Familial Hypercholesterolaemia
Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is the poster child of Heart UK, and I have been taken to task in the past as my opinion has little value on the subject so I thought I’d do a little research of the subject.
Now I’m sure it is apparent to those members who have the condition (or indeed think they have it) that there are two main gradations of the condition, heterozygous, where one parent has the defective gene and homozygous where both parents pass it on. The respective chances are 1/500 and - 1/1,000,000. Those unlucky to have inherited the more serious condition generally die young and treatment options are limited. For now let us confine our deliberations to the less serious version whilst bearing in mind there are many nuances of the condition and conditions that mimic FH.
Before I go any further I’d like to say that I do not think I have FH. What I do have is a healthy skepticism of current guidelines offered to the general public in preventing heart disease and by extrapolation this extends to FH. I am no expert and there are sites specifically dealing with FH. This is just a sober exercise in thinking.
Let’s assume for now that I have been diagnosed with the less serious version of FH and have been offered statin treatment as a first line of defence. Now, given my stance on the role of diet and medication this would not be the road I would go down initially, given that I had been living with the condition for say 30 years; though if it were demonstrated to be my only option then I would accept it and get on with my life. However, lets have a look at the past.
I have stated in previous posts that people with FH in the past lived active lives and achieved a normal, or indeed longer life spans than the general public and probably 80% of people with the condition go undiagnosed. Now 1/500 is not an insignificant percentage of the population and parallels those with Parkinson’s, so you would think that the emphasis on condition and cure would be roughly equal, but apparently not. Could this be that that FH is not considered as serious as Parkinson’s?
Maybe.
What I have come up with are from respected sources which at the very least should provoke reasoned comment. Apologies for it being a little scrappy, but I think you’ll get the gist.
Feel free to attack the science, but please leave out the ad hominem stuff.
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articl...
The take home for me in the above is in the conclusions:
…strong interaction with environmental factors (food?)
ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/200...
ravnskov.nu/the%20benefits%...
(Look down to ‘Is familial hypercholesterolaemia a disease?’)
Here’s Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s take:
drmalcolmkendrick.org/2013/...
There is one blindingly obvious factor which is ignored when the subject of FH comes up - high cholesterol cannot possibly be the cause of FH. With a lack of or poorly functioning LDL receptors it’s hardly surprising that there is an excess of LDL in the blood, so treating it with statins might be considered treating the marker for the condition. Statins have a powerful anti-inflammatory effect and those inflammatory responses might not arise if the Standard American Diet (which consists mainly of highly refined carbohydrate and easily oxidisable polyunsaturated ‘heart healthy’ seed oils) were replaced with saturated fats and carbohydrate consisting of lots of vegetables and some fruit.
Below is an article criticising Noakes’ LCHF stance, look at the first comment, anecdotal I know but illustrates that some people with FH are not afraid of the alternative:
sabreakingnews.co.za/2014/0...
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Professional athletes suffering from familial hypercholesterolaemia rarely tolerate statin treatment because of muscular problems.
The paper’s authors are from Austria and examined case histories of Austrian professional athletes who attempted to go on statin therapy to treat genetically high cholesterol. Out of 22 athletes, only three were able to tolerate the first statin they were prescribed. Three more were able to eventually tolerate a statin other than the first one prescribed. The remaining 16 — 72% of the total — ended up refusing statin therapy. You can probably guess what it was about statins that most of the athletes couldn’t tolerate: muscle pain and muscle weakness.
The authors noted that in reviews of multiple clinical trials, muscle problems were reported in 5% of those taking statins on average. They also noted that in a study of statin-takers who engage in strenuous exercise, muscle problems affected closer to 25%. Now in this study we’ve got 72% of professional athletes (in an admittedly small sample size) saying they can’t tolerate statins of any kind because of muscle problems, with 86% percent unable to tolerate the first statin prescribed.
westonaprice.org/modern-dis...
westonaprice.org/modern-dis...
(FH not as dangerous as you may think)
Were I diagnosed with FH T2 at say age 30 I would not start taking a powerful and controversial drug as a first line of defence if returning to our ancestral diets, abandoned in the not too distant past, might just do the trick. After all, tinkering with my diet for 6 months is hardly going to kill me. I would do a huge amount of research bearing in mind that heart disease was largely unknown before 1921; and that included the 1/500 that had FH then.
“I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw a
Myocardial Infarction patient until 1928. Back in the MI free
days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard and I think that we
would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when
no one had ever heard the words corn oil.”
Dr. Dudley White
fda.gov/downloads/Drugs/Gui...
(read very carefully last paragraph page 1, second to last sentence).
The road to perfect health is not strewn with statins nor any other medication, nor is a lack of medication the cause of disease (rather the reverse).
If your position is ‘Yeah, the usual suspects’, well yes of course they are a source given that I’m looking for the alternative to the current paradigm.
