55 replies to this topic

[hivemind]

You said that the healthiest people have low cholesterol their entire lives, but there doesn't seem to be any data to back that up. For those with the very highest cholesterol, perhaps there is some advantage to lowering it with statins. But what is the level where there is a net benefit rather than harm? I can tell you I found statins to be an insidious poison, and I'll bet half those on it are suffering to a lesser degree but haven't made the connection.

Low cholesterol is not harmful. There is nothing to prove that. Humans do fine with low levels. Low level is natural for humans. Western high levels are very unnatural. High cholesterol is the problem.

What kind of data do you mean? There are tons of data supporting the lipid hypothesis. LDL is a causal factor. It actually causes atherosclerosis.
There are also studies about populations with low cholesterol levels. These populations do not have atherosclerosis. With a cholesterol level under 150 you are practically immune to atherosclerosis.

Edited by hivemind, 05 August 2012 - 12:18 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Low cholesterol is not harmful.

This is incorrect. That low cholesterol is harmful is called the "low cholesterol paradox." And it shouldn't be paradox, actually, as cholesterol is important to the body, otherwise we wouldn't have it.

The one certain conclusion is that low cholesterol levels are markers for excess mortality, just as are high levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....sterol paradox"

Thus there is a best level of cholesterol, and we get back to the third post on this thread--

The cholesterol level related with the lowest mortality ranged from 211 to 251 mg/100 ml, which was higher than the mean cholesterol level of study subjects.

Edited by Turnbuckle, 05 August 2012 - 12:28 PM.

[hivemind]

Despite the widespread cholesterol denialism that has become prevalent in the alternative health world, thanks to flawed arguments advanced by folks like Gary Taubes and Uffe Ravnskov, it's quite clear that LDL cholesterol is a strong risk factor for cardiovascular disease (just not as strong as HDL-to-total cholesterol).

There is a difference. LDL is a causal factor and HDL maybe is not. It may be useless to try to raise your HDL. LDL is the only causal factor. Total cholesterol includes the LDL, so it is too a causal factor.

http://www.nytimes.c...-risk.html?_r=1

Edited by hivemind, 05 August 2012 - 12:56 PM.

[hivemind]

Low cholesterol is not harmful.

This is incorrect. That low cholesterol is harmful is called the "low cholesterol paradox." And it shouldn't be paradox, actually, as cholesterol is important to the body, otherwise we wouldn't have it.

The one certain conclusion is that low cholesterol levels are markers for excess mortality, just as are high levels.

http://www.ncbi.nlm....sterol paradox"

Thus there is a best level of cholesterol, and we get back to the third post on this thread--

The cholesterol level related with the lowest mortality ranged from 211 to 251 mg/100 ml, which was higher than the mean cholesterol level of study subjects.

There is no proof that low cholesterol is harmul. Those epidemiological correlations do not prove causality. Low cholesterol is a marker of disease in the populations with high cholesterol, it does not cause disease. In low cholesterol populations there are no diseases caused by low cholesterol. Cholesterol is important, but we do not need more than 150. It is not a paradox, it is just a correlation. High cholesterol levels on the other hand are proven to be causal factor in atherosclerosis. They cause atherosclerosis.

Yes, there is a best level of cholesterol, and it is under 150. 211-251 is not for people who want maximal longevity.

[Turnbuckle]

Yes, there is a best level of cholesterol, and it is under 150.

You never seem to provide anything to back up your statements, but you really should for this one.

[hivemind]

Yes, there is a best level of cholesterol, and it is under 150.

You never seem to provide anything to back up your statements, but you really should for this one.

I'll give you this video series. Watch it.

http://www.youtube.c...B5&feature=plcp

Text can be found here:

http://www.plantpositive.com/

And I am NOT a 100% vegetarian.

Edited by hivemind, 05 August 2012 - 01:56 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Yes, there is a best level of cholesterol, and it is under 150.

