‘Good Cholesterol’ May Be an Overstatement, Study Finds

[alp227]

Source: New York Times

The name alone sounds so encouraging: HDL, the “good cholesterol.” The more of it in your blood, the lower your risk of heart disease. So bringing up HDL levels has got to be good for health.

Or so the theory went.

Now, a new study that makes use of powerful databases of genetic information has found that raising HDL levels may not make any difference to heart disease risk. People who inherit genes that give them naturally higher HDL levels throughout life have no less heart disease than those who inherit genes that give them slightly lower levels. If HDL were protective, those with genes causing higher levels should have had less heart disease.

Researchers not associated with the study, published online Wednesday in The Lancet, found the results compelling and disturbing. Companies are actively developing and testing drugs that raise HDL, although three recent studies of such treatments have failed. And patients with low HDL levels are often told to try to raise them by exercising or dieting or even by taking niacin, a drug that raised HDL but failed to lower heart disease risk in a recent clinical trial.

Read more: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/17/health/research/hdl-good-cholesterol-found-not-to-cut-heart-risk.html

[onehandle]

1. Eat less, Eat better, Exercise more. nt

[Geoff R. Casavant]

3. Eat food. Mostly plants. Not too much.

And move around a bit.

[GliderGuider]

2. So can we stop obsessing over cholesterol yet? nt

[Laura PourMeADrink]

4. not really..if you read the whole article....low HDL means something is wrong

you are at higher risk....they just don't know what the bad thing is

interesting

[2on2u]

5. Other factors, inflammatory markers may be more important than

simple levels of cholesterol.... or not.

http://www.theheart.org/article/1083041.do


Rochester, NY - A new study has suggested that a raised HDL-cholesterol level, if present in conjunction with a raised C-reactive-protein (CRP) level, may confer increased cardiovascular risk [1]. It also suggests that in patients with elevations in both markers, reduced cholesteryl-ester-transfer-protein (CETP) activity is associated with even higher risk, giving a potential explanation to the negative findings of the torcetrapib (Pfizer) studies.

The study, published online May 20, 2010 in Arteriosclerosis, Thrombosis, and Vascular Biology, was conducted by a group led by Dr James Corsetti (University of Rochester School of Medicine and Dentistry, NY).

Corsetti commented to heartwire: "We found that having a raised HDL together with a raised CRP signifies higher risk of cardiac events. This is not a good combination. This has been hinted at in previous studies, so we specifically looked to see whether we could identify this interaction in a large population group. Our findings are consistent with the thinking that HDL can be proatherogenic in an inflammatory environment."

[ladywnch]

6. thanks for this.

I have long held that cholesterol alone is not a valid indicator. I had my last doctor wanting to put me on meds for my 275 level. I refused......and refused......

My father's total cholesterol number was like 185........he ended up with quadruple by-pass. Mom and (97 y/o) grandmom have numbers north of mine and are going strong. Clearly cholesterol is not the sole driving factor here and until they can show me what the other critical factor(s) are and that I have them, I'm sorry, they're talking out their asses.

[GoCubsGo]

7. Good for you for refusing those horrible drugs.

For many people they just aren't worth the risk. Your family is like mine. Sky-high numbers, but they live into their 80s and 90s, and don't die of heart disease. My dad's doctor tried to push cholesterol drugs on him. He and my mom went to the Physicians Desk Reference before having his prescription filled. They were curious as to why he'd have to go back every three months for a blood test. It turns out one of the major potential side effects of that drug is liver damage. Needless to say, he never had the prescription filled.

[Auntie Bush]

8. Thanks for that information. I have high

cholesterol and very high HDL so my Dr. said high cholesterol wouldn't be a problem.
I now have a new Dr. and have dreaded he would want to put me on anti-cholesterol medication. Didn't know what I'd do. Now with your information saying it's hard on the liver...I WON'T. I'm already taking necessary meds that are rough on the liver.
So I'll refuse to take any more. Thanks for the warning.

[GoCubsGo]

9. I don't know if that is a side effect of all of the different cholesterol drugs.

Just the specific one prescribed to my dad. However, considering the biological aspects, it would not surprise me if all of them have potential liver-related side effects. Another thing to consider: A friend of mine told me that one of her aunt's doctors put her on Lipitor. One day, her leg turned black. One of her other doctors checked her out, and asked if she was on Lipitor. Apparently, blackened limbs are not unusual with this particular drug. She immediately stopped taking that shit, and her leg returned to normal, fortunately.

I have really high HDL, too, which why I haven't had a doctor try to put me on cholesterol meds. If they did, I would refuse. If the subject comes up, ask about taking slow-release niacin instead. It's one of the B vitamins, and I understand that it is often used to lower cholesterol levels.

[Auntie Bush]

15. Thanks GoCubsgGo

That's good but scary information. I'll not forget it! Fortunately, I did start taking multi Vit B about 6 months ago and haven't had a Cholesterol test since then. Guess I'd better start reducing my butter intake

[womanofthehills]

12. Lower cholesterol naturally

I dropped my cholesterol 40 points in 6 months with the amino acid, l'arginine.

[2on2u]

10. C reactive protein, Homocysteine and Lipoprotein A, and others, there are

books available on this subject however I do not discount the fact that the major role statins perform is one of an anti-inflammatory nature.

