Some scientists/doctors love using cholesterol because its easy to measure. But it's still mostly useless. I wonder if its mostly useless here.
Oh look it is. From the article:
> Comparing the cholesterol and survival rates of the burger-eating crows with those of nearby crows who were weren’t supplemented with fast food, the team found that cholesterol levels did not have a detectable effect on the birds’ survival.
Meanwhile, in a 2015 survey by Credit Suisse Foundation found 54% of docs falsely believed eating cholesterol-rich food raises blood levels of cholesterol and damages the heart. In the words of the survey, "This is a clear example of the level of misinformation that exists among doctors." https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/news...
Heart disease is America's biggest killer. There is a lot of data that eating cholesterol effects disease rates including heart disease, cancer, etc.
If you study disease rates for those eating cholesterol and those replacing it with a plant based diet, eating cholesterol is higher.
While you have a particular point about eating cholesterol, measuring cholesterol, and related disease rates - are you suggesting people's health is not negatively affected by eating cholesterol?
Here's a simple study eating an egg versus not, it compares stopping eating cholesterol to stopping smoking. [0]
The USA is obsessed with cholesterol because of years of bad science. Here's a 2015 Japanese Supplementary Review on Cholesterol and Mortality Rates: Higher Cholesterol = Longer Life
> Our fervent wish is that, through this supplementary issue, people can see that the cholesterol hypothesis relies on very weak data—and sometimes considerably distorted data. Indeed, many studies in Japan actually show that cholesterol plays a very positive role in health. We hope that JAS, and the government authorities that defer to JAS’s recommendations, will move toward recognizing cholesterol as a friend not an enemy. In the meantime, we will continue pushing for acceptance of the anti-cholesterol hypothesis, to reverse what we see as the biggest mistake made by medical science in the previous century.
And I think, I've seen a lot of studies that compare eating "normal" amounts of cholesterol to eating more than normal. But "normal" cholesterol levels in your blood still leave you with a "normal" American rate of heart disease, read, still very high. Those studies might not show much of a difference in disease rates. But studies on eating cholesterol versus no cholesterol are much clearer in showing a significant difference. On a plant based diet people can get their cholesterol below 60 and the disease rates for people with that low of cholesterol are much lower.
I don't think this article really says anything for or against that. The article did note that eating the burgers did raise the crows' cholesterol levels and also that "Crows, “which can live more than 15 years in the wild, might develop disease later in life,” but this needs further research, Townsend says."
I've got high cholesterol from both parents -- when I was first tested (around 25), my total cholesterol was ~250, my HDLs were < 20. I had ran multiple half marathons that year, and I was eating rather well.
My doctor asked me to try cutting cholesterol out of my diet, and it helped remarkably. I went vegan for quite awhile, and added some foods that help with HDL. The next time I got checked, they were amazing.
I've since added some cheese/eggs/fish back into my diet, but I try to keep it low. I hover around 200, with pretty decent HDLs.
Genetic testing showed I (may) have some genetic issues around cholesterol recycling, so it's not a one-size-fits-all thing.
Yea, you can have issues with NPC1L1 or ABCG5/G8 which will impact cholesterol/plant sterol absorption or excretion in the gut. If you are a hyperabsorber, you may want to check your plant sterol levels (xenosterols), as they can lead to health issues.
Seems more like a tangential complaint about general societal ignorance of that fact... and the title seems to be phrased as clickbait for people that believe in the cholesterol boogieman.
I don't understand - what is the dumb meme? The link of high cholesterol to heart disease seems to be very well supported by numerous studies, and so are the benefits of reducing high LDL with diet or medication (statins).
