Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us
Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network
Home
Discussion Groups
General
GeneralCardiologyVisionDentistryPharmacyLaboratoryNutritionAlternative
Diseases and Disorders
AIDSAlzheimer'sArthritisAsthmaCancerBreast CancerDiabetesEpilepsyGlaucomaHepatitisHerpesLupusProstate BPHProstate CancerProstatitisSinusitisTinnitus

Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2004

Tip: Looking for answers? Try searching our database.

Cholesterol Myths?

Thread view: 
Enable EMail Alerts  Start New Thread
Thread rating: 
chucks(at)pivot[dott]net - 15 Oct 2004 06:55 GMT
http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)

"The Cholesterol Myths : Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol
Cause Heart Disease" by Uffe Ravnskov was first published January 1997.  

Quotes:
1) The only effective way to lower cholesterol (blood levels, just the numbers) is with
drugs.

2) The “prudent” diet cannot lower cholesterol more than on average a few per cent.
Your body produces three to four times more cholesterol than you eat.

3) Cholesterol-lowering drugs, the statins, do prevent cardio-vascular disease, but this
is
due to other mechanisms than cholesterol-lowering.

4) Cholesterol is not a deadly poison

5) A high cholesterol is not dangerous by itself, but may reflect an unhealthy condition

6) There are dangers associated with an consumption of polyunsaturated oils.
==========
Karstens Rage - 16 Oct 2004 04:23 GMT
at wrote:
> http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
>
[quoted text clipped - 18 lines]
> 6) There are dangers associated with an consumption of polyunsaturated oils.
> ==========

Ya so whats your question?

k
chucks(at)pivot[dott]net - 18 Oct 2004 10:00 GMT
No question.  Statement: it is becoming evident that cholesterol causes ASCVD to the same
degree that firemen cause house fires!

>at wrote:
>> http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
>
>k
montygram - 18 Oct 2004 18:12 GMT
Two other books worthy of note are Thomas Moore's "Heart Failure," and
"The Cholesterol Conspiracy."  The lengths to which certain characters
involved in this moronic drama are willing to go to fudge facts,
intimidate scientists who have come to contrary conclusions, etc., is
amazing.  But these authors were not aware of the connection to free
radical mediated processes, so they were only able to understand the
issue on a certain level.  However, the data over the last decade or
so, demonstrating that oxysterols are the problem (free radical
damaged cholesterol) is, at this point, overwhelming, and it clears up
many of the paradoxes that many investigators have noticed.  For
example, while those on a very high saturated fatty acid diet (coconut
or palm plants) have just about no "chronic disease, they do have high
cholesterol levels.  Now that we know why (the saturated fatty acids
do not cause any free radical damage, whereas dietary polyunsaturated
fatty acids do), all the evidence (epidemiological, biochemical,
physiological, endocrinological, etc.) falls into place.  The bottom
line: eat pleny of antioxidant-rich foods and avoid foods with more
than a trace amount of polyunsaturated fatty acids.

> No question.  Statement: it is becoming evident that cholesterol causes ASCVD to the same
> degree that firemen cause house fires!
[quoted text clipped - 28 lines]
>
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Robert - 18 Oct 2004 19:49 GMT
<chucks (at) pivot[dott]net> wrote in message
news:417785d5.222676131@news.pivot.net...
> No question.  Statement: it is becoming evident that cholesterol causes ASCVD to the same
> degree that firemen cause house fires!

You mean the same myth that a blood clot in an artery does not cause heart
attacks because blood clotting can stop a person from bleeding to death.

> >at wrote:
> >> http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >>
> >> 2) The "prudent" diet cannot lower cholesterol more than on average a
few per cent.
> >> Your body produces three to four times more cholesterol than you eat.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Robert - 19 Oct 2004 00:17 GMT
<chucks (at) pivot[dott]net> wrote in message
news:417785d5.222676131@news.pivot.net...
> No question.  Statement: it is becoming evident that cholesterol causes ASCVD to the same
> degree that firemen cause house fires!

Firemen close the streets when a fire is detected in order to put out a
fire. The closure of the street is analogist to closing circulation. Without
the firemen present the street would still be open. There is a direct
correlation with the street being closed and firemen present. There is no
correlation with the streets being open or closed and the fire.
The closure of the artery is structural in the form of lipids. To say that
cholesterol is not involved is a myth.