You never seem to provide anything to back up your statements, but you really should for this one.

I'll give you this video series. Watch it.

http://www.youtube.c...B5&feature=plcp

Text can be found here:

http://www.plantpositive.com/

So you link to a whole playlist of videos? No, you need to link to a reputable study. That you linked to this instead destroys your credibility
.

[hivemind]

^Is this the kind of study you want?

http://en.wikipedia....ham_Heart_Study

http://www.tcolincam...Hash=7a15629bc3

Framingham Heart Study and other research, the ideal level appears to be below 150 mg/dl. At that point, coronary artery disease is very unlikely.

Framingham data show that only patients with cholesterol levels of less than 150 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) achieve the lowest coronary artery disease risk. In the first 50 years of the Framingham study, only five subjects with cholesterol levels of less than 150 mg/dl developed coronary artery disease. Rural residents in the developing areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America typically have total-cholesterol levels of about 125-140, and they do not develop coronary artery disease.²

Edited by hivemind, 05 August 2012 - 02:15 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

^Is this the kind of study you want?

http://en.wikipedia....ham_Heart_Study

http://www.tcolincam...Hash=7a15629bc3

Framingham Heart Study and other research, the ideal level appears to be below 150 mg/dl. At that point, coronary artery disease is very unlikely.

Framingham data show that only patients with cholesterol levels of less than 150 milligrams per deciliter (mg/dl) achieve the lowest coronary artery disease risk. In the first 50 years of the Framingham study, only five subjects with cholesterol levels of less than 150 mg/dl developed coronary artery disease. Rural residents in the developing areas of Asia, Africa, and Latin America typically have total-cholesterol levels of about 125-140, and they do not develop coronary artery disease.²

There are many areas of the world that have low total cholesterol and low coronary disease, yet high overall mortality. So low cholesterol is only "the best level" if you are particular about your cause of death. The chart in post no. 15 of this thread is a good example of the inverse correlation of total cholesterol and deaths from all causes using data from over a hundred countries.

And in a recent study of the elderly where statin users were excluded, the researchers found that "Participants with low serum total cholesterol seem to have a lower survival rate than participants with an elevated cholesterol level, irrespective of concomitant diseases or health status."

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20470020

The bottom line is, you may have beautiful arteries, but you're still a corpse.

[hivemind]

There are many areas of the world that have low total cholesterol and low coronary disease, yet high overall mortality. So low cholesterol is only "the best level" if you are particular about your cause of death. The chart in post no. 15 of this thread is a good example of the inverse correlation of total cholesterol and deaths from all causes using data from over a hundred countries.

And in a recent study of the elderly where statin users were excluded, the researchers found that "Participants with low serum total cholesterol seem to have a lower survival rate than participants with an elevated cholesterol level, irrespective of concomitant diseases or health status."

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20470020

The bottom line is, you may have beautiful arteries, but you're still a corpse.

High cholesterol causes coronary disease. Overall mortality is another thing. Low cholesterol does not cause rise in overall mortality. There is no proof for that.

You don' t understand the difference between correlation and causality. Low cholesterol does not cause diseases. In western people with high cholesterol level it is associated with some other health problems.

Edited by hivemind, 05 August 2012 - 03:33 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Low Cholesterol is a risk factor for stroke. That has been documented. I should know because it runs in my family. Go back and do your research. Cholesterol is present in the body for a reason. The body uses it for my important processes. Including making the myelin sheath around nerves. Everything is an inverted U or bell curve. To claim absolutely more...or less of anything is better is ridicules.

