I’m not very invested in this argument, but the biology seems pretty much identical (HG and chimps and modern humans) so at least its an indication that low is not harmful…

I’m not very invested in this argument, but the biology seems pretty much identical (HG and chimps and modern humans) so at least its an indication that low is not harmful…

https://academic.oup.com/eurheartj/advance-article/doi/10.1093/eurheartj/ehaf553/8237967?login=false
a new paper:
The medical community has traditionally dichotomized patients into primary and secondary prevention, which may be too simplistic. Recent biomarker, imaging, and pharmacotherapy trials have highlighted the importance of recognizing and treating subclinical atherosclerosis to mitigate the progression of subclinical disease and reduce the risk for highly morbid or lethal ASCVD events. Here, we describe the patient with subclinical atherosclerosis and risk factors as a “high-risk primary prevention” patient. Employing an optimal therapeutic strategy over the lifetime of a high-risk primary prevention patient can mitigate ASCVD progression and prevent ASCVD events. This review highlights biomarkers for identifying high-risk primary prevention patients and reviews clinical trials in this population. We then describe current data that guide the management of these patients and discuss future directions for management.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S266666772500340X
“Go ahead and JUMP!” - and guitar riff
![]()
I disagree, quoting you as an authority is a clear sign of intelligence!
I agree that the hunter gatherer argument is thin, but I do think it has some, albeit minor, interest/weight in the absence of long term, all cause mortality RCTs for Ldl-c lowering drugs in primary prevention.
The data is clear that lowering typical western ldl-c is beneficial but my main interest on this as a longevity issue is seeking to understand the optimum range for ldl-c.
The evidence points to anywhere between 10 to 80 which is pretty broad. And the data supporting a target below 50 is very thin. Which is why I’m always interested in academics who misrepresent the data to go lower.
Thomas Dayspring also tweeted in favour of very low (20 to 40) quoting a paper which also misrepresented the hunter gatherer data. I think it’s notable that the data has been misquoted twice by two eminent academics.
Do you have a link to the paper? What is the mis-quote?
The paper stated:
“Based on the log-linear relationship of LDL-C to the hazard ratio for an acute ASCVD event, the LDL-C level where no excess risk occurs is approximately 38 mg/dL or 1 mmol/L [64] (Fig. 1). This value is consistent with the LDL-C levels observed among hunter-gatherer populations [65,66”
The hunter-gatherer data referenced was the graph I quoted above showing total cholesterol of 100 to 150 and interpreted by the authors as consistent “with estimated LDL cholesterol levels of about 50 to 75 mg/dl”
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2666667722000551?via%3Dihub
The temptation to misquote (fairly poor) hunter gatherer LDL data to support LDL below 50 is obviously quite strong
The Paper:
The full section:
In case anyone is interested in the underlying source of this graph, it’s from the paper linked below.
The data is from multiple studies which looked at cholesterol lowering interventions in elderly high risk or existing cvd subjects. So it suggests 38 LDL-C would eliminate cvd risk for secondary prevention or high risk elderly groups.
https://www.jacc.org/doi/full/10.1016/j.jacc.2004.07.001
In terms of primary prevention with no risk factors, the original paper (linked above) concludes:
“If LDL-C in blood is kept very low routinely – under 85 mg/dL for life, … atherosclerosis seems unlikely to occur to any clinically meaningful degree”
But I can’t find the data supporting such a relatively high level either🙂.
As with all these things I tend to reach for a tin of sardines when the data is inconclusive…
A disturbing must-see video for statin users such as myself.
# Statins Slash GLP-1 Levels: Human Controlled Trial
The same people who take this guy seriously also believe that cancer has been cured every time a popsci article says that X cures cancer because it worked in a petri dish.
It’s a real issue. Obicetrapib + ezetimibe will solve that problem.
Please - if anyone is posting a video now, include an AI summary (from here or other… Krisp | Free Youtube Video Summarizer with AI
Introduction to Statins and GLP-1 Levels
Lack of Awareness in the Medical Community
Study Overview and Key Findings
Mechanism of Action: Statins and Gut Microbiome
Animal Model Confirmation
Human Pilot Trial with UDCA
Broader Implications and Call to Action
Conclusion and Recommendations
He has credentials: a PhD in Human Metabolism at Oxford and an MD from Harvard.
I will take his opinion any day over yours. What are your credentials?
At no point did he suggest that people should stop taking statins.
Your main contribution seems to be trolling.
I take statins and rapamycin, both of which raise my A1C, and I can’t tolerate metformin.
So, yes, I am going to take TUDCA for at least 30 days and monitor what it does to my fasting glucose levels and A1C.
Can we move these discussions somewhere else than the flozin thread? We have a UDCA & TUDCA thread by the way: UDCA (ursodiol) / TUDCA for healthspan and lifespan?
This is a very nice yt video of a doctor who experimented with a bunch of statins and dosages, combo with ezetimibe and he showed his bloodwork, lipids including Lp(a), glucose measures, insulin, inflammation and so on.
Doctor Reveals: My FULL Bloodworkon statins (+side effects etc) via Nutrition Made Simple!
Every single statin denialist I’ve interacted with has also been an LDL cholesterol denialist, without fail. Really remarkable.
Good and enjoyable. Gil probably confused pitavastatin with pravastatin at the end, it’s really not that much less potent – moderate intensity at max 4 mg dose, which should be more potent than his current 5 mg rosuvastatin. It’s actually the most potent statin, just that 4 mg is the maximum dose.
I might change my statin (currently atorvastatin) to a less glucose/insulin impacting version. My fasting blood glucose levels have been hovering around the 95 to 105 level and I’m wondering if changing statin might lower these…
ChatGPT Query: are some statins better than others in terms of contributing to insulin resistance, increasing the risk of type 2 diabetes, and significantly lowering GLP-1 levels in human?
Yes — different statins vary in how much they affect insulin resistance, type 2 diabetes (T2D) risk, and GLP-1 levels. Here’s a breakdown based on the best available clinical and mechanistic data:
Higher risk (more likely to impair insulin sensitivity and increase T2D incidence):
Lower risk (neutral or sometimes beneficial for insulin sensitivity):
Evidence (still limited, mostly small human studies + animal work):
Statins impair glucose metabolism through:
Potency, dose, and lipophilicity matter: