The Story of Cholesterol: The Next Generation (Our Children)

The pharmaceutical industry has its eye on what could be one of the most lucrative demographics that can be tapped into: our children. With obesity rates among young people on a steady rise it was only a matter time before higher cholesterol rates were observed with an eagerness to address it with statin drugs.

Other than the elderly our children are the most vulnerable of us all. That is why special care must be undertaken to ensure a healthy and prosperous start to life. Could statin drug use in our children be the start they need?

The Effects

No one knows for sure the long term effects of statin drugs on children. The reason for this is that no long term studies have been conducted to show efficacy (benefit or harm). What is known is how it affects adults in a relatively short span of time and most often the news is not good.

Also we must consider the fact that statins lower cholesterol by inhibiting the production of hormones especially sex hormones (e.g. testosterone and estrogen). In children this could be potentially devastating altering how their bodies develop forever by interfering with puberty and proper growth. It is known that statin drugs communicate with the pituitary gland blocking or discontinuing certain hormonal functions stunting biological processes.

Children, eating habits, and exercise

According to the Centers for Disease Control childhood obesity rates have doubled in children and tripled in adolescents in the past 30 years. In 2010 it was estimated that nearly 1/3 of all children were overweight or obese. With these statistics there are some doctors and pharmaceutical reps chomping at the bit to get statins into the mouths of children but it doesn't have to be so.

Children tend to eat the way their parents eat. In fact, it is highly likely that if the parents are sedentary, fast food junkies so to will the children likely be. It is estimated that 1/3 of all adults in the U.S. are obese so the estimate for children makes sense. After all the apple doesn't fall far from the tree. We live in a world where we seek the path of least resistance which means we sometimes take short cuts with our health and the health of our children by doing the least possible by way of exercise and activity. We should encourage children to be more active by word and by deed. Children must be told and shown how and why to be active because their very lives depend on it. The same goes for eating habits. A healthy meal plan for the entire family is a great way to get kids involved in healthful and nourishing eating habits that will last their lifetimes.

Medications have their place but long term habitual use in our children will only lead to devastating consequences during or before early adulthood. After all, when you really get down to it, do we really expect an 11 year old child to take statins for 40-60 years without consequences when we know what it does to fully grown adults? Can you imagine the potential profit base for pharmaceutical companies over the same period of time? The average annual per patient cost for a statin is $800 X 60 (years) X 14,000,000 (number of children between the age of 6 and 17 years old that are considered obese or overweight as of 2012) = $672 billion (yes, billion with a B). This number does not take into account the portion of money covered by insurance which is covered by those who pay premiums. It also does not take into account the money that will be spent on other health issues as a result of statin drug use. What is very sad is that the figure above may be overstated because the assumption is a child of 11 would survive until their 70th birthday while taking a statin drug which is unlikely.

More fruits and vegetables, less processed and fast food and a little more movement will allow our children to grow healthy and strong while allowing parents and premium payers alike to keep our money and sanity.

Multivitamin Use Absurd and Dangerous? I Think Not Part II

Another major flaw in the studies cited is what really gives me the greatest concern. With the exception of the chelation study the participants were allowed to use any type of multivitamin they wanted. It mattered not to the researchers if those participating in the studies used natural or synthetic vitamins. The quality of the vitamin nor amount consumed did not matter much either. Participants were not guided on vitamin intake except for the request that the upper limits of vitamin consumption as described by the US Food and Nutrition Board were not exceeded. Even the chelation study failed to control for the quality of the supplements used by the researchers.

A word about "natural" vs. synthetic" vitamins

Since the participants could walk into any store or go online and purchase whatever they wanted there was surely a hodgepodge of vitamins and minerals used. Most people succumb to mainstream advertisements as a major source of supplement information and end up purchasing cheap, synthetic versions of the vitamin they want. The old adage "you get what you pay for" rings very true in this case. Most synthetic vitamins are not bio-available (a fancy word that means your body cannot absorb it) while others are ill absorbed and therefore are just plain trash. How is it possible to receive a meaning outcome in a study where you can shout to the world that multivitamins are useless if you fail to control for (or consider in the case of a meta-analysis) what the participants use? Furthermore, an upper limit of how much to take was established but not a lower limit. What if several of the participants decided to take half doses or less? What reasonable conclusions could one make of a study or analysis that does not account for this? 

It is estimated that a fair majority of all vitamins and minerals on the market today are synthetic with some estimates going as high as 90%! With marketers of all stripes and colors jockeying for our supplemental dollars the truth about the efficacy of their products gets more and more fuzzy. Labels like "all natural" or "food source" can be highly legalistic in definition and therefore deceiving. In order to make sure you are consuming natural vitamins that are high in quality you have to know and trust the manufacturer which can be difficult for sure. Until trust in a product is sure I can give you this one tidbit to take with you on you next supplement shopping trip. Be sure to read the labels and know that any vitamin that begins with "dl" is a synthetic. For example, one of the most widely consumed vitamins in the U.S. is dl-alpha-tocopherol which is a cheap and synthetic form of vitamin E. Notice the "dl" at the head of the name. Also, some manufacturers mix the natural version of a vitamin with the synthetic version. This is how some supplements can be labeled "natural" while containing synthetic product so make sure to read the ingredients if a natural vitamin is what you are looking for.

