4 ms·

Yes, LDL is the best we have since they won’t bother to measure oxidative stress nor inflammation in the human body. But lowering your LDL does not prevent hea

Yes, LDL is the best we have since they won’t bother to measure oxidative stress nor inflammation in the human body. But lowering your LDL does not prevent heart disease. There are many many people with normal LDL who have heart attacks. In fact, it is the norm. And I can’t imagine how many people are being told. They have no heart disease risk just because their LDL is normal. It’s a crime and it needs to be stopped. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/most-heart-attack-patients-cholesterol-levels-did-not-indicate-cardiac-risk https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/most-heart-attack-pa... A new national study has shown that nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk for a cardiovascular event, based on current national cholesterol guidelines.

p1esk 1y ago
How can inflammation be measured?
- hirvi74 1y ago
  I am sure there are other means, but I always thought C-Reactive Protein levels were the standard measure.
Aurornis 1y ago
> But lowering your LDL does not prevent heart disease. There are many many people with normal LDL who have heart attacks. Wearing a seatbelt does not prevent death in a car accident. There are many people who wear seatbelts who still perish in car accidents. While you can find a vocal minority who claim cholesterol is not related to heart disease, the best evidence we have is that it is. A lot of the doctors pushing cholesterol denialism are into quacks, such as Uffe Ravnskov who pivoted from denying a link between LDL and CVD into preaching Vitamin C to treat COVID when that hit the news. However, it's not the only actor in determining heart attack risk.
- imtringued 1y ago
  Lowering LDL isn't equivalent to a seatbelt. A seatbelt is a safety device that performs a function in an accident. LDL is used as a predictor because it is easy to measure not because LDL itself causes heart disease. Lowering LDL doesn't actually do anything on its own, because it is just a proxy metric for the underlying problem. It's more cranky to shutdown discussions by misrepresenting someone's position as "cholesterol denialism". What does that even mean in this context? Finding better predictors is denialism. Great now we just need a ministry of truth.
  - llm_nerd 1y ago
    >Lowering LDL doesn't actually do anything on its own Is this some sort of weird philosophical statement? Because, of course, it's completely nonsensical, and completely at odds with all data on this file. Lowering LDL reduces CVD incident rates, with no other interventions. People with genetically low LDL also have lower CVD incident rates. This is extraordinarily well proven. So it sure seems -- you know, 100% of medical science -- that lowering LDL does "something". The human body is a complex machine, however, and CVD is multifactorial, and for CVD to develop the current thinking is that you need inflammation and high cholesterol over decades. Inflammation can be caused by things like high blood pressure and the like. But everyone has inflammation to some degree as a facet of living, and the easiest component of that to treat (not just measure) is LDL. And yes, there is an industry of cholesterol denialists, among whom there are just loads and loads of chiropractors. These clowns have built armies of poorly informed disciples that run to HN to tell us that cholesterol doesn't matter and lowering LDL doesn't do anything.
    - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
      [flagged]
      - llm_nerd 1y ago
