffered
aspirin containing magnesium and calcium. Because Gum et al. did not
have the attending physicians distinguish between plain and buffered
aspirin in their subjects, the results of their study are inadequate
to make a recommendation for treatment, or to draw the conclusions
they did on the effectiveness of "aspirin". Another flaw in their
study is that Gum et al. did not match patients for use of either
magnesium (Ford, 1999) or vitamins C (Enstrom et al., 1992) or E
(Stephens et al., 1996), all of which are more protective against
cardiovascular disease than plain aspirin. It is quite plausible that
subjects conscientious enough to take "aspirin" might have taken any
or all of these, as well as other supplements. Nor were patients
matched for alcohol or nut consumption; high nut consumption in one
study reduced the rate of cardiovascular death (RR = 0.61), and of
all-cause death (RR = 0.82) in a very old population (Fraser et al.,
1997).
The duration of the trial by Gum et al. was much too short at 3.1
years to reveal long-term adverse effects, as shown by the greatly
increased risk of cataracts in subjects > 55 years old who took
aspirin for > 10 years (Kauffman, 2000). Gum et al. wrote that "It is
less clear if aspirin reduces long-term all-cause mortality in stable
populations." This was resolved for men, at least, in the study on
5,500 male physicians in the MRC trial — it does not in a 7-year
trial (Meade, 1998).
The JAMA study was the first to include women, and the raw data
for women should not be ignored: 3.8% of "aspirin" users died vs.
3.4% of non-users. For the study population as a whole the raw data
showed that 4.5% of "aspirin" users died vs. 4.5% of non-users. The
extreme manipulation of data carried out in the form of patient
matching to produce a positive result for "aspirin" might have been
warranted if the obvious confounding variables had been considered,
and a much longer time-frame adopted. As it is, this study in JAMA is
too flawed to show that the conclusions in the JSE Review (Kauffman,
2000) were wrong.
A very recent report on a meta-analysis by the Antithrombotic
Trialists' Collaboration in the UK came to the conclusion, on primary
prevention, that "For most healthy individuals, however, for whom the
risk of a vascular event is likely to be substantially less than 1% a
year, daily aspirin may well be inappropriate", and that for secondary
prevention, "Low dose aspirin (75-150 mg daily) is an effective
antiplatelet regimen for long-term use" (Baigent et al., 2002). This
latter conclusion was strongly disputed as being due to bias,
including retrospective analysis resulting in "resurrection of a
number of dead patients"; and that aspirin may lead to a "cosmetic"
reduction in non-fatal events and an increase in sudden death
(Cleland, 2002a); and to publication bias (Cleland, 2002b).
In a Rapid Response to Baigent et al., the results of a
meta-analysis of "aspirin" in 5 large trials for primary protection,
whose duration was 3-7 years (too short), were that there was little
effect on thrombotic stokes or all-cause mortality, but that both
non-fatal and fatal myocardial infarction taken together were reduced
(RR = 0.72). These results are quite similar to the raw results of
all 3 earlier studies above. An involved risk-benefit calculation was
recommended (Pignone et al., 2002) in order to decide which future
patients should take aspirin; but in view of the unchanging all-cause
mortality, this does not make sense.
A 7-year trial on men (unfortunately) supposedly at risk of CHD,
which was double-blind and placebo-controlled, using 75 mg per day of
aspirin in a controlled-release formulation, resulted in an increased
risk of stable angina of 39% (RR = 1.39)! (Knottenbelt, 2002).
No evidence exists that reducing the dose of aspirin or using
slow-release formulations would reduce the incidence of
gastrointestinal haemorrhage (Derry et al., 2000).
Physicians should recommend magnesium, vitamin C, vitamin E,
low-dose alcohol, and eating nuts, rather than aspirin for primary
protection; and the addition of coenzyme (now vitamin) Q10 for
secondary protection (Folkers et al., 1990).
e-mail: kauf...@hslc.org
____________________________________________________________
Baigent, C., Sudlow, C., Collins, R. and Peto, R. (2002).
Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet
therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in
high risk patients. British Medical Journal, 324, 71-86.
Cleland, J. G. F. (2000a). Preventing atherosclerotic events with
aspirin. British Medical Journal, 324, 103-105.
Cleland, J. G. F. (2000b). No reduction in cardiovascular risk with
NSAIDS — Including aspirin? The Lancet, 359, 92-93.
Derry S, Loke YK. Risk of gastrointestinal haemorrhage with long
term use of aspirin: meta-analysis. British Medical Journal,
2000:321:1183-7.
Enstrom, J. E., Kanim, L. E. & Klein, M. A. (1992). Vitamin C
intake and mortality among a sample of the United States population.
Epidemiology, 3, 189-91.
Folkers K., Langsjoen P., Willis R., Richardson P., Xia L., et al.
Lovastatin decreases coenzyme Q levels in humans. Proc. Nat Acad. Sci.
USA. 87: 8931-8934, 1990.
Ford, E. S. (1999). Serum magnesium and ischaemic heart disease:
findings from a national sample of US adults. International Journal
of Epidemiology, 28, 645-651.
Fraser, G. E. and Shavlik, D. J. (1997). Risk Factors for All-Cause
and Coronary Heart Disease Mortality in the Oldest-Old. Archives of
Internal Medicine, 157, 2249-2258.
Gum, P. A., Thamilarisan, M., Watanabe, J., Blackstone, E. H. &
Lauer, M.S. (2001). Aspirin use and all-cause mortality among patients
being evaluated for known or suspected coronary artery disease.
Journal of the American Medical Association, 286, 1187-1194.
Knottenbelt, C., Brennan, P. J. & Meade, T. W. (2002).
Antithrombotic Treatment and the Incidence of Angine Pectoris.
Archives of Internal Medicine, 162, 881-886.
Meade, T. W. with The Medical Research Council's General Practice
Research Framework (1998). Thrombosis prevention trial: Randomised
trial of low-intensity oral anticoagulation with warfarin and low-dose
aspirin in the primary prevention of ischaemic heart disease in men at
increased risk. The Lancet, 351, 233-241.
Kauffman, J. M. (2000). Should you take aspirin to prevent heart
attack? J. Scientific Exploration, 14, 623-641.
Pignone, M. and Mulrow, C. (2002). Aspirin for CHD Prevention in
Lower Risk Adults. British Medical Journal Rapid Response, 15 Jan.
Stephens, N. G., Parsons, A., Schofield, P. M., Kelly, F., Cheeseman,
K., Mitchinson, M. J. & Brown, M. J. (1996). Rendomised controlled
trial of vitamin E in patients with coronary disease: Cambridge Heart
Antioxidant Study (CHAOS). The Lancet, 347, 781-786.
Joel M. Kauffman, PhD
Research Professor Chemistry
University of the Sciences in Philadelphia
600 South 43rd St., Philadelphia, PA 19104
Post a follow-up to this message
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
It seems that you are both missing the point the other makes.
You seem to mean the names of medical professionals that share your
Christian believe and I am under the impression that what Matti really
wanted to know were the names of the medical professionals that share
your unusal definition of obesity.
Thorsten
--
"Nothing in biology makes sense, except in the light of evolution"
(Theodosius Dobzhansky)
Matti Narkia
when he is cornered; so he could just be pretending to misunderstand the
question. The issue has all the time been Chung's arbitrary alteration of the
universally accepted BMI limits for normal weight and obesity, and evidence
for the justification for that alteration. There is no such evidence, so Chung
is trying every twist in his book to get out of the corner.
What really worries me is that by introducing his self-invented definition for
"mild obesity", and stating that BMI range for it is 21-25, Chung is implying
that this range is somehow unhealthy and should be avoided, when in fact it is
the optimal BMI range carrying the lowest mortality rate, as witnessed for
example by studies
Engeland A, Bjorge T, Selmer RM, Tverdal A.
