Paper - Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review - 2016
Paper - Lack of an association or an inverse association between low-density-lipoprotein cholesterol and mortality in the elderly: a systematic review - 2016
TLDR: The current advice that LDL is "bad cholesterol", appears to be outdated, and the actual situation is more complex. In people over 60 high LDL appeared to be protective for mortality.
Conclusions: High LDL-C is inversely associated with mortality in most people over 60 years. This finding is inconsistent with the cholesterol hypothesis (ie, that cholesterol, particularly LDL-C, is inherently atherogenic). Since elderly people with high LDL-C live as long or longer than those with low LDL-C, our analysis provides reason to question the validity of the cholesterol hypothesis. Moreover, our study provides the rationale for a re-evaluation of guidelines recommending pharmacological reduction of LDL-C in the elderly as a component of cardiovascular disease prevention strategies.
Full Paper at https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/27292972/
Related to, and following up on the LMHR paper from https://hackertalks.com/post/5835924
.
So this was published almost a decade ago. Has there been any consensus since then? I have not heard about anything other than the standard approach to reducing cholesterol from my doctor.
Consensus? No.
More research, yes: https://www.dietdoctor.com/cholesterol/elevated-ldl-cholesterol
One of the big problems with the lipid hypothesis, is its based on very low relative risk, not absolute risk. And I think the even bigger problem, is pharmacological interests make a lot of money from selling drugs, so they send out the sales reps to tell all the doctors about the research that promotes the use of the drug. There is no nutritional consensus outside of the pharmacy reps, there's barely any money going into nutrition research outside of industrial investment which is already biased.
Ancel Keys has done a huge disservice to humanity, with his fraudulent research. He threw away data that didn't fit his theories, he cherry picked data to include to promote his theories. Whatever you want to call what he was doing, it wasn't science.
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/records-found-in-dusty-basement-undermine-decades-of-dietary-advice/
https://www.dietdoctor.com/the-hidden-truth-behind-ancel-keys-famous-fat-graph
Well, that's not comforting for someone with familial hypercholesterolemia. Is LDL > 200 better or worse than taking a statin and ezetimibe in my 30's? (I don't expect you to answer that.) Right now I have a doctor who treats high cholesterol by the book without giving it too much thought. I wonder if I should find someone else who is interested in considering these publications.