Less is not always good! Rethinking (bad) cholesterol levels.

[Maxone73]

With all the limits involved, which are:

1 - it's a retrospective study, not controlled or interventional

2 - it's talking about prostate cancer risk, and we know that things and the effect of certain supplements/food are different before and after you actually have it

3 - it's not clear if it talks about statin users only or in general

So take it as a curious finding more than as a suggestion (I am trying to do the same as my LDL-C is 57 mg/dl).

This study using data from the National Health and Nutrition Examination Survey (NHANES) found no significant link between LDL-C levels and prostate cancer risk when considering the entire study sample.

● However, in a subgroup of non-hypertensive men, lower LDL-C levels were associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer.

● Specifically, the risk of prostate cancer increased when LDL-C levels fell below 67 mg/dl in this subgroup.

● The study also found that the use of cholesterol-lowering prescription drugs was associated with a higher risk of prostate cancer in non-hypertensive men.

● These findings suggest that lower LDL-C levels may not always be beneficial, particularly for non-hypertensive men, and highlight a potential area for further research and consideration in prostate cancer screening.

Checking the graph, basically high LDL-C and low below 67 mg/dl are both no-nos!

prostatewarriors.com/2024/1...

[Mascouche]

Similar observations when it comes to heart health. For a long time people were led to believe that high LDL cholesterol was a cause of a heart attacks and yet when half of the 136,905 patients hospitalized for a heart attack nationwide between 2000 and 2006 have low LDL and half do not, we should conclude that it is not a cause: uclahealth.org/news/release...