Height and body mass index in relation to total mortality.
Epidemiology. 2003 May; 14(3): 293-9.
PMID: 12859029 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12859029&dopt=Abstract>
"... The relative risk of death by BMI showed a J- or U-shaped
curve, with the lowest rates of death at BMI between 22.5 and
25.0. ..."
Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CW Jr.
Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults.
N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7; 341(15): 1097-105.
PMID: 10511607 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10511607&dopt=Abstract
"... In healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for
body-mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to
24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. ..."
So this Chung's new "invention", if taken seriously, could do more harm than
his 2PD diet.
--
Matti Narkia
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > >
> > > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > >
> > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > > >
> > [...]
> > > > > This has been discussed before on SMC. Would suggest you Google SMC for BMI and diabetes.
> > > >
> > > > Google yields 93 references for this. I looked at some of them but
> > > > didn't find any evidence that people with a BMI of 21 might profit from
> > > > weightloss, be they diabetics or not.
> > > >
> > >
> > > One can lead a horse to water but that won't mean he will drink.
> >
> > I take it their is no such evidence, then.
> >
>
> Is there water?
I don't see any.
> >
> > > >
> > > > You stated quite often that everyone with a BMI greater than 20 is
> > > > overweight and should lose weight.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What I have written is that anyone whose BMI is greater than 20 *may* be overweight.
> >
> > You wrote that a BMI from 21 to 25 is "mildly obese". No *may*.
> >
>
> ...and I also cited a reference that describes a BMI from 25 to 30 as moderately obese.
So? That does not say anything at all about a BMI from 21 to 25. We are
still waiting for you to cite a peer reviewed article that uses your
unusal definition of "mildly obese". I suppose that is like Waiting for
Godot.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I would think there must be quite a lot of evidence that a person with a
> > > > BMI of 21 might profit from weight loss if you repeat it that often,
> > > > almost like a mantra.
> > >
> > > Try being truthful.
> >
> > Would suggest you google about what you wrote if your memory fails you.
> >
>
> My memory does not fail me.
"Ime, weight will need to be "ideal" and this would be BMI=20."
Sounds familiar? In case you forgot:
The message-ID is: <40096B96...@heartmdphd.com>
> >
> > > > Would be nice if you shared some of the knowledge
> > > > about this evidence with us. Would be nice if you could point to a
> > > > concrete article.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I am not here to spoon feed you.
> >
> > In a scientific discussion, the participants should be able to back up
> > their opinions with references to scientific research. "Look it up on
> > google" doesn't qualify as such. Most people here don't have a problem
> > with citing studies supporting their opinions. How come you have such a
> > problem?
> >
>
> I don't.
It's obvious that you do.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >
> > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >
> > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > >
> > > > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > > > > >
> > > [...]
> > > > > > This has been discussed before on SMC. Would suggest you Google SMC for BMI and diabetes.
> > > > >
> > > > > Google yields 93 references for this. I looked at some of them but
> > > > > didn't find any evidence that people with a BMI of 21 might profit from
> > > > > weightloss, be they diabetics or not.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > One can lead a horse to water but that won't mean he will drink.
> > >
> > > I take it their is no such evidence, then.
> > >
> >
> > Is there water?
>
> I don't see any.
>
So says the horse that though brought to water, will not drink.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You stated quite often that everyone with a BMI greater than 20 is
> > > > > overweight and should lose weight.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > What I have written is that anyone whose BMI is greater than 20 *may* be overweight.
> > >
> > > You wrote that a BMI from 21 to 25 is "mildly obese". No *may*.
> > >
> >
> > ...and I also cited a reference that describes a BMI from 25 to 30 as moderately obese.
>
> So? That does not say anything at all about a BMI from 21 to 25. We are
> still waiting for you to cite a peer reviewed article that uses your
> unusal definition of "mildly obese".
