ExcelMale
Menu
Home
What's new
Latest activity
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
Latest activity
Videos
Lab Tests
Doctor Finder
Buy Books
About Us
Men’s Health Coaching
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Experiences
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="JimGainz" data-source="post: 181648" data-attributes="member: 19127"><p>That article is accurate to a degree but also misleading it’s accurate because they are correct that most docs are preaching 50 year old medicine about cholesterol. It’s misleading b/c it leads one to discount LDL.</p><p>The only way to get a true picture of risk is with something like Berkley or Boston Heart lab tests. These tests measure the full particle size, adherence quality, thickness etc. of both HDL and LDL particles as well as a variety of genetic markers. The article is correct that not all LDL is bad – but depending on the particle size, stickiness etc. it could be really really bad – likewise HDL could provide absolutely zero benefit if it’s not of the right consistency </p><p></p><p>But – a prudent bet is to lower all LDL and that is we are statins come in. By doing so you were automatically lowering the bad type of LDL that can only be measured with very sophisticated tests such as the ones I mentioned. (This test used to be $88 but now or over $5000 by the way).</p><p>In my case – my cardiologist ran this test and found that the really bad type of LDL is what I have as well as various genetic markers, combined with family history, yada yada yada so it made sense to start a low-dose</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="JimGainz, post: 181648, member: 19127"] That article is accurate to a degree but also misleading it’s accurate because they are correct that most docs are preaching 50 year old medicine about cholesterol. It’s misleading b/c it leads one to discount LDL. The only way to get a true picture of risk is with something like Berkley or Boston Heart lab tests. These tests measure the full particle size, adherence quality, thickness etc. of both HDL and LDL particles as well as a variety of genetic markers. The article is correct that not all LDL is bad – but depending on the particle size, stickiness etc. it could be really really bad – likewise HDL could provide absolutely zero benefit if it’s not of the right consistency But – a prudent bet is to lower all LDL and that is we are statins come in. By doing so you were automatically lowering the bad type of LDL that can only be measured with very sophisticated tests such as the ones I mentioned. (This test used to be $88 but now or over $5000 by the way). In my case – my cardiologist ran this test and found that the really bad type of LDL is what I have as well as various genetic markers, combined with family history, yada yada yada so it made sense to start a low-dose [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Share this page
Facebook
Twitter
Reddit
Pinterest
Tumblr
WhatsApp
Email
Share
Link
Sponsors
Forums
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Clinical Use of Anabolics and Hormones
Nandrolone Experiences
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
Accept
Learn more…
Top