11 comments

[ 1.9 ms ] story [ 24.8 ms ] thread
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.

(comment deleted)
Do steak and pork from Cheesecake Factory have cholesterol?
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.

Perhaps cholesterol is a (protective?) substance associated with a problem,

not the problem in and of itself.

He also recommends people take rapamycin for longevity...
> 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.

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?