A study reveals that LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years and that new attitudes need to be adopted in regards to the substance
“It shows that you do need a certain amount of LDL to gain more muscle mass. There’s no doubt you need both – the LDL and the HDL – and the truth is, it (cholesterol) is all good. You simply can’t remove all the ‘bad’ cholesterol from your body without serious problems occurring.”
Interesting, too bad the survey was among untrained old men.
[quote]Travis56 wrote:
A study reveals that LDL is not the evil Darth Vader of health it has been made out to be in recent years and that new attitudes need to be adopted in regards to the substance
“It shows that you do need a certain amount of LDL to gain more muscle mass. There’s no doubt you need both – the LDL and the HDL – and the truth is, it (cholesterol) is all good. You simply can’t remove all the ‘bad’ cholesterol from your body without serious problems occurring.”
[/quote]
Old men have many things going against them that younger guys do not. Do not think the testing results can lead to anything conclusive about your nutrition (if you are not ~55+).
[quote]MODOK wrote:
LDL and every other compound in the body exists for specific physiological reasons. Its amazing that the medical establishment has labeled LDL as “bad”. Its very foolish of them to attach to it for the general public such a black/white stigma. LDL is very important for many basic physiological functions. Lower TC lower than about 150 and the risk of many kinds of cancer goes UP by seven fold. I’ll bet not 1% of the population knows that, but its been proven to be true in a multitude of studies. If you are eating correctly, are not obese, and living a healthy life, your normal biological LDL and TC level is probably right where it needs to be for your physiology; regardless whether its “high or low” by AMA standards.[/quote]
QFT
This post was flagged by the community and is temporarily hidden.
I know that the study was for older men, just pointing out the study
[quote]Travis56 wrote:
I know that the study was for older men, just pointing out the study[/quote]
Then my comments were also simply for clarity.
Is it still safe to say LDLb is the bad kind?
Wasn’t it that animal fat makes cholesterol particles “bigger” (as such “more” harmless) while fructose makes them smaller and also increases VLDL production?
Oh, wait, fructose increases both LDLb and VLDL?
Double whammy.
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Lower TC lower than about 150 and the risk of many kinds of cancer goes UP by seven fold. I’ll bet not 1% of the population knows that, but its been proven to be true in a multitude of studies.[/quote]
Hey MODOK, can you post some of those studies? I’d appreciate it. Thanks.
[quote]Carlsbad wrote:
[quote]MODOK wrote:
Lower TC lower than about 150 and the risk of many kinds of cancer goes UP by seven fold. I’ll bet not 1% of the population knows that, but its been proven to be true in a multitude of studies.[/quote]
Hey MODOK, can you post some of those studies? I’d appreciate it. Thanks.[/quote]
or articles that mention it.
I believe in Taubes’ book GCBC he mentions this (though i think it was less than 160 and thought it related to stroke)
just having read the book, I have my notes handy.
one of the biggest studies about this whole topic:
Framingham chol <190= 3x more risk of colon cancer than those with >220
2x as more likely than those with >280 of any kind of cancer