Hi Grantsforcollege,

I suggest you look up a good quality medical website online e.g. The health department in your country, or a reputable medical university website or a cardiac foundation website etc. cholesterol is measured in different units in different countries.

There are a number of types of cholesterol, not just HDL (high density lipoprotein – the good cholesterol) and LDL (low density lipoprotein- a bad cholesterol if you have too much of it). Approx 1/250 people in Australia have a genetically inherited condition called Familial Hypercholesterolaemia(FH or FHC). In South Africa this figure will be higher as it is more common in the Afrikaans population (descendants of Dutch settlers).

Most people with high LDLs get it from their diet. This person can decrease their LDL’s through diet. You can increase HDLs through exercise. The most important figure in a cholesterol test is the ratio of good:bad i.e. HDL:LDL. You can have a higher total cholesterol reading but a good ratio of HDL:LDL, and have a lower heart atherosclerosis desease than if you have the same total cholesterol but a poor HDL:LDL ratio. If you have a low HDL and high LDL this is a higher risk of atherosclerosis.

Excess cholesterol is deposited in the arteries as plaque. Excess triglycerides are also deposited in the arteries as plaque. Excess triglycerides come from too much sugar in the diet (these include sugars from fruit and wine).

People with Familial hypercholesterolaemia will probably need medication to get their total cholesterol and LDLs down to a healthy level.

What few people know is that if the total cholesterol gets under a certain amount the plaque deposits of cholesterol in the arteries will start to decreasei.e. The deposits in the arteries will start to come out.. In my country, Australia, that is under a total of 4, so 3.9 and under reduces the plaque in the arteries.

Atheroslerosis is the leading cause of heart attack and stroke. The worst thing you can do to your arteries is to smoke. Smoking makes the arteries narrow and increases blood pressure.

Hope this helps,
Merry

Hi Northern:

Seems the study hit a cholesterol chord with you! But why is it ‘scaring the average person’? Is it because we are constantly being told there is ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cholesterol and we should strive to somehow get more ‘good’ cholesterol and reduce our ‘bad’ cholesterol? Could it be ‘good’ cholesterol isn’t in and of itself ‘good’, just different? Are you suggesting I am wrong to post it? I did not make it up! It is solid research on people with a lot of ‘good’ cholesterol. Given how the body makes cholesterol, it is very hard (read impossible so far) to manipulate the quantities of ‘good’ and ‘bad’ cholesterol in the blood of subjects for research purposes. These people allow that research to take place on high ‘good’ cholesterol subjects.

So far, the research shows that total cholesterol levels are the important thing, not the amounts of each. Because of research difficulties mentioned earlier, most human studies to date have been on total cholesterol levels. To condense them, it turns out that if you are younger than age 55, as your total cholesterol levels fall, your overall risk of death increases. If you are over 55, the higher your total cholesterol levels, the longer you live, and vice versa (more than 20 studies have shown that elderly people with a high cholesterol blood level live longer than do those who have a low cholesterol blood level). As one medical professor put it: “Blaming cholesterol for atherosclerosis is like blaming firemen for the fire they have come to put out.” http://coconutoil.com/enjoy-saturated-fats-theyre-good-for-you/. That is because among other things cholesterol fights inflammation in the arteries, which is why if an artery gets inflamed it is surrounded with cholesterol trying to repair the damage caused by the the inflammation. For many years, doctors believed based on rabbit research that cholesterol caused the problem. But it turns out, it may be just there to try to fix the problem.

You can watch the first 15 or so minutes of this Dr. Fung video for most of the information I referenced: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QetsIU-3k7Y. If you know Dr. Fung’s reasoning, you know he believes it is the insulin that causes the heart disease, not the cholesterol (if it isn’t the cholesterol that causes it you have to have a replacement cause). Dr. Miller’s article lists several other possible ’causes’ for heart disease.

But whatever the cause of heart disease, it seems current research does not show strong correlations between high levels of total cholesterol and heart disease and in fact high levels of cholesterol may be beneficial in older people. Not my opinion, just the evidence from the many research papers cited by Dr. Fung and Dr. Miller.

So I posted the study because it is the only one I have seen where they were actually able to test the ‘good cholesterol’ theory and because it may imply that if they could test people with high ‘bad’ cholesterol, they might get the same bad result (which was the question posed). It seems the ‘blend’ may be the thing – two ‘bads’ might make a good!

