Cholesterol Myths

[casebro]

Skepdoc said: "there is good evidence that the longer one takes statins, the greater the benefit."

The longest term study that I am aware of is the 4S, ten years. It shows a straight line advantage in death rate. Do you know of a longer study? with an ascending curve?

 

[The SkepDoc]

Reply to Casebro

See message #43 above for the study showing more benefit with longer treatment.

 

[The SkepDoc]

Reply to Trvlr 2

You said "I would have no problem with selling insurance to those at greatest risk,IF those were the only persons to be treated.
This does not necessarily seem to be the case.
Furthermore, there seems to be a problem identifying the risk factors.
And there are undeniable side effects. As well as expense.
What you seem to be saying is that *all* should underwrite the *few* who may benefit?"

The standard of medical practice is to prescribe statins for those at significant risk. The risk factors are clear and well documented, but they are statistical and apply to the group, not necessariliy to each individual; an individual with few risk factors may have a heart attack, and another individual with many risk factors may live to be 100. Of course there are side effects and expense, and that's why they are not prescribed for everyone. No way do I say that "all" should underwrite the "few." I say that an individual should decide whether he wants to "buy" the "insurance" of statins based on accurate information about the risks and benefits.

 

[casebro]

See message #43 above for the study showing more benefit with longer treatment.

That mehta study showed better benefits at five years compared to only one year. 4S showed no improvement at 10 years over five years. That there was a "significant benefit at one year" is technical jargon, it means "statistically significant", not "practical significanse".

I still say that 200 treatment years per life extension year is rediculous efficacy. Even if it is "significant"...

Soooo, your "Daddy" that lives 10 years longer means that 30 other "Dads" died of heart attacks in the mean time. Inspite of them taking statins.

 

[Jody]

Okay....

As a layman, who's impressed by the pissing match going on here but is trying to parse through the egos, the science and simple human foibles on display in order to come to some kind of "truth" in all of this, is that I don't see a 1:1 (or 1:1:1) correlation between a diet high in animal fats causing the high LDL cholesterol levels that then causes CHD.

I'm reading that the data quoted basically says something of the reverse: that if you -have- CHD you need to reduce LDLs through exercise, reduction of animal fats, and taking a statin (but only because its all we got, and still, the odds are 9:1 against of it helping out) in order to live longer.

However, while eating a diet high in animal fats may lead to an elevated level of LDLs, this won't necessarily cause CHD. It's not even -likely- (as defined as being better than 50/50 odds) that it'll cause CHD, because there's a wide variety of other factors, many of which we still don't understand, that also play a role in developing the disease.

In short, don't worry about eating the french fries and the cheeseburger, unless you should already be worried about eating the french fries or the cheese burger.