Total Pageviews

Sunday, 11 February 2018

Cholesterol – is it really a killer ?

Words by Ross Walker

For many years, there has been this unproven suggestion from the medical profession that high cholesterol, especially in older people, is always a major risk factor for heart disease and needs to be treated. The reality is that the evidence is just not there. 

In the British Medical Journal in 2016, a large study of 68,000 people followed for 10 years, showed clearly that there is no link between LDL cholesterol (the so called bad cholesterol) and cardiovascular disease but interestingly, those with the higher LDLs tended to live longer, have less cancer, gastrointestinal disease and infectious disease.

A recent study from the US showed that people without a prior history of existing heart disease, who are treated with statins had a higher death rate than those who were left alone.

So, what is the suggested answer for this seeming paradox? Why is cholesterol probably not the big killer we thought it was, especially in older people? The answer is that not all cholesterol is equal and LDL cholesterol is not bad and HDL cholesterol is not good. Both LDL and HDL are divided into small and large components. Here is where size is important! The larger your LDL and HDL, the more protective this is, not just against heart disease, but also cancer and other common illnesses. The reason that large LDL is protective is that it is clearly linked to building better cell membranes; cell to cell communication; a healthier blood brain barrier; is the basic ring for steroid metabolism and is vitally important for bile salt metabolism along with vitamin D metabolism. Large HDL-cholesterol is involved in what is known as reverse cholesterol transport, removing cholesterol from fatty plaques in the walls of arteries. Therefore, both large LDL and large HDL are protective.

It is, in fact, small, dense LDL cholesterol which is pro-atherogenic and small HDL which is pro-inflammatory i.e. small, dense LDL cholesterol puts fat in the walls of your arteries and small HDL cholesterol inflames your arteries, contributing to the generation of atherosclerosis.

Why then is high cholesterol a lesser risk factor in people over the age of 60? The answer is rather straightforward. If your cholesterol is going to get you in the first place, it is typically small LDL and HDL and it will typically affect you before age 60. Both the small components are major factors in the generation of premature vascular disease. Statin therapy has proven benefits in people with existing vascular disease below the age of 75, but has no place in the management of cholesterol issues if you do not have significant atherosclerosis manifested by you having had a vascular event such as an heart attack, stent or a coronary bypass or one of the vascular equivalents such as a stroke or peripheral vascular disease. The only other circumstance where treating cholesterol is important is if someone has an elevated coronary calcium score that places them in the 25th percentile of risk. As an example, if a 50-year-old male has a coronary calcium score above 50, this is already significant atherosclerosis for such a young age. If a 70 year-old has a coronary calcium score of 150, this is below the normal average for that age and should be ignored.

The bottom line here is that doctors should not be treating cholesterol but rather assessing vascular risk by either establishing a history of existing vascular disease or detecting an elevated coronary calcium. I must stress my usual point that the intravenous CT coronary angiogram is not a screening test for heart disease and has never been proven in any studies of asymptomatic people to have any benefit whatsoever over the less expensive, typically less radiation and totally non-invasive (not requiring any injections) coronary calcium score (despite using the same technology).

Simply put, you don’t treat cholesterol, you treat cardiovascular risk.

http://www.switzer.com.au/

Graham

18 comments:

Valerie-Jael said...

A very good read today. Thanks. Hugs, Valerie

laurie said...

wow, thats enlightening to say the least,

only slightly confused said...

Thanks for this. Honestly, I've never watched my cholesterol and it appears I'm over 60 and still alive.

Carol Blackburn said...

Love it! Wonderful post.

Margaret-whiteangel said...

Interesting.

Linda said...

Interesting post on a complicated subject.

baili said...

excellent writing my friend!
reminded me times when i was little and saw older people in the village eating ghee and butter regularly ,there was no concept of cooking oils then and even then no body died with heart attack

Cheryl said...

Brilliant read. They say you learn something every day. I just have.

Sami said...

Great article, wish the Doctors would follow these guidelines.

William Kendall said...

Very informative!

Crystal Collier said...

Medical practices are a fascinating subject to me. If you look at medical beliefs ages ago, fifty years ago, or any other time period, they were always wrong about something. It makes me wonder what else we'll be shaking our heads out in another ten, twenty, fifty years.

Regine Karpel said...

Have a great day.

happyone said...

Very informative. Thanks.

RO said...

This is really interesting information! Hugs...RO

Thickethouse.wordpress said...

A very good post. I've been resisting statins because of all the warnings about possible liver damage.

Practical Parsimony said...

I was coerced into taking Lipitor even though my cholesterol is lower than three of my doctors have. I did some reading and now refuse to take Lipitor.

Anna said...

Nice post, thanks for sharing.

David Gascoigne said...

My understanding now is that food cholesterol is no longer necessarily bad and that it does not automatically affect body cholesterol. Eggs are back to being okay again! Who can keep track?