Cody Mooneyhan
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
If you think your levels of "good cholesterol" are good enough, a new study published in the December 2008 issue of The FASEB Journal
suggests that you may want to think again. In the report, researchers
from the University of Chicago challenge the conventional wisdom that
simply having high levels of good cholesterol (HDL) and low levels of
bad cholesterol (LDL) is necessary for good heath. Instead, they show
that the good cholesterol has varying degrees of quality and that poor
quality HDL is actually bad for you.
"For many years, HDL has
been viewed as good cholesterol and has generated a false perception
that the more HDL in the blood, the better," said Angelo Scanu, M.D., a
pioneer in blood lipid chemistry from University of Chicago and first
author of the study. "It is now apparent that subjects with high HDL
are not necessarily protected from heart problems and should ask their
doctor to find out whether their HDL is good or bad."
The
researchers came to this conclusion after reviewing published research
on this subject. In their review, they found that the HDL from people
with chronic diseases such as rheumatoid arthritis, kidney disease, and
diabetes is different from the HDL in healthy individuals, even when
blood levels of HDL are comparable. They observed that normal, "good,"
HDL reduces inflammation, while the dysfunctional, "bad," HDL does not.
"This
is yet one more line of research that explains why some people can have
perfect cholesterol levels, but still develop cardiovascular disease,"
said Gerald Weissmann, M.D., Editor-in-Chief of The FASEB Journal.
"Just as the discovery of good and bad cholesterol rewrote the book on
cholesterol management, the realization that some of the 'good
cholesterol' is actually bad will do the same."
Source: Federation of American Societies for Experimental Biology
Original article: Angelo M. Scanu and Celina Edelstein. HDL: bridging past and present with a look at the future. The FASEB Journal. 2008;22:4044-4054.
|