I have. You just acknowledged the article describing moderately obese as a BMI from 25 to 30. Now read
the article for how the authors would describe a BMI that is between 21 and 25.
> I suppose that is like Waiting for
> Godot.
>
Depends on how fast you can read.
>
> > >
> > > > >
> > > > > I would think there must be quite a lot of evidence that a person with a
> > > > > BMI of 21 might profit from weight loss if you repeat it that often,
> > > > > almost like a mantra.
> > > >
> > > > Try being truthful.
> > >
> > > Would suggest you google about what you wrote if your memory fails you.
> > >
> >
> > My memory does not fail me.
>
> "Ime, weight will need to be "ideal" and this would be BMI=20."
>
> Sounds familiar? In case you forgot:
>
Haven't forgotten. Yes, "ideal" body weight would be a weight that is right in the middle of "normal"
range. That does turn out to be a BMI of 20.
>
> The message-ID is: <40096B96...@heartmdphd.com>
>
> > >
> > > > > Would be nice if you shared some of the knowledge
> > > > > about this evidence with us. Would be nice if you could point to a
> > > > > concrete article.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > I am not here to spoon feed you.
> > >
> > > In a scientific discussion, the participants should be able to back up
> > > their opinions with references to scientific research. "Look it up on
> > > google" doesn't qualify as such. Most people here don't have a problem
> > > with citing studies supporting their opinions. How come you have such a
> > > problem?
> > >
> >
> > I don't.
>
> It's obvious that you do.
>
What should be obvious is I don't like to perserverate.
>
> Thorsten
You remain in my prayers, neighbor.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
wholey_smoke
"Matti Narkia" <mn...@despammed.com> wrote in message
news:m1bj00pajq11sq580...@4ax.com...
> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 20:58:51 GMT in article
> <2f8c3820af48f481...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
> MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
> >Matti Narkia wrote:
> >
> >> Sat, 17 Jan 2004 13:36:08 -0500 in article
<40098098...@heartmdphd.com>
> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> >Thorsten Schier wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >> >> >
> >> >> [...]
> >> >> > Here's the message:
> >> >> >
> >> >> > If you are overweight (BMI more than 20), ask your doctor about
the 2PD approach
> >> >> > as a way of safely and permanently losing the excess weight:
> >> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >> Could you point to some research that suggests that everyone with a
BMI
> >> >> of than 20 is overweight?
> >> >
> >> >Start here and click on related links:
> >> >
> >> >http://makeashorterlink.com/?C10021917
> >> >
> >> >Moderate obesity is BMI 25-30.
> >> >
> >> >Mild obesity is BMI 21-25.
> >> >
> >> This is absolute Chung invented bullshit!
> >
> >Curious reaction.
> >
> But still a valid statement. Your definition of "mild obesity" is just
that,
> _your_ definition only. And bullshit.
> >
> >This suggests to me that Matti's BMI is over 25... much over.
> >
> As I've mentioned earlier (please google away), my BMI is 20.2, which is a
way
> too skinny for my body structure, IMHO.
> >
> >BMI is blind to body composition, Matti. Would suggest you look up the
formula and learn how BMI is
> >calculated.
> >
> I'd suggest you'd learn:
>
> a) the definition of a normal BMI. Hint: have a look at my previous
message in
> this thread)
>
> b) limitations of BMI. You can start with the references I provided.
>
> >Btw, folks (myself included) are still waiting for your answer to the
question:
> >
> >"What is you occupation?"
> >
> You can wait until hell freezes over. That is off-topic, and has nothing
to do
> with cardiology. What folks really want to know is:
>
> 1) Do you have hospital privileges?
>
> 2) If you do have, where?
>
> 3) If you don't,
>
> a) Why not?
>
> b) Why did you submit false information about your hospital privileges
to
> AMA database?
>
> In addition I'm still waiting your comments about BMI related references
which
> debunk your delusions about BMI? What's the matter, what part in them you
> didn't understand?
