Bicep
#1196
Very interesting experiment that I will watch with interest.
Virilius
#1198
As always, this is just an observational study which are superseded by intervention studies that causally prove that lower LDL-C/apoB => lower all-cause mortality.
3 Likes
The study is interesting for the following:
- From the study: Objectives Among primary prevention-type adults not on lipid-lowering therapy, conflicting results exist on the relationship between low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-C) and long-term mortality. We evaluated this relationship in a real-world evidence population of adults.
- I presume all the intervention studies are basically on people in a disease state. This study exams a population that is not in treatment for heart disease or diabetic for that matter.
From the study Discussion section " For multiple reasons, we chose to evaluate a population of primary prevention-type adults without diabetes aged 50–89 years not on statin therapy. First, both the prevalence and potential indication for initiating lipid-lowering therapy are relatively high in this population.9 29 30 Second, prevailing guidelines and philosophy for initiating lipid-lowering therapy for secondary prevention of ASCVD and among persons with diabetes are well entrenched.31–33 Third, consideration of initiating lipid-lowering therapy for primary prevention, particularly among older adults, should be carefully weighed based on empirical data34 35 and potential side effects, including but not limited to muscle pain or weakness36 and increased risk of developing diabetes.37–39"
- I am personally interested in this as my father was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes at age 80. He was very healthy without any of the co-factors associated with the disease such as metabolic dysfunction etc. But of course on statins. I think he was misdiagnosed for type 2 diabetes and instead he was type 1. In his last year of life, (at 90) he was in the hospital a number of times for Diabetes-related ketoacidosis (this is a condition of very high blood sugar, like 600, and difficult to bring down). It was a pity as he was playing tennis right up to 90 years old.
I am of course influenced by his experience. And note that his condition could be unrelated to statins. But it does hover over my thinking as I review the trending medical news that LDL lowering is always better for health.
4 Likes
Barnabas
#1200
Something I have wondered about is the potential benefit of lipid lowering therapy earlier in life when the body is better at achieving homeostasis. E.g. one could imagine treating lipids between 40 and 65 and then quitting therapy (or preserving the option) instead of waiting until 65, when plaque has formed, to initiate therapy.
4 Likes
mccoy
#1201
@Barnabas
A quantitative analysis in terms of reduction of risk of atherosclerotic events can be done by the recent Ference et al.model. in your example, if LDL is lowered from 100 to 50 mg/dL, the individual at 65 would achieve a 50 times 25= 1250 mg/dL times years reduction in cumulative exposure. the corresponding differences in risk would be visible in the followign graphs (assuming an average 75 mg/dL exposure in the first 40 years and then 100 mg/dL in the successive years).
In guys, the values would mean:
-normal, regular values: At 65 years you are just above the 1% risk threshold
-Intervention: at 65 years you are just a little above zero risk.
In gals, the values would mean:
-normal, regular values: At 65 years you are just below the 1% risk threshold
-Intervention: at 65 years you are practically at zero risk.
mccoy
#1202
I understand that but, actually, measuring blood glucose is the easiest thing to do and presently the results are pretty reliable. I am sure you know that It’s enough to buy a 30 US$ glucometer, some sticks and prick your finger once every week when fasted. This will indicate to you any undesired trend.
If, all other things remaining unchanged, the trend will go upward after the administration of statins, then you may change the type or dose of statin. Then check again. Then adjust the therapy, maybe switching to ezetimibe or bempedoic acid, until the undesired trend is reversed.
I initiated a preventive minidosage strategy and am doing just the above.
2 Likes
RapAdmin
#1203
What are people’s thoughts on this?
Source: x.com
2 Likes
I would wait and see how the first generation turned out. 
Maybe try it on marmosets first. If they all look ‘special’, then rethink it.
2 Likes
Chinese gene editing patent, eh? OK. Let them open the champagne (hopefully not counterfeit), but I personally will stay with my usual coffee. Wait and see, no hurry - toddlers and small kids have very low cholesterol naturally, so it won’t be apparent whether this works until much later. Furthermore, we’ll have to see whether the effect persists long term, and finally is it safe and are there any unexpected side effects of this editing - this could be a lifetime experiment… we’ll all be long dead before all that checks out. In other words I see no reason to urgently rush out to buy cases of celebratory bubbly.
