5

votes

What do you think of this study on 'Good' vs 'Bad' HDL?

Answered on August 19, 2014
Created January 17, 2012 at 8:58 PM

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.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2012/01/120113210207.htm

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.

Thoughts?

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 23, 2012
at 09:55 PM

Cheapskate that I am, I googled Kendrick to get a synopsis. He doesn't like statins and has much to say about LDL. He also believes cholesterol should stay in a reasonable range, so I'd expect him to be negative on eating sticks of butter. I don't find his stance on HDL though.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 23, 2012
at 09:42 PM

Better, but limited to genetic sorting. My HDL went up as a result of paleo, and many others here have seen the same effect. Neither of the studies looks into whether this improves our health. I'll have to stick with the Framingham findings, which show marked reduction in CV risk with increased HDL.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 23, 2012
at 09:37 PM

????? This is a study of patients on renal dialysis. How is this of relevance to anyone else???

Frontpage book

Get FREE instant access to our Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!

2 Answers

best answer

2
782d92f4127823bdfb2ddfcbcf961d0e

on May 17, 2012
at 03:05 AM

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 23, 2012
at 09:42 PM

Better, but limited to genetic sorting. My HDL went up as a result of paleo, and many others here have seen the same effect. Neither of the studies looks into whether this improves our health. I'll have to stick with the Framingham findings, which show marked reduction in CV risk with increased HDL.

0
Ae8946707ddebf0f0bfbcfc63276d823

(9402)

on May 26, 2012
at 07:39 PM

I think it's worthless. This book is a better place to start:

http://www.amazon.com/The-Great-Cholesterol-Con-Disease/dp/1844546101

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.

Medium avatar

(10611)

on June 23, 2012
at 09:55 PM

Cheapskate that I am, I googled Kendrick to get a synopsis. He doesn't like statins and has much to say about LDL. He also believes cholesterol should stay in a reasonable range, so I'd expect him to be negative on eating sticks of butter. I don't find his stance on HDL though.

Answer Question


Get FREE instant access to our
Paleo For Beginners Guide & 15 FREE Recipes!