> >at wrote:
> >> http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> >>
> >> 2) The "prudent" diet cannot lower cholesterol more than on average a
few per cent.
> >> Your body produces three to four times more cholesterol than you eat.
> >>
[quoted text clipped - 14 lines]
>
> ----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Uncensored-Secure Usenet
News==----
> http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000
Newsgroups
> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Eric Bohlman - 19 Oct 2004 08:56 GMT
> fire. The closure of the artery is structural in the form of lipids.
> To say that cholesterol is not involved is a myth.

There are several reasons why arguments like this get mired in serious
confusion.  The first is a failure to distinguish between *serum*
cholesterol and *dietary* cholesterol.  It is true that in most people,
there's little correlation between the two.  It's quite correct that the
vast majority of the cholesterol in your blood was manufactured by your
body rather than directly consumed in your diet.  But it's an illogical
leap to then conclude that diet has no effect on blood cholesterol.  It
does, but the mechanism doesn't involve the cholesterol content of food to
any great extent (I'm sure *you're* aware of this, but many people aren't).

It's "common sense" that if your blood cholesterol is too high, it's
because you're eating too much cholesterol.  It's also "common sense" that
someone who had appendictis once is more likely to have it in the future
than someone who never had it.  It's also "common sense" that a heavier
object falls faster than a lighter one.  "Common sense" and "truth" have a
rather tenuous relationship.

Another is the cognitive distortion and logical fallacy of dichotomous
thinking.  It's certainly true that cholesterol levels are not the *sole*
risk factor for CAD.  There are certainly many people who have "perfect"
cholesterol levels and develop CAD and even die from it.  But it't
completely illogical to demand that any risk factor account for either all
of the risk or none of it.  CAD is multifactorial.  Nobody's ever seriously
proposed that it's unifactorial, and arguing against the latter is an
example of yet another logical fallacy, the straw man.

Another form of false dichotomy is the assumption that either "more is
better" or "less is better."  The fact that cholesterol levels can actually
be too low and that the body needs cholesterol for many metabolic purposes
in no way implies that cholesterol levels can never be too high.  The big
problem here is that people apply essentially religious modes of reasoning
to scientific matters.  Many religions divide foods into "good" and "bad"
categories (kosher/treyf, halal/haram, etc.).  But science talks about "how
much," not about "any at all."  That just isn't compatible with simplistic
religious reasoning (more sophisticated religious reasoning usually finds
virtue in moderation, which is a bit more compatible with science).
Jan - 19 Oct 2004 09:43 GMT
> > fire. The closure of the artery is structural in the form of lipids.
> > To say that cholesterol is not involved is a myth.
[quoted text clipped - 23 lines]
> of the risk or none of it.  CAD is multifactorial.  Nobody's ever seriously
> proposed that it's unifactorial, and arguing against the latter is an

> example of yet another logical fallacy, the straw man.
>
[quoted text clipped - 8 lines]
> religious reasoning (more sophisticated religious reasoning usually finds
> virtue in moderation, which is a bit more compatible with science).

I agree. There seems to be an ideal cholesterol level where the
mortality is lowest and that is probably between 4.0-5.0 mmol/l
(160-200 mg/dl). I also agree that antioxidants are important to
prevent the oxidation of LDL-cholesterol.
http://hermes.hhp.ufl.edu/keepingfit/ARTICLE/ideal.HTM

Jan
Robert - 19 Oct 2004 19:25 GMT
> > fire. The closure of the artery is structural in the form of lipids.
> > To say that cholesterol is not involved is a myth.
[quoted text clipped - 6 lines]
> body rather than directly consumed in your diet.  But it's an illogical
> leap to then conclude that diet has no effect on blood cholesterol.  It

Drugs are effective against both and therefore no distinction is necessary.
Cholesterol is present in the artery chocking off the blood circulation so
the reason why cholesterol is there is not an issue only that it is there.

> does, but the mechanism doesn't involve the cholesterol content of food to
> any great extent (I'm sure *you're* aware of this, but many people aren't).

You can reduce your cholesterol level by dieting so if that works then fine
but if you can not reduce enough then drugs is the only way to go.

> It's "common sense" that if your blood cholesterol is too high, it's
> because you're eating too much cholesterol.  It's also "common sense" that
> someone who had appendictis once is more likely to have it in the future
> than someone who never had it.  It's also "common sense" that a heavier
> object falls faster than a lighter one.  "Common sense" and "truth" have a
> rather tenuous relationship.

Which is way do not rely on common sense and rely on a blood test. The blood
test is objective and not subjective.

