The link between cholesterol and heart disease: Your opinion?
As always, please add your comments below! (I know you have some...)
Then, continue the conversation here: September is National Cholesterol Month: Should You Care?
 older posts |
home | newer posts  |
| Foods vs. Supplements: Round 3 | | Nutrition Data Blog | | How to get the most out of the new My ND |
Posted by: Alice | Aug 17, 2009 7:21:29 AM
Hi Guys
Im busy doing my GCSE coursework on cholestrol and i need a graph that shows the link between high cholestrol levels and getting heart disease - can anyone help?
Posted by: Angela | Dec 6, 2008 10:55:20 PM
My 69 year old brother-in-law said he just went to the doctor & has a cholestrol count of 1800. He has diabetes, but doing very well with that. Is it really possible to have a count of 1800 & still be on your feet?
Posted by: Cyndi Shisara Feigenbaum | Oct 6, 2008 11:21:07 AM
Obviously you when you keep spreading the propaganda about cholesterol are way behind the times. Yes it is important to keep Cholesterol between 180-200 ng/ml. However diet alone cannot do this, our bodies produce cholesterol. Furthermore it this the HDL/LDL cholesterol form ratio that we are concerned of. Additionally such factors as homocysteine level are most important. Homocysteine level determines if LDL will be oxidized. Homocysteine awareness month is what you should call it!
Posted by: I.P. Freely | Oct 1, 2008 10:30:49 PM
It's definitely linked, as many studies show.
However, dietary cholesterol is not linked to heart disease (or high blood cholesterol).
Posted by: I would tell u, but you know what I would have to do... | Sep 27, 2008 6:09:17 PM
my god, all of u are health freaks! Live a natural life, you don't have to worry about your health 100% OF THE TIME. eat a variety, stay away from snacks, and excercise, AND BAM your healthy.
Posted by: E.Wally | Sep 27, 2008 12:35:00 AM
THE IMPORTANCE OF THE TOTAL CHOLESTEROL-TO-HDL CHOLESTEROL RATIO...
AND...
THE INCREDIBLE COMPUNDING FACTOR OF RELATED BLOOD PRESSURE
[excerpt from above]
Regarding the lipid ratio, it is apparent from Framingham Study data that coronary heart disease (CHD) risk is strongly linked to the total/HDL cholesterol ratio—whether or not either the total or the LDL cholesterol level is high.1 A total/HDL cholesterol ratio of 2.5 is, taken alone, highly favorable.
On the other hand, blood lipids, although fundamental to atherogenesis, are best viewed as one factor in a cardiovascular risk profile. Their impact is profoundly influenced by the associated blood pressure. Atherosclerosis does not develop in the low-pressure venous circulation, despite exposure to lipid-laden blood. Only when used as a conduit for cardiac revascularization do veins become vulnerable. Each 20/10 mm Hg increment in blood pressure doubles the cardiovascular mortality rate. Diabetes also doubles the risk associated with any given lipid value.
[end of excerpt]
********** "...Each 20/10 mm Hg increment in blood presure DOUBLES [not author's emphasis] the risk associated with ANY given lipid value. ..." ******************
Now you know why your doctor FREAKS when you have elevated lipid levels AND high BP ?
Posted by: E.Wally | Sep 26, 2008 8:22:24 PM
Treatment Dilemma: Favorable Lipid Ratio With an Elevated LDL
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Is it necessary to prescribe lipid-lowering therapy for a patient with a mildly elevated total cholesterol level (240 mg/dL), a low-density lipoprotein (LDL) cholesterol level of 120 mg/dL, and a high high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol level of 100 mg/dL?
— Mary Ellen Lewis, PA-C
A favorable lipid ratio in association with a high LDL cholesterol level is a troublesome—and fairly common—therapeutic dilemma. Because an HDL cholesterol level of 100 mg/dL is unusually high, it would be prudent to confirm the accuracy of the lipid values.
Also, HDL cholesterol can be dysfunctional, negating its protective role in transporting cholesterol out of the arterial intima. This is caused by an HDL-C mutation of the cholesteryl ester transfer protein gene. However, this is not common in the population. Thus, it might be prudent to treat the elevated LDL cholesterol, particularly if there is a family history of premature coronary disease or a high global risk of the disease.
