Talk:Hypercholesterolemia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[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)

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)