StJoes
08-01-2004, 06:38 PM
I know I'm not supposed to believe everything I read and hear and see, etc etc etc, but this article on the correlation between high cholesterol and longevity compelled me to share this with you.
There's an article "The benefits of high cholesterol." It's written by an Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PHD.
[ removed ]
Any thoughts or comments would be helpful, especially considering I am neither a qualified GP nor even an authority on the subject of cholesterol.
Thank you.
There's an article "The benefits of high cholesterol." It's written by an Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PHD.
[ removed ]
Any thoughts or comments would be helpful, especially considering I am neither a qualified GP nor even an authority on the subject of cholesterol.
Thank you.
Sponsor
NHone
08-10-2004, 02:26 AM
Hi: There are a couple of things you might want to consider. First, cholesterol is not ever bad unless it is oxidized. Second, while I am sure there can be a case made for the correlation of increased cholesterol and heart disease, this is not always the case. One might check the Honolulu heart study. 50% of the patients with heart attack/disease had high cholesterol, while 50% did not. Also in France, a test had results of higher cholesterol associated with increased life span. (these were VERY long term tests). Also, one point that many doctors are to quick to jump to the conclusion is that cholesterol is the contributing problem. When there are underlying problems cholesterol is usually increased. This does not mean that cholesterol is the problem. Most doctors do not put a bandaid on a bullet hole, they treat the problem. Therefore they should find the underlying cause of the high cholesterol. It might just end up that the body is trying to repair itself by its own natural methods. I believe in the book by Dr Ravnskovs he might have put in a good example. You see firemen at fires. The larger the fire the more firemen are present. Therefore firemen cause fires. (I don't believe that we think that this conclusion is true....the same with cholesterol. Unfortunately at present cholesterol has the role of the messenger...and most doctors feel the messenger should be shot.
zip2play
08-10-2004, 11:10 AM
finres,
Imagine a world where exactly 10% of a population will have a heart attack in a set time period. If these victims were checked afterwards and 50% were found to have high cholesterol, what conclusions would a wise man draw?
Imagine a world where exactly 10% of a population will have a heart attack in a set time period. If these victims were checked afterwards and 50% were found to have high cholesterol, what conclusions would a wise man draw?
rahod
08-10-2004, 01:37 PM
Hi: There are a couple of things you might want to consider. First, cholesterol is not ever bad unless it is oxidized. Second, while I am sure there can be a case made for the correlation of increased cholesterol and heart disease, this is not always the case. One might check the Honolulu heart study. 50% of the patients with heart attack/disease had high cholesterol, while 50% did not. Also in France, a test had results of higher cholesterol associated with increased life span. (these were VERY long term tests). Also, one point that many doctors are to quick to jump to the conclusion is that cholesterol is the contributing problem. When there are underlying problems cholesterol is usually increased. This does not mean that cholesterol is the problem. Most doctors do not put a bandaid on a bullet hole, they treat the problem. Therefore they should find the underlying cause of the high cholesterol. It might just end up that the body is trying to repair itself by its own natural methods. I believe in the book by Dr Ravnskovs he might have put in a good example. You see firemen at fires. The larger the fire the more firemen are present. Therefore firemen cause fires. (I don't believe that we think that this conclusion is true....the same with cholesterol. Unfortunately at present cholesterol has the role of the messenger...and most doctors feel the messenger should be shot.
Did you get this point from the article?
"The case for the causal role of cholesterol in heart disease
is overwhelming. It is supported by the clear dose-response
relationship between serum cholesterol and heart disease;
the substantially reduced cardiac and total mortality when
heart patients are put on a severely fat restricted diet;
the dose-response relationship between cholesterol reduction
and heart disease seen in the drug trials; by animal models;
and by an understanding of the most probable mechanisms by
which most heart attacks are produced by coronary artery
lesions."
Did you get this point from the article?
