,
8 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
1/ So here's some "realtime science" for you... @ethanjweiss pinged me in another thread regarding non-HDL regarding risk here:
I realized I hadn't actually checked out non-HDL in NHANES to this point. The raw results are pretty interesting...
I realized I hadn't actually checked out non-HDL in NHANES to this point. The raw results are pretty interesting...
2/ Again -- and with emphasis -- this is strictly quick query and is thus highly preliminary. I blocked out 6 groupings of non-HDL at <100<140<180<220<260+ in range, and indeed @ethanjweiss appears right on all cause (with a catch...) 
3/ As you can see form the above chart, there's definitely a steady increase in the mean mortality per year the greater non-HDL is. So what's the catch? Well, if you've followed me for a while, you know I don't like non-HDL because it include remnants (which are non-LDL)...
4/ This is a big deal as I explain in this article: cholesterolcode.com/remnant-choles… (though it needs some updating)
So how do we control for remnants? Well, we can try to look at those we know to have low remnants, which is likely when triglycerides are low, such as under 100...
So how do we control for remnants? Well, we can try to look at those we know to have low remnants, which is likely when triglycerides are low, such as under 100...
5/ And that chart looks a little more interesting...
6/ Lastly, I wanted to again look at everyone above age 50 especially (as per the presentation) given risk association...
7/ And this chart is jaw-dropping! To recap, this is a straight set of non-HDL groupings in those with TG of 100 or less, age 50 or older form NHANES. It appears non-HDL in this case is *inversely* associated with all cause mortality!
5a/ Sorry -- actual chart I meant to use...
