The Diabetes Forum Support Community For Diabetics Online banner

1 - 10 of 10 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,478 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
https://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/...0JiGJIEbGd8YhY

"Conclusions High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies."
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,656 Posts
Anybody beside me having trouble with the link? I get Forbidden Access. Try this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
50 Posts
I was told by the dietician (for my son who has hereditary high cholesterol) that it's not the LDL/HDL values in itself that matter the most for health, but the ratio of LDL and HDL needs to be ok.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
9,421 Posts
Unfortunately, the knee-jerk response from most physicians is to medicate rather than look any closer as to reasons for higher LDL and possible non-med treatments - such as diet?

I sincerely hope there are more studies and that it gets into the hands of those who are treating supposedly high cholesterol. I'll probably not see it, though.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
Unfortunately, the knee-jerk response from most physicians is to medicate rather than look any closer as to reasons for higher LDL and possible non-med treatments - such as diet?
Let alone looking at the fact that it might not matter at all, based on LDL particle size. The breakdown into LDL, HDL, TriG, etc is only slightly less crude than the "total cholesterol" measure that preceded it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: VeeJay

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,656 Posts
Since having quad bypass surgery 4 years ago, I get a little more antsy about cholesterol levels. My total and LDL went up this last set of labs but I just got a copy of my paperwork today. My total went up from 206 t0 268, LDL up from 102 to 158, HDL up from 85 to 95, triglycerides down from 96 to 57. I was really busy when they called to tell me my results, just total and LDL, and I didn't bother to ask about the rest. Trig/HDL ratio about 0.59, so that's a good thing. They want me to test again in 3 months and will probably squawk if the total and LDL are up and I am still every 3rd day on the pravastatin. I'll just have to respond with "does polly wanna cracker".
 
  • Like
Reactions: etherea

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
9,656 Posts
It says they didn't use studies that weren't in English, that weren't published in PubMed, that didn't have LDL-C as a mortality risk factor in the study title, had no control over the original studies and conditions may or may not have been as mentioned.. If they intentionally omitted studies that showed LDL-C was a risk factor of all cause mortality, I would call it flawed. If not, then I'm good with their finding of a lack of an association with LDL-C and all cause mortality in the elderly, but I believe they should expand their research to include a broader scope of studies.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,076 Posts
It says they didn't use studies that weren't in English, that weren't published in PubMed, that didn't have LDL-C as a mortality risk factor in the study title, had no control over the original studies and conditions may or may not have been as mentioned.. If they intentionally omitted studies that showed LDL-C was a risk factor of all cause mortality, I would call it flawed. If not, then I'm good with their finding of a lack of an association with LDL-C and all cause mortality in the elderly, but I believe they should expand their research to include a broader scope of studies.
I read it carefully and there are no serious limitations at all that would call the results into question. They looked at studies which "investigated" the association between LDL and all-cause mortality. Omitting studies that didn't emphasize this by mentioning it in the title really doesn't tilt the result at all. Again, here is what they found:

Results We identified 19 cohort studies including 30 cohorts with a total of 68 094 elderly people, where all-cause mortality was recorded in 28 cohorts and CV mortality in 9 cohorts. Inverse association between all-cause mortality and LDL-C was seen in 16 cohorts (in 14 with statistical significance) representing 92% of the number of participants, where this association was recorded. In the rest, no association was found. In two cohorts, CV mortality was highest in the lowest LDL-C quartile and with statistical significance; in seven cohorts, no association was found.

Conclusions High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.
 
1 - 10 of 10 Posts
Top