Rendered at 17:01:42 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Cloudflare Workers.
brandonb 17 hours ago [-]
The 55 mg/dL target in this study is somewhere between the 1st and 5th percentile.
70 mg/dL (the control) is around the 10th percentile.
IMO, surprising that reductions at the low end still seem to yield such large benefits. I'd expect it to saturate much earlier.
kashunstva 9 hours ago [-]
> The <55 mg/dL group had a 33% lower rate of cardiovascular events. That’s surprising large, particularly for a 43-year study.
A 43-year study?! That would put the enrolment date starting in 1983, four years before the first clinically available statin.
The referenced study looked at cardiovascular endpoints at 3 years, not 43 years.
brandonb 3 hours ago [-]
Typo—thanks for pointing it out, I fixed the post.
erelong 8 hours ago [-]
I think there's been a pushback on this view lately, that this is only one factor to consider or that the studies leading to this kind of conclusion are flawed?
Modern cardiovascular risk calculators like PREVENT take all of biomarkers factors and give you a 30-year forecast of your risk of heart disease.
15 hours ago [-]
jvanderbot 13 hours ago [-]
Outlive is an excellent book, and one of the excellent discussions in that book is that there is no safe level of certain kinds of cholesterol. The details are fun do read up on.
It's somewhat bombastic, but a really excellent book for overall "next generation" health.
yfw 12 hours ago [-]
He also recommends people take rapamycin for longevity...
esperent 11 hours ago [-]
It's a while since I read the book but what I remember is him saying that he personally chooses to use it but the evidence is not strong enough to give a definite recommendation so basically, make your own choice.
jvanderbot 4 hours ago [-]
The book is overall excellent and extremely data driven. I have no idea why a book recommendation, on topic, can get downvoted on HN nowadays.
DANmode 13 hours ago [-]
Perhaps cholesterol is a (protective?) substance associated with a problem,
not the problem in and of itself.
westurner 14 hours ago [-]
Do steak and pork from Cheesecake Factory have cholesterol?
> Can Beta-Cyclodextrin treat (calcified) atherosclerotic plaques? And gout?
> What percentage of cardiovascular "plaque" is sugar alcohol and thus apparently treatable with β or α cyclodextrin, in controls and patients with conditions like Arteriosclerosis and Atherosclerosis?
70 mg/dL (the control) is around the 10th percentile.
IMO, surprising that reductions at the low end still seem to yield such large benefits. I'd expect it to saturate much earlier.
A 43-year study?! That would put the enrolment date starting in 1983, four years before the first clinically available statin.
The referenced study looked at cardiovascular endpoints at 3 years, not 43 years.
* ApoB or LDL cholesterol
* Blood pressure
* Inflammation (hs-CRP)
* Lipoprotein(a) (strongest hereditary risk factor)
* HbA1c (metabolic health)
* eGFR (kidneys)
Modern cardiovascular risk calculators like PREVENT take all of biomarkers factors and give you a 30-year forecast of your risk of heart disease.
It's somewhat bombastic, but a really excellent book for overall "next generation" health.
not the problem in and of itself.
Mentioning this again: Cyclodextrin apparently effectively treats atherosclerosis and arteriosclerosis. [1][2]
[1] "AI analysis of CT scans finds 42.9% of patients have coronary inflammation" https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50202532 :
> Can Beta-Cyclodextrin treat (calcified) atherosclerotic plaques? And gout?
> What percentage of cardiovascular "plaque" is sugar alcohol and thus apparently treatable with β or α cyclodextrin, in controls and patients with conditions like Arteriosclerosis and Atherosclerosis?
[2] "Cyclodextrin promotes atherosclerosis regression via macrophage reprogramming" (2016) https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/scitranslmed.aad6100