3 ms·

I have genetically high cholesterol. But otherwise I exercise quite a lot and healthy. I’ve been told not to worry about cholesterol unless other indicators sta

I have genetically high cholesterol. But otherwise I exercise quite a lot and healthy. I’ve been told not to worry about cholesterol unless other indicators start to climb. So I just generally avoid high saturated fat foods (sat fat in food matters more to blood cholesterol than food cholesterol).

brandonb 1y ago
Have you measured your Lp(a)? It's the strongest hereditary risk factor for heart disease. (Each Lp(a) particle is essentially a "normal" cholesterol particle with an extra protein that makes it 6x more atherogenic.)
NoThisIsMe 1y ago
> sat fat matter more to blood cholesterol than food cholesterol Can you expand on this? I don't understand.
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  Eating excessive saturated fat is what your liver turns into too much "bad cholesterol" and what you need to watch if you're having cholesterol problems. Cholesterol in food doesn't usually translate to you having more cholesterol in your blood.
  - themk 1y ago
    I would have to go dig up the source for this, but I believe that genetics play a role on how your body handles dietary cholestrol. For many it's not a problem, but for some it is.
    - KempyKolibri 1y ago
      Yeah, it's that and the relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol isn't linear - once you're consuming a certain amount of dietary cholesterol, adding more doesn't make much difference to serum cholesterol. So for some individuals with a super clean, low cholesterol diet, adding dietary cholesterol would significantly impact their serum cholesterol. But for many (arguably most), it won't make much of a difference, which is one of the reasons DC has moved down in importance in dietary guidelines.
bluGill 1y ago
How old are you? I'm not a doctor, but my impression is treatment for cholesterol is not considered worth it until you are "older". Depending on how high, older can range from 35 to 50. (actually a better marker is probably when did your grandparents have heart attack, start treating somewhat before then). Which is to say get regular checkups because you will likely be put on treatment in the future, but not today. Again, I'm not a doctor. I talk to my doctor and see what others hear from their doctors and am able to make some educated guesses off of that.
- deleted 1y ago
  [deleted]
- softwaredoug 1y ago
  In my 40s
  - bluGill 1y ago
    It would be worth checking to be sure your doctor is up to date. The other reply suggests younger is the latest - but I'm not a doctor.
- cthalupa 1y ago
  The guidance has been changing significantly over the past few years. The consensus from expert organizations is now that we should be lowering it far earlier. https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317-4/fulltext https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317...
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    To the point of the original article, the consensus is probably doing people more harm than good. My mother had a heart attack at 45. My brother died of a heart attack at 48 and my other brother had a heart attack at 47. My cholesterol has been over 200 for at least 15 years and I’m in my late 50s. My calcium artery scan was zero and all heart sonograms are perfect. I would worry more about HDL than LDL first of all, because HDL is an antioxidant. And it’s about the oxidative stress, which is only another term for inflammation, that we should be concerned about. So why did I not get heart disease? Everyone else in my family smoked that had heart disease for a much longer period than I did. I only smoked for about five years when I was younger, but everyone else smoked for over 15. So it wasn’t cholesterol that killed my brother. It was the smoking that caused inflammation on the body that oxidized the cholesterol that killed him.

brandonb 1y ago

Have you measured your Lp(a)? It's the strongest hereditary risk factor for heart disease. (Each Lp(a) particle is essentially a "normal" cholesterol particle with an extra protein that makes it 6x more atherogenic.)

NoThisIsMe 1y ago

> sat fat matter more to blood cholesterol than food cholesterol Can you expand on this? I don't understand.

softwaredoug 1y ago
Eating excessive saturated fat is what your liver turns into too much "bad cholesterol" and what you need to watch if you're having cholesterol problems. Cholesterol in food doesn't usually translate to you having more cholesterol in your blood.
- themk 1y ago
  I would have to go dig up the source for this, but I believe that genetics play a role on how your body handles dietary cholestrol. For many it's not a problem, but for some it is.
  - KempyKolibri 1y ago
    Yeah, it's that and the relationship between dietary cholesterol and serum cholesterol isn't linear - once you're consuming a certain amount of dietary cholesterol, adding more doesn't make much difference to serum cholesterol. So for some individuals with a super clean, low cholesterol diet, adding dietary cholesterol would significantly impact their serum cholesterol. But for many (arguably most), it won't make much of a difference, which is one of the reasons DC has moved down in importance in dietary guidelines.

bluGill 1y ago

How old are you? I'm not a doctor, but my impression is treatment for cholesterol is not considered worth it until you are "older". Depending on how high, older can range from 35 to 50. (actually a better marker is probably when did your grandparents have heart attack, start treating somewhat before then). Which is to say get regular checkups because you will likely be put on treatment in the future, but not today. Again, I'm not a doctor. I talk to my doctor and see what others hear from their doctors and am able to make some educated guesses off of that.

deleted 1y ago
[deleted]
softwaredoug 1y ago
In my 40s
- bluGill 1y ago
  It would be worth checking to be sure your doctor is up to date. The other reply suggests younger is the latest - but I'm not a doctor.
cthalupa 1y ago
The guidance has been changing significantly over the past few years. The consensus from expert organizations is now that we should be lowering it far earlier. https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317-4/fulltext https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317...
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  To the point of the original article, the consensus is probably doing people more harm than good. My mother had a heart attack at 45. My brother died of a heart attack at 48 and my other brother had a heart attack at 47. My cholesterol has been over 200 for at least 15 years and I’m in my late 50s. My calcium artery scan was zero and all heart sonograms are perfect. I would worry more about HDL than LDL first of all, because HDL is an antioxidant. And it’s about the oxidative stress, which is only another term for inflammation, that we should be concerned about. So why did I not get heart disease? Everyone else in my family smoked that had heart disease for a much longer period than I did. I only smoked for about five years when I was younger, but everyone else smoked for over 15. So it wasn’t cholesterol that killed my brother. It was the smoking that caused inflammation on the body that oxidized the cholesterol that killed him.