Now, understand that I know the following is just one data point, and anecdotal at that, but nevertheless, for reasons that will become apparent, I view it as an important data point. And yes, I promise I will wander far afield from that data point before the post is over. Deal with it. 🙂
How many years now have we heard the litany that
- cholesterol-clogged arteries lead to atherosclerosis and that leads to heart attacks and strokes AND that
- ingesting cholesterol-rich foods leads to cholesterol-clogged arteries, etc.
Well, I’m not sure how many years that’s been, but I’m pretty sure it’s on the close order of four decades.
Now, here’s the anecdote.
40 years or so ago, I received an invitation in the mail from a county health department to be part of a cholesterol survey. Note: this was not a scientific study, but simply an epidemiological survey. Big difference between the two, although many conflate them. I dutifully responded, went in and had blood drawn and filled out a survey that detailed my diet.
I got called back to have my whole thing done all over again because, it turned out, my results did not match up with the expected results. Why? I’m not sure, but I have some ideas. You see, my diet was laden with butter, red meats, whole Guernsey milk (with at least a quart of cream per gallon), etc.–all the things that did not match up with the expected model, since my blood cholesterol levels were very low.
Now, I have no idea what they finally did with my data, even though in the retest my results on blood cholesterol levels were the same as before, but I have my suspicions. *heh*
My ideas on why my data did not match their expected outcomes are many, but a significant factor could well have been my age (early 20s) and activity levels (a couple of miles running and over 10 miles biking per day–minimum–in addition to a WSI class, working 30+ hours a week and full time school and social life).
But no. All the survey was interested in was cholesterol intake and lipid blood levels.
Even now, though, at a more *cough* advanced age, with a sedentary life style and food intake that wouldn’t satisfy the normal cardiologist, my cholesterol levels are only very, very slightly above the even more restricted levels sought today (yes, they do keep moving the goal posts, although doing so has demonstrated no significant effect on heart attack and stroke occurrences), well within the modern medical industry’s “OK” levels.
I suspect that, in addition to the activity levels and age I believe played some part in baffling the study’s sponsors ~40 years ago, some genetic component may also be at play. It’s interesting that my doctor asked, on initial survey, only whether my parents or grandparents had had heart trouble, NOT when. When I noted that half my grandparents had had heart trouble, I qualified it with, “One grandfather developed heart issues in his early 80s and the other, after 40 years of diabetes, eventually died of a heart attack at 88.”
A different spin on things once the conditions were defined more clearly.
Of course, my dad has had heart/circulatory issues for the past ten years. He’s 87, now. My mom’s had electrical issues with her heart for years, but since I’ve never shown any signs of similar issues, that’s a non-issue as well.
If I do develop issues when I’m in my 70s or 80s, so what? It’s called old age.
This one size fits all approach to health issues based mostly on epidemiological studies is simply stupid. But guess what? The “feddel gummint”–the same folks who apparently believe that the U.S. is Lake Woebegon and all children can be above average–wants to force folks into the world of Harrison Bergeron, where some sort of statistical average is all that’s allowed. Watch out for “Height Panels” to come along after Death Panels are well established, in order to literally reduce everone to the lowest common denominator…
