Protica Nutritional Research
The word cholesterol has become substitutable with poor health. Indeed, cardinal does not typically hear the word used, or see it printed, unless it points to yet another heavy fact -- that high cholesterol is the number cardinal factor for coronary heart disease, and the number cardinal cause of heart attacks[i].
However, cholesterol is, in itself, not a negative thing. On the contrary, cholesterol plays a vital role in forming cell membranes, regulating hormones, insulating nerves, and more. The problem with cholesterol therefore lays not in cholesterol itself, but the amount of cholesterol attending in the bloodstream. For most Americans who talk and read active this subject, the scenario almost always involves too untold cholesterol, or the condition known as hypercholesterolemia.
When there is too untold cholesterol in the blood, it cannot easily dissolve, and thus cannot effectively be transported to cells by the carrier called light lipoprotein (LDL). This can create a build-up of LDL cholesterol (a.k.a. “bad cholesterol”), and start to interfere with arteries that transport blood to the heart and brain. some a stroke and a heart attack are the most severe manifestations of LDL cholesterol build-up, and the important reason why so many people are seeking ways to reduce the LDL build-up in their bloodstream[ii].
However, reducing cholesterol has been fraught with challenges. Though reducing or eliminating definite foods from diet is a needed first step for most individuals, whatsoever who suffer from hypercholesterolemia require medical interventions to immediately begin lowering their risk of heart attack or stroke. As such, dozens of cholesterol-lowering statin drugs are currently on the market, and while some people have experienced relief repayable to their use, there are broadside effects that cause concern, including nausea, diarrhea, muscle tenderness, and increased colored enzymes[iii]. The out-of-pocket costs of these statin drugs can also be cost prohibitive for those not crustlike by a house-to-house drug plan.
However, a natural product called policosinol is generating an eery amount of attention – both constructive and negative – from the medical community in floodlit of its acknowledged cholesterol lowering capacity. Derived from the wax of sugarcanes and honeybees, policosinol is same by some to reduce cholesterol, offer no known broadside effects, be harmless in high doses, increase blood flow, reduce platelet clumps, and prevent atherosclerosis (plaque buildup on the artery walls)[iv].
Studies have been conducted on policosinol efficacy, and there is some empirical research evidence that supports it as a high LDL cholesterol remedy. A 2002 study by researchers at the University of Bonn reviewed 60 objective trials involving 3000 patients, and finished with cautious optimism that policosinol is a promising secondary to cholesterol cloudy stain drugs, and thus warrants far study[v].
However, those poised to buy policosinol and lower their cholesterol should approach with caution; and this is the message voiced by those who are less than enthusiastic about the policosinol’s emergence as something of a wonder cure.
Though a natural remedy and thus far not causing the broadside effects associated with statin drugs, those skeptical about policosinol quickly point down that it is not an FDA approved drug. As such, it has not been subjected to the rigorous testing that comes with favorable a new drug, including supervised preclinical trials and standard testing in successively larger population of people. The fact that the FDA approves 1 out of 5000, or .0002 of the applications that it receives for new drug approval, is an indication of how highly valued – and rare – this approval is.
However, this instigates other debate – whether the FDA approval process is the most appropriate way to accept drugs into drug plans, and whether doctors should be permitted to prescribe non-FDA-approved drugs without unreasonable concerns for malpractice lawsuits. Indeed, an MD may have personally benefited from a earthy remedy like policosinol, but to prescribe that to a patient requires much support than own preference, or equal personal testimony.
And it is the intersection of these cardinal separate debates -- whether policosinol works or not, and whether the FDA approval process is fair or not – that the situation, and verdict on policosinol, currently lies. This debate is frustrating to complete sides; including patients themselves, who simply want a realistic solution.
However, despite these frustrations, the fact that efforts are being undertaken to develop – or verify – a remedy that is safe, complete, and free of side-effects – is a step in the right direction. Additional research on policosinol will far clarify whether that step should be towards FDA approval, or towards a warning label.
REFERENCES
[i] Source: “Heart Mender”.
CNN.Com.
Recent comments
16 hours 27 min ago
18 hours 37 min ago
1 day 5 hours ago
3 days 14 hours ago
3 days 16 hours ago
3 days 18 hours ago
4 days 13 hours ago
4 days 14 hours ago
5 days 9 hours ago
5 days 11 hours ago