A friend of mine in Phoenix, AZ told me he read an article in the
newspaper about the results of a study that showed a number of afflictions
statistically associated with persons who have cholesterol levels below
150. The article stated that the medical community was reluctant to
publicize the findings for fear that the general public would perceive
a risk in lowering their cholesterol levels. Is anyone familiar with
this study, or any others on this subject, and willing to provide a
critical assessment?

Ed Seiler

"If puns are outlawed, only outlaws will have puns."

Uh, let me guess - was this study funded by the American Dairy Association
or the American Cattle Ranchers Association?!?  ;)

---
sincerely,

A NY Times article from August 19 outlined some research that was being
done with "low" cholesterol levels.  Researchers claimed that they have
founds links between low cholesterol levels and {*filter*} death, ie. suicide,
{*filter*}, accidents.  These folks were also supposed to be subject to {*filter*}
mood swings and liver problems.  I happen to have a low cholesterol level
(145) and do not, I REPEAT DO NOT HAVE {*filter*} OUTBURSTS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:):):):):):)

This research team's conclusion strikes me as so much skewed horseshit.  

JOHN
SPSS

I have seen something related (not necessarily the same) which
discussed problems caused by lowering your cholesterol greatly.

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
=                       Jeff Kenton     (617) 894-4508                  =

-------------------------------------------------------------------------

If a person suffers from widely disseminated cancer (whether they
are aware of it yet or not), they will often have rock-bottom
serum cholesterols, like 100 or less. If you test cholesterol
levels in 1000 elderly people, a few of them will probably be in
that situation. When you see how their health is 2 years later,
you may notice that several people with rock-bottom cholesterols
died of cancer within that short interval. Hence, low cholestorol
"increases cancer risk".

This may seem to be a trivial statistical problem, but studies
reporting this sort of correlation were published before that
phenomon was recognized.

Just one of the many ways one can be fooled by statistics.

Brian

Probably because you misread the article :-)

The article was clear to state that the causal relationship between
certain diseases and low cholesterol was uncertain -- and in the case
of {*filter*}ism, etc. it was probably that the low cholesterol level was
caused by the disease.

The one disturbing aspect of the report is that, while mortality
due to coronary artery disease decreases as cholesterol levels decrease,
overall mortality does not.  And there is probably a causal link between
low cholesterol ( < 160 mg/dl )  and leukemia, non-malignant lung disease,
etc.

The advice to those with elevated levels ( > 240 ) especially those with
low HDL, is to lower their cholesterol.  What is unclear, as it is with
so many things we measure, is what the optimal level of this stuff is.

--
Small Systems Solutions                   1563 Solano Avenue, Suite 123

The above-expressed opinions aren't necessarily

ummm, i'm no statistician, but (a) if you remove all the risks of death
associated with coronary disease, or at least that coronary disease associated
w. high cholesterol, isn't it logical that those folks who aren't dying of
heart disease or strokes are going to die of something *ELSE* (e.g., accidents,
etc.)?; (b) wouldn't it be likely that pre-existing liver problems might be the
CAUSE of *some* (but certainly not all) sorts of cholesterol irregularities,
and not the other way around? (cholesterol=122, & no problems w. {*filter*},
suicide, mood or liver;  my doc says this is a normal response to having been a
vegetarian for 15 years)

------------------------

Philosophy Department;Wesleyan University;USA

There are many diseases, such as AIDS, {*filter*}ism, and liver disease
in which the body is unable to synthesize cholesterol or doesn't
absorb it well.  Many very ill people will therefore have low
cholesterol because their bodies are too sick to make it.
But typically, if that finding was publicized, the public would
jump to the conclusion that the low cholesterol was *causing*
the other problems.  I suspect that now you have posted this,
we will see some of the more naive persons here on the net
jumping to this same conclusion, so you will have a demonstration
of why medics didn't want it in the newspapers.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Banks  N3JXP      | "Skepticism is the chastity of the intellect, and

----------------------------------------------------------------------------

  What evidence is there for a causal link between low cholesterol and
leukemia, etc.? Does anyone know if there is an existing body of literature
on this, or is it only recently that cholesterol levels are being looked at
"from the other end"?

  The idea of an optimal level that is different from a minimal level is an
interesting one, though I suspect that it doesn't rank highly amongst
research priorities. An interesting study would be to measure the tendency
of those with both a low level and an established level-lowering diet to
raise their levels via a level-raising diet. My guess is that you would
find a class of individuals whose levels do not respond much to diet, just
as you do with those starting at a high level. Then, once you have the
extremes of the scale divided into four classes (high/low) (diet
responsive/non-responsive), look for patterns there. Probably the greatest
difficulty with this scheme is to find a sufficient population of
low-leveled persons adopting a level-raising diet (Japanese patrons of
McDonalds?).

Ed Seiler

"If puns are outlawed, only outlaws will have puns."