High HDL Levels Are Associated With High All-cause Mortality

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
I posted a few studies some time ago showing that HDL is associated with CVD mortality.
Good (HDL) Cholesterol Is Not So Good After All

Peat has spoken many times about the false claims of the medical industry that HDL is in fact the "good" cholesterol. HDL is most commonly elevated by stress and poisons including exhaustive exercise, alcohol, radiation, endotoxin, etc. So, HDL being high is usually not an indication of good health.
This new study adds more weight against HDL being a good biomarker that needs to be elevated with drugs or dietary interventions. It found higher all-cause mortality in people with HDL in the highest titer of the normal range. And as the study itself says, the fact that HDL is not protective against CVD is already well known in the medical establishment but that does not stop FDA and its goons to keep promoting this discredited idea.

Extreme high high-density lipoprotein cholesterol is paradoxically associated with high mortality in men and women: two prospective cohort studies | European Heart Journal | Oxford Academic

"...Men and women in the general population with extreme high HDL cholesterol paradoxically have high all-cause mortality. These findings need confirmation in other studies."

"...Through observational studies it has been established that high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol is inversely associated with both cardiovascular disease and mortality across a wide range of concentrations.1–3 This association does however not appear to be causal, as raising HDL cholesterol pharmacologically has not proven beneficial in randomized clinical trials,4 and has even paradoxically been associated with increased mortality in one study."
 

NathanK

Member
Joined
May 30, 2015
Messages
684
Location
Austin, TX
You may find my recent experimental success I just wrote about in another thread about lowering my TC, LDL, and concurrently HDL by increasing CO2 interesting. I need to do one more lab later this year with some protective hormones to feel more confident, but it seems promising and would go a ways with me to prove lower HDL is more beneficial as Ray has stated and you have backed up multiple times. To Lower Cholesterol, T3 Only? Or T3+T4?
 
Last edited:

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
The key here is "raising HDL cholesterol pharmacologically" what is the method of raising it? What are the side-effects of said method?
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
The key here is "raising HDL cholesterol pharmacologically" what is the method of raising it? What are the side-effects of said method?

There are many drugs developed for raising HDL and they all try to beat the "gold standard" chemical - plain old flush niacin. But neither niacin nor these drugs have been found to prevent CVD and in fact a slow-release version of niacin called Niaspan raised risk of strokes.
 

rei

Member
Joined
Aug 6, 2017
Messages
1,607
wikipedia seems to think niacin is effective against cvd.

Systematic reviews do not find that taking niacin affected either cardiovascular disease or risk of death in those already taking a statin, in spite of raising HDL cholesterol.[8][19] Niacin alone appears to reduce the rate of cardiovascular events as well as coronary or cardiovascular deaths.

citing these sources:

Bruckert E, Labreuche J, Amarenco P (2010). "Meta-analysis of the effect of nicotinic acid alone or in combination on cardiovascular events and atherosclerosis". Atherosclerosis. 210 (2): 353–61. PMID 20079494. doi:10.1016/j.atherosclerosis.2009.12.023.

Duggal JK, Singh M, Attri N, Singh PP, Ahmed N, Pahwa S, Molnar J, Singh S, Khosla S, Arora R (2010). "Effect of niacin therapy on cardiovascular outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease". Journal of cardiovascular pharmacology and therapeutics. 15 (2): 158–66.

So is the conclusion that this effect is not due to raising hdl, but rather some other factor?
 

Prota

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
138
I posted a few studies some time ago showing that HDL is associated with CVD mortality.
Good (HDL) Cholesterol Is Not So Good After All

Peat has spoken many times about the false claims of the medical industry that HDL is in fact the "good" cholesterol. HDL is most commonly elevated by stress and poisons including exhaustive exercise, alcohol, radiation, endotoxin, etc. So, HDL being high is usually not an indication of good health.
This new study adds more weight against HDL being a good biomarker that needs to be elevated with drugs or dietary interventions. It found higher all-cause mortality in people with HDL in the highest titer of the normal range. And as the study itself says, the fact that HDL is not protective against CVD is already well known in the medical establishment but that does not stop FDA and its goons to keep promoting this discredited idea.

Extreme high high-density lipoprotein cholesterol is paradoxically associated with high mortality in men and women: two prospective cohort studies | European Heart Journal | Oxford Academic

"...Men and women in the general population with extreme high HDL cholesterol paradoxically have high all-cause mortality. These findings need confirmation in other studies."

"...Through observational studies it has been established that high-density lipoprotein (HDL) cholesterol is inversely associated with both cardiovascular disease and mortality across a wide range of concentrations.1–3 This association does however not appear to be causal, as raising HDL cholesterol pharmacologically has not proven beneficial in randomized clinical trials,4 and has even paradoxically been associated with increased mortality in one study."
CW faver high HDL and low LDL, some forum members are confused, and for some (including me) is crystal clear that we want low HDL and high LDL, but do you have any suggestions about their ref. ranges, ratios (LDL/HDL; total/HDL...) and if you don't mind maybe your recent lab values?
I really appreciate any help you can provide.
 

Prota

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
138
CW faver high HDL and low LDL, some forum members are confused, and for some (including me) is crystal clear that we want low HDL and high LDL, but do you have any suggestions about their ref. ranges, ratios (LDL/HDL; total/HDL...) and if you don't mind maybe your recent lab values?
I really appreciate any help you can provide.
Yes...confusion.
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
CW faver high HDL and low LDL, some forum members are confused, and for some (including me) is crystal clear that we want low HDL and high LDL, but do you have any suggestions about their ref. ranges, ratios (LDL/HDL; total/HDL...) and if you don't mind maybe your recent lab values?
I really appreciate any help you can provide.


