Talk:Hypercholesterolemia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B	This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale

Contents 1 References! 2 Genetics 3 why 4 Copper 5 Taurine

[edit] References!

Where are the references. This article grossly ignores the positive feedback mechanism in physiological regulation of lipoprotein levels. The body autosynthesizes over 80% of lipoproteins, and the body will pick up the slack if you eat less, make dietary intake of choleterol of little significance on cholesterol count in the body. Furthermore, the terms "good" and "bad" in reference to LDL and HDL is very unscientific and certainly not warranted in light of statistics. This should be a science article, not an American Heart Association propaganda page.

Is this statement, "All three of these activities done together can have a positive effect on one's blood cholesterol level," necessary?

Isn't hypercholesterolemia a form of hyperlipidemia rather than the same thing? Mr. Jones 13:19, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My statement which said Hypercholesterolemia is linked with certain diseases, as opposed to being a proven contributer of certain diseases, has been deleted. Did someone feel the researched link is untrue? How can this be when the article already states that the vastly researched link is the backbone of current theory?

To Quote: There are those that claim that cholesterol itself is a healthy nutrient and that the whole "lipid hypothesis", which links cholesterol with heart disease and atherosclerosis, is incorrect, despite vast research linking elevated cholesterol levels to poor outcomes. Acssm 10:17, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Linked" is not enough. It is clear that cholesterol alone is sufficient to cause cardiovascular disease. Perfectly healthy young people with an LDL receptor mutation develop premature atherosclerosis. Fact. Now please provide a general-scope article studying the views of cholesterol skeptics, not just their websites. JFW | T@lk 21:50, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

"Correlation" is not the same as "causation" - that's what all the statistics teachers say, but few understand or even pay attention to. 165.21.118.42 (talk · contribs)

But failing a divinely-guided fully random study (the sort which only exists in Statistics courses), a preponderance of different correlations support causation-- that's what everyone who's had to deal with real line-of-combat experimentation says, but which few people who have had introductory Statistics understand or even pay attention to. Kajerm 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Re: Kajerm. Let's say factor X is present in each and every experiment. Such results would indeed support factor X as the sole cause. However, just because factor X is present in every experiment, does not necessarily mean factor X is the sole cause, nor even a causative factor at all, despite factor X's presence supporting causation. Acssm 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

You obviously did not read my comment closely enough. I was referring to familial hypercholesterolemia, a thoroughly understood condition. Patients have markedly elevated LDL cholesterol due to disrupted absorption by the liver. They are otherwise healthy, but they suffer accelerated atherosclerosis. This is proven. You can't get much closer to causation than that. Self-described "cholesterol skeptics" will always demand more proof for facts that are conclusively established. JFW | T@lk 03:35, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

JFW You raise a point about the demanding nature of skeptics in general. Yet, science depends on skepticism. I am sure we can all agree on that. Acssm 15:32, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

For those interested in a skeptic's point of view, consider this article by Dr. Uffe Ravnskov, MD, PhD: [1] Scroll down and you'll find 30+ references to peer-reviewed medical journals. He also addresses familial hypercholesterolemia (bottom of the page) if you are interested, but this discussion is brief, to say the least (he only covers 2 studies). If you want more info, just do a search for Dr. Ravnskov's papers [2] on MEDLINE, or read his book-- The Cholesterol Myths, 2000, New Trends Publishing [3]--DWT 17:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I added an external link section (which was lacking) and a link to an article by Uffe Ravnskov. I had tried to add this under cholesterol a few days ago, but it was deleted by user Jdfwolff. He insisted instead that I add it under this article, so, without by this act agreeing necessarily to any of his rationales, added this here. Friarslantern 16:31, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Angina pectoris is not a disease, it is a symptom of ischaemic heart disease.

I don't know much about the different "types" of hypercholesterolemia discussed in the treatment section. I'm doing my best to find a few sources to describe them, because it seems annoying to readers (at least to this reader) to read about treatments for something when they have absolutely no clue what it is. Any corrections from people with better knowledge or better sources would be much appreciated.Kajerm 17:03, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed this by linking to an article on the Fredrickson Types, and apparently learned something in the process. This should solve the problem. Kajerm

[edit] Genetics

A PD summary of known genetic markers is available here. --Peta 06:41, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] why

this is a very harmful desase. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.216.245.103 (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

And therefore? JFW | T@lk 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Copper

Bork (talk · contribs) added some citations about the role of copper in cholesterol levels.[4] To be frank, this is to the best of my knowledge not something that is generally regarded as an established fact. Suffice it to say that no doctor checks copper levels, and even fewer prescribe copper, for the treatment of high cholesterol. JFW | T@lk 21:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Established fact? OK then, can you show me a study which shows copper deficiency does not cause hypercholesterolemia?

Did you know new studies are made every day and new facts are established constantly?

Is it my fault docs do not bother checking copper levels? What does it have to do with removal of the study?

Bork (talk) 21:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

It has a lot to do with removal of studies. We cannot possibly cite every study under the sun. When selecting matters for inclusion, we need to pick those that are well established, covered by professional guidelines etc. WP:WEIGHT is the relevant policy. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Taurine

128.151.71.22 (talk · contribs) added an animal study suggesting that taurine improves lipids in rats fed on a high-cholesterol diet (PMID 9635047). I removed this, because (as stated in my post above) we cannot possibly add every study on substances that change lipid levels, especially in laboratory animals and especially under the artificial circumstances of the study.

Bork (talk · contribs) then added another animal study (PMID 17153607) and a very preliminary trial (PMID 18242615, not yet appeared in print) in a small group of volunteers. In my view, none of this comes close to being suitable for inclusion. Much larger studies are needed, and preferably trials that look at hard cardiovascular outcomes (as is required for lipid lowering drugs), and hopefully coverage in clinical practice guidelines. JFW | T@lk 13:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)