Regarding the lipid ratio, it is apparent from Framingham Study data that coronary heart disease (CHD) risk is strongly linked to the total/HDL cholesterol ratio—whether or not either the total or the LDL cholesterol level is high.1 A total/HDL cholesterol ratio of 2.5 is, taken alone, highly favorable.
On the other hand, blood lipids, although fundamental to atherogenesis, are best viewed as one factor in a cardiovascular risk profile. Their impact is profoundly influenced by the associated blood pressure. Atherosclerosis does not develop in the low-pressure venous circulation, despite exposure to lipid-laden blood. Only when used as a conduit for cardiac revascularization do veins become vulnerable. Each 20/10 mm Hg increment in blood pressure doubles the cardiovascular mortality rate. Diabetes also doubles the risk associated with any given lipid value.
The Adult Treatment Panel III guidelines have wisely linked the indication for and aggressiveness of dyslipidemia therapy to the global CHD risk, which takes into account the blood pressure, diabetic status, smoking status, age, and sex of the patient.2 Considering the lipid levels in isolation from this other information is shortsighted. If the multivariable risk is very high (eg, 20% for 10 years) or the patient has already sustained an atherosclerotic cardiovascular event, aggressive therapy is indicated, despite the favorable ratio. This could include treatment with statins to reduce the LDL cholesterol level to 100 mg/dL.
The justification for such therapy lies in the pleotropic benefits of statins, such as their favorable effects on platelet aggregation and endothelial function. The Heart Protection Study showed benefit from statin therapy in high-risk patients with any LDL cholesterol level—even a low level.3
If your patient's multivariable risk is less than 10%, then only hygienic measures, such as a heart-healthy diet and periodic lipid monitoring, would be indicated given the highly favorable lipid ratio.
— William B. Kannel, MD, MPH
Professor of Medicine and Public Health
Boston University School of Medicine
Boston
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
REFERENCES:
1.Nam BH, Kannel WB, D'Agostino. Search for an optimal atherogenic lipid risk profile. Am J Cardiol. 2006; 97:372-375.
2.Executive Summary of the Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III). JAMA. 2001;285:2486-2497.
3.Heart Protection Study collaborative group. MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomized placebo-controlled trial. Lancet. 2002;360:7-22.
4.Kannel WB. Lipids, diabetes, and coronary heart disease: insights from the Framingham Study. Am Heart J. 1985;110:1100-1107.
Posted by: e.wALLY | Sep 26, 2008 8:14:09 PM
"CHOLESTEROL INFORMATION LINKS OF INTEREST :
http://www.md-phc.com/education/cholest.html#cholesterol
http://www.consultantlive.com/display/article/10162/37244
Dr.Sinatra.com http://www.drsinatra.com/c/landing_cholhc.asp
Posted by: E.Wally | Sep 26, 2008 5:03:53 PM
anyone that doesn't think there is a clear relationship between cholesterol levels and ratios them to one another is foolish beyond their years.
Posted by: Michael | Sep 26, 2008 2:46:46 PM
There is undoubtably a strong link between cholesterol and heart disease.
A guy I used to go to the gym with used anabolic steroids for over a decade- the result a triple heart bypass operation at 35 years old. The main side effect of anabolic steroids? Lowered HDL and raised LDL.
Posted by: eWally | Sep 25, 2008 2:04:37 PM
For some reason this should have been included in my previous post - no idea why it "didn't take" along with the rest.
It is an excerpt from the study by Kannel and more importantly a link to the entire study.
What Kannel was addressing in his research was the pradox that had been noted by many for some time in the fiels of cardiac research that a significant number of people with ELEVATED LDL - sometimes greatly elevatd - had little or no incidence of CHD.
These people would have been - AND STILL ARE TO A GREAT DEGREE - put on a statin to lower the LDL.
**********************************
the following should have been included in pervious post
***********************************
Here is a shining example of EXACTLY what Kannel in above referenced study - was studying
[excerpt of abstract of study]
Regarding the lipid ratio, it is apparent from Framingham Study data that coronary heart disease (CHD) risk is strongly linked to the total/HDL cholesterol ratio—whether or not either the total or the LDL cholesterol level is high.1 A total/HDL cholesterol ratio of 2.5 is, taken alone, highly favorable. ... [ end of excerpt]
He was studying a "relationship" that had been observed for some time that had puzzled medical professionals, that is, the inconsistency whereby people with what were considered to be highly elevated levels of TOTAL CHOLESTEROL - had little, if any, incidence of heart disease - and - vice versa.
