Home
Hi Dr Davis,
Excellent post. The value of total cholesterol is irrelevant. While there is a VERY slightly higher cholesterol level in heart attack patients, the overlap with the normal population is such as to make total cholesterol level meaningless. Once it's meaningless and you can then look back to the initial work of Ancel Keys, who appears to have been the primary architect of the lipid hypothesis, and you can see it is based on this now clearly meaningless measurement.
The very slight increase in TC in cardiac patients is explicable by the fact that glycation of the apoA particle inhibits its attachment to the LDL receptor. I would expect this to produce a slight rise in TC. You then have to pose the question as to which does most damage: persisting apoA containing particles due to glycation of their surface protein, or glycation of all of the body proteins by the same hyperglycaemia that affected the apo A protein. Using HbA1c as a marker of hyperglycaemia there is a reasonable correlation with CVD even within "normal" HbA1c levels in the EPIC study. Whole grains = hyperglycaemia. Hyperglycaemia = apoptosis of vascular endothelium. What more do you need for vascular damage?
So, as the lipid hypothesis is based on TC and should have been stillborn or drowned at birth, where does particle size come in? We have the situation of good (HDL) cholesterol and bad (LDL) cholesterol to explain why TC is useless. Then we get good LDL (large fluffy) and bad LDL (small dense) to explain why total LDL (by calculation) is utterly useless too. We even now have good and bad HDL. Never mind good (small) VLDL and bad (large) VLDL to explain why some triglycerides are better/worse than others.
Ultimately small dense LDL, large VLDL and HDL3 are strong markers of the metabolic syndrome. Hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance are the cornerstones of metabolic syndrome according to Reaven, who largely popularised the concept. The lipid changes are easily viewed as a consequence, not a cause, of metabolic syndrome. It is undoubtedly believable that sdLDL is stickier/more oxidisable than other lipoproteins, but that becomes unimportant if it's not there in the first place, ie no metabolic syndrome. This would, simply, explain why reducing wheat products works to reduce sdLDL, unless they are replaced by equally insulinogenic "wheat free" comparable junk foods based on non wheat sugar sources. If it turned out that purple spotted LDL, induced by eating blackberries, was stickier than sdLDL we would no doubt have a drive to eliminate blackberries or (more likely) develop a drug to remove the purple spots.
Following your blog gives me the distinct impression that one day you really could become a cholesterol skeptic. Stranger things have happened.
Peter - See more at: http://www.cureality.com/blog/post/2008/10/03/does-high-cholesterol-cause-heart-disease.html
Excellent post. The value of total cholesterol is irrelevant. While there is a VERY slightly higher cholesterol level in heart attack patients, the overlap with the normal population is such as to make total cholesterol level meaningless. Once it's meaningless and you can then look back to the initial work of Ancel Keys, who appears to have been the primary architect of the lipid hypothesis, and you can see it is based on this now clearly meaningless measurement.
The very slight increase in TC in cardiac patients is explicable by the fact that glycation of the apoA particle inhibits its attachment to the LDL receptor. I would expect this to produce a slight rise in TC. You then have to pose the question as to which does most damage: persisting apoA containing particles due to glycation of their surface protein, or glycation of all of the body proteins by the same hyperglycaemia that affected the apo A protein. Using HbA1c as a marker of hyperglycaemia there is a reasonable correlation with CVD even within "normal" HbA1c levels in the EPIC study. Whole grains = hyperglycaemia. Hyperglycaemia = apoptosis of vascular endothelium. What more do you need for vascular damage?
So, as the lipid hypothesis is based on TC and should have been stillborn or drowned at birth, where does particle size come in? We have the situation of good (HDL) cholesterol and bad (LDL) cholesterol to explain why TC is useless. Then we get good LDL (large fluffy) and bad LDL (small dense) to explain why total LDL (by calculation) is utterly useless too. We even now have good and bad HDL. Never mind good (small) VLDL and bad (large) VLDL to explain why some triglycerides are better/worse than others.
Ultimately small dense LDL, large VLDL and HDL3 are strong markers of the metabolic syndrome. Hyperinsulinaemia and insulin resistance are the cornerstones of metabolic syndrome according to Reaven, who largely popularised the concept. The lipid changes are easily viewed as a consequence, not a cause, of metabolic syndrome. It is undoubtedly believable that sdLDL is stickier/more oxidisable than other lipoproteins, but that becomes unimportant if it's not there in the first place, ie no metabolic syndrome. This would, simply, explain why reducing wheat products works to reduce sdLDL, unless they are replaced by equally insulinogenic "wheat free" comparable junk foods based on non wheat sugar sources. If it turned out that purple spotted LDL, induced by eating blackberries, was stickier than sdLDL we would no doubt have a drive to eliminate blackberries or (more likely) develop a drug to remove the purple spots.
Following your blog gives me the distinct impression that one day you really could become a cholesterol skeptic. Stranger things have happened.
Peter - See more at: http://www.cureality.com/blog/post/2008/10/03/does-high-cholesterol-cause-heart-disease.html
