Cholesterol Perception

[skyhawk]

I am new to this forum. I am anxious to learn about protein power and learn from others. I am open minded because we never stop learning.

I am curious as to this groups perception of cholesterol. I have been studying cholesterol for many years. Along the way I have had some shocking revalations that I did not expect. As i dug deeper into the physiology of cholesterol, statin drugs and their side effects, I found my perception changing in a way I never expected.

Honest questions to consider:

Is LDL cholesterol the villain it is portrayed to be?

If Jay Leno went "jaywalking" and stopped YOU on the street and asked you what the physiological benefits of cholesterol are, what would be your answer?

Who benefits the most each time the guidlines for cholesterol are lowered?

Why do half the heart attacks happen to people with cholesterol in the low to normal range?

Why does a person with total cholesterol of only 130 all his life, develop artery disease? And why does a person with total cholesterol of 300 have clean clear arteries?

Why do nearly half of first time heart attacks happen to people with LDL within target range?

I certainly don't have all the answers. But I would like to hear what people have to say about this.

Skyhawk

[Karole]

And how about the side effects of those statins-- !!!

You raise a lot of good questions and I'm one of those who no longer buys into the "con" any more. I am happy that this woe has lowered my total numbers and raised my hdl , but I won't be taking any statins if it ever changes.

[maxlharris]

Is LDL cholesterol the villain it is portrayed to be?
No.

If Jay Leno went "jaywalking" and stopped YOU on the street and asked you what the physiological benefits of cholesterol are, what would be your answer? Cholesterol is a structural material essential to healthy cells. It is also an energy transport system, there's probably more.

Who benefits the most each time the guidlines for cholesterol are lowered?
Drug companies. A better question is who suffers most from each change... patients.

Why do half the heart attacks happen to people with cholesterol in the low to normal range? Probably because cholesterol has little to do with heart attacks. Has more to do with atherosclerosis, but it's unclear if that has anything to do with infarctions.

Why does a person with total cholesterol of only 130 all his life, develop artery disease? And why does a person with total cholesterol of 300 have clean clear arteries? Lotta reasons. Top of my head: 1- total doesn't tell much of the story, it's the ratios. 2- genetics play the largest role in your cholesterol values.

Why do nearly half of first time heart attacks happen to people with LDL within target range? Because LDL isn't really related to heart attacks.


I'm in the bold above. This is merely to allow me to post.

[skyhawk]

Interesting replys! Thanx. Anyone else want to jump in on this one?

[gitfiddle]

I don't worry about cholesterol and I don't "do" statins. I'm more interested in blood sugar and insulin resistance. :)

[skyhawk]

Wow! So far I am seeing completely different answers here than in other forums. Anybody else?

[laughingW]

Mine would be like Max's. I couldn't say it better.

[skyhawk]

Ten years ago, had these questions been asked, I probably would have gotten different answers. I think it reflects that consumers are more educated today.

[maxlharris]

Flawed sample. Most everyone who has answered to this point is a protein power devotee, and has probably done some reading beyond the PP books. Most of the population is not so inclined, and to my knowledge, PP is the only major diet that breaks down cholesterol thusly.

On the other hand, the commercials about HFCS being the same as sugar point to a set of consumers getting wise to HFCS, and possibly free sweeteners as well. But, at present, the money is in the drug companies' corner, it gets there through statin sales and statin sales are directly tied to the general amount of cholesterolophobia in the air, especially among the doctor class (who read studies funded by the drug companies and who get marketing reps from the drug companies calling, and who went to med schools subsidized by drug companies). So, while 4 people on here are probably representative of here in general (for contrast, ask these to Roadstr and you will probably get the answers you would expect, not the ones you would have hoped for), I'd suggest we are a very flawed sample for the population as a whole.

[skyhawk]

Thanks Max. I would say you are right on with your analysis. And I agree with everything you said.

I will be looking to y'all with some questions for myself. I have never tried low carb before, and think some of you could answer my questions about low carb diets as this might be the solution for me. I will explain more later. Thanks for being here.

Skyhawk

[Karole]

Sky, if at all possible read Protein Power Life Plan-- the wealth of knowledge the Drs. Eades display is just over whelming. If you want to try low carb and want to know why it works then read all that info. Knowledge is the key to success.