> Another is the cognitive distortion and logical fallacy of dichotomous
> thinking.  It's certainly true that cholesterol levels are not the *sole*
[quoted text clipped - 4 lines]
> proposed that it's unifactorial, and arguing against the latter is an
> example of yet another logical fallacy, the straw man.

That is true and the other fallacy is that because cholesterol is good in
many ways that is therefore can not be bad in the arteries, the firemen and
the fire arguement.

> Another form of false dichotomy is the assumption that either "more is
> better" or "less is better."  The fact that cholesterol levels can actually
> be too low and that the body needs cholesterol for many metabolic purposes
> in no way implies that cholesterol levels can never be too high.
True again as well as in some situations a high cholesterol may actually be
good but when it is used as a assesment in CAD risks we are talking about a
young persons future risk.

The big
> problem here is that people apply essentially religious modes of reasoning
> to scientific matters.  Many religions divide foods into "good" and "bad"
> categories (kosher/treyf, halal/haram, etc.).  But science talks about "how
> much," not about "any at all."  That just isn't compatible with simplistic
> religious reasoning (more sophisticated religious reasoning usually finds
> virtue in moderation, which is a bit more compatible with science).

One involves a science and a blood cholesterol level and the other involves
philosophy in arguing which foods are good or not good in reducing blood
cholesterol levels.
chucks(at)pivot[dott]net - 20 Oct 2004 06:03 GMT
Don't you just love Taxonomists!

>> fire. The closure of the artery is structural in the form of lipids.
>> To say that cholesterol is not involved is a myth.
[quoted text clipped - 35 lines]
>religious reasoning (more sophisticated religious reasoning usually finds
>virtue in moderation, which is a bit more compatible with science).
chucks(at)pivot[dott]net - 20 Oct 2004 06:01 GMT
Never said it wasn't involved! it's just not causal.
Thought the analogy would be clear, my fault...

><chucks (at) pivot[dott]net> wrote in message
>news:417785d5.222676131@news.pivot.net...
[quoted text clipped - 49 lines]
>Newsgroups
>> ---= East/West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
Robert - 20 Oct 2004 09:52 GMT
<chucks (at) pivot[dott]net> wrote in message
news:4175f0e3.31805836@news.pivot.net...
> Never said it wasn't involved! it's just not causal.
> Thought the analogy would be clear, my fault...

Need to take it one step at a time Chuck. There are many diseases out there
that they haven't got a clue as to what causes them or even factors related
to them.
They usually follow the pathophysiology by factors involved and trace it
back to the point of origin or inciting event.
If they knew what is damaging the artery to bring about an inflammatory
response then they could target that.
Daniel - 19 Oct 2004 14:05 GMT
at wrote:
> http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
>
> "The Cholesterol Myths : Exposing the Fallacy that Saturated Fat and Cholesterol
> Cause Heart Disease" by Uffe Ravnskov was first published January 1997.

-------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Ravnskov is a serious, published scholar and medical scientist.
He attempts to make the case that cholesterol is unrelated to heart
disease.

The cornerstones of his argument are inconsistent benefit seen in
intervention trials and ostensible lack of association between cholesterol
levels and degree of atherosclerosis.

I believe that his conclusions are in error, owing to a fatal flaw in his
data analysis.

He has restricted his data analysis to the literature related to populations
with high cholesterol levels (i.e. above 150-160) and to dietary
interventions
which are ineffective in driving cholesterol levels down to below 150-160.

The following facts remain:

1. Atherosclerosis is virtually unknown in populations with blood
cholesterols below 150-60.

2. Atherosclerosis is uniformly low in populations on very low fat
diets.

3. There is a clear statistical relationship between incidence of clinically
significant coronary artery disease and pre-morbid serum cholesterol.
This is different than in correlating the extent of atherosclerotic lesions.
The reason for this disparity is because once atherosclerosis is intiated
(fatty streak progresses to a small atheroma which progresses to a larger
atheroma), other factors are more important to the progression of the
atheroma than serum cholesterol, per se.  This is where homocysteine
and free radicals and all that other good stuff may come in.

But if serum cholesterol is below a critical threshold level (operationally
around 150-60) then there is no fatty streak and no atherosclerosis.
And when you drive cholesterol levels down by more than 20%, you
see stabilization and/or improvement in pre-existing lesions in many
people.

Most harmful to Ravnskov's thesis are the statin data.  Consistently,
the statin studies show improved cardiovascular disease, lower incidence
of heart attacks, lower incidence of strokes, improved overall mortality,
no increased risk of cancer or hemorrhagic stroke, etc.  This is
also consistent with the diet data, where moderate fat restriction
did not lower cholesterol dramatically and where there were inconsistent
health benefits.  But marked fat restriction consistently improved
blood pressure, insulin, weight, heart disease symptoms, pre-existing
coronary lesions, and overall mortality.

So Ravnskov attempted to explain away the statin data by claiming that
the effects of statins had nothing at all do do with cholesterol.

His arguments were as follows:

1. Statins effective for women, "surprising because ...a high cholesterol
is not a risk factor for women."

2. Old individuals protected as much as younger; "high cholesterol
not a risk factor in people over 50"

3. Stokes reduced also; "no studies showed a high cholesterol was
a risk factor for stroke."

4.  Patients with coronary disease protected, though high cholesterol
only a weak risk factor for people who already had a coronary."

5. Statins protected whether cholesterol high or low, "though most
studies showed a normal or low cholesterol is no risk factor
for heart disease."

The problems with these arguments (as with Dr. Ravnskov's whole thesis)
is in his definition of "high cholesterol."  (But I should also add that
studies certainly do exist to correlate cholesterol with stroke risk).

What Ravnskov call's "normal" cholesterol just means "average" cholesterol.
What the Stanford U Med School's "Heart Healthy" book calls a
healthy cholesterol is one below 160, at which point heart disease
becomes an unimportant problem.  No cholesterol above 150-160,
little or no risk of heart disease.

So cholesterol is critically important, essential, and, by my definition
causal to heart disease.  If you can keep your cholesterol below 150
with whatever diet you like, you will have a very low risk of heart disease.
I'd maintain that a low fat/high veggie/high fiber/low sugar/low salt
diet is the best way to do this, because of other health benefits
(lower blood pressure, lower insulin, lower cancer risk, more
folate and B6, etc.).

This does not deny the fact that there are many mitigating factors
in people with high (i.e. above 150-60) cholesterols:

If you've got a high total cholesterol, it's helpful to have low
homocysteine levels, to have high HDLs, maybe to have low
serum iron, to take aspirin so that your platelets don't aggregate,
to eat grapes, to take a drink or two per day, to exercise aerobically,
to take vitamin E, and all sorts of things.

But people on quasi-vegetarian diets (moderate low fat meat is probably not
a problem and may help avoid problems with extremes of vegetarianism)
have low cholesterols, low heart disease, low cancer, and favorable
longevity.  Won't work for everyone, but will work for a great many.

I agree with Ravnskov that moderately low fat diets don't seem to
do a whole lot of good and that, once you are in the elevated cholesterol
range (above 150-160) there are other factors as important or more
important than cholesterol per se.  But - once again - no elevated
cholesterol, virtually no heart disease.  It's really just that simple.
And nothing else save lowering cholesterol has been shown to be
effective in reversing heart disease, once established.

he following data from the MRFIT Study clearly show the linear trend between
serum cholesterol and CHD risk:

        Mean Serum    CHD deaths  Relative
Decile  Cholesterol    per 1000     Risk
------  -----------   ----------  --------
   1        153           3.16       1.00
   2        175           3.32       1.05
   3        187           4.15       1.31
   4        198           4.21       1.33
   5        208           5.43       1.72
   6        216           5.81       1.84
   7        226           6.94       2.20
   8        238           7.35       2.33
   9        253           9.10       2.88
  10        296          13.05       4.13

So, even though there are other risk factors for CHD when cholsesterol
is above
150, cholesterol is still a major, perhaps the major, risk factor.
______________________________________________________________________
Jan - 19 Oct 2004 17:02 GMT
> at wrote:
> > http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
[quoted text clipped - 38 lines]
> But if serum cholesterol is below a critical threshold level (operationally
> around 150-60) then there is no fatty streak and no atherosclerosis.
----
> I agree with Ravnskov that moderately low fat diets don't seem to
> do a whole lot of good and that, once you are in the elevated cholesterol
[quoted text clipped - 13 lines]
>     2        175           3.32       1.05
>     3        187           4.15       1.31

I think that we should rather talk about the _total_ mortality than CHD
mortality. According to the same MRFIT study the _total_ mortality
increases when serum cholesterol is below 160 mg/dl. The
within-population curve of the same study shows that the lowest total
mortality is somewhere between 180 and 200 mg/dl (4.5-5.0 mmol/l).

Jan
Daniel - 19 Oct 2004 18:52 GMT
>>at wrote:
>>
[quoted text clipped - 105 lines]
> within-population curve of the same study shows that the lowest total
> mortality is somewhere between 180 and 200 mg/dl (4.5-5.0 mmol/l).

It's useless to talk about total mortality as there are too many factors
involved
For example Asians have very low serum cholesterol and very low CHD
risk, but their mortality is high because of hemmorhagic stroke due to
high salt consumption
Also depression and mortality are not linked to low cholesterol levels
because low cholesterol levels cause them, but actually because they
cause low cholesterol levels
Depression and diseases cause eating disorders or lack of appetite
resulting in less dietary cholesterol consumed and less cholesterol
synthesized by the body
Some diseases that are well known to cause low cholesterol levels are:
cancers, tumors, AIDS, leukemia and almost any chronic disease
Bottom line: the disease process causes low cholesterol levels;
the low cholesterol doesn't cause the diseases
That's why looking at total mortality is completely useless
Many people with serum cholesterol below 160 have cancer

Daniel
Jan - 19 Oct 2004 19:39 GMT
> > I think that we should rather talk about the _total_ mortality than CHD
> > mortality. According to the same MRFIT study the _total_ mortality
[quoted text clipped - 19 lines]
> That's why looking at total mortality is completely useless
> Many people with serum cholesterol below 160 have cancer

I think that the high total mortality/low cholesterol levels could also
be a marker of a deficient diet. Unsupplemented vegan diet would fit to
that picture. On average vegans have low cholesterol levels (mean 167
mg/dl) and still they've got an increased risk of stroke and some other
diseases. I am not quite convinced that very low cholesterol levels are
totally caused by diseases.

Jan
Robert - 19 Oct 2004 22:21 GMT
> > > I think that we should rather talk about the _total_ mortality than
> CHD
[quoted text clipped - 34 lines]
>
> Jan

There are exceptions to everything and genetic polymorphism gene dosage
presenting with variable findings.

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/abetalipoproteinemia
Marcio Watanabe - 19 Oct 2004 20:07 GMT
>Also depression and mortality are not linked to low cholesterol levels
>because low cholesterol levels cause them, but actually because they
>cause low cholesterol levels

Mortality causes low cholesterol levels?!  Wow, that's not a step one
wants to take to lower cholesterol.   I've read a lot of dumb
statements in this thread but this one takes the cake.
Daniel - 19 Oct 2004 20:15 GMT
>>Also depression and mortality are not linked to low cholesterol levels
>>because low cholesterol levels cause them, but actually because they
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> wants to take to lower cholesterol.   I've read a lot of dumb
> statements in this thread but this one takes the cake.  

Ehmm... I of course meant "diseases"

Daniel
Robert - 19 Oct 2004 19:48 GMT
> at wrote:
> > http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
[quoted text clipped - 10 lines]
> intervention trials and ostensible lack of association between cholesterol
> levels and degree of atherosclerosis.

Did he look at cross sections of arteries and find cholesterol there or if
not what is the actual material clogging the arteries?
Not everyone with a high cholesterol will correlate with the degree of
atherosclerosis and why would they. They are individuals with differing
genetics and diet and precipitating cofactors.
Intervention trial failures does not prove or disprove cofactors in CAD.

> I believe that his conclusions are in error, owing to a fatal flaw in his
> data analysis.
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> interventions
> which are ineffective in driving cholesterol levels down to below 150-160.

Good pick up but some old literature related to old techniques in lipid
analysis so contradictory findings would and can be expected. They only did
total cholesterol levels then.

> The following facts remain:
>
> 1. Atherosclerosis is virtually unknown in populations with blood
> cholesterols below 150-60.
You need to look at subfractions of lipids and not just totals.

> 2. Atherosclerosis is uniformly low in populations on very low fat
> diets.
Generalizations are used when specifics are lacking. Eventually each persons
genetic profile will be used to make dietary decisions.

> 3. There is a clear statistical relationship between incidence of clinically
> significant coronary artery disease and pre-morbid serum cholesterol.
> This is different than in correlating the extent of atherosclerotic lesions.

You are counting the firemen when eventually the cause of the fire will be
found and hopefully render the number of firemen harmless.

> The reason for this disparity is because once atherosclerosis is intiated
> (fatty streak progresses to a small atheroma which progresses to a larger
> atheroma), other factors are more important to the progression of the
> atheroma than serum cholesterol, per se.  This is where homocysteine
> and free radicals and all that other good stuff may come in.