"The case for the causal role of cholesterol in heart disease
is overwhelming. It is supported by the clear dose-response
relationship between serum cholesterol and heart disease;
the substantially reduced cardiac and total mortality when
heart patients are put on a severely fat restricted diet;
the dose-response relationship between cholesterol reduction
and heart disease seen in the drug trials; by animal models;
and by an understanding of the most probable mechanisms by
which most heart attacks are produced by coronary artery
lesions."
NHone
08-11-2004, 01:45 AM
a wise man would draw this conclusion....There is no statistical difference in the two groups. Therefore this variable is not relavent. You could substitute red hair/blonde hair, blue eyes/greeneyes, black/white. The conclusion would be the same, there is another factor causing the heart attacks.
rahod
08-11-2004, 03:30 AM
a wise man would draw this conclusion....There is no statistical difference in the two groups. Therefore this variable is not relavent. You could substitute red hair/blonde hair, blue eyes/greeneyes, black/white. The conclusion would be the same, there is another factor causing the heart attacks.
HMMM.. :yawn: ...think again :D . The *universe* of the causes of any event (heart attack in this case) are potentially numerous. If you found that 50% of people experiencing this event had a particular condition (ie, high cholesterol), would you not conclude that it was more than *chance* (statistically significant) that this conditon is related to having the event? In fact , it has been statistically demonstrated that LOWERING cholesterol reduces the risk of heart attack as well. You my friend are in MASSIVE DENIAL and NOTHING will convince you. Take my word..you are WRONG. I offer you a challege>>>>can you describe what type of evidence would convince you as to the *real cause* of heart attacks? Provide me with an statistical example. :D
HMMM.. :yawn: ...think again :D . The *universe* of the causes of any event (heart attack in this case) are potentially numerous. If you found that 50% of people experiencing this event had a particular condition (ie, high cholesterol), would you not conclude that it was more than *chance* (statistically significant) that this conditon is related to having the event? In fact , it has been statistically demonstrated that LOWERING cholesterol reduces the risk of heart attack as well. You my friend are in MASSIVE DENIAL and NOTHING will convince you. Take my word..you are WRONG. I offer you a challege>>>>can you describe what type of evidence would convince you as to the *real cause* of heart attacks? Provide me with an statistical example. :D
zip2play
08-11-2004, 09:20 AM
finres,
You need to brush up on your statistics...
Mybe THIS extreme will convince you. TWO people out of a thousand have high serum LDL levels, other 998 are below average. Of these thousand people, 4 have a heart attack and die in the subsequent 5 year period. It is found that 2 of the 4 deaths were the two with high cholesterol.
Does THAT illustration yield anything useful to you?
You need to brush up on your statistics...
Mybe THIS extreme will convince you. TWO people out of a thousand have high serum LDL levels, other 998 are below average. Of these thousand people, 4 have a heart attack and die in the subsequent 5 year period. It is found that 2 of the 4 deaths were the two with high cholesterol.
Does THAT illustration yield anything useful to you?
ARIZONA73
08-11-2004, 09:39 AM
Well, if you are going to conclude that since 50% of people with high cholesterol are heart attack statistics, then where do the other 50% come from? I believe that there are other underlying factors which leads to the deposition of plaque, regardless of total and LDL cholesterol levels.
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, made this interesting observation in his article "Statin Drugs- A Critical Review of the Risk/Benefit Clinical Research":
"Many well-funded sources attempt to justify the wide use of statin drugs to lower TC and LDL by citing references in support of the claims that high levels of TC and LDL have been correlated with cardiovascular disease. Such claims are unfounded, since high TC and LDL are well-correlated with age, which is a risk factor. With age removed, there is almost no correlation, and certainly none that allows a worthwhile prediction of risk for a given individual."
