Dietary Cholesterol Concerns Reversed After 40 Years

[Winemaker]

Wait until the global cooling, no,acid rain, no, global warming, no, climate change theory gets debunked. It's going to be a cool day, no, burning day, no, hot day, no, hot and cold day in hell on earth.

[RonBoyd]

One more:

Saturated fat & CHD in Europe

Quote:

... for all 192 countries in the world, for men and women, for CVD deaths and all-cause mortality, the HIGHER the cholesterol levels, the LOWER the death rate; the LOWER the cholesterol levels, the HIGHER the death rate. The Pearson correlation coefficient gets higher as we move from male CVD deaths to female CVD deaths to male all deaths to female all deaths. This blog repeats the exercise of examining the association between heart disease (this time CHD) and an accused causal agent (this time saturated fat).

[audreyh1]

Interesting experience at the docs today. He thought my LDL cholesterol was a bit "high" because it came in at 107. Of course it was the limit set on the lab report that marked it as H, and claimed <100 mg/dl as the OK range.

But < 100 is the range for someone already being treated for heart disease or otherwise having high risk factors.

< 130 is an appropriate range for someone like me. And even <160 is an acceptable range for someone with otherwise low risk factors.

I was quite pleased with the results, because it was an improvement over a measurement from 3 years ago, especially the total cholesterol at 183. HDL was 51.

Just one of those annoying niggly things. The lab reports have to put a range, and in this case they select one of the most conservative.

This doc is not a cardiologist. And he said he wasn't inclined to be "aggressive" about treating it because people with thyroid issues tend to have somewhat elevated LDL. And I'm sitting there thinking - I don't think that's particularly high.......

[d0ug]

Here is a blog I wrote a wait back that gives you some idea about cholesterol
The doctors were told by their education that cholesterol was the cause of clogged arteries. This was backed up by the American Heart Association who took a 1.7 million bribe in the early 1900s to recommend Crisco as a substitute for saturated fat. This was based on work done by Dr. Ansell Keys who done a falsified study which was the seven country study later called the Mediterranean diet. Dr. Ansell Keys who was on the board of Proctor and Gamble and also a part of the American Heart Association. In his study he ignored all countries and groups that had the opposed facts like the American Eskimos whos diet is 75% saturated fat and have the lowest heart problems of anyone in the world and lowest cancer others are Maasai 66%. Rendille 63% and Tokelau 60% all have very low heart problems.
50% of people with heart attacks have low or what they call normal cholesterol. The Eskimos have cholesterol level of 350 to 500.
In 1971a paper published in Denmark showed that vegans had worst clogged arteries than meat eaters.
One question is never asked why it is only in arteries not veins you only hear about arteriosclerosis not veiniosclerosis. The body is intelligent and a hole in an artery is life threatening but in most veins it is not. When you have damage in the artery and the walls get weaken the body needs a band aid and it uses what it has is cholesterol. Just in the last few months the FDA has admitted that the problem is damaged to the artery wall and that cholesterol is not the cause. With tunnel vision it is easy to blame the band aid for the cut as every time you see a band aid there is a cut.
What is Crisco? Well it was made as a submarine diesel lubricant made by a German chemist later sold to Proctor and Gamble to make candles and soap.
There is the same amount of cholesterol in the veins as in the arteries but the veins don’t get plugged with cholesterol this is a fact ignored.
What has this paranoia with cholesterol done fist what they used to replace lard, butter was margarine and oils all oxidise and become free radicals and trans fats who are now recognise as the problem with heart disease by the FDA in 2015 they are banning trans fats.
The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors.
Is there any cholesterol deficiency diseases? Let us check what cholesterol does in the body
All sex hormones are made from cholesterol has there been an increase in erectile dysfunction or menopause problems?
The myelin of the brain affected by Alzheimer is 100% cholesterol if you do not have t you can fix anything.
Cholesterol in the skin exposed to sun light becomes vitamin D which they now claim there is a deficiency and it is a powerful part of the immune system. Also needed for many functions in the body.
Cholesterol is a large clumsy molecule and is hard to digest so in the best of times if anyone has a digestive problem they might not be getting enough.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d0ug Here is a blog I wrote a wait back that gives you some idea about cholesterol ...

