3 ms·

Cholesterol to statins (translational science takes time)

10 points by davi 17y ago

paul 17y ago
It's also interesting that faulty research from almost 100 years ago is still affecting the way we eat. Humans are not rabbits -- they have very different dietary requirements. Apparently nobody has managed to show a link between dietary cholesterol and health in humans. (though they've tried, which provides evidence that there is no link)
- jnorthrop 17y ago
  On top of that only 15% of cholesterol in our bodies comes from dietary sources (http://health.howstuffworks.com/cholesterol2.htm http://health.howstuffworks.com/cholesterol2.htm) the other 85% our bodies produce. To add to your argument: why would our bodies make such an abundance of a substance if it wasn't good for us?
  - jodrellblank 17y ago
    One answer would be if cholesterol was required to repair damage, and your diet is causing a lot of damage that requires the creation of a lot of cholesterol. This would also fit why cholesterol lowering statins do lower cholesterol, but do not reduce frequency of heart attack death, and also why improved excercise and dietary habits do reduce both blood cholesterol levels and heart attack risk.
grandalf 17y ago
This science falls victim to the "micro nutrient fallacy", the idea that overall health can be understood as a function of the health correlations narrowly observed from a single chemical or ingredient. This is why people drown their food in olive oil (no there is no such thing as healthy oils), and why people take obscene amounts of supplements to the point where rivers (via sewage) contain detectable amounts of dietary supplement chemicals. This is also why most men over 60 are on statins, blood pressure meds, etc., and are still obese and eating the same diet that got them into trouble -- and why most will still die of the diseases the drugs are supposed to prevent. It's also why advertisers put "Contains Omega 3s" or "Low in cholesterol" or "Contains Lycopene" in big letters all over the box they are trying to sell you.

10 points by davi 17y ago

paul 17y ago

It's also interesting that faulty research from almost 100 years ago is still affecting the way we eat. Humans are not rabbits -- they have very different dietary requirements. Apparently nobody has managed to show a link between dietary cholesterol and health in humans. (though they've tried, which provides evidence that there is no link)

jnorthrop 17y ago
On top of that only 15% of cholesterol in our bodies comes from dietary sources (http://health.howstuffworks.com/cholesterol2.htm http://health.howstuffworks.com/cholesterol2.htm) the other 85% our bodies produce. To add to your argument: why would our bodies make such an abundance of a substance if it wasn't good for us?
- jodrellblank 17y ago
  One answer would be if cholesterol was required to repair damage, and your diet is causing a lot of damage that requires the creation of a lot of cholesterol. This would also fit why cholesterol lowering statins do lower cholesterol, but do not reduce frequency of heart attack death, and also why improved excercise and dietary habits do reduce both blood cholesterol levels and heart attack risk.

grandalf 17y ago

This science falls victim to the "micro nutrient fallacy", the idea that overall health can be understood as a function of the health correlations narrowly observed from a single chemical or ingredient. This is why people drown their food in olive oil (no there is no such thing as healthy oils), and why people take obscene amounts of supplements to the point where rivers (via sewage) contain detectable amounts of dietary supplement chemicals. This is also why most men over 60 are on statins, blood pressure meds, etc., and are still obese and eating the same diet that got them into trouble -- and why most will still die of the diseases the drugs are supposed to prevent. It's also why advertisers put "Contains Omega 3s" or "Low in cholesterol" or "Contains Lycopene" in big letters all over the box they are trying to sell you.