Oxidized LDL

[pamojja]

Thanks for the link to the calculator, John.

Trying to figure out where this changed from LDL cholesterol to infectious disease? Will probably split

This thread inquired about ox-LDL, with responses that this test (which gives a approximation of oxidation/antioxidant capacity, for example by supplementing vitamin C) wouldn't be really useful. I somehow disagreed with this sediment, though not in isolation, but by viewing it in relation to other laboratory marker, diet and health status associations might become obvious and adjustment possible to be made. To be adjusted with newer findings again. - Simply because there are too many possible preconditions or nutritional deficiencies in individuals than Lp(a) or any lab marker alone possibly affecting calcification and the progression of this disease.

One of this precondition could be chronic inflammation due to infectious disease. However, that has only been one suggestion among others by John, and splitting this thread at this point - where infectious disease is only a theory - would be a bid premature, the relation to the whole lost again. Would be a different case if it would have been verified by the numerous test in this direction I already had.

Anyway, the way you see it: LDL OR infections, should be really LDL AND in infections, because LDL usually goes up with infections. And if it doesn't, like in one experience by me, that could tell someone knowledgeable something additional again. Never in isolation.

[pamojja]

I have a bias against "oxidized LDL" because it seems to be an invention to justify the continued interest in lowering LDL through drugs. When it became clear the ordinary LDL was harmless, "they" began researching "oxidized" LDL.

Well, my experience with numerous physicians has been that ox-LDL isn't recognized a useful test at all, and has to be paid out of one's own pocket. And none of those physicians have realized yet that ordinary LDL would be harmless, on the contrary it seems really the only lab marker they would want to 'tread' with statins. - You must live in a different century

Alone by ordinary antioxidants capacity, like vitamin C's to lower ox-LDLs, I doubt it will be recognized a valuable test very soon.

[jimmylesante]

What is a good test for indicating heart disease? I am told that nothing much is indicative of heart disease or likely to cause heart disease, so the cholesterol tests are pretty worthless?
I had a cholesterol test which was in limits but high 4.6. I then went for a homocysteine test(because you get bored out here) it was 13.3. For the next 2 weeks i did not eat any meat or meat products(this included not eating chicken/fish etc which was a whole new argument!) I ate veges and fruit. I retested homocysteine and it was 10.2. I believe this is quite a drop just from making food changes, and according to "Patrick Holford" the drop would have been even more significant if i was taking B6/12/3 and B complex daily. What did confuse me was that Holford says if you are taking large doses of Vitamin C(i take 5-20g/day) then your Homocysteine would be raised??
So many questions,,, has anyone had MRI(A) done to assess the calcium deposits then do the heart protocol nutrients for some time and retest MRI(A)? I'm guessing a MRI(A) is the best test to tell if you have heart disease but is restricted due to cost?
Jimmy

[ofonorow]

If there was a really good (and inexpensive test) then someone would have run a study about vitamin C and lysine 15 years ago!

Actually a total cholesterol test can be a good test - but not for the reasons generally cited by medicine. Your total cholesterol number is correlated to your vitamin C intake (See Ginter post in clinical studies and also Pauling's discussion of Ginter in book HOW TO LIVE LONGER AND FEEL BETTER.) If you are taking optimal vitamin C, meaning you are unknowingly perhaps preventing, stopping or reversing your heart disease, then the number will be 180 mg/dl. (Note: When I personally added lysine, my number dropped to 160 mg). In most people, the higher above 180 mg their total cholesterol is, the more vitamin C they should be taking until it "normalizes" to 180.

The best test for heart disease is probably the Lp(a) fraction of cholesterol. However, because this test can't sell drugs (there are no drugs that lower Lp(a), it isn't usually measured. The higher your Lp(a) - the more important it is to be taking "Lp(a) binding inhibitors" - e.g. vitamin C, lysine and proline per the Pauling/Rath patents.

I am a believer in the so-called nuclear stress test - because I happened to pass it with flying colors. The test can show postive results, and is not designed merely to "sell" heart operations. Basically they inject a substance that can be seen on an xray? into the heart. It lights up the picture where blood is flowing. If there is a part of your heart that is not getting good circulation, it will show up darker on the picture.

Dr. Bush has an unproven, you potentially powerful, non invasive method of examining microscopic retinal arteries for signs of cardiovascular disease. (Most eye doctors know that heart disease can be seen, but they have no experience with it being reversed. Bush happened to notice that nutrition did in fact reverse the "atheromas" in his patients eyes.)
He calls the method Cardioretinometry, and I just found out that Sam's club opticians will take the necessary retinal photo for $9 - and give it to you on a flash drive.

And if you are interested in an invasive procedure, there is always an angiogram.