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, made this interesting observation in his article "Statin Drugs- A Critical Review of the Risk/Benefit Clinical Research":
"Many well-funded sources attempt to justify the wide use of statin drugs to lower TC and LDL by citing references in support of the claims that high levels of TC and LDL have been correlated with cardiovascular disease. Such claims are unfounded, since high TC and LDL are well-correlated with age, which is a risk factor. With age removed, there is almost no correlation, and certainly none that allows a worthwhile prediction of risk for a given individual."
zip2play
08-11-2004, 09:44 AM
I give up!
brimormsbp
08-11-2004, 12:06 PM
high cholesterol is associated with premature death. intervention to reduce cholesterol prolongs life. fact.
try looking at the many positive trials of statins eg 4S
try looking at the many positive trials of statins eg 4S
ARIZONA73
08-11-2004, 01:59 PM
I think it's important to keep in mind the fact that cholesterol is NOT the primary cause of atherosclerosis. Plaque is deposited in response to inflammation, or lesions which form in coronary arteries. If conditions do NOT favor this response, then lipoproteins will not stick, no matter what your cholesterol level is. Conventional medicine's only response is to attack a substance which is merely attempting to repair the damage. However, this approach fails to address the primary cause. When you eat a nice, juicy steak, the fat you consume isn't going to just attach itself to the walls of healthy arteries like some magnet. No, no, no! It just doesn't happen that way. If it did, we'd all be dropping like flies. So, I think it would make much more sense to concentrate more on the primary cause of heart disease instead of just messing around with cholesterol numbers. Maybe then we'll be able to make some real progress in our fight against heart disease.
rahod
08-11-2004, 02:35 PM
Well, if you are going to conclude that since 50% of people with high cholesterol are heart attack statistics, then where do the other 50% come from? I believe that there are other underlying factors which leads to the deposition of plaque, regardless of total and LDL cholesterol levels.
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, made this interesting observation in his article "Statin Drugs- A Critical Review of the Risk/Benefit Clinical Research":
"Many well-funded sources attempt to justify the wide use of statin drugs to lower TC and LDL by citing references in support of the claims that high levels of TC and LDL have been correlated with cardiovascular disease. Such claims are unfounded, since high TC and LDL are well-correlated with age, which is a risk factor. With age removed, there is almost no correlation, and certainly none that allows a worthwhile prediction of risk for a given individual."
How do account for the fact that>>1) LOWERING cholesterol REDUCES the incidence of heart attacks and 2)HIGHER levels of cholesterol at ANY GIVEN AGE are statistically associated with a greater incidence of cardiovascular disease?
Joel M. Kauffman, Ph.D. Professor of Chemistry Emeritus, made this interesting observation in his article "Statin Drugs- A Critical Review of the Risk/Benefit Clinical Research":
"Many well-funded sources attempt to justify the wide use of statin drugs to lower TC and LDL by citing references in support of the claims that high levels of TC and LDL have been correlated with cardiovascular disease. Such claims are unfounded, since high TC and LDL are well-correlated with age, which is a risk factor. With age removed, there is almost no correlation, and certainly none that allows a worthwhile prediction of risk for a given individual."
How do account for the fact that>>1) LOWERING cholesterol REDUCES the incidence of heart attacks and 2)HIGHER levels of cholesterol at ANY GIVEN AGE are statistically associated with a greater incidence of cardiovascular disease?
rahod
08-11-2004, 07:47 PM
I suggest that anyone who disputes the role of high cholesterol (ie, LDL) as a primary cause of cardiovascular disease, read this article..especially page 5 of 13 on this pdf.
link:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3upd04.pdf
link:
http://www.nhlbi.nih.gov/guidelines/cholesterol/atp3upd04.pdf
ARIZONA73
08-11-2004, 08:01 PM
To simply use terms such as high cholesterol, high LDL, versus low cholesterol and low LDL doesn't really say much as far as actual risk. There are certainly other important variables to consider. As an example, suppose you were asked to evaluate the following two individuals in terms of risk? In your opinion, which one is at highest risk?
