I have recently been thinking about ways to convert others to my way of nutritional thinking that people will take seriously. In order for this to happen for most people, I think my views have to be stated in a way that doesn’t invoke any cognitive dissonance. So I think the following has to be true of my argument:

1) it can’t suggest that the conventional wisdom is COMPLETELY wrong
2) it can’t suggest that conventional wisdom researchers are COMPLETELY incompetent
3) it can’t make reference to a self-interested cabal of researchers validating each others work, because that makes me sound like I’m suggesting a conspiracy which makes me the loony person
4) it can’t suggest that the listener is a fool for continuing to believe the conventional wisdom

I’m wondering if you’d agree with the following, in respect to the facts:

Early measurements and studies on LDL cholesterol suggested to many researchers that increased LDL cholesterol was linked to heart disease, so they recommended behaviors such as avoiding avoiding animal fat consumption, which is known to increase LDL in many individuals. However, more precise, more recent studies measuring subtypes of LDL strongly suggest that small, dense LDL (typically increased by carbohydrate and most vegetable oil consumption) is a better marker of heart disease risk than total LDL. So earlier recommendations to reduce animal fat consumption and increase carbohydrate and vegetable oil consumption may have been a reasonable recommendations to make based on the earlier studies, but the newer studies suggest that those recommendations actually increase heart attack risk.

Has anyone ever checked your homocysteine level? Its only remedy a fairly high dose multivitamin pill. I have rarely seen heart problems when that number is near 7, near 11 is probably average and above 16 is a stroke / heart attack waiting to happen. That stuff is one genetic factor that OVER TIME causes artery damage but lowering it is no quick fix.

Statins don’t lower calcification rate either and with your lipid numbers, few conventional doctors would put you on a statin [unless they're afraid getting sued for not doing so].

I’m not sure about vitamin D but that also could be a factor but that’s not nearly as clear as is homocysteine.

One risk of being in a cardiac ward is that you may be surrounded by people making a carreer out of putting stents into arteries, something that all agree does not prevent the next heart attack or make you live longer — if this is done in a planned fashion.

If the cardiogram was clear and troponin was zip, I’d take a cab out (for better food) but that is your decision after you’ve studied all the charts and discussed all the options. If there was troponin, I’d take it easy for at least a month; that is a sign of heart damage. Something else than heart? Best of luck, E.V., a non-MD

Better maps do exist.Art DeVany’s upcoming book will be one such epistemocratic map (and I look forward to reading and reviewing it).I want to thank Jake for chiming in to my previous post and spurring this installment of Comment Highlight:
Jake said….

From http://www.health-heart.org/cholesterol.htm here’s some perspective:
http://www.health-heart.org/CRESTOR-rosuva_JUPITER-in-perspective.gif

A superb cartoon that NAILS it better than any scientist or MD
http://www.health-heart.org/NoBadCholesterol.jpg It’s not how much cholesterol, it’s how clean that particle: has it got enough omega-3, enough CoQ10, vitamin E or carotene-like stuff [carotenoids] or too much tans fats and heat burnt cholesterol or heat damaged polyunsaturates?