Heart Attacks & Cholesterol: Dying Under Normal Circumstances

Heart Attacks & Cholesterol: Dying Under Normal Circumstances
5 (100%) 2 votes

Most people hospitalized with heart attacks have cholesterol levels considered “desirable” under the current recommendations. Having a “normal” cholesterol in a society where it’s normal to die of heart disease is not necessarily a good thing.

Discuss
Republish

The current official recommendation is to have a total cholesterol under 200. Over 240 is considered high; 200 to 239 borderline high; but under 200 is desirable. So you’d imagine that the average cholesterol of people who have heart attacks is 250, 300; somewhere in the high range—that’s where it’s dangerous, right?

Well, a major study was just published in the American Heart Journal this year. 65,000 people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes, like myocardial infarctions—heart attacks—across 344 hospitals. Guess what their average cholesterol was on admission? 170.

If you went to a doctor worried about your heart—maybe you have heart disease in your family, or you’re feeling your diet hasn’t been the greatest—and your cholesterol came back at 170, well within the “desirable” range, your doctor would probably pat you on the back, tell you to keep up the good work and send you on your merry way. Based on this new data, the next time you see them may be when you arrive in an ambulance—if you’re lucky enough to make it that far.

Most people admitted to hospitals with heart attacks have “normal” cholesterols. Having a “normal” cholesterol in a society where it’s “normal” to drop dead of heart disease is not necessarily a good thing. “Desirable” cholesterol levels leave a lot to be desired.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

 

Image thanks to Alex Proimos / Flickr

The current official recommendation is to have a total cholesterol under 200. Over 240 is considered high; 200 to 239 borderline high; but under 200 is desirable. So you’d imagine that the average cholesterol of people who have heart attacks is 250, 300; somewhere in the high range—that’s where it’s dangerous, right?

Well, a major study was just published in the American Heart Journal this year. 65,000 people hospitalized with acute coronary syndromes, like myocardial infarctions—heart attacks—across 344 hospitals. Guess what their average cholesterol was on admission? 170.

If you went to a doctor worried about your heart—maybe you have heart disease in your family, or you’re feeling your diet hasn’t been the greatest—and your cholesterol came back at 170, well within the “desirable” range, your doctor would probably pat you on the back, tell you to keep up the good work and send you on your merry way. Based on this new data, the next time you see them may be when you arrive in an ambulance—if you’re lucky enough to make it that far.

Most people admitted to hospitals with heart attacks have “normal” cholesterols. Having a “normal” cholesterol in a society where it’s “normal” to drop dead of heart disease is not necessarily a good thing. “Desirable” cholesterol levels leave a lot to be desired.

To see any graphs, charts, graphics, images, and quotes to which Dr. Greger may be referring, watch the above video. This is just an approximation of the audio contributed by veganmontreal.

Please consider volunteering to help out on the site.

 

Image thanks to Alex Proimos / Flickr

Doctor's Note

Be sure to check out all my other videos on heart disease.

And be sure to check out my associated blog posts for more context: Generic Lipitor is not the answer to our heart disease epidemicStool Size and Breast Cancer Risk; and Biblical Daniel Fast Tested.

If you haven’t yet, you can subscribe to my videos for free by clicking here.

23 responses to “Heart Attacks & Cholesterol: Dying Under Normal Circumstances

Commenting Etiquette

The intention of the comment section under each video and blog post is to allow all members to share their stories, questions, and feedback with others in a welcoming, engaging, and respectful environment. Off-topic comments are permitted, in hopes more experienced users may be able to point them to more relevant videos that may answer their questions. Vigorous debate of science is welcome so long as participants can disagree respectfully. Advertising products or services is not permitted.

To make NutritionFacts.org a place where people feel comfortable posting without feeling attacked, we have no tolerance for ad hominem attacks or comments that are racist, misogynist, homophobic, vulgar, or otherwise inappropriate. Please help us to foster a community of mutual respect. Enforcement of these rules is done to the best of our ability on a case-by-case basis.

  1. Something odd here. If the ER patients with CV problems had a TChol of 170, well bellow population average, that suggests lower cholesterol is worse?? The cholesterol “skeptics” will be all over that one…..




    0
    1. The principal investigator of the study concluded the opposite (in the accompanying UCLA press release): “Almost 75 percent of heart attack patients fell within recommended targets for LDL cholesterol, demonstrating that the current guidelines may not be low enough to cut heart attack risk in most who could benefit.” See my videos New Target Cholesterol and Eliminating the #1 Cause of Death and stay tuned–I stay on this subject all week. Thanks for your comment!




      0
  2. Hi: did the people in the study have “normal” cholesterol because they had taken drugs? How low does your cholesterol have to be to be heart attack proof? Thank you!!!