Well, there was a lot there, and I suppose some of it has some truth to it. But, do you have any credible sources for any of this?
It reminded me of this post:

http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1203820

Really, the following ought to be pretty easy to confirm/deny:

Quote:

The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors.

So, got a link to this 'notice'?

Quote:

What is Crisco? Well it was made as a submarine diesel lubricant made by a German chemist ...

Well, pretty much any 'natural' oil/fat also has lubricating properties, that in and of itself doesn't mean we should not consume it.

If you really want people to listen, try some real info rather than a long winded, un-referenced sermon. I'd like to learn, but I need some back up.


-ERD50

[d0ug]

Quote:

Originally Posted by ERD50 Well, there was a lot there, and I suppose some of it has some truth to it. But, do you have any credible sources for any of this? It reminded me of this post: http://www.early-retirement.org/foru...ml#post1203820 Really, the following ought to be pretty easy to confirm/deny: So, got a link to this 'notice'? Well, pretty much any 'natural' oil/fat also has lubricating properties, that in and of itself doesn't mean we should not consume it. If you really want people to listen, try some real info rather than a long winded, un-referenced sermon. I'd like to learn, but I need some back up. -ERD50

Here is the notices sent out by the FDA

FDA Expands Advice on Statin Risks
FDA announces safety changes in labeling for some cholesterol-lowering drugs

Any oil when exposed to oxygen becomes oxidized and now dangerous also when heated becomes a trans fat both of these cause free radical damage in the arteries which now the FDA is going to ban trans fats.

The FDA takes step to remove artificial trans fats in processed foods
FDA announces plan to ban trans fat from food supply - CBS News

[donheff]

Quote:

Originally Posted by d0ug Here is the notices sent out by the FDA FDA Expands Advice on Statin Risks FDA announces safety changes in labeling for some cholesterol-lowering drugs

I follow this stuff fairly closely (albeit I can never remember the details). But above you say there is a 53% increase in diabetes and a 100% increase in dementia. A quick read through the the article you first quoted indicates that the FDA is alerting to "some" cognitive impairment and "people...may have increased risk.. of type 2 diabetes." These are real concerns and contributed to my decision to discontinue statins a few years ago. But they don't match your alarmist rhetoric. I am not going to bother digging around to see if anything else you cited actually supports the hyperbole. If it does, please extract some details for us so we will be enlightened.

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by donheff I follow this stuff fairly closely (albeit I can never remember the details). But above you say there is a 53% increase in diabetes and a 100% increase in dementia. A quick read through the the article you first quoted indicates that the FDA is alerting to "some" cognitive impairment and "people...may have increased risk.. of type 2 diabetes." These are real concerns and contributed to my decision to discontinue statins a few years ago. But they don't match your alarmist rhetoric. I am not going to bother digging around to see if anything else you cited actually supports the hyperbole. If it does, please extract some details for us so we will be enlightened.

Thanks for the summary, saved me some time!

Quote:

Originally Posted by d0ug ... The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors. ...

So d0ug, specifically, where in that notice does it report a "52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer]"? Maybe Don and I missed it?

And since the report also says this:

Quote:

What should patients do if they fear that statin use could be clouding their thinking? “Talk to your health care professional,” Egan says. “Don’t stop taking the medication; the consequences to your heart could be far greater.”

and this:

Quote:

“Clearly we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs this small increased risk,”

then your claim that ' this was ignored by most doctors' is twisted. Ignoring it would have meant they stopped prescribing it, but that is not what you claim.

Again, there may be real concerns here, but hyperbole and distortion is no way to sort things out. You are not doing yourself or anyone any favors, IMO.


