The number of deaths don't increase by much with increasing cholesterol? I guess animal ag profits are more important than 100s of 1000s of preventable deaths.
As we all know ill and frail people have low LDL- certain cancers eat cholesterol- and are therefore more likely to die. This doesn't mean LDL is not bad. And because risk doesn't increase much doesn't mean you want risk to increase at all. Throwing more matches into a fire ain't gonna make much difference but better not to have a fire in your house.
High cholesterol is not heathy even if it's being used as energy. As is being shown in recent studies.
If high cholesterol is inherently bad, then why do the longest living people (centenarians) have much higher cholesterol than what is considered "normal"? Including total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.
Sure, there's probably some upper limit that we should consider.
But, that limit is probably far higher than our common ranges of "normal"
‘At variance with young and aged people, centenarians with high Lp(a) serum levels also had high plasma concentrations of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-6, suggesting that genetic control of the Lp(a) serum level may attenuate with age
‘On the whole, these data support the hypothesis that a continuous and complex reshaping of lipid metabolism occurs in physiological aging, likely contributing to successful aging.’
This seems to say that in centenarians- the control of LDL is diminished-meaning that LDL rises. However, this rise is not from a rise in dietary saturated fat or cholesterol- it’s from a change in internal control. So the high lipoprotein does not show that previously thought unhealthy life style factors are no longer unhealthy. It shows with ageing control of LDL changes.
I agree, high cholesterol is a marker (the risk factor itself is high animal and processed food intake). However, like crossing a busy road, not all people get run over, some get away with it (some of the sardinian blue zone centenarians are smokers or ex-smokers), especially if they have access to other life style benefits, community, high blood pressure medication etc. Cholesterol under 150 and as low as 70 in healthy adults makes one virtually heart attack proof- CVD being the number one cause of death in the west.
Cholesterol levels above normal in old women in Sweden etc shouldn’t be taken as a green light for unlimited saturated animal fat consumption because it doesn’t alter the fact that the longest living populations are plant-based with meat eaten only on special occasions or not at all.
We shouldn’t be obsessing about cholesterol levels but rather overall diet quality- which is one centred around beans, soy, spices, wholegrains, nuts and garden vegetables-eaten- at communal gatherings.
‘A major consequence of this reshaping is that changes in the serum level of protein, lipids, and lipoproteins that are considered risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular diseases in young people may lose their biological significance and assume a different, unknown role with advanced age. Such a reshaping can have far-reaching consequences for laboratory standard values and, when possible, in therapeutic intervention for the elderly. The results presented here are in line with our general hypothesis that a continuous remodeling develops with time as a result of the continuous adaptation to changes occurring in the body with age in response to internal and external damaging agents.'
The body has high cholesterol because it wants to. And no, you don’t need to consume more or more saturated fat, the body makes all the cholesterol it needs.
As we know cholesterol levels in younger people is just a biomarker of health. The association holds true in younger people. The fact that physiology changes as we age and the biomarker limits also need to change does not mean that biomarkers for younger people, ie for most of most people’s lives, are wrong or unhelpful.
The studies focus on ‘the longest living people’-ie centenarians- this is disingenuous- many other populations including plant based ones are among the longest living ie they having centenarians among them. The studies don’t look at 100 year olds across the world, they look at particular populations.
Studies on 98 year old and older Ashkenazis show a gene that variant that protects against high cholesterol. The Masai also have a variant that enables them to live (to about 40) with high cholesterol.
So if you don’t have this gene but think it’s OK to have high cholesterol….
The range of ‘normal’ or ‘optimal’ may be higher than common ranges in active 100 year olds (which is confounded by other lifestyle factors in these populations and availability of blood pressure meds and other interventions) but that shouldn’t confuse the issue that in under 100 year olds above ‘normal’ is associated as a risk factor.
You have to live through all the other ages to get to 100, and the evidence shows you’re morely likely to have higher risk of CDV with higher than normal total and LDL.
