No connection between LDL cholesterol levels and heart disease, according to research

[tfudtuckerpucker]

"Published in Expert Review of Clinical Pharmacology, the review also questions the use of statins as the primary prevention tool for cardiovascular disease (CVD). "

This looks credible- wonder if there will ever be a consensus.

https://medicalxpress.com/news/2018-10-ldl-cholesterol-heart-disease.html

 

[jimandthom]

I have no doubt that at one time the LDL thing was probably a good concept based on the science at the time. Research in all areas constantly questions/alters the previous norm as more info is gleaned.


My mother had poor LDL etc, although she and her doctor did not treat for it. She was maybe 5'8" and 135 lbs, physically fit, aerobics, walking and ate the same meals she made for my hypertensive, diabetic father. She died of renal cancer at 73.


Many ways I think the validity of these and other similar drugs is a "which came first" situation--- the lifestyle or the disease. Its easier to prescribe a pill than to get a person to change their lifestyle.

 

[jimbee]

Science is a process, not a destination.

 

[plsprius]

I didn't see anything new. Statins have attracted real opposition, probably because the benefits in otherwise-healthy people are small. It seems to me that for the vast majority, both the benefits and harms of statins are small. If you have heart disease, the statin doesn't do much to help; likewise, if you don't have heart disease, statins are unnecessary.

My take: there is no magic pill yet (but note the author's disclosed conflicts)

U Ravnskov, M de Lorgeril, R Hama, M Kendrick, H Okuyama and R Sundberg has published books with criticism of the cholesterol hypothesis. PJ Rosch has edited a book with criticism of the cholesterol hypothesis. KS Mccully has a US patent for a homocysteine-lowering protocol.​

 

[plsprius]

Here's where you can read a consensus opinion about the efficacy of statins in primary prevention of heart disease:

Statins in Persons at Low Risk of Cardiovascular Disease – TheNNTTheNNT

They say:

There is controversy about whether statins reduce all-cause mortality in low-risk persons—analyses finding a mortality benefit universally included some high-risk patients. Although statins provide a significant reduction in mortality in high-risk groups, this benefit has not been shown in lower-risk groups. This could be because of underpowered trials (i.e., insufficient numbers of low-risk patients included). If so, any mortality benefit would be small and would result in a very large NNT. ​

 

[sengsational]

Science is a process, not a destination.

As discussed in another thread, we'd all be much better off if doctors (and scientists) were a bit less sure of themselves; they tend to wed themselves to an idea and deny new thinking.

 

[googily]

There's a lot of research indicating that it's the size of the LDL particles, not the count, that is the real issue. You want em big and fluffy, not small and easily lodged.

 

[MRG]

As discussed in another thread, we'd all be much better off if doctors (and scientists) were a bit less sure of themselves; they tend to wed themselves to an idea and deny new thinking.

Hey come on. I'm reminded that 50 years ago more doctors recommended Camels over other brands.

 

[Red Badger]

There's a lot of research indicating that it's the size of the LDL particles, not the count, that is the real issue. You want em big and fluffy, not small and easily lodged.

Yup. My quack asks me to have a LDL size test annually. Happy to provide.

Had a "minor" heart attack about 20 years ago. IMHO, when it's your chest, there isn't much that feels minor.

 

[jimbee]

As discussed in another thread, we'd all be much better off if doctors (and scientists) were a bit less sure of themselves; they tend to wed themselves to an idea and deny new thinking.

Science works, but people have failings and don't always follow it. Doctors and scientists are people too.