Case 1
TC 250
HDL 90
LDL 145
Trig. 75
Lp(a) 10
Case 2
TC 160
HDL 40
LDL 90
Trig. 150
Lp(a) 35
Case 1
TC 250
HDL 90
LDL 145
Trig. 75
Lp(a) 10
Case 2
TC 160
HDL 40
LDL 90
Trig. 150
Lp(a) 35
rahod
08-11-2004, 10:40 PM
To simply use terms such as high cholesterol, high LDL, versus low cholesterol and low LDL doesn't really say much as far as actual risk. There are certainly other important variables to consider.
No doubt there are other important variables, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is a direct correlation between LDL level and coronary heart disease. Just look at the studies and data in the article I just refered to. If you choose to ignore that data :rolleyes: , so be it.
No doubt there are other important variables, but that doesn't take away from the fact that there is a direct correlation between LDL level and coronary heart disease. Just look at the studies and data in the article I just refered to. If you choose to ignore that data :rolleyes: , so be it.
ARIZONA73
08-11-2004, 11:39 PM
Rahod,
I'm sorry, but for some reason I am unable to view this information. But you may be correct, since cholesterol levels do tend to rise with age, which is a risk factor, as professor Kauffman correctly pointed out. But he also points out that once you remove age as a risk factor, there is almost no correlation. But I suppose you can manipulate statistics, and come to practically any conclusion you desire. Now, exactly how significant that difference may be is probably open for debate. But by suggesting that TC and LDL is more strongly correlated with an increased risk of heart disease, without considering other variables, is doing the public a great disservice. In fact, when they came out with these new guidelines, 6 of the 9 panelists had strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical drug companies. But according to a Star-Ledger article, other experts in European countries who reviewed the same information came to different conclusions. So there is, in fact, some question about these new guidelines as well. Personally, I believe that this is all profit motivation on the part of the drug companies.
I'm sorry, but for some reason I am unable to view this information. But you may be correct, since cholesterol levels do tend to rise with age, which is a risk factor, as professor Kauffman correctly pointed out. But he also points out that once you remove age as a risk factor, there is almost no correlation. But I suppose you can manipulate statistics, and come to practically any conclusion you desire. Now, exactly how significant that difference may be is probably open for debate. But by suggesting that TC and LDL is more strongly correlated with an increased risk of heart disease, without considering other variables, is doing the public a great disservice. In fact, when they came out with these new guidelines, 6 of the 9 panelists had strong financial ties to the pharmaceutical drug companies. But according to a Star-Ledger article, other experts in European countries who reviewed the same information came to different conclusions. So there is, in fact, some question about these new guidelines as well. Personally, I believe that this is all profit motivation on the part of the drug companies.
arkie6
08-12-2004, 12:01 AM
....Just look at the studies and data in the article I just refered to. If you choose to ignore that data :rolleyes: , so be it.I see that article you refered to references the PROSPER study as one of its basis studies. Have you looked at the data from this study rather than just the glossed over conclusions? I've read it and am appalled at the conclusions drawn. While the participants that were on the statin treatment did have fewer deaths from heart disease than the controls on a placebo by a small margin, the statin users had more stroke deaths and significantly more cancer deaths. In the end, there was approximately the same number of deaths in both groups. The study conclusions barely even mentioned the fact that the statin users had a higher incidence of stroke and cancer death and the fact that total mortality was not measurably better in the statin group.
NHone
08-12-2004, 12:07 AM
Thanks Arizonia, again I agree with you completely. I find it alarming when reading some of the tests results, that I have to question the calibur of the people preforming them. Some examples are: One test reported on how lowering cholesterol reduced heart attack and strokes; however, in the footnotes the results on the women in the study were not included because there was no statistical difference. Another test showed that lowering cholesterol reduced heart attack and heart disease; however, in the test they gave the participants (on the cholesterol medication, and not the placebo) anti inflammatory and anti aggregation medication. Even I know better than to add extra variables into test. Also it is known that the statin drugs by chemistry not only lower cholesterol, but have an anti-inflammatory, and platelet anti-aggression component. This is all a part of the statin. It cannot be pulled apart to see which one is of benefit. Another cholesterol test recently that was to run until 2005 was stopped early. The reason was that the test goals were obtained, so there was not reason to continue the test. (You might remember that thalidomide also had acchieved the results that were their goals). It is as if they are almost afraid to continue the test for fear that an unwelcome result would appear. Although I will read any test results, I would tend to discount any tests that are subsidized by pharmaceutical companies. When you read about cholesterol medication tests, don't just read the conclusion, read the report and especially the footnotes. One test we should watch closely is the NCSD test on statin drugs. It is funded by partly through grants from the NIH. This test has no connection to any pharmaceutical company.
