...especially, considering the fact that what doctors are telling people today is the acceptable or normal cholesterol level, namely, 200 or below, may actually increase your risk of CANCER and STROKE! Imagine the absurdity of it! There is a huge body of scientific literature that demonstrates this connection clearly. Common sense should dictate the same: cholesterol is a physical carrier molecule for fat soluble antioxidants like the E's: the 4 tocopherols and 4 tocotrienols, and the broad spectrum of carotenoids that prevent oxidative stress in our body....moreover, cholesterol will carry CoQ10 (arguably the most important heart nutrient), throughout the body. Lowering cholesterol - to unnatural levels through unnatural methods - will directly impact the amount of coq10 is available to the heart, so that it can contract. Is this not absurd? These cholesterol lowering drugs are being marketed to us as being good for the heart, and yet they deplete the heart of its most important nutrient (the heart muscle cells have 2000 mitochondria per cell versus 50 for skeletal muscle), while encouraging oxidative stress throughout the body, furthering the likelihood of increased oxidation of LDL cholesterol, making it clump up in problematic and obstructive ways, e.g. stroke.

The absurdity of it all! Cholesterol is essential for the functioning of every cell in the body, and is the basis for all the steroid hormones, and comprises a large part of the brain's actual weight, and seems to prevent stroke and cancer, and is found in the blood of hibernating bears at 700 points or more, and yet noone finds a bear dead from heart attack, after a long winters sleep in his cave. Its so important, we are biologically incapable of controlling it effectively. The more you eat of it in your food, the less your body will produce; the less you ingest in your food, the more your body will produce.

This is not to say that people don't suffer from sluggish liver, and that in the absence of sufficient antioxidants low density lipoprotein does not clump up, or there is an absence of soluble fiber in the diet. But more often then not its the fire fighter being blamed for the fire. If there is chronic inflammation in the cardiovascular system, the body will produce cholesterol to "stomp out the flames," acting something like mortar to glue up the leaks and scars. C-reactive protein, or fibrin levels are probably far more accurate indicators of heart attack risk, meaning that inflmmation (spurned by dietary transgressions, stress, and environmental toxicity) is causing the cholesterol to spike up. Lowering cholesterol will only suppress the symptoms, or second order expression of the originating cause, leaving the underlying malicious process in the dark.

In a nutshell, the whole "cholesterol myth" is primarily a function of marketing a certain class of drugs, and has little clinical or scientific backing.

Sayer Ji,

If you firmly believe that "high cholesterol may be good for your health" what are you doing to guarantee that your cholesterol stays as high as possible?

I have taken an impartial approach to either the drug companies or the cholesterol myth advocates. I have basically just read every study I can find on cholesterol. And there are tons. From everything I have seen, no link as been established between dietary cholesterol intake and circulating blood cholesterol levels. There is nothing at all that says eating more cholesterol gives you higher cholesterol. It just isn't out there. There is some evidence that points at having an unbalance of HDL to LDL is inclusive with heart problems. However, even this evidence is far from conclusive. I don't quite know where to stand with cholesterol, but it is plainly obvious it is not as terrible as the current medical concensus says it is. The evidence just isn't there. I would love for someone to show me some solid studies that conclusively prove cholesterol leads to heart disease.

I would love for someone to show me some solid studies that conclusively prove cholesterol leads to heart disease.

There probably aren't any such studies. And if this was in fact true, we'd probably all be dropping like flies. But I don't think that anyone would dare dispute the fact that without cholesterol, we'd all be dead.

I have taken an impartial approach to either the drug companies or the cholesterol myth advocates. I have basically just read every study I can find on cholesterol. And there are tons. From everything I have seen, no link as been established between dietary cholesterol intake and circulating blood cholesterol levels. There is nothing at all that says eating more cholesterol gives you higher cholesterol. It just isn't out there. There is some evidence that points at having an unbalance of HDL to LDL is inclusive with heart problems. However, even this evidence is far from conclusive. I don't quite know where to stand with cholesterol, but it is plainly obvious it is not as terrible as the current medical concensus says it is. The evidence just isn't there. I would love for someone to show me some solid studies that conclusively prove cholesterol leads to heart disease.

