The research below makes the claim that the quality of the HDL would depend on levels of serum amyloid A, which in the case of the subjects of the study were high. The presence of this molecule in quantity was then correlated to the overall quality of the HDL.
Personally, I think from a macro level, this is a step in the right direction whereby it would seem studies are being done that live outside of the "lower LDL and raise HDL" box but it's not clear that there is much motivation for further research because a buildup of useless HDL hasn't necessarily been proven as being harmful. The other conclusion that irks me is that despite the fact that it makes very clear that not all HDL are created equal, it emphasizes the importance of lowering LDL over raising HDL as a consequence.
asked byPatternMatching (943)
Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!
on May 17, 2012
at 03:05 AM
You might want to consider this new article: http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2812%2960312-2/fulltext
on May 26, 2012
at 07:39 PM
I think it's worthless. This book is a better place to start:
Cholesterol is a necessary part of our bodies. The categorization of cholesterol as good versus bad was just an attempt to refine the lipid hypothesis instead of giving up on it. When they couldn't prove that all cholesterol was bad, they had to find a subset that was bad. When they found out that all LDL wasn't bad, they had to categorize it into small dense and large puffy. When they figure out that doesn't matter either, they'll find another way to refine the theory.
I can't imagine good versus bad HDL is any different.