Heart Disease and Cholesterol by Country

[Markl60]

Looking at the World Health Organisation data on average total cholesterol levels for men aged 25+ and then marrying that with the highest risk countries for heart disease and the lowest risk countries for heart disease one would expect, if the doctors are correct, to see a glaring message. Well you decide. Which group do you think is the top risk group and bottom risk group for heart disease based on the countries average total cholesterol shown to the right.

Group1

Turkmenistan 4.5

Russia 4.9

Bulgaria 5.0

Romania 4.9

Hungary 5.1

Argentina 5.0

Group2

France 5.3

Australia 5.1

Luxembourg 5.5

Switzerland 5.3

Japan 5.2

Israel 5.0

[Paul12]

Add in alcohol consumption, obesity, air pollution, income levels, diabetes and depression then I would say group 1

[Markl60 in reply to Paul12]

So all those play a significant part but cholesterol does not ?

[Paul12 in reply to Markl60]

You are correct. The figures are for total cholesterol which is irrelevant. Plus do you really believe that every single member in each country has recently had their cholesterol tested?

[Markl60 in reply to Paul12]

No I dont but you do not have to test every single member just a representative cross section

[Paul12 in reply to Markl60]

The heart attack figures are all the cases. They are not a representative cross section. There is no correlation especially as other causes are ignored

[Markl60 in reply to Paul12]

The groups are death by coronary heart disease. The bottom group with the highest total cholesterol are the bottom ranked for death by heart disease. The top group with the lower cholesterol have the highest rates of death by coronary heart disease

[Markl60]

I agree

[Markl60]

Which in itself is significant because if Cholesterol was such a powerful driving force in heart disease as we are led to believe then you would expect the top countries to be higher on the cholesterol scale to some degree. I am mentioning this because people still come on here with concern about their total cholesterol levels whereas their concern should be is it too low

[Sparky3333 in reply to Markl60]

Hi Mark, whenever Drs tell me my cholesterol is 7. 2 and I say "wonderful" they nearly fall off their chairs. Even when I tell them the research that states there is a much higher overall mortality rate in older women with low cholesterol. But the cholesterol myth is like dealing with the flat earth society, medical people have bought the myth.

[Markl60]

I agree

[Paul12]

So as I said, total cholesterol is meangless. We know nothing about other causes. We know nothing about date, size or accuracy of sample. Nothing about lifestyle or metabolic syndrome. The table proves nothing and tells little.

[Markl60 in reply to Paul12]

So if the table proves nothing how do you know that total cholesterol is meaningless ?. As for other factors doesn't your GP think that Cholesterol is an independant risk factor and if he is right it would show up in this table eg Russia would have higher cholesterol than Japan

[Paul12 in reply to Markl60]

You are mixing things up and misquoting. I said the table proves nothing. I said total cholesterol is meaningless. I did NOT say total cholesterol was meaningless BECAUSE the table proves nothing. If we are going to think cholesterol is anything more than a marker then it is not total cholesterol that is the key but VLDL and particles etc etc. Given that in the Uk it is not easy to get those tested then we MIGHT consider LDL. VLDL particles and LDL MIGHT be inversely or directly related i.e. reduce LDL and reduce particles...maybe. Nonetheless neither of those are total cholesterol. So total cholesterol of itself as a worry, should not be if the concern is that it is too high - which is what the table supposedly seeks to illustrate i.e. high cholesterol = high heart disease. So in fact total cholesterol if 'too high' indicates little - if 'too low' then that may indeed be a problem but that is not the point of the table. The actual key is insulin resistance and metabolic syndrome do you not agree?

As for your point about GP and independent risk factor. Firstly there's 'weight' of risk factors. But in your example (Russia v Japan) it would ONLY show up if all other risk factors were constant which is of course not the case. Let's say for example that cholesterol was way lower in Japan but also there was tremendous air pollution whereas in Russia the opposite then these may cancel each other out

[Markl60 in reply to Paul12]

"So total cholesterol of itself as a worry, should not be if the concern is that it is too high - which is what the table supposedly seeks to illustrate i.e. high cholesterol = high heart disease."

Sorry Paul you have misunderstood or perhaps I am guilty of not spelling it out. The table does not do what you suggest quite the opposite

[Paul12 in reply to Markl60]

ahh no that bit was entirely my mistake. The table seeks to show that total cholesterol does NOT indicate heart disease. If it did then countries with high total cholesterol would also have high disease and as this seems to be the opposite....

Nonetheless my central point is the same and would have been IF the table matched high total cholesterol and high heart disease.

Any idea that total cholesterol being high = heart disease is, in my opinion, wrong. But that does NOT mean that high LDL etc etc does not cause heart disease. Also the table/country does not show high total cholesterol does NOT cause heart disease as other factors (plus unreliability of data) may outweigh any negative effects of high TC. Unless other variables/causes/preventatives are nullified, the table shows nothing AND would also show nothing if the figures were reversed i.e. high TV matching countries with high heart disease etc

[Markl60 in reply to Paul12]

And yet the only thing we focus on is Cholesterol....sigh!

[Paul12 in reply to Markl60]

Well BP too...