Do you have information on statins and stroke prevention? My mom had a stroke 2 years ago and it was attributed to her genetically high cholesterol and was put on a statin because she already lived quite a healthy lifestyle. She has cognitively declined since starting the statin.
The best way to know if you have a problem that even requires a statin is to have a calcium score test (Google it). It is not usually covered by health insurance but costs $100-$150 and will tell you if you need a statin (or a bypass, or a stent) without the guessing.
Lots of “plausible mechanisms” here. But not a lot of endpoint data to support your dismissal of the LDL hypothesis.
You’ve also failed to distinguish “primary prevention” vs “secondary prevention” when it comes to statin efficacy (and in particular, efficacy against clinical outcomes rather than mechanistic theories).
You’ve also specifically failed to mention or acknowledge the wealth of outcome data specifically with regards to LDL lowering (and statin use). I acknowledge such data is less compelling with non-statin LDL lowering (such as ezetimibe and PCSK-9 inhibitors).
Finally, you mention “inflammation”, and presumably suggest that it, and/or “metabolic syndrome”, is largely to blame. But you’ve not provided any outcome data to sustain your assertions.
You are correct that “treat to target” is itself not evidence based, since trials measured outcome effects of “LDL lowering” vs not; or of high dose vs low dose treatment. There have been no outcome studies using an “LDL clamp”.
I also agree about the small ARH of (high intensity) statin use and new onset DM. However, that signal is already accounted for in secondary prevention outcome trials.
As for keto diet, I’d be a little more bearish about its overall benefits (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280624000410). (I recognize this data may have come out AFTER your OP). But as far as outcome data goes, there is much better data for Mediterranean diet (Predimed in primary prevention, and Lyon Heart in secondary prevention) than anything keto enthusiasts can dream of, to date.
Please keep writing on this—I believe patients and the general public are getting the message. I recently had a patient with pretty high cholesterol according to the current guidelines—started on a statin by another provider although her 10-year CV risk is pretty low—under 5%. On the statin her A1c jumped to nearly equal a diabetes diagnosis and nothing else had changed. In UpToDate —there is a section on “significant” adverse effects—and then, relegated to a different section—a 3% incidence of new diabetes diagnosis is reported for the statin. I’m disgusted—seems to me a new diagnosis of diabetes is very significant.
- the first, self evident, is that diabetes is not good for your body and then you need to take another bunch of meds (with a whole set of adverse effects) to manage your blood glucose
- since having diabetes puts you automatically at higher risk of heart disease, cardiologists and diabetologists want your cholesterol to be even lower, so they are going to increase your statin doses
Hey Remnant, I'm a paid subscriber and noticed that I have not been receiving all your stacks. Found this one on notes, cross checked my inbox and did not see this one.
So here is something interesting for you. I come from a long lived family, my grandpa was the youngest who died just before his 90th birthday, but he had developed diabetes Late in life. Everyone else has lived to mid 90s at least. My mom is 88, my dad 90. I’m 55. My dads cholesterol, combined, is under 100. It’s so low that he is supposed to be taking meds to raise it but he can’t tolerate the, so he doesn’t. However, he eats SO MUCH fat, like a 1/4” thick on a roll at dinner. He goes through a tub of butter at least once a week, and that’s only one of his fat sources. He hates ‘bird’ so eats beef and pork almost exclusively. I won’t even go into the amount of butter and sour cream he puts on a potato, you get the picture. My dad is mentally sharp as a tack (he’s awesome).
Then there’s me. I have always exercised multiple times a week, I am careful about my diet but I don’t do keto or anything,just try to get whole foods and complex carbs, lots of fruits and veg, lean meats, etc. I track what 8 eat and focus on getting enough protein and fiber. My weight is great. (Upper 130s at 5’7”). My cholesterol is ‘high’. Specifically, my total runs in the 230s, last check LDL was 146, HDL 79, and triglycerides 42. So my triglyceride to HDL ratio is .53. When I had the cardiac IQ test done, my small particle LDL was around 1900. So definitely ‘too high’. I don’t know my moms specific numbers, but her cholesterol has a
Anyway, my moms cholesterol has always been in the normal range. So my question is... what do you think? Am I just unlucky or is there something I could be doing indifferently? Also, I will never go on a statin. The only prescription I have is estrogen and progesterone because of menopause, but the cholesterol thing has been going on for a few years.