I think there are many of us feeling the same way. I have known too many folks with normal cholesterol that have had some kind of heart problem, my husband being one of them. He always had perfect numbers, yet in 94 had to have his arteries cleaned due to 90-97% blockage on the left side. My BIL passed away last yeart of heart disease, another one with perfect numbers!

So far I have mixed feelings. I think there is such a thing as too much cholesterol and also too little, but I disagree with the medical profession that everyone's numbers have to meet their "so called" guidelines. Every person is different, therefore I believe the cholesterol level needed by each person varies. JMHO

Drs. have to start treating people as individuals and stop saying what may be high or low for U, is the same for each patient. I truly believe they are making alot of folks paranoid about what they eat, and to me this causes stress, which I think is 90% of some problems. Like my old dr. use to say, STRESS can kill ya, and I really believe it.

Sayer Ji,

Then how come the Johns Hopkins researchers found that cholesterol lowering drugs cleared the arteries ?

http://www.jhu.edu/~gazette/2004/06dec04/06mri.html

Moreover is 400 cholesterol just right? :D

I think we can all agree that cholesterol can be deposited as plaque, and this buildup can ultimately lead to heart disease. However, this doesn't happen to everyone, regardless of cholesterol levels. So how can cholesterol possibly be the bad guy? If it's being deposited as plaque, there has to be a reason. Most likely plaque forms in response to a lesion or damage inside the wall of the artery. I don't believe that attacking cholesterol with drugs is the answer to the underlying problem, but that restoring or maintaining the health of the artery would be. If there is a lesion or some form of inflammation inside the artery, lowering cholesterol isn't going to fix the problem.

As far as cholesterol levels are concerned, I believe the Framingham Study found that there was virtually no difference in coronary heart disease events for individuals with cholesterol levels between 205mg/dl and 294mg/dl, where the vast majority of the the U.S. population lands. Furthermore, even for those with extremely high cholesterol levels, up to almost 1200mg/dl, the difference in CHD events compared to those in the normal range was trivial.

I have taken an impartial approach to either the drug companies or the cholesterol myth advocates. I have basically just read every study I can find on cholesterol. And there are tons. From everything I have seen, no link as been established between dietary cholesterol intake and circulating blood cholesterol levels. There is nothing at all that says eating more cholesterol gives you higher cholesterol. It just isn't out there. There is some evidence that points at having an unbalance of HDL to LDL is inclusive with heart problems. However, even this evidence is far from conclusive. I don't quite know where to stand with cholesterol, but it is plainly obvious it is not as terrible as the current medical concensus says it is. The evidence just isn't there. I would love for someone to show me some solid studies that conclusively prove cholesterol leads to heart disease.
I agree , the drug companies have done a masterful job at marketing this stuff surrounded by studies funded by them . They convinced the doctors to believe that if your cholesterol is over 200 you are going to keel over and die next week , what a bunch of garbage this is . I agree you need to try and keep in somewhat reasonable shape . I think most of it can be taken care of thru diet ,excersize , and supplements. Unless your levels are like over 300 then risk benefit ratio of statins is minimal considering the side effects these things give . I don't see America getting any better since statins came out , if anything it has gotten a lot worse.

I agree , the drug companies have done a masterful job at marketing this stuff surrounded by studies funded by them . They convinced the doctors to believe that if your cholesterol is over 200 you are going to keel over and die next week , what a bunch of garbage this is . I agree you need to try and keep in somewhat reasonable shape . I think most of it can be taken care of thru diet ,excersize , and supplements. Unless your levels are like over 300 then risk benefit ratio of statins is minimal considering the side effects these things give . I don't see America getting any better since statins came out , if anything it has gotten a lot worse.



Then how come my BP is dropping with the use of statins?

After awhile I may be totally off of them (BP meds) as my doc stated I would. ;) once they clean the arteries which he said will be very very fast.

I think we can all agree that cholesterol can be deposited as plaque, and this buildup can ultimately lead to heart disease. However, this doesn't happen to everyone, regardless of cholesterol levels. So how can cholesterol possibly be the bad guy? If it's being deposited as plaque, there has to be a reason. Most likely plaque forms in response to a lesion or damage inside the wall of the artery. I don't believe that attacking cholesterol with drugs is the answer to the underlying problem, but that restoring or maintaining the health of the artery would be. If there is a lesion or some form of inflammation inside the artery, lowering cholesterol isn't going to fix the problem.