YOUR TOTAL CHOLESTEROL is "above desired" but your "ratios" are excellent.
The complete abstract of the study this comes from can be found at :
Posted by: e.wALLY | Sep 25, 2008 1:53:34 PM
I have several documents focusing on cholesterol in general and lipid ratios in particular that I would be happy to attach and send to anyone interested. If I posted all of them here I think it might offend some as it would take up considerable space.
My email address is : ewally@verizon.net [ also posted below ]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** RECENT studies are finding that the COMBINATION of blood pressure and lipid levels and ratios are all interrelated more importantly than originally understood.
For example : I can point to a recent article in The Lancet whereby a lead researcher at the Boston University School of Public Medicine found that a rise of 10 points in either or both BP factors INCREASED CHANCES OF CHD BY 100%.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
As you know our basic cholesterol screening test has been around for some time with little change. Lately there has been some confusion generated among the general public about what the results of this test mean. There is a widespread impression that "it's all changed now" - what was once important is now not, etc.,etc.
[PAY ATTENTION THOSE OF YOU THAT CONSTANTLY WHINE THAT "one minute cholesterol means one thing and the next minute something else" }
The "confusion" is simply the result of ongoing research which has revealed that those "basic lipid levels" and more importantly - their RELATIONSHIPS TO ONE ANOTHER - are far more revealing than originally understood and that if you can sum it up [ a dangerous thing to do where medical research is concerned ] recent advanced thinking is that the RATIOS, and in particular, SPECIFIC RATIOS, are far more important than the specific levels.
This is a significant "shift" in fundamental cholesterol analysis.
WHY THERE CAN APPEAR TO BE CONFUSION IS THAT MEDICAL RESEARCH IS A CONSTANTLY ONGOING THING. IT IS GOING ON AT THE VERY MOMENT YOU ARE READING THIS IN THOUSANDS OF LABS AND UNIVERSITES ETC ACROSS THE U.S. - AND - THE WORLD.
AS "FINDINGS" ARE "FOUND" - THEY ARE PUBLISHED TO THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY IN PLACES SUCH AS THE LANCET. THESE "FINDINGS" THEN SEEP DOWN INTO FURTHER RESEARCH, THE CONSCIOUSNESS OF THE MEDICAL COMMUNITY TO SOME DEGREE OR NO DEGREE [ YOU ARE NOT REQUIRED TO READ IT ] , THE PRESS, THE MEDIA, AND TO YOU AND I TO SOME OR NO DEGREE.
IF THERE IS ONE THING THAT CHARACTERIZES MEDICAL KNOWLEDGE - IT IS THAT IT NEVER STANDS STILL. IT IS ALWAYS ADVANCING, AND , QUITE UNEVENLY. THERE WILL ALWAYS BE SOME DISAGREEMENT ON ANYTHING.
Dr.Barry Sears [ who did the research that led to the well known "Zone Eating Plan" among other things ] was one of the first to recognize this and can be considered a member of this "new frontier" in the interpretation of cholesterol levels.
Michael and Mary Eades, authors of Protein Power are also pioneers in this area. Of the many books I have read regarding diet it is one of my favorites and clearly superior.
******************
What follows is an "interpretation" of someone's lipid levels taking into account the "current" thinking [ to as much a degree as possible ].
I include it here because it is an excellent example of someone who is getting conflicting medical advice as to what to do about their cholesterol levels.
Basically the person has "wonderful" RATIOS [ current thinking ] but HIGH LDL [ a traditional "warning sign" of the interpretation of lipid LEVELS being the most important factor.
*************************************
*** In comparing your results with "current thinking" there will be a "mixture" of "current thinking" ! The first values that will be compared against are those of Michael and Mary Eades and William B. Kannel, MD, MPH
Professor of Medicine and Public Health, Boston University School of Medicine. There will be "additional" comparative values listed that come from several other studies and researchers. The complete sources of these values are contained in the documents I referred to earlier and will be happy to email to you.
Without further adieu :
YOUR "RATIOS" :
Total cholesterol/HDL : 3.26 This falls between "excellent" .3, and "Ideal" > .4
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*** TG/HDL RATIO ***
This is the ratio that Dr.Sears has emphasized as being a test "... that your doctor MUST administer ..." and is "..an indirect marker for insulin..."