Correct.

> But if serum cholesterol is below a critical threshold level (operationally
> around 150-60) then there is no fatty streak and no atherosclerosis.

You can have a heart attack with an LDL of 100 if most of that LDL is
composed of Lp(a) even in the presence of a  normal HDL.

> And when you drive cholesterol levels down by more than 20%, you
> see stabilization and/or improvement in pre-existing lesions in many
> people.
At present that's all they can do.
montygram - 19 Oct 2004 22:44 GMT
The cellular/molecular evidence is clear:  it is the oxysterols
causing the problems, but when you take the serum tests, they don't
separate clean cholesterol from oxdized cholesterol, so they can't
tell whether you have a large amount of your cholesterol oxidized or
not.  Just stay away from more than a trace amount of dietary
polyunsaturated fatty acids and eat an assortment of high antioxidant
foods and then you won't have to worry about this in the first place.

> at wrote:
> > http://www.ravnskov.nu/cholesterol.htm (author's web site)
[quoted text clipped - 134 lines]
> 150, cholesterol is still a major, perhaps the major, risk factor.
> ______________________________________________________________________
Robert - 20 Oct 2004 09:57 GMT
> The cellular/molecular evidence is clear:  it is the oxysterols
> causing the problems, but when you take the serum tests, they don't
[quoted text clipped - 3 lines]
> polyunsaturated fatty acids and eat an assortment of high antioxidant
> foods and then you won't have to worry about this in the first place.

Assuming that is true then the local redox potential at the arterial level
determines the ratio and not the cholesterol that is being acted upon making
the type of dietary cholesterol not that important.
montygram - 20 Oct 2004 23:09 GMT
Right, as long as you don't really heat up high cholesterol foods
while cooking exposed to air or cook it in polyunsaturated fats, the
cholesterol, which I'm assuming is from fresh food, shouldn't oxidize
too much.  When it's in your body, whether it's exogenous or
endogenous, it can be oxidized if you've got a lot of oxidative stress
going on.

Here are some interesting recent abstracts:

J Intern Med. 2004 Nov;256(5):413-20.   
Oxidized low-density lipoprotein in plasma is a prognostic marker of
subclinical atherosclerosis development in clinically healthy men.

Wallenfeldt K, Fagerberg B, Wikstrand J, Hulthe J.

Institute of Internal Medicine, Sahlgrenska University Hospital,
Goteborg University, Gothenburg, Sweden.

Abstract. Wallenfeldt K, Fagerberg B, Wikstrand J, Hulthe J (Institute
of Internal Medicine and Sahlgrenska University Hospital, Goteborg
University, Gothenburg; and Medical Advisors at AstraZeneca, Molndal,
Sweden). Oxidized low-density lipoprotein in plasma is a prognostic
marker of subclinical atherosclerosis development in clinically
healthy men. J Intern Med 2004; 256: 413-420.Objective. To investigate
the association between plasma oxidized low-density lipoprotein
(OxLDL) and the progress of clinically silent atherosclerosis, as
measured by ultrasound in the carotid arteries. Design. Prospective,
observational study with more than 3 years of follow-up. Setting.
One-centre study at university hospital. Material and methods. The
subjects (n = 326) were obtained by stratified sampling from a
population sample of men who were 58 years old at baseline. Carotid
artery intima-media thickness (IMT) was measured bilaterally by
high-resolution B-mode ultrasound at baseline and after follow-up.
Plasma OxLDL cholesterol concentrations and conventional
cardiovascular risk factors were measured at study entry. Automated
measurements of IMT were performed. Plaque occurrence and size were
assessed (plaque status). Plasma OxLDL at entry was measured by a
specific monoclonal antibody, mAb-4E6. Results. OxLDL at entry, but
not LDL cholesterol, was associated with the number and size of
plaques at follow-up (P = 0.008), also after adjustment for plaque
status at entry (P = 0.033). The plasma OxLDL concentration at entry
was associated with change in carotid artery IMT (r = 0.17; P = 0.002)
and in a stepwise multiple regression analysis this association
remained after adjustment for other cardiovascular risk factors (P =
0.005). Conclusions. These results provide new information, supporting
the concept that circulating OxLDL was associated with the silent
phase of atherosclerosis progression in clinically healthy men
independently of conventional risk factors.

Arch Immunol Ther Exp (Warsz). 2004 Jul-Aug;52(4):225-39.       