A holistic approach to health often overlooked

Sadly, many people would like to pigeon hole our health into tidy little compartments mostly to our detriment. Some mean well enough while others are more intentional. Either way we are left in a terrible mess when we or researchers fail to consider the big picture to our health. The interesting point to make here is that multivitamin and mineral use is only one part of the kaleidoscope that makes for great health. If you want to prevent or reverse cardiovascular issues several things must be done. Limiting oxidative stress and inflammation in conjunction with a healthy eating plan, exercise and mental stress mitigation are all keys to better cardiovascular health. I find it extremely disingenuous to conduct any such study of vitamin and mineral use without considering these additional avenues of approach. No one should believe that just taking a multivitamin is going to be helpful while remaining sedentary, over stressed and filled to the gills with fast food especially if the vitamin is synthetic and crappy! But that is just what the researchers want us to believe and what's sad is some of us will.

Multivitamin Use Absurd and Dangerous? I Think Not Part I

Do you remember Christmas as a child with that jolly red nosed Santa who most kids idolized in every sense of the word? Or maybe for you it was the tooth fairy, the great pumpkin or even Peter Cottontail. Any or all of these myths seemed to be real to us and for some the realization that they don't exist was quite the shock. Banished to the realm of make believe our childhood idols went and now some would have us believe another one of our cherished beliefs (that is actually a fact) should be relegated to the same place we put St. Nick and the others.

Recently several studies were analyzed that purport to firmly establish the "fact" that multivitamin supplementation is at best useless and at worst detrimental to your health to the point of causing harm. Harm from vitamins? Let us explore the article and the studies it cites in an effort to keep vitamin supplementation out of the realm of make believe.

The Researchers

Eliseo Guallar and his colleagues recently analyzed three studies and came to a shocking conclusion. They have stated, unequivocally, that multivitamin supplementation has no clear benefit and could prove harmful to your health. The group of researchers went on to say that multivitamins should not be used in the prevention of chronic disease and that "enough is enough" when it comes to the silly people who erroneously use these vitamins (emphasis mine). After you get past the initial shock that vitamin supplementation is harmful or useless and wrestle with the condescending tone of the abstract written by the researchers you are left to ponder things that you have held to be true: that vitamins are good for you. Should vitamins head off to the island of misfit beliefs with the rest of our childhood idols? Intuitively you know the answer but let us spell a few things out for the sake of clarity and sound reasoning.

The conclusion of these researchers has been published in the Annals of Internal Medicine and is chock full of assumptions. One of these assumptions provided by Guallar et al is that the average western style diet provides adequate nourishment to the masses to the point that vitamin and mineral supplementation is unnecessary. Surely, there are a percentage of westerners who eat pretty healthy by consuming clean, pure water and either natural or organic foods while limiting processed foods but this does not pertain to the vast majority especially in America. In addition, due to soil depletion and over-farming mineral and vitamin levels in fruits, vegetables and grains have been on a decline for decades.

Aside from the assumption let us to take a look at what really lies at the heart of the matter for the people who take great interest in their health. An analysis of the three studies is appropriate and fundamental so we can understand what the researchers saw and what the newspapers, online publishers and television programs failed to report.

The Studies

Three studies were cited by the researchers and here is where we really have to pay attention which is unfortunate. It is unfortunate because there is a sense among most people in the general public that studies are impartial, truthful and therefore should be taken as gospel. Since the word gospel literally means "good news" some of these studies should be taken as the anti-gospel. Let us review

Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer Study

The first study mentioned in the article is the "Vitamin and Mineral Supplements in the Primary Prevention of Cardiovascular Disease and Cancer". I know it's a mouthful but bear with me. Researchers in this study wanted to establish whether cardiovascular issues and cancer was actually preventable through supplementation. It appears to be a noble endeavor on the surface even with flawed results (an explanation on why it is not noble will present itself a little later). It was acknowledged that the results of this study did not pertain to individuals with nutrient deficiencies or others that would be considered high risk. The article cited above would have you believe the results of this trial pertained to everyone. When you consider that most people are nutrient deficient the article becomes just plain misleading.

At one point in the analysis of the trial the researchers had to admit that the study was actually set up to measure results in a drug trial not a nutrient trial which may skew the data. In addition, it was noted that the difference between examining optimal levels of a nutrient intake and "normal" levels may have established a different result. In other words studying minimum nutrient supplementation may not be in the best interest of the general public. Then the question becomes "Why do the study in this way if the results do not apply to most people"? Great question!

