• Guest - w'd love to know what you think about the forum! Take the 2025 Survey »

For those worried about cholesterol levels..

I wonder how they calculated the hazard ratio and how high Cholesterol levels can go before the curve begins for females. I understand Dr Sinatra suggested a maximum chol for women of 10.3 but I do not recall his maximum for sdldl and trigs.
 
covknit said:
I wonder how they calculated the hazard ratio and how high Cholesterol levels can go before the curve begins for females. I understand Dr Sinatra suggested a maximum chol for women of 10.3 but I do not recall his maximum for sdldl and trigs.
Click to expand...
Its kind of explained in the paper that Dr K links to although it's a bit above my comprehension level...
 
Thanks Bulkbiker. I have just read the whole paper as I was a little puzzled by the bars on the graphs - error bars? 95% confidence? However, the use was well explained. I agree with the overall trends but am still wary as the heart disease vrs cholesterol levels graph shows that for some men and women in the sample increasing cholesterol levels would be associated with increased risk of ischaemic heart disease. There are just so many variables involved! However, I am happy to have any study that stops me from being concerned about my total cholesterol level of 7.3 mmol/mol - a recent development.
 
Last edited:
If my Doctor had her way I'd be on cholesterol lowering drugs and Diabetes drugs.
I must be saving the NHS a small fortune, along with all the other sufferers on the forum.
It's the 'fear' factor that big pharma relies on.
But it's all money down the drain.
 
Just goes to show that women have an unfair advantage.:bigtears:

From a totally unscientific viewpoint women seem predisposed to carry more body fat (secondary sexual characteristics) so perhaps they have evolved to be more tolerant of high fat including in the blood?

All this is of little consolation to those of my friends with familial hypercholesterolaemia who have clogged arteries and need stents or surgery. I do wonder if in these cases it is the type of cholesterol which is the problem not the total amount.
 
bulkbiker said:
THe source paper is in the link.. just over 52 thousand Norwegians almost 50:50 split
Click to expand...

well, that's a reliable amount of people. if all other criteria of scientific trial is in place it would really be true knowledge
 
bulkbiker said:
Its kind of explained in the paper that Dr K links to although it's a bit above my comprehension level...
Click to expand...
Well I do not stand an earthly then. It is excellent source material to help navigate the statins minefield. Interestingly mt GP removed statins from my repeat prescription list without comment and at the moment I am slightly overdue on the blood tests.
 
bulkbiker said:
THe source paper is in the link.. just over 52 thousand Norwegians almost 50:50 split
Click to expand...
Compared to how many in any study supporting the pro statin cause?

This study must be about the largest group to participate in one of these studies but add the supporting findings of Austrian group on top of this 52,000 10 year study and that is a large mountain of data swept under the carpet. I really do wonder why people have any faith about anything reported in the mainstream media. On the other hand lets face it; the majority do not even know traingate was a fiction so there is absolutely no hope of anything as complicated as medical research upsetting the interests of the pharmaceutical industry
Hunt 2 study
The study population comprises 52 087 Norwegians, aged 20–74, who participated in the Nord-Trøndelag Health Study (HUNT 2, 1995–1997) and were followed-up on cause-specific mortality for 10 years (510 297 person-years in total)

Austrian study
In this study, 67413 men and 82237 women (aged 20-95 years) underwent 454448 standardized examinations, which included measures of blood pressure, height, weight, and fasting samples for cholesterol, triglycerides, gamma-glutamyl transferase (GGT), and glucose in the 15-year period 1985-1999. Relations between these variables and risk of death were analyzed using two approaches of multivariate analyses (Cox proportional hazard and GEE models).
 
I didn't see anything in it that mentioned people with diabetes taking part in the study. When it comes to diabetes we are already more predisposed to heart disease and strokes but I have never seen anything that says having higher cholesterol will lower those risks in diabetics
 
Dr Snoddy said:
Thanks Bulkbiker. I have just read the whole paper as I was a little puzzled by the bars on the graphs - error bars? 95% confidence? However, the use was well explained. I agree with the overall trends but am still wary as the heart disease vrs cholesterol levels graph shows that for some men and women in the sample increasing cholesterol levels would be associated with increased risk of ischaemic heart disease. There are just so many variables involved! However, I am happy to have any study that stops me from being concerned about my total cholesterol level of 7.3 mmol/mol - a recent development.
Click to expand...
Interestingly, ALL women with TC >7 had reduced early death risk.
 
Pinkorchid said:
I didn't see anything in it that mentioned people with diabetes taking part in the study. When it comes to diabetes we are already more predisposed to heart disease and strokes but I have never seen anything that says having higher cholesterol will lower those risks in diabetics
Click to expand...
Its not diabetes specific but if you have "normalised" your blood sugars with diet then why are you any more at risk than the average joe? In fact you are probably at less risk because you eat in a better way. No need to be frightened if your cholesterol is over 4 is the message I take from this. No matter what your doctor says.. hopefully another nail in the statins coffin
 
bulkbiker said:
Its not diabetes specific but if you have "normalised" your blood sugars with diet then why are you any more at risk than the average joe? In fact you are probably at less risk because you eat in a better way. No need to be frightened if your cholesterol is over 4 is the message I take from this. No matter what your doctor says.. hopefully another nail in the statins coffin
Click to expand...

I fully agree about the "over 4" being rubbish, and thanks for posting this.

It is your first sentence that I have been made unsure about after asking this same question of my GP. Her answer was simply, you have no idea what damage was done before gaining control of BS, and having gained control this damage is most likely irreversible. Gaining control and eating well is keeping the status quo but not reversing it. Food for thought.
 
Bluetit1802 said:
I fully agree about the "over 4" being rubbish, and thanks for posting this.

It is your first sentence that I have been made unsure about after asking this same question of my GP. Her answer was simply, you have no idea what damage was done before gaining control of BS, and having gained control this damage is most likely irreversible. Gaining control and eating well is keeping the status quo but not reversing it. Food for thought.
Click to expand...

Luckily I have a prediabetes HbA1c from 2014 so I know that I wasn't too high for too long. I think that after a few (or more) months of low carbing and good control your body is able to repair itself. Maybe with some fasting to get autophagy really going. The body is an amazing piece of kit and can come back from all sorts of nasties without external intervention.
 
bulkbiker said:
Luckily I have a prediabetes HbA1c from 2014 so I know that I wasn't too high for too long. I think that after a few (or more) months of low carbing and good control your body is able to repair itself. Maybe with some fasting to get autophagy really going. The body is an amazing piece of kit and can come back from all sorts of nasties without external intervention.
Click to expand...

I went from non-diabetic to diabetic in the space of 12 months, and my HbA1c on diagnosis was only 53, so I'm not too worried about prior damage either. I hope your theory that damage can be reversed is right.
 
Back
Top