Statins will reduce your cholesterol (and possibly do other things as well). The question is whether reducing your cholesterol is a good thing or not. I happen to think it makes little difference to me. You might want to take a look at the results of the HUNT2 study on over 52,000 people, particularly in relation to women.
Link to study:
Our study provides an updated epidemiological indication of possible errors in the CVD risk algorithms of many clinical guidelines. If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the 'dangers' of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for...
pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Conclusion of study:
Our study provides an updated epidemiological indication of possible errors in the CVD risk algorithms of many clinical guidelines. If our findings are generalizable, clinical and public health recommendations regarding the 'dangers' of cholesterol should be revised. This is especially true for women, for whom moderately elevated cholesterol (by current standards) may prove to be not only harmless but even beneficial.
It is difficult to understand what they mean by cholesterol. The following article may help
This shows cholesterol is a specific molecule structure that our body builds and which is used throughtout the body. It is not what the doctor is discussing in the surgery. What he is worrried about is bubbles made of cholesterol that transport fats and amino acids in a waterproof form to stop them mixing with the water in the blood.
There are now 4 different classes of 'cholesterol'. VLDL, HDL, LDL and sdLDL. Triglycerides are fat lipids attached in three's to a glycerol stem, and is the form that is stored in the liver and adipose tissue. It too is not easily transported in water.
The blood test measures total cholesterol, HDL and trigs. then LDL is estimated using the Friedland Formula where LDL = TC - HDL - (TG/5), It is known to be inaccurate, and in the US they use a different formula.
Not sure what TG is a measure of. Its called Trigs, but it is measiured by clotting the blood sample, then stripping out the fats and leaving just the glycerol which is then analysed. So it is not clear what it is composed of (i,e, it seems to be the residue of all the glycerol in the blood sample, so includes VLDL and sdLDL residues too. I always understood it to be a measure of the residue, and thus is including other stuff apart from the usual culprits.
Now recent research has discovered sdLDL which is small dense LDL and this is damaged LDL that is not removed by HDL since it is no longer useful LDL. It is in effect a waste product. Now I can believe that high levels of sdLDL in the blood would also affect the TG glycerol result, and would be a potential marker of stress and inflammation in the body, So sdLDL may be the real Bad Boy of cholesterol and why high TG levels are bad for us. That makes sense to me.
I have always been surprised that the TG value is generally much less than the other markers in the blood test. If it was the glycerol from ths LDL etc then it should be quite dense. But if it is only measuring the glycerol in the serum i.e. no longer connected to the active lipids locked in the clotted sample, then it becomes a useful marker. So I ask what is the blood test actually measuring? The results (often less than 1mmol/l) neither support total glycerol or lipid glycerol from active 'cholesterol' It must be the residue glycerol and hence associated with the sdLDL. But I admit I am confused. To call this parameter Trigs is confusing since all 'cholesterol' is stuffed full of trigs.