        >He said LDL does not do anything on its own It's like saying a flying bullet can't do anything on its own. It is a meaningless statement. >As I pointed out in another post over 75% of people who have heart attacks have normal LDL. The actual study authors were advocating for lower LDL guidelines, particularly among the elderly. A heart attack is the destination, not the journey. What someone's LDL was at admission for a heart attack says literally nothing about their state for the decades before. In actual studies tracking cholesterol, even over a five year period lowering LDL has a potent beneficial effect. >You’re saying a lot of nonsensical stuff in your comment like high blood pressure causes inflammation , which tells me you are not serious in this discussion Hypertension can cause endothelial inflammation, leading to blood vessel damage and promoting the release of inflammatory mediators. This is extremely well documented, and it's why getting hypertension under control medically is considered extremely important in the CVD battle. Inflammation and hypertension often are found hand in hand, and there is uncertainty over the cause and the effect, but strangely controlling hypertension alone dramatically reduces inflammation. Weird, right? >I have zero inflammation Sorry, but LOL. Not only is that a singular and very narrow test, inflammation is literally just a facet of living. As is oxidization. There isn't a single human alive with "zero inflammation", nor is there anyone that has magically non-odidizing LDL.
cthalupa 1y ago
Lowering LDL is one of the best preventative measures we have for ASCVD. https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317-4/fulltext https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317... That people can still experience a heat attack even with low LDL does not change that fact. We have very large studies showing the efficacy of lowering LDL.
llm_nerd 1y ago
>But lowering your LDL does not prevent heart disease Literally one of the most proven truths in medical science is that LDL levels has an almost directly relationship with CVD risk over the long term. Someone with low cholesterol can of course still have CVD, but their odds are much better than someone with high cholesterol. And of course the damage from cholesterol is additive, so the earlier you control LDL, the more of a benefit. >A new national study has shown that nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk for a cardiovascular event, based on current national cholesterol guidelines. The damage from high cholesterol happens over decades. Yet the people who actually have heart attacks are often older. So yes, if gramps spent his life with high cholesterol but now he barely eats and is sedentary, he might have low cholesterol now but that says literally nothing to what you're claiming it does.
- imtringued 1y ago
  [flagged]
  - llm_nerd 1y ago
    You have left multiple comments for the sole purpose of muddying waters. So HN would probably be better off if you didn't reply. What did I "shout"? What are you even going off about? Don't project your angry fanaticism on others. Further, your literacy is not my problem. Nothing in my comment was contradictory or confusing to anyone but you.
  - cthalupa 1y ago
    No. They’re saying that damage is cumulative over a lifetime - plaque deposition - so that a point in time snapshot of LDL says little about lifetime exposure. If I live my life with high LDL and only get on statins at 65 I might have low LDL when I have a heart attack but the damage came from the decades of high LDL. The current guidance from the AHA and NLA is that lower is better for as long as possible.
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    Lower cholesterol helps but lowering inflammation helps everyone. As I’ve said in another comment over 75% of people who have heart attacks have normal LDL levels. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/most-heart-attack-patients-cholesterol-levels-did-not-indicate-cardiac-risk https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/most-heart-attack-pa... And lower cholesterol is not without its own risks. You need cholesterol to make hormones and things like CoQ10, which are important for our health. So what’s better? Lowering oxidative stress and inflammation or lowering cholesterol?
deleted 1y ago
[deleted]

