My Results After 4 Years on a High Cholesterol Diet

A few weeks ago a friend asked me If I had an opinion on a story he’d seen about low cholesterol being linked to high suicide rates. As it happens I DID have an opinion on this, none of it complimentary about low cholesterol diets or Statins, the cholesterol lowering drugs.

But it got me thinking, you see I don’t believe the “Dietary Cholesterol Hypothesis” which simply states that cholesterol levels in your blood are raised by eating a diet that’s high in cholesterol. Such a simple theory is so easy to understand, it’s almost obviously true, it’s just a shame it’s not.

So here’s the thing, by all accounts I’ve been eating a diet very high in cholesterol and saturated fat. We’re talking steak, fatty mince meat (ground beef), pork of all forms including roasts with crackling, and bacon, oh yes plenty of bacon! Add to that cholesterol laden eggs, hard cheese, full fat soft cream cheese, sausages, fatty lamb (both leg and shoulder) and whole (full fat) milk, not to mention glorious double cream! You can almost hear my arteries hardening.

But wait, there’s more, we’re not talking eating this kind of once a day for my evening meal, but for lunch too. Oh, and breakfast, let’s not forget breakfast. Plus I typically have 1 or 2 snacks a day as well, which is more of the same (e.g. includes a block cheese, or a sausage, or hunk of meat).

I’ve been this way, 5 times a day for 4 years now, having a high cholesterol and saturated fat laden meal for breakfast, lunch, an afternoon snack, dinner and an evening snack before bed… perhaps I should just book myself straight into hospital now for that heart bypass and not waste my poor GPs time. It’s just a shame that I’m the thinnest and healthiest I’ve ever been.

But like I said, I don’t believe in the dietary cholesterol theory. So much so, that my daughter now eats just like I do and when my friend asked me about low cholesterol issues, I resolved to get myself tested to prove that I was right, so I did and the results are back. First, here are my cholesterol levels as they were back in 2000 when I was not quite 30, just for comparison:

  • HDL = 1.6 mmol/L or 62 mg/dl. This is meant to be the good cholesterol and by current thinking, should be more than 1.0
  • LDL = 1.7 mmol/L or 66 mg/dl. This is the so called “bad” cholesterol and should be between 2.2 and 4.9
  • TG = 1.2 mmol/L or 106 mg/dl. Triglycerides are apparently very bad, and should be less than 1.8
  • Resting heart rate was 84 beats per minute, with the normal range being 60-80

Barry Sear’s excellent book Toxic Fat on p76 suggests that a very good indicator of what he calls Toxic Fat Syndrome (otherwise known as Syndrome X or “Why current Western children might be the first generation in centuries to live shorter lives than their parents”) is to divide TG by HDL. If this ratio is more than 4.0 you’re in trouble, obviously the lower the better. My TG/HDL was 106/62 = 1.7

So you can see that back in 2000 I wasn’t doing too badly and everything was in the right range, except resting heart rate which was on the high side and bizarrely LDL cholesterol was a little low! I was starting to put weight on though on my fairly typical western diet of cereal for breakfast, sandwiches and crisps for lunch, and typically meat and 2 veg type dinner (or pasta, pizza, curry, Chinese etc), with an occasional desert.

Fast forward to 2007 and I was quite over weight, was 30% body fat with a 43″ (128 cm) waist and my combined cholesterol had risen to 4.3 (sorry, no break down figures). CrossFit got me exercising and onto the Zone Diet and then with heavy Paleo Diet influences + dairy. I lost 2.5st (35lbs / 16kg), half my body fat (15%) and 10 inches (25cm) off my waist. But I realised I hadn’t got my blood worked up since starting my new way of eating and so I did.