[Roadstr]

Max... thanks for thinking of me... I don't think cholesterol is bad, just as I don't think glucose, lipids or proteins are bad. The body needs them all, it's when things go wrong with the functioning that problems arise, we know that because people die earlier than latter and some say it can be avoided with proper health care. For example a person with type 2 diabetes is insulin resistant and has higher levels of sugar in the blood for a longer period of time than most. The sugar causes damage to arteries and then plaque will begin to build up as the arteries are repaired.
I think cholesterol is good, but not when things go wrong. There is no feedback mechanism to limit production and I don't know a lot about this, but I think it causes some to have a higher level of cholesterol than others. Is that bad, I have no idea. When I was in my late 20's a nurse said the doc wanted to see me after a physical that I had which was required for a job assignment by the NRC. I walked in to meet this doc I had never met and he said, "Don't be alarmed, I just wanted to meet you because all of your blood work was at exactly the optimum level, right in the middle of the ranges for every one of the tests and I had not seen that before."
As we get older things don't work as well, but some say don't worry because it's a conspiracy by the drug companies that have pumped money into a corrupt system and scew test results. I do believe that this has been done. Others believe what their docs tell them and have no idea they are being duped into thinking they have to take a drug to correct the problem. Then there are very credible sources like Dr. Eades and others that say it's complete bunk that one should worry about the levels of cholesterol the establishment has represented as healthy and explains why. I think sooner than latter the truth will be realized by most of the public.
It may be what is good for me is not for a person that's diabetic or what's right for you isn't right for an 8 year old. It all depends. I do think there is some level that is optimal for each individual. Dr. Eades has published those ranges... just not sure what is optimal for me. Is there a level that is too high or too low, absolutely. Should you be worried about it... um, I don't know... probably not if you have no health issues, exercise and eat well (and by eating well I mean no junk, processed foods... that's all). Then your blood lipids are probably within a healthy range. As a younger man I could eat anything and my body handled it well, the point of my story above.
Sorry if this wasn't what you were expecting, Max.

[maxlharris]

Uhm, I don't say that it's a conspiracy by the drug companies. I suggest that they have financial motives to emphasize what will move more product, in the same way that Coca Cola markets itself as a fun and refreshing beverage and Prudential points you to their history and stability (Pru is the more amusing of the two, actually). And their marketing tool is fear. Fear is a good marketing tool. It sells everything from deodorant to statins.

As to "some people" saying "screw test results," when the accuracy of the test is +/- 15% and consider accurate and an additional 5% are just tossed as being way off, what would you advise? Getting bent out of shape on a 10 point bump in your LDL, which is measured by difference, rather than by directly? When you are working everything properly? Let me restate the hypothetical. Your ratios are all in the good range, maybe on the borderland of good, and your test comes back with your total 10 points higher, say from 195 to 205 and your LDL up by the same 10 points, say from 115 to 125. If you're most sheeple, you get really worried and your doc maybe gets you thinking statin or whole grains or no-flush niacin, or no eggs or no beef or whatever. If you are a bit of a critical thinker, you probably decide to wait, even though you have just crossed the "line" into hypercholesteremia and bad LDL. Remember, your ratios are still good and your Triglycerides are <50. And the test has a +/-15% error built into the accurate 95%.

Roadstr, I had no expectation, other than you would have a differeing opinion. You did. No disappointment whatsoever.

Last thought: Maybe what our hypothetical patient did from where he was 8 until he was 28 is what messed his metabolism for his middle ages. Rather than spontaneous shut down, how about a mileage based explantion... consider excess carb consumption as like grinding the gears in a car... Not so bad once or twice, but if you do it every day for the life of the car, the car's life isn't gonna have so many days.

[skyhawk]

Thanks Karole, I will read the protien power life plan.

I used to be a strong cholesterol lowering mentality. I used to think the lower the better. Then I got sick with neuromuscular problems. I began to study cholesterol and the human body.

I did what Ancel Keys did and explored the world and compared total cholesterol levels and death rates from heart disease. But I did not limit myself to seven countries. By the time I finished, I could not see any relationship between total cholesterol levels and heart attacks and stroke. It took me several years of study before the light bulb in my head finally clicked on.

[Roadstr]

Here a good explinantion of the Ancel Keys Study (http://high-fat-nutrition.blogspot.com/2009/02/cholesterol-presentation-between.html) that you refer to skyhawk. I don't put too much faith in the study because it was done in 1953, can you imagine how much those cholesterol numbers were off back then when the are off around 20% today! If you are concerned that your test results for cholesterol are inaccurate you can get an LDL only test done to confirm the results.

Max, did you coin a new term... sheeple! :nod: I like it, very clever. I didn't say, "screw the results"... I said, "scew test results"... misspelled skew. I was thinking of the Keys study when I said that sky. To be correct, Keys didn't skew the results, he just left out a bunch of data to prove his point.

