Most , if not all competent doctors subscribe to the fact that NORMAL cholesterol levels do not cause health problems , or rarely do so .
They also subscribe to the fact that excessively high levels can cause damage to the heart . The medical profession has made their evidence of that fact freely available to anyone that wants it , especially on the internet .
Evidence aside , it`s only logical and reasonable to expect that higher than normal levels of ANY substance in your body will be detrimental to your health , depending on the substance and the level .
Humans require a certain daily intake level of water in order to survive , and to maintain a healthy body . But , what would happen if you sat down and drank (or tried to) 10 gallons of water at one time ?
Aspirin can be beneficial for headaches , and a variety of aches and pains if taken one , two , or three at a time ......... but , what would you expect to happen if you swallowed a couple bottles of it at one time ?
Cholesterol is no different ! High levels can reduce the diameter of arteries to the point where the heart has to work faster and harder to circulate the blood in your system . The heart can compensate for higher than normal cholesterol levels ................ to a point !
Beyond a certain point , the heart can no longer pump enough blood throughout the body and supply enough oxygen to vital organs , such as the brain , and heart itself .
At that point , it`s only a matter of time before the onset of serious health problems .
BTW ......... you haven`t provided any links or evidence that show the medical profession is wrong about HIGH levels of cholesterol .
2007-09-11 03:44:41
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
1
2016-06-05 22:59:42
·
answer #2
·
answered by ? 3
·
0⤊
0⤋
I am not quite sure this is the place for this debate. I do agree that plaque is not just cholesterol and fat, but fibrous scar tissue as well. Is this not the healing from damage done as a result of high pressure inside the artery, and what IS the cause of increased CAD today? If not from a high fat diet. I'm sorry if I sound a bit ignorant but I am no fool, I just am looking for a logical reason.
2007-09-11 05:14:31
·
answer #3
·
answered by kerrbear 5
·
1⤊
0⤋
no longer all rape ("Sexual attack" for the politically suitable) victims are woman, nor rapists Male. The generalizations are there so as that society can forget appropriate to the undertaking. do no longer forget that girls are additionally able to committing the "act" of rape on the two an unwilling male or woman sufferer. Spare a theory for male victims. Ever questioned what help structures are in place for heterosexual adult males who've been sodomized? in accordance to maximum myths, boys who're buggered "enable' it to ensue via fact we are "curious" approximately our sexuality. (does not help to describe the bruising, tearing and broken bones, does it?) MAKE human beings attentive to WHAT THE victims HAVE long previous with the aid of extremely than purely attempt to salve society's view of this is very own self opinion.
2016-10-04 09:15:10
·
answer #4
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
Wow, three violations in one posting.
Instead of saying someone has the studies, why don't you post something to back it up? Sorry, I forgot. You don't read & understand studies. You only repeat what others have told you.
Here's a question:
"Has Razwell ever read the YA guidelines? Has he???"
2007-09-11 23:18:45
·
answer #5
·
answered by ckm1956 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
This troll shows up all the time -- click on his profile to block him, and they will eventually boot him off the site.
2007-09-11 04:38:43
·
answer #6
·
answered by formerly_bob 7
·
1⤊
0⤋
What makes you think its false?
2007-09-11 03:09:17
·
answer #7
·
answered by Andee 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you had investigated this you would know.
2007-09-11 03:29:59
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
1⤋