Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Low level of 'bad cholesterol' increases death rate, researchers find
mainichi japan ^ | March 29, 2008

Posted on 03/29/2008 1:37:17 PM PDT by Mount Athos

A health study by Japanese researchers has found that people with low levels of LDL cholesterol -- often referred to as "bad cholesterol" -- are more likely to die than those with higher levels.

The finding comes as Japan prepares to introduce special health checkups from April, which list high LDL cholesterol as a factor in deciding whether a person has metabolic syndrome. It is likely the results of the survey will stir debate over the designation of LDL cholesterol as "bad."

The study was led by Tokai University professor Yoichi Ogushi, who surveyed roughly 26,000 people who had at least two health checkups between 1987 and 2006, following them for an average of 8.1 years. The subjects were divided into seven groups based on their LDL cholesterol readings, and the relationship between the readings and people's deaths was examined.

Researchers found that in terms of overall deaths, men and women in the group with the lowest LDL cholesterol level (79 milligrams per deciliter of blood or less) had the highest death rate.

For men, the yearly death rate worked out at about 3,400 deaths per 100,000 people - about 1.6 times higher than the group with the lowest death rate, whose LDL cholesterol level was between 140 and 159 milligrams. The figure for women stood at about 1,900 deaths per 100,000 people, or about 1.3 times more than the group with the lowest death rate, which covered people with LDL cholesterol levels between 120 and 139 milligrams per deciliter of blood.

When deaths were restricted to strokes and heart attacks -- ailments believed to be caused by high LDL cholesterol levels -- the death rate climbed for men with levels of 180 milligrams or more. For women, however, there appeared to be almost no relationship between their LDL cholesterol level and the death rate.

Deaths from cancer and respiratory ailments, on the other hand, increased among men and women with low LDL cholesterol levels, lifting the overall death rate.

Ogushi suggests that the appropriate LDL cholesterol level for men is between 100 and 180 milligrams per deciliter of blood. He suggests women should have a level of at least 120 milligrams.

In health checkups from April, people with readings of 120 milligrams or more will be advised to lower their LDL cholesterol levels, but Ogushi questions this advice.

"Excessively lowering an LDL level that is within an appropriate range is dangerous," he said. "Cholesterol is needed in the body and immune function drops when it is low, and it is possible that the death rate rises as a result."


TOPICS: Culture/Society; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: health; ldl; statins
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last
To: mamelukesabre

Oh, poop! That’s going to interfere with my plans to live forever.

Seriously, I think genetics have as much to to with life span as anything else. I see a lot of 80-yr old ladies puffing a cigarette.


21 posted on 03/29/2008 2:06:13 PM PDT by ozzymandus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

That’s true, minus the bread. There’s nought wrong with fat and protein, laddie! ;-)

BTW, good book on all this health nannyism - The Last Well Person, written by a doctor. Tells us we’ve all been led to believe that we all suffer from some condition that requires extensive treatment and testing at the hands of the medicine pushers. Very interesting read.


22 posted on 03/29/2008 2:08:08 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
Low level of 'bad cholesterol' increases death rate, researchers find

Moral of story, eat whatever you want because in the end, you're going to die anyway ;-)

23 posted on 03/29/2008 2:09:20 PM PDT by varon (Allegiance to the constitution, always. Allegiance to a political party, never.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: television is just wrong; Spunky

The next big thing is inflammation. That may turn out to be more important than anything else. In the meantime, I think I’ll wait another 20 years for the “experts” to sort this all out before I go on all these medications.


24 posted on 03/29/2008 2:09:51 PM PDT by Pining_4_TX
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways
This rather large long-term study is going to be a BIG shocker to the medical community.

This study will simply disappear. It doesn't fit the "narrative" of the media, or the medical nannys, so I'd be surprised whether you heard any news stories on it at all. I believe they found something similar when they looked at data from that 20 year "nurses" study that they did. That info also went down the memory hole.

25 posted on 03/29/2008 2:10:13 PM PDT by LibertarianLiz
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: bkepley

Moonbat reasonong? Oh that’s right doctor knows best. Let’s see ulcers are caused by stress, spicy foods, alcohol, etc.. Oops that was yesterday now we know it is bacteria. Cancer isn’t caused by viruses...oops it actually can be. Salt causes high blood pressure, caffeine is bad, radon kills, should I go on about discredited medical wisdom. Cholesteral is right up there with global warming.