>
>
>
>
> --
> Matti Narkia
Matti Narkia
<86490a41eeb8180e...@news.teranews.com> "Dr. Andrew B. Chung,
MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
>Haven't forgotten. Yes, "ideal" body weight would be a weight that is right in the middle of "normal"
>range. That does turn out to be a BMI of 20.
>
of that. Moreover, the optimal BMI range in terms of the lowest mortality is
most likely something in the region of 22-25 as witnessed by the studies.
Engeland A, Bjorge T, Selmer RM, Tverdal A.
Height and body mass index in relation to total mortality.
Epidemiology. 2003 May; 14(3): 293-9.
PMID: 12859029 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12859029&dopt=Abstract>
"... The relative risk of death by BMI showed a J- or U-shaped
curve, with the lowest rates of death at BMI between 22.5 and
25.0. ..."
Calle EE, Thun MJ, Petrelli JM, Rodriguez C, Heath CW Jr.
Body-mass index and mortality in a prospective cohort of U.S. adults.
N Engl J Med. 1999 Oct 7; 341(15): 1097-105.
PMID: 10511607 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
<URL:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=10511607&dopt=Abstract
"... In healthy people who had never smoked, the nadir of the curve for
body-mass index and mortality was found at a body-mass index of 23.5 to
24.9 in men and 22.0 to 23.4 in women. ..."
How inconvenient for the success of you new redefinition of BMI limits that
this optimal BMI range happens fall into your range of "mild obesity". How do
you feel about that? Any comments?
--
Matti Narkia
Thorsten Schier
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
>
> Thorsten Schier wrote:
>
> > "Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> > >
> > > Thorsten Schier wrote:
> > >
> > > >
[...]
> > > > You wrote that a BMI from 21 to 25 is "mildly obese". No *may*.
> > > >
> > >
> > > ...and I also cited a reference that describes a BMI from 25 to 30 as moderately obese.
> >
> > So? That does not say anything at all about a BMI from 21 to 25. We are
> > still waiting for you to cite a peer reviewed article that uses your
> > unusal definition of "mildly obese".
>
> I have. You just acknowledged the article describing moderately obese as a BMI from 25 to 30. Now read
> the article for how the authors would describe a BMI that is between 21 and 25.
The article is restricted. They want a considerable amount of money for
it. So would be nice of you to cite a sentence from the article where
they call a BMI from 21 to 25 "mildly obese", if they do so.
Stephen Nagler
<wholey...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Careful Matti, he'll hit you with his religious stick.
................
Chung's religious stick? Been there, Smoke. And guess what? Chung's
stick is flaccid.
smn
Matti Narkia
obesity". Here some pages from the catch:
North Shore - LIJ Health System: Bariatric Surgery
<URL:http://www.northshorelij.com/articles/archive/1002_bariatric_surgery_geiss.htm>
"... A BMI between 27 and 30 indicates mild obesity, ..."
Classic Care Pharmacy for Nursing Homes - Obesity
<URL:http://www.classiccare.on.ca/obesity.htm>
"Mild Obesity 27 - 302
Weight Control Disorders
<URL:http://www.med.nus.edu.sg/pcm/Weight/Disorders/Disorders1.htm>
"... A BMI of 25 to 29.99 is considered mild obesity. ..."
Body Mass Index (BMI) Calculator
<URL:http://www.thinnerfuture.com/bmi_calculator/BMI.htm>
"27 < 30 Mild Obesity"
<URL:http://www.singhospi.com/fitness/obe.asp>
"26 - 30 Mild Obesity"
<URL:http://www.sparknotes.com/nutrition/assessment/anthropometric/section1.html>
"A BMI of 18.5-24.9 is normal according to the standards of the World
Health Organization. Patients with a BMI of under 18.5 are considered
underweight; those with a BMI 25-29.9 are defined as overweight;
30-34.9 indicates mild obesity, 35-39.9 indicates moderate obesity,
and 40 or greater indicates extreme obesity."