The comparison between your parents and yourself is quite telling.
Namely, that you more or less keep your diet to the typical medical recommendation from most sought after cardiologists, primary care providers: whole food, carbs, fruit, veg, lean meat.
Yet, for some reason, your body seems to be responding with a lipid panel that is higher than "normal."
If this should tell you anything, it is that the mainstream understanding and recommendation is faulty at best.
The important things to consider are: how do you feel? Have you noticed any deficiencies in your body or mind's capacity to do tasks it could before, or overcome an obstacle that was previously not a problem?
If I had your lipid panel, I wouldn't really give it much thought. Triglycerides look great. High cholesterol is not necessarily a bad thing.
If I were to make any suggestion: enjoy more animal fat and protein. Enjoy fruit and veggies that are in season and well sourced (avoiding industrial fertilizer and herbicides). Listen to your body.
Thanks! I am active and healthy. The only real issue is trouble getting good deep sleep, but I’m in menopause, so that could be it. I eat 125-135g of protein a day, almost exclusively from real food (chicken, turkey, seafood, some red meat, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, etc) not protein supplements) I generally feel like my cholesterol is where my body wants it, but the docs keep trying to tell me otherwise. I just try to ignore it and listen to my body.
Is there a more recent study you would recommend on statins causing diabetes than the 2010 study you pointed out? Excellent article by the way-thank you
I'm sure there are, but finding a study as robust would probably take some digging. At this point, it's so well known that doctors regularly check A1c for patients they put on statins to mitigate risk of diabetes.
It is physiologically illogical to claim that it does not.
Unfortunately, the medical industrial complex has washed this away with the phrase "reversible cognitive impairment" despite the fact that only a fraction of the statin-induced cases of dementia show "some" improvement once they stop taking statins.
I am a retired surgical nurse with open heart experience. Being highly suspicious of the benefit of statins , since my father went into kidney failure after being prescribed statins back in the 80’s, I did my own study with patients in our open heart program. The result was that very few of our patients had high cholesterol or LDL. They were usually smokers or diabetics and some over weight. I am a healthy lean and active, tennis, bike riding female who developed pre diabetes while on Crestor 10 mg. I stopped the Crestor and started taking Krill Oil , which seemed to be bringing down numbers but then I developed Atrial fib so stopped the Krill Oil. I recently read an article on substack that indicated Omega 3’s may be causing new Afib occurrences. My take on this is that better living, better health is not thru chemistry.
"LDL levels can be elevated in individuals with low thyroid activity because T3 helps sensitize the LDL receptor on the cell membrane. Lower active T3 will cause an inability of the LDL particles to dock on the cell membrane drop the cholesterol and fat soluble nutrients into the cell. So the body adapts and increases the amount of overall LDL cholesterol similar to how insulin goes up in response to insulin resistance." -- Dr David Jockers
‘A major consequence of this reshaping is that changes in the serum level of protein, lipids, and lipoproteins that are considered risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular diseases in young people may lose their biological significance and assume a different, unknown role with advanced age (or other conditions). Such a reshaping can have far-reaching consequences for laboratory standard values and, when possible, in therapeutic intervention for the elderly. The results presented here are in line with our general hypothesis that a continuous remodeling develops with time as a result of the continuous adaptation to changes occurring in the body with age in response to internal and external damaging agents.
Dr. Guy Abraham and his group in the early 2000's had a series looking at iodine deficiency in thyroid disease and fibrocystic breast disease. (They used the Japanese breast Ca comparison to US prevalence to make the point.)
