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

Cholesterol

(Discussion) we found total cholesterol to be an overestimated risk factor. Regarding the association between total cholesterol and mortality, our results generally indicated U-shaped or inverse linear curves for total and CVD mortality. Only the association with IHD among men could be interpreted as suggesting a positive, linear trend.Our results contradict the guidelines’ well-established demarcation line (5 mmol L -1) between ‘good’ and ‘too high’ levels of cholesterol. They also contradict the popularized idea of a positive, linear relationship between cholesterol and fatal disease.
Guideline-based advice regarding CVD prevention may thus be outdated and misleading, particularly regarding many women
who have cholesterol levels in the range of 5–7 mmol L -1and are currently encouraged to take better care of their health.
Click to expand...

(Conclusions) we found that the underlying assumptions regarding cholesterol in clinical guidelines for CVD prevention might be flawed: cholesterol emerged as an overestimated risk factor in our study, indicating that guideline information might be misleading, particularly for women with ‘moderately elevated’ cholesterol levels in the range of 5–7 mmol L -1 ... ‘Know your numbers’ (a concept pertaining to medical risk factor levels, including cholesterol) is currently considered part of
responsible citizenship, as well as an essential element of preventive medical care. Many individuals who could otherwise call
themselves healthy struggle conscientiously to push their cholesterol under the presumed ‘danger’ limit (i.e. the recommended cut-off point of 5 mmol L -1), coached by health personnel, personal trainers and caring family members. Massive commercial interests are linked to drugs and other remedies marketed for this purpose. It is therefore of immediate and wide interest to find out whether our results are generalizable to other populations.
Click to expand...

Interesting

Thanks for that, Dawn

Geoff
 
Well I'm not very good at picking the bones out of 'proper' studies, so thanks for posting the relevent bits.
 
And here's what Dr Kendrick concludes from the study :

As you can see, for women the story is very straightforward indeed. The higher the cholesterol level, the lower the risk of overall mortality. With regard to heart disease alone, the highest risk is at the lowest cholesterol level. For men there is more of a U shaped curve, but overall mortality is highest at the lowest cholesterol level.
Click to expand...

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/

Geoff
 
And, from the same article linked in previous post another study that's been quietly 'ignored.'

These findings do not surprise me in the least, for I have seen many other studies demonstrating exactly the same thing. The lower your cholesterol level, the shorter your life expectancy. Just to take one example. An Austrian study twice this size of this Norwegian one came to the following conclusions:

‘In men, across the entire age range, although of borderline significance under the age of 50, and in women from the age of 50 onward only, low cholesterol was significantly associated with all-cause mortality, showing significant associations with death through cancer, liver diseases, and mental diseases.’ http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term ... %20austria

Added together these studies looked at two hundred thousand people, with a total of two million years of observational data which is a pretty damned impressive amount of work and figures.
Click to expand...

Strikes me that when you ignore something, you become ignorant. That's logical. isn't it ?

Geoff
 
It is logical, I subscribe to Kendricks blog. He's not wrong about burying the good news. The bad always makes the front page.
 
Geoff, I'm half way through the Diet Delusion which you recommended on a previous topic. It certainly is an eye-opener. I personally find it staggering that the people in the NHS that prescribe low fat, high carb diets don't keep up-to-date with the research. I think governments are just too scared to say anything against the low fat dogma. The bottom line is that the NHS need to be more pragmatic and innovative with their dietary advice. If you mentioned any form of high fat low carb diets to any practitioner in the NHS then 95% of them would recommend against it, yet I bet none of them have actually looked at the science.
 
SamJB wrote
I personally find it staggering that the people in the NHS that prescribe low fat, high carb diets don't keep up-to-date with the research.
Click to expand...

Agree, but it's also the existence of what one UK professor (Bruce Charlton: Professor of Theoretical Medicine) calls Zombie Science :

http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2012/07/03/losing-faith/

Geoff
 
Back
Top