4 ms·

Am I the only one that seems to think there is some correlation is not causation here with the numbers?

by tmaly 5y ago

slacka 5y ago
Agreed. I'd bet money that 20 years from now, the anti-cholesterol fad will be viewed just like the anti-fat fad. Cholesterol is an essential building/repair block that our body makes, with very little absorbed from diet.[1] Since cholesterol responsible for repairing damaged tissue in the body[2], how do we know know that inflamed, unhealthy individuals don't generate high cholesterol amounts for repair and not from an unhealthy diet? .... Time will tell. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257636/#:~:text=The%20solubilization%20of%20cholesterol%20is,on%20partitioning%20into%20bile%20micelles https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257636/#:~:tex.... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630197/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630197/
sooheon 5y ago
No, scientists have studied this phenomenon for decades. This is a study specifically interrogating the direction of causality for low cholesterol and mortality: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.92.9.2396 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.92.9.2396
- rpmisms 5y ago
  But perhaps low cholesterol points to having less inflammation/other minor repair work the body has "backed up", and thus begs the question of why people have low or high cholesterol.
imtringued 5y ago
Consider the following scenario. "Bad chemical compound" (which is a close variant of "good chemical compound") exists in a concentration of 1% when your total level of "good chemical compound" exceeds Y. Therefore a high level of "good chemical compound" correlates with the harmful effects of "bad chemical compound". Does "good chemical compound" cause the harmful effects? No. Does it correlate? Yes. Now "good chemical compound" is the evil compound that must be lowered. Now imagine that there is a product that has a high degree of "bad chemical compound". So suddenly there are lots of people with low levels of "good chemical compound" but they suffer from the very same harmful effects that higher levels would predict! "Bad chemical compound" has been found in the product itself and therefore the product was banned. However, the fact that "good chemical compound" isn't the problem hasn't been recognized because detecting "bad chemical compound" in products is very easy due to the extremely high concentration but difficult (read expensive) to detect in the blood due to the much lower concentration. So the only "reliable" indicators that exist must be based around correlations because measuring the "bad chemical compound" isn't done. That was a long winded way of saying oxidization of cholesterol causes inflammation and the formation of plaque in blood vessels. Detecting oxidized LDL is possible but almost no lab does it. Instead you get spurious correlations, the most reliable of which is HDL to triglycerides.

Am I the only one that seems to think there is some correlation is not causation here with the numbers?

by tmaly 5y ago

Am I the only one that seems to think there is some correlation is not causation here with the numbers?

Agreed. I'd bet money that 20 years from now, the anti-cholesterol fad will be viewed just like the anti-fat fad. Cholesterol is an essential building/repair block that our body makes, with very little absorbed from diet.[1] Since cholesterol responsible for repairing damaged tissue in the body[2], how do we know know that inflamed, unhealthy individuals don't generate high cholesterol amounts for repair and not from an unhealthy diet? .... Time will tell. [1] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257636/#:~:text=The%20solubilization%20of%20cholesterol%20is,on%20partitioning%20into%20bile%20micelles https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3257636/#:~:tex.... [2] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630197/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4630197/

sooheon 5y ago

No, scientists have studied this phenomenon for decades. This is a study specifically interrogating the direction of causality for low cholesterol and mortality: https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.92.9.2396 https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/10.1161/01.cir.92.9.2396

rpmisms 5y ago
But perhaps low cholesterol points to having less inflammation/other minor repair work the body has "backed up", and thus begs the question of why people have low or high cholesterol.

imtringued 5y ago

Consider the following scenario. "Bad chemical compound" (which is a close variant of "good chemical compound") exists in a concentration of 1% when your total level of "good chemical compound" exceeds Y. Therefore a high level of "good chemical compound" correlates with the harmful effects of "bad chemical compound". Does "good chemical compound" cause the harmful effects? No. Does it correlate? Yes. Now "good chemical compound" is the evil compound that must be lowered. Now imagine that there is a product that has a high degree of "bad chemical compound". So suddenly there are lots of people with low levels of "good chemical compound" but they suffer from the very same harmful effects that higher levels would predict! "Bad chemical compound" has been found in the product itself and therefore the product was banned. However, the fact that "good chemical compound" isn't the problem hasn't been recognized because detecting "bad chemical compound" in products is very easy due to the extremely high concentration but difficult (read expensive) to detect in the blood due to the much lower concentration. So the only "reliable" indicators that exist must be based around correlations because measuring the "bad chemical compound" isn't done. That was a long winded way of saying oxidization of cholesterol causes inflammation and the formation of plaque in blood vessels. Detecting oxidized LDL is possible but almost no lab does it. Instead you get spurious correlations, the most reliable of which is HDL to triglycerides.