Active Low-Carber Forums
Atkins diet and low carb discussion provided free for information only, not as medical advice.
Home Plans Tips Recipes Tools Stories Studies Products
Active Low-Carber Forums
A sugar-free zone


Welcome to the Active Low-Carber Forums.
Support for Atkins diet, Protein Power, Neanderthin (Paleo Diet), CAD/CALP, Dr. Bernstein Diabetes Solution and any other healthy low-carb diet or plan, all are welcome in our lowcarb community. Forget starvation and fad diets -- join the healthy eating crowd! You may register by clicking here, it's free!

Go Back   Active Low-Carber Forums > Main Low-Carb Diets Forums & Support > Low Carb Health & Technical Forums > Cholesterol, Heart Disease
User Name
Password
Register FAQ Members Calendar Mark Forums Read Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Tue, Jun-21-16, 02:55
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default No relation LDL to mortality over 60

A new Meta-analysis in the BMJ Open journal by many of the authors/cardiologist s we know active in Cholesterol controversy.

http://bmjopen.bmj.com/content/6/6/e010401

Quote:
Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review

Objective It is well known that total cholesterol becomes less of a risk factor or not at all for all-cause and cardiovascular (CV) mortality with increasing age, but as little is known as to whether low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C), one component of total cholesterol, is associated with mortality in the elderly, we decided to investigate this issue.
Abstract goes on...


Dr. Malcolm Kendrick is one of the authors and he is still plugging along on his magnum opus of what DOES ccause heart disease (if not cholesterol), part 17 published this week.

https://drmalcolmkendrick.org/2016/...ease-part-xvii/
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Tue, Jun-21-16, 04:11
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Also this study in Daily Mail yesterday:

Quote:
Millions of people may be needlessly taking statins every day: Study claims lowering cholesterol may NOT slash heart attack risk
Study: Lowering cholesterol below a certain level doesn't cut heart risk
Reducing level of 'bad' LDL cholesterol from a ‘high’ to a ‘moderate’ level did have an impact on heart risk, reducing heart emergencies by 13%
But reducing levels from 'moderate' to 'low' levels - roughly the level targeted by the NHS - had no effect on patients at all


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...ttack-risk.html


And in today's MedPage

Quote:

CardioBrief: Cholesterol Observations Question 'Lower Is Better'
No added benefit for statin patients who reached very low LDL levels

A large observational study suggests that moderate lowering of LDL may be just as effective as intensive lowering. "Our results do not provide support for a blanket principle that lower LDL cholesterol is better for all patients in secondary prevention," the authors conclude.

In a paper published in JAMA Internal Medicine, Israeli researchers analyzed data from 31,000 patients with ischemic heart disease who received statins and remained adherent to treatment. They compared the rate of major adverse cardiac events (MACE) in three groups of patients based on their LDL levels after at least 1 year of treatment: 9,086 had low LDL levels (below 70 mg/dL), 16,782 had moderate LDL levels (70 to 100 mg/dL), and 5,751 had high LDL levels (over 100 mg/dL). There was no significant difference in MACE between the low group and the moderate group but there was a significant reduction in events in the moderate group when compared with the high group. The adjusted rate of events per 1,000 person-years was 78.1 in the low group, 71 in the moderate group, and 81.3 in the high group. The same pattern emerged in a propensity-matched population.

Current European guidelines recommend that patients with ischemic heart disease receive treatment with a target of 70 mg/dL or below. U.S. guidelines no longer recommend targets, but a substantial proportion of lipid experts still believe in aggressive treatment targets. The results of the new study suggest that an aggressive target may not offer any additional advantage over a moderate target.

The study "represents an important effort in clarifying goals for long-term statin therapy," write the journal's editors in an Editor's Note. "The findings suggest that targeting an LDL cholesterol level of less than 100 mg/dL achieves the same cardiovascular risk reduction as more aggressive LDL cholesterol targets, which could help to minimize adverse effects that are more common with higher statin doses needed for lower LDL targets while maximizing benefits." But outside experts questioned the use an observational study like this to inform the cholesterol debate. "It is very, very hard to make conclusions from nonrandomized retrospective studies like this," said Michael Blaha, MD, MPH, of Johns Hopkins.

Last edited by JEY100 : Tue, Jun-21-16 at 06:40.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Tue, Jun-21-16, 08:56
MickiSue MickiSue is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 8,006
 
Plan: Atkins
Stats: 189/148.6/145 Female 5' 5"
BF:36%/28%/25%
Progress: 92%
Location: Twin Cities, MN
Default

Given that too LOW TC is strongly correlated with the most deadly types of heart attack in the relatively young, saying that TC becomes less of a risk factor after 60 is more than a little misleading.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Tue, Jun-21-16, 14:06
Jesse LC Jesse LC is offline
Registered Member
Posts: 36
 
Plan: Keto/LCHF
Stats: 237/181/169 Male 72 inches
BF:34%/22%/18%
Progress: 82%
Location: USA
Default

If you want to read a recently published research paper in a peer-reviewed journal about the ineffectiveness of statins, their potential dangers, and the deceptive statistics used to market them, here's a link to the article:

http://www.drperlmutter.com/wp-cont...-corruption.pdf

Alternatively, the author also has a video lecture covering the same topic as the paper:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yX1vBA9bLNk

Very interesting stuff.

According to his cardiologist, my father developed T2 as a side-effect from taking a statin called Lipitor. The drug was prescribed after having had a heart attack.

It's a very dangerous world ever since Big Pharma got into bed with doctors and government agencies like the AHA. It's up to each of us to take care of our own health since most mainstream doctors are so out of touch with the latest research.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Fri, Jun-24-16, 03:36
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

Another article on this study from Chris Clark:

http://www.christopherjamesclark.co...ogical-fantasy/

And from Prof Grant in NZ:

https://profgrant.com/2016/06/14/th...in-the-elderly/
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Fri, May-26-17, 05:02
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

A People's Pharmacy article on the latest study of Statins and Seniors, analyzing both heart risk and all cause mortality.

https://www.peoplespharmacy.com/201...rs-need-statins

Quote:
New Analysis Disputes Dogma that All Seniors Need Statins
Patients following recommendations from the American College of Cardiology take statins as they get older. Does the latest research contradict the experts?

......

Translating This Research into Plain English:

Here is our understanding of the ALLHAT-LLT research. Older people taking pravastatin did not live longer or have fewer heart attacks than those not assigned to the statin drug. There was actually a nonsignificant trend towards more deaths in the 75 and older group if they were assigned to pravastatin.
.....


There are more links to this study and others in the link above.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Sat, May-27-17, 12:55
JEY100's Avatar
JEY100 JEY100 is offline
To Good Health!
Posts: 9,315
 
Plan: IF Fung/LC Westman/Primal
Stats: 222/171/169 Female 5' 9"
BF:45%/25.3%/24%
Progress: 96%
Location: NC
Default

New Study: Taking Statins to Prevent Heart Disease May Shorten the Lives of People over 65

https://www.dietdoctor.com/new-stud...lives-people-65
Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -6. The time now is 00:49.


Copyright © 2000-2017 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.