Current opinions on iodine deficiency point to other halides as displacing iodine- fluoride from water sources but also from fluorinated cookware coatings, chlorine in water and some source of bromine were all criticised. This would be in agreement with Dr. Johnkers' observation and increased appreciation of the lack of (unexamined) micronutrients in our refined diets. In 40 years I don't recall ever measuring anodyne level for clinical use.
My Medicare Advantage HMO plan mandates two exams per year, which I call the "Are you still alive?" visits. My cholesterol is always a bit north of 200, which causes my doctor great angst. This in spite of the fact that I am probably one of very few "old" patients she has (I am 76) that have no prescriptions, no metabolic diseases, and start each day with 100 push-ups and a 5k walk. Dr. Robert Lustig says that the triglyceride to HDL ratio is a predictor of heart disease, and a value of 1.5 means "you will live forever". I'm at 1.6, and proceeding on the assumption that I have ¼ of my life yet to be lived. I'm a firm believer in Dr. Peter Attia's concept of "Medicine 3.0" in his book 'Outlive', which is based on your root cause approach.
The number of deaths don't increase by much with increasing cholesterol? I guess animal ag profits are more important than 100s of 1000s of preventable deaths.
As we all know ill and frail people have low LDL- certain cancers eat cholesterol- and are therefore more likely to die. This doesn't mean LDL is not bad. And because risk doesn't increase much doesn't mean you want risk to increase at all. Throwing more matches into a fire ain't gonna make much difference but better not to have a fire in your house.
High cholesterol is not heathy even if it's being used as energy. As is being shown in recent studies.
Of course statins are bad.
https://jowaller.substack.com/p/of-course-statins-dont-work-cholesterol?utm_source=publication-search
If high cholesterol is inherently bad, then why do the longest living people (centenarians) have much higher cholesterol than what is considered "normal"? Including total cholesterol and LDL cholesterol.
Sure, there's probably some upper limit that we should consider.
But, that limit is probably far higher than our common ranges of "normal"
‘At variance with young and aged people, centenarians with high Lp(a) serum levels also had high plasma concentrations of the proinflammatory cytokine IL-6, suggesting that genetic control of the Lp(a) serum level may attenuate with age
‘On the whole, these data support the hypothesis that a continuous and complex reshaping of lipid metabolism occurs in physiological aging, likely contributing to successful aging.’
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/9535215/#:~:text=Accordingly%2C%20we%20measured%20Lp(a,likely%20contributing%20to%20successful%20aging.
This seems to say that in centenarians- the control of LDL is diminished-meaning that LDL rises. However, this rise is not from a rise in dietary saturated fat or cholesterol- it’s from a change in internal control. So the high lipoprotein does not show that previously thought unhealthy life style factors are no longer unhealthy. It shows with ageing control of LDL changes.
I agree, high cholesterol is a marker (the risk factor itself is high animal and processed food intake). However, like crossing a busy road, not all people get run over, some get away with it (some of the sardinian blue zone centenarians are smokers or ex-smokers), especially if they have access to other life style benefits, community, high blood pressure medication etc. Cholesterol under 150 and as low as 70 in healthy adults makes one virtually heart attack proof- CVD being the number one cause of death in the west.
Cholesterol levels above normal in old women in Sweden etc shouldn’t be taken as a green light for unlimited saturated animal fat consumption because it doesn’t alter the fact that the longest living populations are plant-based with meat eaten only on special occasions or not at all.
We shouldn’t be obsessing about cholesterol levels but rather overall diet quality- which is one centred around beans, soy, spices, wholegrains, nuts and garden vegetables-eaten- at communal gatherings.
Your vegan evangelism is showing.
So?
at least you’re honest
Your shilling for animal ag is showing too.
‘A major consequence of this reshaping is that changes in the serum level of protein, lipids, and lipoproteins that are considered risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular diseases in young people may lose their biological significance and assume a different, unknown role with advanced age. Such a reshaping can have far-reaching consequences for laboratory standard values and, when possible, in therapeutic intervention for the elderly. The results presented here are in line with our general hypothesis that a continuous remodeling develops with time as a result of the continuous adaptation to changes occurring in the body with age in response to internal and external damaging agents.'