I must confess to some trepidation. What if it came back terribly high? What would that mean for my health and my family and daughter’s health?!? What if I’d been wrong all this time and was eating myself to death, however enjoyable it was doing so? But I’m an engineer at heart and data matters. So without further ado, here are my results after 4 years of my high cholesterol food five times a day:

  • HDL = 2.4 mmol/L or 93 mg/dl (a 50% increase)
  • LDL = 2.1 mmol/L or 81 mg/dl (a 24% increase)
  • TG = 0.8 mmol/L or 71 mg/dl (a 33% decrease)
  • TG/HDL = 0.76 (a 56% reduction)
  • Resting heart rate = 62 beats per minute (26% reduction)
  • Blood Pressure = 125 / 77 (at 38 years old)

EDIT July: I’ve added the US mg/dl numbers to the above stats and as I’ve realised that cholesterol conversion is not linear with the triglyceride conversion, I’ve recalculated Barry Sear’s ratios.

Well that looks pretty good to me. Experts don’t seem to agree on whether there should be a lower LDL figure it seems, but my test from 10 years ago said it was too low, so a small increase seems ok. It’s well below ideal max range though. But I’m not used to interpreting cholesterol test results every day, so here are some examples of what they had to say at the Doctor’s:

  • “The good HDL cholesterol is very high. That’s one of the best results I’ve ever seen.”
  • “Excellent.”
  • “Triglycerides are very low, that’s very good.”
  • “Keep up the good work, whatever you are doing is obviously working.

Wow! Even I was seriously impressed with how much gushing was going on. I have to say, it’s a real vindication of everything I’ve learnt over the last 4 years about diet, and of course exercise, and proof positive that I’m doing the right thing, not only for myself but also my wife and daughter (and everyone who’s had to put up with my bleating over the last 4 years!).

What is perhaps most interesting, is that last year I really went off the rails and put a load of weight on. My head was not in a good place at all. This year I’ve sorted myself out and in 3 months have lost the weight I put on last year. So I might have thought that my bloods would be worse. It just goes to show, it’s not too late to sort yourself out. But perhaps that’s a story for another day.

If you want to read up on why the dietary cholesterol hypothesis is a load of old bolox, this is the very easy to read and entertaining book I recommend: The Great Cholesterol Con by Dr Malcolm Kendrick (unusually for this field, he’s an English Doctor!)

{ 32 comments… add one }

  • Lawraine 6 May 2011, 12:09 pm

    Interesting. I never bothered much about cholesterol, but recently I thought I ought to get checked out. My HDL and LDL were both 7 something, which are very high, but the doc said that they cancelled each other out and I needn’t worry. Need I?

  • Franz29 6 May 2011, 12:11 pm

    Nice Post. What tests did you request?

    Did you see the BBC had a story yetserday about the proposal to offer Statins etc to those at 55 or over because it’s more cost effective? Link: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/health-13284032 ((WFS)

    Not overly impressed by this plan I have to say! Worse, like you I eat a lot of supposedly “bad” foods and would be considered a risk which is ridiculous.

  • Colin McNulty 6 May 2011, 12:40 pm

    Hi Lawraine, both being 7 does appear to be high, but cholesterol is only a correlated symptom of heart disease, not a risk factor (in my opinion). Good HDL is allegedly meant to hoover up bad LDL, which is why the quack said the cancel each other out. We’ve not spoken properly in ages, what kind of diet are you following? Do you know what your triglyceride level was?

    Franz, that’s not good news. Unless you happen to have had a heart attack already, and are a middle aged, obese man, statins won’t help. The reason is, yes they reduce the deaths from cardiovascular diseases, but they don’t reduce overall mortality rates in any other population group, and never for women. This is something the drug companies, who make $Billions from statins each year, don’t want you to know and so try to bury total mortality figures when they publish trials.

  • Soraya 6 May 2011, 2:07 pm

    How do you think the results would be affected if you ate the same diet but were not fit and active?

  • Colin McNulty 6 May 2011, 2:50 pm

    That’s an interesting question Soraya. Certainly I fully approve of exercise and am quite sure the body benefits from it in ways we don’t fully understand. However the fact remains that I haven’t been to the gym for 2 months due to a shoulder injury, and before that, for the last 9 months of last year, I was only going once a week on average.

  • Soraya 6 May 2011, 3:21 pm

    I saw a program that showed how external appearance is no indicator of health as measured by fat deposits i.e a slim person with a poor diet (lots of convenience foods etc) can still have fatty deposits in an around internal organs. I assume that this impact on health would show by increased blood pressure, resting heart rate and respiritory values.
    Forgive my ignorance but would you know if cholesterol levels are any way an indicator of how much fat is stored in the body? I am thinking they wouldn’t be.

