Skip to comments.Value of Cholesterol Targets Is Disputed
Posted on 10/16/2006 9:15:45 PM PDT by neverdem
A provocative review paper published this month has raised questions about the aggressive cholesterol-lowering recommendations made two years ago by a government panel.
The panel, the National Cholesterol Education Program, urged patients at risk for heart disease to reduce sharply their harmful LDL cholesterol and to try to reach specific, very low levels.
Though the authors of the new paper, published in the Oct. 3 issue of Annals of Internal Medicine, endorse the use of cholesterol-lowering statins, they say there is not enough solid scientific evidence to support the target numbers for LDL cholesterol set forth by the government panel.
The authors argument challenges mainstream medical thinking and the consensus among most cardiologists that the lower the cholesterol is, the better.
Until 2004, an LDL cholesterol level of less than 130 milligrams a deciliter was considered low enough. But the updated guidelines recommend that high-risk patients reduce their level even more to less than 100 while patients at very high risk are given the option of reducing LDL cholesterol to less than 70. Patients often have to take more than one cholesterol-lowering drug to achieve those targets.
This paper is not arguing that there is strong evidence against the LDL targets, but rather that theres no evidence for them, said Dr. Rodney A. Hayward, a study author, adding that this was largely because of the way clinical trials had been devised and carried out.
If youre going to say, Take two or three drugs to get to these levels, you need to know youre doing more benefit than harm, said Dr. Hayward, who is director of the Veterans Affairs Center for Health Services Research and Development and a professor at the University of Michigan Medical School. He said he was particularly concerned because there was little long-term safety...
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
The way to deal with cholesterol is to wash everything down and out with a nice glass of good red wine.
It's like deglazing a pan, the alcohol and acid just break down the fat and grease and wash it right out of your body.
No problem. Plus you feel great.
Or even if it doesn't, soon you don't care.
FReepmail me if you want on or off my health and science ping list.
Guess who benefits from it? I see a conflict of interest here.
It's interesting that 50% of people who suffer sudden cardiac events have what is generally considered higher than normal cholesterol.
But the other 50% don't.
This fact by itself basically removes cholesterol as being a CAUSATIVE factor in coronary artery disease (CAD).
Having high cholesterol may speed up the symptoms, but it by itself is not the cause.
For a certain fact, cigarette smoking is probably the worst thing one can do to clog up their arteries. I'm on a statin and I'm nearly 63 and have never had any indication of artery clogging but medical protocol dictates my cholesterol should be lower. What I do know for a certain fact is that it causes weird dreams; and I mean really weird dreams. There has to be a reason for that and I doubt it is necessarily good. I also take folic acid and niacin.
It's the RATIOs Stupid.....(not you neverdem).....Ratios of HGL, LGL, TRIGs, etc......THAT's what matters.....pharmaceutical's however, are making a KILLING on the statin drugs, I'll bet
Statin drugs also reduce muscle mass.
Isn't the heart a muscle?
Any other drug would be contra-indicated in this situation.
The link between heart attack and cholesterol is thin at best, some say non-existant.
there are voluntary and involuntary muscles, not made of the same stuff
"It's the RATIOs Stupid.....(not you neverdem).....Ratios of HGL, LGL, TRIGs, etc......THAT's what matters.....pharmaceutical's however, are making a KILLING on the statin drugs, I'll bet"
They certainly were up until recently. However, Zocor has went off patent and generics are now available and Zocor has actually matched the price as they don't want to lose market share. They'll be much cheaper now.
Do you have any links on that? Last I heard or read, they cause myopathy, myalgia and rhabdomyolysis, the latter about 1% of the time.
Not arguing with you but do you have any good objective links to the kind of information you have provided? I have considered the possibility of making red wine a part of my regimen but I've read other material where doctors have claimed that there are no conclusive studies that red wine is beneficial and even some have argued that it's actually a detriment.
Actually, I'm just trying to establish a theological loophole that will allow me to get drunk...
Does it really remove it as a causative factor or just suggest that it is a causative factor when accompanied by other factors?
I wonder if those high cholesterol studies take into account total cholesterol counts (though I couldn't imagine any serious study not doing so).
I just can't imagine high cholesterol levels (meaning bad cholesterol) being good for you.
Interesting news... btw, the AOA convention is out here in Vegas this year, today was the first day and it was pretty sweet. :)
I've read many studies that describe either a J or U shaped mortality curve. Both teetotalers and heavy drinkers croak before moderate drinkers.
My mother in law's cholesterol has always been around 230.....she's 80....she's FINNISH (I say that because Finns are notorious for having high cholesterol)....my husband's cholesterol is 268, HOWEVER, he has really high HGL, and very Low LGL .... his doc is not worried at all, nor am I.....
You should also supplement with COQ10. Statins are known to deplete COQ10 levels. See www.lef.org for more information about this.
Just saw this, will read it carefully a little later.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.