That said, there’s one thing I must give the Chinese approach to science a lot of credit vs the Western approach. They have no qualms about forging ahead without being held back by non-scientific specific culturally dependent superstitions as happens far too frequently in the West (“against nature”; “against God’s plan”; “unnatural and eugenic”)… all that does is hold humanity back for moronic reasons. There’s a fine balance between legitimate safety concerns (often sadly lacking in Chinese experiments), and illegitimate obstructionism and prejudice, as happens in the West (EU bureacrats idiocy knows no bounds). YMMV.
2 Likes
Bicep
#1207
I’m in favor of other people trying it, yes. I doubt very much whether there will be a difference that can be measured, and that’s if all it does is reduce cholesterol.
I think cyclarity has an approach that can fix the problem with a lot less chance of disaster. Did they aim for a different target to keep people from going deaf? I didn’t completely understand the last video I posted. It’s the one about clearing 7 ketocholesterol.
1 Like
Physionic on the #1 cause of arteriosclerosis.
1 Like
adssx
#1209
More on the Miami Heart Study: Low-density lipoprotein-cholesterol and subclinical coronary atherosclerosis in a middle-aged asymptomatic U.S. population: The Miami Heart Study at Baptist Health South Florida
Highlights:
- Coronary plaque presence increased with LDL-C and clinical risk, even in the absence of CAC.
- There is considerable atherosclerosis in statin-naïve participants with low LDL-C and clinical risk.
- About 2 in 5 statin-naïve participants with severe hypercholesterolemia did not have any plaque on CCTA imaging.
Weirdly btw, compared to people with low cholesterol (< 70 mg/dL), people with high cholesterol (> 190 mg/dL) are more likely to be wealthy (> $150k income): 46% vs 35%:
6 Likes
Virilius
#1210
Weirdly btw, compared to people with low cholesterol (< 70 mg/dL), people with high cholesterol (> 190 mg/dL) are more likely to be wealthy (> $150k income):
Maybe related to dietary habits?
adssx
#1211
It might be non-significant. BMI increases linearly with LDL, but there’s a big jump from 190 mg/dL for income.
However, this paper says: Socioeconomic status and education level are associated with dyslipidemia in adults not taking lipid-lowering medication: a population-based study 2022:
“In men, the higher the socio-economic or educational stratum, the higher the total cholesterol, low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (LDL-c) and triglyceride (TG) levels and the lower the high-density lipoprotein cholesterol (HDL-c), after controlling for age, body mass index, hypertension, smoking habit and physical activity. In women, the higher socio-economic strata were associated with elevated total cholesterol and HDL-c, while lower total cholesterol, LDL-c and TG levels were found in those with higher education levels.”``
Did papers showing a U-curve for LDL and mortality adjust for income and education?
ng0rge
#1212
If I can just raise my LDL-C, maybe I could afford a new car and become a Lean Mass Hyper Provider.
8 Likes
Davin8r
#1213
Possibly because people who are wealthy can afford to eat whatever they want, whenever they want it. I was super lean when I was a broke grad student, then got chunky when I got a real job. Now super lean again, thanks to tirzepatide 
5 Likes
The best foods available at the highest prices are not chosen for cholesterol level but for taste and opulence. Think of filet mignon, foie gras, caviar, etc… LDL lowering foods are usually not the ones rich people would like to eat. Think of leafy greens, oatmeal, etc…
Also, rich people think their money will save them because they have comprehensive health care. Why take statins? A triple bypass or something better (they are immortal after all) will be available when they need it.
3 Likes
Davin8r
#1215
“Compared to the systemic delivery of similar doses of simvastatin, the nanoparticles can deliver 1000 times more of the drug to the plaques, thereby enhancing the therapeutic efficacy while minimizing systemic side effects.”
1 Like
RapAdmin
#1216
Here, a higher level of cardiovascular health, as evaluated using the American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8 cardiovascular health score, was associated with a lower risk of all-cause and cardiovascular disease mortality in cancer survivors living in the US.
The American Heart Association’s Life’s Essential 8 cardiovascular health score consists of 8 modifiable metrics: physical activity, diet, smoking status, BMI, systolic blood pressure, fasting plasma glucose, cholesterol, and sleep.
Source:
Associations between Life’s Essential 8 and risks of all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in cancer survivors: A prospective cohort study from NHANES (open access)
https://www.cell.com/heliyon/fulltext/S2405-8440(24)12985-4?_returnURL=https%3A%2F%2Flinkinghub.elsevier.com%2Fretrieve%2Fpii%2FS2405844024129854%3Fshowall%3Dtrue
5 Likes
