Comments on: A statinator speaks

By: Steven J. Fitch

Steven J. Fitch — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:48:52 +0000

You convinced me to stop taking a statin (simvastatin) because statins don’t improve all cause death rates. Now I read in a Johns Hopkins white paper on heart attack prevention that in a study of high dose Lipitor in elderly CHD patients, all cause mortality was improved relative to moderate dose Pravachol. (I’m 78.) No comparison was made to a low carb diet, of course. What is a guy to think?

I would like to see the paper.

By: Vic T.

Vic T. — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 17:46:45 +0000

I am a newcomer this forum & have found the information & discussions about cholesterol etc very interesting. However would it be possible to explain the different ways of measuring cholesterol & triglycerides. In the UK the measurements are different than those used in this forum. For example my recent fasting cholesterol was total 4.5 with HDL of 1.5 & LDL of 2.4. My triglyceride measurement was 0.7. How do these compare to the figures quoted in the forum?

Hi Vic–

Europe uses SI (Systeme International) units, which are mmol/l whereas the United States uses the traditional units of mg/dl.

To convert, you multiply SI cholesterol (Total, HDL, LDL) by 39. In your case, for example, a cholesterol of 4.5 mmol/l would convert to 175.5. HDL would be 58.5, and LDL = 93.6. To convert for triglycerides you need to multiply by 89, which would make your triglyceride level 62.3, which is very good indeed.

To go the other way, from US units to European units, you would simply divide the US units by 39 (for cholesterol figures) and by 89 for triglyceride numbers.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Aubrey Blumsohn

Aubrey Blumsohn — Fri, 01 Feb 2008 18:12:03 +0000

Perhaps remove the statin T-shirt or (more appropriately) give the source from where you took it.
http://www.ahrp.blogspot.com

The oversight has been corrected. My apologies.

MRE

By: Amy Meacham

Amy Meacham — Thu, 24 Jan 2008 06:19:11 +0000

Watching this idiot repeat endlessly that the best treatment for heart disease prevention is statins and the new exciting drugs which are coming (on the PBS special about heart disease last night) raised my blood pressure. Fortunately, it went down after I took my magnesium citrate.

By: Max

Max — Tue, 22 Jan 2008 15:20:40 +0000

As English is a mingling of the worst parts of two fairly logical languages, combined with a bunch of odds and ends from a number of others, it should evolve to be more user friendly. There, I said it. Everyone over 40 can get mad. Just because you learned it in grammar school doesn’t mean it’s worth retaining. And the complexities that make english hard to learn maybe don’t have a place over the next couple of centuries. What is more important? The preservation of odd things that experts can harp over and make a career of (see: William Saffire). Or, the continuing evolution of the language into a more useable and useful format. I don’t see a need to keep the folks who trade in preserving the “common” wisdom on language use anymore than continuing the employment of statinators who preserve the “common” wisdom of low cholesterol = good health.

No response needed. Please post under the new guidelines.

By: Dave Martin

Dave Martin — Mon, 21 Jan 2008 06:15:30 +0000

Great post, but grammar-policing only detracts from the legitimate points you are making. Besides, “healthy diet” is grammatically correct.

From http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/healthy :

‘ Usage Note: The distinction in meaning between healthy (”possessing good health”) and healthful (”conducive to good health”) was ascribed to the two terms only as late as the 1880s. This distinction, though tenaciously supported by some critics, is belied by citational evidence�healthy has been used to mean “healthful” since the 16th century. Use of healthy in this sense is to be found in the works of many distinguished writers, with this example from John Locke being typical: “Gardening . . . and working in wood, are fit and healthy recreations for a man of study or business.” Therefore, both healthy and healthful are correct in these contexts: a healthy climate, a healthful climate; a healthful diet, a healthy diet.’

Hi Dave–

I agree (reluctantly) that it is correct. But is it the preferred usage. I don’t think so. I’ll continue to use ‘healthful’ when I’m talking about something bringing or causing good health and ‘healthy’ when I’m talking about a state. And I won’t take anyone to task for using the terms interchangeably as long as no one takes me to task for using an affectation when I use the term ‘healthful.’