As far as cholesterol levels are concerned, I believe the Framingham Study found that there was virtually no difference in coronary heart disease events for individuals with cholesterol levels between 205mg/dl and 294mg/dl, where the vast majority of the the U.S. population lands. Furthermore, even for those with extremely high cholesterol levels, up to almost 1200mg/dl, the difference in CHD events compared to those in the normal range was trivial.



O.K., but then how do you explain all of the by-pass surgeries?

O.K., but then how do you explain all of the by-pass surgeries?
I think the question becomes after years of having statins on the market why are we seeing more and more bypasses , heart problems with millions of people taking this stuff . Common sense says to me that if statins are causing muscle damage in a lot of people then we have a big problem in that , what is the heart ??? Anything that messes with a vital organ like the liver is something I won't take . To say nothing about the many other problems it cause like peripheral neuropathy which statins are to blame in my case . A permanent case in both feet started within a month of taking these . I guess its good if you are a drug company then they can feed you garbage like neurontin when it gets so bad you can't sleep at night . This guys article makes a lot of sense .http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/28/cholesterol_heart.htm I'm not against all drugs , I take them for BP but I have never seen the side effects that these drugs have and are still allowed on the market .

Sayer Ji, You stated what I have believed so well, thank you. I wish that I could be as eloquent. I have been afraid that in time we will start to see a lot of people fighting cancer because in dropping the cholesterol to clean out arteries they have allowed cancer to get a foot hold. Some of our posts are from middle aged people who are concerned now with their arteries and don't worry about mental abilities, but those of us retired know that if you have a good mind that can be most important. To sit in a nursing home with a body that keeps on going but a mind that is gone is not my idea of growing old. We are so centered on this thing called cholesterol that like you stated we have overlooked the reason for it, it is vital. It's like "pick your poison". I for one see the medical world finding more ways to fix clogged arteries in less invasive ways but when it comes to dementia not much has changed. :rolleyes:

For those of you who think that your cholesterol drugs are clearing your arteries ask your doctors what else the drug attacks besides cholesterol. The most effective drugs sold today aren't exclusive developed to clear cholesterol. They do many other things to your arteries so it very hard to determine in research what exactly is having the positive effect. The statins inhibit the body's production of a substance called mevalonate, which is a precursor of cholesterol. When the production of mevalonate goes down, less cholesterol is produced by the cells and thus blood cholesterol goes down as well. But mevalonate is a precursor of other substances also, substances with important biologic functions.The metabolic pathways are not known in all details, but less mevalonate may explain why simvastatin makes smooth muscle cells less active and platelets less inclined to produce thromboxane. One of the first steps in arteriosclerosis is the growth and migration of smooth muscle cells inside the artery walls; and thromboxane is a substance which promotes the clogging of blood. Thus, by blocking the function of smooth muscle cells and platelets, simvastatin may benefit cardiovascular disease by at least two mechanisms and both of these mechanisms are independent of the cholesterol level. In fact, up till now we have learned about eleven anti-atherosclerotic effects of statin treatment, that have been found independent on their effect on cholesterol. Ask your doctors about this.

How high should one allow his/her cholesterol to go before acting? Some doctors give out statins if your cholesterol is slightly over 200. Another problem is this, statins may lower the cholesterol, but it can cause other problems or diseases.

i don't know much about cholesterol and am only concerned bcuz my mom now sufferes. It seems very hard for her to get her cholesterol back to where it was b4 starting bp meds.

The medical community has placed her in a catch22, bp meds== high cholesterol + high glucose! So i ask, how high should cholesterol be b4 you are concerned?

I think the question becomes after years of having statins on the market why are we seeing more and more bypasses , heart problems with millions of people taking this stuff . Common sense says to me that if statins are causing muscle damage in a lot of people then we have a big problem in that , what is the heart ??? Anything that messes with a vital organ like the liver is something I won't take . To say nothing about the many other problems it cause like peripheral neuropathy which statins are to blame in my case . A permanent case in both feet started within a month of taking these . I guess its good if you are a drug company then they can feed you garbage like neurontin when it gets so bad you can't sleep at night . This guys article makes a lot of sense .http://www.mercola.com/2005/may/28/cholesterol_heart.htm I'm not against all drugs , I take them for BP but I have never seen the side effects that these drugs have and are still allowed on the market .