According to the lipid hypothesis, elevated levels of cholesterol in the blood lead to atherosclerosis which may increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease. Since higher blood LDL – especially higher LDL concentrations and smaller LDL particle size – contributes to this process more than the cholesterol content of the HDL particles,[68] LDL particles are often termed "bad cholesterol". High concentrations of functional HDL, which can remove cholesterol from cells and atheromas, offer protection and are commonly referred to as "good cholesterol". These balances are mostly genetically determined, but can be changed by body composition, medications, diet,[69] and other factors.[70] A 2007 study demonstrated that blood total cholesterol levels have an exponential effect on cardiovascular and total mortality, with the association more pronounced in younger subjects. Because cardiovascular disease is relatively rare in the younger population, the impact of high cholesterol on health is larger in older people.[71]
Elevated levels of the lipoprotein fractions, LDL, IDL and VLDL, rather than the total cholesterol level, correlate with the extent and progress of atherosclerosis.[72] Conversely, the total cholesterol can be within normal limits, yet be made up primarily of small LDL and small HDL particles, under which conditions atheroma growth rates are high. A post hoc analysis of the IDEAL and the EPIC prospective studies found an association between high levels of HDL cholesterol (adjusted for apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B) and increased risk of cardiovascular disease, casting doubt on the cardioprotective role of "good cholesterol".[73][74]
Higher levels of total cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly coronary heart disease.[33] Levels of LDL or non-HDL cholesterol both predict future coronary heart disease; which is the better predictor is disputed.[34] High levels of small dense LDL may be particularly adverse, although measurement of small dense LDL is not advocated for risk prediction.[34]
The lipid hypothesis (also known as the cholesterol hypothesis) is a medical theory postulating a link between blood cholesterol levels and occurrence of heart disease. A summary from 1976 described it as: "measures used to lower the plasma lipids in patients with hyperlipidemia will lead to reductions in new events of coronary heart disease".[1] Or, more concisely, "decreasing blood cholesterol... significantly reduces coronary heart disease".[2]
An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis by most of the medical community.[3]
This is all true but missing one important fact. Dietary cholesterol doesn't turn directly into blood cholesterol. It makes sense why this became a common misconception, but the actual physiological mechanics of this are more complex.
I've trudged through all parts of his explanations; worth it if you're interested in lipidology, but this contains adequate punchlines to be helpful. TLDR we're probably measuring the wrong thing. And stop eating sugar. Oh yeah, and eating cholesterol is irrelevant.
Your drastically oversimplifying LDL's role in disease.
High LDL is a very weak predictor. This has been known since the Framingham study. Looking at a combination of LDL, HDL and trigs is a much better predictor.
High LDL in combination with low trigs and high HDL, is actually protective (Not a risk factor at all)
How oxidised the LDL particles are is really the major metric that matters. From looking at cell cultures we know that high levels of non-oxidised LDL have no atherosclerotic properties inherently.
https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-0620-4_...
Personally its my opinion that the lipid hypothesis is essentially junk. The level of LDL is a major distraction, from root issues such as inflammation, oxidation stress and diabetes, which are caused mostly by sugar and refined carbohydrates consumption.
you're redirecting to a similar but unrelated claim. the claim under scrutiny is:
> eating cholesterol-rich food raises blood levels of cholesterol and damages the heart
not whether or not high cholesterol to heart disease generally is impactful. that's an important distinction, and what you've posted here isn't evidence for or against that.
Cholesterol is fine, but someone should talk to the crows about sugar and carbohydrates. It can lead to insulin resistance with time and eventually metabolic syndrome and eventually diabetes. Our hospitals would put the crows on statins and BP meds instead of changing their diet.
See, Big Macs no fries in not a huge amount are not terrible nutritionally. They could be improved with less mayonnaise and more veggies, like locally available "Country Mac" or whatever it is called in whatever is not Polish.
The killers are amount, fries and soda.
Gorsky runs a low calorie diet too, only averaging some 1000 kcal. That's two Big Macs or thereabout.
Readit News
Oh look it is. From the article:
> Comparing the cholesterol and survival rates of the burger-eating crows with those of nearby crows who were weren’t supplemented with fast food, the team found that cholesterol levels did not have a detectable effect on the birds’ survival.
Meanwhile, in a 2015 survey by Credit Suisse Foundation found 54% of docs falsely believed eating cholesterol-rich food raises blood levels of cholesterol and damages the heart. In the words of the survey, "This is a clear example of the level of misinformation that exists among doctors." https://www.credit-suisse.com/about-us-news/en/articles/news...
Why won't this dumb meme die?
If you study disease rates for those eating cholesterol and those replacing it with a plant based diet, eating cholesterol is higher.
While you have a particular point about eating cholesterol, measuring cholesterol, and related disease rates - are you suggesting people's health is not negatively affected by eating cholesterol?
Here's a simple study eating an egg versus not, it compares stopping eating cholesterol to stopping smoking. [0]
[0] https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21076725
The USA is obsessed with cholesterol because of years of bad science. Here's a 2015 Japanese Supplementary Review on Cholesterol and Mortality Rates: Higher Cholesterol = Longer Life
https://www.karger.com/Article/Pdf/381654
It concludes:
> Our fervent wish is that, through this supplementary issue, people can see that the cholesterol hypothesis relies on very weak data—and sometimes considerably distorted data. Indeed, many studies in Japan actually show that cholesterol plays a very positive role in health. We hope that JAS, and the government authorities that defer to JAS’s recommendations, will move toward recognizing cholesterol as a friend not an enemy. In the meantime, we will continue pushing for acceptance of the anti-cholesterol hypothesis, to reverse what we see as the biggest mistake made by medical science in the previous century.
