Cholosterol levels and studies

[nfsus]

Im posting this link to a study that shows cholosterol beliw 150 increases your chances of death and cancer. And over 200 is heart blow out city. How does this mean with my wfpbd?

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5908176/

[colonyofcells]

Maybe concentrate more on longevity studies rather than cholesterol studies.

[nfsus]

Did you read the study? I mean if you wany longevity the. It says you need cholosterol over 150. Or you suffer from a lack of longevity.

[openmind]

Did you read the study? I mean if you wany longevity the. It says you need cholosterol over 150. Or you suffer from a lack of longevity.

The study did not say anything about diet from what I could see and seems to suggest that low cholesterol is a marker for disease in some individuals.

I don’t think you could draw any conclusions about diet from this study and the authors did not themselves do so.

[nfsus]

Really? In conclusion, decreasing cholesterol levels or persistently low cholesterol levels were associated with higher risk of all-cause, cancer and CVD mortality. In addition, increasing cholesterol levels or persistently high cholesterol levels was also associated with high CVD mortality risk. This suggests that decreased cholesterol and low cholesterol levels may be an indicator for poor health status. The clinical implication of this study is that individuals with spontaneously decreased cholesterol or persistently low cholesterol levels are at increased risk of mortality and may require careful attention for signs of deterioration of health [8].

So since its not specifically called out to diet it dont count?

[colonyofcells]

Maybe concentrate on what foods promote longevity rather than rely on cholesterol studies. In practice, it is real food that we eat and not cholesterol. I am always interested to know what people who live long lives are eating and other lifestyle like having lots of friends, etc.

[nfsus]

You guys are not answering the question.

[nfsus]

https://www.verywellhealth.com/blue-zon ... ds-4159314


Btw when you look at tge blue zone diets you see meat and egg consumption. Blue zone being the longevity populations

[Mark Cooper]

Really? In conclusion, decreasing cholesterol levels or persistently low cholesterol levels were associated with higher risk of all-cause, cancer and CVD mortality. In addition, increasing cholesterol levels or persistently high cholesterol levels was also associated with high CVD mortality risk. This suggests that decreased cholesterol and low cholesterol levels may be an indicator for poor health status. The clinical implication of this study is that individuals with spontaneously decreased cholesterol or persistently low cholesterol levels are at increased risk of mortality and may require careful attention for signs of deterioration of health [8].

So since its not specifically called out to diet it dont count?

They use the language "spontaneous decrease in cholesterol levels." It is unclear what sort of diet any of the study participants were consuming, what their baseline activity level was, &c. In other words, the chain of causation may be the other way - their cholesterol was low or went down because of underlying issues that contributed to mortality - the study specifically calls out the consideration that cancer could be pulling fat from the subjects systems to promote cancer growth. It is not uncommon for people with underlying serious illnesses to lose weight / have low BMI, for example.

From a Harvard Health publication:

Cholesterol levels can be lowered by stress (physical or psychological) or infection. An injury, cancer, stroke, or heart attack may have the same effect. So if your cholesterol levels are unusually high or low, your doctor will probably want to repeat the test some weeks later. Abnormal readings may also lead to tests for other medical problems.

Underweight BMI, thus, can be a useful marker for ill health; spontaneously lowering cholesterol levels could be useful in the same way - as a flag to check for problems. The write-up also clearly notes that anyone with cholesterol that was lowered using statins was excluded from study. Lowering cholesterol by way of medication, or intentionally over time through dietary changes is not a "spontaneous lowering" as I understand it.

[nfsus]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3247776/

[Mark Cooper]

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3247776/

From the study -

The fact that only the multivariable-adjusted HR in men has the statistical significance should be interpreted carefully because this study has a number of limitations. First limitation is that results were based on a one-time measurement of serum lipids. In longitudinal studies the use of baseline measurements only may underestimate the associations between usual risk factors and CVD mortality due to regression dilution effects (25). Second limitation is that TC levels in this study were measured in the non-fasting state. Although similar results were obtained when analyses were repeated with non-fasting serum (26), subjects would be grouped into higher TC level. Based on this fact, calculated HRs would be assumed as under-estimated with toward the null. Third limitation is the issue of reverse-causality because some underlying diseases could influence the level of lipid. To controlling this bias, authors applied to exclude members having previous history of cardiovascular disease on entry. Last limitation is that the "healthy peopler" would have a higher chance to register as a cohort participant in general population (27). The effect on mortality might have been slightly underestimated by the increased level of TC during follow-up.

CVD is multi-factorial in its causation and lifestyle changes are the basis of any treatment strategy, with patients often requiring behavioral counseling (6).

[Skip]

You guys are not answering the question.

What is the question?

I think it is important to try to determine what is lowering or raising one's cholesterol levels which the study doesn't seem to address. For example, person A with high cholesterol significantly lowers it with a wfpb diet vs person B who does the same with a standard american diet using cholesterol lowering drugs. Person A is far more likely to have better overall mortality.

Taking this one study alone without understanding the extensive body of evidence on this topic done by the likes of Esselstyn and Ornish is not wise.

[calvin]

Beyond Cholesterol

[colonyofcells]

For longevity studies, probably more useful to talk about real foods and also the amounts and frequency of foods. During the time of shakespeare, peasants were eating mostly whole grains and vegetables with very limited access to animal products whereas the upper class were eating tons of animal products. By the time of the almighty british empire, americans were already rich enough to be eating animal products once a day. In just about 2 hundred years, eating of animal products by americans increased to 2x a day and then to 3x a day, and maybe more frequently now if you count snacks. The same pattern of increase in eating of animal products can now be seen in the history of china from the 1970s (when china still had famines and chinese ate sweet potato as famine food due to lack of rice) to present. When the china study was done, rural chinese were probably eating animal products only about once a month. Deep fried chicken loaded with oil is now the number 1 food in both china and south korea, and also in many asian countries. The science consensus from the world health organization has no doubt that deep fried chicken and cheesy pizzas are killing plenty of people every day. There is probably no need to go into the underlying mechanism whether is it saturated fat and or is it cholesterol and or is it the lack of fiber and or is it the bacteria in animal products and or is it animal protein and or is it the bioaccumulation of pollution and radiation in animal products and or are animal products pushing out healthier foods like whole grains, tubers and vegetables, unless you have a great interest in nutrition science. It is much more useful to talk about food rather than cholesterol.

[gracezw]

Calvin, this is a good one. Thank you!

Beyond Cholesterol