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 Thu, Oct-06-11, 10:54
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default Why a ‘raised’ cholesterol level may be a cause for celebration

Reply With Quote
Sponsored Links
  #2   ^
Old Thu, Oct-06-11, 12:15
mike_d's Avatar
mike_d mike_d is offline
Grease is the word!
Posts: 8,475
 
Plan: PSMF/IF
Stats: 236/181/180 Male 72 inches
BF:disappearing!
Progress: 98%
Location: Alamo city, Texas
Default

Quote:
It assessed more than 52,000 Norwegians over a 10-year period [1].
Just another statistical study, dissapointing in that they didn't class the lipid makeups. "High Cholesterol" can indeed be significant, if triglycerides are high and HDL is low -- the usual case seen with patients on the SAD WOE.
Reply With Quote
  #3   ^
Old Thu, Oct-06-11, 14:07
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

Still, it's valuable as more proof that total "high" cholesterol does not cause heart disease so you can tell your doctor to shove his statin where the sun don't shine.
Reply With Quote
  #4   ^
Old Thu, Oct-06-11, 16:03
gonwtwindo's Avatar
gonwtwindo gonwtwindo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,671
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 164/162.6/151 Female 5'3"
BF:Sure is
Progress: 11%
Location: SoCal
Default

Dr. Briffa says this:

Part of the study was to assess the relationship between total cholesterol levels and risk of death from cardiovascular disease (mainly heart attacks and strokes) and death from heart disease alone. ... In both men and women, there was simply no relationship between cholesterol levels and risk of death from these things.

while the abstract says this:

Among women...The association with IHD (IHD being Ischaemic Heart Disease, or blocked arteries) mortality (HR: 1.07; 95% CI: 0.92-1.24) was not linear but seemed to follow a 'U-shaped' curve, with the highest mortality <5.0 and ≥7.0 mmol L

and

Among men, the association of cholesterol with mortality from CVD (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.15) and in total (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.93-1.03) followed a 'U-shaped' pattern.

Those both sound like 'relationships' to me...

I'm sure I will be flamed for this, as Dr. Briffa is highly revered around here, but I find he mis-summarizes the abstracts to support his beliefs when putting things into his own words.

Last edited by gonwtwindo : Thu, Oct-06-11 at 16:16.
Reply With Quote
  #5   ^
Old Thu, Oct-06-11, 16:29
Angeline's Avatar
Angeline Angeline is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 3,423
 
Plan: Atkins (loosely)
Stats: -/-/- Female 60
BF:
Progress: 40%
Location: Ottawa, Ontario
Default

I don't see why you would be flamed for pointing something out that seems out of place. This isn't a vegan forum girl!

But anyway, this U shaped thing must be some statistical gobbledygook that I failed to understand properly because in the study conclusion they say :

Quote:
Based on epidemiological analysis of updated and comprehensive population data, we found that the underlying assumptions regarding cholesterol in clinical guidelines for CVD prevention might be flawed: cholesterol emerged as an overestimated risk factor in our study, indicating that guideline information might be misleading, particularly for women with ‘moderately elevated’ cholesterol levels in the range of 5–7 mmol L-1. Our findings are in good accord with some previous studies. A potential explanation of the lack of accord between clinical guidelines and recent population data, including ours, is time trend changes for CVD/IHD and underlying causal (risk) factors.


And more gobbledygook here :

Quote:
To address the question of whether the U-shaped association was age-dependent in the HUNT population, we performed an age-stratified Cox-regression analysis post-hoc. The results indicated a U-shaped association of cholesterol with CVD mortality among men aged 40–74, and an inverse association among women aged 60–74. Because of limited statistical power, we refrain from emphasizing these results. Seen in the light of previous studies [37,55,58,61,64–66,73–77], it is possible that a U-shaped association is primarily a phenomenon related to people aged 60 years and older.
Reply With Quote
  #6   ^
Old Thu, Oct-06-11, 16:39
Dodger's Avatar
Dodger Dodger is offline
Posts: 8,783
 
Plan: Paleoish/Keto
Stats: 225/167/175 Male 71.5 inches
BF:18%
Progress: 116%
Location: Longmont, Colorado
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by gonwtwindo
...
Among men, the association of cholesterol with mortality from CVD (HR: 1.06; 95% CI: 0.98-1.15) and in total (HR: 0.98; 95% CI: 0.93-1.03) followed a 'U-shaped' pattern.

Those both sound like 'relationships' to me...

I'm sure I will be flamed for this, as Dr. Briffa is highly revered around here, but I find he mis-summarizes the abstracts to support his beliefs when putting things into his own words.
The part that I bolded shows that there is no statistical relationship with total cholesterol, U-shaped or otherwise.
Reply With Quote
  #7   ^
Old Thu, Oct-06-11, 20:35
gonwtwindo's Avatar
gonwtwindo gonwtwindo is offline
Senior Member
Posts: 6,671
 
Plan: General Low Carb
Stats: 164/162.6/151 Female 5'3"
BF:Sure is
Progress: 11%
Location: SoCal
Default

I think "in total" refers to all cause mortality (total of all causes); still statistically significant for CVD.
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 17:46.


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