New model could explain old cholesterol mystery

I understand that, but my point was that it's in principle possible that the exact effects of a particular genetic disease are hard to discover. Serum cholesterol is easy to measure, so it could be just the easiest to notice sign of a more complex metabolic modification induced by the specific genes. I doubt we are at a point where we can look at a gene and say exactly what it affects in the entire body.

NICE no longer specifies target cholesterol levels for people with diabetes. Your doctors will use a calculator, called QRISK2, to work out your risk of heart disease using a number of factors such as age, BMI, gender, blood pressure levels, cholesterol levels and which type of diabetes you have.

If you want a general guide of how healthy your cholesterol levels are, find out your total cholesterol-to-HDL ratio

To find this, take your total cholesterol figure and divide it by your HDL figure. A result of less than four is healthy

https://www.diabetes.co.uk/Diabetes-and-cholesterol.html

I would actually argue that "stuffing my face" with 2 A&W lettuce wrapped uncle burgers (sandwich only, no combo) is healthier than having one regular mama burger with fries, lots of ketchup and a half litre of coke (or whatever sugary drink you prefer).

(This is the keto vs. regular diet example from before and showcases exactly what I was saying. You attribute value to one particular diet, while I might have another, ideal, healthy diet in my mind. After said 2 uncle burgers I don't have to eat again for a _very_ long time. On keto I've gone without eating for a day easy without feeling hundry, while I'd want an early dinner after the other option mentioned for lunch because my stomach is aching for more food)

I think so.

The author wrote "People who get heart disease are more likely to have high LDL cholesterol". Had she written "People who have high LDL cholesterol are more likely to get heart disease" then the argument would have been valid.

I've always had high-ish cholesterol. I dramatically cut down on carbs and animal protein (no meat at all, but still some dairy and eggs) which resulted in only modest improvement to LDL.

I do cardio at least 3 times a week and train a form of calisthenics (push ups, pull ups, dips, etc) at least three days a week.

It doesn't really do much for the numbers. I think some people just draw the short straw on cholesterol.

The trick to it is that cholesterol is only one of many subtle risk factors in cardiovascular health. As this article suggests, it's obviously not the case that high cholesterol is universally associated with worse outcomes, and there's no guarantee that improving the test scores will provide any benefit for an otherwise healthy patient. Does the doctor look at the whole person and their exercise regimen and conclude it's not worth medicating for the cholesterol risk? Or do they consider that lowering cholesterol can improve risk even further and so recommend medication? There's actually a protocol here that includes cholesterol as only one factor.

Ideally, a model like the one in this article could help better understand who to actually treat. We know cholesterol is a reliable proxy for risk at population levels, but if it could be ruled out for individual parents that would be very helpful.