[skyhawk]

Yes, Keys did leave out a bunch of data to prove his point.

When I was a teenager back in the 70's, I remember my father telling me about the results of the seven country study. I clearly remember my thoughts upon learning about Key's study.

I said "Yeah but, there are more than seven countries in the world."

So even as a teenager with simple thinking ( if teenagers can think) I immediatly spotted a problem. I didn't give key's study another thought after that, untill 35 years later.

[gloriana]

Please excuse me if this has been addressed in the past - I am totally new to this forum, and certainly have no medical background.

For those who adapt a low carbohydrate diet, it seems to me the most dangerous cholesterol perception is that (as one's doctor is likely to propose) this way of eating supposedly either will make cholesterol sky-rocket or will temporarily reduce it then make it fly. The worst thing one can do, IMO, is to see "low carbing" as temporary, then obediently go with the low fat diet and end up heavier and in worse health than one was in the first place.

I have been a low carb devotee in the long term - though my weight loss has been slow, I'm satisfied for the past three years. (It certainly eliminated problems of cravings, obsessions with food, constant hunger and the like.) However, I have a difficulty which others may have experienced, and would appreciate comments. (For the record, I would not 'go off low carb' any sooner than I would jump off Tower Bridge... though, here and there, I've known people who undoubtedly would do the latter were this recommended by any doctor.) After my first year of low carb eating, my cholesterol count was excellent where it previously had been high, though I was only down 62 pounds and still classed then as 'severely obese.' (I did not mention to any doctor how I lost weight - it's not anyone's concern but mine. Let them believe it was the low cholesterol diet - I like to think I've saved a tree with how many I've tossed into the recycling bin.)

I have not changed my way of eating, though I did have a bit of weight gain and went back to a very low carbohydrate intake (and masses of water!) temporarily - I managed to lose ten pounds in a month, right before my latest blood tests, so I'm back to the weight I was before the gaining. (I never had any problem with gaining on low carb in the past. But I'm back on track, and hope to reach goal.) However, my blood test showed an overall cholesterol count of double what it was last time. The doctor, of course, wanted me to 'go on a diet' (three guesses which one... while I'm at it I'll jump off Tower Bridge). Has anyone else experienced having low carb greatly improve one's cholesterol count, but then have a certain time when the cholesterol was suddenly high?

[Karole]

Hi Glorianna, welcome to the forum--we hope you'll stay a while.

I had a great reading last year in May so it will soon be time for a follow up and I am anxiously waiting to see what will be the result. If it is higher I won't turn to statins either. (No Tower Bridge for me):)

So right now I can't help with your question--but soon perhaps I can at least let you know how I've done. I gained a bit of weight over the holidays last year but have gotten shed of them and am on the straight and narrow again.

[gitfiddle]

Has anyone else experienced having low carb greatly improve one's cholesterol count, but then have a certain time when the cholesterol was suddenly high?Welcome in, Elizabeth! Low carb eating certainly brought my cholesterol down several years ago, but I've never notice it go up or down more than a few points since.

[Shadow]

Hi Elizabeth and welcome :). Love your log-on name ;). My roommate and I were just discussing Eliz I yesterday and then came your post. Talk about wierd coincidence :tongue:!

Anyway.... I don't know that it would cause your number to double but I know if I eat a high fat meal before labs, my cholestrol is higher. So usually I try to eat lower fat for a couple days before my blood draw. I do love my fat but it doesn't hurt me to cut back a day or two ;). I've also noticed that exercising the morning of makes it go up a little as does imbibing in a bit too much coffee :rolleyes:. But, I love my exercise and coffee too so I don't sweat it.

[gloriana]

I'm glad you like my 'name'! :D When my nephew, then aged 8, first signed on for an email account, I asked what name he wished, and he replied "Rex, because I'm the king!" Suited to one related to Gloriana...

Now that I think of it, though I hadn't eaten the morning my blood was drawn, and it wasn't taken till noon, I did have espresso. I also am wondering, based on a post on another thread, if my having chopped my carbohydrates way down (to below 20 grams) and flooded myself with water (to lose the weight I'd gained - which was successful, and my weight loss usually is slow, considering I've only lost 84 pounds in three years), if the fats I was seeking to 'flush out' might have temporarily hit the bloodstream.

