It's all about the inflammatory process - even the AHA's Circulation had a recent statement making
this clear, and cholesterol is an antioxidant, so it's ludicrous to be worried about cholesterol.
Rather, it's oxysterols, which is cholesterol which has essentially gone rancid due to processing,
cooking, etc., that is a major problem. If you do what you are being told, such as eat more
unsaturated fats and lower your cholesterol, you will likely destroy your body, possibly very
quickly. You've heard of the importance of "vitamin E." That mostly has to do with lipid
peroxidation on the cellular level - in the so-called lipid bilayer. When you eat too much
unsaturated fat, and most Americans do these days, it's free radicals galore in most cases - only
eating huge amounts of anitoxidants might help. Well, cholesterol also protects your cells at this
level, so lowering it, especially LDL, is plain crazy. It appears to work because the "experts"
assume that anything that lowers LDL is "good," even though overall mortality is actually higher,
due to cancer and other "diseases" that occur when you mess with your body to such a degree (which
they don't tell you). Even C. Everett Koop talked about how higher cholesterol in older people is
fine, and it's because as you get older your body relies on cholesterol more because the other
anitoxidants are not produced in the amounts they were when the person was younger. If you are
fairly young and have very high cholesterol, it's likely a chronic inflammatory condition that will
soon result in one or another "chronic disease." Just cut out all the foods that are easily
oxidized, start boiling fresh meat, if you're not a vegetarian, and eat lots of dark chocolate,
berries, and other foods high in antioxidants.
Here's the reality:
Free Radic Biol Med. 1995 Oct;19(4):511-6.
Cholesterol protects the phospholipid bilayer from oxidative damage.
Parasassi T, Giusti AM, Raimondi M, Ravagnan G, Sapora O, Gratton E.
Istituto di Medicina Sperimentale, CNR, Roma, Italy.
The measurement of fluorescence lifetime distribution of 1,6-diphenyl-1,3,5-hexatriene is used for
the detection of oxidative damage produced in phospholipid membranes by ionizing radiation. The
recently developed method is based on the linear relationship between the width of the probe
lifetime distribution and the logarithm of the dose. The molecular origin of the damage resides in
the production of hydroperoxide residues at the level of acyl chains double bonds. A
chemiluminescence assay was used to quantitate the amount of produced hydroperoxides. Consequences
of the produced damages include an increased disorder in the upper portion of the bilayer,
accompanied by the penetration of water molecules. In the presence of the physiological
concentration of cholesterol in phopholipid bilayers, the amount of hydroperoxides produced by
ionizing radiation is dramatically reduced. The packing effect of cholesterol in phopholipid
bilayers is well recognized, as well as its influence on the reduction of water concentration in the
bilayer. The dramatic reduction of hydroperoxides concentration observed when irradiation is
performed in the presence of cholesterol probably originates from a steric hindrance to the radical
chain reaction through the unsaturated lipids due to the presence of cholesterol.
PMID: 7590402 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
And here's what the media is telling you:
"ORLANDO, Florida (AP) -- A new study offers an answer to doctors' long-running debate over how far
heart patients should lower their bad LDL cholesterol: As low as possible.
"There is no such thing as too low an LDL. That's what the data seem to show," said Dr. Steven
Nissen of the Cleveland Clinic. He presented the results Wednesday at a meeting of the American
Heart Association in Orlando.
He conducted the first head-to-head comparison of popular statin drugs. The results suggest that
lowering cholesterol more aggressively than the current national guidelines recommend can completely
stop dangerous clogging of the arteries.
Nevertheless, other experts caution that it is too soon to rewrite federal guidelines, although that
may be in the offing as several new studies tackle this issue in the next few years.
The latest study compared two statin pills, Lipitor and Pravachol. It found that Lipitor did a
considerably better job of both lowering cholesterol and controlling the insidious buildup of gunk
inside the arteries when given to people with serious heart disease.
Exactly why, though, is unclear. The benefit could not be totally explained by the lower cholesterol
levels. Researchers wondered if some other property of Lipitor, such as it stronger effect on
inflammation, accounted for its more potent effects.
The study was sponsored by Lipitor's maker, Pfizer. Another similar but larger study is nearing
completion, sponsored by Bristol-Myers Squibb, which makes Pravachol.
Guidelines recommend getting LDL, the bad cholesterol, down to 100. But many have wondered whether
lower is better. The latest study lowered that target to 80 and found the more rigorous treatment
seemed to stop artery clogging in its tracks.
The study involved 654 adults with LDL over 125 who had symptoms of coronary disease. They were
randomly assigned to get either 40 milligrams of Pravachol or 80 milligrams of Lipitor, the top
doses available of the two drugs. At the time the study began in 1999, Lipitor was considered to be
the most powerful statin on the market.
The doctors used highly sensitive intravascular ultrasound to watch what happened to the buildup,
known as plaque, in volunteers' heart arteries. After 18 months of typical follow-up, average LDL
was 110 in the Pravachol patients and 79 in those on Lipitor.
Drugs compared The volume of plaque in their arteries increased almost 3 percent in the Pravachol
patients, while it actually regressed a fraction of 1 percent in those on Lipitor. However, the
shrinkage was too small to be statistically meaningful.
Even when people on Pravachol reached the same LDL levels as those on Lipitor, their plaque buildup
was worse. Nissen speculated that Lipitor's especially powerful effect on inflammation of the blood
vessels could be the reason.
In this study, Lipitor lowered this inflammation, as measured by a substance called C-reactive
protein, by 36 percent, while Pravachol reduced it by 5 percent.
"I think Pravachol is a good drug," Nissen said. "I just think it's not the best drug. I do respect
that all statins work. But there are differences across the class."
Julie Keenan, a spokeswoman for Bristol-Myers Squibb, noted that the study did not measure actual
heart complications, such as heart attacks and death, and earlier studies have shown that Pravachol
reduces the risk of both.
Dr. Christopher Cannon of Boston's Brigham and Women's Hospital is directing Bristol-Myers Squibb's
comparison of the two drugs and said that study will judge which one does a better job of
keeping people alive and healthy.
He said Nissen's finding that Lipitor is more effective at blocking plaque is "fascinating," but he
asked, "Is it important?"
Meanwhile, Dr. Raymond Gibbons of the Mayo Clinic said cardiologists will demand hard evidence that
more aggressive cholesterol lowering saves lives before they make wholesale switches in therapy.
"We are not treating the people who need it, period, to even moderate LDL levels," Gibbons said. "We
are not getting them to even 110. This study suggests we need to go to a new level."
Guidelines from the National Institute of Health's National Cholesterol Education Program, last
revised two years ago, set LDL under 100 as the target for treatment in people with heart disease.
cnn.comindex.hOpen ↗ tml"
A mixture of fact and fantasy in this latter case.