  • Colin McNulty 6 May 2011, 3:25 pm

    I don’t think that cholesterol levels are directly an indicator of how much fat is stored in the body, though I would guess that the 2 generally go hand in hand. If you’re fat then there’s a higher risk your cholesterol will be raised. I’m not sure it goes the other way round though.

  • Razorstorm 6 May 2011, 5:09 pm

    Great read bro, Any reason to eat more steak and bacon and im there!

  • James Henderson 6 May 2011, 6:53 pm

    Great post Colin, its amazing how people seem to instinctively think that meat must be bad for you. The fact is, it was pretty much all that our ancestors could eat for the winter months for much of human history especially in the northern latitudes! Dont tell too many people though, I dont think the worlds resources can sustain 7 Billion Cavemen!

  • Graham 7 May 2011, 12:49 am

    Soraya is referring to a ` tofi ` – thin on the outside and fat on the inside .
    This type (of fat) is actually known as heart attack fat .
    I agree Colin , that the Malcolm Kendrick research/argument is challenging to the extent that the impression I got recently from watching a tv prog , is that he is shunned by the broader medical profession , of which he is a part , or was !
    Apart from the contrary dietary advice , his argument that higher cholesterol levels can be linked to longevity in other cultures ,and that lower levels are actually dangerous to the extent that they can increase the risks of cancer are persuasive , to say the least .
    Great debate !

  • Sue 7 May 2011, 2:27 am

    Colin, very nice TG/HDL. Good job. I’m checking out conversion so I can get a handle on actual numbers I can relate to in US terms. Have you ever done SIP testing? (I think you’ve said no in the past, but I can’t remember).

    Sue

  • Sue 7 May 2011, 2:44 am

    Colin, found the conversion info. I’ll be very interested in your AA/EPA and your actual AA level, should you ever decide to check it out. Wow, was your LDL low years back (scary!).

    Sue

  • Colin McNulty 9 May 2011, 7:39 am

    > James: I dont think the worlds resources can sustain 7 Billion Cavemen!

    Indeed you’re right James, but then it seems the world can only manage to economically feed 7Bn people by feeding them a poor diet. Over population of this planet is a pet grumble of mine I won’t get into here. ;-) I’ve posted about it before here:

    http://www.colinmcnulty.com/blog/2009/02/02/why-ivf-should-be-banned/

    > Graham: [Malcolm Kendrick] is shunned by the broader medical profession

    Interesting, I hadn’t realised he was “on the scene” as it were, but there’s a fairly predictable response. I should have said in my original post, his book is great for looking at the actual science, but I don’t agree with his conclusions. When he very capably disproves the dietary cholesterol hypothesis, he then throws the baby out with the bath water in my opinion by saying that heart disease has nothing to do with diet.

    > Sue: very nice TG/HDL. Good job.

    Cheers Sue, I was quite pleased.

    > Wow, was your LDL low years back (scary!).

    They did say at the time my LDL was below normal back then, but the advice seems to have changed recently. What do you think is should be? Also, what’s the conversion for UK to US cholesterol results?

  • Sue 11 May 2011, 1:32 pm

    Colin, sorry I didn’t get back sooner; we’re on vacation with my daughter and grandsons ( I’m sitting in an airport terminal waiting for our flight to board). I have been trying to think of where to direct you re more info(an especially informative explanation I’ve read). I can’t recall where it was, bit I remember very low LDL I’d not desirable for good health. I think, but am not positive, that it related to impeded circulation of the necessary fats in your body and maybe also something related to immunity. Re the conversion it is a simple multiplication, but the factor differs for chol results and trig results. You will easily find it by googling. Gotta go now.., hoarsely is starting.

  • Sue 11 May 2011, 1:35 pm

    That’s ” b o a r d I n g”….crazy smartphones!

  • Colin McNulty 11 May 2011, 9:24 pm

    Hope you have a good holiday Sue.

