<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	xmlns:georss="http://www.georss.org/georss" xmlns:geo="http://www.w3.org/2003/01/geo/wgs84_pos#" xmlns:media="http://search.yahoo.com/mrss/"
	>

<channel>
	<title> &#187; cholesterol</title>
	<atom:link href="http://medicalconsumers.org/tag/cholesterol/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://medicalconsumers.org</link>
	<description></description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 03 Feb 2012 21:23:17 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.com/</generator>
<cloud domain='medicalconsumers.org' port='80' path='/?rsscloud=notify' registerProcedure='' protocol='http-post' />

	<atom:link rel="search" type="application/opensearchdescription+xml" href="http://medicalconsumers.org/osd.xml" title="" />
	<atom:link rel='hub' href='http://medicalconsumers.org/?pushpress=hub'/>
		<item>
		<title>Of wine, cholesterol, and triglycerides</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/03/13/of-wine-cholesterol-and-triglycerides/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/03/13/of-wine-cholesterol-and-triglycerides/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sun, 13 Mar 2011 15:52:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Men's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol as poor predictor of heart attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol-lowering drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[marginal effectiveness of statins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stroke prevention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triglycerides]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[triglycerides as predictor of heart attack]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[wine as stroke preventive]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[women and heart disease]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=7496</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[For years I’ve wondered why doctors continue to test women for high cholesterol when studies show it has no value in predicting heart attack or stroke. And more to the point, why prescribe cholesterol-lowering drugs to women for heart disease prevention when there’s no proven benefit? Yes, men appear to benefit from cholesterol-lowering, but surprisingly few as it turns out. Wouldn’t it be better---and safer---to simply tell us to have a daily glass of wine?  My questions only became magnified this week when I came across the Copenhagen Heart Study (CHS), which has followed healthy people for over 33 years to see who develops cardiovascular problems. As with the Framingham Heart Study, the CHS has generated multiple smaller studies over the years.
<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=7496&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/03/13/of-wine-cholesterol-and-triglycerides/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>20</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Heart screening tests</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/02/21/heart-screening-tests/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/02/21/heart-screening-tests/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 21 Feb 2011 18:30:53 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Screening]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[abdominal aortc aneurysm]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heart scans radiation]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heart screening tests]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[peripheral artery dicease]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statins]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=7380</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Consumer Reports is to be congratulated on its ratings for heart screening tests. In much the same way this popular magazine has always presented test results for toasters, cars, and sneakers, CR has assessed the research supporting nine heart screening tests. Only two---blood pressure measurement and the standard blood test---have strong evidence indicating that the benefits clearly outweigh the risks. 

<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=7380&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2011/02/21/heart-screening-tests/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Drugs to prevent stroke and heart attack</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/12/10/how-effective-is-preventive-medicine/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/12/10/how-effective-is-preventive-medicine/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Fri, 10 Dec 2010 17:36:34 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Doctors]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[hypertension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Men's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Women's Health]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[120 80]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[120/80]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[140/90]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[blood pressure 140/90]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol-lowering drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[heart attack prevention]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[normal blood pressure below 120/80]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prehypertension]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prehypertension how real]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[prehypertension treatment]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[risk reduction]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[stroke prevention]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=6919</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Drug treatment of risk factors like bone loss is firmly entrenched in the American psyche as prevention. More accurately, though, this type of drug treatment is just risk reduction, or lowering the chance of some dire occurrence like a hip fracture. Once told you’re at high risk for something, you are expected to take a drug to lower that risk and to comply with the followup doctor visits. You have, in effect, become a patient, albeit one without any symptoms. Rarely, does the prescribing physician explain the math to you. Simply put, what is the “patient’s” risk of having a heart attack now and how much of that risk is lowered by taking the drug. One thing that is almost always left out is an estimate of the drug-related adverse effects. 

<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=6919&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2010/12/10/how-effective-is-preventive-medicine/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>1</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Red Yeast Rice Supplements: Not a Safe Alternative to Statins</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/07/01/red-yeast-rice-supplements-not-a-safe-alternative-to-statins/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/07/01/red-yeast-rice-supplements-not-a-safe-alternative-to-statins/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 01 Jul 2009 14:05:51 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Alternative Medicine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medicalconsumers.org/?p=2677</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Many people who cannot tolerate any of the cholesterol-lowering drugs called statins (e.g., Lipitor, Pravachol, Zocor) turn to an herbal supplement called red yeast rice, which lowers the low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol. Statin intolerance is most often chalked up to muscle pain (myalgia). A rare side effect of all statins is the potentially fatal disease [...]<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=2677&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2009/07/01/red-yeast-rice-supplements-not-a-safe-alternative-to-statins/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
		<item>
		<title>Take a Closer Look at Statin&#8217;s Benefit</title>
		<link>http://medicalconsumers.org/2008/12/01/take-a-closer-look-at-statins-benefit/</link>
		<comments>http://medicalconsumers.org/2008/12/01/take-a-closer-look-at-statins-benefit/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Mon, 01 Dec 2008 20:17:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>medconsumers</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Heart]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statins]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol drugs]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[cholesterol overrated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[overtreatment cholesterol]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statins overrated]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statins' effectiveness]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[statins' minimal benefit]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[truth about statins]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://medconsumers.wordpress.com/?p=1191</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[The current practice of advising healthy adults to go on prolonged drug therapy just got a big boost from a large international trial. It found that people with normal cholesterol can halve their risk for heart attack and stroke by taking the cholesterol-lowering statin drug Crestor (generic name: rosuvastatin). Although at low risk for heart disease, all the participants had high blood levels of C-reactive protein, or CRP, which indicates the presence of inflammation within the artery walls.<img alt="" border="0" src="http://stats.wordpress.com/b.gif?host=medicalconsumers.org&amp;blog=7088906&amp;post=1191&amp;subd=medconsumers&amp;ref=&amp;feed=1" width="1" height="1" />]]></description>
		<wfw:commentRss>http://medicalconsumers.org/2008/12/01/take-a-closer-look-at-statins-benefit/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
	
		<media:content url="" medium="image">
			<media:title type="html">Maryann</media:title>
		</media:content>
	</item>
	</channel>
</rss>