Deleted Comment
My doctor asked me to try cutting cholesterol out of my diet, and it helped remarkably. I went vegan for quite awhile, and added some foods that help with HDL. The next time I got checked, they were amazing.
I've since added some cheese/eggs/fish back into my diet, but I try to keep it low. I hover around 200, with pretty decent HDLs.
Genetic testing showed I (may) have some genetic issues around cholesterol recycling, so it's not a one-size-fits-all thing.
What is your HDL now?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol#Hypercholesterolem...
According to the lipid hypothesis, elevated levels of cholesterol in the blood lead to atherosclerosis which may increase the risk of heart attack, stroke, and peripheral vascular disease. Since higher blood LDL – especially higher LDL concentrations and smaller LDL particle size – contributes to this process more than the cholesterol content of the HDL particles,[68] LDL particles are often termed "bad cholesterol". High concentrations of functional HDL, which can remove cholesterol from cells and atheromas, offer protection and are commonly referred to as "good cholesterol". These balances are mostly genetically determined, but can be changed by body composition, medications, diet,[69] and other factors.[70] A 2007 study demonstrated that blood total cholesterol levels have an exponential effect on cardiovascular and total mortality, with the association more pronounced in younger subjects. Because cardiovascular disease is relatively rare in the younger population, the impact of high cholesterol on health is larger in older people.[71]
Elevated levels of the lipoprotein fractions, LDL, IDL and VLDL, rather than the total cholesterol level, correlate with the extent and progress of atherosclerosis.[72] Conversely, the total cholesterol can be within normal limits, yet be made up primarily of small LDL and small HDL particles, under which conditions atheroma growth rates are high. A post hoc analysis of the IDEAL and the EPIC prospective studies found an association between high levels of HDL cholesterol (adjusted for apolipoprotein A-I and apolipoprotein B) and increased risk of cardiovascular disease, casting doubt on the cardioprotective role of "good cholesterol".[73][74]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypercholesterolemia#Diagnosis
Higher levels of total cholesterol increase the risk of cardiovascular disease, particularly coronary heart disease.[33] Levels of LDL or non-HDL cholesterol both predict future coronary heart disease; which is the better predictor is disputed.[34] High levels of small dense LDL may be particularly adverse, although measurement of small dense LDL is not advocated for risk prediction.[34]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lipid_hypothesis
The lipid hypothesis (also known as the cholesterol hypothesis) is a medical theory postulating a link between blood cholesterol levels and occurrence of heart disease. A summary from 1976 described it as: "measures used to lower the plasma lipids in patients with hyperlipidemia will lead to reductions in new events of coronary heart disease".[1] Or, more concisely, "decreasing blood cholesterol... significantly reduces coronary heart disease".[2]
An accumulation of evidence has led to the acceptance of the lipid hypothesis by most of the medical community.[3]
https://www.hsph.harvard.edu/nutritionsource/what-should-you...
https://peterattiamd.com/the-straight-dope-on-cholesterol-pa...
I've trudged through all parts of his explanations; worth it if you're interested in lipidology, but this contains adequate punchlines to be helpful. TLDR we're probably measuring the wrong thing. And stop eating sugar. Oh yeah, and eating cholesterol is irrelevant.
High LDL is a very weak predictor. This has been known since the Framingham study. Looking at a combination of LDL, HDL and trigs is a much better predictor.
High LDL in combination with low trigs and high HDL, is actually protective (Not a risk factor at all)
The Jeppesen Study (https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11176761)
the Framingham Offspring study(https://www.ahajournals.org/doi/full/10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.11...)
How oxidised the LDL particles are is really the major metric that matters. From looking at cell cultures we know that high levels of non-oxidised LDL have no atherosclerotic properties inherently. https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-981-13-0620-4_...
Personally its my opinion that the lipid hypothesis is essentially junk. The level of LDL is a major distraction, from root issues such as inflammation, oxidation stress and diabetes, which are caused mostly by sugar and refined carbohydrates consumption.
> eating cholesterol-rich food raises blood levels of cholesterol and damages the heart
not whether or not high cholesterol to heart disease generally is impactful. that's an important distinction, and what you've posted here isn't evidence for or against that.
Her blog is wonderful, by the way, if you're interested in crows and other corvids. I highly recommend checking it out.
> At his doctor visit on April 26, 2011, his first since 1985, his cholesterol level was 156 mg/dl, which is below the average of 208 mg/dl
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Don_Gorske
The killers are amount, fries and soda.
Gorsky runs a low calorie diet too, only averaging some 1000 kcal. That's two Big Macs or thereabout.
Deleted Comment
Dead Comment