Doctor-Overcautious?

[Superchicken]

I think that’s where I’m a bit confused, as @deadbeef just showed, the evidence is unequivocal that with all else equal -> lower LDL is better with no lower limit.

You keep saying the evidence is unclear or not present or not shown that very very low LDL is better, but there is a mountain of evidence. Again, I’d point you specifically towards studies on those born with a dysfunctional PCSK9 gene who live heart disease free but with zero other adverse side effects, with basically non-existent LDL.

You’re spinning wheels discussing this with him. I know because I’ve done it, and seen others try, too. Waste of energy and no amount of evidence you share will make a difference.

 

[buck]

that buck poster / user is just another troll. i had that mentality for years although not so extreme. dude’s entire point is literally to let your cholesterol and liver values go out of range all in the name of getting attention for saying something different.

Your interpretation is what is skewed.
I have never recommended that. I just point out that the range for longevity may not be optimal when compared to what pharmaceutical companies push for is optimal for heart issues. Cholesterol is used by most all cells in the body.
Some people only want one side of an issue spoken of for some reason as opposed to letting people choose for themselves.I find data speaks for itself.My cholesterol levels have always been low yet high CAC score so cholesterol may not be as big or the only issue t look into.
But i support you coming to what ever opinion suits you best.
You can always scroll on by my posts or utilize the ignore button. I often use those techniques on here.

 

[dinfaralt]

Cholesterol is used by most all cells in the body.

you're speaking with ai bots influenced by the big ai bot ghoul. good luck trying to speak specifics!

 

[buck]

you're speaking with ai bots influenced by the big ai bot ghoul. good luck trying to speak specifics!

Thank you.
But i know they have already closed their minds to anything new that doesn't agree with them. And are allowing big brother to decide their fates I am putting out my opinion and studies i have seen for people to use it they see fit, ignore or wipe their ass with as i don't care what choices others make for themselves. We end living our choices in every area of life. I am happy with my own so far. I hope to have an open enough mind to where if i see some new good long term studies(if people post them) that say something else that i will be man enough to change my opinion.

 

[buck]

Instead of cherry-picking studies that meet the narrative, why don't we look at all of the studies, including ones that don't show a benefit:

View attachment 370085

The evidence is unequivocal.

And on the average what level long term showed the best longevity! As that graph is about heart disease. As i have said many times my posts are not about heart disease. As Liptors own study that i posted above shows low LDL had better out comes for the heart yet people died more often leading to lower longevity.
I asked AI the question and got an answer
"People with LDL-C levels in the moderate range (around 100-189 mg/dL) often show the lowest long-term mortality risk in primary prevention, while extremely low levels (< 70 mg/dL) can paradoxically increase mortality risk, suggesting a U-shaped curve where both very low and very high LDL-C levels might be less optimal than a middle ground, particularly in older, non-diabetic populations.

A different AI bot says
"While we don’t have a definitive LDL-C level that guarantees the longest lifespan, it seems that moderate levels of LDL-C, typically in the range of 50-100 mg/dL,"
So it seems opinions with bots differs well.

 

[deadbeef]

And on the average what level long term showed the best longevity! As that graph is about heart disease. As i have said many times my posts are not about heart disease. As Liptors own study that i posted above shows low LDL had better out comes for the heart yet people died more often leading to lower longevity.
I asked AI the question and got an answer
"People with LDL-C levels in the moderate range (around 100-189 mg/dL) often show the lowest long-term mortality risk in primary prevention, while extremely low levels (< 70 mg/dL) can paradoxically increase mortality risk, suggesting a U-shaped curve where both very low and very high LDL-C levels might be less optimal than a middle ground, particularly in older, non-diabetic populations.

A different AI bot says
"While we don’t have a definitive LDL-C level that guarantees the longest lifespan, it seems that moderate levels of LDL-C, typically in the range of 50-100 mg/dL,"
So it seems opinions with bots differs well.

I'm not going to waste my time with a cholesterol denier so I'll just repeat AI since you are using them as your sources:

What is the cholesterol paradox?

The “cholesterol paradox” refers to observations that, in certain populations or disease states, lower cholesterol levels are associated with higher mortality or worse outcomes, which appears to contradict the usual association of higher LDL or total cholesterol with higher cardiovascular risk.
Core idea
• In the general population, higher LDL and non‑HDL cholesterol clearly track with higher risk of atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease and all‑cause mortality.
• In some cohorts (e.g., very old adults, patients with heart failure, CKD, cancer, or acute MI), people with lower total or LDL cholesterol sometimes show higher mortality, leading to terms like “cholesterol paradox,” “reverse epidemiology,” or “risk factor reversal.”
Typical settings where it shows up
• Acute myocardial infarction (AMI): Several studies report that AMI patients with lower total or LDL cholesterol at admission have higher long‑term all‑cause mortality compared with those with higher levels, even though in matched community controls higher LDL still predicts higher risk.
• Heart failure and chronic illness: In chronic heart failure, CKD, COPD, malignancy, and in frail or hospitalized patients, higher LDL or total cholesterol often correlates with better short‑ to medium‑term survival, contrary to primary‑prevention data.
Proposed explanations
• Reverse causation and frailty: Serious illness, systemic inflammation, malignancy, and frailty can lower cholesterol via catabolism, poor intake, and cytokine‑driven changes in lipid metabolism; low cholesterol in these contexts may be a marker of underlying disease severity rather than a cause of harm.
• Nutritional status: Low cholesterol often tracks with malnutrition, sarcopenia, and low BMI in older or hospitalized patients; worse nutrition predicts higher mortality and can confound the association between cholesterol and outcomes.
• Inflammation and lipoprotein quality: Inflammatory states can both lower measured cholesterol and increase risk via mechanisms like small, dense LDL, dysfunctional HDL, and high hs‑CRP, so standard lipid panels may underestimate risk while low numbers appear “protective” or misleading.
Clinical implications
• The paradox does not invalidate LDL as a causal factor in atherosclerosis in primary and secondary prevention; rather, it highlights that in advanced age or serious disease, low cholesterol can be a risk marker of poor health rather than a beneficial sign.
• Interpreting lipids in older, frail, or acutely ill patients requires context: nutritional status, inflammation, body composition, and comorbidities may matter as much as or more than the absolute cholesterol concentration.

BTW, in that study you love so much the authors did not account for the use of lipid lowering medications, which is exactly what leads to the cholesterol paradox.

 

[buck]

I'm not going to waste my time with a cholesterol denier so I'll just repeat AI since you are using them as your sources:

Thank you for showing that opinions differ on the topic.
Studies show different things and AI shows different thing. I recommend people read and make their own choice.

 

[deadbeef]

Thank you for showing that opinions differ on the topic.
Studies show different things and AI shows different thing. I recommend people read and make their own choice.

Thank you for confirming never to engage with a cholesterol denier.

 

[buck]

Thank you for confirming never to engage with a cholesterol denier.

Thanks
I am fine with engaging with any one as i might learn something new. We all have an opinion, But i just want to see the studies for myself to make my own decisions.