<URL:http://healthfullife.umdnj.edu/archives/obd_archive.htm>
"... 30 to 34.9 is mild obesity ..."
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Careful Matti, he'll hit you with his religious stick.
No, Satan.
Instead, I will continue to pray that Matti will turn on you, in Christ's name.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
mfg
> How's the weight?
As one would expect with someone who cannot exercise.
MFG
wholey_smoke
supposedly not listening.
And the time our priest Father Pertaine come to our house and screamed fire
and brimstone at my father wanting to know why I didn't show up for
scripture, lovely Christian people they were, made me into the person I am
today....... an Atheist.
Chung is like that with his "shove religion down your throat in the name of
God" tactics, I wonder how many people he has converted....... to Atheism
that is.
"Stephen Nagler" <nag...@tinn.com> wrote in message
news:taam009kk37bdf0sc...@4ax.com...
Matti Narkia
>> the article for how the authors would describe a BMI that is between 21 and 25.
>
>The article is restricted. They want a considerable amount of money for
>it. So would be nice of you to cite a sentence from the article where
>they call a BMI from 21 to 25 "mildly obese", if they do so.
>
surely looks like the end of the road for the Chung's self-invented
redefinition of WHO's BMI limits.
--
Matti Narkia
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
I expect more obesity in someone who is unable to moderate eating than from someone who is unable to exercise.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Reminds me of the time a Nun at Sunday School gave me the cane for
> supposedly not listening.
> And the time our priest Father Pertaine come to our house and screamed fire
> and brimstone at my father wanting to know why I didn't show up for
> scripture, lovely Christian people they were, made me into the person I am
> today....... an Atheist.
Does not surprise me that you would blame others for what you see in the
mirror.
>
> Chung is like that with his "shove religion down your throat in the name of
> God" tactics, I wonder how many people he has converted....... to Atheism
> that is.
>
Converting people either way would not be God's purpose for me here.
Rather, I am here to inform people of their options.
I suspect you (and Stephen) are doing a better job at turning people away from
you, Satan.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> Mon, 19 Jan 2004 01:46:44 +0100 in article <400B28F4...@firemail.de>
> Thorsten Schier <Moo...@firemail.de> wrote:
> >
> >"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" schrieb:
> >>
> >> I have. You just acknowledged the article describing moderately obese as a BMI from 25 to 30. Now read
> >> the article for how the authors would describe a BMI that is between 21 and 25.
> >
> >The article is restricted. They want a considerable amount of money for
> >it. So would be nice of you to cite a sentence from the article where
> >they call a BMI from 21 to 25 "mildly obese", if they do so.
> >
> It seems that Chung is unable to cite such a sentence from the article.
It the same way you are unable to truthfully disclose your occupation.
By choice.
Humbly,
Andrew
--
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Board-Certified Cardiologist
http://www.heartmdphd.com
Stephen Nagler
<and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>Rather, I am here to inform people of their options.
..................
... and then beat them into submission or belittle them into leaving.
You are such a small man.
smn
wholey_smoke
> Satan wrote:
The only physical description of Satan given in the bible:
A red dragon with 7 heads and 10 horns.
Seen many lately Andrew, at the shoping mall perhaps picking up a few
groceries for dinner.
>Snip>
A very sick and mentally deranged person wrote:
>
> Does not surprise me that you would blame others for what you see in the
> mirror.
Ah, but this is what you do, like the Nun and priest mentioned
earlier, you warn, you threaten, you belittle people in the name of
religion.
You are an embarresment to all practising Christiians. Yes
knowing the truth IS painfull Andrew, but you will get over it.
> Chung is like that with his "shove religion down your throat in the name
of
> > God" tactics, I wonder how many people he has converted....... to
Atheism
> > that is.
> >
> Converting people either way would not be God's purpose for me here.
