The Benefits of High Cholesterol? - High Cholesterol Message Board

StJoes · 08-01-2004, 03:38 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.

NHone · 08-09-2004, 11:26 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.

zip2play · 08-10-2004, 08:10 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?

rahod · 08-10-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finres

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."

NHone · 08-10-2004, 10:45 PM

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.