I shiver, remembering years back, when a 'low cholesterol diet' set me off on a dreadful binge. Not that I'd ever eat that way again, but of course it was the first thing the doctor recommended. My total cholesterol last time (after low carb, not low fat!) was 138 - something must be wrong that it was 260. Then again, my entire family (both sides - though they live into their 90s) had high cholesterol (though none of my mother's enormous family ever had heart trouble.) I often wish that, like them, I hadn't even heard of cholesterol until I was 78.

[laughingW]

Then again, my entire family (both sides - though they live into their 90s) had high cholesterol (though none of my mother's enormous family ever had heart trouble.)
Wow, how cool is that. I have heard that some longevity groups had high cholesterol of the fluffy type.

I often wish that, like them, I hadn't even heard of cholesterol until I was 78.
My approach is not to see a doctor until I have symptoms.
Maybe I can get to 78 without symptoms or doc!
(along the lines of Groves and "Trick and Treat")

[skyhawk]

Speaking of cholesterol and longevity, here is an interesting article from Yale internal medicine showing lack of association between cholesterol levels and dying from heart disease in persons older than 70 years.

http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/abstract/272/17/1335

Skyhawk

[gloriana]

LaughingW, my mother's family (only one of whom died very young... at 84 - and, at 90, they could pass for 75) 'broke all the rules.' Several of the men were alcoholics - everyone ate whatever they wished - they smoked - they never saw a gym in their lives. Recently, I was talking to my cousin (who, having just hit 70, is entering middle age) - she's 'into' doctors, and recites a litany of what tests she had (not because she is ill - preventative) whenever I speak to her. I commented that I think her mother lived to be 97 (and happily!) because she never went near doctors.

Unfortunately, I do have one medical problem which requires treatment, so I cannot avoid doctors altogether. Still, my experiences have been far more negative than positive. Unlike many on this forum, I'm less afraid of statins than of those bl**dy 'low cholesterol diets,' but just try to tell any doctor otherwise. (Actually, when my cholesterol was exceptional, I was on low carb - what made it go up this time I do not know, but I am afraid I used a few Anglo Saxon expletives at his suggestion that I go on his damned diet. I wonder how many of his patients have lost as much as I have, no regain though I'm losing very little in the third year, and so forth. Oddly enough, he was doctor to many of my family - someone has to sign the death certificates when they suddenly leave this earth in extreme old age - and knows perfectly well that not a one ever had heart disease.)

My dad's family seldom live past 90 - they are mere children of 86 or so when they 'check out.'

[Shadow]

I'm glad you like my 'name'! :D When my nephew, then aged 8, first signed on for an email account, I asked what name he wished, and he replied "Rex, because I'm the king!" Suited to one related to Gloriana...
Wow - smart nephew :p!

Now that I think of it, though I hadn't eaten the morning my blood was drawn, and it wasn't taken till noon, I did have espresso. I also am wondering, based on a post on another thread, if my having chopped my carbohydrates way down (to below 20 grams) and flooded myself with water (to lose the weight I'd gained - which was successful, and my weight loss usually is slow, considering I've only lost 84 pounds in three years), if the fats I was seeking to 'flush out' might have temporarily hit the bloodstream.
I'm not of a scientific bent, but that sounds like it makes sense!

I shiver, remembering years back, when a 'low cholesterol diet' set me off on a dreadful binge. Not that I'd ever eat that way again, but of course it was the first thing the doctor recommended.
Of course :rolleyes:.
My total cholesterol last time (after low carb, not low fat!) was 138
I would say to just stick to this WOE and the numbers will take care of themselves :nod:. I remember reading that for some people here, it took up to 18 months for the lab values to fall in place. So don't give up hope :).

[James L]

Speaking of cholesterol and longevity, here is an interesting article from Yale internal medicine ...

The following Commentary in QJM was one of numerous articles that cited the Yale article: High cholesterol may protect against infections and atherosclerosis (http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/96/12/927). by U. Ravnskov, an Independent researcher.

Some excerpts:
The fact that high cholesterol predicts coronary heart disease in young and middle-aged men would seem to argue against any protective role for high cholesterol. However, high cholesterol may reflect the presence of factors promoting coronary heart disease, which may outweigh the beneficial effects. As most men of that age are in the midst of their professional career, high cholesterol may reflect mental stress, a well-known cause of high cholesterol, and also a significant risk factor for CHD. Thus, high cholesterol may be a risk marker for adrenal hyperfunction, not the true cause.Conclusions: ... The most likely explanation for these findings is that rather than promoting atherosclerosis, high cholesterol may be protective, possibly through its beneficial influence on the immune system.Malcolm Kendrick provided the author with comments and the paper was presented in 2003 at a Weston A. Price Foundation Conference.