Bad cholesterol or Bad Science?

[coach hale]

LDL Cholesterol: Bad Cholesterol or Bad Science?

http://www.jpands.org/vol10no3/colpo.pdf

thanks,
coach hale

[PlankIt]

Or good marketing?


...thanks for posting that!

[coach hale]

Drug treatment of Hyperlididemia in women
http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/291/18/2243

thanks,
Coach Hale

[Squat Rack]

I'm not sure I agree with that article. This simple statement from the article seems absurd: "No tightly controlled clinical trial has ever conclusively demonstrated that LDL cholesterol reductions can prevent cardiovascular disease"

In fact here's a meta-analysis that proves otherwise;
"For every 25-mg/dL (0.65-mmol/L) reduction in LDL-C, the relative risk (95% CI) for various cardiovascular outcomes was as follows: vascular mortality, 0.89 (0.87-0.92); major vascular events, 0.86 (0.84-0.88); major coronary events, 0.84 (0.82-0.86); and stroke, 0.90 (0.86-0.94)."

"CONCLUSIONS: Based on meta-regression analysis of these trials, there was a significant positive relationship between reduction in LDL-C and reduction in the risk for major cardiovascular events. These results support and extend the findings of the CTTC.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/1...&ordinalpos=12

[RobLL]

At this point I am reading the literature as pointing to no connection. At least half of heart attacks occur amongst those with cholesterol under 200. And given that the average cholesterol level was about 200 that implies no connection. My bias on this issue is just recovering from a likely case of statin poisoning which caused fairly substantial polyneuropathy and chronic fatigue. It persisted for over one year. I'll take my chances with elevated LDL.

[cycomiko]

Originally Posted by RobLL

At this point I am reading the literature as pointing to no connection. At least half of heart attacks occur amongst those with cholesterol under 200. And given that the average cholesterol level was about 200 that implies no connection.

Ah, implies... screw the stats.

No connection and being the *only* connection are two separate things.

[Squat Rack]

Originally Posted by cycomiko

No connection and being the *only* connection are two separate things.

That's a very good point. The cause of heart disease is multifactorial. Diabetes, hypertension, obesity, genetic factors are among many things that lead to strokes and heart disease.

[RobLL]

Triglycerides and low HDL are likely the major markers amongst the lipids for heart problems. The science is not settled. What the statistics seem to point out is that men 40-60 who have heart problems benefit from statin drugs. Men over 65 or 70 do not benefit. There have not been studies showing that women of any age benefit. In addition about 25% of those taking statins suffer side effects, some of them serious. Stopping the statins usually reverses symptoms, but not always. The liver test does not catch all side effects. And doctors are usually in denial that their patients suffer from side effects.

[Miss Deadlift]

Science is well aware of atherosclerosis being more related to oxidized LDL then to LDL itself, and that also inflammatoiry factors are important.
But the best known way to keep oxLDL levels low is still to keep oxidizable LDL low, hence keep LDL low.
Other medications are investigated but not yet approved, so probably the only thing doctors can do is prescribe statins...so they do.