p1esk 1y ago

How can inflammation be measured?

hirvi74 1y ago
I am sure there are other means, but I always thought C-Reactive Protein levels were the standard measure.

Aurornis 1y ago

> But lowering your LDL does not prevent heart disease. There are many many people with normal LDL who have heart attacks. Wearing a seatbelt does not prevent death in a car accident. There are many people who wear seatbelts who still perish in car accidents. While you can find a vocal minority who claim cholesterol is not related to heart disease, the best evidence we have is that it is. A lot of the doctors pushing cholesterol denialism are into quacks, such as Uffe Ravnskov who pivoted from denying a link between LDL and CVD into preaching Vitamin C to treat COVID when that hit the news. However, it's not the only actor in determining heart attack risk.

imtringued 1y ago
Lowering LDL isn't equivalent to a seatbelt. A seatbelt is a safety device that performs a function in an accident. LDL is used as a predictor because it is easy to measure not because LDL itself causes heart disease. Lowering LDL doesn't actually do anything on its own, because it is just a proxy metric for the underlying problem. It's more cranky to shutdown discussions by misrepresenting someone's position as "cholesterol denialism". What does that even mean in this context? Finding better predictors is denialism. Great now we just need a ministry of truth.
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  >Lowering LDL doesn't actually do anything on its own Is this some sort of weird philosophical statement? Because, of course, it's completely nonsensical, and completely at odds with all data on this file. Lowering LDL reduces CVD incident rates, with no other interventions. People with genetically low LDL also have lower CVD incident rates. This is extraordinarily well proven. So it sure seems -- you know, 100% of medical science -- that lowering LDL does "something". The human body is a complex machine, however, and CVD is multifactorial, and for CVD to develop the current thinking is that you need inflammation and high cholesterol over decades. Inflammation can be caused by things like high blood pressure and the like. But everyone has inflammation to some degree as a facet of living, and the easiest component of that to treat (not just measure) is LDL. And yes, there is an industry of cholesterol denialists, among whom there are just loads and loads of chiropractors. These clowns have built armies of poorly informed disciples that run to HN to tell us that cholesterol doesn't matter and lowering LDL doesn't do anything.
  - FollowingTheDao 1y ago
    [flagged]
    - llm_nerd 1y ago
      >He said LDL does not do anything on its own It's like saying a flying bullet can't do anything on its own. It is a meaningless statement. >As I pointed out in another post over 75% of people who have heart attacks have normal LDL. The actual study authors were advocating for lower LDL guidelines, particularly among the elderly. A heart attack is the destination, not the journey. What someone's LDL was at admission for a heart attack says literally nothing about their state for the decades before. In actual studies tracking cholesterol, even over a five year period lowering LDL has a potent beneficial effect. >You’re saying a lot of nonsensical stuff in your comment like high blood pressure causes inflammation , which tells me you are not serious in this discussion Hypertension can cause endothelial inflammation, leading to blood vessel damage and promoting the release of inflammatory mediators. This is extremely well documented, and it's why getting hypertension under control medically is considered extremely important in the CVD battle. Inflammation and hypertension often are found hand in hand, and there is uncertainty over the cause and the effect, but strangely controlling hypertension alone dramatically reduces inflammation. Weird, right? >I have zero inflammation Sorry, but LOL. Not only is that a singular and very narrow test, inflammation is literally just a facet of living. As is oxidization. There isn't a single human alive with "zero inflammation", nor is there anyone that has magically non-odidizing LDL.

cthalupa 1y ago

Lowering LDL is one of the best preventative measures we have for ASCVD. https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317-4/fulltext https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874%2825%2900317... That people can still experience a heat attack even with low LDL does not change that fact. We have very large studies showing the efficacy of lowering LDL.

llm_nerd 1y ago

>But lowering your LDL does not prevent heart disease Literally one of the most proven truths in medical science is that LDL levels has an almost directly relationship with CVD risk over the long term. Someone with low cholesterol can of course still have CVD, but their odds are much better than someone with high cholesterol. And of course the damage from cholesterol is additive, so the earlier you control LDL, the more of a benefit. >A new national study has shown that nearly 75 percent of patients hospitalized for a heart attack had cholesterol levels that would indicate they were not at high risk for a cardiovascular event, based on current national cholesterol guidelines. The damage from high cholesterol happens over decades. Yet the people who actually have heart attacks are often older. So yes, if gramps spent his life with high cholesterol but now he barely eats and is sedentary, he might have low cholesterol now but that says literally nothing to what you're claiming it does.

imtringued 1y ago
[flagged]
- llm_nerd 1y ago
  You have left multiple comments for the sole purpose of muddying waters. So HN would probably be better off if you didn't reply. What did I "shout"? What are you even going off about? Don't project your angry fanaticism on others. Further, your literacy is not my problem. Nothing in my comment was contradictory or confusing to anyone but you.
- cthalupa 1y ago
  No. They’re saying that damage is cumulative over a lifetime - plaque deposition - so that a point in time snapshot of LDL says little about lifetime exposure. If I live my life with high LDL and only get on statins at 65 I might have low LDL when I have a heart attack but the damage came from the decades of high LDL. The current guidance from the AHA and NLA is that lower is better for as long as possible.
- FollowingTheDao 1y ago
  Lower cholesterol helps but lowering inflammation helps everyone. As I’ve said in another comment over 75% of people who have heart attacks have normal LDL levels. https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/most-heart-attack-patients-cholesterol-levels-did-not-indicate-cardiac-risk https://www.uclahealth.org/news/release/most-heart-attack-pa... And lower cholesterol is not without its own risks. You need cholesterol to make hormones and things like CoQ10, which are important for our health. So what’s better? Lowering oxidative stress and inflammation or lowering cholesterol?

deleted 1y ago

[deleted]