The body has high cholesterol because it wants to. And no, you don’t need to consume more or more saturated fat, the body makes all the cholesterol it needs.
As we know cholesterol levels in younger people is just a biomarker of health. The association holds true in younger people. The fact that physiology changes as we age and the biomarker limits also need to change does not mean that biomarkers for younger people, ie for most of most people’s lives, are wrong or unhelpful.
The studies focus on ‘the longest living people’-ie centenarians- this is disingenuous- many other populations including plant based ones are among the longest living ie they having centenarians among them. The studies don’t look at 100 year olds across the world, they look at particular populations.
Studies on 98 year old and older Ashkenazis show a gene that variant that protects against high cholesterol. The Masai also have a variant that enables them to live (to about 40) with high cholesterol.
So if you don’t have this gene but think it’s OK to have high cholesterol….
The range of ‘normal’ or ‘optimal’ may be higher than common ranges in active 100 year olds (which is confounded by other lifestyle factors in these populations and availability of blood pressure meds and other interventions) but that shouldn’t confuse the issue that in under 100 year olds above ‘normal’ is associated as a risk factor.
You have to live through all the other ages to get to 100, and the evidence shows you’re morely likely to have higher risk of CDV with higher than normal total and LDL.
Do you have information on statins and stroke prevention? My mom had a stroke 2 years ago and it was attributed to her genetically high cholesterol and was put on a statin because she already lived quite a healthy lifestyle. She has cognitively declined since starting the statin.
The best way to know if you have a problem that even requires a statin is to have a calcium score test (Google it). It is not usually covered by health insurance but costs $100-$150 and will tell you if you need a statin (or a bypass, or a stent) without the guessing.
I don’t think calcium scores are all they are cracked up to be.
How so? Can you explain in more detail?
https://www.remnantmd.com/p/monologues-4-heart-disease-and-cholesterol
Thank you
May have linked the wrong one, check this out if so
https://www.remnantmd.com/p/coronary-artery-disease-calcium-scores?utm_source=publication-search
Lots of “plausible mechanisms” here. But not a lot of endpoint data to support your dismissal of the LDL hypothesis.
You’ve also failed to distinguish “primary prevention” vs “secondary prevention” when it comes to statin efficacy (and in particular, efficacy against clinical outcomes rather than mechanistic theories).
You’ve also specifically failed to mention or acknowledge the wealth of outcome data specifically with regards to LDL lowering (and statin use). I acknowledge such data is less compelling with non-statin LDL lowering (such as ezetimibe and PCSK-9 inhibitors).
Finally, you mention “inflammation”, and presumably suggest that it, and/or “metabolic syndrome”, is largely to blame. But you’ve not provided any outcome data to sustain your assertions.
You are correct that “treat to target” is itself not evidence based, since trials measured outcome effects of “LDL lowering” vs not; or of high dose vs low dose treatment. There have been no outcome studies using an “LDL clamp”.
I also agree about the small ARH of (high intensity) statin use and new onset DM. However, that signal is already accounted for in secondary prevention outcome trials.
As for keto diet, I’d be a little more bearish about its overall benefits (https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0146280624000410). (I recognize this data may have come out AFTER your OP). But as far as outcome data goes, there is much better data for Mediterranean diet (Predimed in primary prevention, and Lyon Heart in secondary prevention) than anything keto enthusiasts can dream of, to date.
Please keep writing on this—I believe patients and the general public are getting the message. I recently had a patient with pretty high cholesterol according to the current guidelines—started on a statin by another provider although her 10-year CV risk is pretty low—under 5%. On the statin her A1c jumped to nearly equal a diabetes diagnosis and nothing else had changed. In UpToDate —there is a section on “significant” adverse effects—and then, relegated to a different section—a 3% incidence of new diabetes diagnosis is reported for the statin. I’m disgusted—seems to me a new diagnosis of diabetes is very significant.