If therefore at sometime in the future it is firmly established that elevated cholesterol (or however you wish to describe it) is not the cause of heart disease then premature death from those diagnosed with the condition FH has to have another cause.
If you have elevated blood sugar most of the time by consuming processed carbohydrate I would suggest that is the root cause of …both in the general population and in those with FH
The bottom line for me is that sugar (and of course chronically elevated insulin) whether added or in ‘heart healthy’ pasta, potato, rice, bread is the cause of the obesity, diabetes etc epidemic, no question, but unless we lose the fear of saturated, rather than poly/mono/trans (remember ‘heart healthy’ trans fat?) then you will be condemned to filling the energy gap with the foods that are causing the problems. Fortunately the tide is turning and the public are getting the message. Sadly the powers that be are still dragging their heels.
“A fifteen-year study of 7,038 French policemen in Paris
reported that ‘The earliest marker of a higher risk of coronary
heart disease mortality is an elevation of serum insulin level.’
A study of middle-aged non-diabetic women at the University of
Pittsburgh showed an increasing risk of heart disease as serum
insulin levels increased. My personal experience with diabetic
patients is very simple. When we reduce dietary carbohydrate,
blood sugars improved dramatically. After about two months of
improved blood sugars, we repeat our studies of lipid profiles and
thrombotic risk factors. In the great majority of cases, I see
normalisation or improvement. If your physician finds all of this
hard to believe, he or she might benefit from reading the
seventy articles and abstracts on the subject contained in the
proceedings of the fifteenth International Diabetes Foundation
Satellite Symposium on ‘Diabetes and Macrovascular
Complications, Diabetes 45, Supplement 3, July 1996.”
Richard K. Bernstein, M.D.
Author of “Diabetes Solution”
In closing here’s a link to a site treating epileptic children with diet, one completely at odds with dietary advice, yet proven beyond doubt to benefit people who’s condition cannot be treated with conventional epileptic drugs.
site.matthewsfriends.org/in...
Familial Hypercholesterolaemia (FH) is the poster child of Heart UK, and I have been taken to task in the past as I don't have the condition and know nothing of the subject my opinion has little value, so I thought I'd do a little research of the subject.
Now I’m sure it is apparent to those members who have the condition (or indeed think they have it) that there are two main gradations of the condition, heterozygous, where one parent has the defective gene and homozygous where both parents pass it on. The respective chances are 1/500 and - 1/1,000,000. Those unlucky to have inherited the more serious condition generally die young and treatment options are limited. For now let us confine our deliberations to the less serious version whilst bearing in mind there are many nuances of the condition and conditions that mimic FH.
Before I go any further I'd like to say that I do not think I have FH. What I do have is a healthy skepticism of current guidelines offered to the general public in preventing heart disease and by extrapolation this extends to FH. I am no expert and there are sites specifically dealing with FH. This is just a sober exercise in thinking.
Let’s assume for now that I have been diagnosed with the less serious version of FH and have been offered statin treatment as a first line of defence. Now, given my stance on the role of diet and medication this would not be the road I would go down initially given the nasty side effect many people experience, given that I had been living with the condition for say 30 years (though if it were clearly demonstrated to be my only option then I would accept it and get on with my life). However, lets have a look at the past.
I have stated in previous posts that people with FH in the past lived active lives and achieved a normal, or indeed longer life spans than the general public and probably 80% of people with the condition go undiagnosed. Now 1/500 is not an insignificant percentage of the population and parallels those with Parkinson’s, so you would think that the emphasis on condition and cure would be roughly equal, but apparently not. Could this be that that FH is not considered as serious as Parkinson’s?
Maybe.
What I have come up with are from respected sources which at the very least should provoke reasoned comment. Apologies for it being a little scrappy, but I think you'll get the gist.
Feel free to attack the science, but please leave out the ad hominem stuff.
The take home for me in the above is in the conclusions:
…strong interaction with environmental factors (food?)
(Look down to ‘Is familial hypercholesterolaemia a disease?’)
Here’s Dr. Malcolm Kendrick’s take:
drmalcolmkendrick.org/2013/...
There is one blindingly obvious factor which is ignored when the subject of FH comes up - high cholesterol cannot possibly be the cause of FH. With a lack of or poorly functioning LDL receptors it’s hardly surprising that there is an excess of LDL in the blood, so treating it with statins might be considered treating the marker for the condition. Statins have a powerful anti-inflammatory effect and those inflammatory responses might not arise if the Standard American Diet - to which the UK and most of the developed world subscribe (which consists mainly of highly refined carbohydrate and easily oxidisable polyunsaturated ‘heart healthy’ seed oils) were replaced with saturated fats and carbohydrate consisting of lots of vegetables and some fruit.