PER DR. SEARS : "Ideal" 40, "Best" > 60
LDL : You - 145, "Desired" < 100
TG : You - 144, "Desired" 30 - 175, "Best" < 150
YOU are a perfect example of someone who by "traditional cholesterol analysis" of just a few years ago - and by some practitioners TODAY who are not "up on the latest research" would by at least a few of your "levels" be a concern.
However, when you consider your "levels" [ some of them ] against the background of current thinking regarding key ratios, and in particular that prescribed by Dr.Sears, a considerably different picture emerges - that is, that overall your ratios are quite excellent !
*** A serious note needs to go here : I consider myself well informed in this area, however, I AM NOT a health care professional and you should take this into your consideration.
This is why, among other reasons, I almost always reference my sources clearly. You, or anyone else, can evaluate for yourself the validity of the data and opinions of others provided here.
However - one of the links below will take you to the web site of a Dr.Sinatra who is quite remarkable [ he's a board certified cardiologist and certified nutritionalist - rare ] .
His website alone contains a wealth of information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
e.Wally
ewally@verizon.net
Posted by: MarkAnthony | Sep 24, 2008 5:35:38 AM
Hey All,i got a question!
I just got blood work back the other day from giving blood and it said my total Chol was 100.
any thoughts?
Posted by: WHYLIE WILLIAMS | Sep 23, 2008 5:21:44 PM
I DO NOT HAVE A HEART DISEASE. I DID HAVE HIGH CHOLESTEROL. I HAVE HAD 2 CAROTID ENDODECOTOMIES(I THINK THE SPELLING IS CLOSE).STATIN DRUGS ARE BAD.I NOW TAKE NIACIN AND SO DOES A LOT OF OTHER FOLKS IN MY BOAT.IT WILL DO THE SAME AS STATIN DRUGS W/O THE SIDE EFFECTS.I DO NOT NOW HAVE HIGH CHOLESTEOL BUT MY TRIGLISERIDES (NOT SURE OF SPELLING) ARE A LITTLE HIGH BUT NOTHING ALARMING.
Posted by: patricia | Sep 23, 2008 4:46:55 AM
My cholesterol level is slightly elevated, due, I think, to underactive thyroid, as before diagnosis (24 years ago) the level was astronomic. Now controlled by daily thyroxine, but doc put me on statins which upset my stomach very badly, so here I am following the Portfolio diet. Dont know if its working as doc refuses retest!
Posted by: David M. Colorez | Sep 22, 2008 7:38:09 PM
I believe by eating mostly Fruits and Greens, having a heart problem would be the least worry. I do have some meat but fat intake is like 15%.
I exercise everyday and because, I eat a lot of Fruits and Greens I don't have to drink that much water!
Posted by: paul | Sep 22, 2008 4:01:38 PM
I ate the standard high grain, fruit, low fat diet for years. Triglycerides were chronically over 500. Total Cholesterol always flitted between 200 and 220.
Several years ago I flirted with Atkins and saw my blood panel improve dramatically. But it is a dumb diet. Not enough green stuff. Too limited in terms of options. Too committed to artificial suggars.
So now I eat what I want, but limit grains and simple sugars. That means even the "bad" food: eggs, cheese, meat. But lots of vegetables, salads, some fruit. I am sure I eat more vegetables than 90% of the adults in the US. I supplement with fish oil or cod liver oil in the winter, a multi-vitamin and magnesium. Last blood panel had 100 triglycerides. 148 total cholesterol with a ratio of total to high around 2.4. I say that to get all the statin slinging cardiologists off my back. Now I would add that the low fat diet is the worst dietary idea ever. Since reducing fat intake has become the standard line, waistlines have exploded (also a result of HFC Syrup). We were told to get cholesterol under 200, then 180, now they are saying maybe 150. Instead of helping people the M.D. throw their hands in the air and put people on Statin drugs. Your body cannot produce the hormones it needs without fat.
Posted by: Carrie | Sep 22, 2008 4:00:34 PM
I have naturally high cholesterol. Before the doctor convinced me to go the statin route it was 325. I weigh about 110. My hdl was over 126 but ldl over 110. The rest of the numbers were well below optimal. I am 58 years old. I have been a runner for almost 30 years and also been a weight trainer for 20 years. I do not eat processed foods,sugar,much red meat and focus more on the vegetables. My doctor switched me from zetia to lipitor all in the quest to get my total under 200. So, I too am not sure how much of a factor cholesterol plays when individuals have inconsistent numbers. I'm taking the medication because of my age and figure it can't hurt.