  • Sue 12 May 2011, 1:09 am

    Thanks Colin.

  • Horia 18 May 2011, 2:43 am

    I eat 3-4 whole eggs every morning, 5 days a week, plus I love high cholesterol food and my levels are in the normal range. My family is always on my case, “that’s high in cholesterol” and such. I think I’ll start carrying my test results in my wallet, show them to anyone who says that.

  • Richard 8 June 2011, 4:11 pm

    Ridiculous argument. Dietary cholesterol does not increase your LDL cholesterol level, I don’t know where you have heard that claim. Saturated fat does…and as you will notice with his results his LDL cholesterol level increased from 1.7 to 2.2, it is still within range but a definite increase. You need to do more reading.

  • Sue 8 June 2011, 4:28 pm

    Colin, I just noticed I missed your qn to me re what I think LDL should be. My thoughts on it are lower is better unless it goes into the very low range (I still haven’t looked into the material I mentioned earlier).

    I mentioned to you recently that I was awaiting my recent lipid panel results. They’re great; (in US terms) LDL 112, HDL 82 (excellent) and Trig 58. My TG/HDL 0.7. I avoid omega 6 fat (epecially arachidonic acid, aka AA). I eat a fair amount of saturated fats, though not in the form of red meat because of the AA it contains (inflammation lowering is of prime concern to me), and not what would be described as a diet high in saturated fat. Most of my fat is monounsaturated.

  • Sue 8 June 2011, 4:46 pm

    So you don’t have to convert, mine in British terms: LDL 2.9, HDL 2.1, Trig 0.65

  • Colin McNulty 12 June 2011, 8:05 am

    Hi Richard, thanks for your comment.

    > Dietary cholesterol does not increase your LDL cholesterol level, I don’t know where you have heard that claim. Saturated fat does…

    I agree, but that is the claim of those that believe the dietary cholesterol hypothesis. A very quick search on Google gives some examples (there are lots and lots):

    Those wishing to reduce their cholesterol through a change in diet should aim to consume less than 7% of their daily energy needs {metric units Joules (J) or (kJ), pre-SI calories (Cal) or (kcal)} from animal fat and fewer than 200 mg of cholesterol per day.
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cholesterol#Dietary_sources

    Although a diet high in saturated fat is the main cause of high blood cholesterol levels, high cholesterol in the diet can also raise blood cholesterol levels.
    http://ehealthmd.com/library/lowercholesterol/LC_eat.html

    When the Framingham study found a correlation between heart disease and cholesterol levels, the assumption became that eating eggs was bad, since eggs include high level of cholesterol.
    http://heartcurrents.com/eating-eggs-raise-cholesterol-level/

    Either way, I was very clear to make the point in my 3rd paragraph that: “I’ve been eating a diet very high in cholesterol and saturated fat.” and included a list of the foods as examples.

    > and as you will notice with his results his LDL cholesterol level increased from 1.7 to 2.2

    That’s right, I was warned at the time of the 1.7 reading that that result was too low. My change in diet brought the LDL into the lower end of the optimal range, though differing sources don’t quite agree on how to define the optimal range, e.g.:

    (less than 2.6 mmol/L) is considered optimal
    http://www.full-health.com/partoneF.htm

    Below 2.6 mmol/L Ideal for people at risk of heart disease
    2.6-3.3 mmol/L Near ideal

    http://www.mayoclinic.com/health/cholesterol-levels/CL00001

    I appreciate your comment though. I have been reading around this subject a lot for the last 5 years, in fact the biggest section on my bookshelf is the dietary section!

    ***
    Sue, thanks for the reply. Those are some good results (thanks for the conversion to UK numbers!). Interesting that they are very similar to mine. A good point about Omega-6 fats (often found in vegetable oil for those that don’t know). It pains me greatly when I see fish oil caps being sold with added Omega-6 in. :-(

  • Stray 6 July 2011, 6:43 pm

    My father had heart problems from his 30s onwards, a triple bypass at 50.

    My own blood cholesterol levels were always low in my 20s – then suddenly spiked at 33 – my sister also had a spike at 30. My bad / good / total ratios were terrible for a fat old man, never mind for a skinny, fairly fit, young woman.

