Cholesterol

[Steve Walker]

I haven't read the primary literature myself and formed my own opinion of the evidence. In that situation, I am left relying on whichever authority I find most trustworthy. The official line from NICE is that cholesterol levels are a major modifiable risk for coronary heart disease, and in the absence of my own scholarship, I am happy to go with that. If, however, I were being asked to modify my diet in ways I objected to, or my doctor proposed to put me on statins, I would make my own investigations. I would be surprised if I came out disagreeing with what appears to be a scientific concensus, but it's possible - the results of a vote don't alter reality.

[Sportsman]

Firstly, this poll is purely for my own interest with no intention of altering anything.

 

There is a great deal of advice out there regarding modifying cholesterol levels and diet.

What is lacking is any sort of proof that modifying cholesterol levels is either necessary or desirable.

On the other hand there is a great deal of proof that:

 

Diet has little or no effect on cholesterol levels.

 

Higher than normal cholesterol levels may well be an indicator of CHD risk but are not a cause of CHD

 

In men over 50 a low cholesterol level is actually more dangerous than a high cholesterol level in terms of overall mortality.

In a British context, if your cholesterol level drops from 6.0 mmol/L to a 'healthy' 5.0 mmol/L, your relative risk of death is four times greater!

 

Reference

 

1. Anderson KM, et al. Cholesterol and Mortality. 30 Years of Follow-up from the Framingham Study. JAMA 1987; 257: 2176-2180.

 

The diet often suggested is the low fat/high carbohydrate diet, high in polyunsaturated fat. There is now an entire industry devoted to it advertising that their unhealthy fried snacks are fried in "healthy" sunflower oil.

There are many trials that have shown that polyunsaturated fats are not only not particularly healthy or natural but contain large amounts of substances that are actively unhealthy and may contribute to a rise in mortality from all causes.

 

As Professor Raymond Kearney of Sydney University put it in 1987:

"Vegetable oils (eg Corn oil and sunflower oil) which are rich in linoleic acid are potent promoters of tumour growth."

 

I seriously believe that the whole diet/cholesterol/heart disease/statins theory is based on bad science and even worse medicine and that before long it will all be consigned the the dustbin of failed medical practices.

In the meantime the public are being taken for a ride by the pharmaceutical and food industry who have billions of pounds a year at stake.

 

One of the most important tenets of medical treatment is that the patient should give "informed consent" to treatment. I am interested in just how informed that consent is. I would not try to persuade anyone to change their treatment or ignore medical advice but I would love to persuade them to find out a bit more about it.

Edited November 26, 2011 by Sportsman

[Steve Walker]

Not your poll here, Sportsman, I was referring to the idea that a scientific concensus proves anything - it's an appeal to authority fallacy, the primary literature stands or it doesn't.

[grumpybum]

Now 2 days before any test I deliberately restrict my diet knowing it will result in a low figure.

 

 

Is that merely to satisfy your doctor, or what? unsure.gif

 

Of course it is

 

My normal level varies between 3.7 to 5.2 so why allow any chance of a b*******g.

 

Like blood pressure just one isolated test proves nothing other than thats the level at that moment in time.

 

While were at it remember theres more than one type of cholesterol being tested for. I also have a high lipids level. I have been on omega6/3 tablets to but was taken off them after being told that they were not effective enough. Me I believe it was actually the cost that made the medical profession come out against prescribing them.

 

Medical opinion is changing all the time but it takes a long while to filter down.

[gozzer]

My last two checks showed 5.2 and 4.9, (better than my doctor who's 30yrs younger).

I eat almost anything I like, meat (processed and unprocessed), pizza, pasta, pies, mushy peas, plenty of mixed fruit, plenty veg (I'm very partial to raw veg, carrots peas, sprouts, cabbage, cauli, turnip, but not raw broccoli ). I smoke, drink occasionally, little exercise.

 

 

John.

[Phone]

Sportsman,

 

I looked! Mine is rated mg/dl. What's the difference? These UK guys are talking about "dream" numbers.

 

Phone

[Sportsman]

There is a school of thought that states there is no such thing as a cholesterol level that is too low and everyone should be on statins regardless of the fact that their cholesterol levels are normal. (If I was cynical I might believe that this idea was promoted by the pharmaceutical industry)

What they are therefore saying is that normal is unhealthy???

[Sportsman]

Of course it is

 

My normal level varies between 3.7 to 5.2 so why allow any chance of a b*******g.

 

Like blood pressure just one isolated test proves nothing other than thats the level at that moment in time.

 

While were at it remember theres more than one type of cholesterol being tested for. I also have a high lipids level. I have been on omega6/3 tablets to but was taken off them after being told that they were not effective enough. Me I believe it was actually the cost that made the medical profession come out against prescribing them.

 

Medical opinion is changing all the time but it takes a long while to filter down.

 

Scientists at the Wynn Institute for Metabolic Research, London, compared the fatty-acid composition of artery blockages. What they found was a high proportion of both omega-3 and omega-6 polyunsaturated fatty acids; what they did not find was saturated fatty acids. They suggested that "current trends favouring increased intake of polyunsaturated fatty acids should be reconsidered."

Edited November 26, 2011 by Sportsman

[Steve Walker]

What they are therefore saying is that normal is unhealthy???

 

With all these things, you have to bear in mind that most humans already outlive the lifespan their bodies have evolved to support. So the idea that, for instance, eating the "caveman" diet our ancestors would have eaten will necessarily prolong our lives because that diet is "natural" to us forgets that the average lifespan we are now shooting for is anything but natural. The ideal of average longevity to which medicine aspires is not "normal", why should we assume that the means will be normal?

 

There is a more important question that we will have to consider into the future - is the medical imperative to prolong life optimal? Is the best life we can live the one in which we do all of the things that we are told will most prolong it and avoid all of those things we are told will shorten it?

 

There are people to whom a "healthy" lifestyle has become pretty much a moral issue - they will talk about costs to the NHS about this choice or that choice, but I think that's a smokescreen - I think in their sinewy little hearts, they think that not conforming to the healthy agenda in some way makes one a "bad person".

[Ken L]

This is shamelessly lifted from another fishing site but it's relevant and I'm a shameless kinda guy.