Fluffy LDL particles and cardiovascular risk | Jim Otvos, Ph.D.
Fluffy LDL particles and cardiovascular risk | Jim Otvos, Ph.D.
- Views
- 107.1K
- Likes
- 1.2K
- Comments
- 52
- Topics
Analysis
Verbal hook
What would you say to the person listening who cuz I hear this all the time who says I do have a high LDL cholesterol
What would you say to the person listening who cuz I hear this all the time who says I do have a high LDL cholesterol and and even my LDL particle number is very high on my NMR test but I'm very pattern A. You see all of my LDL are very large and they even use words like fluffy. >> Yes, they do. >> I have large fluffy buoyant yes LDL. Um so my LDL particle number is over 2000 nanomol per liter. Um which probably places me at the 80th percentile or so but I don't need to worry about it because they're all big. I don't have that pattern B. I don't have that one. What would you say to that person? >> I would say that's uh a fallacious idea. Um and and the data that I've mentioned supports it completely. And then you also have to think about the fact that one of the best known best accepted genetic reasons for cardiovascular risk is FH familial hypercholesterolemia. People with FH have very high LDL cholesterol levels. They also have very high LDL particle levels but those particles are large. They're not small. And there's you know these are people that die when they're 30 or 35 years old when they're homozygous FH. So this idea that somehow fluffy large LDL particles are not to worry about or benign is completely fallacious.
- 01The Listener's Claim
Frame the issue as a real question from someone who has a concerning measurement but believes another test result makes it safe.
OriginalWhat would you say to the person listening who cuz I hear this all the time who says I do have a high LDL cholesterol and and even my LDL particle number is very high on my NMR test but I'm very pattern A.
- 02The Reassuring Detail
Repeat the favorable interpretation using vivid, nontechnical language so the argument feels intuitively convincing.
OriginalYou see all of my LDL are very large and they even use words like fluffy.
- 03The Numbers-Based Loophole
Add a concrete threshold or percentile, then claim the risk does not matter because the supposedly dangerous counterpart is absent.
Original>> Yes, they do. >> I have large fluffy buoyant yes LDL. Um so my LDL particle number is over 2000 nanomol per liter. Um which probably places me at the 80th percentile or so but I don't need to worry about it because they're all big. I don't have that pattern B. I don't have that one.
- 04The Direct Challenge
Ask for the expert's judgment, then label the comforting interpretation as logically wrong and point to supporting data.
OriginalWhat would you say to that person? >> I would say that's uh a fallacious idea. Um and and the data that I've mentioned supports it completely.
- 05The Accepted Counterexample
Introduce a widely recognized cause of serious risk and show that it shares the supposedly safe trait, breaking the original logic.
OriginalAnd then you also have to think about the fact that one of the best known best accepted genetic reasons for cardiovascular risk is FH familial hypercholesterolemia. People with FH have very high LDL cholesterol levels. They also have very high LDL particle levels but those particles are large. They're not small.
- 06The High-Stakes Payoff
Give a memorable real-world consequence, then state the myth-busting conclusion in absolute terms.
OriginalAnd there's you know these are people that die when they're 30 or 35 years old when they're homozygous FH. So this idea that somehow fluffy large LDL particles are not to worry about or benign is completely fallacious.