    Over the last 18 months, I virtually eliminated (bad) saturated fat from my diet and my levels are now near normal (as others have said, dietary cholesterol is now thought irrelevant). I’ve also upped my ‘good fats’ consumption. I had a pretty healthy diet before, but now I’m OCD about it.

    At the same time, my partner continues to eat butter, bacon – even her mother’s lard pastry – and her levels are still low. She’s 10 years older than me, so it’s not just an age thing.

    Genetics is the key. Our family has been identified as having hypercholesterolemia – pretty common in people in the North of England and Scotland, and genuinely scientifically proven in that they can observe the difference in how the body processes certain types of fat. Not just a correlation – they understand the process underneath it.

    I’m at the extreme end of the spectrum but there is no ‘truth’ about healthy diet – only interactions between your body and the things you fuel it on. If you were born where I was – Glasgow – your chances of having the genetic defect that makes people drop dead with clogged arteries in middle age are high.

    You are lucky (in this respect, I can’t speculate about what ways in which your genetics might be weaker) – arterial disease and saturated fat consumption aren’t correlated – for *you*. For many of us, they do seem to be.

    That said, I agree that a low saturated fat diet is dangerous for many – and it’s too crude to package it so simplistically. I think lower LDL is generally associated with earlier dementia, isn’t it? Something we don’t have in my family at all (though perhaps that because we keel over clutching our chests before it can get us!)

    But the upshot is that one person is only one person. It has actually been a long time since GPs in the UK thought that the diet-heart-disease link applied to every individual.

    I was offered statins but my GP is supportive of my preference for diet / exercise approaches. I wonder if there is a difference in the message in the USA – I can’t imagine what the agenda would be…

  • Colin McNulty 7 July 2011, 10:50 am

    Thanks for taking the time to post such a detailed comment Stray(?). I’m sorry to hear of your genetics but glad you appear to be managing it. Yes in a genetic bell curve, there are always those on the extreme ends that don’t follow the normal pattern that the rest of us do. That’s how evolution works, sometimes you get a beneficial genetic change, sometimes not.

    If you read that Great Cholesterol Con book I mentioned, Dr Kendrick reveals that statins are *never* beneficial for women to take, not when you look at total mortality figures, so it looks like you made a good choice there. I suspect you already realise that $$$ is at the heart (pun intended!) of the statin pushing drug companies in the US.

  • Darby Darrow 4 August 2011, 9:40 pm

    Colin,

    Great job! I found your site from the Crossfit forums and I applaud your efforts. I wanted to point out a couple of typos to fix on the page (unless they are the difference between American and the Queen’s English, then you can just ignore my comments!):

    1. But it got me thinking, you see I don’t believe the “Dietary Cholesterol Hypothesis” which simply stats that cholesterol levels

    should read: states that cholesterol levels

    Bit I’m an engineer at heart and data matters.

    should read: But I’m an engineer

    What is perhaps most interesting, is that is that last year

    do you have an extra “is that” in there?

    This year I’ve sorted myself out and in 3 months have lost the weight I put on last years.

    should read the weight I put on last year

  • Colin McNulty 5 August 2011, 6:14 am

    Hi Darby, thanks for your comment.

    I appreciate the corrections and am rather embarrassed that I didn’t spot those typos myself. You can come again! :)

    To return the favour, I’m reliably informed that it’s CrossFit and not Crossfit (“I found your site from the Crossfit forums”). A subtlety that escaped me when I first started this blog, so sadly there are many discrepancies still hanging about, mostly on older posts. But I correct it when I happen to spot it on here.

    Thanks again, Colin

  • Mary 19 October 2011, 6:36 am

    Great work Colin!!! I enjoyed reading all of this information, and applaud you for your intense research, and dedication to such a topic! I am a vegan, so i don’t eat any of those things, but I AM NOT here to argue anything…I think it is so amazing that you took the time to fight the system and really prove your point. Just as i don’t believe that i am any unhealthier for my choices either!!! I love this research and have sent it to my family! I grew up in the midwest of the USA and its meat meat meat!!! i wanted them to read this and know! I love finding such amazing people who help prove that the “man” doesn’t always have the best answer!! Keep up the good work!! Oh and btw i LOVE CrossFit :)
    Have a wonderful day ~!

