My WebMD Sign In

Please enter email address

Enter your password

Keep me signed in on this computer

Show more Information

If you select "Keep me signed in on this computer", every time you visit WebMD.com you won't have to type your email address and password. This means that a cookie will stay on your computer even when you exit or close your browser which may reduce your levels of privacy and security. You should never select this option if you're using a publicly accessible computer, or if you're sharing a computer with others. Even if you select this option there are some features of our site that still require you to log in for privacy reasons.

Forget your password? Having trouble signing in?

Why should I
sign up for WebMD?

With a WebMD Account you can:

Track your way to weight loss success
Manage your family's vaccinations
Join the conversation

See more benefits Sign Up

Why WebMD?

My WebMD

Show Menu

Facebook Twitter Pinterest

WebMD Home

Cholesterol Management Community

Announcements

Visit the Cholesterol Management 101 blog.

New US Diet Guidelines: What Not to Eat
Instead of just giving Americans a list of healthy food choices, the federal government takes a stab at showing us what not to eat. Get the facts here.

Last Reply:

Comparing the best State, to the worst State

bobby75703 posted:

The following map is from the CDC. The cholesterol numbers on Minnesota and Mississippi are my notations.

According to data from Quest labs in 2004, both Minnesota and Mississippi were within 1/10th of a percent in LDL cholesterol, equal to or greater than 130mg/dl.

In simple English, both states had the same percentage of people testing with high "bad" cholesterol, yet Minnesota has the lowest death rates from heart disease, and Mississippi has the highest.

The difference in total cholesterol was insignificant.

47 Replies |Watch This Discussion | Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateThe following map is from the CDC. The cholesterol numbers on Minnesota and Mississippi are my notations. According to data from Quest labs in 2004, both Minnesota and Mississippi were within 1/10th of a percent in LDL cholesterol, equal to or greater than 130mg/dl. In simple English, both states had the same percentage of people testing with high "bad" cholesterol, yet Minnesota has the lowest death rates from heart disease, and Mississippi has the highest. The difference in total cholesterol was insignificant.

12 3 4

bobby75703 responded:

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst State<img src=http://sphotos.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/553713_336156896461371_1592137633_n.jpg class=post_img />

iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:

I guess some one other than you should reply to you thread so here goes.

Let me sum up where you're heading here. You are saying that since both regions have a similar number of the population with an LDL greater than 130 and there is not a consistent rate of death from heart disease, then LDL is not a risk factor. Is this correct?

You have the same problem with this supposition as your McDonald's theory, there are more variables not accounted for. You would need to account for the prevalence of all other risk factors by region and more importantly the quality of health care by region. The deep south is notorious for having less people receiving proper health care so they would not benefit from traditional treatment for heart disease so their rate of death would be higher than an area like Minnesota which has one of the highest level of health care in the country.

You can draw this conclusion properly with considerably more data and work.

For what it's worth.

JJ

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateI guess some one other than you should reply to you thread so here goes. Let me sum up where you're heading here. You are saying that since both regions have a similar number of the population with an LDL greater than 130 and there is not a consistent rate of death from heart disease, then LDL is not a risk factor. Is this correct? You have the same problem with this supposition as your McDonald's theory, there are more variables not accounted for. You would need to account for the prevalence of all other risk factors by region and more importantly the quality of health care by region. The deep south is notorious for having less people receiving proper health care so they would not benefit from traditional treatment for heart disease so their rate of death would be higher than an area like Minnesota which has one of the highest level of health care in the country. You can draw this conclusion properly with considerably more data and work. For what it's worth. JJ

bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:

Yes, the other risk factors such as diet, lifestyle, lack of healthcare, air pollution, exercise, availability of healthcare, etc make the difference between the two states, exactly as you point out.

Serum LDL levels are irrelevant as they are essentially no different.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateYes, the other risk factors such as diet, lifestyle, lack of healthcare, air pollution, exercise, availability of healthcare, etc make the difference between the two states, exactly as you point out. Serum LDL levels are irrelevant as they are essentially no different.

iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:

No, you're using the above to prove a negative, doesn't work that way. In fact it proves the opposite by stating that given the same level of medical care and preventive treatment, the two regions would have a comparable death rate. The LDL levels are the constant and the level of medical care is what is different so in fact this may well prove that LDL is a major risk factor.

I have gone back and read many of your old posts and you seem to have a real desire to disprove the cholesterol theory, why is that? Also, it looks like you have stated you were leaving an a couple occasions, yet here you are. Just curious, what is the issue?

