Body Building and Hight Blood Pressure and Cholesterol?

[AdemolaOkubena]

hello friends,

My friend is always going to gym for body building. He don't know, he is a blood pressure patient. There is no side effect but he takes medicine as per doctors pescribed. The doctor gives some instruction which food you have taken for blood pressure. Cholesterol disease have seen amon the people. A person who is eating fast food they suffer cholesterol disease. It is bad for health. Now the doctors strictly suggested don't eat fast food.


Thanks a lot
Ademola Okubena

 

[Politico]

If someone is bodybuilding and has high blood pressure and cholesterol they are doing something wrong

 

[editec]

Becoming super muscular like most Body builders do IS not generally considered a healthy choice of lifestyles.

 

[waltky]

Vaccine is cheaper than other drugs...

Vaccine reduces cholesterol in mice, monkeys
Nov. 10, 2015 - Researchers said the vaccine is as effective as two other new treatments, but a fraction of their cost.

A vaccine that targets a protein in the blood lowered cholesterol levels dramatically in mice and macaque monkeys, researchers reported in a new study. The protein, PCSK9, encourages the breakdown of receptors cholesterol binds to when it is flushed out of the body. People who do not produce the protein have a decreased risk of heart disease, while some with mutations in the protein are more prone to developing cardiac conditions. Two other new drugs, alirocumab and evolocumab, were recently approved by the FDA that target PCSK9 and dramatically reduce cholesterol levels, but their use is restricted to patients with a genetic, hard-to-treat form of high cholesterol or specific types of heart disease.

The vaccine targets a protein that hinders the body's ability to break down and release cholesterol from the body, according to researchers.​

The two drugs, like the vaccine, work significantly better than statins, however they cost between $7,000 and $12,000 per year per patient. Researchers at the University of Mexico and National Institutes of Health think the vaccine could cost a fraction of that. "Statins are still the most commonly prescribed medication for cholesterol. Although they are effective in many people, do have side effects and don't work for everyone," said Dr. Alan Remaley, a researcher at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute, in a press release. "The results of our vaccine were very striking, and suggest it could be a powerful new treatment for high cholesterol."

The researchers tested the vaccine alone in mice, finding it significantly lowered bad cholesterol in the blood. With the macaques, they combined it with statins, finding an even more significant drop in cholesterol levels. More studies with macaques are planned, as well as eventual tests in humans. The study is published in the journal Vaccine.

Vaccine reduces cholesterol in mice, monkeys

See also:

Belly fat in normal weight people more deadly than obesity
Nov. 10, 2015 - Because abdominal fat may wrap around organs inside the body, it's full effect on health may not be considered by doctors because it is centralized in one area.

Obesity is bad for health, however "skinny" people who carry extra weight around their mid-section may be at greater risk for early death than obese people, researchers found in a large study of adults in the United States. Central obesity has been shown in previous studies to increase risk for cardiovascular disease and poses risks to health, however its potential effect on normal weight people has not been studied before, researchers said. Measuring obesity and health risk simply by body mass index, or BMI, limits doctors' awareness of potential health risks because people with normal BMI may have central obesity and suffer some of the health effects of it. "It's not just the fat you can see when your 'spare tire' rolls over your pant line," Dr. Daniel Neides, medical director of the Wellness Institute at Cleveland Clinic, told CBS News. "But it's actually the fat that is deposited within the abdomen and it really covers the organs within the abdominal cavity."

Researchers said the risk to health from central obesity among "skinny" people is worse because BMI does not measure for internally-stored fat that can effect health.​

Researchers in the study, published in the Annals of Internal Medicine, analyzed data on 15,184 adults between the ages of 18 and 90, and a little more than half of whom were women, collected as part of the National Health and Nutrition Examination Study. They compared the relationship of obesity measured by BMI and waist-to-hip ratio with total and cardiovascular death risk, finding that men with normal BMI and a fat belly had an 87 percent higher risk of death than men with the same BMI and normal waist-to-hip ratio. In women, those with fat bellies and a normal BMI had a 48 percent greater death risk than those with normal BMI and normal belly fat. "People with normal weight according to BMI can't be reassured that they don't have any fat-related health issues," Dr. Francisco Lopez-Jimenez, a professor of medicine at the Mayo Clinic and senior author of the paper, told the New York Times. "Having a normal weight is not enough. It's good only if the distribution of fat is healthy."

Although BMI has long been a reliable measure of health risk from excess fat, Dr. Paul Poirier, a researcher at the Institute of Cardiology at Laval University, wrote in an editorial published in Annals of Internal Medicine with the new study that measuring for central obesity is essential because doctors are missing a significant amount of life-threatening fat on the inside of people's bodies. "Waist-to-hip ratio is a simple and reliable measure for central obesity, but it is infrequently used in daily clinical practice," Poirier wrote. "The long-term deleterious consequences of excess adiposity are marked and important. Although the utility of BMI has been borne out in epidemiologic studies, there are limitations to using BMI alone to assess adiposity in clinical practice. The numerator in the BMI calculation is total body weight and does not distinguish between lean and fat mass."

Belly fat in normal weight people more deadly than obesity

 

[waltky]

Some so-called good cholesterol may be bad...

Scientists Find 'Good' Cholesterol Can Sometimes Be Bad
March 10, 2016 — So-called "good" cholesterol may actually increase heart attack risks in some people, researchers said Thursday, a discovery that casts fresh doubt on drugs designed to raise it.