  • Colin McNulty 19 October 2011, 7:34 am

    Thanks Mary. You are a rarity in 2 very surprising ways:

    1) You’re a vegan who doesn’t seem to have a zealous objection to meat eaters.
    2) You’re a vegan CrossFitter.

    Well done you!

  • Murat Gonul 14 November 2011, 9:56 pm

    The Cholesterol hypothesis: Time for the obituary?

    TORE SCHERST ÉN 1 , PAUL J. ROSCH 2 , KARL E. ARFORS 3 & RALF SUNDBERG 4
    1 Professor, Gothenburg University, Sweden, 2 Professor of Medicine and Psychiatry at New York Medical Collage, President of American Institute of Stress, USA, 3 Professor, Previous chief researcher, Pharmacia AB, and professor at Sidney Kimmel Cancer Institute, USA, and 4 Associate professor, Lund University, Sweden

    Abstract
    The cholesterol hypothesis links cholesterol intake and blood levels to cardiovascular disease. It has had enormous impact on health care and society during decades, but has little or no scientific backing that is relevant for the human species.

    Apparently, the hypothesis is false and should be buried.The historical background to the hypothesis of a causal relationship between the level of serum cholesterol and the development of atherosclerosis beganwith Rudolf Virchow ’ s description (1856) of the atherosclerotic plaque with its cholesterol deposits. Nikolai Anitchkov’ s experiment with rabbits in St Petersburg (1913) was a key publication. He fed rabbits with cholesterol from egg yolks and found that they developed atherosclerotic plaques containing cholesterol. When he tried with other animals –carnivores– it was not possible to reproduce the results. They didn’t get atherosclerosis.

    Two publications by Ancel Keys had a tremendous impact on the general belief of the cholesterol hypothesis. In 1953 he reported that the dietary intake of fat was significantly correlated to the serum cholesterol level and the incidence of cardiovascular death in six countries (1). It appeared very convincing but the problem was that these six countries were selected from all together 22 countries. There was no correlation whatsoever if all the countries were included. The study was obviously a falsification. The other publication came 1986 – the Seven-countries study (2). Keys followed 12000 middle-aged men and recorded their diet and cholesterol values for many years. With statistical manoeuvres he “showed” that saturated fat was the culprit.

    The idea that cholesterol is dangerous took root with the well-known Framingham study (3). It was found that the cholesterol level had been slightly increased after a heart attack in previously healthy men. Therefore, it was claimed that high cholesterol was a risk factor for myocardial infarction. Amazingly, very little attention was taken when the 30 years follow-up of the Framingham project was published(4). It turned out that high cholesterol was not a risk factor for men older than 47 years and not for women at all. Further, it was found that more men had died of a heart attack among those whose cholesterol had decreased over the years. The authors wrote:

    “For every milligram percent cholesterol had decreased, cardiovascular mortality and total mortality increased by fourteen and eleven percent”.

    Other studies have strongly supported this conclusion. Sachdeva and coworkers (5) found that the cholesterol level in patients with acute myocardial infarction was substantially lower than in normal controls at the same age. Al-Mallah and coworkers (6) found lower LDL values in patients with acute myocardial infarction and also that the mortality rate was twice as high among patients with the lowest LDL values.

    These studies showed clearly that there is no causal relationship between the cholesterol level in blood and the risk of dying from a myocardial infarction but the so-called cholesterol hypothesis is still alive. The most momentous arguments for keeping the idea alive are the reported beneficial effects of cholesterol-lowering drugs – the statins. But how valid are the arguments?

    To answer that question, one must consider the pivotal role powerful drug companies have increasingly played in relevant research and publications. It has become a “modus operandi” for statin manufactures to plan, carry out, analyze the results of clinical trials and then use professionals to write the articles under the name of well-known academics, so called Key Opinion Leaders (KOLs).