Yeah, BUT and that is a biig BUT....Not all have problems with Statins. In fact very few do.
If millions are on these as you say and its affecting them then how come I do not see crippled walking all around us and heart attacks every night? I simply do not see it.

Hey BP meds have side affects too. I have gotten them time and time again. But do I say they are worthless? Nope. On the contrary BP meds more than likely extend lifespands and save vital organs.

For those of you who think that your cholesterol drugs are clearing your arteries ask your doctors what else the drug attacks besides cholesterol. The most effective drugs sold today aren't exclusive developed to clear cholesterol


Hey, if the blood work is in order then what can go wrong?

Hey,

It's like this...One day SOMETHIN gonna get us. There's is no way around it. So we might as well enjoy life and the food we eat.
And if cholesterol meds ADD to that enjoyment? Then count me in cuz I ain't living like a Yuehl Gibbons. :D ;)

Interesting data:

How many people are affected by heart disease in the UK?
Coronary heart disease is a preventable disease. Approximately 275,000 people in the UK have a heart attack every year. It that kills more than 110,000 people in England every year.

How have the current rates of heart disease deaths in men and women under the age of 65 years in England changed when compared with 10 years before?
Year Men in England under the age of 65 years who died from heart disease

1990: 90 deaths in every 100,000
2000: 50 deaths per 100,000

This represents a decline in death rate of 45% for men under the age of 65 years in England.

Year Women under the age of 65 years who died from heart disease
1990: 25 deaths in every 100,000
2000: 10 deaths per 100,000

This represents a decline in death rate of 60% for women under the age of 65 years in England.

The decline in heart disease death rates was not just confined to people aged younger than 65 years. Secretary of State for Health, John Reid, said: "Deaths from cardiovascular disease fell by more than 23% between 1995/97 and 2000/02."

Of note is the fact that the major development between 1990 and 2000 was the development and proliferation of statin drugs.

In the United States, 12 million people are now taking daily statins. It will be interesting to see if the United States gets the same benefits in the lowering of Heart Disease deaths, currently the largest killer (yes we ARE all dropping not flies from heart disease.)

Dean Ornish puts it well: "With a cholesterol level of 200, a person can consider himself NORMAL and thus he will die a NORMAL death...which most often means from heart disease!"

The evidence just isn't there. I would love for someone to show me some solid studies that conclusively prove cholesterol leads to heart disease.

Here's the evidence you seek (It's 6 pages of studies and their results...DO read it all):

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/445150

O.K., but then how do you explain all of the by-pass surgeries?

Bypass surgeries occur irrespective of cholesterol levels. I still believe that the chief initiator is inflammation which results in lesions which develop in the arteries. The laying down of cholesterol as plaque is the body's way of repairing the damage. Lipoprotein(a), an aberrant form of LDL, has adhesive-like qualities or a stickiness that allows it to adhere to these lesions, carrying along with it oxidized LDL. It's sort of like scabs which form following a wound, such as a cut or scrape. You don't see scabs forming over healthy tissue, do you? Did you ever wonder why some people who have very high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease? Most likely it's because their arteries have remained in a healthy condition, because plaque should not build up in healthy arteries.

I'm rather skeptical of any claims that say that statins can "quickly" reverse heart disease and clear away plaque. There are plenty of people who have taken statins for years and still ultimately ended up needing angioplasty or bypass surgery. Even Lenin, who had been taking statins for years, eventually needed a procedure done to clear a blockage.

Bypass surgeries occur irrespective of cholesterol levels. I still believe that the chief initiator is inflammation which results in lesions which develop in the arteries. The laying down of cholesterol as plaque is the body's way of repairing the damage. Lipoprotein(a), an aberrant form of LDL, has adhesive-like qualities or a stickiness that allows it to adhere to these lesions, carrying along with it oxidized LDL. It's sort of like scabs which form following a wound, such as a cut or scrape. You don't see scabs forming over healthy tissue, do you? Did you ever wonder why some people who have very high cholesterol levels never develop heart disease? Most likely it's because their arteries have remained in a healthy condition, because plaque should not build up in healthy arteries.