Liar, you would go to any lenght if you thought you could convert someone
to Chritianity.
You and you fellow fanatics would be tripping over each other to get to
them first.
Rather, I am here to inform people of their options.
Is Atheism one of your options?
> I suspect you (and Stephen) are doing a better job at turning people away
from
> you, Satan.
Are there still adults in the 21st century who believe in the existence
of Satan?
I'll chuck in a couple of Carol T's in your face questions, Let's see if I
can get the tone right:
Why do you feel it necessary to force religion onto people Andrew, is it
becoming that unpopular.
Do you entertain non christians in your family home Andrew.
Do you have any non christian friends.
Do you believe in human sacrifice.
How do you demonstrate your family values, like Gigeon perhaps.
> Humbly,
>
> Andrew
>
What no prayer for me, I feel so left out, not.
wholey_smoke
Chung is on the ropes and Matti is hammering the Jesus out of him, he is
obviously out classed in this bout, what can Chung possibly do to stop this
annihilation, but wait he is off the ropes, googling for dirt, Matti comes
back, SMACK, hits Chung with an indisputable BMI figure, Chung bouncing off
the ropes for the second time hits Matti with a Religious quote, Matti's
faith holds up and is not hurt, but wait, Chung comes back, it looks like he
is going to .... Oh no he wouldn't dare..... yes he is....he's hit Matti
with his famous
" I'll pray for you neighbour" line, obviously a desperate move by Chung but
to no avail, the score is in, Matti 10, Chung 0. It seems that Chungs
tactics to belittle and hammer people with religion no longer work, but like
all fanatic's before him he will continue to take a beating every time he
enters this forum. He can only be pitied.
"Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD" <and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote in message
news:125824d5413c8ef2...@news.teranews.com...
John
I do. His existence is amply demonstrated daily right here on smc.
>
>
>I'll chuck in a couple of Carol T's in your face questions, Let's see if I
>can get the tone right:
I'm not Andrew, but I'll take your quiz.
>Why do you feel it necessary to force religion onto people Andrew, is it
>becoming that unpopular.
Force is not necessary, or helpful (or even possible here on USENET).
>Do you entertain non christians in your family home Andrew.
Yes.
>Do you have any non christian friends.
Yes.
>Do you believe in human sacrifice.
No. Do you Mr. Smoke?
>How do you demonstrate your family values, like Gigeon perhaps.
I do my best to follow my Lord Jesus every day.
John
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <whining and crying snipped>
Truth has this effect on the untruthful.
Humbly,
Andrew
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
> <desperate hissing about his fallen champion Matti snipped>
"Get behind me, Satan"
wholey_smoke
if I felt the need for religion you would be the one I would turn to.
Chung on the other hand is a fanatic, read his posts and tell me honestly
are they the words of a sain person, he has now labelled myself and others
"satan", again are these the words of a sain person.
Let HIM respond to the post and answer the questions.
BTW. could you please comment further on this remark.
"I do. His existence is amply demonstrated daily right here on smc".
"John" <john9...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:932p005psk06cb5b3...@4ax.com...
Mucho M_uns
wrote:
>Hell, we even don't know if you and Mu are diffrenet persons!
Then take the $10,000 challenge and find out.
When will yo be able to deposit your $10,000. Mine's in escrow. Can
you get to Atlanta by late next week?
http://www.moonglow.net/ccd/pictures/moon/index.html
Lift well, Eat less, Walk fast, Live long.
Mucho M_uns
wrote:
><and...@heartmdphd.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Rather, I am here to inform people of their options.
>
>..................
>
>... and then beat them into submission or belittle them into leaving.
>You are such a small man.
Nagler, when are you going to talk about the personal tragedies that
have surrounded your life, that lead you to hate Christians telling
you about their prayers for you.
Now, Stephen, you and I both know this is going to be a really
exposing situation for you and you can get off the Usenet hook by
simply telling the truth and telling it well.