Yeah, and that's for two reasons:
- the first, self evident, is that diabetes is not good for your body and then you need to take another bunch of meds (with a whole set of adverse effects) to manage your blood glucose
- since having diabetes puts you automatically at higher risk of heart disease, cardiologists and diabetologists want your cholesterol to be even lower, so they are going to increase your statin doses
Hey Remnant, I'm a paid subscriber and noticed that I have not been receiving all your stacks. Found this one on notes, cross checked my inbox and did not see this one.
So here is something interesting for you. I come from a long lived family, my grandpa was the youngest who died just before his 90th birthday, but he had developed diabetes Late in life. Everyone else has lived to mid 90s at least. My mom is 88, my dad 90. I’m 55. My dads cholesterol, combined, is under 100. It’s so low that he is supposed to be taking meds to raise it but he can’t tolerate the, so he doesn’t. However, he eats SO MUCH fat, like a 1/4” thick on a roll at dinner. He goes through a tub of butter at least once a week, and that’s only one of his fat sources. He hates ‘bird’ so eats beef and pork almost exclusively. I won’t even go into the amount of butter and sour cream he puts on a potato, you get the picture. My dad is mentally sharp as a tack (he’s awesome).
Then there’s me. I have always exercised multiple times a week, I am careful about my diet but I don’t do keto or anything,just try to get whole foods and complex carbs, lots of fruits and veg, lean meats, etc. I track what 8 eat and focus on getting enough protein and fiber. My weight is great. (Upper 130s at 5’7”). My cholesterol is ‘high’. Specifically, my total runs in the 230s, last check LDL was 146, HDL 79, and triglycerides 42. So my triglyceride to HDL ratio is .53. When I had the cardiac IQ test done, my small particle LDL was around 1900. So definitely ‘too high’. I don’t know my moms specific numbers, but her cholesterol has a
Whoops, accidentally hit enter too soon.
Anyway, my moms cholesterol has always been in the normal range. So my question is... what do you think? Am I just unlucky or is there something I could be doing indifferently? Also, I will never go on a statin. The only prescription I have is estrogen and progesterone because of menopause, but the cholesterol thing has been going on for a few years.
Hi Valerie,
The comparison between your parents and yourself is quite telling.
Namely, that you more or less keep your diet to the typical medical recommendation from most sought after cardiologists, primary care providers: whole food, carbs, fruit, veg, lean meat.
Yet, for some reason, your body seems to be responding with a lipid panel that is higher than "normal."
If this should tell you anything, it is that the mainstream understanding and recommendation is faulty at best.
The important things to consider are: how do you feel? Have you noticed any deficiencies in your body or mind's capacity to do tasks it could before, or overcome an obstacle that was previously not a problem?
If I had your lipid panel, I wouldn't really give it much thought. Triglycerides look great. High cholesterol is not necessarily a bad thing.
If I were to make any suggestion: enjoy more animal fat and protein. Enjoy fruit and veggies that are in season and well sourced (avoiding industrial fertilizer and herbicides). Listen to your body.
Thanks! I am active and healthy. The only real issue is trouble getting good deep sleep, but I’m in menopause, so that could be it. I eat 125-135g of protein a day, almost exclusively from real food (chicken, turkey, seafood, some red meat, Greek yogurt, cottage cheese, etc) not protein supplements) I generally feel like my cholesterol is where my body wants it, but the docs keep trying to tell me otherwise. I just try to ignore it and listen to my body.
Is there a more recent study you would recommend on statins causing diabetes than the 2010 study you pointed out? Excellent article by the way-thank you
I'm sure there are, but finding a study as robust would probably take some digging. At this point, it's so well known that doctors regularly check A1c for patients they put on statins to mitigate risk of diabetes.
Great points. I’ve seen a lot of issues regarding the need to rethink cholesterol management.
Years ago, One of my Drs made me swear never to take a statin & get my numbers down naturally
Sounds like a keeper.
Is there any correlation between long term statin usage 30+ years
and Alzheimer’s/ degenerative dementia?