Posted by: wesley | Sep 22, 2008 12:53:24 PM
then of course there is the confusion between blood cholesterol and cholesterol in your food. Everything I have been reading lately indicates cholesterol in your food does not contribute to cholesterol in your blood. The reason to avoid egg yolks is the saturated fat and (as Dr. Rifali suggests) the calorie density. And if you have been avoiding shrimp because of the cholesterol levels you have been doing your health (and your taste buds) a disservice.
Posted by: CHL- it ain't research, it's a religion! | Sep 22, 2008 12:44:50 PM
I had angina yet my cholesterol (CHL) data was excellent. I took statins and retired because my memory became so bad. I read about Lipitor and statin memory issues (Dr Graveline). Dr. Malcolm Kendrick, discusses the work of Ancel Keys and others, on fats and heart disease (Keys selected only those countries that supported his argument, many others were ignored). Kendrick cites the huge WHO Monica study and blows a hole in the fat/cholesterol/heart disease argument. Dr. Uffe Ravnskov cites the data from the Framingham study to show links between cholesterol and heart disease are very weak. Pharma companies sell $15 billion of statins per annum and fund a great deal of medical 'research'. Gee, might that influence the unbiased findings?
Posted by: Ed | Sep 22, 2008 12:03:47 PM
I'm not sure nor can I find definitive info on cholesterol. My levels were always in the "safe" area. However, an ultrasound found a blocked carotid artery. I now keep cholestrol <300mg and sat. fat <180gm. (Based on 1800 calories/day.) Also take 40mg. lipitor. Eat everything but use the nutrition data on foods faithfully. Seems to be working but don't know if it's the meds or the diet.
Posted by: Webb Hester | Sep 22, 2008 11:59:40 AM
There are two popular schools of thought on avoiding heart disease, The lower your cholesterol path and the lower your inflammation path. The debate as to which should be emphasized more seems redundant since both prescribe the same lifestyle to a healthy heart. We all know it; the trick is to implement the steps in a fast food culture with little time to prepare food. To lower cholesterol or your C reactive protein level, you need to cut out out sugar, simple carbs, processed foods, cut back on red meat, focus primarily on eating a variety of vegetables, and consume a fair amount of fiber. Add an exercise routine five times a week that includes 15 minutes of moderate cardio each workout. We can quibble about the amount of fats versus complex carbs we should eat but the end result either way results in the same recommended food consumption. If you get a blood lipid test, you can focus on your cholestrol results or your glucose level results but they have a high correlation. If you are eating right to lower one, the other will fall in tandom. Success is figuring out how to stick to the mostly veggie foods and exercise path, not scratching our heads on what to do. To me the debate is over, just quit eating processed foods, make vegetables your main course, and figure out when you can sweat for 20 minutes a day.
Posted by: Belle | Sep 22, 2008 11:36:10 AM
IMO: Genetics and inflammation in the vascular system (and body in general) is the real cause of heart 'attack' caused by blockage in the vascular system. Exercise and eating several small, diverse and anti-inflammatory meals is a good way to keep the inflammation down; that seems more important than any number in a lipid count.
Posted by: Dr Tom Rifai | Sep 22, 2008 10:57:26 AM
lipids matter - though "cholesterol" is only PART of it. The issues that are important are LDL PARTICLE number, which may be high even if LDL measured in "mg/dL" is low OR LDL particle # (as measured by "ApoB" ... which your doctor can check and for which 70-80mg/dL you likely still have some of whatever you ate the night before in your blood stream and coating your arteries (i.e., need to move off your duff more or take in less through the other orafice...or BOTH). So LIPIDS absolutely DO matter, but "cholesterol" is just a surrogate for lipids. Get your ApoB<80 (or LDL particle number measured by NMR <1000) AND your fasting triglycerides <70....add in an ApoB/ApoA1 ratio <0.7...and then you are on the TRUE cutting edge of understanding risk associated with lipids. But you STILL have to focus on blood pressure and inflammation as well and THOSE are ANOTHER (largely different) story.
