What's current thinking on high cholesterol?

[Holepunch]

I take an interest in diet and nutrition and as I understand it the link between heart disease and cholesterol levels has been pretty much discredited.

I had an eye test today and the optician says I have some deposits that may indicate high cholesterol, should see a dr for a blood test.

I'm in my 40s, and usually considered low risk, eat well, normal weight, enough exercise, no family history etc. Even if my cholesterol level is high, does it matter? The advice will be to eat healthily, which I already do.

In short, is it necessary, will knowing that my levels are/aren't high make any difference to me?

It's still an ongoing debate.
What is news is that high fat foods and especially saturated fat may not cause heart disease. This is not quite the same as saying high cholesterol isn't dangerous. But even so, there is a debate about high chol= heart disease etc.

It's actually more important to exercise regularly to reduce chol. rather than eat less fat.

Some experts think it is sugar ( and also refined carbs) that are the devil, causing inflammation that clogs the arteries.

If I were you I'd have a chol test and then take it from there. Some people produce too much cholesterol no matter what they eat or how they exercise so if this was you then at least you would know and could do something about it if you decide to.

I have been taking an interest in diet recently as well Holepunch and i've basically been trying to eat a lot more fish and also now have eggs for breakfast becuase even cereals like Special K, if you look at the nutritionals still have so much sugar in the,

wonder how many eggs is too many eggs with cholesterol?

There is no limit to how many eggs- that was decided ages ago now. it's a myth that eggs are 'bad' for you.

France has a lower rate of CVD yet they eat loads of butter, cream etc.

There is no real link between fat and CVD- it's all being re-assessed.

Sugar and carbs are worse for you.

I'm interested in this too - I have been on a low carb diet for a year losing 2.5 stone and I went for an eye test on Monday and was told exactly the same with regard to chol in the eye.

I eat a high fat diet - lots of eggs, butter, mayonnaise etc with the low carb plan and I'm now wondering if I'm doing the wrong thing. I had a spot cholesterol test done in work a few months ago and it was 4.7 whcih I was told was fine.

I should book another chol test I suppose

It's worth having a chol test, and make sure it's a fasting test to get a true result. My husband is early 40s , fit ( marathon runner), good weight, healthy diet, workplace chol test showed chol levels through the roof and is now on statins. He apparently just naturally creates too much chol, he has the eye deposits too and damage to his liver.

It's all a bit of a minefield- news last week was saying that a side effect of statins was diabetes especially in men.

Personally, I'd not cut out good fats, but be a bit less generous with the helpings of butter and cream- though not give them up.
I have recently changed from margarine to butter because most margarine is sunflower oil derived and this is Omega 6s which is implicated in detrimental health changes - inflammation in the body which can cause all sorts of damage.

Similarly I no longer use anything with sunflower oil- rapeseed is high in Omega 3 and olive oil is neutral re. polysats/ unsaturated.

Mine is high.

I have gave up worrying. Changing diet can only lower it very slightly and I am not taking statins. I am a healthy weight and have good blood pressure.

After a lot of research and talking to people here I am not convinced that it matters all that much. Only 50% of people who have heart attacks have high cholesterol and it is often thought that women who have higher levels live longer.

So much new research has been done and I have yet to find any real scientific evidence which is backed up to say high cholesterol is a big killer.

Mine was 5.9 the last time I got checked.

My risk of a heart attack was considered very low risk. The tri whatever, the bad cholesterol levels were good.

Statins come with huge side effects and I decided I would rather take the risks of a heart attack instead of liver damage, muscle aches, dementia, diabetes and kidney failure.

Statins have only really proved effective in people who have already had heart attacks.

www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/high-blood-cholesterol/in-depth/statin-side-effects/art-20046013

Thanks all.

That's pretty much what I've read, there's no real proof that high levels of cholesterol are bad and that statins might do more harm than good.

So, if I was tested and was high, I'd be advised to review my diet and if that didn't help be prescribed statins, which I don't want to take.

That's the conclusion I came to too.

Diet alone very rarely lowers cholesterol. My gp said that I could probably lower mine to 5.8- 5.7 with diet alone.

Mine was higher at one point due to my low thyroid. Once they upped my meds it dropped down a bit. My husband's is 6.8 and my mum is about the same as mine. None of us are bothering after what we have read and I have awful health anxiety and worried so much about it to start with until I read more about it.

I have one GP who wants me on statins but my normal GP said he would refuse to put me on them himself.

The choice is yours to make. I'd get checked for cholesterol and diabetes. Eye sight is so important, I wouldn't want to risk it

You can control chol. with diet but it's hard work. My mum got hers from 6-something to below 5 but it took a few months and being very strict- cutting out all the less obvious fat that is found in cakes and biscuits as well as obvious cheese, butter, fried food etc.

Exercise is as important as diet as is eating enough fibre to ensure the fat is mopped up!

Loves confused by your post. High chol doesn't affect eyesight- but the eyes show deposits so it's a warning sign for investigations.

I find it alarming that certainties are overturned so frequently, not so long ago statins were said to be so unequivocally beneficial that they ought to be in the water supply.
Now they are revealed to have major drawbacks.
Health outcomes are most likely the result of multiple factors interacting in complex ways ?