I believe there is an easy case to be made.
Statins do cause dementia.
It is physiologically illogical to claim that it does not.
Unfortunately, the medical industrial complex has washed this away with the phrase "reversible cognitive impairment" despite the fact that only a fraction of the statin-induced cases of dementia show "some" improvement once they stop taking statins.
In 1850, heart disease was the 25th cause of death, on par with accidental drowning.
Today a 40 yr old has as much of a chance of dying from a heart attack as a 70 yr old in 1970.
Weren't statins supposed to help?
https://romanshapoval.substack.com/p/why-heart-disease-is-an-electrical
I am a retired surgical nurse with open heart experience. Being highly suspicious of the benefit of statins , since my father went into kidney failure after being prescribed statins back in the 80’s, I did my own study with patients in our open heart program. The result was that very few of our patients had high cholesterol or LDL. They were usually smokers or diabetics and some over weight. I am a healthy lean and active, tennis, bike riding female who developed pre diabetes while on Crestor 10 mg. I stopped the Crestor and started taking Krill Oil , which seemed to be bringing down numbers but then I developed Atrial fib so stopped the Krill Oil. I recently read an article on substack that indicated Omega 3’s may be causing new Afib occurrences. My take on this is that better living, better health is not thru chemistry.
Afib could happen due to age, too? Krill oil not that toxic, but helpful for cardioprotective
reasons.
"LDL levels can be elevated in individuals with low thyroid activity because T3 helps sensitize the LDL receptor on the cell membrane. Lower active T3 will cause an inability of the LDL particles to dock on the cell membrane drop the cholesterol and fat soluble nutrients into the cell. So the body adapts and increases the amount of overall LDL cholesterol similar to how insulin goes up in response to insulin resistance." -- Dr David Jockers
So the body knows.
‘A major consequence of this reshaping is that changes in the serum level of protein, lipids, and lipoproteins that are considered risk factors for atherosclerotic vascular diseases in young people may lose their biological significance and assume a different, unknown role with advanced age (or other conditions). Such a reshaping can have far-reaching consequences for laboratory standard values and, when possible, in therapeutic intervention for the elderly. The results presented here are in line with our general hypothesis that a continuous remodeling develops with time as a result of the continuous adaptation to changes occurring in the body with age in response to internal and external damaging agents.
The body has high cholesterol because it wants to. And no, you don’t need to consume more or more saturated fat, the body makes all the cholesterol it needs.https://jowaller.substack.com/p/of-course-statins-dont-work-cholesterol?utm_source=publication-search
Brilliant, I didn't know this.
Dr. Guy Abraham and his group in the early 2000's had a series looking at iodine deficiency in thyroid disease and fibrocystic breast disease. (They used the Japanese breast Ca comparison to US prevalence to make the point.)
Current opinions on iodine deficiency point to other halides as displacing iodine- fluoride from water sources but also from fluorinated cookware coatings, chlorine in water and some source of bromine were all criticised. This would be in agreement with Dr. Johnkers' observation and increased appreciation of the lack of (unexamined) micronutrients in our refined diets. In 40 years I don't recall ever measuring anodyne level for clinical use.
My Medicare Advantage HMO plan mandates two exams per year, which I call the "Are you still alive?" visits. My cholesterol is always a bit north of 200, which causes my doctor great angst. This in spite of the fact that I am probably one of very few "old" patients she has (I am 76) that have no prescriptions, no metabolic diseases, and start each day with 100 push-ups and a 5k walk. Dr. Robert Lustig says that the triglyceride to HDL ratio is a predictor of heart disease, and a value of 1.5 means "you will live forever". I'm at 1.6, and proceeding on the assumption that I have ¼ of my life yet to be lived. I'm a firm believer in Dr. Peter Attia's concept of "Medicine 3.0" in his book 'Outlive', which is based on your root cause approach.
Used to be a fan of Dr. Attia, til I heard him recommend taking the experimental mnra/bioweapon?