An interesting questions was posted.
“In what way can cholesterol be blamed for circulatory diseases?
Can you get atherosclerosis in the absence of inflammation? (as in the case with someone with low inflammation markers)”
First I am not an expert on this. This is a multi-faceted health challenge. Everyone agrees that we have to invest in our health to have optimal health. The underlying way to invest in our health is through a good diet and limit toxins or detoxify if necessary.
As to atherosclerosis, literature does associate it with inflammation.
Our blood vessels have a Teflon like coating on the inside. The lining will prevent buildup of anything, be it cholesterol or even blood clots. That is, unless there is something that changes the nature of it. In this case, inflammation does just that. To protect the inflammation, should it happen to the lining of the blood vessel, the cholesterol comes to the rescue, unfortunately.
Once attached there, it can continue to build up. That is the theory.
Please note that this is the current thinking of the medical establishment. What is interesting is the relationship to inflammation and oxidization stress. The most important aspect about this is that it is on the frontiers of knowledge.
Below is one of the papers that made up part of my research. Note that it includes studies that looked at the Apo B and A-1. The point of the paper was there are no high level studies that associate cholesterol with with atherosclerosis growth.
Q J Med Q 2002 you can read the write up on the theory.
From the paper….
“It is generally assumed that their effect on cardiovascular disease is mediated through the high cholesterol, but this may be a secondary phenomenon.(italics ours) Physical activity may benefit the cardiovascular system by improving endothelial function, or by stimulating the formation of collateral vessels; mental stress may have a harmful influence on adrenal hormone secretion, smoking increases the oxidant burden; in these all situations the high cholesterol may be an epiphenomenal indicator that something is wrong. This argument also explains why some studies found atherosclerotic growth to be associated with initial or on-study LDL-cholesterol, but not with {Delta}LDL or total cholesterol. If the amount of LDL-cholesterol in the blood were the determining factor, atherosclerotic growth should have been associated with {Delta}LDL-cholesterol as well and to a higher degree.”
“As shown here, this hypothesis appears to be falsified by the fact that degree of atherosclerosis, and atherosclerotic growth, were independent on the concentration or the change of LDL-cholesterol in almost all studies.”
Note: The focus of my post is that cholesterol is poorly understood and a poor marker to use as a basis for looking at cardiac health risk on its own. Also, Statins are shown to be ineffective for patients over 65. They do reduce cholesterol but are not shown to decrease adverse cardiac health events.
To answer the question…”Can I get atherosclerosis in the absence of inflammation?” the answer is unknown. What if someone does experience a period of inflammation at some point in their life?
It seems the course of wisdom would be to reduce cholesterol. The question would be how to best do this. Lowering cholesterol can be accomplished through a number of dietary changes or improvements. The benefit is that these provide other benefits in addition to just lowering cholesterol.
This is still a work in progress. There is still a lot of research to sift through and doctors to interview.
I am a two eggs a day for breakfast all of my life kind of guy. Yet, even though a bit overweight, my cholesterol was lower than my wife and both HDL and LDL were in the good to great ranges back when I had it done. I think to some degree, science is like five blind men all describing their part of a a pink elephant. Even with all they can describe, there is one big thing they just cannot see.
All of this is quite exciting and at the same time mind boggling.
This is not a Doctors do not want us to know thing. This is not a drug companies do not want us to know thing either. They are out to make a buck. They could care less about us becoming educated consumers. And that is the real issue.
Do not fire your doctor either. As the article above states, Statins have an anti-inflammatory effect. All is not known yet about this. A frank and open discussion and even debate can change all of this.
If your reading this, then you have taken that step, to become an educated consumer. If your posting here, then you have begun the debate to help improve health care.
Note: This reminds me of Dr. Goodenoug. He was one of the leading authors writing about those who refused blood transfusions being crazy. Now, he is one of the most prolific writers and speakers on bloodless medicine and surgery. Why? In his research he became an educated consumer. He will be the first to tell you that the transfusion you refuse may save your life.
Imagine this, a doctor who believed one way making a total 180 and now promoting the exact opposite. You have the power to make such changes yourself. If you question the common thinking.
Good health to you.