Page 1 of 1

Re: LDL is a viable indicator?

Posted: Wed Jan 30, 2008 11:37 am
by ofonorow
Thanks for posting. You ask a good question, assuming I understand it.

It is true the cholesterol comes in varying sizes and densities. It is my belief that LDL became the villian because Lp(a) (the sticky cholesterol that actually starts plaque formation) was lumped in with LDL before the importance of Lp(a) was recognized. (When they separate out the Lp(a) - the risk follows the Lp(a), not LDL).

So I consider ordinary LDL to be just another density, and an important contributor to health in its own right. There are a litany of health benefits associated with cholesterol, even Lp(a), if you view it from the perspective of the Pauling/Rath unified theory.

The evidence I've seen that cholesterol can be "controlled", "regulated", "modulated", lowered, or what-ever by vitamin C intake (See the Ginter studies in the Clinical Studies Forum) is with respect to total cholesterol.

I don't remember making a distinction, or focusing on LDL, except maybe to say "don't worry about it." If you can find that post, I'll try to remember what I meant.