-ERD50

[HFWR]

On my phone, so too difficult to look up references, but increased risk of diabetes is known. Also, it appears that the secondary effect of reducing inflammation is the primary benefit of taking a statin, not the cholesterol-lowering effect.

[razztazz]

Quote:

“Clearly we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs this small increased risk,”

BS. The risk is always 100% for somebody. Group aggregate output data cannot be used to diagnose and treat an individual. They used to tech that in medical school. If you are experiencing these side effects it is absolutely absurd to continue taking them especially if you are like me ie perfectly healthy but your doctor insists on treating "risk" all the while increasing your risk of death or disability by doctor. The actual medical facts are the risk of side effects may very well be greater than any implied risk of a future heart attack. A risk your doctor knows and wants to know nothing about. If you are being degraded by side effects the risk is already 100%. A medical certainty. The heart attack? If your doctor says he knows when you'll have one or if you'll have one he's lying unless you are already in a very bad way. In which case the statins are a roll of the dice and a hail mary pass. Almost ALL statins are not prescribed to such people. They are prescribed for people with no discernible medical issues except the perceived and quite lucrative "illness" of "high"(whatever the hell that is) cholesterol.

That comment in the article is just doctors circling the wagons the way cops circle the wagons after shooting the wrong person then insisting they somehow felt threatened.

[RonBoyd]

Quote:

Originally Posted by HFWR Also, it appears that the secondary effect of reducing inflammation is the primary benefit of taking a statin, not the cholesterol-lowering effect.

Not directly related to this thread but still a well written article on the anti-inflammatory effects of Aspirin is Lowly Aspirin Versus NSAID Challengers - Ketopia.

Quote:

Aspirin is Not Just an Analgesic Anymore Aspirin is a unique medication. There is no other drug known that can do what aspirin does. As important as aspirin is in its fundamental role in modifying inflammatory eicosanoid pathways, perhaps of even greater consequence for the health and well being of present and future generations are the more recent discoveries of the hitherto unsuspected role of aspirin in resolution (the healing process) and the unanticipated existence of whole new classes of aspirin-triggered anti-inflammatory eicosanoids and docosanoids, also termed lipid mediators, that have been uncovered by the research into aspirin’s mechanism of action.(9) “Inflammation is now widely appreciated in the pathogenesis of many human diseases. These extend from the well-known inflammatory diseases such as arthritis and periodontal disease to those not previously linked to aberrant inflammation that today include diseases affecting many individuals such as cancer, cardiovascular diseases, asthma, and Alzheimer’s disease”.(4) 9) Ottoboni A, Ottoboni F. The Modern Nutritional Diseases and How to Prevent Them,Second Ed. Fernley, NV: Vincente Books, 2013. 4) Serhan CN. Lipoxins and aspirin-triggered 15-epi-lipoxins are the first lipid mediators of endogenous anti-inflammatory and resolution. Prostaglandins, Leukotrienes, and Essential Fatty Acids. 2005; 73 141-162.

Interesting observation:

Quote:

Despite the tremendous investment in time and money in NSAID research through the decades, clinical experience has shown that no NSAID has been found that is more effective or safer to use than aspirin.(2) ... Interestingly, the excellent safety record of aspirin has done nothing to improve the acceptance of aspirin by the medical community. The decades have rolled by quietly with family and emergency room physicians routinely rolling their eyes when the word “aspirin” is mentioned. 2) Metcalf E. Aspirin: The Miracle Drug. New York, NY: Avery: a member of the Penguin Group, 2005.

[audreyh1]

The new guidelines (from Nov 2013) say that someone with 0 to 1 risk factors can have LDL level up to 160 and be considered fine.

My one risk factor is my age.

On top of that I have an excellent CRP (C-reactive Protein) result - meaning no inflammation.

So I guess next time this comes up I'll have to remind the doctor that I am in the low risk category.