JJ

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateNo, you're using the above to prove a negative, doesn't work that way. In fact it proves the opposite by stating that given the same level of medical care and preventive treatment, the two regions would have a comparable death rate. The LDL levels are the constant and the level of medical care is what is different so in fact this may well prove that LDL is a major risk factor. I have gone back and read many of your old posts and you seem to have a real desire to disprove the cholesterol theory, why is that? Also, it looks like you have stated you were leaving an a couple occasions, yet here you are. Just curious, what is the issue? JJ

bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:

There are many populations throughout the world that have cholesterol levels essentially the same, yet differ greatly in heart disease death rates. Its not just Minnesota and Mississippi.

Another example would be France and the UK. Despite the two country's cholesterol being essentially the same, with LDL the same, the UK suffers a heart disease rate 3 to 4 times that of France.

Likewise, the Ukraine takes the gold or silver medal for the highest heart disease death rates in the world, yet they have nothing wrong with their cholesterol levels. Normal.

To answer your question, I have a passion for the subject of heart disease. I lost my father to heart disease. I have experienced the devastating effects of cholesterol lowering drugs, and witnessed many others suffer needlessly from them.

I did stop posting here, but visited the site one day and saw your response to my posting a while back. Then found myself back in the conversation.

Have a nice day.

Bobby

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateThere are many populations throughout the world that have cholesterol levels essentially the same, yet differ greatly in heart disease death rates. Its not just Minnesota and Mississippi. Another example would be France and the UK. Despite the two country's cholesterol being essentially the same, with LDL the same, the UK suffers a heart disease rate 3 to 4 times that of France. Likewise, the Ukraine takes the gold or silver medal for the highest heart disease death rates in the world, yet they have nothing wrong with their cholesterol levels. Normal. To answer your question, I have a passion for the subject of heart disease. I lost my father to heart disease. I have experienced the devastating effects of cholesterol lowering drugs, and witnessed many others suffer needlessly from them. I did stop posting here, but visited the site one day and saw your response to my posting a while back. Then found myself back in the conversation. Have a nice day. Bobby

iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:

Thanks for the explanation, just wondered why you were doing the cut and run.

As far as your statements above, again they don't mean anything. For example, the UK has socialized medicine and despite what many think, their health care is sub par. They wait months to see doctors and are very limited on the meds they are given which is one reason they can get statins over the counter. France on the other hand has a very strong private sector medical system which provides far superior care. In fact, many Brits go to France for health care so it stands to reason the UK has a higher rate of deaths.

As far as the Ukraine goes, I did a little research and spoke with some associates that spend their time working in our health care think tanks after reading your post and they showed me data in which the cause of death in the Ukraine is not accurate as they have no standards. Many deaths are recorded as being heart related that would not be in this country, if it looks like heart disease and there is no other obvious cause, then heart disease it is so the numbers are meaningless Again, you make some blanket statements obviously based on bad data that you picked up from the Internet, it is not always reliable and requires a little more analysis. Nothing I have seen points to cholesterol not being a major risk factory, just my thoughts.

Sorry for your loss,

JJ

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateThanks for the explanation, just wondered why you were doing the cut and run. As far as your statements above, again they don't mean anything. For example, the UK has socialized medicine and despite what many think, their health care is sub par. They wait months to see doctors and are very limited on the meds they are given which is one reason they can get statins over the counter. France on the other hand has a very strong private sector medical system which provides far superior care. In fact, many Brits go to France for health care so it stands to reason the UK has a higher rate of deaths. As far as the Ukraine goes, I did a little research and spoke with some associates that spend their time working in our health care think tanks after reading your post and they showed me data in which the cause of death in the Ukraine is not accurate as they have no standards. Many deaths are recorded as being heart related that would not be in this country, if it looks like heart disease and there is no other obvious cause, then heart disease it is so the numbers are meaningless Again, you make some blanket statements obviously based on bad data that you picked up from the Internet, it is not always reliable and requires a little more analysis. Nothing I have seen points to cholesterol not being a major risk factory, just my thoughts. Sorry for your loss, JJ

bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:

"... the numbers are meaningless Again, you make some blanket statements obviously based on bad data that you picked up from the Internet"
If you consider data from the World Health Organization as bad or meaningless data.

I always try to research Data from reliable sources such as the CDC, National Institutes of Health, WHO, and PubMed.

