Good day,

I would like to inquire about your perspective on the following issue. A lady at acupuncture told me that a high cholesterol level, as currently defined by tables as being over 5 mmol/l, is actually relatively low. Lower values are continuously reported in tables primarily due to pharmaceutical companies and, consequently, money. Apparently, 20 years ago, the tables were entirely different and indicated high values, for example, up to over 16 mmol/l. What do you think about this?

Thank you very much for your response.

This area is somewhat more complex, or rather, it is no longer viewed in such a black-and-white and strictly as it was in past decades when the impact of cholesterol on health was significantly demonized. On one side of the debate is the pharmaceutical lobby, which has gradually been lowering the risk value of cholesterol (today in our country, it's above 5 mmol/l, but these values vary between countries, with some nearing 6 mmol/l), and on the other side are the increasing scientific evidence that efforts to lower total cholesterol levels do not fulfill expectations in terms of reducing the risk of cardiovascular diseases (except in younger men under the age of 50). Today, we know that a much more important indicator is the ratio of LDL and triglycerides, including the level of oxidative stress (the body's antioxidant capacity); therefore, an elevated total cholesterol level by itself should not be considered a definitive indicator of heart and vascular health and should not be treated with medication (statins) at any cost. Twenty years ago, a cholesterol level of 5.2 mmol/l was presented as the risk value (in the 1980s it was 6.2 mmol/l). The values above 16 mmol/l were just plucked out of thin air by the lady at acupuncture... :-)

Themes:  Cholesterol