One thing that does concern me about the latest guidelines, is that as we age into our late 60s, 100% of men and 97% of women are supposed to take statins regardless of their cholesterol levels or any other risk factor other than age. That seems extreme.

I prefer to keep my cholesterol levels at the high end of the healthy range for me, because I think it's protective as I age.

[braumeister]

Nobody is really sure what the obvious culprit in heart disease is, but it's pretty well known that your blood cholesterol level is not it. Unfortunately, well known is not the same as well accepted.

Quote:

Half of all heart attacks and cases of cardiovascular disease occur in people with normal or even low levels of LDL. -- BusinessWeek, 1/17/08

Quote:

Half of all heart attacks occur in people with normal or even optimal cholesterol levels. A fascinating study published in the American Heart Journal (Jan. 2009) revealed that roughly half of the 140,000 patients hospitalized with a heart attack had LDL cholesterol levels around 100 at the time of admission, which is considered quite good. According to the lead researcher, Dr. Gregg Fonarow, “almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol…"

[HFWR]

Quote:

Originally Posted by braumeister Nobody is really sure what the obvious culprit in heart disease is, but it's pretty well known that your blood cholesterol level is not it. Unfortunately, well known is not the same as well accepted.

And yet a current TV ad in this area features a well-known university touting cholesterol-lowering drugs as one of their major achievements...

[ERD50]

Quote:

Originally Posted by razztazz Quote: “Clearly we think that the heart benefit of statins outweighs this small increased risk,” BS. The risk is always 100% for somebody. ... .

That may be true, but it still seems that the comment that dOug made is flat out wrong:

Quote:

Originally Posted by d0ug .... The FDA is February 2012 sent out a notice telling all doctors to get their patients off statins because there is a 52% increase in diabetes and 100% increase in dementia [Alzheimer] this was ignored by most doctors. ...

The report does not seem to say that at all. Regardless of whether statins are good/bad/indifferent.

-ERD50

[W2R]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 Interesting experience at the docs today. He thought my LDL cholesterol was a bit "high" because it came in at 107. Of course it was the limit set on the lab report that marked it as H, and claimed <100 mg/dl as the OK range. But < 100 is the range for someone already being treated for heart disease or otherwise having high risk factors. < 130 is an appropriate range for someone like me. And even <160 is an acceptable range for someone with otherwise low risk factors. I was quite pleased with the results, because it was an improvement over a measurement from 3 years ago, especially the total cholesterol at 183. HDL was 51. Just one of those annoying niggly things. The lab reports have to put a range, and in this case they select one of the most conservative. This doc is not a cardiologist. And he said he wasn't inclined to be "aggressive" about treating it because people with thyroid issues tend to have somewhat elevated LDL. And I'm sitting there thinking - I don't think that's particularly high.......

It's a lot higher than mine (78), despite my serious problem with obesity that I am constantly battling with less than stellar success, my frequent consumption of New Orleans food which is deliciously unhealthy, and my age (67). But then I'm taking cholesterol meds, and they are doing what they are supposed to do.

It seems to me that, as bright as we are (especially you, who I regard as one of the brightest members of our forum), it still may be helpful to consult highly trained, experienced experts over medical concerns such as this one. If you are dubious about your doctor's evaluation, maybe a second opinion is in order from a doctor that you feel absolutely certain knows this topic forwards, backwards, and sideways and will tell you what you need to know.

When it comes to heart and circulation health, I don't like to mess around because so many people end up dying due to heart trouble. Sure, a second opinion may not be free, but it might be well worth the cost. While there is no guarantee that a lower LDL will make any difference at all, apparently there is at least some chance it might. Most of us just don't have the background to be making these judgment calls IMO.

[audreyh1]

I will review with a primary care doctor. With a total cholesterol under 200 and HDL above 50, I am not concerned at all.

But I have studied the new guidelines and <100 for LDL is an old guideline, appropriate for those with heart disease. It is no longer used for everybody regardless of risk factors.

According to the current guidelines I am at very low risk.