Rethinking oxidized low-density lipoprotein, its role in atherogenesis
and the immune responses associated with it.

Shaw PX.

University of California, San Diego, La Jolla, CA 92093, USA.
pshow@ucsd.edu

Atherosclerosis is a chronic inflammatory disease, resulting from
hyperlipidemia and a complex interplay of many environmental,
metabolic, and genetic risk factors. The unregulated macrophage uptake
of cholesterol and lipids through modified forms of low-density
lipoprotein (LDL), such as "OxLDL", transforms macrophages into "foam
cells" to form the initial morphological lesion (the fatty streak).
The modification of LDL not only enhances its uptake by macrophages,
but also changes the natural structures of these otherwise ubiquitous
molecules to generate a variety of modified lipids and proteins that
represent highly immunogenic neo-determinants. For example, in ApoE-/-
mice, autoantibody titers to epitopes on OxLDL are correlated with the
extent of atherosclerosis. Similarly, oxidative stress on cellular
membranes could also give rise to "oxidation-specific" epitopes and
common autoantibodies. However, OxLDL is not uniform, but rather
contains complex structures, ranging from a small conformational
change in surface lipids to the breakdown of the peptide chain.
Therefore, the immune responses to the variety of OxLDL and their
association to atherosclerosis progression are very different. For
example, phosphorylcholine (PC) is a natural component of
phospholipids and exists in LDL and plasma membranes. "Natural"
antibodies against PC can distinctively react to PC on bacteria, OxLDL
and apoptotic cells, but not to those on unoxidized phospholipids,
native LDL and viable cells, which suggests the broader role of such
autoantibodies in maintaining the homeostasis of the host. While
malondialdehyde-modified structures resemble more the exogenous
changes and associate with advanced stage of lesion, they are more
likely to associate with adaptive immunity.

Sichuan Da Xue Xue Bao Yi Xue Ban. 2004 Sep;35(5):690-2.       

[Study on serum oxidized low density lipoprotein and anti-oxidized
competence in patient with coronary heart disease]

[Article in Chinese]

Li GX, Li P.

Laboratory department, West China Hospital, Sichuan university,
Chengdu 610041, China.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze the serum oxidized low density lipoprotein
(OX-LDL) and anti-oxidized competence in patients with coronary heart
disease, and to explore the correlation between OX-LDL and
atherosclerosis (AS). METHODS: The samples of fasting blood-serum were
collected from 50 patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) and 50
normal controls with no cardiovascular disease, diabetes mellitus and
nephrosis. The levels of triglyceride (TG), cholesterol (Chol), high
density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-C), low density
lipoprotein-cholesterol (LDL-C), apoproteinA1 (Apo A1), apoproteinB100
(Apo B100), lipoprotein a (Lpa), OX-LDL, lipid oxidation (LPO) and
anti-oxidized competence (AOC) were detected. RESULTS: The levels of
TG, Chol, HDL-C, LDL-C, Apo B100 and NO were no difference between the
patient with CHD and the normal controls (P>0.05). Lpa, OX-LDL and LPO
were significantly higher than those of controls (P<0.05). ApoA1 and
AOC were significantly lower than those of controls (P<0.01).
CONCLUSION: There were no differences in respect to TG, Chol, HDL,
LDL, Apo B100 between the CHD patients and normals, but OX-LDL was
significantly higher than that of controls (P<0.05) and AOC was
significantly lower than that of controls. These data suggest that
OX-LDL and AOC promise to find applications as more sensitive and
valid markers for evaluating CHD.

J Nutr Biochem. 2004 Sep;15(9):540-7.       
 
Decreased aortic early atherosclerosis and associated risk factors in
hypercholesterolemic hamsters fed a high- or mid-oleic acid oil
compared to a high-linoleic acid oil.

Nicolosi RJ, Woolfrey B, Wilson TA, Scollin P, Handelman G, Fisher R.

