4 replies to this topic

[forever freedom]

http://singularityhu...ew-study-shows/

It keeps frustrating me how little we know about our bodies. What's good? What's bad? We don't really have a f*cking clue. Screw this, I'm off to Burger King.

[nameless]

Huh... that is odd. I do recall some studies a while ago showing super high HDL possibly being bad even, but I chalked that up to being the wrong particle size.

Perhaps it's just a marker then, as this study seems to imply. Low HDL usually equals less exercise, worse diets, high sugar, high triglycerides, etc. -- other things that may be more direct causes.

[churchill]

forever freedom, on 21 May 2012 - 12:58 AM, said:

http://singularityhu...ew-study-shows/

It keeps frustrating me how little we know about our bodies. What's good? What's bad? We don't really have a f*cking clue. Screw this, I'm off to Burger King.

/
You can't rely on one study to form your opinion, you need to go with multiple studies or well designed meta studies, and unless it is actual humans which have been tested then treat it very dubiously as many effects do not translate between species. Ask yourself whether in this study they controlled for other factors which could have caused the effect, how large the effect is.

[nameless]

@churchill

Not sure if you looked at the study, but it was a large meta study (article also stated over 100K participants). I can't say how accurate the study is, but yeah, they used humans. What I take away from it, if it is in fact accurate, that HDL is a marker more than a direct cause. It could have ramifications regarding medications, such as all the failures with HDL drugs to date to lower CVD risk. Or why Niacin failed its last study, albeit it was a horribly designed study. It could also affect some diets, such as high fat paleo types of diets w/ super high HDL levels.

But yeah, I wouldn't rely on just this one study to form an opinion just yet. If the remaining HDL drug trials appear to back it up, however, it does seem to lend it more credence. Several HDL drugs have already fallen by the wayside, one causing more harm than good.

[niner]

Much ado about not very much, imho.  All they showed was that increased HDL due to particular mutations (which may have conferred their own set of risks) didn't help CVD significantly.  Technically, it did show reduced OR, but wasn't significant.  More importantly, it didn't hurt.  This doesn't mean "good" cholesterol is suddenly "bad".  It might mean that "good" cholesterol is "meh" cholesterol.  Maybe it's just a marker for a healthy diet, as was mentioned by nameless.