Inflammation not LDL the real culprit?

[Mike262]

healthimpactnews.com/2012/i...

What does everyone thing of this article?

[Aliwally]

I like Dr Briffa and have lost weight following advice in his latest book. He is "anti lipid hypothesis" if you want to put it like that. The following is his take on the recent statins for all over 50 headlines .

thecholesteroltruth.com/

I like to listen to all arguments on this, some people think that statins have an anti inflammatory effect.

[2squirrels]

As with most articles like this they place doubt in peoples minds but do not provide a satisfactory answer for any of us to act on.

[patch14]

I have been a sceptic on the cholesterol arguement for some time. After reading so many different articles on the subject and the valid theories on both sides I get the impression that there is no difinitive decision been made within the medical profession re cholesterol and the affect on the body.

If cholesterol is so dangerous, why does the body make it at all. It is, after all, a natural chemical, and is made by the body for some reason!!!!

I believe, although I am in no doubt that I will be shot down by some of you, that the body is telling us that something is wrong when your levels start to climb. Maybe that is the reason why the "older" person has levels that are quite high because the body is under stress. Arthritis, rheumatism, high blood pressure, heart problems, obesity, diabetes and several cancers can affect the older body. Instead of blaming cholesterol for these ailments, perhaps it is only an indicator that further tests need to be done and should not be blamed for the illness!!!

The younger body can also suffer from some of the above, children in particular, and I wonder if there has been a study of cholesterol levels in childen who suffer from them. It would be interesting to find out.

[DakCB-UK in reply to patch14]

The body makes it because it has a purpose: lipid transport. However, when your highways are full of HGVs, crashes result and any beautiful land around the highway might be wrecked. OK, not a great analogy, but you can ask them same question: if HGVs are so dangerous, why do we use them?

I think the article linked at the top of the page is full of weasel words like "it is often said that" which would be flagged up even on a casually-reviewed site like wikipedia (the "by who?" tag). I've lost some respect for Dr Briffa as a result.

The study he mentions is not described very well and the reference doesn't seem to be widely-cited, but springerlink.com/content/36... has an abstract. I don't see how the conclusion can possibly follow from that experiment: surely it tells you that hsCRP can tell you who has had a heart attack, not who will have one? To show its predictive ability, wouldn't you need to measure hsCRP in a population and then correlate levels with who actually has heart attacks?

Nevertheless, inflammation may be a factor, but need not necessarily disprove the lipid hypothesis. It would make sense to me: inflammation gives a bigger easier target for cholesterol to "crash" into. Maybe you could remove the highway obstructions just as effectively as removing some of the HGVs.

[MikePollard]

medind.nic.in/iaf/t11/i2/ia...

[deepblue]

I think that cholesterol is just one of the risk factors and that there are many others, inflammation, stress, diabetes,weight,standard of living,not exercising,junk foods etc and who knows how many other yet to be discovered genetic factors. I have a family history of very high cholesterol but no early heart problems, so cholesterol cannot be the only factor.

Inflammation seems to be blamed for many other diseases too including arthritis, allergies etc.

Hopefully there will be a clearer picture in the not too distant future.