THIS ARTICLE DOES NOT SAY THAT AT ALL. It talks about RAISING HDL. In fact is says ;
More than 30 years ago, human epidemiological studies first revealed an association between HDL and risk for heart attack: the higher the levels, the lower the risk. Experiments in cells and mice further support the idea and suggest that HDL is protective because it may remove cholesterol from the sites where it can do damage. However, it has been difficult for researchers to prove conclusively that raising HDL levels is beneficial, primarily for two reasons. First, studies of human genetic diseases where individuals have very low HDL levels have not yielded definitive answers as to the impact on heart attack. And second, because there are currently no drugs that specifically elevate HDL levels, it has been difficult to prove in humans that such an intervention will lower heart attack risk.
Also it say; There is a well-studied connection between elevated LDL, often called the "bad cholesterol," and heart attack. Decades of research, including studies of genetic disorders in humans and the discovery of the LDL receptor and its role in cholesterol regulation, paved the way for the development of life-saving drugs known as statins. This work showed beyond any reasonable doubt that many different methods of reducing a person's LDL levels lower the risk of heart disease.
Now is this an article that you claim to prove it your ideas.
It say that lowering LDL with statins is LIFE SAVING and HDL levels are indicative of risk.View Thread
It is possible, but off hand I don't know of any that known for that.
But look at the package insert with the meds.
For my very limited experience it seems that the combination of lisinopril and HCTZ will lower HDL. And doing a search on that I did some some references to that fact. But a few others indicated the opposite.View Thread
I have a real problem with is this report. It is based on a meta analysis of many clinic trails.
We're confused because clinical trials don't compare the number of people reporting each side effect in both statin and placebo groups, Francis tells Shots. The study was published Wednesday in the European Journal of Preventive Cardiology.
All of the published reports that I have read and the pack inserts all report the number of in both the number in the placebo.
On the other hand all of the original clinical trails for FDA approval are not done on "real people".
One that may be taking a multiple list of other meds and have other problems. For example I applied for a trail for a treatment of knee osteoarthritis. But 3 years ago I had surgery to remove my prostate because of cancer. Since then I my PSA has been undetectable. But I was turned down for it .
In real life the users statins are going to have all kinds of medical conditions and going to using a multitude of meds.
I would like to see a study based on all comers.
Now Cleveland Clinic reported that in their practice they reported about 20% of their patients reported muscle pain. But when they did a challenge test they actual number where the pain was caused by statins was much, much less. But, IIRC, some of the people they had to go to low dose, every 2, 3 day dosing. So I don't think that it was clear on the number that was directly effected by the statin. Nor did they try to determine the characteristics of those that did not did not have muscle pain caused by statin.View Thread
I have to convert your number, which are in mmol/l to mg/dl which is used in the US.
HDL 1.82 => 70 Trig 1.2 => 106 LDL 4.1 => 159
TC 6.5 => 251 TC 6.12 => 237
However, you have it backwards. The most common cholesterol test measure TC, HDL, & estimate the LDL from TC - HDL - Trig/5.
In the US you can get a copy of the lab report and see what the numbers are.
I use estimate because the it is not always accurate. Specially for high levels of Trig.
However, there are test that do directly measure LDL.
I am not sure how predictive of looking at the TC/HDL ratio is to the LDL level. In the use by the low guideline and LDL of < 100 is optimal, 100-130 is sub-optimal, and 130-160 is high and 160 is very high.
Under the new guidelines unless it is over 190 then look at the 10 year risk factor.
However measuring the number of LDL cholesterol particles, and not the amount of cholesterol, is a better indicator of risk. In the US that is the NMR. I don't know if a similar test is available in the UK.
Also you can get a CT calcium scan (Cardio Scan) the will measure the amount of calcium in the heart arteries which is an indication of how much is any plaque is building. That is often for people that are "on the fence" about how much risk they have.View Thread