Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

fda.gov

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 74 posts

Re: FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

#31

Post by cthalupa »

hankbond wrote: post #6

What is the current state of understanding on high cholesterol as a leading or trailing indicator of poor health? I vaguely remember reading one theory that cholesterol was used by the body to mitigate arterial damage from other causes?

It (Particularly ApoB/Combining LDL-C and Lp(a) is one of the single largest leading indicators of health risk we have.

If anything, the data we have is suggesting we've gotten wrong what the upper limits should be for what is considered OK.

https://www.lipidjournal.com/article/S1933-2874(25)00317-4/f...

Re: FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

#35

Post by jghn »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #26
jghn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dietary cholesterol has little impact on blood cholesterol. However the post that started this debate mentioned mass loss. And that does have a decent correlation. Go from obese to not obese and the median person's cholesterol will drop quite a bit.

It’s possible the comments have changed, but I see nothing in the thread about mass loss. I do agree about weight though — losing weight is largely diet. > Go from obese to not obese and the median person's cholesterol will drop quite a bit. This is really interesting, I don’t think I’ve heard that before. Do you have a source you could share? Edit: this doesn’t necessarily prove you wrong, but this paper argues ther…

for the most part mass == weight on Earth.

Triglycerides & HDL are affected by weight (tho more triglycerides than anything else), e.g. Wing 2011.

Re: FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

#36

Post by rubiquity »

pinkmuffinere wrote: post #26
jghn wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Dietary cholesterol has little impact on blood cholesterol. However the post that started this debate mentioned mass loss. And that does have a decent correlation. Go from obese to not obese and the median person's cholesterol will drop quite a bit.

It’s possible the comments have changed, but I see nothing in the thread about mass loss. I do agree about weight though — losing weight is largely diet. > Go from obese to not obese and the median person's cholesterol will drop quite a bit. This is really interesting, I don’t think I’ve heard that before. Do you have a source you could share? Edit: this doesn’t necessarily prove you wrong, but this paper argues ther…

There isn't. I'm 15% body fat, eat healthy (avoid saturated fats, prioritize fiber), exercise 5-6 times per week, and have hypercholesterolemia. I, along with my parents, have very high LDL and ApoB and nothing I can do about it in terms of diet, exercise, or weight.

I'm also not uncommon. They suspect as much of 30% of the population could be like this. There's a lot of ignorance in this thread.

Re: FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

#37

Post by _kidlike »

cthalupa wrote: post #28
_kidlike wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cholesterol is one of the most crucial molecules for survival. It's used to create and maintain cell membranes, and other critical functions. The vast majority is created by the liver, and there are a lot of regulating signals for how much, which is where usually things go off. Low cholesterol production is an extremely serious condition. The "only" problem with high cholesterol is that it builds up inside artery wal…

> Low cholesterol production is an extremely serious condition. This is correct, but not in the way you mean it. We know people can effectively produce no LDL cholesterol in their liver and have positive health impacts - these MR studies are a big part of what drove this entire class of cholesterol medications. And the monoclonal antibody versions of PCSK9 inhibitors have shown basically the same results. Virtually a…

o_O

Re: FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

#38

Post by lurker_72 »

hmontazeri wrote: post #9

Just do fasting and lose weight. Had high cholesterol and did that lost 20 pounds and my cholesterol went back to normal without any medical intervention

I have familial hypercholesterolemia and none of that makes any difference. In fact 2 of my siblings and both my daughters have it too. My youngest sister had a stroke at 24 because of it.

Diet, statins, etc can't get us in healthy ranges and PCKS9 inhibitors is literally the only thing that moves the needle. I'm on Repatha, one of the injectable inhibitors, statins and Ezetimibe to manage it.

Needless to say I am super happy about this news, especially if it is affordable.

Really hopeful that Verve 102 passes trials and becomes generally available.

Re: FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

#39

Post by pinkmuffinere »

jghn wrote: post #35
pinkmuffinere wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s possible the comments have changed, but I see nothing in the thread about mass loss. I do agree about weight though — losing weight is largely diet. > Go from obese to not obese and the median person's cholesterol will drop quite a bit. This is really interesting, I don’t think I’ve heard that before. Do you have a source you could share? Edit: this doesn’t necessarily prove you wrong, but this paper argues ther…

for the most part mass == weight on Earth. Triglycerides & HDL are affected by weight (tho more triglycerides than anything else), e.g. Wing 2011.

> for the most part mass == weight on Earth.

The thread above us discusses neither mass nor weight. Here it is copied in full -- I encourage you to use ctrl-f

> mediumsmart 1 hour ago

> One could eat healthy instead of course but hey, the good life.

> shlant 1 hour ago

> you didn't read the article did you? Or are you actually here to claim that people with hypercholesterolemia just need to eat better?

> Do you have the same simplistic ideas about GLP-1's?

> moi2388 1 hour ago

> For all people? No. For the vast majority of people? Yes. Eat healthy and exercise more

I'm a bit upset that I put in effort to genuinely engage in your claims, and you're not willing to go back and read the thread to confirm claims that _you made_. In fact, you suckered me into re-reading the same thread _for the third time_ looking for some throwaway line I missed about mass or weight. I could just decide that internet discussion doesn't matter, and stop engaging on HN, but I'd rather not do that. Can you please try a bit more?

I'm not going to reply to the Triglycerides & HDL comment without a link. It was your claim initially, and I was nice enough to provide a link with evidence against it, so surely you can do the same in support.

Re: FDA approves new kind of cholesterol pill

#40

Post by BiteCode_dev »

hankbond wrote: post #6

What is the current state of understanding on high cholesterol as a leading or trailing indicator of poor health? I vaguely remember reading one theory that cholesterol was used by the body to mitigate arterial damage from other causes?

All the answers are smart sounding and completely avoid to address your main point. Same with most doctors I asked it to.
Post reply on HN