And cholesterol causes CHD is old school. The latest research shows otherwise.

http://www.scienceda...20606132302.htm
Web address:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/06/
120606132302.htm

The Real Culprit Behind Hardened Arteries? Stem Cells, Says Landmark Study



Within the walls of blood vessels are smooth muscle cells and newly discovered vascular stem cells. The stem cells are multipotent and are not only able to differentiate into smooth muscle cells, but also into fat, cartilage and bone cells. UC Berkeley researchers provide evidence that the stem cells are contributing to clogged and hardened arteries. (Credit: Song Li illustration)

ScienceDaily (June 6, 2012) — One of the top suspects behind killer vascular diseases is the victim of mistaken identity, according to researchers from the University of California, Berkeley, who used genetic tracing to help hunt down the real culprit.

The guilty party is not the smooth muscle cells within blood vessel walls, which for decades was thought to combine with cholesterol and fat that can clog arteries. Blocked vessels can eventually lead to heart attacks and strokes, which account for one in three deaths in the United States.
Instead, a previously unknown type of stem cell -- a multipotent vascular stem cell -- is to blame, and it should now be the focus in the search for new treatments, the scientists report in a new study appearing June 6 in the journal Nature Communications.
"For the first time, we are showing evidence that vascular diseases are actually a kind of stem cell disease," said principal investigator Song Li, professor of bioengineering and a researcher at the Berkeley Stem Cell Center. "This work should revolutionize therapies for vascular diseases because we now know that stem cells rather than smooth muscle cells are the correct therapeutic target."
The finding that a stem cell population contributes to artery-hardening diseases, such as atherosclerosis, provides a promising new direction for future research, the study authors said.
"This is groundbreaking and provocative work, as it challenges existing dogma," said Dr. Deepak Srivastava, who directs cardiovascular and stem cell research at the Gladstone Institutes in San Francisco, and who provided some of the mouse vascular tissues used by the researchers. "Targeting the vascular stem cells rather than the existing smooth muscle in the vessel wall might be much more effective in treating vascular disease."
It is generally accepted that the buildup of artery-blocking plaque stems from the body's immune response to vessel damage caused by low-density lipoproteins, the bad cholesterol many people try to eliminate from their diets. Such damage attracts legions of white blood cells and can spur the formation of fibrous scar tissue that accumulates within the vessel, narrowing the blood flow.
The scar tissue, known as neointima, has certain characteristics of smooth muscle, the dominant type of tissue in the blood vessel wall. Because mature smooth muscle cells no longer multiply and grow, it was theorized that in the course of the inflammatory response, they revert, or de-differentiate, into an earlier state where they can proliferate and form matrices that contribute to plaque buildup.
However, no experiments published have directly demonstrated this de-differentiation process, so Li and his research team remained skeptical. They turned to transgenic mice with a gene that caused their mature smooth muscle cells to glow green under a microscope.
In analyzing the cells from cross sections of the blood vessels, they found that more than 90 percent of the cells in the blood vessels were mature smooth muscle cells. They then isolated and cultured the cells taken from the middle layer of the mouse blood vessels.
After one month of cell expansion, the researchers saw a threefold increase in the size of the cell nucleus and the spreading area, along with an increase in stress fibers. Notably, none of the new, proliferating cells glowed green, which meant that their lineage could not be traced back to the mature smooth muscle cells originally isolated from the blood vessels.
"Not only was there a lack of green markers in the cell cultures, but we noticed that another type of cell isolated from the blood vessels exhibited progenitor traits for different types of tissue, not just smooth muscle cells," said Zhenyu Tang, co-lead author of the study and a Ph.D. student in the UC Berkeley-UCSF Graduate Program in Bioengineering.
The other co-lead author of the study, Aijun Wang, was a post-doctoral researcher in Li's lab.
"The different phenotypes gave us the clue that stem cells were involved," said Wang, who is now an assistant professor and the co-director of the Surgical Bioengineering Laboratory at the UC Davis Medical Center. "We did further tests and detected proteins and transcriptional factors that are only found in stem cells. No one knew that these cells existed in the blood vessel walls because no one looked for them before."
Further experiments determined that the newly discovered vascular stem cells were multipotent, or capable of differentiating into various specialized cell types, including smooth muscle, nerve, cartilage, bone and fat cells. This would explain why previous studies misidentified the cells involved in vessel clogs as de-differentiated smooth muscle cells after vascular injury.
"In the later stages of vascular disease, the soft vessels become hardened and more brittle," said Li. "Previously, there was controversy about how soft tissue would become hard. The ability of stem cells to form bone or cartilage could explain this calcification of the blood vessels."
Other tests in the study showed that the multipotent stem cells were dormant under normal physiological conditions. When the blood vessel walls were damaged, the stem cells rather than the mature smooth muscle cells became activated and started to multiply.
The researchers analyzed human carotid arteries to confirm that the same type of multipotent vascular stem cells are found in human blood vessels.
"If your target is wrong, then your treatment can't be very effective," said Dr. Shu Chien, director of the Institute of Engineering in Medicine at UC San Diego, and Li's former adviser. "These new findings give us the right target and should speed up the discovery of novel treatments for vascular diseases."
Grants from the National Institutes of Health and the California Institute for Regenerative Medicine helped support this research.
Story Source:

The above story is reprinted from materials provided by University of California - Berkeley. The original article was written by Sarah Yang.
Note: Materials may be edited for content and length. For further information, please contact the source cited above.

Journal Reference:

• Zhenyu Tang, Aijun Wang, Falei Yuan, Zhiqiang Yan, Bo Liu, Julia S. Chu, Jill A. Helms, Song Li. Differentiation of multipotent vascular stem cells contributes to vascular diseases. Nature Communications, 2012; 3: 875 DOI: 10.1038/ncomms1867

[hivemind]

And in a recent study of the elderly where statin users were excluded, the researchers found that "Participants with low serum total cholesterol seem to have a lower survival rate than participants with an elevated cholesterol level, irrespective of concomitant diseases or health status."

Source: http://www.ncbi.nlm....pubmed/20470020

The bottom line is, you may have beautiful arteries, but you're still a corpse.

Another thing is, that it is not about the cholesterol levels at some age. (old age in this case) It is about cholesterol level through your whole life.

[hivemind]

Low Cholesterol is a risk factor for stroke. That has been documented. I should know because it runs in my family. Go back and do your research.

Lowering cholesterol reduces strokes. However, I was talking about heart disease and atherosclerosis. Stroke is more about blood pressure than atherosclerosis/cholesterol. Statins reduce heart disease much more than strokes.

Cholesterol is present in the body for a reason. The body uses it for my important processes. Including making the myelin sheath around nerves. Everything is an inverted U or bell curve. To claim absolutely more...or less of anything is better is ridicules.

This is a retarded argument. Of course it is for a reason. The problem is that people have too much of it.

And cholesterol causes CHD is old school. The latest research shows otherwise.

No it isn't. It's proven science.
That stem cell thing does not refute LDL-theory.
Like it says here: stem cells may have something to do with atheroclerosis in the later stages. LDL is however a known cause of the process.

"In the later stages of vascular disease, the soft vessels become hardened and more brittle," said Li. "Previously, there was controversy about how soft tissue would become hard. The ability of stem cells to form bone or cartilage could explain this calcification of the blood vessels."

[hivemind]

The longevity kings living in Okinawa Japan have low cholesterol levels their whole lives.

Are they suffering from increased mortality caused by low cholesterol?

Please, that is a ridiculous argument.

Edited by hivemind, 05 August 2012 - 03:58 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Perhaps fullerenes will replace statins as the treatment of choice. A just published patent application that addresses the immune cascade rather than cholesterol--
METHOD FOR INHIBITING THE BUILD-UP OF ARTERIAL PLAQUE BY ADMINISTERING FULLERENES

The assignee is not given, but some of the inventors work for Luna.

[Hebbeh]

Low Cholesterol is a risk factor for stroke. That has been documented. I should know because it runs in my family. Go back and do your research.

