|
To the best of my knowledge, no reputable study has ever come anywhere near to proving that serum cholesterol is the direct cause of artherosclerosis.
Within 'normal' lifestyles, ingested cholesterol has little to zero direct effect on serum cholesterol. Where it seems to have an indirect effect is on the calculation of the LDL (or so-called 'bad cholesterol'), figure. Serum triglycerides are usually factored into the formula used to calculate LDL. To the best of my knowledge, (others may be able to confirm this), the LDL figure pathologists report, is rarely a directly measured figure. As a result, if your triglycerides are up, due eating saturated fatty foods, your LDL 'figure' will go up in a way defined by the formula. This doesn't necessarily mean that your LDL has increased.
Exercise reduces the triglycerides and thereby, shows up in a reduction in the LDL figure.
Remember, for those without diagnosed artherosclerosis, 'elevated' cholesterol is only one of about five or six 'risk factors. In my case, I've found that GPs rarely consider the other factors, before reaching for the prescription pad.
It is still possible that 'elevated' cholesterol is a symptom of artherosclerosis but not necessarily, the cause. Statin therapy would then only be an attempt at treating the symptom .. and it carries risk.
If you have a confirmed, diagnosed case of artherosclerosis, or have other risk factors going against you (genetics, high blood pressure, diabetes, low measured HDL, high percentage body fat, etc), then the risk of statin therapy is probably outweighed .. so take the pills.
Statin therapy should be considered alongside the other risk factors and should not be the single dependent factor. I recommend having a careful look at the reputable information you can get your hands on eg: National Heart & Kidney foundation reports, etc .. before making the decision.
I have found numerous GPs, who don't seem to be following the wording of the NHF NKF, etc recommendations/material, in detail.
(My 2 Cents worth).
Cheers
|