I'm rather skeptical of any claims that say that statins can "quickly" reverse heart disease and clear away plaque. There are plenty of people who have taken statins for years and still ultimately ended up needing angioplasty or bypass surgery. Even Lenin, who had been taking statins for years, eventually needed a procedure done to clear a blockage.



Of course I cannot speak for lenin, but I am going to guess that when he had a stent put in that perhaps that if he had NOT been taking Lipitor he would have needed 3 stents as opposed to 1 ?
That is my guess.
Plus remember that his numbers look to be much much lower now, actually quite angelic. If my doc is correct arteries should start to clean, just as mine ought to. What I will tell you is that my HBP is coming down somewhat. It seems as though I am requiring somewhat less medication for it. The doc told me it will help lower BP as well as clean arteries .

Of course I cannot speak for lenin, but I am going to guess that when he had a stent put in that perhaps that if he had NOT been taking Lipitor he would have needed 3 stents as opposed to 1 ?
That is my guess.
Plus remember that his numbers look to be much much lower now, actually quite angelic. If my doc is correct arteries should start to clean, just as mine ought to. What I will tell you is that my HBP is coming down somewhat. It seems as though I am requiring somewhat less medication for it. The doc told me it will help lower BP as well as clean arteries .


Well, my father had also been on statins for a few years, and his numbers also appeared excellent. Then, I decided to buy a treadmill, and my father mentioned this to his doctor. His doctor told him that before he tried exercising on a treadmill that he should take a stress test. Well, I wasn't too concerned, since my father never experienced any chest pains when he walked. But anyway, he took the stress test, one thing led to another, and before I knew it, he ended up having triple bypass surgery. To this day, I've often wondered whether that surgery was necessary. But who knows? Whenever a doctor gives you bad news, you naturally worry. So, evidently the statins he had been taking never cleared the blockages. But I understand that he did have some collateral circulation, which is the body's natural ability to produce its own bypass. So, maybe that's why he never had any symptoms. Maybe he never needed the surgery in the first place.

Here's the evidence you seek (It's 6 pages of studies and their results...DO read it all):

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/445150


That was indeed a good site thanks Lenin. From that research it is conclusive that Statins help prevent heart disease. The side effects weren't really dissucssed, but there are side effects to nearly every drug. However, one thing it didn't point out was that cholesterol is the culprit for heart disease. In fact it even says that they aren't sure exactly what it is about the Statin's that reduce risk of heart disease. It even says clinics should worry less about lipid levels and more about risk stratification. Aren't lipid levels cholesterol levels? I am asking cause I don't know for sure what they mean.

I don't think anyone has ever said that there's any chance of "quick reversal" of the fats/cholesterol/muscled overgrowth and pus cores that make up a good sized arterial plaque.

I for one have never mentioned such an occurrence nor ever allow myself to DREAM of a fast reversal. What I feel EXTREMELY confident of maintaining is the status quo with no new plaqueing and tto do it with control of LDL's below 70. The evidence is coming in good that statins allow for this. If every year I have less gluey fats obstructing my arteries than the year before, even if it;s milligrams wworth, I am winning the game.

My history was a decade of chest chest pain before my stress test showed me "perfectly fine"...I demanded and got Lipitor. I took it for 5 years with no relief and got my stent to open a 99 % closed (give or take 1%) right coronary artery and relieve my pain. I have several other blockages in the other trunks of the arterial tree that I hope to keep from ever needing stenting. But the one that completely closed off all circulation (obviously over a long period of time because I'm quite alive) was the result of a lifelong high fat diet, bad genes, and rotten cholesterol numbers...before anyone had ever dreamed up the word "statin." I think I may have had substantial blockage of the RCA for more than 30 or 40 years from a particular kind of heartburn I can remember from a sprint either running or in a pool almost my whole adult life.

I am quite sure I can maintain my arteries as they are and I hope to even diminish the plaques but I have no illusions of any "quick reversal" unless they develop some pretty jazzy new atherectomy techniques.
Slow and stead wins THIS race.

I am convinced that NOBODY with a very bad cholesterol panel will escape heart disease if he lives long enough...NOBODY! I am also reasonably convinced that had statins been available 20 years earlier I would have escaped my stent. But we must accept the world we are born into...mine was one where nearly half the people born on my birthdate would die of heart disease.