rahod
08-12-2004, 10:09 PM
I see that article you refered to references the PROSPER study as one of its basis studies. Have you looked at the data from this study rather than just the glossed over conclusions? I've read it and am appalled at the conclusions drawn. While the participants that were on the statin treatment did have fewer deaths from heart disease than the controls on a placebo by a small margin, the statin users had more stroke deaths and significantly more cancer deaths. In the end, there was approximately the same number of deaths in both groups. The study conclusions barely even mentioned the fact that the statin users had a higher incidence of stroke and cancer death and the fact that total mortality was not measurably better in the statin group.
This what the article said with reference to PROSPER :
1)" ...although PROSPER had fewer older persons with established CVD, and they were treated for a shorter time than HPS, a strong trend toward reduction in CHD was noted. The results of HPS and PROSPER, taken together with the findings of other statin trials, provide a strong justification for intensive LDL lowering therapy in older persons with established CVD".
2)"...the results of both PROSPER and ASCOT support the efficacy of statin therapy in older, high risk patients without established CVD".
Please post the relavent info in the PROSPER study that seems to show significant increase in stroke deaths and cancer with statins in older people. That would be useful.
This what the article said with reference to PROSPER :
1)" ...although PROSPER had fewer older persons with established CVD, and they were treated for a shorter time than HPS, a strong trend toward reduction in CHD was noted. The results of HPS and PROSPER, taken together with the findings of other statin trials, provide a strong justification for intensive LDL lowering therapy in older persons with established CVD".
2)"...the results of both PROSPER and ASCOT support the efficacy of statin therapy in older, high risk patients without established CVD".
Please post the relavent info in the PROSPER study that seems to show significant increase in stroke deaths and cancer with statins in older people. That would be useful.
ARIZONA73
08-14-2004, 01:02 PM
I was just reading about the PROSPER trial on Medscape. In elderly people taking pravastatin, there was in fact a 25% higher incidence of new cases of cancer. Incredibly, the investigators were not particularly concerned about the increased incidence of cancer. In fact, they even went so far as to say that the cancer must have started to develop in these patients prior to the study. Yeah, right. And what about all the animal studies which clearly demonstrated the cancer-causing effects of these drugs? I suppose the animals all started to develop cancer prior to the studies as well. I wonder what their conclusions would have been if there was instead a 25% lower incidence of new cases of cancer. In that case, it would probably become front page news.
brimormsbp
08-17-2004, 03:07 PM
do you know the latency of cancer arizona? and why do you lump cancer cases altogether - that's not biologically plausible
the fact is that total mortality is reduced in nearly all statin trials - and increased cancer cases is present in only a small number of statin trials. anyone who knows how to interpret biomedical research would be able to tell you what that means
the fact is that total mortality is reduced in nearly all statin trials - and increased cancer cases is present in only a small number of statin trials. anyone who knows how to interpret biomedical research would be able to tell you what that means
ARIZONA73
08-17-2004, 08:00 PM
Well, I didn't just make this stuff up. I got this information about the PROSPER trial from Medscape. So, I'm simply stating factual information. There was, in fact, a 25% increase in cancer cases among those who were receiving pravastatin. I don't think that number can be considered statistically insignificant. If the pravastatin did not in any way trigger the higher incidence of cancer cases, then the statistical difference between the control group versus the pravastatin group should not have been that far apart. But I'll bet that if it were the other way around, and there were 25% less cases of cancer among the pravastatin group, then they no doubt would have made a big deal about it.