Over half of of heart attack victims have no blockage. The vast majority of people with high cholesteral never have heart problems.

Interesting enough that the same bacteria responsible for plaque in arteries is the same one found on your teeth. Could flouride prevent heart decay?


26 posted on 03/29/2008 2:10:25 PM PDT by FreedomNotSafety
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
So a person on Lipator is supposed to do what ???
27 posted on 03/29/2008 2:10:27 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos
This study has no implications for people with average or higher LDL levels -- it is obvious by now that cholesterol metabolism is not linear -- something qualitatively different is happening when LDL levels are extremely low -- a certain amount of cholesterol is required.

Anyone who reads this study and concludes they should stop taking statins (unless their LDL is in the range indicated) may be DEAD WRONG.

28 posted on 03/29/2008 2:15:43 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

Keep taking it unless your LDL is in the extremely low range (highly unlikely). If your LDL is in the average to high range you benefit from the statin.


29 posted on 03/29/2008 2:16:49 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

And how does this apply to Americans...


30 posted on 03/29/2008 2:17:11 PM PDT by tubebender ("Some cause happiness wherever they go; others, whenever they go.")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

.."I can eat bacon again?"

31 posted on 03/29/2008 2:19:36 PM PDT by Doogle (USAF.68-73..8th TFW Ubon Thailand..never store a threat you should have eliminated))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

First, Global Warming is being doubted by many experts. Now this cholesterol/heart thing is being questioned. The next thing may be Hillary exposed as a liar.

What’s a guy to think?


32 posted on 03/29/2008 2:22:55 PM PDT by preacher (A government which robs from Peter to pay Paul will always have the support of Paul.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: JustDoItAlways
This rather large long-term study is going to be a BIG shocker to the medical community.

Many suspect it already. When they start dumping Pfizer from their protfolios it is time to throw the statins down the drain, and turn on the TV for the predictable "WRECK YOUR LIVER?? HAVE PERIPHERAL NEUROPATHY FROM STATINS?? Call the Law Offices of Weasel,Serpent&Goniff to **WIN** The CLASS ACTION LOTTERY!!!"

Just watch. But in this case, the companies may well deserve it. "Studies" have caused the Serum cholesterol reccommended levels to be decreased have greatly increased the Patient Pool, of course, and we are talking about billions of Dollars here in market size.

The adverse reactions of statins are well-known, but generally the argument has been they are outweighed by the "Benefits". One such benefit is:

HEY! WHEN did this study come out???

33 posted on 03/29/2008 2:23:21 PM PDT by Gorzaloon
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: FreedomNotSafety
Moonbat reasonong? Oh that’s right doctor knows best..

Blah..blah..blah.. This is what he actually said.

The entire cholesterol issue is junk science, motivated by greedy pharmaceuticals.

Just because doctors don't know everything doesn't mean they are motivated to produce junk science.

34 posted on 03/29/2008 2:23:35 PM PDT by bkepley
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 26 | View Replies]

To: steve86

Thanks for your common sense answer :)


35 posted on 03/29/2008 2:27:29 PM PDT by Irish Eyes
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 29 | View Replies]

To: Mount Athos

I think the association between low LDL and increased stroke risk has been known for some time.


36 posted on 03/29/2008 2:30:29 PM PDT by fso301
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: A_perfect_lady

My grandmother taught her “daughter-in-law” all about saving bacon grease for cooking when we moved to the south.
My grandmother passed on at 94.


37 posted on 03/29/2008 2:31:56 PM PDT by eyedigress
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: neverdem; shrinkermd; Judith Anne
Like, *PING*, folks.

Cheers!

38 posted on 03/29/2008 2:33:14 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Irish Eyes

It is common sense as long as you realize the relationship between cholesterol level and health is curvilinear, not linear.

Too high is bad; apparently too low (in the case of HDL and now LDL) is bad.

Basically you want high HDL and middle-range LDL, not extremely low LDL.

Many of us will never have to worry about having extremely low LDL!!!


39 posted on 03/29/2008 2:33:32 PM PDT by steve86 (Acerbic by nature, not nurture™)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Shady
Go on, smoke. It's one of the healthiest things for your body...

Cheers!

40 posted on 03/29/2008 2:34:00 PM PDT by grey_whiskers (The opinions are solely those of the author and are subject to change without notice.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 6 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-112 next last

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.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson