No it was not God.
It is the fact that Americans have so much to eat they gorge themselves with all kinds of food that God did nnot reccommend they eat. Like all of the fast foods cooked in rancid oils and bad handling.
Most ignore the good veggies and fruits and nuts, And water.

All I know is that before I started taking a Statin my LDL was over 180. It is now 63. Explanation please. Could I lower my LDL by diet alone? My cholesterol problem is hereditary by the way. I just know that no other cholesterol medicine seemed to work before this.

I agree with anthe that our scociety over eats and eat the wrong foods.

Happy2, the reason a person's LDL cholesterol drops so much when taking a statin is because the statin inhibits the body's ability to make cholesterol. This is why you get such a drastic drop in LDL cholesterol in your lab reports.

My point in my original post was; is LDL cholesterol really Bad? Or do the pharma giants call it "bad" because they have a pill to sell us?
Does lowering LDL REALLY reduce our chances of a heart atack or stroke? Or do we leave the doctors office happy that our LDL is lower, and live with the perception that we have reduced our risk of a heat attack? Something to think about.

In my case I can't say that any good or bad cholesterol is inherited. I know that my mother lived to be over 90 years old had 12 children, only 5 lived. She never took any meds for anything.
We go into the doctors office and your blood pressure, cholesterol and glucose level is off, and without another test or suggesting change of diet we are put on all of these drugs which take over the function of our bodies and we are stuck with them for life. And of course they never tell us of the side effects and the combined side effects that can cause other problems.

Hi MedLab1,

Yes LDL cholesterol is really bad. When it's running around in your blood it has a chance to come into contact with oxidizing agents called free radicals that come from your body's burning of glucose or from direct ingestion. When the LDL fat is oxidized it becomes sticky and will form arterial sclerosis lesions where the blood flow is slow enough. When you have enough atherosclerosis, your volume for the blood to stay in is reduced, so blood pressure goes up. High blood pressure breaks the blood vessel walls and causes inflammation that further reduces volume available for your blood. HDL picks up the LDL and transports it to the liver where it is either metabolized or recycled into the blood stream depending on your body's needs.
That's why HDL is called the "good cholesterol". Higher HDL levels combined with lower LDL levels can reverse atherosclerosis.

This shows how much fat can directly get into your blood after a big meal.
http://www.proteinpower.com/drmike/saturated-fat/abcs-big-meal-propaganda/

The video shows the blood sample with a ton of fat in it.

Thanks for al; your replys.

Keith, I'm listening to what you are saying. One of the reasons I question if LDL is bad is because of the BIG PICTURE. While all those industry sponsered studies show it to be bad, when I look at the real world I get a completely different answer. I have posted the info below in other forums. Nobody knows what to say. They all fall silent with no explaination. Following is my point, and I would appreciate a response. So far my responses are either total silence, or "Oh, you can't do that."

Death rates from heart attack and stroke have been gradually declining since around 1968, and have fallen at a very steady rate. The following graph from the CDC shows this steady decline. This is good news. No question about that. Look at the graph zoomed in on 1980 to 2000

http://www.netwellness.org/healthtopics/smoking/coronarydisease.jpg

Statins were introduced in the middle of the graph at 1990. Statin usage skyrocketed and the years that followed marks a period of aggressive LDL lowering. Somebody please explain to me WHY this had absolutely no impact on further enhancing the decline rate of heart attack and strokes.

The graph line just keeps doing what it had been doing in previous decades, with no changes in its point A to point B course. Looking at this, I can't see the introduction of statins / aggresive LDL lowering from 1990 -2000 has done anything to change anything. This is what I call the BIG PICTURE.

Keith, thanks for the link. I agree that the media can paint a false picture. I think the networks broadcast stories that please their sponsers.

So, MedLab1, did you watch the video? The fat in the blood samples was real even if the explanation given in the text or in the video was incorrect. The truth is that the liver manufactures triglycerides from the excess carbs. The more you eat, the more you triglycerides you create. When this is combined with a low fat diet you get a boom in LDL and a bust in HDL. Low fat diets were all the rage in 70's, 80's and 90's. Ever notice that carbs are the cheapest foods? At the same time drug companies took advantage of the bonanza to sell cholesterol lowering drugs to people. Net result is drug companies $$$ and people live unhappy miserable lives laying on the couch eating fast food, unable to move for more than a couple of blocks at a time.

Keith, yes I watched the video. I thought about it several times after watching. And yes, you are right about those carbohydrates turning into triglycerides in the blood. That very thought crossed my mind too. They didn't mention that in the ABC video! I also no longer buy the low fat diet concept from past decades.

What did you think of my point on LDL lowering with statins, and its negligible impact on the decline rate of heart attack deaths?

I honestly think that LDL that is lowered thru dietary changes and exercise is a marker of improved metabolism and reduced simple carbohydrate load.

But LDL that is lowered thru statins offer no metabolic gains, and just produces a rosey lab report, leaving the customer with the perception that he is healthier.

Maybe this site is what you're getting at

http://www.health-heart.org/cholesterol.htm

Lots of info and graphs, but looks like it was posted by a 5 year old with Attention deficit disorder.

The graph is from the Centers for Disease Control. (CDC) But that doesn't mean its 100% accurate. I have questioned if the graph is pure.
If it is pure, then statins have done nothing in the battle of heart disease.

At least the graph corresponds very well with NNT scores on statin drugs. Showing an absolute risk reduction of around 1%.

And that marks another reason why I question the validity of lowering LDL in the quest to fight heart disease. Statins lower LDL and they do it that very well. With those drastic reductions of LDL we get a measly 1% absolute risk reduction in high risk patients.

Its sorta like like convicting a serial killer and putting him behind bars, but the serial killings still continue. That becomes a clear cut case they got the wrong guy.

I'm not saying we are wrong to set goals for healthy lipid profiles. I'm just saying LDL may not be the evil villain its portrayed to be.

I'd guess that excess plasma lipids are the cause of most heart disease. The root cause of excess plasma lipids in most industrialized countries is poor diet. Poor diet includes malnutrition in many key vitamins and minerals, and a poor balance of nutrient types and lipids in the diet. The drugs that have been introduced since the 1960's have tried to correct the problem by addressing the plasma lipids directly. Unfortunately drugs are not so effective when you ignore the root cause of poor diet.

In my opinion exercise is not such an important issue. If the diet is correct, people will naturally go out and use their lean bodies and get exercise. The root cause is not lack of exercise, it's poor diet.

I would agree that poor diet is a major player.( And by the way, thanks for that previous link.)

But I also see heart disease as multifactorial. Not just one thing.

The reason is my Dad had an excellent diet, His carefully planned meals, ideal weight, and perfect cholesterol numbers didn't prevent him from developing artery plaque and he ended up with a heart attack.

His downfalls? He never exercised. Sunlight had not touched his arms and legs for 3 decades. He sat in front of a computer or read books and newspapers. He sat, and he sat, and he sat.
He was the "enginneer/ slide rule" kind of guy and saw no value in outdoor recreation. Always had a seriuos look on his face.

Meanwhile his brother was happy- go- lucky. Always joking and laughing. Owned a lake home and pontoon boat, and ate what he wanted. This guy never developed coronary artery disease like his brother. Never.

I don't have the answers. But I sure think about it.

Exercise can help compensate for a bad diet, but it won't cure the bad effects from one. There are plenty of old folks who are healthy well past 100 years of age. If you ask them what they do, more likely than not you'll get the answer that they eat lightly, have an active life and don't worry much about what they can't change. You rarely get the answer that they do physical exercise everyday.

Your Dad probably was either deficient in some vitamins or minerals, or more likely just ate slightly more food than was good for him at his activity level. Over time the extra triglycerides build up and lead to heart attack or stroke. Often they are represented as extra pounds, but sometimes thin people develop heart disease by keeping all the "extra weight" on the inside of their artery walls.

You need to learn that even hard exercise many times a week is not enough. Remember Jim Fixx?

One thing my dad taught me by passing away at the rather young age of 63 (of a heart attack) is that golf is not good exercise. It's not strenuous enough to compensate for a moderately bad diet.
If I never did anything other than walk to the bus, library or grocery store and had a good diet that makes sure to get all recommended vitamins and minerals and not over eat, then I could live a long life. (accidents not withstanding) I know from my own experience that proper diet can fix amazingly bad lipid imbalances. Diet is not just a major player, it IS THE ROOT CAUSE. I suggest this can be true for the vast majority of people who suffer from these problems. Genetics get blamed far too often when it's really diet.

Keith, I think you hit the nail on the head when you said my dad was probably deficient in something.

Despite my Dad's model diet and low cholesterol and triglyceride levels, he was probably deficient in Vitamin D. He NEVER got out in the sun. His skin was pale.

I have bumped into others who have low cholesterol and still get artery plaque. Heres a real life example. Cholesterol 147 all his life. That didn't stop plaque from forming.

I'm all for a healthy diet. And I am all for a healthy lipid profile. Half of heart attacks happen to people with low cholesterol, and almost half first time heart atacks happen to people with LDL in range. WHY?

This leads me to believe that the root cause of coronary heart disease may be metabolic abnormalties that are not be reflected in lipid profiles.

Low grade hypothyroidism, mild hyperparathyroidism, low testosterone, and low vitamin D are at the top of my list of metabolic deficiencies that may be playing a role.

Just a guess.