A little "more" from my FB comments on this earlier today..
Here is more for you ....
We have to remember that any of these numbers (chol, ldl, body weight, etc etc) are what we call risk factors and the goals that we set for them are based on studies on large populations and only show statistic...al significance in relation to the population studies. Statistical significance is never 100% guarantee in anything, ever.
So, in other words, if we study a population of 200,000 people, and we organize them by cholesterol levels, (<150, 150-180, 180-220, 220-250, >250), we may find that there is a relationship between the higher the cholesterol and the greater risk for heart disease. And we may find that there were very few, if any, heart attacks in those with cholesterols under 150. However, if never means there was none in those with cholesterol under 150 and it doesn't mean that everyone in the other groups have none. It only shows the trends and the odds. In addition, it is only one risk factor being analyzed out of many. We know that BMI, smoking, weight, LDL, TG's, Blood Glucose, etc along with other factors like fiber, saturated fat, cholesterol, activity levels, etc, are all other risk factors that also matter.
So, to some how say that a cholesterol of 150 makes you completely immune to a heart attack is not completely accurate, which Dr Essy knows
In addition, by saying so, we end up with two situations.
1) all those who have cholesterol under 150, yet do not have a healthy lifestyle or a low risk profile for all the other factors and have higher odds of having a heart attack.
2) all those who have cholesterol over 150 who have the healthiest lifestyle and have very low odds of having heart disease.
In our community it has turned the 150 into some sort of Gold Standard and many walked around with it (falsely) as a badge of honor, and others as a sign of failure, which, again, was wrong, and did much harm in regard to their perspective.
Another issue that is not addressed by this numbers is how the number is achieved. Does achieving the number through drugs and/or supplements equal the same low level of risk as if it is achieved through diet? If we modify the diet in an unhealthy way to change numbers do these changes equal the same protection as if someone ate a healthier diet and had different numbers? For instance, we know we can raise HDL through adding lots of fat, or wine, but would doing so be better than having an ideal diet with a lower HDL?
All of these numbers are only risk factors and do not directly measure the disease so can never make the guarantee that people attribute to them. Yes, in most cases, we see patterns and they do matter. And, in most cases, the more of these risk factors you have inline, the better. So, if we were to identify 12 risk factors, having just one, is no guarantee of anything. Having 10 out of 12 would be better and having 12 out of 12, would give you the lowest risk profile but again, not a 100% guarantee. So, that is why they are what we call "odds ratio's" and "risk factor analysis."