Now, LIFESTYLE change (i.e., up the veggies and fruits in place of calorie dense carbs and liquid calories and pick LEAN animal sources of protein (tofu good too) such as fish, egg whites (an occasional yolk ok but its the CALORIE DENSITY of the yolk, not the "cholesterol" that concerns me more regarding regular yolk intake) and get your abdominal circumference down and THEN consider modifying your lipids and blood pressure with meds IF still necessary. PUT LIFESTYLE FIRST!!
Hope that helps,
Tom Rifai MD BCPNS
Clinical Assistant Professor of Medicine, Wayne State University School of Medicine
Posted by: Paul | Sep 19, 2008 11:56:16 AM
I am not quite sure how to believe on the subject. One doctor tells me it has a major part in heart disease and another tells me it is also hereditary. My mother had a score of 335 and my father had 235 he did not watch his food intake other thin portion. My mother watched everything she ate and her score was very high. I myself have gone from 91 when I am careful at what I eat and when I am not so careful I am now at 231. My parents lived a good life. My dad was 87 and my mother was 85 when they passed.
Paul
Posted by: jpatti | Sep 11, 2008 8:15:07 AM
Rather than guess based on "risk factors," it's best to have a heart scan and find out for *certain* if you're at risk for coronary heart disease.
If you are, you should look into Dr. William Davis's work as he has determined exactly which risk factors actually lower heart scan scores.
I think *sometimes* the risk factor stuff is a bit silly. People with a crease in their earlobes have a higher risk of CHD, but we do not see a rash of doctors prescribing ear surgery like we do the statins.
Knowing what *actually* reduces coronary plaque is a lot more useful than knowing what is a "risk factor."
Posted by: Sam | Sep 8, 2008 11:26:39 AM
After reading Gary Taubes' "Good Calories, Bad Calories" I definitely gave up the "lots of fat" is bad for your hypothesis, and with it a lot of the cholesterol argument, too.
As a vegan I don't ingest any dietary cholesterol, but I do take in a lot of fat, some of it saturated. My cholesterol levels were fine when I had them checked a month ago after a couple months of switching to a much higher fat and protein diet. Too soon to tell, but I feel fine.
Posted by: D Y Kulkarni | Sep 6, 2008 1:55:14 AM
I am told that taking excess vitamins will adversely affect liver;another doc. told me that excess will be thrown out, by body;please clarify
Posted by: http://theoddbody.blogspot.com/ | Sep 5, 2008 12:50:28 AM
there is definitely more happening than just high cholesterol leading to heart disease. no matter what you do, your body still needs to make cholesterol no matter how hard you try to block its production. it's just needed in too many processes.
Posted by: Gary | Sep 4, 2008 7:35:43 PM
New research seems to point to cholesterol values as markers of metabolic disorder. The new hypotheses seem to point to too much carbohydrate and too many calories more than too much fat, saturated or otherwise. Some studies even show that saturated fat is protective, i.e. protects against cardiovascular disease, in the context of carbohydrate restriction.
It's only anecdotal evidence, but as my own guinea pig on a low-carbohydrate high-protein high-fat diet, I have watched my HDL rise (although it wasn't too low to begin with) and my triglycerides and glucose go down (although neither was elevated to begin with). My LDL stayed the same (though it wasn't elevated to begin with). During this time, my HDL has risen from moderately high to very high, considered to be very protective.
I should add that my values were never particulary bad, even though I've been fairly sedentary intermittently throughout life (I'm now 58). And I've never restricted saturated fats.
Posted by: mark | Sep 4, 2008 6:22:51 PM
I remember reading in a book not too long ago that 1 in 3 victims of heart disease have cholesterol levels between 160 and 200. The author suggested that truly heart-safe blood cholesterol levels should be below 150.
I'm not sure myself. It's either that, or there's something else that comes into the equation that we've overlooked.
Posted by: Dave | Sep 4, 2008 4:02:30 PM
Here's a link to an excellent discussion incorporating the most recent knowledge of lipoprotein metabolism:
http://www.cholesterol-and-health.com/Does-Cholesterol-Cause-Heart-Disease-Myth.html
Masterjohn focuses on oxidized LDL, however glycation damage (from sugars interacting with proteins) basically has the same effect, hence (probably) the link between diabetes and heart disease risk.
The Hyperlipid blog also has some excellent recent discussion on this topic:
