Cholesterol

[rockndogs]

From which value of total cholesterol and LDL things starts to get dangerous? Where are the medcels?

 

[itsoverbuddyboyo]

160+ is high

 

[her]

cholesterols me

 

[Cretinous]

iirc populations with lower than 160mg/DL almost never see CVD. According to the Physicians Committee for Responsible Medicine, an "ideal" LDL score is lower than 150mg/DL.

 

[Canberra]

high LDL isnt caused by eating cholesterol its caused by inflammation in your body mostly due to not getting enough antioxidants into your body and from eating high inflammatory foods such as fried food, and overly cooked meats

 

[ZyzzReincarnate]

cholesterols me

JoinedApr

 

[rockndogs]

160+ is high

ldl

 

[Cretinous]

high LDL isnt caused by eating cholesterol its caused by inflammation in your body mostly due to not getting enough antioxidants into your body and from eating high inflammatory foods such as fried food, and overly cooked meats

http://plantpositive.com/blog/2012/3/26/the-futility-of-cholesterol-denialism-1-how-much-ldl.html

Those who argue for the false choice between cholesterol and inflammation as a cause of heart disease seem to think someone can get away with high LDL if they consume a lot of antioxidants. I’ll come back to this, but why do they want high LDL in the first place? It’s hard to understand their logic. Have a look at this paper to see what I mean. The author, Peter Libby, is the chief of the cardiovascular medicine division at Harvard’s Brigham and Women’s Hospital. He says the traditional view of atherosclerosis as a lipid storage disease crumbles in the face of evidence of the central role of inflammation in all aspects of the disease. The narrowing of arteries does not necessarily lead to heart attacks. This seems like a strong statement in favor of the confusionist argument that the problem is inflammation, not cholesterol.

But he goes on to say that lipid lowering is in itself anti-inflammatory. He says that a low cholesterol diet in rabbits stabilized arterial plaques. He argues for low cholesterol. In the mind of this expert, there is no false dilemma. He is not a confusionist.

Daniel Steinberg explains why inflammation is considered secondary to high cholesterol in heart disease. In primate studies, heart disease was regressed by switching from an atherogenic diet to a healthier diet. As cholesterol in the blood went down, inflammation went away. As Steinberg puts it, in the absence of high cholesterol, the inflammatory process is not self-sustaining. Inflammation appears to be secondary to high cholesterol.

Steinberg references this amazing study. These scientists transplanted a portion of a diseased artery from a mouse with high cholesterol into a mouse with low cholesterol. In its new environment, that chunk of artery had its atherosclerosis healed almost completely in only nine weeks. This demonstrates very clearly that inflammation is not a separate and independent phenomenon from high cholesterol. We see that inflammation in heart disease apparently requires high cholesterol.

There are those who say the reason the class of drugs called statins are effective in preventing cardiac deaths is because of their other effects beside cholesterol lowering. This is a typical argument from confusionists like Anthony Colpo. The problem with this argument is that all of the other proposed effects are not as well supported by evidence as cholesterol lowering. As of 2009, there existed no randomized controlled trial evidence for any of these effects.

People who make this argument don’t remind you that the benefits of lowered LDL have been proven through other methods beside statins, including bile acid sequestrants, diet, and surgery.

I’ll briefly remind you of the amazing work of Henry Buchwald, who proved that LDL lowering through surgery led to fewer cardiac events and greater life expectancy. I think this is devastating to confusionist claims.

Here is a really good journal article about atherosclerosis. The authors relate it to tuberculosis, which might be said to share similar characteristics. Tuberculosis has a root cause, a bacterial infection. Yes, there is an important inflammatory element to it, but it is secondary to this root cause. Atherosclerosis also has a root cause, which is excess LDL, and it too has inflammation as a secondary feature.

This entire website is actually a very impressive tome of work against common confusionist/cholesterol denialism talking points, which typically rely on "anomaly hunting" and very selective cherry picking of the body of scientific literature on the matter. Regardless, there is a reason cholesterol denialism in 2019 is the realm of kooks selling books off the back of fake controversy and internet bloggers looking to become one of those people, while the vast majority of the medical and scientific community agrees the hypothesis is proven beyond any reasonable doubt at this point. Its decades of work that has consistently shown the same relationships and outcomes, over and over.

Actually every single talking point ive ever seen come up in this retarded online world is covered and dissected in great detail, and as such, I'll just leave it at this, and say no more on the topic, because the people who are actually sincerely interested will read, and the people who arent are just going to dismiss it out of hand as "vegan propaganda" or whatever other idiotism.

 

[SikKunt]

high LDL isnt caused by eating cholesterol its caused by inflammation in your body mostly due to not getting enough antioxidants into your body and from eating high inflammatory foods such as fried food, and overly cooked meats

http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.549.6029&rep=rep1&type=pdf

http://plantpositive.com/blog/2012/3/26/the-futility-of-cholesterol-denialism-1-how-much-ldl.html



This entire website is actually a very impressive tome of work against common confusionist/cholesterol denialism talking points, which typically rely on "anomaly hunting" and very selective cherry picking of the body of scientific literature on the matter. Regardless, there is a reason cholesterol denialism in 2019 is the realm of kooks selling books off the back of fake controversy and internet bloggers looking to become one of those people, while the vast majority of the medical and scientific community agrees the hypothesis is proven beyond any reasonable doubt at this point. Its decades of work that has consistently shown the same relationships and outcomes, over and over.

Actually every single talking point ive ever seen come up in this retarded online world is covered and dissected in great detail, and as such, I'll just leave it at this, and say no more on the topic, because the people who are actually sincerely interested will read, and the people who arent are just going to dismiss it out of hand as "vegan propaganda" or whatever other idiotism.

IQ above 9000