While the world is not perfect, and there is always a small margin of error, I personally wouldn't write these sources off as "bad data"

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst State"... the numbers are meaningless Again, you make some blanket statements obviously based on bad data that you picked up from the Internet" If you consider data from the World Health Organization as bad or meaningless data. I always try to research Data from reliable sources such as the CDC, National Institutes of Health, WHO, and PubMed. While the world is not perfect, and there is always a small margin of error, I personally wouldn't write these sources off as "bad data" Everyone is entitled to their opinion.

bobby75703 replied to bobby75703's response:

As far as the UK and France is concerned-

There are numerous theories why The UK has a death rate from heart disease almost 4 times that of France despite cholesterol levels being the same. I honestly couldn't tell you why.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateAs far as the UK and France is concerned- There are numerous theories why The UK has a death rate from heart disease almost 4 times that of France despite cholesterol levels being the same. I honestly couldn't tell you why.

iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:

Yes, I do feel it is meaningless information. If the cause of death due to heart disease is being overstated, it can't be used as a comparison. The Ukraine does not have the same medical standards as more developed countries concerning autopsies and determining the cause of death, the numbers are garbage in, garbage out.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateYes, I do feel it is meaningless information. If the cause of death due to heart disease is being overstated, it can't be used as a comparison. The Ukraine does not have the same medical standards as more developed countries concerning autopsies and determining the cause of death, the numbers are garbage in, garbage out.

iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:

I just explained why, do you not accept my premise?

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateI just explained why, do you not accept my premise?

bobby75703 replied to iride6606's response:

No, and here is why.

The traditional rural Greenland Inuit had less access to healthcare than the UK.( Some of them perhaps no access to healthcare.) Yet despite having cholesterol levels higher than the UK, they had mysteriously clean arteries, and the least heart disease in the world.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateNo, and here is why. The traditional rural Greenland Inuit had less access to healthcare than the UK.( Some of them perhaps no access to healthcare.) Yet despite having cholesterol levels higher than the UK, they had mysteriously clean arteries, and the least heart disease in the world.

BillH99 replied to bobby75703's response:

Where do you think that the WHO gets it's data from? The reports from the different country's.

Here is what the WHO says.

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortdata/en/index.html

Although the International Classification of Diseases is intended to provide a standard way of recording underlying cause of death, comparison of cause of death data over time and across countries should be undertaken with caution.
...
Accuracy in diagnosing causes of death still varies from one country to another. In addition the process of coding underlying causes of death involves some extent of misattribution or miscoding even in countries where causes are assigned by medically qualified staff. Main reasons are incorrect or systematic biases in diagnosis, incorrect or incomplete death certificates, misinterpretation of ICD rules for selection of the underlying cause, and variations in the use of coding categories for unknown and ill-defined causes.

http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortcoverage/en/index.html

Considerable differences exist in the degree of completeness of the vital registration data submitted by countries. In some countries, the vital registration data system covers only a part of the country (for example urban areas, or some provinces only). In some other countries, although the vital registration data system covers the whole country, not all deaths are registered.
...
Death registration coverage and cross-national differences in coding practices, particularly in the use of codes for ill-defined and unknown causes, must be taken into account to validly compare mortality rates for specific causes across countries. Additionally, where coverage is less than 100%, the cause of death distribution for the uncovered population may differ from that of the covered population.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateWhere do you think that the WHO gets it's data from? The reports from the different country's. Here is what the WHO says. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortdata/en/index.html">http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortdata/en/index.html</a> Although the International Classification of Diseases is intended to provide a standard way of recording underlying cause of death, comparison of cause of death data over time and across countries should be undertaken with caution. ... Accuracy in diagnosing causes of death still varies from one country to another. In addition the process of coding underlying causes of death involves some extent of misattribution or miscoding even in countries where causes are assigned by medically qualified staff. Main reasons are incorrect or systematic biases in diagnosis, incorrect or incomplete death certificates, misinterpretation of ICD rules for selection of the underlying cause, and variations in the use of coding categories for unknown and ill-defined causes. <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortcoverage/en/index.html">http://www.who.int/healthinfo/statistics/mortcoverage/en/index.html</a> Considerable differences exist in the degree of completeness of the vital registration data submitted by countries. In some countries, the vital registration data system covers only a part of the country (for example urban areas, or some provinces only). In some other countries, although the vital registration data system covers the whole country, not all deaths are registered. ... Death registration coverage and cross-national differences in coding practices, particularly in the use of codes for ill-defined and unknown causes, must be taken into account to validly compare mortality rates for specific causes across countries. Additionally, where coverage is less than 100%, the cause of death distribution for the uncovered population may differ from that of the covered population.

bobby75703 replied to BillH99's response:

I don't expect perfection in reporting. But we are not so incompetent we cannot recognize certain health conditions/ diseases are more prevalent in certain areas.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateI don't expect perfection in reporting. But we are not so incompetent we cannot recognize certain health conditions/ diseases are more prevalent in certain areas.

iride6606 replied to bobby75703's response:

No surprise there either. I just looked up the information on the tribe you mentioned with the "health nuts" here and there are quite a few papers published about them. Although their LDL is high, it looks like their HDL is very high and tris are very low as a result of the diet rich in deep sea fish. It would stand to reason that they would have less deaths to heart disease even though their totals are elevated if I understand this correctly. To me this makes perfect sense, I don't see a smoking gun there either.

I certainly have not seen anything in your posts that would make me feel as though LDL is not a risk factor, but perhaps I'm looking at it too simplistically.

Report This| Share this:Comparing the best State, to the worst StateNo surprise there either. I just looked up the information on the tribe you mentioned with the "health nuts" here and there are quite a few papers published about them. Although their LDL is high, it looks like their HDL is very high and tris are very low as a result of the diet rich in deep sea fish. It would stand to reason that they would have less deaths to heart disease even though their totals are elevated if I understand this correctly. To me this makes perfect sense, I don't see a smoking gun there either. I certainly have not seen anything in your posts that would make me feel as though LDL is not a risk factor, but perhaps I'm looking at it too simplistically.

12 3 4

Visit the Cholesterol Management Health Center

Women's Health Newsletter

Find out what women really need.

Featuring Experts

There are no Expert stories for this community right now

Popular Discussions

Start a Discussion | See All

Helpful Tips

LOWERING CHOLESTEROL NATURALLY

I HAVE BEEN TRYING TO GET MY CHOLESTEROL DOWN WITHOUT STATINS AND FINALLY I AM GETTING SOMEWHERE. I STARTED TAKING PANTETHINE 300 MG. TWICE ... More

Was this Helpful?

8 of 8 found this helpful

Post a Tip | See All

Helpful Resources

Do Statins Impair Memory?

Understanding Your Lipid Panel

Cholesterol Levels Have Gone D...

Cholesterol Levels in the U.S....

Cholesterol 101: What your num...

Post a Resource | See All

Related Drug Reviews

Drug Name User Reviews

Report Problems to the
Food and Drug Administration

You are encouraged to report negative side effects of prescription drugs to the FDA. Visit the FDA MedWatch website or call 1-800-FDA-1088.

Other Cholesterol Management Information

The opinions expressed in WebMD User-generated content areas like communities, reviews, ratings, or blogs are solely those of the User, who may or may not have medical or scientific training. These opinions do not represent the opinions of WebMD. User-generated content areas are not reviewed by a WebMD physician or any member of the WebMD editorial staff for accuracy, balance, objectivity, or any other reason except for compliance with our Terms and Conditions. Some of these opinions may contain information about treatments or uses of drug products that have not been approved by the U.S. Food and Drug Administration. WebMD does not endorse any specific product, service, or treatment.

Do not consider WebMD User-generated content as medical advice. Never delay or disregard seeking professional medical advice from your doctor or other qualified healthcare provider because of something you have read on WebMD. You should always speak with your doctor before you start, stop, or change any prescribed part of your care plan or treatment. WebMD understands that reading individual, real-life experiences can be a helpful resource, but it is never a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis, or treatment from a qualified health care provider. If you think you may have a medical emergency, call your doctor or dial 911 immediately.

Health Solutions From Our Sponsors

In-depth coverage:

Find us on:

URAC: Accredited Health Web Site

HonCode: Health on the Net Foundation AdChoices

About WebMD Advertise With Us Terms of Use Privacy Policy Sponsor Policy Site Map Careers Contact Us

Medscape Reference eMedicineHealth RxList Medscape MedicineNet BootsWebMD WebMD Corporate

First Aid WebMD Magazine WebMD Health Record WebMD Mobile Newsletters Dictionary Physician Directory

WebMD does not provide medical advice, diagnosis or treatment. See additional information.

Cholesterol Management Community

See All