Cheers–

MRE

By: ethyl d

ethyl d — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 05:40:23 +0000

All languages change and evolve due to passage of time and geographical dispersion. In written languages there is descriptive grammar (what people actually say at any given time in a given place) and prescriptive grammar (the rules dictating what one is supposed to say, followed only by people of a certain educational level and social register–and those rules change, too). Our mass communication systems slow down the rate of linguistic change, but every language changes over time. English as it was spoken a thousand years ago now has to be learned by us as if it is a foreign language. We can’t stop “healthful” from disappearing nor can we prevent “healthy” from taking its place. Regarding the use of “millenniums,” it’s also a feature of language that irregularities regularize, and since we have almost no one left anymore who knows Latin, it’s to be expected that we will not retain Latin neuter plural endings in lieu of the predominate English “s” plural pattern. I teach ecclesiastical Latin, and the Latin that St. Jerome used in the Vulgate Bible was going through these exact same processes in the early 5th c. A.D. I constantly discover grammatical structures that are not “supposed” to be that way according to all the grammar books written for classical Latin. I used to be a totally flaming “prescriptivist,” but the more I’ve studied languages and historical linguistics, the less bent out of shape I’ve become about “bad” grammar. Today’s good grammar was yesterday’s bad grammar and today’s acceptable spelling was yesterday’s wrong spelling. All we can do is write and speak the best we can as educated people in our time and place.

Hi ethyl d–

In my head I agree with you, but at heart I guess I’m a “prescriptivist.” There are those who think that the sole purpose of language is as a tool for communication, and as long as the message gets communicated, the method isn’t important. In other words, it’s just as effective to point at something and grunt as it is to say, would you please hand me that. Both get the message across, but one is so much more…I don’t know what.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Sandi

Sandi — Sat, 19 Jan 2008 02:38:28 +0000

You guys are arguing while the Titanic is sinking. Have you forgotten the primary purpose of communication? It’s to speak so as to be understood. Like the late great admiral (whose name I forget ) roared. ” If b-u-r-d doesn’t spell bird, what the hay does it spell?” I’d have understood him if he spoke it. Now, when it comes to prescription medicines, I expect correct spelling and legibility, 2 things that are sadly lacking. With that said, he dove back into the fray!

What else can one do while the Titanic is sinking.

Cheers–

MRE

By: Mike G.

Mike G. — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 23:12:32 +0000

Healthy vs. healthful, redux
I get your point but “healthy” has long been used to mean “healthful”. My Webster’s New Collegiate is the 6th addition published in the 1960s. A brief note on the subject can be found here: http://www.bartleby.com/64/C003/0156.html
The suffix (-ful) is an unnecessary affectation that only makes English harder to learn, especially as a second language.

I get your point. And both my venerable OED and my Oxford American Dictionary list healthy as a synonym for healthful, although it’s not the first choice. I suppose both are correct, but I prefer the precision (I wouldn’t call it an affectation) of healthful when I mean producing good health as compared to healthy which can mean both a state and and an adjective.

Cheers–

MRE

By: LCforevah

LCforevah — Fri, 18 Jan 2008 21:37:35 +0000

Talk about bias! That’s just telling me that I would be “advised” to employ the usage they have decided to instigate. You would have to look at what OED edition you have, Dr Mike, as I suspect it’s recent. If you look at nineteenth and early twentieth editions, you would find that the correct usage is “dove” and that “dived” is either not entered at all, or entered with some warning that it’s incorrect i.e. uneducated usage.

I made the mistake of quoting not the OED, but the Oxford American Dictionary. Mine is the 1979 edition.

When I looked it up in the real OED, I found the following:

Pa. t. dived, (N. Amer. & dial.) dove.

Which I assume means that the correct usage (at least as deemed by the venerable OED) is ‘dived,’ whereas the North American usage or dialectal usage is ‘dove.’ To illustrate the usage, there were six quotations ranging from Shakespeare to G.B. Shaw using the past tense of dive, and all used ‘dived,’ not ‘dove.’ If it’s ‘dived’ for Shakespeare and Johnson, then it’s ‘dived’ for me. You, of course, can say it however you like. Everyone will know what you mean.

Cheers–

MRE