As far as overall mortality, in the long running Coronary Drug Project, an extensive evaluation of cholesterol-lowering drugs demonstrated that niacin was the only cholesterol-lowering agent to actually reduce overall mortality.
As far as overall mortality, in the long running Coronary Drug Project, an extensive evaluation of cholesterol-lowering drugs demonstrated that niacin was the only cholesterol-lowering agent to actually reduce overall mortality.
brimormsbp
08-18-2004, 06:12 AM
Arizona - you have got some lousy sources of information.
for example re niacin being only cholesterol-lowering agent to reduce mortality - just not true. you need to read all the studies not just the ones that suit you
you make inappropriate comments about statistical significance. you obviously don't know the pitfalls of multiple hypothesis testing.
you need to learn a lot more about the interpretation of biomedical research
for example re niacin being only cholesterol-lowering agent to reduce mortality - just not true. you need to read all the studies not just the ones that suit you
you make inappropriate comments about statistical significance. you obviously don't know the pitfalls of multiple hypothesis testing.
you need to learn a lot more about the interpretation of biomedical research
alptraum
08-18-2004, 04:34 PM
That increase could be statistically insignificant, depends on how much noise is in the data, sample size, confounding factors, unaccounted for lurking variables etc a lot of things.
I don't want to sound like I am bashing the study (or upholding it) Arizona, but just to to give a very simple example, I could show that as the number of churches in a city increases, alcoholism increases as well. Thus church causes alcholism. Of course this sounds silly, and what is being forgotten is larger cities have more churches, larger populations, and generally higher rates of social problems. Correlation does not mean causaulity. Here we are confounding(or confusing) church and population for the increase in alcholism.
It's easy for the statistics to be misleading, either on purpose or unintentionally, a lot of experimental designs are done incorrectly for a variety of reasons even if the researcher has the best intents. My final exam in my doctoral level experimental design class was largely an excercise showing some of the pitfalls of certain experiments, and largely to make us more cautious when we do our own experiements.
I don't want to sound like I am bashing the study (or upholding it) Arizona, but just to to give a very simple example, I could show that as the number of churches in a city increases, alcoholism increases as well. Thus church causes alcholism. Of course this sounds silly, and what is being forgotten is larger cities have more churches, larger populations, and generally higher rates of social problems. Correlation does not mean causaulity. Here we are confounding(or confusing) church and population for the increase in alcholism.
It's easy for the statistics to be misleading, either on purpose or unintentionally, a lot of experimental designs are done incorrectly for a variety of reasons even if the researcher has the best intents. My final exam in my doctoral level experimental design class was largely an excercise showing some of the pitfalls of certain experiments, and largely to make us more cautious when we do our own experiements.
rahod
09-14-2004, 10:40 PM
I know I'm not supposed to believe everything I read and hear and see, etc etc etc, but this article on the correlation between high cholesterol and longevity compelled me to share this with you.
There's an article "The benefits of high cholesterol." It's written by an Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PHD.
[ removed ]
Any thoughts or comments would be helpful, especially considering I am neither a qualified GP nor even an authority on the subject of cholesterol.
Thank you.
I found this tidbit on his book:
....even Dr. Uffe Ravnskov in "The Cholesterol Myths"
(page
207) acknowledges the cardiological benefits of statins. The difference
between Dr. Ravnskov and the rest of main stream doctors is the cause
of
these benefits. Main stream medicine attributes these benefits to the
cholesterol lowering properties of the statins, Dr. Ravnskov believes
the
benefits are "in spite of" the lowering of the cholesterol (bad side
effect of the statins).
>>>Of course I firmly disagree with the notion that high cholesterol is beneficial..let alone benign :rolleyes:
There's an article "The benefits of high cholesterol." It's written by an Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PHD.
