For those who didn't see it, Reuters Health reported today on research presented by Dr. Xuemei Huang at the annual meeting of the American Neurological Association. The research at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill compared 124 Parkinson's patients with 112 controls. Men with LDL cholesterol levels between 91 and 135 were six times more likely to be affected by Parkinson's. Those with LDL levels below 91 were 4 times more likely to be so affected, compared to those with higher levels. There was no such association for women.

Men with LDL cholesterol levels between 91 and 135 were six times more likely to be affected by Parkinson's. Those with LDL levels below 91 were 4 times more likely to be so affected, compared to those with higher levels.

Huh? I'm a little confused here. Those with LDL levels of between 91 and 135 were six times MORE LIKELY to be affected by Parkinson's?? And those with LDL levels LOWER than 91 were four times more likely to be affected, while those with levels above 135 were the least likely to be affected? This pattern doesn't quite make sense to me. Are you sure you got this right? :confused:

Yes, I got it right, at least that's what was reported in the news. I haven't seen the actual paper, of course. Perhaps it will show up in one of the journals in the future. I suspect that it is the relatively small number of subjects that caused this odd "happening" with the six times vs. four times. But note the result was consistent in that LDL lower than 135 spelled increased risk for Parkinson's, and a very strong increased risk at that. Sounds like the men can't win. Decrease your risk for CVD but increase risk for Parkinson's.

Though they don't know the reason for the association at this point, one of the theories the author suggested is that perhaps cholesterol plays some role in getting rid of environmental toxins that might trigger Parkinson's. Apparently several other possibilities were also suggested.

Hmm, so all they mentioned were LDL numbers, and nothing else? There was no mention of HDL levels, and what effect, if any, that it might have? To be quite honest with you, I'm rather skeptical. I think that other factors are not being reported. That's the trouble with studies. There are too many unanswered questions. Most studies tend to be very vague, leaving many questions unanswered.

Remember, this was just a news report from a presentation at a professional conference. I have no knowledge of the study itself being published at this point, and that is where we'd expect to see more details. Who knows, maybe it never will be published. The news article was relatively brief, but it is already showing up in a web search. It shouldn't take too much imagination for you to determine what key words to use to find it.

No, nothing was said about HDL. TC was mentioned though, but not with any detail:
Huang reported that, after adjusting for age, smoking, and use of lipid-lowering agents, men with low total and LDL ("bad") cholesterol levels had an increased risk of Parkinson's.

What I can't understand is, if low LDL was associated with an increased risk, why would those with an LDL between 91-135 be at greater risk than those with an LDL lower than 91? :confused:

Uff-da,

While interesting, it's a backward way to do a study. The proper way is to form people who have not developed Parkinson's into high and low cholesterol groups and then follow them to see who develops it.

With the kind of methodology used by Doctor Huang you can easily come up with situations like examining stroke victims and non-stroke victims and observing them over time to discover that those who had strokes slept a lot more. Interesting, but one could never draw from that any cause and effect result like "sleeping more causes stroke." Or more absurd, observing that stroke victims danced very little and concluding that being a wallflower caused strokes.
See what I mean. A good study must look forward not backwards.

It is quite possible that Parkinson's causes the body to use it's fats differently or that a third condition causes both, but I really doubt, and this study doesn't show, that a person who drops his LDL from 150 to 120 will multiply his odds of getting Parkinson's 6-fold.

I also immediately noticed that glaring dichotomy that ARIZONA pointed out with the bell curve that peaked at the 90-130 group. THere will be LOTS of noise about this report.:D:D:D

Could it be that the onset of Parkinson's itself causes LDL levels to drop? :confused:

That was my first thought.
There are often ties between palsy-like problems and the fatty content of the myelin sheaths around nerves, as in MS, so there might very well be a similar connection.

There have been studies showing a positive correlation in men between high saturated fat intake and Parkinsons and an inverse relationship between polyunsaturated oils and the disease.

But then again, nothing conclusive.

Same thing with people who develop cancer. In such cases, cholesterol levels tend to drop lower. Quite often, studies often leave far too many questions unanswered. All these reports often cause a lot of unnecessary panic.

Would it not make sense to have this type of study first, to show if there was any relationship between the two at all and to determine whether it was worth the much higher cost to do the type of study Lenin describes? You are right, of course, that this doesn't show cause and effect, but I'd think having this much information would increase the possibility of getting funding for a more complete study. People have to have some basis for thinking they are on the right track before coming up with the necessary level of funding for a complete study.

Arizonia...You're right about all of the studies leaving too many things unanswered. Nothing could be more true than all of the cholesterol studies. Cholesterol is very important for the body and Drug companies, and Doctors are creating patients by trying to lower it.