Below is an article criticising Noakes’ LCHF stance, look at the first comment, anecdotal I know but illustrates that some people with FH are not afraid of the alternative:
British Journal of Clinical Pharmacology
Professional athletes suffering from familial hypercholesterolaemia rarely tolerate statin treatment because of muscular problems.
The paper’s authors are from Austria and examined case histories of Austrian professional athletes who attempted to go on statin therapy to treat genetically high cholesterol. Out of 22 athletes, only three were able to tolerate the first statin they were prescribed. Three more were able to eventually tolerate a statin other than the first one prescribed. The remaining 16 — 72% of the total — ended up refusing statin therapy. You can probably guess what it was about statins that most of the athletes couldn't tolerate: muscle pain and muscle weakness.
The authors noted that in reviews of multiple clinical trials, muscle problems were reported in 5% of those taking statins on average. They also noted that in a study of statin-takers who engage in strenuous exercise, muscle problems affected closer to 25%. Now in this study we’ve got 72% of professional athletes (in an admittedly small sample size) saying they can’t tolerate statins of any kind because of muscle problems, with 86% percent unable to tolerate the first statin prescribed.
(Scroll down to 'FH not as dangerous as you may think')
Were I diagnosed with FH T2 at say age 30 I would not start taking a powerful and controversial drug as a first line of defence if returning to our ancestral diets, abandoned in the not too distant past, might just do the trick. After all, tinkering with my diet for 6 months is hardly going to kill me. I would do a huge amount of research bearing in mind that heart disease was largely unknown before 1921; and that included the 1/500 that had FH then.
“I began my practice as a cardiologist in 1921 and I never saw a
Myocardial Infarction patient until 1928. Back in the MI free
days before 1920, the fats were butter and lard and I think that we
would all benefit from the kind of diet that we had at a time when
no one had ever heard the words corn oil.”
Dr. Dudley White
(read very carefully last paragraph page 1, second to last sentence).
The road to perfect health is not strewn with statins nor any other medication, nor is a lack of medication the cause of disease (rather the reverse).
If your position is ‘Yeah, the usual suspects’, well yes of course they are a source given that I’m looking for the alternative to the current paradigm.
If therefore at sometime in the future it is firmly established that elevated cholesterol (or however you wish to describe it) is not the cause of heart disease then premature death from those diagnosed with the condition FH has to have another cause.
If you have elevated blood sugar most of the time by consuming processed carbohydrate I would suggest that is the root cause of …both in the general population and in those with FH
The bottom line for me is that sugar (and of course chronically elevated insulin) whether added or in ‘heart healthy’ pasta, potato, rice, bread is the cause of the obesity, diabetes etc epidemic, no question, but unless we lose the fear of saturated, rather than poly/mono/trans (remember ‘heart healthy’ trans fat?) then you will be condemned to filling the energy gap with the foods that are causing the problems. Fortunately the tide is turning and the public are getting the message. Sadly the powers that be are still dragging their heels.
“A fifteen-year study of 7,038 French policemen in Paris
reported that ‘The earliest marker of a higher risk of coronary
heart disease mortality is an elevation of serum insulin level.’
A study of middle-aged non-diabetic women at the University of
Pittsburgh showed an increasing risk of heart disease as serum
insulin levels increased. My personal experience with diabetic
patients is very simple. When we reduce dietary carbohydrate,
blood sugars improved dramatically. After about two months of
improved blood sugars, we repeat our studies of lipid profiles and
thrombotic risk factors. In the great majority of cases, I see
normalisation or improvement. If your physician finds all of this
hard to believe, he or she might benefit from reading the
seventy articles and abstracts on the subject contained in the
proceedings of the fifteenth International Diabetes Foundation
Satellite Symposium on ‘Diabetes and Macrovascular
Complications, Diabetes 45, Supplement 3, July 1996.”
Richard K. Bernstein, M.D.
Author of “Diabetes Solution”
In closing here’s a link to a site treating epileptic children with diet, one completely at odds with dietary advice, yet proven beyond doubt to benefit people who’s condition cannot be treated with conventional epileptic drugs.
site.matthewsfriends.org/in...
Teeth and Sugar
40% of men presenting to recruitment offices were turned back as unfit. Teeth were a major reason for rejection. By the end of Boer war 6% were rejected.
This was principally due to the huge increase in sugar consumption
rpharms.com/museum-pdfs/den...
Recruits in the American Civil war were rejected if they did not have at least four front teeth. Canines or incisors were needed to tear open ubiquitous Mini ball cartridges and the term 4-F is used to this day.
ADHD and sugar Perlmutter
I have FH and am in a quandary regarding diet following recent revelation that there's no link between high cholesterol & heart disease?!
Fed up of being messed about by the NHS
Thinking of discharging myself from lipid clinic
Statins