High density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol is generally associated with reduced heart risks, since it usually offsets the artery-clogging effects of the low density (LDL) form. But some people have a rare genetic mutation that causes the body to have high levels of HDL and this group, paradoxically, has a higher heart risk, scientists reported in the journal Science. "Our results indicate that some causes of raised HDL actually increase risk for heart disease," said lead researcher Daniel Rader of the University of Pennsylvania. "This is the first demonstration of a genetic mutation that raises HDL but increases risk of heart disease."

"Good" cholesterol may actually increase heart attack risks in some people, researchers said Thursday.​

The scientists found that people with the mutation had an increased relative risk of coronary heart disease almost equivalent to the risk caused by smoking. Normally, HDL is an important helper in the smooth running of the cardiovascular system by ferrying cholesterol to the liver, where it is eliminated. But this process is disrupted in people with a faulty version of a gene known as SCARB1, leading to high levels of HDL that fails to do its job, Rader and colleagues found. The mutation appears to be specific to people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent. The finding could help explain why drugs that boost HDL have so far failed to deliver expected benefits in clinical trials.

Over the past decade, three experimental drugs known as CETP inhibitors from Pfizer, Roche and Eli Lilly have flopped in tests, leaving Merck's anacetrapib as the only one remaining in late-stage studies. Peter Weissberg, medical director at the British Heart Foundation, which supported the research, said the new research had shed light on a major puzzle and could open up new medical avenues in the longer term. "These unexpected findings pave the way for further research into the SCARB1 pathway to identify new treatments to reduce heart attacks in the future," he said in a statement.

Scientists Find 'Good' Cholesterol Can Sometimes Be Bad

 

[waltky]

Cholesterol Drug Modestly Lowers Risk of Heart Attack, Death...

Study: Cholesterol Drug Modestly Lowers Risk of Heart Attack, Death
March 10, 2018 — A newer cholesterol drug, used with older statin medicines, modestly lowered heart risks and deaths in a big study of heart attack survivors that might persuade insurers to cover the pricey treatment more often.

Results on the drug, Praluent, were announced Saturday at an American College of Cardiology conference in Florida. It’s the first time a cholesterol-lowering drug has reduced deaths since statins such as Lipitor and Crestor came out decades ago. “It’s the ultimate outcome; it’s what matters to patients,” said study leader Dr. Philippe Gabriel Steg of Hospital Bichat in Paris.

But the benefit was small — 167 people would need to use Praluent for nearly three years to prevent a single death. “That’s a high cost” that may still hinder its use, said one independent expert, Dr. Amit Khera, a preventive cardiologist at UT Southwestern Medical Center in Dallas and a spokesman for the American Heart Association. The drug’s makers, Sanofi and Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, sponsored the study and said they would work with insurers on pricing to get the medicine to those who need it the most.

About the study

Doctors focus on lowering LDL, or bad cholesterol, to prevent heart problems. Statins are the main medicines for this, but some people can’t tolerate or get enough help from them. Praluent and a similar drug, Amgen’s Repatha, work in a different way and lower cholesterol much more. Patients give themselves shots of the medicine once or twice a month. The drugs have been sold since 2015 but cost more than $14,000 a year, and insurers have balked at paying without proof that they reduce health problems, not just the cholesterol number. Last year, a study showed Repatha cut heart problems but did not improve survival. The new study tested the rival drug, Praluent, for a longer time and in patients at higher risk, nearly 19,000 people who in the previous year had a heart attack or chest pain serious enough to put them in the hospital.

For the first time, a cholesterol-lowering drug has reduced deaths since statins such as Lipitor and Crestor came out decades ago.​

All had LDL of more than 70 despite maximum statin use. Half were given Praluent and the rest, dummy shots. Praluent was started at a lower dose and increased if LDL did not drop below 50. After nearly three years, 9.5 percent of those on Praluent and 11.1 percent of those on dummy medicine had suffered a heart attack, stroke, heart-related death or serious chest pain; 3.5 percent on Praluent and 4.1 percent on dummy medicine died. That worked out to a 15 percent lower risk with Praluent. Benefits were greater for those whose LDL was 100 or more at the start of the study. The drug had no major safety issues.

What doctors say

“We need to reset our expectations” and realize that benefits for any new drug are going to be fairly small when added to already good treatments such as statins, said Dr. Jeffrey Kuvin, conference leader and cardiology chief at Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center. The new drugs clearly help people at high risk and are not aimed at people at low risk, such as those who have high cholesterol but have never had a heart attack, he said. “I’ve been unconvinced” of the drugs’ benefits but now may prescribe them for certain very high risk patients, said Duke University cardiologist Dr. Christopher Granger. But preventing fewer than one heart problem a year at the drug’s current price is not cost-effective, he said.

Pressure on price

An independent group, the Institute for Clinical and Economic Review, on Saturday released a new range for what Praluent should cost, based on the new results, $2,300 to $3,400 per year for people like those in the study. A price of $4,500 to $8,000 per year would be justified for patients at higher risk, with LDL of more than 100. From 300,000 to 400,000 people in the U.S. each year fall in that second category. Praluent’s makers say they will aim for those price ranges for insurers that remove barriers to coverage for people at the highest risk.

Study: Cholesterol Drug Modestly Lowers Risk of Heart Attack, Death

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Love how you bump these threads

 

[DGS49]

Blood cholesterol has almost nothing to do with diet. It is determined by heredity.

The Atkins diet is LOADED with cholesterol and generally has no effect (or a positive effect) on plaque buildup in arteries.