Some time ago I had a regular blood test done, to make sure
everything is OK. The blood needed for
the test was drawn a little inexpertly – as you can see from the photos. I only put the photos here because I don't have any of my cholesterol and it is nice to have photos in a blog ...
When I got the results back my doctor said that everything
was fine, except that I had hideously high levels of cholesterol. They have always been on the high side, but
this time they were very very high – 8.6, and only 2 of that is the supposedly
good HDL, whereas the evil LDL makes up the rest. Statins! exclaimed the doctor. No way! said I. We agreed on a moratorium of six months,
where I would clean up my diet, exercise even harder, etc etc.
Instead of heading straight for the gymn I started to Google
around, for weeks on end. I am not going to write a long post about
medical details, because other people have already done it and can do it better
than me. I have pasted several links
below if you are interested. I recommend
the first one especially – it gives the results from the Norwegian Hunt 2 Study.
As a general rule, I like to do my own research, so first I researched cholesterol, and what
caused high levels. I already sort of
knew that the body manufactures its own cholesterol, and if we reduce our
dietary intake our body simply produces more, so eating less cholesterol rich food
is pretty pointless. So what else could
I do? Exercise helped, apparently, also
all sorts of supplements and special foods.
One evening I came across two interesting bits of
information, in two different websites:
(a) Two thirds of all American adults over 50 have high cholesterol, (b)
half of all people over 50 who have heart attacks have high cholesterol levels
– ergo, fewer people with high cholesterol have heart attacks than those with
low cholesterol! Suddenly I became very
suspicious indeed! And then, on a whim, I googled,
‘Cholesterol is good for you!’
I found the Norwegian Hunt 2 Study, inter alia. It was financed by the Norwegian government –
not the pharmaceutical industry - went on for ten years, covered
65,000 people (half men, half women) and found that men with average to
moderately high levels of cholesterol lived longest, whereas women lived the
longer the higher their cholesterol levels were – even if that level was above
7! Have a look at the study, all the
information is there, graphs included.
After that I continued to search, and found any number of
other studies:
·
Studies of old people in nursing homes in Austria France US
·
Autopsy reports showed that people with high
levels of cholesterol in their blood had no more plaques in their veins than
people with low cholesterol;
·
Studies which showed that cholesterol protects
the body from infections and diseases, which explains why people with high
cholesterol levels live longer;
·
Studies which show how cholesterol repairs
damaged tissues, which explains why cholesterol levels rise with increasing age
– the older we get the more our bodies need to be repaired;
·
Studies which emphasise the need for good dental
hygiene – the same bacteria that damage teeth and gums also attack the
cardiovascular system – indeed, gum disease is a marker for future heart
attacks;
·
Studies which show quite how many side effects
statins have, including cancer – most statin trials only last a few months or years,
and cancer takes many years to develop, too long to show up in the trials;
·
Studies which show that women experience a lot
more side effects from statins than men, and gain no benefit from taking them;
·
Reports which show how studies which show
statins to be beneficial are publicised widely, whereas studies which show the
opposite get buried;
·
Studies which show that people who are on statins do not extend their
life expectancy by a single day;
·
Studies/analyses which show that many of the
benefits claimed by statins are actually attributable to cholesterol – people
who are prescribed statins have had high cholesterol levels for much of their
life, and continue to benefit from its protective effects for a number of years
even after they start to take statins.
I could go on, but you get the message. My conclusion is that I am grateful to my
body for taking such good care of me by manufacturing so much of this wonderful
substance cholesterol, and I am not going to interfere with its
beneficial activities.
Several closing comments.
After all my research I am personally convinced that smoking, sugar, and
refined carbohydrates damage the body and should be avoided as much as
possible. Exercise, sleep, good dental
hygiene, a balanced diet, and a cheerful disposition are essential to a healthy
and long life. Not news to anyone, I
dare say.
Lastly, don’t believe what I tell you. Go out there and do your research. When you read of some study which says, X
reduces Y by Z amount, ask the question, How does it effect life
expectancy? Because that’s what matters
in the end. If some drug or dietary
regime lowers my chance of dieing from a heart attack but increases my risk of
dieing from cancer or a respiratory disease just as much or more then what is
the point? Look at overall life
expectancy, always.
An interesting case in point is what I read in the news yesterday, that breast cancer rates vary greatly from country to country. When digging deeper it shows that countries with higher incidence of breast cancer also have a longer life expectancy - women live long enough to get breast cancer in these countries. This is true of many cancers.
When considering statistics, always look at absolute figures. An increase/decrease in risk of 50% sounds impressive, but if this is relative to a very small number it becomes irrelevant. Like doubling your chances of winning the lottery. Of course, these relative numbers are the ones that tend to be reported ....
An interesting case in point is what I read in the news yesterday, that breast cancer rates vary greatly from country to country. When digging deeper it shows that countries with higher incidence of breast cancer also have a longer life expectancy - women live long enough to get breast cancer in these countries. This is true of many cancers.
When considering statistics, always look at absolute figures. An increase/decrease in risk of 50% sounds impressive, but if this is relative to a very small number it becomes irrelevant. Like doubling your chances of winning the lottery. Of course, these relative numbers are the ones that tend to be reported ....
And never confuse an association with causation! Firemen don’t set fire to buildings, but they
are present at almost every serious fire incident. Doctors don’t kill patients, but they are
present at almost every deathbed scene.
Just as Cholesterol is present at every heart attack - because it is
busy repairing damaged tissues, not because it damaged them and caused the
heart attack.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01767.x/pdf
http://qjmed.oxfordjournals.org/content/95/6/397.full
http://www.asbmb.org/asbmbtoday/asbmbtoday_article.aspx?id=18949
http://cindy-on-health.blogspot.co.uk/2011/12/cholesterol-and-statins-whos-hero-whos.html
http://drnevillewilson.com/2011/06/01/high-cholesterol-reduces-risks-in-elderly/
http://drmalcolmkendrick.org/
