Medical Forum / General / Nutrition / October 2004
Cholesterol Myths?
|
|
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
|
|
|