The irony is killing me! The scientific and medical community went a non-scientific lark for 30 years and they think "we" don't know much about cholesterol? Expletive deleted here."Studies showed us that high cholesterol levels were one of the most important risk factors for the development of heart attack and stroke, and we had evidence that lowering cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke," Ridker says. "You can't say that about most everything else."But looking at just one number doesn't provide a detailed-enough picture to precisely assess risk, because it doesn't account for the interplay among LDL, HDL and triglycerides, or the fact that each of these affects risk in a different way, Mozaffarian says.
The first line of the article refers to a cardiologist who has to re-teach everyone what they should know about cholesterol - because his profession has been butchering this stuff for years. Shame on them. A money quote:
Of course there is. That is why the scientific method is needed. The problem was, folks used their power and positions of authority to spread conjectures about the science of cholesterol as if it were scientifically proven truth. Why?
"Studies showed us that high cholesterol levels were one of the most important risk factors for the development of heart attack and stroke, and we had evidence that lowering cholesterol lowers the risk of heart attack and stroke," Ridker says. "You can't say that about most everything else."
Translation: There's a weak correlation between high total cholesterol and CVD, and there's limited evidence, very little, that shows lowering cholesterol can reduce the incidence of CVD. But there was never strong evidence that lowering blood cholesterol - either total or LDL - could be used for primary prevention of CVD.
The author goes on to describe various results of epidemiological studies, all of which have been "shown by studies" to be junk.
To make sure the irony levels in your blood are high enough, the author dives right into unproven speculation about how to "reduce your risk" (aka how folks who do epidemiology assess risk via mathematics, which has nothing to do with actually determining how these behaviors affect live people via intervention study), by doing this, that or the other to change the numbers reflected on your lipid panel. Which is to say - the author just continues the cycle of confusing speculation based on expert opinion, immature science and ..... bovine excrement.
Example: Should you try to raise your HDL by medications or some magic pill (niacin, for example)? No, that has been proved not to work, and may be harmful. In other words, folks with high HDL generally are healthier, but if you take a sick person and manipulate their HDL it does not help.
A lovely understatement, for those who appreciate understatement:
"But there is some disagreement over which dietary changes are best for heart health, says Roger Blumenthal, director of the Ciccarone Center."
Translation: "We don't have a freaking clue."
""For most people, cholesterol from food isn't a contributor to their cholesterol levels," Blumenthal says."
And for those whose blood cholesterol levels are affected by their dietary cholesterol intake, they have no idea whether that matters at all in the cause of CVD.
"High-fat foods, such as cheese and chocolate, have also been regarded as verboten, yet "the evidence for this may not be as strong as we once thought," he says."
Translation: "We didn't have a freaking clue, but were unable to keep our mouths shut."
So, in the face of all of the mis-information in just this one article, much less the rest of the web, what a guy or gal to do?
Eat meat, vegetables, nuts and seeds, little fruit or starch, and no sugar/wheat.
Make your belly smaller, increase your muscle mass, learn more each day about how to eat for health and performance.