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 Studies & Research / Media Watch > LC Research/Media
User Name
Password
FAQ Members Calendar Search Gallery My P.L.A.N. Survey


Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 14:44
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default Low LDL Cholesterol Is Related to Cancer Risk

That low LDL might be a marker for something more serious.

Low LDL Cholesterol Is Related to Cancer Risk

Quote:
ScienceDaily (Mar. 26, 2012) — Low LDL cholesterol in patients with no history of taking cholesterol-lowering drugs predates cancer risk by decades, suggesting there may be some underlying mechanism affecting both cancer and low LDL cholesterol that requires further examination, according to research presented March 25 at the American College of Cardiology's 61st Annual Scientific Session.
Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 15:34
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

Maybe people with naturally low LDL don't watch their diets as much? Just throwing out ideas...

And I wanted to make my mark on the thread so I could keep up!
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 15:51
Labhrain's Avatar
Labhrain Labhrain is offline
Real food!
Posts: 3,115
 
Plan: Lower Carb/IF
Stats: 238/155/140 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Location: NorCal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LStump
Maybe people with naturally low LDL don't watch their diets as much? Just throwing out ideas...


Or maybe they do, and that's why they have lower LDL numbers (low fat diet, so by default, higher carb diet.) And, a higher carb diet has also been said to be associated with higher cancer risk, apparently due to higher insulin levels.

People on statins have been shown to have a higher risk for cancer, but this particular study was only looking at people with no history of statins. They wanted to rule out that it's the statin itself that is to blame for the higher risk of cancer. So, keep taking those statins! Ugh.

But, I don't know the methodology of any of these studies that have found these associations. LDLs are certainly necessary to life. Is there a protective quality that is lost if levels are low (however low is defined?)
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 15:56
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

I guess that's sort of what I meant. Even if they didn't diet low fat people who know they have low LDL may eat crap anyways.. Chips, cakes, pizza, pastas, etc, and not necessarily on any sort of weight loss or weight stabilizing diet, especially for people who are 'naturally thin' and have no reason (in their minds) to eat healthfully.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 16:03
Labhrain's Avatar
Labhrain Labhrain is offline
Real food!
Posts: 3,115
 
Plan: Lower Carb/IF
Stats: 238/155/140 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Location: NorCal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LStump
I guess that's sort of what I meant. Even if they didn't diet low fat people who know they have low LDL may eat crap anyways.. Chips, cakes, pizza, pastas, etc, and not necessarily on any sort of weight loss or weight stabilizing diet, especially for people who are 'naturally thin' and have no reason (in their minds) to eat healthfully.


I was thinking more about people who follow a low fat diet and avoid junk, not necessarily for weight, but for "good health." You know, the ones who follow the diet recommended to us. Many of them would end up with lower LDL and think they're doing themselves a favor. My LDL was lower when I ate that way than it is on low carb/high fat. But, I don't consider that a bad thing.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 16:16
LStump's Avatar
LStump LStump is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,105
 
Plan: Gluten Free, Low Carb
Stats: 205/200.2/150 Female 5ft 7in
BF:
Progress: 9%
Location: NoVA
Default

Ah, ok.

I made my assumption on the thought that dietary cholesterol doesn't necessarily have *too* much to do with what is found in the blood. As I eat a fair amount of saturated fat and have very low LDL while others who eat higher carb but watch fat and calories that I know are also on statins for high LDL. Which is why I figured perhaps the people they were surveying were maybe a mixed bag of dietary backgrounds and just figured a lot would not be dieting or eating well.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 16:25
Nancy LC's Avatar
Nancy LC Nancy LC is offline
Experimenter
Posts: 25,865
 
Plan: DDF
Stats: 202/185.4/179 Female 67
BF:
Progress: 72%
Location: San Diego, CA
Default

There's always the possibility that having cancer does something to lower your LDL.
Reply With Quote
  #8   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 16:35
Labhrain's Avatar
Labhrain Labhrain is offline
Real food!
Posts: 3,115
 
Plan: Lower Carb/IF
Stats: 238/155/140 Female 67 inches
BF:
Progress: 85%
Location: NorCal
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nancy LC
There's always the possibility that having cancer does something to lower your LDL.


Perhaps, but apparently they followed people for a long time, and the low LDL levels were consistent throughout a period of about 18 years prior to diagnosis.

Quote:
Researchers reviewed data at four points in time prior to cancer diagnosis and found that LDL cholesterol values were lower in cancer subjects than matched controls at each point of assessment throughout an average of 18.7 years prior to diagnosis (p = .038).
Reply With Quote
  #9   ^
Old Mon, Mar-26-12, 17:09
RawNut's Avatar
RawNut RawNut is offline
Lipivore
Posts: 1,208
 
Plan: Very Low Carb Paleo
Stats: 270/185/180 Male 72 inches
BF:
Progress: 94%
Location: Florida
Default

I haven't read the study yet but one thing came to mind. There is that U shaped curve for total cholesterol and all cause mortality. LDL usually makes up most of the total.