    As pointed out in the newly published books, White Coat, Black Hat (Carl Elliot) and Medical Research for Hire (Jill Fisher) many of these trials are accomplished by Contract Research Organizations (CROs). Ghostwriting and Ghost management have been important instruments for marketing drugs.

    In an excellent and unmasking article Michel de Lorgeril and Patricia Salen (7) reviewed and discussed the cholesterol-lowering drug trials published before and after the Vioxx affair was disclosed in 2005 (which resulted in new clinical research regulations). Before the Vioxx scandal the dominating part of the published statin trials were highly positive, especially in the secondary prevention trials. After 2005 most studies have been either negative or obviously biased. A Cochrane study including 14 primary prevention trials with statins was recently published (8). The authors concluded:

    “Caution should be taken in prevention with statins for primary prevention among people at low cardiovascular risk”

    A population based investigation in Sweden (9) including almost 2 million men and 2 million women found that despite a widespread and increasing utilization of statins during the years 1998 to 2002 there was no correlation to the incidence or mortality of acute myocardial infarction. This is in harmony with the meta-analysis of Ray et al (10) showing no prolongation of life by use of statins in randomized controlled trials involving 65 229 participants.

    In summary, we have now an overwhelming amount of scientific data that falsify the cholesterol myth. So, it is time to say goodbye to this old, ill-founded and fallacious lipid hypothesis.

    References
    1. Keys A. Atherosclerosis: A problem in Newer public health. J. Mount Sinai Hosp. 1953;20:118–39 .
    2. Keys A, et al. The diet and 15-years death rate in the Seven Countries Study. Am J Epidemiol. 1986;124:903 – 15.
    3. Kannel WB. Med Clin N Amer. 1974;58:363– 79.
    4. Andersson KM, Castelli WP, Levy D. Cholesterol and mortality. 30 years of follow-up from the Framingham study. JAMA.1987;257:2176–80.
    5. Sachdeva A, Cannon CP, Deedwania PC, LaBresh KA, Smith SC, et al. Lipid levels in patients hospitalized with coronary artery disease: An analysis of 136,905 hospitalizations in Get With the Guidelines. American Heart Journal. 2009;157:111–7 .
    6. Al-Mallah M, Hatahet H, Calvalcante J, Khanal S. Low admission LDL-Cholesterol is associated with increased 2-years allcause mortality in Patients with non ST segment elevation myocardial infarction. Cardiology Journal 2009;16:227–33.
    7. de Lorgeril M, Salen P. Recent cholesterol-lowering trials:New data, new questions. J. Lipid Nutr. 2010;19:65–79.
    8. Taylor E, Ward K, Moore THM, Burke M, Davey Smith G, Casas JP, Ebrahim S. Statins for the primary prevention of cardiovascular disase (Review) The Cochrana Collaboration. The Cochran Library 2011. Issue 1.
    9. Nilsson S, Molstad S Karlberg C, Karlsson J-E, Persson L-G. No connection between the level of exposition to statins in the population and the incidence/mortality of acute myocardial infarction: An ecological study based on Sweden ’ s munipalities. Journal of Negative Results in BioMedicine 2011, 10.1186/1477–5751.
    10. Ray KK, Seshasai SR, Erqou S, Sever P, Jukema JW, Ford I et al. Statin and all cause mortality in high risk primary prevention: a meta-analysis of 11 randomised controlled trials involving 65,229 participants. Arch. Intern Med 2010;170:1024–31. Scand Cardiovasc J

  • Colin McNulty 15 November 2011, 9:40 am

    Thanks for your comment Murat, I’ve editted it to improve the formatting, readability and highlighted some key points.

  • Mircea 4 April 2014, 1:51 am

    I read about this theory a bit, but you look like an atherosclerosis victim. Why don’t you try to think for once and not copy other ppl’s ideas? A stupid follows another and both die of atherosclerosis!

  • Mircea 4 April 2014, 6:15 pm

    Actually I have to come back and thank you for drawing my attention to Carbs. But ur still stupid. Ur wrong to replace them with meat. I generally don’t target things one can’t help, like baldness, but I think it is due to low periferic blood circulation stemming from atherosclerosis. I don’t want to become what u r, sorry!

Leave a Comment