There have been reports of 'ultra-bad' LDL cholesterol particles.
These are smaller and denser LDL particles that change shape and stick to the artery walls, causing poor blood flow. Not sure if these are the same, smaller LDLs that you can distinguish from the "large and fluffy" ones through VAP tests. My impression is that they are a subset of the small LDLs.
The crux is that these amorphous, small LDLs result from "glycation" -- i.e., glycation with sugar. Supposedly, this occus when LDL particles bind with fructose or glucose.
What is the implication of all this? My reading is that this new discovery could piggyback on Gary Taube's recent article castigating sugar. It could finally shift focus away from saturated fat in increasing cholesterol, especially LDL cholesterol.
In other words, doctors and the Big Pharma can still claim that LDLs matter, but single out sugar as a dangerous substance responsible for increasing the really bad LDLs. Perhaps I'm being too optimistic. But this could be a way for both doctors and the Big Pharma to save their faces, yet take their treatment for heart disease in a new direction that emphasizes sugar avoidance. Whadddya think?
"But this could be a way for both doctors and the Big Pharma to save their faces, yet take their treatment for heart disease in a new direction that emphasizes sugar avoidance. Whadddya think?"
I don't think it would be in the best interest of doctors or big pharma to suggest something as simple as avoiding sugar when they could sell you a pill so that you can have your cake and eat it too.
That seems to be the next step for mainstream nutrition who have amended their stance on lipoproteins like a billion times. I don't think drug companies are going to be able to profit from this. The best pills to take to reduce lipoprotein glycation are already being sold by supplement companies. What they'll probably say is something like "you can't glycate it if you don't got it!"
Here is another presentation of the same material. http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/05/110526204953.htm
We have all learned previously that small dense LDL particles are the baddies in that they are the ones that worm their way into the crevises of the vascular system and cause the body to cover up that intrusion with plaque. And if we do not eat neolithic foods the preponderance of our LDL will be of the large bouyant fluffy LDL that does no harm.
Now we are told that some really sticky LDLs are now the culprit so now do we want a low absolute number of LDL particles so we have less of the sticky brand or can we eliminate the risk of a cardiac event by still keeping our small dense to large bouyant ratio very low?
VAP and NMR blood tests tell us how many of each we have. But there is no direct way, consumers like us can get a test to see how much sticky we have.
We also know that people with higher total cholesterol than the norm of about 200 of all types live longer than those who have TC less than 200. And we know that paleo eating for a lot of people raises LDL somewhat, raises HDL somewhat and lowers trigs somewhat
So what are we going to be told next? Go back to eating SAD to achieve a number in a blood test. I know prior paleo my lipids were much more acceptable to the mainstream medical establishment.
What's a paleo to do?
The way I feel on HF & LC, I for one will not be going back to feeling a bit off everyday with SAD. But ask my wife, I am a bit off every day!
How to get enough fiber in one's diet. 14 Answers
why would my LDL be so low? 3 Answers
Skyrocketing LDL at 313 - concerns? 7 Answers