I disagree with most of what you’ve said here on cholesterol simcoeluv. Despite his present popularity I don’t think Dr Fung is the authority on all things related to the human body. The opinion on cholesterol you’ve given is quite contrary to the information I was given by a very eminent cardiologist just 2 weeks ago.
Merry

Hi Simcoe,

You and I probably agree more than not on the overall importance of cholesterol to heart health. Low levels have been associated with increased cancers, depression, and increased overall mortality. Also, we probably have some agreement on saturated fats. After all, it’s what our own fat is. We metabolize it. It’s a huge component of breast milk. Hard to believe it could be unhealthy for humans.

Have you read any of Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s blog? In particular, his series on cholesterol? I wouldn’t take a statin if they paid me. But there is good science to show that HDL is protective in most cases, that ratios do matter, that small particle size of LDL is a problem, etc., etc.

If you read that story again, here are some phrases that I think you and I read differently:

“HDL cholesterol is generally associated with reduced heart risks……”
“SOME people have a RARE ….mutation…causes the body to have high levels of HDL……*Paradoxically*…..Higher heart risk”
“Normally, HDL is an important helper………..”
“……..this process is disrupted in people with a faulty version of a gene…….leading to high levels of HDL that FAILS TO DO IT’S JOB”
“The mutation appears to be specific to people of Ashkenazi Jewish descent”

Sorry to shout occasionally but it’s an easy way to put my emphasis on words. I believe the article does NOT say that high HDL is at all dangerous. Only when it is somehow blocked from doing its usual job. Only in some people with a faulty gene. Someday they may find they are totally wrong about all aspects of cholesterol, but this little study is not enough for you to extrapolate anything from it to apply generally. Solid research? Why? Because it’s in a journal, or well known names authored it? That doesn’t always mean solid. Ask the editors of the three leading medical journals what they think of a large number of studies over the past decade or so. Quotes from them are also on Kendrick’s blog. It’s discouraging, what they say about research papers these days.

Thus, I read that this is a very unusual response to high HDL that is the result of a very rare gene in a specific and small population. And while interesting and possibly points in a direction for future research, it really doesn’t have much relevance to the average person. It’s too narrow.

And there is my problem with your post, Simcoe ( and I did not mean to sound so harsh). Your response to the concerns expressed by grantsforcollege (and he seemed quite fearful, actually), seemed irrelevant to his question, and kind of tone-deaf or insensitive on your part, and honestly, somewhat flippant. I just couldn’t understand why you responded as you did.

The average person might be more confused, if not scared, after reading that link. Certainly, grantsforcollege did not strike me as someone who would benefit from reading it, based on the questions he/she was asking.

I think there is a thread for scientific studies and discussion, and it seems maybe it would have been more appropriate to post it there if you wanted some discussion.

Peace to you, Simcoe. I enjoy reading many of your posts. Best to you in the future!

ND

Hi NorthernDawn, Not to be combative, just disagreeing a little

LDL is a natural product of our bodies, and we need it, but we only need so much of it. It’s like other things where the right amount is good and the wrong amount bad. Familial Hypercolesterolemia is a not at all rare genetic disorder where there is far too much LDL and there lies the problem. We who live with this disorder are very grateful for statins, and some of my family would not be here now without them. The people with this disorder can die quite young 20s, 30s, 40s. In my country it’s 1/250 people with this disorder of their cholesterol. IMHO there has been a lot of scaremongering over statins out of proportion to the problems.

And let’s hope we can all agree to disagree,
Merry

Hi Merryme,

I have family members who have had terrible problems with statins. Maybe there is some kind of family gene that causes this for our family. That is why I, personally, wouldn’t take a statin, unless I absolutely couldn’t get my levels under 280 (to just pick a number).

The push to start giving children statins a few years ago really increased my suspicion of the Big Pharma machine having too much influence in medical treatment trends. Also, the advice to lower the levels to 200 as the number to trigger treatment, after years of dealing with patients who had levels of 230, let’s say, and never had a problem.

On the other hand:

If, like you, I had Familial Hypercholesteremia, I would probably take a statin. I would try them all until I found one with the least side effects.
FH isn’t exactly rare, but it doesn’t affect the majority of the population. Usually, when I discuss my opinions about statins, cholesterol, saturated fats or whatever, I’m speaking very generally, of the “normal” or average. Not to those who fall outside that group. Like you and your situation.

You must do what is best for you and your many health issues, merryme, and of course it is right for you to trust your cardiologist both for his years of education and experience, and because he has helped you thus far. All the best to you.