More about cholesterol

I have been pretty exercised about the issues I mentioned last week concerning cholesterol.

I wrote to Dr. Leonardi, my "vitality and longevity" doctor to get his reply. He wrote back:

I’ve read all this before. If this information overshadowed the dozens of studies connecting LDL-C with heart disease and its reduction to reduced heart disease, the medical profession at large would embrace it. The truth is the overwhelming data clearly demonstrates the association of LDL (and more particularly, LDL particle number) to coronary risk.

So today I finally decided to write to Dr. Douglass:

Dr. Douglass and Staff:

I am particularly concerned about the scientific grounds for your attacks on the entire anti-cholesterol movement. . . .

My doctor gave me the marketing sheet for the NMR LipoProfile test which includes the following claims:

• "The number of LDL particles interacting with the artery wall is what drives the disease, not the cholesterol within them." --Contemporary Diagnosis and Management in Preventive Cardiology, March 2006
• "In seven diagnostic outcome trials . . . The number of LDL particles (LDL-P) was proven to be a better predictor of CHD risk than LDL cholesterol (LDL-C)." --Specific studies cited:
  • Kuller at al. NMR spectroscopy of lipoproteins and risk of CHD in the Cardiovascular Health Study. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol 2002;22:1175-80.
  • Blake et al. LDL particle concentration and size as determined by NMR spectroscopy as predictors of cardiovascular disease in women. Circulation 2002;106:1930-37.
  • Otvos et al. LDL and HDL particle subclasses predict coronary events and are changed favorably by gemfibrozil therapy in the Veterans Affairs HDL Intervention Trial (VA-HIT). Circulation. 2006;113:1556-63.
  • Rosenson et al. Relations of lipoprotein subclass levels and LDL size to progression of coronary artery disease in the PLAC I trial. Amer J Cardiol 2002;90:89-94.
  • Mackey et al. Lipoprotein subclasses and coronary artery calcification in postmenopausal women from the Healthy Women Study. Amer J Cardiol 2002;90(8A):71i-76i.
  • Mora et al. LDL particle subclasses, LDL particle size, and carotid atherosclerosis in the Multi-Ethnic Study of Atherosclerosis. Atherosclerosis. 2007; 192:211-7.
  • Cromwell et al. LDL particle number and risk for future cardiovascular disease in the Framingham Offspring Study – implications for LDL management. J Clin Lipidol 2007;1(6):583-92.

Book cover via AmazonMeanwhile, my daughter handed me the book that appears to provide the full basis for all of your claims about cholesterol (at least all the claims you and/or your copywriter make in your The Biggest Medical Lie of the Last 50 Years booklet--many of which you seemed to repeat in your latest [October 2008] newsletter). I am referring, of course, to the Introduction to Sally Fallon's Nourishing Traditions.

I am distressed to find that all of Fallon's references pre-date every one of the studies cited by my doctor and/or NMR LipoProfile--most of them by decades. Is the "old science" of the '60s, '70s and '80s really better than the "new science" of the 2000s?

Thanks so much!

I look forward to receiving some kind of reply, hopefully.