Department of Health and Clinical Sciences, Center for Health and
Disease Research, University of Massachusetts Lowell, 3 Solomont Way,
Suite 4, Lowell, MA 01854, USA. Robert_Nicolosi@uml.edu

Currently, diets higher in polyunsaturated fat are believed to lower
blood cholesterol concentrations, and thus reduce atherosclerosis,
greater than diets containing high amounts of saturated or possibly
even monounsaturated fat. The present study was designed to
investigate the effect of diets containing mid- or high-linoleic oil
versus the typical high-linoleic sunflower oil on LDL oxidation and
the development of early atherosclerosis in a hypercholesterolemic
hamster model. Animals were fed a hypercholesterolemic diet containing
10% mid-oleic sunflower oil, high-oleic olive oil, or high-linoleic
sunflower oil (wt/wt) plus 0.4% cholesterol (wt/wt) for 10 weeks.
After 10 weeks of dietary treatment, only the animals fed the
mid-oleic sunflower oil had significant reductions in plasma LDL-C
levels (-17%) compared to the high-linoleic sunflower oil group. The
high-oleic olive oil-fed hamsters had significantly higher plasma
triglyceride levels (+41%) compared to the high-linoleic sunflower
oil-fed hamsters. The tocopherol levels in plasma LDL were
significantly higher in hamsters fed the mid-oleic sunflower oil
(+77%) compared to hamsters fed either the high-linoleic sunflower or
high-oleic olive oil. Measurements of LDL oxidation parameters,
indicated that hamsters fed the mid-oleic sunflower oil and high-oleic
olive oil diets had significantly longer lag phase (+66% and +145%,
respectively) and significantly lower propagation rates (-26% and
-44%, respectively) and conjugated dienes formed (-17% and -25%,
respectively) compared to the hamsters fed the high-linoleic sunflower
oil. Relative to the high-linoleic sunflower oil, aortic cholesterol
ester was reduced by -14% and -34% in the mid-oleic sunflower oil and
high-oleic olive oil groups, respectively, with the latter reaching
statistical significance. Although there were no significant
associations between plasma lipids and lipoprotein cholesterol with
aortic total cholesterol and cholesterol esters for any of the groups,
the lag phase of conjugated diene formation was inversely associated
with both aortic total and esterified cholesterol in the high-oleic
olive oil-fed hamsters (r = -0.69, P < 0.05). The present study
suggests that mid-oleic sunflower oil reduces risk factors such as
lipoprotein cholesterol and oxidative stress associated with early
atherosclerosis greater than the typical high-linoleic sunflower oil
in hypercholesterolemic hamsters. The high-oleic olive oil not only
significantly reduced oxidative stress but also reduced aortic
cholesterol ester, a hallmark of early aortic atherosclerosis greater
than the typical high-linoleic sunflower oil.

> > The cellular/molecular evidence is clear:  it is the oxysterols
> > causing the problems, but when you take the serum tests, they don't
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> determines the ratio and not the cholesterol that is being acted upon making
> the type of dietary cholesterol not that important.
Wolfbrother - 21 Oct 2004 21:02 GMT
> Right, as long as you don't really heat up high cholesterol foods
> while cooking exposed to air or cook it in polyunsaturated fats, the
[quoted text clipped - 181 lines]
> > determines the ratio and not the cholesterol that is being acted upon making
> > the type of dietary cholesterol not that important.

Some interesting studies.  Now I know heating food is not a good thing
for various reasons, but just how bad is the affect on cholesterol.
For example eggs which have a lot of cholesterol.  I know raw eggs are
far better than cooked but I really would rather eat them cooked
though usually just lightly cooked.
MattLB - 21 Oct 2004 14:33 GMT
> > The cellular/molecular evidence is clear:  it is the oxysterols
> > causing the problems, but when you take the serum tests, they don't
[quoted text clipped - 7 lines]
> determines the ratio and not the cholesterol that is being acted upon making
> the type of dietary cholesterol not that important.

That's true. Its all about stages. LDL causes the problems because
it's a) smaller than the other lipoproteins and b) hangs around far
longer in the blood. Both of these mean it is far more likely to end
up lodged in an artery wall. Whether it then leads to fatty streak
formation depends on whether the protein in the lipoprotein gets
oxidised or not. The lipid part of the lipoprotein is irrelevant,
beyond providing the free radicals that oxidise the protein, since
it's damaged protein that macrophages react to.

LDL contains about as much cholesterol as VLDL and IDL, but it
contains less of the other types of fat, so is proportionally enriched
in cholesterol. This is where the more cholesterol = heart disease
idea springs from: LDL lodges in arteries, LDL is richer in
cholesterol, therefore cholesterol is to blame. It's correlation
rather than causation.

MattLB
 
Sign In
Join
My Latest Posts
My Monitored Threads
My Blog
My Photo Gallery
My Profile
My Homepage

Start New Thread
Enable EMail Alerts
Rate this Thread



©2008 Advenet LLC   Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.