    0
    1. Hi flabuzz, I’m not sure what normal cholesterol is… I have come to believe it is what your cholesterol is with zero intake of transfat, saturated fat and cholesterol… that of a whole food plant based diet. See recent video.. nutritionfacts.org/videos/trans-fat-saturated-fat-and-cholesterol-tolerable-upper-intake-of-zero/. The heart attack proof levels are said to be a total cholesterol of less then 150 or an LDL below 90…although some would push the LDL number lower. Hopefully future studies using involving larger numbers will help provide better answers.




      0
  3. That lower than average cholesterol intrigued me enough to do some research. It turns out that with a Western diet the TChol follows an umbrella shaped curve over a lifetime, getting lower, often significantly with age. So old sick people who followed a high fat, high animal food diet will have much lower cholesterol levels with older age, together with a lifetime of arterial plaque that becomes unstable too with age.

    In Japan at least the cholesterol levels are lower throughout life(with a trad diet) and don’t drop off with age.

    See Circulation 1978 58:3-19

    Flabuzz, 150 is usually given as the magic number based on Framingham study, 3.9 in units used outside of US




    0
  4. British Medical Journal (April ’11) study of 16,718 women: Intake of a combination of calcium and Vit. D*, increased heart health risk (attacks and strokes)by 13-22%. I am a small framed 60 yr old vegan female, who takes 1200 mg a day of both CA and Vit D, in liquid form. What alternative do I have to supplement my diet? *risk remianed with or without Vit D




    0
    1. Hi kjcreate, The outcome we are hoping to effect with calcium +/- Vit D is to avoid fractures. It appears that vegans have the same bone density as omnivores at least in buddhist nuns see http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/long-term-vegan-bone-health/ and it is apparent that both vegans and nonvegans have some difficulty meeting requirement of 600 mg per day see http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/omnivore-vs-vegan-nutrient-deficiencies-2/. The best way to get your calcium is by eating your greens. Dr. Amy Lanou’s book, Building Bone Vitality, is an excellent book on bone health. It makes a good case for the need to look at the effect of what we eat on taking calcium out of the bone in addition to meeting our intake needs. Although “the Acid/Base hypothesis” was not supported in a recent metaanalysis see http://nutritionfacts.org/videos/is-protein-bad-to-the-bone/, metaanalysis’s although popular due to being quick and low cost they are fraught with the difficulties of pooling studies. One clear cut intervention which has been shown to relate to less fractures is weight bearing exercise. So we should supplement our consumption of greens with a good walking program.




      0
    1. I’m sorry the site isn’t compatible with your phone. I’ve tweeked the youtube settings to make it public for your viewing pleasure. :)




      0
      1. Thanks Doc, but for some reason there is still no video between the Neti pot video and “Heart attacks and cholesterol: Agribusiness sees it differently” on your YouTube homepage.




        0
  5. Is there a way to see more than just the abstract of this study?  Also, I recently saw a news report of a study that suggested taking vit D supplements can actually raise cholesterol levels  http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_128919.html   My cholesterol levels have been in the 230-240 range since the first time I had them checked.  In an attempt to lower levels I did a vegan diet for 1 year.  At the same time  I discovered my vit D levels were low and for 6 months of the vegan year took 50,000u vit D.  At the end of the year I had cholesterol level rechecked and it actually went up to 263! 




    0
  6. I read the study. A little over 41 percent of the people who made up this average of 170 were already on lipid lowering therapy. So they had high enough cholesterol at some time in the past to warrant LLT.




    0
  7. Should we be looking at the ratio at all as an indicator of heart health? Or does a TC of <150 always trump ratio? A TC of 210 and an HDL of 70 would equal a ratio 3.0, in which case patients are told not to worry. I'm a nurse and this is not uncommon to see.




    0
  8. Hi Doctor,
    As always thanks for your insightful web page.

    I live in Israel and I have just stumbled across 2 alternative physicians who publish explanatory vids in there site on saturated fat.

    On there last video they encourage people to get a quality fat from all possible sources, they of course talk about the quantities and about the source.

    In order to support there case they gave links to 4 articles:

    1.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20071648?dopt=AbstractPlus
    2.http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20685950?dopt=AbstractPlus
    3.http://www.nejm.org/doi/full/10.1056/NEJM199108223250813
    4.http://content.onlinejacc.org/article.aspx?articleid=1133027

    I have read the abstract of some of those and it does support there case, for example:

    Conclusion: A meta-analysis of prospective epidemiologic studies showed that there is no significant evidence for concluding that dietary saturated fat is associated with an increased risk of CHD or CVD.

    Dr Gregger and the team could you read through and give your insights on those articles?

    Thanks allot,
    Ron.




    0
      1. Thanks that video did clear a few things.

        So if I understand correctly since each person start point of Serum Cholesterol is different than you cant really find the connection between the Cholesterol Level and the nutrition right?

        And so Cross Sectional Studies will show no correlation and also observational studies.

        But from that how do they get to no connection between CVD and high Cholesterol?

        Thanks again,
        Ron.




        0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Pin It on Pinterest

Share This