Cognitive Function in Men

This study was a misnomer from the very start. Called "Long Term Multivitamin Supplementation and Cognitive Function in Men: A Randomized Trial"  it looked at a very particular group of men: doctors. The importance of this will become clear in a moment. The intent of this study was to assess cognitive function in men and whether multivitamin supplementation would improve it. The conclusion was that multivitamin supplementation does not improve cognitive function or prevent dementia.

There are three interesting points to consider regarding this study. The first is that physicians were studied and this poses a problem. It has been long established that people who pursue academics have a lowered risk of developing dementia. Secondly, most older physicians generally eat very healthy and are able to afford the best, most nutritious foods. Proper nourishment combined with a high level of education diminishes the likelihood of developing dementia which is a great thing but it makes you wonder why this study was used to attack multivitamin use. There was not much of any chance to see any improvements from multivitamin use because of the group of men that were studied. The third, and perhaps the most disturbing aspect of this study was the fact that actual dementia or any cognitive dysfunction was never tested for. None of the participants were assessed for any level of dementia either before, during or after. How do you purport that something does not work (multivitamins) if you never test for the dysfunction you are looking to improve (cognition)?

Trial to Assess Chelation Therapy

This study set out to assess whether or not high doses of vitamins and minerals help prevent a another occurrence of a second myocardial infarction (heart attack). Two things of import to note for this one.

The first is that the people studied had a high incidence non-adherence. This is a fancy way of saying more than enough people failed to do what was requested of them ultimately affecting the data collected. In addition, the participant dropout rate was also high. It becomes a difficult task to honestly document and extract accurate information to convey to the public when so many people involved in the study fail to comply with the instructions or complete the program. It puzzles me that Eliseo Guallar and his colleagues used this study or any of the previously mentioned ones to attack vitamins and minerals.

The Story of Cholesterol: Our Immune Systems

On a daily basis our immune systems are constantly under pressure to perform a symphony of life saving duties. Multiple levels of specialized cells and chemicals orchestrate tasks like carry messages, serve as lookouts and summon killer cells. Pathogens, inflammation, even poorly digested food make demands for the attention of our often overburdened immune systems but the indignity does not stop there for some of us. Cholesterol lowering has been the "go to" treatment for many people with the unfortunate side effect of a suppressed immune system for many.

How suppression happens

It was mentioned in a previous article that one of the few benefits of statin drugs is that it reduces inflammation in the body and indeed it does. The problem is how it goes about achieving this "accomplishment". Your immune systems is a complex work of art. A significant part of the artwork involves being able to point out infection causing pathogens to the rest of the immune system. This is accomplished by creating inflammation with a chemical known as NF-kB. We must remember that inflammation, in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Without it our bodies would suffer greatly from a lack of an alarm system (inflammation) when burglarized by infection causing materials. Problems with inflammation arises when it becomes rampant and chronic due to what we do to ourselves through certain foods, drugs or environmental exposures.

Statin drugs inhibits our bodies from making NF-kB, the chief burglar alarm of the body, by the same process in which it inhibits production of CoQ10. At first thought it would seem like a good idea to lower inflammation and by most natural standards it is. It becomes problematic when it is done with a drug that ultimately makes the immune system weaker and less responsive.

Why is NF-kB suppression a big deal?

Would it surprise you to know that some pathogens like E. Coli and Salmonella actually proliferate by suppressing the body's ability to produce NF-kB? With no alarm they can terrorize the body. There are viruses that can do the same thing or can even increase the alarm rate which causes an over response and overwhelms the system. The point is that manipulating the process to produce NF-kB generally leads to adverse or undesired results.

It is also important to point out that low cholesterol levels put people at increased risk of acquiring and dying from infections. Cholesterol itself (specifically LDL the so-called "bad cholesterol") is noted for being able to disarm 90% of toxic bacterial pathogens. Infections can take hold of the body whether cholesterol levels fall too low or through suppression of NF-kB production. In 1992 a review of 19 studies of more than 68,000 deaths found that those with low cholesterol died from respiratory and gastrointestinal infections in higher numbers than those with what is generally considered normal to high cholesterol. In addition, a study that began in 1977 called MRFIT found that men with cholesterol levels at or below 160 were four times as likely to die from AIDS as men whose levels were above 260.

The bottom line

Manipulating the immune system to prevent it from doing all or part of it's job usually leads to disastrous outcomes. Medical science has done it for years whether it be intentionally (think organ transplants) or unintentionally you can never be sure of the results. One thing is sure and that is wherever a compromised immune system exist there will be a pathogen waiting to exploit it. At that point the question becomes one of survival.

Sources include:

The Great Cholesterol Myth (Bowden and Sinatra)