HDL rises under effects of toxins. So, it is a biomarker of toxin/endotoxin/radiation exposure. I would not say you want high LDL and low HDL. It's just that raising HDL is not beneficial as pharma execs thought. You want LDL to convert properly into steroids and HDL to only rise when there is a need. If it does not rise when there is a need then that is also bad. So, for LDL the studies and Peat says 200 - 230 is probably optimal for anybody over 30, and for people over 50 the optimal range seems to be 240-270. HDL should be low on periodic tests but I would do a twice a year test for HDL after a night of drinking. If it rises then good, if it does not then there is an issue, usually with liver health.
Makes sense?
 
Joined
May 2, 2016
Messages
165
You may find my recent experimental success I just wrote about in another thread about lowering my TC, LDL, and concurrently HDL by increasing CO2 interesting. I need to do one more lab later this year with some protective hormones to feel more confident, but it seems promising and would go a ways with me to prove lower HDL is more beneficial as Ray has stated and you have backed up multiple times. To Lower Cholesterol, T3 Only? Or T3+T4?
How does CO2 lower them?
 

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
Peat says 200 - 230 is probably optimal for anybody over 30, and for people over 50 the optimal range seems to be 240-270.
In the lastest KMUD interview 9-15-17 (at ~44 minute mark), Peat told a caller “cholesterol is a pretty good indication of how you’re responding to thyroid, it should be around 200 or a little less”
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
In the lastest KMUD interview 9-15-17 (at ~44 minute mark), Peat told a caller “cholesterol is a pretty good indication of how you’re responding to thyroid, it should be around 200 or a little less”

Yes, but it also depends on age and the numbers I quoted were in context of WITHOUT thyroid supplementation.
 

Mito

Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2016
Messages
2,554
Yes, but it also depends on age and the numbers I quoted were in context of WITHOUT thyroid supplementation.
Okay, but Peat’s statement could be interpreted as cholesterol levels over 200 are an indication of the need to increase cholesterol metabolism by improving thyroid function. I know he’s cited studies of higher cholesterol levels (230-270) being protective in aging, but he didn’t ask the caller his age. I know cholesterol levels are more complicated (bile acids, PUFA, inflamation,etc.) than just thyroid, but I thinks it’s the first time I’ve heard Peat seem to recommend cholesterol levels that are closer to the conventional ranges (<199).
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Okay, but Peat’s statement could be interpreted as cholesterol levels over 200 are an indication of the need to increase cholesterol metabolism by improving thyroid function. I know he’s cited studies of higher cholesterol levels (230-270) being protective in aging, but he didn’t ask the caller his age. I know cholesterol levels are more complicated (bile acids, PUFA, inflamation,etc.) than just thyroid, but I thinks it’s the first time I’ve heard Peat seem to recommend cholesterol levels that are closer to the conventional ranges (<199).

I do not see a disagreement. If one is not taking thyroid then higher cholesterol levels may be better and if thyroid is taken then those levels should drop. If an older person has low cholesterol to start with, chance are they are not very healthy and I posted a study showing low cholesterol can predict cancer development a decade in advance.
 

Prota

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
138
HDL rises under effects of toxins. So, it is a biomarker of toxin/endotoxin/radiation exposure. I would not say you want high LDL and low HDL. It's just that raising HDL is not beneficial as pharma execs thought. You want LDL to convert properly into steroids and HDL to only rise when there is a need. If it does not rise when there is a need then that is also bad. So, for LDL the studies and Peat says 200 - 230 is probably optimal for anybody over 30, and for people over 50 the optimal range seems to be 240-270. HDL should be low on periodic tests but I would do a twice a year test for HDL after a night of drinking. If it rises then good, if it does not then there is an issue, usually with liver health.
Makes sense?
Absolutely! Thanks!
Just to confirm (sorry, english is not my native language), your answer to me was about ref. ranges of LDL and about HDL and Mito is talking about Total Cholesterol?
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Absolutely! Thanks!
Just to confirm (sorry, english is not my native language), your answer to me was about ref. ranges of LDL and about HDL and Mito is talking about Total Cholesterol?

No, the range of 200+ is for total cholesterol, of which HDL is usually in the range of 30 - 80 I think. HDL should be below 40 if you are in good health and rise to 70-80 under stress/toxins and then come back. Not rising when it is needed or staying chronically in the upper 25% range is not a good sign.
 
J

jb116

Guest
No, the range of 200+ is for total cholesterol, of which HDL is usually in the range of 30 - 80 I think. HDL should be below 40 if you are in good health and rise to 70-80 under stress/toxins and then come back. Not rising when it is needed or staying chronically in the upper 25% range is not a good sign.
It's funny how if a new client describes their extreme cardio workouts and/or take cholesterol meds like statins, it never fails how proud they are about the hdl increase. I cringe and proceed to explain how it's not a good thing.
 

Prota

Member
Joined
Jul 17, 2016
Messages
138
No, the range of 200+ is for total cholesterol, of which HDL is usually in the range of 30 - 80 I think. HDL should be below 40 if you are in good health and rise to 70-80 under stress/toxins and then come back. Not rising when it is needed or staying chronically in the upper 25% range is not a good sign.
Thanks for making it clear. I have only one in the tank, what about level of LDL?
 
OP
haidut

haidut

Member
Forum Supporter
Joined
Mar 18, 2013
Messages
19,798
Location
USA / Europe
Thanks for making it clear. I have only one in the tank, what about level of LDL?

Well if you subtract the HDL from the total amount you will get the LDL.
 

Similar threads

Back
Top Bottom