You do realize that low cholesterol levels (lower than 160 mg/dl) are associated with a variety of health problems and excess morality. If my total cholesterol was 124 mg/dl I would see a doctor.
So far as I am aware, that is not true as long as there are no unexplained significant drops, and one is not on medication for lowering cholesterol. My understanding is that the Framingham Heart Study indicated that there was reduced mortality for those with total cholesterol levels below 150. I would be happy to take a peak at a reference for your information though.
My endocrinologist was the one that had the blood panel done, so he is well aware of my cholesterol levels and was also happy with my results. My GP was excited about my lipid levels too.
Thanks! My endo understands I don't want to take statins if I can avoid it at all. If my LDL is still too high, I might have to consider dietary changes, so hearing about experiences like yours is very helpful.
My pleasure. :)
While CVD risks appear to be unchanged for low cholesterol levels, you incur major health risks from other areas like stroke and cancer. A good example of a basic discussion is here.
Thanks, Brian. As I cannot locate Dr. Lavigne's study, looking at the discussion you provided, there is no mention of stroke. As for cancer, the discussions indicate that the purpose was to remove the variable of cholesterol lowering drugs from the association of cancer and lowER (not low) cholesterol; and to show that the lower cholesterol levels occur prior to cancer diagnoses, indicating that cancer was not the cause of the lower cholesterol. My impression is that they were trying to show that statins do not lead to cancer; not that lower cholesterol levels lead to cancer.
Furthermore, the type of cholesterol they were discussing was LDL, not total cholesterol. Another discussion on this study stated, "Lavigne noted that the LDL-cholesterol levels observed in the study 'were not that low,' with patients having LDL-cholesterol levels between 90 and 100 mg/dL when first assessed. LDL levels rose with time, seeming to peak around 135 mg/dL about eight years before cancer diagnosis, a trend that was similar in the control patients." http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/760891 135 is not low; it's considered borderline high by national standards. Less than 100 is considered ideal.
I really would like to look at the study. If anyone has access to it, please let me know. Thanks!
A normal level of total cholesterol is 200-240 mg/dl, not 135. Given the confusion, I really think it would help if I just gave you some references. Some really good books on the subject are "The Cholesterol Myth" and "Cholesterol Clarity."
You do realize that low cholesterol levels (lower than 160 mg/dl) are associated with ... excess moralityNow, we wouldn't want any of that, would we?
(God I love typos...
Brian, thank you. But I am not confused. To clarify, I was not referring to normal numbers; I was referring to established ideal numbers. Normal cholesterol numbers in a country where the top cause of death is CVD is not where I want to be. :) Also, the numbers I mentioned above (135 being boarder line high) from the study you referenced are not for total cholesterol; they are for LDL cholesterol.
An ideal total cholesterol by national standards is less than 200. Anything above 200 is considered high. An ideal LDL cholesterol by national standards is less than 100; 130-159 is boarder line high; 160-189 is high; and anything greater than 190 is very high. Personally, I do not think these numbers are conservative enough. Why? According to the Framingham Heart Study, and among other studies, an ideal total cholesterol level is less than 150. This is reiterated in a recently published study: http://www.jfponline.com/fileadmin/qhi/jfp/pdfs/6307/JFP_06307_Article1.pdf.
You mentioned earlier that a total cholesterol below 160 is associated with a variety of health problems and excess mortality. Where did you get this number? Is it in one of these books you referenced? If so, and if you have these books, will you please let me know what the study was that is referenced in the book supporting this statement? I would much rather get a look at the study/studies, rather than the book. Thanks!
I'm sorry, but when you quote papers like this it is clear any discussion is unlikely to be fruitful. Best of luck with your diet, we each must make our own choices.