[happyslug]

11. 275 and 185, what a wimp, try 800

And that was AFTER I made efforts to LOWER it bu exercise and Diet (I was biking 10-20 miles a day). I suspect I had a test over 1000, but that was right before I lost medical coverage for some time and never followed up till I regain medical coverage.

I am on the max dose of Lipitor AND Tircor, my Cholesterol is now in the 200s (almost 300) but my triglycerides are still in the 400s (Both should be below 200). I have used Mevacor and Lopid in the past.

My Xanthomas, Little bumps on my Elbow, which I started to get in my early 20s, disappeared after about ten years of using at first Mevacor, then Lopid then Lipitor and Tricor, as did my angina (Light Pain in the heart). So in my case I believe the Statins have done a good job.

From what I read, prior to the introduction of the Statins in the 1970s, the only effective treatment was Niacin. Both the Statins and the Fibrates came out of research funded by LBJ's Great Society Program (A lot of new medicines are based on basic research pay for by the Federal Government under the Great Society Program, later cut to the bone by Reagan, but the medical companies are using the basic research to come out with new medicines all the time).

The Basic research lead to Statins and Fibrates being developed for Medical use. The Statins came out of research on Oyster Mushrooms and Red Yeast Rice, which was known to reduce Cholesterol levels. Merck took this research and isolated the part of the plant that reduce Cholesterol. It became the drug Mevacor (Lovastatin), the First Statin.

The Fibrates were known as early as the 1930s, but the Fibrates known at that time had some bad side affects, one study actually said the drugs did lower cholesterol, but the death rate seems to have been the same with or without the drug. In the 1980s a new generation of Fibrates came into the market without the side affects (again do to basic research paid for by the Federal Government under the Great Society Program). Two of these Fibrates are Lopid and Tricor.

More on Mevarcor:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lovastatin

[Mz Pip]

14. I had a bad reaction to statins

tried Red Yeast rice but it didn't d anything. I tried Niacin but even with the no-flush I couldn't get the dosage high enough to make a difference. I take a fibrate now and it dropped my triglycerides over 200 points and lowered my cholesterol by 88 points with 4 weeks. I don't seem to have any negative side effects from it so I'm okay taking it.

I've tried everything else. I'm not overweight. I eat a low fat diet but the numbers kept climbing. I guess I'm battling my own genetics.

[Quixote1818]

16. From what I hear the cholesterol needs something to attach to

so where there is inflammation in the arteries the cholesterol does have something to attach to. If there is no inflammation the cholesterol just moves right along.

[happyslug]

13. This article hints at the fact HDL may be a product of exercise the reduces LDL.

Thus HDL has no affect on the heart BY ITSELF, but merely indicate that something is going on with the blood flow and the heart. Whatever is occurring is reducing heart disease AND increasing HDL counts, not as previously presume that HDL reduce heart disease. Thus the old line that Exercise that gets the heart pumping may drive LDL out, increasing HDL, but it is the exercise that is improving the heart NOT the increase in HDL.

Interesting Study, basically confirming what others have observe, increase activity improves the heart medicine does NOT (Drugs that decrease LDL, reduces heart disease by reducing clogs, thus indirectly improving the heart, but direct improvement of the heart is best done by exercise).

I have read about Cholesterol for over 20 years. I am on some very heavy medication to reduce my LDL count. When I first was tested for Cholesterol it was only at 800 (And this is AFTER I made a serious effort to reduce it, I suspect I had a previous test showing a LDL over 1000, but I can only guess that number for the Doctor who told me did NOT tell me the number but put me on medications, which I subsequently quit using do to lack of health insurance).

My Cholesterol is now below 300, through my Triglycerides are still in the 400s. I use to think I had Hyperlipidemias Type III, which occurs in one is 10,000 people, but it requires high levels of IDL not LDL in addition to high Triglycerides. Type I is out for it involved high Triglycerides but low LDL counts. I have high counts in both. Type II is out for that involved high LDL but low Triglycerides counts. Type IV is out for it requires high level of LDL but normal Triglycerides counts.

Thus that Type V is the best fit, but Lopid is the preferred drug in the Type V cases, but it did NOT work, so my doctor switched me to Lipitor, which did work. Lopid AND Tricor are Fibrates and Fibrates are the drug of choice in cases of Type V. Lipitor is a Statin which is NOT the preferred choice in Type V cases. Furthermore I have high LDL, type V is noted for LOW LDL and LOW HDL, but High VLDL levels. Glucose intolerance and hyperuricemia are also factors, and I do NOT have Hyperuricemia, and whatever Glucose Intolerance I have, I have only developed in the last Five years (Probably do to being on Lipitor that long, then having Type V). Furthermore it is related to familiar heart disease, and neither my Mother's nor my Father's family are know to have weak hearts.

More on Type V:
http://omim.org/entry/144650

More on Hyperlipidemia and its five types:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperlipidemia#Classification

Thus Type V is the "Best fit" but it is NOT an exact fit. Thus I am one of those people out in left field, being treated for my high Triglycerides and high Cholesterol and I have to say the treatment is working, but what is the cause may be unknown, but I can say I am alive, I should have died by a heart attack in my 30s.