I know everyone hates observational studies but it gives us food for thought and discussion material.
Reply With Quote
  #10   ^
Old Fri, Apr-06-12, 01:56
Demi's Avatar
Demi Demi is offline
Posts: 26,753
 
Plan: Muscle Centric
Stats: 238/153/160 Female 5'10"
BF:
Progress: 109%
Location: UK
Default Dr Briffa: Can low cholesterol cause cancer?

Quote:
From Dr Briffa's blog:

6 April, 2012

Can low cholesterol cause cancer?

While cholesterol remain possibly the most vilified natural and essential body constituent, and we are encouraged to put constant downward pressure on our cholesterol levels, it should perhaps not be forgotten that low levels of cholesterol are associated with enhanced risk of death. Low cholesterol is associated with an enhanced risk of specific health issues including haemorrhagic stroke (stroke caused by bleeding of rather than blockage in blood vessels) and cancer. This last association has been quite consistently found in studies [1-3].

Recently, the American College of Cardiology held a scientific meeting during which data relating to cholesterol levels and cancer was presented. The research assessed LDL-cholesterol levels and risk of cancer for an average period of almost 19 years prior to a diagnosis of cancer being made. The researchers found that throughout the course of the study (even many years before cancer was detected), lower levels of LDL-cholesterol were associated with enhanced risk of cancer.

Just because low cholesterol and cancer are associated does not mean low cholesterol causes cancer. Some scientists have suggested that the relationship is the other way round and the result of what is known as ‘reverse causality’ i.e. that chronic conditions such as cancer can cause lowered cholesterol, rather than the other way round. This idea is sometimes referred to as ‘Iribarren’s hypothesis’.

However, the long length of the study referred to above and the fact that low cholesterol appeared to predict cancer risk many years in advance of the disease appearing points against reverse causality. And it’s not the only evidence which does this.

A previous study found that individuals with a low serum cholesterol maintained over a 20-year period had the worst outlook in terms of overall risk of death [4]. The authors of this study wrote: “Our present analysis suggests that this [Iribarren’s] hypothesis is implausible and is unlikely to account for the adverse effects of low cholesterol levels over twenty years.” In other words, according to these authors, it’s more likely that low cholesterol causes chronic disease than the other way round.

Recently, the American College of Cardiology held a scientific meeting during which data relating to cholesterol levels and cancer was presented. The research assessed LDL-cholesterol levels and risk of cancer for an average period of almost 19 years prior to a diagnosis of cancer being made. The researchers found that throughout the course of the study (even many years before cancer was detected), lower levels of LDL-cholesterol were associated with enhanced risk of cancer.

If low cholesterol were to increase the risk of cancer, how might it do this? One explanation might be that cholesterol is the basic building block of vitamin D – a substance which appears to have potent anti-cancer properties.

There is some other evidence that low-cholesterol might cause cancer in the form of studies which found the combination of two cholesterol-reducing drugs (simvastatin and ezetimibe) over four years was associated with a significantly increased risk of cancer [5]. The pooling of the results of three relevant studies found that this drug combination raised risk of death from cancer was raised by 45 per cent.

Oddly, this result was put down by prominent scientists as likely to be due to ‘chance’, when the statistics showed that it was statistically significant and therefore highly unlikely to be due to chance. You can read more about this here.

So, in fact, there is more than a little evidence that low cholesterol levels might cause cancer, and we should perhaps be cautious about driving cholesterol levels to ever-lower levels.

References:

1. Alawi A, et al. Statins, Low-Density Lipoprotein Cholesterol, and Risk of Cancer. Journal of the American College of Cardiologists 2008;52(14):1141-7

2. Yang X, et al. Independent associations between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol and cancer among patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus. Canadian Medical Association Journal 2008;179(5):427-437

3. Schatzkin A, et al. Serum cholesterol and cancer in the NHANES I epidemiologic followup study. National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey. Lancet 1987;2:298-301

4. Schatz IJ, et al. Cholesterol and all-cause mortality in elderly people from the Honolulu Heart Program: a cohort study. Lancet 2001;358(9279):351-5

5. Peto R, et al. Analyses of cancer data from three ezetimibe trials. N Engl J Med. 2008;359(13):1357-66
http://www.drbriffa.com/2012/04/06/...l-cause-cancer/
Reply With Quote
Reply


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 02:11.


Copyright © 2000-2024 Active Low-Carber Forums @ forum.lowcarber.org
Powered by: vBulletin, Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.