[Chuckanut]

There is a huge financial incentive to treating healthy people who might get sick, versus treating people who are already sick. The entire 'statins for otherwise healthy people' thing is suspect, IMHO, until I see proof that it significantly reduces death and/or improves quality of life for people who otherwise have no cardio vascular disease.

Here is some information from the NNT (Numbers Needed to Treat) website for people who do NOT have diagnosed heart disease and are treated with statins for 5 years.

Statins for Heart Disease Prevention (Without Prior Heart Disease) | theNNT

Benefits

• 98% saw no benefit
• 0% were helped by being saved from death
• 0.96% were helped by preventing a heart attack
• 0.65% were helped by preventing a stroke

Harms

• 1% were harmed by developing diabetes**
• 10% were harmed by muscle damage

Concerning diabetes they made an estimate as follows:

Quote:

The raw numbers of 270 and 216 new onset diabetes cases from 24 months of exposure to a statin and a placebo (respectively) can be extrapolated, assuming that increased diabetes risk is likely to continue linearly with exposure. This yields 675 and 540 cases at 5 years. Combining these numbers with the AFCAPS numbers yields a relative risk of 1.22 for development of diabetes (not 1.18 as reported by Cochrane, and NOT 1.81 as we had erroneously reported in an earlier version of this review, which also led to an erroneously low NNH of 50). This updated relative risk increase of 1.22% translates to an absolute risk of 1.12%, or 1 in 89. This may, however, be flawed in its assumption of a linear increase. Perhaps the increase in diabetes risk is frontloaded, and does not rise above that found at two years. In this case the risk increase would be 1.18 as suggested by the Cochrane group, and the absolute risk increase in this case would be 0.43%, or 1 in 233. The answer likely lies between 0.4% and 1.5%, and we have chosen what we believe to be a conservative estimate of 1% as a midway point in this credible interval.

[audreyh1]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chuckanut Here is some information from the NNT (Numbers Needed to Treat) website for people who do NOT have diagnosed heart disease and are treated with statins for 5 years. Statins for Heart Disease Prevention (Without Prior Heart Disease) | theNNT Benefits 98% saw no benefit 0% were helped by being saved from death 0.96% were helped by preventing a heart attack 0.65% were helped by preventing a stroke Harms 1% were harmed by developing diabetes** 10% were harmed by muscle damage

That's a really great summary. I think it helps to look at numbers needed to treat in terms of whole numbers of how many healthy people needed to be treated with a preventative treatment for 1 person to benefit, rather than percentages. The paper summarized them this way at the top. When you look at it this way, it doesn't look like benefits outweigh the harms for otherwise healthy people.

For preventative treatment over 5 years in people with no known heart disease:

Benefits in Numbers Needed to Treat (NNT)

• None were helped (life saved)
• 1 in 104 were helped (preventing heart attack)
• 1 in 154 were helped (preventing stroke)

Harms in Numbers Needed to Harm (NNH?)

• 1 in 100 were harmed (develop diabetes*)
• 1 in 10 were harmed (muscle damage)

So basically, you have more people developing diabetes, than avoiding a heart attack (just barely), or stroke (lower chance of stroke than diabetes). And you have 1 in 10 people developing muscle damage!!!!! That's a lot higher than those avoiding heart attack or stroke. The muscle damage side effects of statins can be extremely severe.

Yes, I'm really suspicious about using statins as a primary preventative in otherwise healthy individuals, especially women and elderly people. The numbers needed to treat to benefit one person are enormous. The side effects can be serious. And no mortality benefit.

[MildlyEccentric]

Quote:

Originally Posted by audreyh1 I will review with a primary care doctor. With a total cholesterol under 200 and HDL above 50, I am not concerned at all.

I wouldn't get too complacent. I had my total cholesterol checked starting in 1985 and never once had a reading above 200 (HDL was below 50 however). 2 plus years ago I was diagnosed with significant coronary artery disease. If you are want to check your risk, here is a link to an estimator.