Dr. Andrew B. Chung, MD/PhD
Atheism is the default option, Satan.
>
> > >> I suspect you (and Stephen) are doing a better job at turning people
> away
> > >from
> > >> you, Satan.
> > >
> > > Are there still adults in the 21st century who believe in the
> existence
> > >of Satan?
> >
> > I do. His existence is amply demonstrated daily right here on smc.
>
I would concur and add that all Christians believe in you existence, Satan (as
do all Jews).
If Satan(you) did not exist, we would not be having this Usenet discussion right
now.
> > >
> > >
> > >I'll chuck in a couple of Carol T's in your face questions, Let's see if
> I
> > >can get the tone right:
> >
> > I'm not Andrew, but I'll take your quiz.
> >
> > >Why do you feel it necessary to force religion onto people Andrew, is it
> > >becoming that unpopular.
> >
> > Force is not necessary, or helpful (or even possible here on USENET).
>
Would concur with John :-)
>
> > >Do you entertain non christians in your family home Andrew.
> >
> > Yes.
>
My answer would be the same as John's.
>
> > >Do you have any non christian friends.
> >
> > Yes.
>
My answer would be the same as John's.
>
> > >Do you believe in human sacrifice.
> >
> > No.
>
I believe in God's sacrifice.
>
> > >How do you demonstrate your family values, like Gigeon perhaps.
> >
> > I do my best to follow my Lord Jesus every day.
> >
>
For Jesus is the answer as written in John 14:
6Jesus answered, "I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the
Father except through me..."
May God add His Blessings to the writing of His Word here on SMC and cast out
all who would choose to do Satan's bidding.
Amen.
Humble bond-servant of Christ,
Andrew
John
<wholey...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>John, I respect your commitment to Christianity and the way you present it,
>if I felt the need for religion you would be the one I would turn to.
I pray that you do not end up feeling the need for religion the way I
did. After the loss of two close family members to a brutal murder, I
realized the utter bankruptcy of my previous "philosophical" approach
to life and turned back to the Lord. Since that time He has blessed
my life in many, many ways.
>Chung on the other hand is a fanatic, read his posts and tell me honestly
>are they the words of a sain person, he has now labelled myself and others
>"satan", again are these the words of a sain person.
IMHO he is sane, honest and truthful, not at all a fanatic. Also a
competent and experienced cardiologist. And human. I.e., he makes
mistakes (like all of us) and sometimes does not realize it (like all
of us.) He also tends to write as if he was paying $10 for each word
and does not use very many of them. This makes it easier to take an
unintended meaning from what he writes. Knowing him as a Christian
brother as I do, I know implicitly what he means. His USENET enemies,
and they are "legion", jump on these to deliberately misinterpret.
Another poster self-identified himself as "Satan". Perhaps Dr. Chung
thought he was addressing that person rather than yourself (if, in
fact, you are a different person.)
>BTW. could you please comment further on this remark.
>"I do. His existence is amply demonstrated daily right here on smc".
God, Jesus, Satan, etc inhabit the spirit world which sometimes
intersects our "real" world, particularly through the medium of ideas
and thoughts. Note that they can do this without violating God's
fundamental laws of physics -- ideas don't weigh anything or take up
space or have energy -- they just are. They can also strongly
influence the course of human events to accomplish God's will or
attempt to thwart it.
I believe that God is the author of every good and loving thought and
deed that we humans experience. Satan is the author of everything low
and evil that we think or do. If we have an evil or wicked thought,
Satan whispered it in our mind's "ear". Satan is the anti-conscience.
The anti-Christ. This is true whether you believe in the existence of
God or Satan or not. In my experience, I now realize that many of my
ideas and thoughts, both good and bad, came from God or from Satan,
even though I did not yet believe in their existence.
I think you might agree that many evil and wicked ideas have been
expressed on smc. I contend that they were inspired by the work of
Satan and are further evidence of Satan's existence (in the spirit
world.)
John