[ removed ]
Any thoughts or comments would be helpful, especially considering I am neither a qualified GP nor even an authority on the subject of cholesterol.
Thank you.
I found this tidbit on his book:
....even Dr. Uffe Ravnskov in "The Cholesterol Myths"
(page
207) acknowledges the cardiological benefits of statins. The difference
between Dr. Ravnskov and the rest of main stream doctors is the cause
of
these benefits. Main stream medicine attributes these benefits to the
cholesterol lowering properties of the statins, Dr. Ravnskov believes
the
benefits are "in spite of" the lowering of the cholesterol (bad side
effect of the statins).
>>>Of course I firmly disagree with the notion that high cholesterol is beneficial..let alone benign :rolleyes:
jcorn59483
09-16-2004, 01:36 PM
I have personal experience with family members who have exceedingly high cholesterol and extremely long lives. In my mother;s family, cholesterol ranges from 300 to well above 400 and my mother is 90. She has never taken cholesterol meds, had x-rays which indicated her arteries are clear (at 80) and had a history of long-term smoking (she quit in her 50's). She is now over 90 and feels great.
There is a similar pattern in other members of her family. Her mother lived to 100, her sister is near 90. They all fear docs and meds and so none are on cholesterol meds.
I, however, am on Crestor, since my father's side of the family has both high cholesterol and a history of heart problems (althnough they don't appear till after 60). His sister is near 90 but my father died of heart disease in his 80's. I'm not willing to rolll the dice so I'm taking measures to lower my cholesterol (over 300 before Crestor).
There is a similar pattern in other members of her family. Her mother lived to 100, her sister is near 90. They all fear docs and meds and so none are on cholesterol meds.
I, however, am on Crestor, since my father's side of the family has both high cholesterol and a history of heart problems (althnough they don't appear till after 60). His sister is near 90 but my father died of heart disease in his 80's. I'm not willing to rolll the dice so I'm taking measures to lower my cholesterol (over 300 before Crestor).
jcorn59483
09-16-2004, 01:45 PM
One thing no one here seems to have mentioned: focusing on high cholesterol and ignoring other factors is like looking at ALL trees and saying they are ALL oak trees (bad analogy,perhaps, but bear with me).
You can't look at cholesterol without looking at the WHOLE person. If a person is thin, exercises regularly, has a family history of little to no heart disease, never smoked, has high levels of good cholesterol etc...maybe that person can have high cholesterol and little risk of heart disease. My previous post was about one side of my family, where they never take meds, never exercise, eat what they want and never have heart disease - well, until their hearts stop at 90 or 100 (and the cause of death is never heart disease).
On the other hand, you have someone like Clintion, with a clear history of family heart disease, ate junk food, had high cholesterol, etc. When he finally started exercising and eating right, it was too late. He ended up needing heart surgery. He stopped taking his cholesterol meds, too.
In other words, cholesterol, high or low, is only one part of a total picture. Focusing on the "benefits" of high cholesterol really is like looking at a forest and missing the different kinds of trees in it. They are all different. Generalizing is dangerous.
You can't look at cholesterol without looking at the WHOLE person. If a person is thin, exercises regularly, has a family history of little to no heart disease, never smoked, has high levels of good cholesterol etc...maybe that person can have high cholesterol and little risk of heart disease. My previous post was about one side of my family, where they never take meds, never exercise, eat what they want and never have heart disease - well, until their hearts stop at 90 or 100 (and the cause of death is never heart disease).
On the other hand, you have someone like Clintion, with a clear history of family heart disease, ate junk food, had high cholesterol, etc. When he finally started exercising and eating right, it was too late. He ended up needing heart surgery. He stopped taking his cholesterol meds, too.
In other words, cholesterol, high or low, is only one part of a total picture. Focusing on the "benefits" of high cholesterol really is like looking at a forest and missing the different kinds of trees in it. They are all different. Generalizing is dangerous.