Who believes in Good Cholesterol/Bad Cholesterol

[pparks1]

Been on a bit of a food kick lately, watched a good documentary called Fat Head, and am currently reading "Why We Get Fat and What To Do About it?" by Gary Taubes. (other of Good Calories, Bad Calories).

As part of this whole discussion, the topic of cholesterol always comes up. It seems studies over the last 10 years seem to prove that Cholesterol does not lead to heart attack, stroke or coronary vascular disease. But rather it disproves the 1950's study by Ancel Keys and the "lipid hypothesis". Instead, it seems that various other factors (trans fats, sugars and grains, stress, smoking) lead to chronic inflammation problems and as arteries and such are damaged, the body produces more cholesterol to repair the cells....thus causing higher levels of cholesterol.

So, do you buy into the theory that total cholesterol should be less than 200 and if not, statin type medications might be necessary...or do you fall into the camp that says that other factors cause bodily damage and high cholesterol is simply the bodies natural reaction and that it's best to find and treat the root cause rather than the symptom?

Since we have people from all over, I thought this might lead to a decent discussion.

 

[brianzion]

i was diagnosed with high Cholesterol a year ago after strict diet for 3 months tests showed it still high so i am to be prescribed satin for my life now. im not overweight i don't drink alcohol i get regular exercise. i inherited high cholesterol so mine is not due to overeating they recommend a check when you hit 40. i advise this to.

 

[johnwillyums]

I used to eat a diet relatively high in saturated fats, lots of red meat, fried bacon etc. About 5 years ago I began to experience pain in my left calf (and eventually both calves) after brief, vigorous walking.
After putting up with this for 2 years, attributing it to general lack of fitness, I sought medical help.
After various scans it appears I have an occluded femoral artery. This means that my calves are starved of blood thus oxygen and the pain is the result. I was prescibed 20mg of simvastatin per day plus 75mg of enteric coated aspirin.
At that time my cholesterol was measured at 7.9. Now, 3 years on, my cholesterol is measured at just over 4 and I no longer have the calf pain.
Obviously I have reduced my intake of saturated fats and stopped salting my food but I feel that the medication has helped this rapid recovery.

 

[Joan Archer]

My husbands cholesterol has always been good even though he's overweight, but he has asthma, blood pressure and diabetes. He doesn't exercise and he eats what he wants but he doesn't eat meat apart from on occasion chicken, he doesn't use salt or sugar so having a low cholesterol reading is usually a surprise.

 

[pparks1]

The overwhelming majority of cholesterol is created by your own liver, it's more than 75%. You don't get that much of your cholesterol from foods that you eat. It's less than 25%..

For the poster on the statin medications be very very careful with them. While they have been shown to reduce cholesterol, they aren't proven to reduce heart attacks, stroke or cardiovascular disease and they have tons of side effects like memory loss, arm and feet numbness, Lou Gehrigs disease and liver enzyme issues. The ads even warn of muscle craps and pains and to see medical advice immediately as this can be a sign of your organs shutting down. I'm sure your doctor discussed these risks with you and it's almost a guarantee that you have to have frequent liver tests to ensure proper functionality.

Please take a read through this, it's very, very enlightening and stuff that my doctor never shared with me;
Dr. Joseph Mercola: The Cholesterol Myth That Could Be Harming Your Health

I too am diagnosed with high cholesterol and my family has it. But I won't go onto statin medications at present because of the side effects. My cholesterol went as high as 307, but after changing my diet and getting more exercise, I dropped it down to about 260. I'm due to get it checked in about 3 more months to see where it's at.
As the article above says, Cholesterol is released to fight inflammatory issues and I have an issue with gout and inflammation and am on a medication to keep that in check. So, I'd much rather try to resolve the root cause of why by body deems it necessary to produce so much cholesterol, rather than take a medication to drop that number.

It just seems that reports and studies about cholesterol are purposely vague and misleading. At first, it seems that all kinds of foods like eggs and saturated fats are the enemy, we are told to cut them out of our diets. Now over the past 10 years, research indicates that it's inflammation that's the root problem and foods such as trans fats, sugars and grains (have they not been telling us to eat lots of grains), are actually causing these inflammatory reactions and causing increased levels of cholesterol. And it seems that if the body feels this cholesterol is needed to repair damage and create new cells due to inflammation, that to use a drug to drop this cholesterol without doing anything to reduce the damaging inflammation is just going to exacerbate the problem.

I have my regular follow up with my doctor tomorrow and I plan to discuss all of the above with him as I've done a fair amount of research on the subject since my last visit and i want to get his opinion. He's been very hesitant to put me onto any type of medication and instead wanted to provide me with the time to reduce it naturally as I don't have high risks for heart disease. To me, that says he's concerned about the long term effects of going that route.

And I'm not criticizing anybody in this thread. I'm as turned around and confused by this stuff as the next guy. But the more I read, and the more I watch in documentaries and such, the more I feel that some of these so called "health epidemics" are simply fabricated by drug companies who want to make tons of money and give people a piece of mind. And I think our governments and such are on the take as well with organizations that provide guidance as to what we should consume. I mean, LDL cholesterol used to be 130 and below, then a panel of doctors (who were funded by drug companies), said that we needed to lower it to 100 or less, but indicated that proof that it made a difference was tough and later studies said it was not preventing heart attacks or anything else, but yet the recommendation is still 100 or less. Seems odd to me.

Thanks for your feedback guys.