"From 1951 to 1955 serum cholesterol levels were measured in 1959 men and 2415 women aged between 31 and 65 years who were free of cardiovascular disease (CVD) and cancer. Under age 50 years, cholesterol levels are directly related with 30-year overall and CVD mortality; overall death increases 5% and CVD death 9% for each 10 mg/dL. After age 50 years there is no increased overall mortality with either high or low serum cholesterol levels. There is a direct association between falling cholesterol levels over the first 14 years and mortality over the following 18 years (11% overall and 14% CVD death rate increase per 1 mg/dL per year drop in cholesterol levels). Under age 50 years these data suggest that having a very low cholesterol level improves longevity. After age 50 years the association of mortality with cholesterol values is confounded by people whose cholesterol levels are falling--perhaps due to diseases predisposing to death."

For women over 50, there was increased longevity associated with higher levels of cholesterol in this study.

No-one knows if higher cholesterol causes health problems, as the information is correlational only.
It is like saying that we find higher numbers of policemen at the scene of the crime, so therefor police cause crime.

And half of people who die of CHD have normal cholesterol levels. The skeptics of the cholesterol-heart theory do not consider that there is any evidence for it that cannot perhaps be explained by other factors (cf www.thincs.org).

Val

There is some pretty good ranting and raving on this
website about LDL.The excerpt from the Framingham study
addressed total cholesterol.The MRFIT study characterized
361,662 men aged 35 to 57 and clearly shows a connection
between total cholesterol and incidence of heart attack.If
you lower your cholesterol from 240 to 200 you have cut your
probability of a heart attack in half according to MRFIT.
IMHO,total cholesterol does matter and telling people not to
sweat high cholesterol is doing them a tremendous disservice.
In the end,of course,we must all make decisions about what we
believe about the stuff we read.

Ranting and raving? Where do you see ranting and raving? Perhaps I should use the search function to find it...

eddiemcm...the point that was made on the thincs.org site and elsewhere is that the cholesterol data is correlational, not necessarily causational. Why would high cholesterol cause heart attacks in men, and not women? Or not in older men? Why do half the people who get heart attacks have normal cholesterol? It may be predictive of heart attack, but this does mean that it causes it, and so lowering it may do nothing, unless at the same time, as with statins, you are likely decreasing inflammation and other factors that may in fact be what is causing it. Have you seen any evidence that lowering your cholesterol if you are male and between 35 to 57 DOES halve the actual incidence of CHD?

But you are right, we all have to read the evidence and make our own decisions about all this.

Val

MRFIT study results,along with thousands of other study results,were
obtained from the Chemical Abstract.A graph of total cholesterol versus
CHD death rate per 1000 men is part of the published study results.
That's where my evidence is derived.Like all of these studies,I'm sure many
factors were ignored.To be safe, I take a couple of inexpensive supplements
to keep my total cholesterol low.Like most low carb folks,my HDL and tri's
are fine without the supplements.
interesting question:
If a person increases HDL by 30 points and LDL and tri's stay the same,has
the person increased his/her risk for CHD death? After all,total cholesterol
has risen by 30 points.I just use this as an example of the confusion that
surrounds the subject.As for me,I'll be cautious and take my supplements.

I think you are corect about a connection of cholesteral (LDL or total) to CHD. (VALEWIS, the thincs.org website is a bit hard to take.)

However, I think the point that the connection may not be causal is a good one. It may where be that high cholestorol is present when there is high inflammation. I don't think we know enough about inflammation, but early signs are that it may play a far more important role in predicting (and possibly causing) CHD.

We must all make decisions about what we
believe about the stuff we read.

If LDL is so connected to CHD, then why do half of the folks who have MI's have normal cholesterol levels?

We seem to focus on what may be a symptom of what is most likely an underlying syndrome, i.e. inflammation, unstable plaques, metabolic syndrome, insulin resistance, etc.

Kind of hard to swallow all those studies when a good portion of them (close to half I read lately) are funded by pharmaceutical companies and biotech.

But, each person must educate themselves and come to their own conclusions. We Westerners think we are so high and mighty with our medicine, yet most of what we do is treat symptoms.

Don't take this post the wrong way, just attempting to provoke some additional discussion =)

This has been very informative.
I wasn't inferring or saying cholesterol is the sole cause of heart failure.
None of the studies say it's the only cause.
A lot of studies say it's a contributing cause.
I mean no disrespect to other opinions but we should not be so arrogant and
all knowing as to tell newbies who are concerned that their cholesterol is high
not to sweat it.A lot of posts on this forum say that.
The search for knowledge continues.

Dr. Agatston, the South Beach Diet doctor who is also a heart doctor that specializes in measuring some factors that are apparently associated with increased risk of heart disease (I think it has something to do with calcium in the blood vessel walls) thinks that LDL particle size is an important measure.

Apparently, the theory is that the smaller the particle size, the more the LDL can get into the walls of your blood vessels and form plaques.

Fortunately, low carb diets seem to increase the particle size according to the doctor.

Anyway, I bet the issue is very complicated and the best we can do today is to follow along with what the best medical advice is at the moment. This seems to indicate that a good HDL to LDL ratio and a low triglyceride level are important.

It is the best we can do. It is also all about lowering the risk since it isn't possible today to eliminate the risk. Hopefully, we won't find out that lowering LDL and triglycerides actually hurt our chances at a long healthy life.

Why do half the people who get heart attacks have normal cholesterol? It may be predictive of heart attack, but this does mean that it causes it, and so lowering it may do nothing, unless at the same time, as with statins, you are likely decreasing inflammation and other factors that may in fact be what is causing it.<<

You are right I believe. The following link has an interesting essay that mentions the possible connections between bacterial and viral infections and higher incidence of CHD events. It mentions in one place where bacteria and/or viruses may cause damage to the arterial wall. Interestingly, it purports to show that higher LDL cholesterol levels are indicative of increased immune function and ability to fight infection, hence in theory causing the body to prevent arterial wall destruction in the first place. This shows LDL to actually be beneficial in this regard and considering that LDL doesn't actually damage artery walls, but is there to try to repair them once damaged, it stands to reason that LDL is being unfairly maligned under current medical conventional wisdom (actually, many sites I've seen attempt to show this).

http://www.westonaprice.org/know_yo...its_cholest.htm

Sav,

What a great article. Someday those in the medical "know" will find some measurable indicator or indicators that will be useful. I am becoming more and more convinced that Cholesterol is not it.

Larry

But apparently cholesterol is a meaningful measure for risk of other diseases, such as Alzheimers (low HDL, high LDL are risk factors) and breast cancer (high HDL is preventative in obese women).

So what may be happening is that cholesterol isn't a useless concept re heart disease, but rather that there are different forms of heart disease, some cholesterol dependent and others, not. Just as cancer arises from many different sources and from many different processes.

I think it's healthy to be mildly skeptical of "received wisdom," but don't think it's time to throw the cholesterol concept out quite yet.

Rose,

I should have said LDL instead of Cholesterol. This is the indicator that the AHA thinks is soo important. It's LDL that keeps being adjusted lower as key indicator of heart risk. I have a great Dr. but he still gets the shakes everytime he sees my LDL number. Usually when I'm waiting to see him there is always at least one sales rep waiting as well with Statin samples and studies to convince him that LDL must now be lowered to 100.

Well, if it is true, as the Drs. Eades say that LDL changes shape to a 'fluffier' form with LC diet, it will be important to research that rather than assuming that all LDL as measured in standard blood tests is 'bad'...besides I wonder if the ratio of LDL to HDL isn't more important than actual numbers?

Val