Lowering cholesterol reduces strokes. However, I was talking about heart disease and atherosclerosis. Stroke is more about blood pressure than atherosclerosis/cholesterol. Statins reduce heart disease much more than strokes.

True, BOTH too high AND too low cholesterol contribute to risk of stroke. As I said, everything has an ideal range. Too much or too little of anything is less than ideal. With your retarded reasoning, the ideal level of cholesterol would be zero since you apparently believe there is no lower limit or range and less is better. But I can assure you that isn't the case....only a fool would believe less and less of anything required for survival would be better.

This is a retarded argument. Of course it is for a reason. The problem is that people have too much of it.

What is retarded is to believe that every single person in the world suffers from too high or have too much cholesterol. True, probably all the obese couch potatoes stuffing their pie holes at McD's have elevated unhealthy cholesterol levels and that may be the majority...but that is not everyone. At one time, I allowed my total cholesterol to dip to 105 with HDL of 17 and LDL of 73 and even with TC/HDL ratio of 6.2, I can assure you that was not healthy. And that was what was measured...it very likely has been even lower. Less is not always better. And I wasn't on statins or any kind of medication at the time. I can post the labs if you like.

[Hebbeh]

The longevity kings living in Okinawa Japan have low cholesterol levels their whole lives.

Are they suffering from increased mortality caused by low cholesterol?

Please, that is a ridiculous argument.

The myth of Okinawans being longevity kings has been debunked. They have lied about age and counted people long dead. But sure, any group not subsisting at McD's is going to be healthier than the typical Western couch patato. But that doesn't apply to most here. If I don't get run over by a truck, I expect to out live even the Okinawan's fudged numbers.

[hivemind]

True, BOTH too high AND too low cholesterol contribute to risk of stroke. As I said, everything has an ideal range. Too much or too little of anything is less than ideal. With your retarded reasoning, the ideal level of cholesterol would be zero since you apparently believe there is no lower limit or range and less is better. But I can assure you that isn't the case....only a fool would believe less and less of anything required for survival would be better.

Ideal range is <150. No need to go lower than that. Zero is not optimal. Zero is a dead person.

What is retarded is to believe that every single person in the world suffers from too high or have too much cholesterol. True, probably all the obese couch potatoes stuffing their pie holes at McD's have elevated unhealthy cholesterol levels and that may be the majority...but that is not everyone. At one time, I allowed my total cholesterol to dip to 105 with HDL of 17 and LDL of 73 and even with TC/HDL ratio of 6.2, I can assure you that was not healthy. And that was what was measured...it very likely has been even lower. Less is not always better. And I wasn't on statins or any kind of medication at the time. I can post the labs if you like.

You don't have to dip that low. Especially if you do not feel healthy doing it.

But nobody should be thinking that optimal cholesterol is over 200. That is retarded thinking.

[Turnbuckle]

Ideal range is <150. No need to go lower than that.

Do you even know what a range is? If you say the ideal is <150, that means from 0-150. If you mean the ideal is 150 and not below, then say that.

[Hebbeh]

Ideal range is <150. No need to go lower than that. Zero is not optimal. Zero is a dead person.

But nobody should be thinking that optimal cholesterol is over 200. That is retarded thinking.

I don't remember anybody claiming TC over 200 was optimal...at least in the current discussion. And what do you mean by Ideal RANGE being <150? Less than 150 down to what? 140? 130? 100? 50? I guess we have agreed that down to 0 is less than optimal.

[hivemind]

Ideal range is <150. No need to go lower than that. Zero is not optimal. Zero is a dead person.

But nobody should be thinking that optimal cholesterol is over 200. That is retarded thinking.

I don't remember anybody claiming TC over 200 was optimal...at least in the current discussion. And what do you mean by Ideal RANGE being <150? Less than 150 down to what? 140? 130? 100? 50? I guess we have agreed that down to 0 is less than optimal.

