[CraigS]

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

CraigS,

I hadn't read your previous post before replying to the original poster.

LDL is a measured variable - whilst at Uni, I worked in a pathology lab and spent one summer working in the department that did that particular test. I think the Medicare Schedule requires the pathology lab to "measure" the variable rather than "calculate" it before they pay for the test.

Would appreciate some first hand confirmation on whether the labs actually routinely do this for all screened samples. Happy to be corrected on this point. It wasn't always so.

LDL can be measured, but the last advice I had from a pathology lab, was that it was still calculated using the Friedewald equation. All of my historical LDL figures are within 0.5% of the calculated figure. It also varies precisely with the variance in the triglyceride figures, (which, as I mentioned, is factored into the Friedewald equation).

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

I'm not sure where you evidence comes from, but elevated cholesterol is a well established risk factor for atherosclerosis. The role of LDL vs HDL cholesterol is something that has only come out in the last couple of years.

Can you forward me the clinical trial reference papers which establish this with statistical significance?
Cholesterol is a clear risk factor for cardiac events and strokes.
Its causative role in atherosclerosis is constantly being researched. I am interested to know if any reputable trial has firmly established such a causative role.
Once again .. happy to be corrected.

Originally Posted by DavidTrap

Cholesterol is a complex thing, but one of the reasons that dieting probably fails is that most people don't follow strict diets for long enough periods of time. They might think they do, but human nature causes them to return to bad habits or they are not eating the "right" diet (hence my advice to see a dietician).

Can you forward me the clinical trial reference papers supporting the assertion that there has been a direct causal relationship established within statistical significance, between diet and serum cholesterol ? There are many so-called 'paradoxes' in this area, which support the contrary view.
Once again .. happy to be corrected in the light of quality evidence.

Originally Posted by David

Statins don't just lower cholesterol, but also "stabilises" the plaques via anti-inflammatory effects. Yes, there are side-effects to statins, but not everyone experiences those effects - like everything you do in life it is a risk-benefit analysis.

Agreed that statins act as anti-inflammatory agents.
Which is why is why I said:

Originally Posted by CraigS

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.

Cheers