I don't know what the healthy minimum is. There is some stuff about that too in the primitive nutrition series. Under 150 was/is very normal for the primitive human.

[Hebbeh]

Ideal range is <150. No need to go lower than that. Zero is not optimal. Zero is a dead person.

But nobody should be thinking that optimal cholesterol is over 200. That is retarded thinking.

I don't remember anybody claiming TC over 200 was optimal...at least in the current discussion. And what do you mean by Ideal RANGE being <150? Less than 150 down to what? 140? 130? 100? 50? I guess we have agreed that down to 0 is less than optimal.

I don't know what the healthy minimum is. There is some stuff about that too in the primitive nutrition series. Under 150 was/is very normal for the primitive human.

My latest labs from a month ago:
TC = 141
HDL = 60
LDL = 59
Non HDL = 81
TC/HDL = 2.4
And I consider this borderline low and would consider anything lower as unhealthy and a step in the wrong direction.

Edit: And I eat 2 eggs every day to maintain those levels and keep it from dropping lower...and on no medication.

Edited by Hebbeh, 05 August 2012 - 05:04 PM.

[Turnbuckle]

Ideal range is <150. No need to go lower than that. Zero is not optimal. Zero is a dead person.

But nobody should be thinking that optimal cholesterol is over 200. That is retarded thinking.

I don't remember anybody claiming TC over 200 was optimal...at least in the current discussion. And what do you mean by Ideal RANGE being <150? Less than 150 down to what? 140? 130? 100? 50? I guess we have agreed that down to 0 is less than optimal.

I don't know what the healthy minimum is. There is some stuff about that too in the primitive nutrition series. Under 150 was/is very normal for the primitive human.

My latest labs from a month ago:
TC = 141
HDL = 60
LDL = 59
Non HDL = 81
TC/HDL = 2.4
And I consider this borderline low and would consider anything lower as unhealthy and a step in the wrong direction.

Edit: And I eat 2 eggs every day to maintain those levels and keep it from dropping lower...and on no medication.

Dang! Is this genetics?

Edited by Turnbuckle, 05 August 2012 - 05:08 PM.

[Hebbeh]

Ideal range is <150. No need to go lower than that. Zero is not optimal. Zero is a dead person.

But nobody should be thinking that optimal cholesterol is over 200. That is retarded thinking.

I don't remember anybody claiming TC over 200 was optimal...at least in the current discussion. And what do you mean by Ideal RANGE being <150? Less than 150 down to what? 140? 130? 100? 50? I guess we have agreed that down to 0 is less than optimal.

I don't know what the healthy minimum is. There is some stuff about that too in the primitive nutrition series. Under 150 was/is very normal for the primitive human.

My latest labs from a month ago:
TC = 141
HDL = 60
LDL = 59
Non HDL = 81
TC/HDL = 2.4
And I consider this borderline low and would consider anything lower as unhealthy and a step in the wrong direction.

Edit: And I eat 2 eggs every day to maintain those levels and keep it from dropping lower...and on no medication.

Dang! Is this genetics?

Yeah... it's not a gift but a curse. Nobody in my family have CHD....they all die from stroke....and there is documented studies of too low cholesterol being a risk facter for stroke... ironic Huh?

[hivemind]

My latest labs from a month ago:
TC = 141
HDL = 60
LDL = 59
Non HDL = 81
TC/HDL = 2.4
And I consider this borderline low and would consider anything lower as unhealthy and a step in the wrong direction.

Those are great numbers. HDL is high. I don't think you have to worry about atherosclerosis.

Kids seem to have a very low LDL before they develop plaque:
http://en.wikipedia....n#Normal_ranges

Edited by hivemind, 05 August 2012 - 05:34 PM.

[hivemind]

Yeah... it's not a gift but a curse. Nobody in my family have CHD....they all die from stroke....and there is documented studies of too low cholesterol being a risk facter for stroke... ironic Huh?

Blood pressure is the main risk factor for stroke by far.